New Mass text and music

[NorthernTenor]

Gabriel and Nick,

It is not so much a matter of the 'imposition' of plainsong as the recognition of its inherent place in the liturgy. There is, as Nick has observed, nothing new in this recognition. Despite differences in performance and editorial practice, chant has been an essential part of our tradition for two millennia, and what we know loosely as western plainchant has developed over the greater part of that time. It is in this context that we can understand the repeated calls from Rome for the primacy of plainsong in the musical celebration of the liturgy, and for its restoration as the music of the people as much as schola, cantor and cleric - not as arbitrary law, but as an essential element of the organic growth that is our liturgy. And it is in this context that we can understand ICEL's call for the restoration of unaccompanied, sung liturgy, and the extension of its set of model chants.

Which is not to say that other kinds of music should not be used at Mass, particularly if they are derived from or modelled on chant - as the Council Fathers indicated, polyphony is the exemplar of such music. The problem is, that 'other suitable styles' has been over-used, to the extent that Mass is seldom chanted in England and Wales; and I would suggest that our exploration of such music will be incomplete unless it is based on a bedrock of chant, sung frequently as a natural part of our worship.

To address some of Gabriel's specific points: I believe that the absence of plainsong has arisen from its mistaken identification with the 'old mass'; the point of cantillation - the heightening of the text - benefits from simplicity; ICEL has chosen simplicity in the interests of accessibility; and we're perfectly free to use more complex chants should we so choose.

Regards,

NT

[Gabriel]

To address some of Gabriel's specific points: I believe that the absence of plainsong has arisen from its mistaken identification with the 'old mass'; the point of cantillation - the heightening of the text - benefits from simplicity; ICEL has chosen simplicity in the interests of accessibility; and we're perfectly free to use more complex chants should we so choose.

NT
My worry is that there is simplicity and there is dull. I think musicians sometimes make the mistake that simple music is more accessible. Two notes for the whole EP may be simple but I'm not sure that it is easy or accessible. This is partly because the music has little character and therefore is unmemorable. The problem is that simple tones mark sentence length rather than word meaning - so punctuate the text rather than heighten it. There is no longer a need for a chanted text to aid projection.

There is a deeper question about the ICEL provision - how much is the chant connected with the language? Is part of my problem is that the ICEL music imitates the chant for the Latin text too closely rather than being modelled on the Latin chant but finding a suitable melodic expression for the English text?

[festivaltrumpet]

I believe that the absence of plainsong has arisen from its mistaken identification with the 'old mass';

Although the last post was specifically addressed to only two board members, I trust it is acceptable for other members of this forum to reply. The absence of plainsong may, in part, be due to the reason NorthernTenor suggests, but there is, I believe, a far more basic reason. There are threads elsewhere on this board which suggest that prior to the new missal, many, if not most parishes celebrated Low Mass as the norm, and maybe exclusively. This explains the origins of what is referred to as the 'Hymn Sandwich' but also tells us that chant was not in use prior to the advent of the new missal. There was simply no tradition of using chant to begin with.

[John Ainslie]

ICEL have chosen to provide Bishops' Conferences with adaptations of the chants provided within the Missale Romanum to the English text for inclusion in published editions of the Altar Missal.

Yes, but the question we really have to ask is: Why should we sing these texts? Only when we understand why we should be singing them can we ask the question 'what kind of music?'

I believe that music enriches the liturgical texts and, like poetry, helps them express the holy things that transcend the words they use. And if the most important moments in the liturgy and the most important texts are the Gospel and the Eucharistic Prayer - the whole of it, from 'The Lord be with you' to the Great Amen inclusive - then these are the highlight moments of the Mass which in preference to all other moments should be enriched with music. We are already on the way to seeing this as both desirable and practical with the increasing use of singing for the Gospel Acclamation, i.e. the Alleluia except in Lent. Most priests can sing the doxology to the standard Missal tone. Most churches know at least some settings of the 'Holy, holy' and many some version of the Memorial Acclamation.

