The Glory Days

[Nick Baty]

Does anyone remember the glory days of Liverpool, Clifton and Birmingham when great Gloria settings which integrated (cantor,) choir and congregation were the norm?

Yes, many of the posters on here will remember those days when the song of the people was the first musical consideration, as decreed by Pope Pius X, most of his successors and our own bishops. This was the theory we were brought up on. And those of us lucky to have studied with Bill Tamblyn et al, also saw it work in ordinary parish churches and did our best to take the practice elsewhere. But this was a golden age and, with a new generation of musicians coming along, so much of what was the norm is being swept away.

Pioneers like Tamblyn and Duffy are – with all due deference – nearly old enough to be my dad. But I'm old enough to have fathered the next generation who are promoting a different agenda. As my PP (a year older than me) has often commented, "We are the old fogeys now". But there is still hope: Salford and Brentwood Cathedrals both publish music lists which warm the heart.

Perhaps now that James Macmillan is making so much noise about the state of music in our churches, he could lead the way by writing something splendid which gives the assembly a really good sing while also employing choir and organ.

What saddens me most is that while there's a bunch of us promoting good assembly music and another bunch promoting good choral music – and a widening gulf between the two – there are so many parishes out there still singing the Israeli Mass and Colours of Day. (Does anyone know what the latter is about?)

In some parts of the north west (not sure how far this is replicated throughout the country) it's as though the SSG, the NNPM, Sing the Mass, Laudate, the Collins psalm book, Praise the Lord, Sing the Mass – and so many other milestone publications – never existed.

Back in February 1966, John Hoban, editor of Church Music, wrote: "The future of Church Music is in our hands. If we are vigilant and demanding we may lay the foundations of something great. But if we are not, we shall open the door to an influx of shoddy little ditties."

More than 40 years later, we're all still sitting on our bums (well I am, anyway) allowing Hoban's prophecy to happen. Isn't it time we got out there and did something?

There again, I am now one of the old fogeys.

[JW]

So many issues there Nick. What hits me with parish music is that so many of the youngsters in the 70's who set up bands and groups to provide music for parishes have disappeared off the scene - leaving it to the 'traditional' musicians they intended to replace. Many of us seem to do more as we get older. This year, though I'm no great singer, I am using a radio mike from the organ loft as we have no one else to lead singing. The minority of us still serving are grannies and grandads themselves now. Those of the younger generation who are coming through are extremely good musicians but they are very few and far between - none in our parish church for example. Parishes have for years, tried all sorts of things to attract young people without success.

YOUNGSTERS, PLEASE, PLEASE, GET INVOLVED WITH THE LITURGY IN YOUR LOCAL CHURCH BEFORE WE ALL DIE OFF AND THERE IS NO CHURCH LEFT.

Mind you, there aren't going to be any priests either so.... Ho hum

[dmu3tem]

Yes, the 1970s were a good period for church music, especially amongst English Catholics. Whatever the 'traditionalists' say really exciting technical compositional developments took place then. The Gloria settings mentioned above illustrate aspects of this, especially in the revival of the use of instruments other than the Pipe Organ (something that was well known in the nineteenth century). Almost certainly this use of instruments was the product of the revolution in music education that took place from the 1960s onwards, with a change of emphasis away from choral singing to instrumental playing , especially woodwind and brass; and of course at the same time many more people took up the Guitar on the side. It would be interesting to speculate why such developments have lost momentum. Here are some possible ideas:

1. The training of instrumental musicians in the general education system may have itself declined somewhat, though perhaps not to the levels that pertained before the 1960s.

2. We should also consider the impact on the recruitment of musicians of all times caused by people going off to university and the generally increased geographical mobility of the population. This might be disrupting the old pattern of recruiting people when they are children who then stay on more or less in the same place thereafter.

3. Another retarding factor is the increased importance of exams at GCSE and A. Level. In other words, at precisely the time when most young musicians are beginning to acquire some proficiency they are diverted into other channels. A secondary effect of this is that people get the idea that young musicians in church mean children aged between about 7-13; after which they move onto 'higher things'. Certainly young musicians, when they become teenagers, seem to put a higher priority on youth orchestras etc than church music. This seems to have more kudos than church music. I also notice that this view is frequently held by their parents.

