New Mass text and music

[NorthernTenor]

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.

The proposals explicity call for a restoration of unnacompanied sung liturgy. That speaks of a change in practice. So, too, does the extension of the range of chant provided by ICEL, which had previously limited itself to ministerial chants and responses. And the limitation of this greatly increased range of music to the gregorian model itself speaks of a change in practice. Now, some may feed unconfortable with these facts - especially those who went through a hard time giving up chant in the first place because they were told that was what reform required - but facts they are undoubtedly are. I agree with you and Nick that the Church's tradition and teaching haven't changed, but that has as much to do with the point I made as the price of a loaf of bread.

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.

There we go again - if i had a pound for every time someone has said something like this and I've thought of the many occasions when I've heard it disproved, I'd be able to pass ICEL a large donation to support its good work. The assertion that Anglicans have only ever succeeded in adapting plainsong by changing the words isn't true. That patron saint of vernacular plainsong composers, Merbecke, to whom the text was sacrosanct, would roll over in his grave at the suggestion. His successor Palmer would only be a little less discomposed.

[Southern Comfort]

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.

My apologies: the word 'additions' should of course have been 'editions'.

And in response to NT, actually no, ICEL is not pushing the envelope. It's the Missale Romanum which is pushing it, but only slightly. Not the same thing at all. All ICEL have done is provide an English version of what is already in the Missale, which is a bit more than previously. End of story.

Please don't persist with the line that ICEL is somehow trying to change our attitudes. They aren't. If one could say that anyone is, it's the guys in Rome, not ICEL. Nick is correct: the Tablet and Herald simply didn't know enough to understand the difference.

Yes, we all know that unaccompanied singing can be a good thing. By Flowing Waters and the Psallite project are both manifestations of that belief. But the chant in the Missal is simply the chant in the Missal, and nothing more. No political overtones. Get it?

[musicus]

...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 editions 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....

Where there is ever the slightest ambiguity or wriggle-room in the 'instructions', people will quite understandably put upon them the interpretation they themselves want the words to convey. But in this case (and I have just re-read this entire thread), I honestly cannot see that the situation is other than as SC has summarized it in the first two sentences above. If ICEL really is doing more than this, where are the definitive and unambiguous statements to that effect - ones that do not need to be qualified with 'maybe' or similar words?

[NorthernTenor]

And in response to NT, actually no, ICEL is not pushing the envelope. It's the Missale Romanum which is pushing it, but only slightly. Not the same thing at all. All ICEL have done is provide an English version of what is already in the Missale, which is a bit more than previously. End of story.

Please don't persist with the line that ICEL is somehow trying to change our attitudes. They aren't. If one could say that anyone is, it's the guys in Rome, not ICEL. Nick is correct: the Tablet and Herald simply didn't know enough to understand the difference.

Yes, we all know that unaccompanied singing can be a good thing. By Flowing Waters and the Psallite project are both manifestations of that belief. But the chant in the Missal is simply the chant in the Missal, and nothing more. No political overtones. Get it?

Or:

I speak plainly; he misses the point; and you're just being political.

It's a shame when comments descend to aggression and angry assertions that aren't supported by the facts. Perhaps it can be explained by fear of change.

In focusing on the origin of the change, SC has sold the pass - he's accepted that the ICEL drafts signify a change. Whatever its origin - whether Rome, ICEL or a subtle combination of the two - the drafts contain an explicit reference to "restoration", backed up by a much wider range of model music than heretofore, and that music is solely in the Gregorian style. Now, one may think this a mistake, another that it's about time; and others may wish to think long and hard about the implications for practice; but that's a different discussion, quite beside my initial point, which was that The Tablet and The Herald correctly picked up on this change, even if they didn't explain it properly. The chief attempts to suggest otherwise that I've seen have come from individuals who appear to have a strong aversion to one possible consequence of that change, though not all who might be uncomfortable with it attempt to deny it. I'm afraid not even Squealer would have got away with that.

[NorthernTenor]

...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 editions 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....

Where there is ever the slightest ambiguity or wriggle-room in the 'instructions', people will quite understandably put upon them the interpretation they themselves want the words to convey. But in this case (and I have just re-read this entire thread), I honestly cannot see that the situation is other than as SC has summarized it in the first two sentences above. If ICEL really is doing more than this, where are the definitive and unambiguous statements to that effect - ones that do not need to be qualified with 'maybe' or similar words?