Now it is time for the priests (and deacons for the Gospel) to take a more active singing part. But their texts are either the first part of dialogues or recitatives. What music will do justice to these liturgical and literary forms? How will it be both practical for the singers and draw attention not themselves but to the words they utter and the rites they express?

The obvious ready solution is to use the traditional Latin chants and simply adapt them to English. I would suggest that that solution is too easy. Look at the settings of the Eucharistic Prayer that have been composed since 1970: Chris Walker's has been mentioned, I mentioned in another thread the one sung by Cardinal Murphy O'Connor at Wembley in 2003, and there are many others. They are much better suited to the natural rise and fall of the English language than the Latin tones and no less singable, perhaps easier to sing because they are more easily memorable. But also take a look at the chant setting of the words of institution in the existing Missal: it uses four notes rather than two and what a difference that makes. Here's another suggestion: 'a reading of the holy Gospel...' is normally sung on doh with a lah-doh cadence. Try raising the note on the syllable Gospel to re and suddenly you have a shape to the music that reflects the natural rhythm and shape of the English sentence.

I mustn't go on. Whether you call Chris Walker's setting of the Eucharistic Prayer 'chant' or not I leave to you. How would you describe Handel's recitatives? Singing a variable text such as a Gospel is something else, but that can be the topic for another thread.

[Gabriel]

I think there is another aspect of the ICEL music that is worth affirming which is the value of having a setting which can be used easily with no other resources secondly there is also value in the idea of a setting which can be held in common as a base setting for the parish/cluster/diocese etc.

[Mithras]

Paul Inwood's setting of Euchristic Prayer 2 is a good example of a psalm-tone like chant with related material framing it (though when I have used it I don't have the Our Father as I believe this is one text that should always be said, though nostalgia often nudges against this me when using Latin ordinaries).

M

[Southern Comfort]

Two notes for the whole EP may be simple but I'm not sure that it is easy or accessible.

If we are honest, it is actually totally boring. The role of music is surely to bring life to the prayer, not to drag it down, hence the tones of Walker and Inwood, already mentioned, and the one that John Ainslie mentioned which was actually by Philip Gaisford. Their rationale is to enable the prayer to live, while also enabling the priest(s) to pray it without having to worry about the music.

There is a deeper question about the ICEL provision - how much is the chant connected with the language? Is part of my problem is that the ICEL music imitates the chant for the Latin text too closely rather than being modelled on the Latin chant but finding a suitable melodic expression for the English text?

It's not just your problem, Gabriel. We share it with you. Of course, it's actually ICEL's problem, or at least the small group of people who worked on these chants. To be fair to them, the Eucharistic Prayers are on two notes in our current Missal. They've simply decided to perpetuate that. But the idea of adhering too slavishly to the chant is not a good one. The two languages are so different that only a genius could make it work. The late Luke Connaughton tried it in a volume in which he rewrote the texts so that they would truly marry with the chant. We do not have the luxury of doing that. The solution, then, is the one that the nuns of Stanbrook arrived at many years ago: use the melodic germs and contours of the chant, but do not adhere to it note-for-note.

I think there is another aspect of the ICEL music that is worth affirming which is the value of having a setting which can be used easily with no other resources secondly there is also value in the idea of a setting which can be held in common as a base setting for the parish/cluster/diocese etc.

On the other hand, you could say that this is a lowest common denominator type of approach. If we're going to have something in common, at least let it be decent and interesting!

[keitha]

Can anyone tell us who the members of the 'small group of people' are (just out of curiosity)?

[Southern Comfort]

Can anyone tell us who the members of the 'small group of people' are (just out of curiosity)?

They're keeping it very quiet. I'm only aware of the identity of one member, and that person isn't from England (yes, there is an English person ‘representing’ us, apparently).

[Gabriel]

On the other hand, you could say that this is a lowest common denominator type of approach. If we're going to have something in common, at least let it be decent and interesting!

I was suggesting the validity of the principle rather than implying the offered music provided a solution.

Can anyone tell us who the members of the 'small group of people' are (just out of curiosity)?

One of the requirements of Liturgiam Authenticam was that those who worked for bodies such as ICEL should remain anonymous.

[Nick Baty]

For some reason, that's just made me giggle!