4. This suggests that teenage musicians (especially instrumentalists) might not be challenged enough in church music. Here are some basic things that might be done:
(a) Write out proper parts - including transpositions. In other words treat instrumentalists in the same way as choir members. No choir singer of the 'old school' would tolerate the scruffy looking hand copied non transposed parts I have frequently seen doled out to instrumentalists in church.
(b) Write out parts that really exploit the properties of the particular instruments (and the talents of their players) that are available.
(c) On occasion substitute 'instrumental voluntaries' for organ voluntaries. In other words give instrumentalists an opportunity to 'shine' (Give their true gifts to God - not just show off).
(d) In turn all this requires more attention to the art of instrumentation. I notice that many expert organists and choirmasters do not seem to know much about this. In particular little thought has been give to the art of combining instrumental colours and textures with those of the organ (this involves throwing aside many 'conventional' ideas about registration); nor do many people recognise clearly enough the real distinctions between different types of keyboard (Piano, electric keyboard, synthesiser, Hammond Organ, Pipe Organ etc). How many people have tried (as I have done) writing real independent parts with congregational hymn singing: Horn and Digital Organ; Bassoon and Digital Organ; Treble Recorder and Digital/Pipe Organ (Yes, this includes writing in such a way that the Recorder can be heard over a full congregation and fairly loud organ)?

[Nick Baty]

Yes, Thomas, these are all good valid ideas for further involving young people. But my beef lies with the changing philosophy which some younger musicians are bringing into the liturgy. More than a century of teaching and practice about the role of the assembly is being swept aside. Without that philosophy, all the composing and arranging in the world will be useless.

[johnquinn39]

Yes, many of the posters on here will remember those days when the song of the people was the first musical consideration, as decreed by Pope Pius X, most of his successors and our own bishops. This was the theory we were brought up on. And those of us lucky to have studied with Bill Tamblyn et al, also saw it work in ordinary parish churches and did our best to take the practice elsewhere. But this was a golden age and, with a new generation of musicians coming along, so much of what was the norm is being swept away.

In some parts of the north west (not sure how far this is replicated throughout the country) it's as though the SSG, the NNPM, Sing the Mass, Laudate, the Collins psalm book, Praise the Lord, Sing the Mass – and so many other milestone publications – never existed.

Back in February 1966, John Hoban, editor of Church Music, wrote: "The future of Church Music is in our hands. If we are vigilant and demanding we may lay the foundations of something great. But if we are not, we shall open the door to an influx of shoddy little ditties."

More than 40 years later, we're all still sitting on our bums (well I am, anyway) allowing Hoban's prophecy to happen. Isn't it time we got out there and did something?

There again, I am now one of the old fogeys.

This is indeed a problem - the norm of congregational singing is being swept away. As I have said in a previous post, we need some education. I know of at least one parish in the Birmingham diocese where singing the psalms and acclamations is forbidden.

Another problem is that many musicians in the CCM and Choral tradition, are , it seems to me, simply not interested in developing congregational singing.

Yes, i think it is time that we got out there and did something - I'm not quite sure what though - does anyone have any ideas?

Could we maybe publicise the good music we have on Youtube?

Also, when the rest of society is moving away from age discrimination, should this be allowed to continue in the liturgy? - It seems absurd to me that the young are being taught 1970's materiel (some of which is not bad), while their parents and grandparents are singing and composing new music.

Any ideas anyone?

[johnquinn39]

... my beef lies with the changing philosophy which some younger musicians are bringing into the liturgy. More than a century of teaching and practice about the role of the assembly is being swept aside. Without that philosophy, all the composing and arranging in the world will be useless.

It does seem to me that many younger musicians are completely ignorant of the Constitution on the Liturgy, and the other documents, or just have completely failed to see the point, and are trying to impose and exclusive diet of plainsong and polyphony (not that we shouldn't use these resources, of course).

What is really worrying about these people, is that they may be setting the agenda. They seem to reject any of the (superb) music of Haugen, Haas and Farrell, and IMHO are more interested in performance music, altar rails, Latin, archaic and non-inclusive translations and fine vestments.

