technology and CDs and such.......

[Nick Baty]

Not a good analogy – I'd rather be served by a dumb waiter than by some poor *beep* who's underpaid to bring me my mezze. The way we treat waiting staff in the UK is appalling.

[NorthernTenor]

We are called to sing the Mass. All else, no matter how desirable, is not necessary.

Couldn't agree more: organs, choirs etc are optional extras.

Nick, I also wrote of

the various kinds of participation of the faithful

and of

conformity to our liturgical traditions

On the assumption that 1969 wan't year zero, that covers the singing of priest/deacon, assembly and schola (you can forget the animateur).

[Nick Baty]

you can forget the animateur

Why? His/her origins are ancient.

They are probably pre-Christian but can be traced back to the monks who pointed to various parts of their hands to indicate pitch, a practice which probably determined the modern practice of using five lines on which we (most commonly) write music.

Our parish couldn't cope without the cantor-animateur. Yours might be more advanced.

[Southern Comfort]

Have to say that I agree with Nick here. You can get by without a choir or organist (though it's nice to have them) as long as you have a leader of song. Cantor + assembly is the basic bedrock.

[mcb]

I'm not sure I buy the cantor-choir distinction. A cantor is the special case of a choir of one. By that reckoning, all else being equal, to my mind a choir of several is better than a cantor. The reasons are practical - in my experience the assembly sing along more readily with a group of singers than with a single voice, especially if the cantor is using a microphone.

It's different when it comes to the responsorial psalm, which particularly calls for a single voice. Here a cantor is better than a choir.

[Hare]

We are called to sing the Mass. All else, no matter how desirable, is not necessary.

Couldn't agree more: organs, choirs etc are optional extras.

Rather a sweeping statement to my mind; one or the other or both can, in the right hands, inspire the assembly to fuller participation, not to mention keeping everyone together.

[MaryR]

- in my experience the assembly sing along more readily with a group of singers than with a single voice, especially if the cantor is using a microphone.

I'm not sure that's my experience, at least, not always. I think the invitation to sing from a cantor who then animates until people get the hang of where the tune is going works very well. An animating cantor is, to my mind, making it very clear to the assembly that they are being invited to join in, whilst the presence of a choir can suggest that the assembly is not invited to join in.

I tend to agree about the microphone, however; a microphone always suggests a solo to me.

[Hare]

- in my experience the assembly sing along more readily with a group of singers than with a single voice, especially if the cantor is using a microphone.

I'm not sure that's my experience, at least, not always. I think the invitation to sing from a cantor who then animates until people get the hang of where the tune is going works very well. An animating cantor is, to my mind, making it very clear to the assembly that they are being invited to join in, whilst the presence of a choir can suggest that the assembly is not invited to join in.

I tend to agree about the microphone, however; a microphone always suggests a solo to me.

I have seen this question asked elsewhere, but don't recall seeing a satisfactory answer: Why do the Catholic assembly have to be "invited" to join in? I have never come across "animators" in Anglican or nonconformist churches.

[mcb]

An animating cantor is, to my mind, making it very clear to the assembly that they are being invited to join in, whilst the presence of a choir can suggest that the assembly is not invited to join in.

Yep, agreed: you need someone to give clear signals to people that they're invited to join in. A choir positioned so that the choir director can also animate works for me. A choir in a gallery, in the absence of an animator, can easily have the effect you describe.

[mcb]

Why do the Catholic assembly have to be "invited" to join in? I have never come across "animators" in Anglican or nonconformist churches.

In an Anglican church (I've no experience of a nonconformist one) the ritual context in which the assembly is 'allowed' to join in is fairly narrowly defined: you can sing the hymns. With everyone knowing their place, so to speak, there's no confusion as to who is or isn't invited to sing.

In the Catholic liturgical context, however, we're aiming at something higher, namely the ritual participation by the assembly in sung elements of the liturgy itself, at the points identified in liturgical law. That's different, and it takes catechesis, guidance and active encouragement. Who knows, though - one day it will all come naturally, and the animator's job will have been done.

[Hare]

Why do the Catholic assembly have to be "invited" to join in? I have never come across "animators" in Anglican or nonconformist churches.

In an Anglican church (I've no experience of a nonconformist one) the ritual context in which the assembly is 'allowed' to join in is fairly narrowly defined: you can sing the hymns. With everyone knowing their place, so to speak, there's no confusion as to who is or isn't invited to sing.

In the Catholic liturgical context, however, we're aiming at something higher, namely the ritual participation by the assembly in sung elements of the liturgy itself, at the points identified in liturgical law. That's different, and it takes catechesis, guidance and active encouragement. Who knows, though - one day it will all come naturally, and the animator's job will have been done.