[Southern Comfort]

One of the requirements of Liturgiam Authenticam was that those who worked for bodies such as ICEL should remain anonymous.

Actually this only applies to those doing translation work (LA paras 75, 101). Indeed, LA seems to indicate that mixed commissions such as ICEL are going beyond their remit if they do anything beyond actually translating texts (para 98, which stresses that they are not to produce new original texts of their own) and that questions such as music are to be decided on by diocesan or Bishops' Conference commissions (para 99), which

shall work in their own right for the purposes proper to them, and shall not cede the matters entrusted to them to any “mixed” commission.

This rather strongly implies that everyone is simply free to ignore what ICEL has done altogether! <Sighs of relief from Nick Baty and many others, gnashing of teeth from The Tablet, who didn't realise this.>

Hopefully we can get our act together in this country and produce something which will inspire people, rather than frustrate them. The only music we have used over the past 34 years that is common to other English-speaking countries is the Preface Dialogue, so some input from us to ICEL would be useful on that particular item.

[Nick Baty]

Sighs of relief from Nick Baty...

Not at all. My beef is not with ICEL but with those who, like The Tablet, believe that ICEL is doing something new and is imposing it on us. You only have to read ICEL's introduction to its music to realise it is simply affirming that which has gone before.

And it's a sunny day, so I'm off to see a cheery undertaker called Bob about the service sheets for Friday's Funeral Mass.

[NorthernTenor]

Sometimes comment threads come alive and fire off in all kinds of interesting directions. I think the main points of discussion are as follows. Please forgive me if I’ve not included your own particular interests and concerns.

1. Whether the Tablet and Herald articles got it wrong. I believe they got it right without adequately saying why, as I’ve outlined above. Nick’s repeated observation that the Church’s teachings on liturgical music haven’t changed is beside the point, which is that ICEL’s words and music indicate that it seeks an extension of chant usage, beyond current practice.

2. Whether plainsong is suited to the English language. Let me own up: the dearth of decent catholic singing opportunities where I live means I frequently cross the Stour to sing Anglican, sometimes in the kind of parish that uses English plainsong, and I can assure you that it adapts just fine to the language. Of course, in making and singing these adaptations, the Anglicans haven’t had the rule-fixation that causes Catholics to believe they must either slavishly fit existing chant melody to vernacular translation, or throw up their hands in horror at the imperfection of it all. For a Catholic example other than ICEL's, take a look at Fr. Weber’s simple gradual..

3. Whether the ICEL chants are any good. This is partly a judgement of artistic merit, about which people will naturally differ, but I believe a number of comments indicate a failure either to appreciate the purpose of these chants, or the purpose and nature of chant itself. Their simplicity reflects the abilities of the average parish, which typically lacks clergy and musicians with the ability to do anything more complicated. If your parish is different, good for you: you have the opportunity to try a more interesting English adaptation. Perhaps you could look to the English chants offered to us by Pope Paul VI, the progenitor of the new form of the rite. Or perhaps you could engage with the work of the Society of St. Catherine of Siena (whose chaplain is also secretary to ICEL), which has formed a working party to produce English-language chant adaptations. I suspect, however, that some expressions of boredom arise from a failure of perspective. Chant is sung prayer in a special sense: its style and ethereal beauty are perfectly matched to the liturgy of which it is a part and with which it has developed. The two are inseparable. We should no more spurn chant for want of a good tune than we should allow free reign to those who suggest the liturgical text is boring and irrelevant to our contemporary culture. The answer to that charge is that the more we immerse ourselves in the liturgy, the more we ‘get it’. The same applies to chant.

4. Whether liturgical music is any of ICEL’s business. ICEL’s initiative places it at the heart of the implementation of the letter and spirit of the Second Vatican Council, which permitted use of the vernacular in some or all parts of the liturgy, affirmed that the Mass should ordinarily be sung, and made it clear that chant should have pride of place in that song. As loyal Catholic musicians we should encourage ICEL’s initiative. To the extent that we oppose or ignore it, so we set ourselves in opposition to the Council and the liturgical tradition that its teachings expressed.