[musicus]

What is really worrying about these people, is that they may be setting the agenda.

Possibly. They certainly make a lot of noise. Perhaps the SSG could fight the good fight a little more aggressively. Workshops and conferences and summer schools are all fine and dandy, but they tend to preach to the converted. What about a high-profile lecture series that tells it like it is? Or the idea, recently set out on here but attracting little response, of providing good quality, inexpensive, formation leaflets for parishes. You know and I know that there is much excellent material tucked away somewhere on the Liturgy Office's website. We also know that most folks will never seek it, still less find it.

In other words, perhaps we need to take it to them, rather than wait for them to come to us. ('Cos they won't.)

[NorthernTenor]

Yes, Thomas, these are all good valid ideas for further involving young people. But my beef lies with the changing philosophy which some younger musicians are bringing into the liturgy. More than a century of teaching and practice about the role of the assembly is being swept aside. Without that philosophy, all the composing and arranging in the world will be useless.

Nick,

Like you and one or two others here, I'm a convert. With the eyes of an outsider, we see things that those born to it might not notice. I've been amused by the debt owed by much post Vatican II activity to old-fashioned ultramontanism. There seems to be a belief that that there is only one way to interpret "the spirit of the Council" in respect of the liturgy, the liturgical arts, the roles of different members of the assembly and the meaning of participatio actuosa. And fiat - that's it, set in stone forever. All that's left for us to do is debate the quality. Woe betide anyone who questions this - some invective on this board has been quite as horrible as its cousin on Holy Smoke. In this respect, I feel that much reformed liturgical theory and practise has been like the stuff we're told it was suposed to replace - rigid, closed to development and not terribly well done.

Two complimentary ideas helped bring me to the point of conversion: tradition and development. The contemporary Church's theology, liturgy and devotianal practise are in direct, continuous line with those of the two preceding millenia. When we sing Kyrie, Eleison we do so with generations who came before us, and generations yet to come (dv). But we're not antiquarians - our belief and liturgical practise have evolved since the time of the Apostles in response to cultural change and and an unfolding understanding of the deposit of faith. We are currently in a period of debate that began in the 19th Century, in which we are attempting to understand what reform and development are needed to encourage liturgical piety and remain true to the continuity of our Tradition. The 1970s didn't put paid to that discussion. Many who are now discovering or rediscovering the riches of our traditions, in ritual, language, music and other liturgical fields, are well disposed to the debate, and don't hold that we should simply go back to 1962. To suggest otherwise simply mirrors those who do.

Finally, I must remark on your comments about your fellow Liverpudlian, Philip Duffy. I can't believe he's almost old enough to be your Grandfather (or is that my own advancing age talking?). And I would suggest that Philip - composer of liturgical music and leading light of the Schola Gregoriana of Cambridge - is an example to us all.

[Nick Baty]

Nick, Like you and one or two others here, I'm a convert.

I'm not – I was born into it.

There seems to be a belief that that there is only one way to interpret "the spirit of the Council" in respect of the liturgy, the liturgical arts, the roles of different members of the assembly and the meaning of participatio actuosa.

I think there are some things about which one should be quite rigid – because out of these develops good practice, a bit like learning how to form letters before words. (Although I belong to the i.t.a. generation so my spelling's terrible.)

• There's Pius X’s request that ‘this chant be restored to the people, so that they may take a more active part in the offices, as they did in former times”.
• Vatican’s II’s demand that the people should sing that “which is rightly theirs".
• the 1975 GIRM para which says the Sanctus "acclamation is an intrinsic part of the eucharistic prayer and all the people join with the priest in singing or reciting it".
And our bishops' statement about the degrees of musical importance contained in Singing the Mass (reproduced at the back of Laudate and Celebrating the Mass.

Many of my generation had the principles drummed into us. And to see the youngsters (some of whom are in influential positions) riding roughshod over them is quite amazing. I believe the above instructions tell me that our congregation must sing x,y and z. But I know of one or two cathedrals and larger churches where this is simply ignored. The parish has one set of rules but the cathedral parish may ignore them – we've been through the cathedral debate before. But my point here is that it's becoming a generational thing.