Musicus,

When SC says that the drafts contain "some additional chants" he employs masterful understatement. There are many more than can be accounted for by a wish to "plug a few of the gaps", as you put it. Taken together with the introduction, this is a signal that can't be ignored without closing one's eyes, whatever one's opinion of it.

The issue of "wiggle room" is a different one. I'm sure many who are committed to liturgical practice that excludes plainsong, or who seldom employ it, will continue to do so, identified as is it in the popular Catholic psyche with the "bad old days". Moreover, the Church isn't legalistic about this kind of thing, despite the inches of column space taken up here and elsewhere about how many angels the GIRM might permit atop a punctum. Rather, it moves slowly to tend the health and growth of the liturgical garden, through example, appointment, revision and occasional statements of principal. I submit that the ICEL drafts are part of that process of influence.

[John Ainslie]

I agree with Musicus that all that ICEL has done is to faithfully render in English the ministers' chants of the Missale Romanum, give or take the odd extra for the sake of completeness.

Now can we get back to the question of why/what we should sing for the sake of the liturgy and those who celebrate it - and what music should we use with English. I've tried to answer the first question. As for the second, the ICEL music offered is well-intentioned and, like the curate's egg, good in parts. But, IMHO, I believe it does not sufficiently address the linguistic differences between English and Latin. I referred to this earlier. Let me give you another example.

Like it or not, we are going to have to sing 'And with your spirit'. The danger is in the accentuation we give this phrase. 'And with your spirit'? Surely, in response to 'The Lord be with you', the 'your' is very important. It's fine with 'And also with you' because the natural stresses of the phrase fall in the right places. Note that the Latin builds up towards the final word 'tuo' (tr. 'your') by the preceding drop to 'lah'. But if we want to say what the words mean In English, we have to somehow manage 'And with your spirit' - two consecutive stressed syllables which are virtually unknown in Latin. The ICEL tones, by having the drop to 'lah' on the 'your', fail to address this, and in fact accentuate the 'Spirit' at its expense.

If, instead, you were to raise the note on 'your' to 're', leaving the other notes of the response as 'doh', something much better results. Not only does it accentuate the most important word of what is not just a standalone phrase but a response to 'The Lord be with you': it brings a certain natural tenuto to it. At least, that's the way I see it. You might want to raise the note on 'Lord' to 're' to balance it.

Whether or not you like my particular attempt at a solution, I'd like to think that, alongside other efforts, it may contribute to a necessary development of or from the Latin chant to a dialogue/recitative genre that helps to express the Roman rite in our native language. I believe that it is time to move on from the ICEL offering even before it's published. It doesn't need to be a revolution, but it could be a timely evolution.

[Nick Baty]

It's very interesting that this debate is becoming incredibly legalistic. As SC points out, ICEL is doing a specific job for the CDW. It's rather like the executive agencies we have here in the UK. Think of the NOMS and the Benefits Agency. The first administers prisons on behalf of the Department of Justice, but isn't allowed to input sentences or set tariffs. The second manages our incredibly complicated benefits system on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions but cannot set benefit levels or decide who gets them.

Similarly ICEL is, as SC has painstakingly explained above, undertaking the task of translating the Missal into English and providing transcriptions, transliterations, (whatever you want to call them) of existing chants. It does not have the power to say, as did the Michael Zager band, Let's all chant. This is explained in par 1 one of the introduction: "ICEL will offer to the Conferences of Bishops of the English-speaking world chants for everything that is set to music in the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia (2002)."

That sentence alone tells us two things: 1) ICEL is offering this music to our bishops – there is, of course, nothing to say they will accept it or, if they do, that they will impose it. 2) they are offering that which is already there. As several people have now stressed on here, there is nothing new in what they are doing.

The introduction also says that one of the principles of its work – ie. one of the things it is taking into consideration when preparing the music – is "to preserve and recover the tradition of unaccompanied singing". It does not say "this is how it must now be sung" and, if the unaccompanied singing of which it speaks is plainsong, then how can you recover that which is not lost?

If we're being stricly legalistic about the wording then, while supporting our tradition of unaccompanied singing, ICEL does not say that this is the only or preferential style to be used. Firstly, it does not have the power to so do and, secondly, many extant liturgical documents would have to be abrogated. (Although the Church does have a habit of never quite rescinding anything, but simply allowing it to lie fallow.)

If anyone wishes to start a new thread about increased use of plainsong in our churches then they will find many, many, ecclesiastical and episcopal documents to support that view. But Music for the English Language Roman Missal: An Introduction isn't one of them.