[Southern Comfort]

1. Whether the Tablet and Herald articles got it wrong. I believe they got it right without adequately saying why, as I’ve outlined above. Nick’s repeated observation that the Church’s teachings on liturgical music haven’t changed is beside the point, which is that ICEL’s words and music indicate that it seeks an extension of chant usage, beyond current practice.

Feel free to believe this if you want to, but it simply ain't so. All ICEL has done is provide English equivalents for all the chants that are in the Missale Romanum, in the same way that it has translated all the Latin texts of the same book. This is what it sees as its job: providing English where there is Latin, including music. The fact that there are some additional chants in the Missale compared with earlier additions is an indication that maybe Rome wants to extend the use of chant, rather than ICEL wanting to, but more pragmatically it's probably simply that Rome wanted to plug a few of the gaps.

2. Whether plainsong is suited to the English language. Let me own up: the dearth of decent catholic singing opportunities where I live means I frequently cross the Stour to sing Anglican, sometimes in the kind of parish that uses English plainsong, and I can assure you that it adapts just fine to the language. Of course, in making and singing these adaptations, the Anglicans haven’t had the rule-fixation that causes Catholics to adapt existing chant to English language patterns where appropriate, or throws up its hands in horror at such imperfection. For a Catholic example other than ICEL's, take a look at Fr. Weber’s simple gradual..

It can certainly work in English, provided that you can adapt the words to the chant. This is what Luke Connaughton did in An English Chant Book. Otherwise, it doesn't. The structure of the two languages are so different that music conceived for one cannot work with a literal translation of the other. As you say, the Anglicans don't have our restrictions.

3. Whether the ICEL chants are any good. This is partly a judgement of artistic merit, about which people will naturally differ, but I believe a number of comments indicate a failure either to appreciate the purpose of these chants, or the purpose and nature of chant itself. Their simplicity reflects the abilities of the average parish, which typically lacks clergy and musicians with the ability to do anything more complicated. If your parish is different, good for you: you have the opportunity to try a more interesting English adaptation. Perhaps you could look to the English chants offered to us by Pope Paul VI, the progenitor of the new form of the rite. Or perhaps you could engage with the work of the Society of St. Catherine of Siena (whose chaplain is also secretary to ICEL), which has formed a working party to produce English-language chant adaptations. I suspect, however, that some expressions of boredom arise from a failure of perspective. Chant is sung prayer in a special sense: its style and ethereal beauty are perfectly matched to the liturgy of which it is a part and with which it has developed. The two are inseparable. We should no more spurn chant for want of a good tune than we should allow free reign to those who suggest the liturgical text is boring and irrelevant to our contemporary culture. The answer to that charge is that the more we immerse ourselves in the liturgy, the more we ‘get it’. The same applies to chant.

The ICEL chants appears to be inferior because they attempt to stick closely to the originals, which were designed for Latin not English (see above). What this thread has been asking for is a recognition that something better can be done. A number of our English and Welsh composers, some alas now gone to their eternal reward, have shown that it is very possible indeed to have chants that spring from the deep roots of Latin Gregorian Chant, and yet which are original compositions that work well with the English language. Across the pond, By Flowing Waters has taken the chant and adapted it (not always successfully) to fit with English texts, not vice versa.

4. Whether liturgical music is any of ICEL’s business. ICEL’s initiative places it at the heart of the implementation of the letter and spirit of the Second Vatican Council, which permitted use of the vernacular in some or all parts of the liturgy, affirmed that the Mass should ordinarily be sung, and made it clear that chant should have pride of place in that song. As loyal Catholic musicians we should encourage ICEL’s initiative. To the extent that we oppose or ignore it, so we set ourselves in opposition to the Council and the liturgical tradition that its teachings expressed.

We should certainly be encouraging ICEL to do something that will help all of us, but also be ready to say openly when we feel they have failed in this endeavour. No episcopal conference is obliged to adopt any of the music that ICEL offers, and it is to be hoped that our own Conference (and the Scottish and Irish Conferences) will encourage discrimination and discernment in deciding what will eventually appear in the British Isles edition of the Missal, so that the needs of our people will be best served.