Following these, I believe, as you put it, "all that's left for us to do is debate the quality" – except I would add genres too. There is no suggestion in any Church document that polyphony is banned – quite the reverse – but to use it at certain points in the liturgy, to the exclusion of the assembly is definitely against the rules (if one wants to consider them such) but, more to the point, makes little liturgical sense. However, as I've said several times, I realise this makes me the old fuddy-duddy.

I can't believe [Philip Duffy]'s almost old enough to be your Grandfather

He isn't – I said he's old enough to be my dad (and I suspect he wouldn't be too happy about that, even!

I would suggest that Philip - composer of new music and leading light of the Schola Gregoriana of Cambridge - is an example to us all.

Hear! Hear!

[Nick Baty]

Southern Comfort, Northern Tenor and others might be interested in an extract from my last dissertation which I've loaded onto Issuu: http://issuu.com/baty/docs/dissext (If you hover to the right of the pages you should see an arrow which turns them for you.)

I know it's terribly arrogant of me to post it, but I do so in the hope of explaining why those of us above a certain age hold specific beliefs about the form and function of music in the liturgy.

I suspect I'll be held up to ridicule by the youngsters, but I'm getting to that age when I no longer care too much about what people say. (Besides, my students have me down as some sort of gin-soaked eccentric.)

It's not downloadable because you never know where these things end up and I'll take it down again in a week or so. But I hope that those who criticise what some of us do in our parishes – paricularly those who label us "trendies" – might at least come to understand that we believe our decisions to be informed.

[NorthernTenor]

Nick,

I’m glad you’ve reminded us of the continued (and continuing) exhortations we’ve had from the Church, up to and beyond Vatican II, of the pride of place that chant should have in the sung mass, which, as the Church has also taught us, is its normative form. As the present Holy Father wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis, the Church desires that “Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy”.

Unfortunately, this is to a greater or lesser degree ignored in most English and Welsh parishes. When it is suggested, often by younger Catholics, the idea is s all too often criticised as that mysterious thing, a betrayal of the Spirit of the Council. There are now few parishes whose people would be able to fulfil the wish of Pope Paul VI that the chants of Jubilate Deo should be a minimum repertoire, or even of the GIRM that they should “know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, set to the simpler melodies”. The Church’s wish is not technically difficult to achieve. The music is beautiful and accessible, and back in the 1970’s and 1980’s when the Parishes I knew were still familiar with this repertoire, I remember it being sung by many with confidence and affection. Now, such familiarity is increasingly rare. While that remains so, discussion on this comment board of the relative merits of various contemporary mass settings is interesting and useful, but curiously beside the point for those who wish to see our liturgical tradition faithfully implemented and fostered.

I should say in passing, Nick, that I exclude you from these general observations. You clearly know the ABC of the Church’s traditions in these matters, so I don’t doubt that the people in the parishes you serve are familiar with at least one set of Ordinary chants, clergy willing. The same doubtless goes for other members or ex-members of the SoSG.

However, I fear your approach to participatio actuosa illustrates the point I made in my original comment, when I suggested that some are unwilling to engage in the long-running (century and a half) debate about the nature of the assembly’s participation, and the extent to which it can be exercised though a choir or schola. This occurs either side of the mainstream. On the one hand are those who would be happy to say their private prayers during mass, leaving the liturgy to others. On the other are those who appear stuck in ideas of the 1970s and 1980s that went beyond a determination to encourage greater lay participation, to wholesale discarding of key elements of the tradition – in this case, of the representative role a schola can play, including the singing of the great polyphonic mass settings that were also commended by Saint Pius X and Vatican II. Clearly, the Church is directing us to a middle ground, in which the polyphonic repertoire is upheld by choirs capable of it, so long as there are sufficient occasions for the rest of the parish to sing and know the chant. This is was how it was at a parish I dep’d in the other Sunday: the choir sang the Kyre, Gloria and Sanctus from a Lassus mass; everyone sang the Credo, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei to plainchant; and the choir sang the Lassus Agnus during communion. The congregation apparently sang the Ordinary often enough to be familiar with it, but appeared to be happy with their choir’s role, too.