But the Anglican Eucharist is very broadly similar to the Catholic Mass in terms of Assembly participation; in my experience there is rarely any difficulty getting an Anglican assembly to "sing the mass"...... The average nonconformist service is likely to be just hymns/songs - although sung responses in the Communion service are not unknown....

[Southern Comfort]

I have seen this question asked elsewhere, but don't recall seeing a satisfactory answer: Why do the Catholic assembly have to be "invited" to join in? I have never come across "animators" in Anglican or nonconformist churches.

(a) As already mentioned, music in Catholic churches is supposed to be different from music in Anglican or nonconformist churches. (Having said that, lots of Anglicans are now singing responsorial psalms à la Catholic liturgy as well as Catholic mass settings, and loads of Methodists, Baptists, URC, etc, are using a lot of pieces from the Catholic repertoire too. And they are starting to use cantors as well.)

(b) Rather more importantly, the assembly was silent in the Catholic Church for the best part of 1500 years. (i) Low Mass without any music at all was the norm for the majority of people. (ii) At High Mass (or the occasional Missa Cantata), the choir and clergy sang everything. Hymns at mass were not allowed (except in Germany). The people were not encouraged to join in at all (presumably in case they "spoilt it" - you can still find this mentality in certain Anglican establishments) until bodies like the SSG started to do something about that in the first half of the 20th century.

So - we have a very large legacy of people's non-participation in the music of the Church. It is really only since Vatican II that this has started to change, and there is still a significant proportion of Catholic congregation members who don't feel comfortable singing.

This is why the role of the song leader or cantor is so vital. This person's role is to enable the assembly to find its true voice.

- in my experience the assembly sing along more readily with a group of singers than with a single voice, especially if the cantor is using a microphone.

I'm not sure that's my experience, at least, not always. I think the invitation to sing from a cantor who then animates until people get the hang of where the tune is going works very well. An animating cantor is, to my mind, making it very clear to the assembly that they are being invited to join in, whilst the presence of a choir can suggest that the assembly is not invited to join in.

I tend to agree about the microphone, however; a microphone always suggests a solo to me.

I agree with Mary, obviously, about choir v. cantor. I think the positioning and appearance of the choir may also affect whether the people feel invited to join in with them or not. Another important factor can be whether or not the choir director is also the leader of the people's song.

As far as microphones are concerned, it all depends on how you use both the microphone and your voice. In my experience, two whole generations of assemblies have grown used to the subtle leadership that a good cantor singing through a mic can provide when she or he knows what she or he is doing. (Unfortunately a number of cantors do not know how to use their voices, let alone the microphone.) In fact, I'm aware of a significant number of congregations who feel positively bereft when the benign presence of a cantor, who is intent upon eliciting their participation and certainly not upon singing a solo, is lacking because the cantor is off sick or on holiday. They say that their underpinning has been taken away.

[Nick Baty]

Rather a sweeping statement to my mind; one or the other or both can, in the right hands, inspire the assembly to fuller participation

Noone's saying they can't or don't – but if you're talking brass tacks, the basic is priest and people singing and the cantor-animateur can help make this happen. Choirs and organs are rather like stained glass – we don't need it, plain glass will do, but it makes our buildings more beautiful.

[Nick Baty]

I tend to agree about the microphone, however; a microphone always suggests a solo to me.

And they're bloody difficult to use.

[Nick Baty]

Why do the Catholic assembly have to be "invited" to join in? I have never come across "animators" in Anglican or nonconformist churches.

Because it's a relatively new addition to our tradition.

In days of yore it was likely that only one Mass had music – and that was often the latest and therefore not as well attended, at least by those who wished to receive Holy Communion and had fasted from the night before. And most of the music was often sung by choirs.

And in 1903 Pope Pius X said told the people to sing – but music was still mostly at one Mass only.

And, despite repeated requests from popes in the 40s and 50s, there was still little music in our liturgy.

And when the liturgy was reformed in the 60s we had little suitable music – many hymns we had sung at other devotions did not easily translate to Mass.

And then people started turning out the Kum ba Yah crap.

And then our congregations diminished so we had fewer services and there was/is a battle about which styles of music to use in the one or two Masses we had. And some parishes did and some parishes didn't. And some priests loved music and others didn't.

And the wonderful work of the SSG and the St Thomas More composers was taking an age to get to the parishes – and still hasn't reached many.

Oh, *beep* – I've just broken my vow of not getting involved on here.

Does any of this help dearest Hare?

I must say that in my Anglican days it was a sod trying to move the conregation – they'd sing hymns like billyo – but singing the liturgy was the choir's job. And I soon began to loathe Merbecke and Rutter's Communion Service.