And this is why I take issue with The Tablet for whipping up a non-story. "The Vatican wants us to sing Gregorian Chant" is about as new and newsworthy as "Francis Drake sees off Spanish Armada".

And this is becoming the most pointless debate I've been involved in since a primary school teacher asked us to work out how long it would take two men to fill a four-litre bucket which had a 4cm hole in the bottom. I simply asked why anyone would even try filling a bucket with a hole!

[musicus]

And this is becoming the most pointless debate I've been involved in since a primary school teacher asked us to work out how long it would take two men to fill a four-litre bucket which had a 4cm hole in the bottom. I simply asked why anyone would even try filling a bucket with a hole!

Those were the days. The standard of mathematics in primary schools has really plummeted since then.

[Nick Baty]

Fell through the hole in the bucket!

[docmattc]

... take two men to fill a four-litre bucket which had a 4cm hole in the bottom.

We didn't have metric buckets in my day, I'm surprised Nick did. It would have been a gallon bucket with an inch and a half hole. But that's off topic and I may have to moderate myself!

[Nick Baty]

Ah! There must be an age difference. I will remember going back to school in the summer of 1968/9, aged 6 or 7, and finding all those wonderful, new, highly-coloured bit of apparatus and being taught metric measurement and decimal currency and being told to go home and pass this all on to our parents. Getting slightly back on topic, our parents were more concerned that we were going home speaking of "Jesus" and "Mary" rather than "Our Lord" and "Our Blessed Lady". (And, DocMatt, I have a feeling that self-moderation might be an occasion of sin!)

[Southern Comfort]

(And, DocMatt, I have a feeling that self-moderation might be an occasion of sin!)

"If only" I can hear him saying.....

[NorthernTenor]

It's very interesting that this debate is becoming incredibly legalistic.

Yes it is, Nick, but not in the way you suggest. The points I made about the stories in the Tablet and Herald were not legalistic. Rather, I point to change as a matter of fact, and argue that the changes in translation, the additional chants, the express commitment to recovery of unaccompanied singing of the liturgy, and the limitation of the chants to Gregorian models all reflect a movement towards our Roman tradition in a body responsible in the English-speaking world for the vernacular forms that were permitted by the Council. The comments of others who disagree with me have only served to confirm this shift, not least in the legalistic nature of some of the arguments for not employing plainsong to sing the mass ("they don't actually say we have to", "music isn't in their remit" , "Bishops' Conferences don't have to accept the proposed chants", "it's just a procedural matter"), which have a frankly reactionary air about them.

As so often with reaction, I suspect this response is born from fear of change. There are two music-liturgical establishments in England and Wales: one is represented by Westminster, the Oratories etc, and the other by the SoSG and a network of composers and advisors. Broadly speaking, and allowing for areas of overlap, the former is closer to the Roman liturgical tradition than the latter. So - to take an example - while chant and polyphony workshops aren't unknown to the SoSG, they tend to be run by musicians who work on the other side of the fence. The divide is similar to that between the NPM and the CMAA in the US. For many years, one establishment has felt besieged by the sometimes radical progress of the other. Now, as the Church begins to take a more mature view of the Council and its aftermath, the balance is changing. With good will and an ear to Rome's guidance, that isn't something to fear.

[SOP]

I had not realised there was such a great divide, I thought we were all trying to do our best with our God given skills.

NT - Is your arguing? No matter how many times people have brought this thread back to be being an exchange of views, opportunity to read what others are doing, you keep trying to make an argument and 'prove' you are right and everyone else is wrong. At one stage I was giggling and thinking "plainchant good, everything else bad, plainchant good, everything else bad". In my opinion, a church that ONLY had plainchant at every service would be a very dull one.

By the way, we are known as SSG in the same way that the United States of America is known as the USA, not USofA.

[johnquinn39]

Now, as the Church begins to take a more mature view of the Council and its aftermath, the balance is changing. With good will and an ear to Rome's guidance, that isn't something to fear.

In my view more balance would indeed be a good thing. Would singing more chant stuff in a dialogue style actually complement and increase peoples understanding of, for example Bernadette Farrell's 'Ev'ryday God' and Marty Haugen's 'All you works of God'?

It might be argued that the SSG/NPM approach is closer to the Roman tradition than the Westminster/Oratory/CMAA. (For example, Farrell and Haugen weave in ideas from LG into their texts, and Bob Hurd and Sr Delores Dufner use much more NT.)