Tradition is a long conversation, Nick, and it didn't finish twenty years ago. Hang on in there.

ps thanks for the link to the extract from your dissertation, which I look forward to reading, and I'm sorry to have misinterpreted something you wrote on another occasion to mean that you are a convert.

[Nick Baty]

Yes, we have much common ground, however,

the choir sang the Kyre, Gloria and Sanctus from a Lassus mass; everyone sang the Credo, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei to plainchant; and the choir sang the Lassus Agnus during communion.

I would argue that the Sanctus (more than the Agnus) should have been sung by everyone. Placing the Lassus Agnus during communion might have been on OK except when this is done one can't help feeling that rite is serving music, rather than the other way around – they were including it simply because it came from the same set.

So am I suggesting that we should never use a Sanctus from the polyphonic repertoire? Yes, I am. The nature of the text – apart from the various instructions in various GIRMs and other documents – lead me to that conclusion. The second we move away from this basic philosophy then we really do have a free-for-all and liturgical musicians all over the country can give up and leave the job to those who enjoy directing sacred music. But, no, I am not suggesting for a second that the polyphonic repertoire should be abandoned. (Indeed, if we had the resources in our parish we'd be pounding through some pretty wonderful stuff tomorrow.

In short, all I would expect is that the assembly should always sing the response to the psalm, the Alleluia (or other Gospel Greeting if during Lent), the Holy, Acclamation and Great Amen, the last three preferably in a unified setting. That leaves heaps of space for choral music if a parish has the resources. And if one does have such resources then there's also heaps of music which incorporates choir and people together. The world is your oyster.

For me, it's the philosophy which is important here. It's not whether we have a choir or a folk group or the local handbell ringers. It's about how they do what they do.

By the way, I'm also (theoretically) very anti strophic hymns of any era but my fellow parishioners would lynch me if I I dropped them altogether.

I don’t doubt that the people in the parishes you serve are familiar with at least one set of Ordinary chants

On this one – in my present parish – you will be disappointed.

[NorthernTenor]

Nick,

I believe our views do have much in common.

So am I suggesting that we should never use a Sanctus from the polyphonic repertoire? Yes, I am. The nature of the text – apart from the various instructions in various GIRMs and other documents – lead me to that conclusion.

However, it is by no means clear that text or law justify your iconoclastic interpretation, and there is strong reason to suggest that it is out of harmony with Tradition. There is nothing in the text that precludes the choir proclaiming the Sanctus in a representative role, just as it may do with other parts of the Liturgy [a]. Thus, Section 34 of Musicam Sacram, envisages two main schemes for the singing of the songs of the Ordinary - either choir alone or people and choir. Musicam Sacram forms a set of special norms governing sacred music, and its provisions are not superseded by later canon law unless that is explicitly stated (which it doesn't appear to be) [b].

There is a more fundamental problem with your interpretation, which goes beyond the niceties of canon law to the fundamental character of our faith and the nature of the liturgy that is at its heart. The two have develpoed continuously and hand in hand over millenia. They form a vibrant, living organism, which must be tended with care if it is to grow true to itself. While reform has sometimes been necessary, that is more a matter of judicious pruning to retain the essential character of rite and faith, than a destructive lopping of whole branches. Our current Pope, a Council Father and a product of the Liturgical Movement, believes that the Liturgy "lives from the continuity and inner unity of the history of religious prayer." So strongly does he believe in these principles that he has forsworn the ultramontane claims sometimes made for his office with respect to the Liturgy, writing that "the Pope has the task of a gardner, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile ... Thus the rite is something of benefit that is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis, the handing-on of Tradition." In consequence, he has strongly disagreed with the notion that the Sanctus should never be sung by Choir alone, writing that "mistrust is always in order when a large part of the liv­ing history has to be thrown onto the rubbish dump".

Placing the Lassus Agnus during communion might have been OK except when this is done one can't help feeling that rite is serving music, rather than the other way around – they were including it simply because it came from the same set.

That's not a necessary interpretation, Nck; I hope I don't hear prejudice speaking. A setting of the Agnus is a perfectly good liturgical option during communion (though in this case it wasn't the only thing sung), and if the setting goes with other elements of the sung Ordinary, it's a reasonable choice.

Finally, good luck with the Parish in which you work. Maybe the PP will be persuaded of the virtues of chant someday.

[a] http://www.ceciliaschola.org/notes/bene ... _Permitted
[b] http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/choralsanctus.pdf
[c] See Cardinal Ratzinger's Preface to The Organic Development of the Liturgy, A. Reid, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2005.

[Southern Comfort]

I’m glad you’ve reminded us of the continued (and continuing) exhortations we’ve had from the Church, up to and beyond Vatican II, of the pride of place that chant should have in the sung mass, which, as the Church has also taught us, is its normative form. As the present Holy Father wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis, the Church desires that “Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy”.

Unfortunately, this is to a greater or lesser degree ignored in most English and Welsh parishes. When it is suggested, often by younger Catholics, the idea is s all too often criticised as that mysterious thing, a betrayal of the Spirit of the Council. There are now few parishes whose people would be able to fulfil the wish of Pope Paul VI that the chants of Jubilate Deo should be a minimum repertoire, or even of the GIRM that they should “know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, set to the simpler melodies”. The Church’s wish is not technically difficult to achieve. The music is beautiful and accessible, and back in the 1970’s and 1980’s when the Parishes I knew were still familiar with this repertoire, I remember it being sung by many with confidence and affection. Now, such familiarity is increasingly rare. While that remains so, discussion on this comment board of the relative merits of various contemporary mass settings is interesting and useful, but curiously beside the point for those who wish to see our liturgical tradition faithfully implemented and fostered.

Northern Tenor, may I draw your attention to John Paul II's Chirograph on Sacred Music, and its wise words:

12. With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the "general rule" that St Pius X formulated in these words: "The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple"[33]. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it. [My emphasis] Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy[34]. In this perspective, in my Letter to Artists I wrote: "How many sacred works have been composed through the centuries by people deeply imbued with the sense of mystery! The faith of countless believers has been nourished by melodies flowing from the hearts of other believers, either introduced into the Liturgy or used as an aid to dignified worship. In song, faith is experienced as vibrant joy, love and confident expectation of the saving intervention of God"[35].
Renewed and deeper thought about the principles that must be the basis of the formation and dissemination of a high-quality repertoire is therefore required. Only in this way will musical expression be granted to serve appropriately its ultimate aim, which is "the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful"[36].
I know well that also today there are numerous composers who are capable of making their indispensable contribution in this spirit, increasing with their competent collaboration the patrimony of music at the service of a Liturgy lived ever more intensely. To them I express my confidence, together with the most cordial exhortation to put their every effort into increasing the repertoire of compositions worthy of the exalted nature of the mysteries celebrated and, at the same time, suited to contemporary sensibilities.

If you read this carefully, you will see that it is not setting up Gregorian chant as the be-all-and-end-all of liturgical music. It is saying that our liturgical music needs to be influenced, even heavily influenced, by the principles that guided the composers of the chant. There is a great deal of difference.

Tradition is a long conversation, Nick, and it didn't finish twenty years ago. Hang on in there.

This is nothing less than patronising, in my view. You have tried to derail the principle topic of this thread, which started with the observation that our major composers such as Duffy, Walker, Inwood, Tamblyn and others wrote 20-30 years ago sublime music which not only attempted to integrate the ethos of the chant into today's music but also succeeded in integrating the liturgico-musico-spatial roles of clergy, cantor, choir and congregation, the four Cs that form the musical bedrock of our liturgy. It was mind-blowing stuff, and the tragedy is that Westminster Cathedral is either ignorant of its existence or does not care to make use of it or, better still, produce new models that do the same thing. James MacMillan is far from immune from this criticism.

I'm sorry, but simply rehashing Latin plainchant with bleeding chunks of organ accompaniment (as at the Westminster celebration we are discussing) simply does not cut the mustard for those who have been exposed to a vision that can take us so much further, while still starting from the same Gregorian chant springboard.

[Nick Baty]

There is nothing in the text that precludes the choir proclaiming the Sanctus in a representative role

In which case, the Church does not need liturgical musicians.