Jessie Monsivais sings Responsorial Psalms

[AntoineDaniel]

Friends,

Here is a girl in high school singing the Chabanel Psalms:
http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2011/jan/4/jessie-monsivais-sings-chabanel-psalms/

I think she did a really nice job. As a matter of fact, I don't believe my Psalms can be sung any better than what she does.

To download more than 3,00 free Catholic Responsorial Psalms, please visit:
http://chabanelpsalms.org/responsorial_psalms.htm

[johnquinn39]

To download more than 3,00 free Catholic Responsorial Psalms, please visit:

Many of these psalm settings are appealing and well-constructed. However, to me they lack the 'bite' and originality of what we already have in this style - Inwood; Proulx; Gelineau; Walsh; Murray et al.

The young lady does indeed sing beautifully. This is a welcome contrast to the over-amplified 'swoopy-glidey christian' way of singing.

However, you get what you pay for. I have yet to see any psalm in this collection that really stands out. Why no settings in the Haugen / Haas or Gospel /Blues style?

[Nick Baty]

Why no settings in the Haugen / Haas or Gospel /Blues style?

Because they are in AntoineDaniel's style.
If you want Haugen/Haas then go to Haugen and Haas.
(Sorry – sounds crass, not meant to be! )

[JW]

If you want Haugen/Haas then go to Haugen and Haas.

Isn't that a make of ice cream?

[nazard]

... However, you get what you pay for. I have yet to see any psalm in this collection that really stands out. Why no settings in the Haugen / Haas or Gospel /Blues style?

I don't want psalm settings to stand out. The purpose of a psalm setting is to carry the words. It is the words that need to shine. I like these being more reminiscent of Gregorian tones, while obviously quite different. This gives them a quite catholic feel. I always feel Murray's tones owe more to Anglican Chant.

I am considering trying a few of these. Obviously they will need to be re-pointed to the Grail words, and the antiphons will need quite a bit of mangling. The antiphons are admirably simple. I always play the antiphon on the organ, then again while the cantor sings, and then again for the congregation to join in, before launching into the first verse. The congregation then "gets" simple antiphons quite well.

Jeffrey, it would be useful if you would write some advice to organists about registration. (Perhaps you already have.) One of our local organists selects full diapason chorus to mixtures, on a fully enclosed organ, and swings the swells about to change volume between verse and antiphon. The result is hideous.

Am I right in thinking that if we prepare UK versions of some of these the Grail copyright prevents us from posting them on the net?

[Nick Baty]

The antiphons are admirably simple.

Not always a good thing. Use the shower test: look at one of the antiphons now, take an average length shower (or clean kitchen floor or finish the washing up) and see if you can still sing it. If you can, then it should be easily singable by the average congregation. But, sometimes, "simple" can also mean "too easily forgotten".

I'm not suggesting that these particular psalms are too simple, but sometimes a melody needs a real hook to be easily remembered on one hearing.

[docmattc]

Am I right in thinking that if we prepare UK versions of some of these the Grail copyright prevents us from posting them on the net?

This is what I received recently from GIA for the REVISED Grail Psalms:

Gratis permission is granted to COMPOSER NAME to post to the Internet individual digital files of musical settings of the Revised Grail Psalms. These digital files may be distributed to, and downloaded by, the general public for use within their religious communities, provided no remuneration is exchanged for this use.

The copyright of the current Grail is owned by Harper Collins. I don't know what the copyright position is on them.

[AntoineDaniel]

Friends,

Thank you very much for all these comments!

I will attempt to respond to the questions (above) as soon as I am able.

AGAIN, thanks for the feedback !!!

[Southern Comfort]

Am I right in thinking that if we prepare UK versions of some of these the Grail copyright prevents us from posting them on the net?

This is what I received recently from GIA for the REVISED Grail Psalms:

Gratis permission is granted to COMPOSER NAME to post to the Internet individual digital files of musical settings of the Revised Grail Psalms. These digital files may be distributed to, and downloaded by, the general public for use within their religious communities, provided no remuneration is exchanged for this use.

The copyright of the current Grail is owned by Harper Collins. I don't know what the copyright position is on them.

But these psalms are not Grail in any shape or form. They are NAB psalm verses (which we don't use in this country — and for good reason) and the responses are ICEL (ditto — ditto).

[Hare]

(which we don't use in this country — and for good reason) and the responses are ICEL (ditto — ditto).

That reason being?

And a question that sprang to mind overnight... Why are we not supposed to sing the correct psalm for the day in an unauthorized translation, but we can take liberties with the correct psalm by using a Common Psalm?

And I still want to know what the "penalties" are for using unauthorized translations....? (I have been using them for years and I am still in my DoM post, and a free man!

[Southern Comfort]

(which we don't use in this country — and for good reason) and the responses are ICEL (ditto — ditto).

That reason being?

Quite simply that the NAB is not a nice translation, and in particular the psalms. As for the ICEL responses, quite apart from the way in which they were produced which was less than satisfactory, they have no relationship to the text of any psalter. So, for example, you would sing (ICEL) R/ Taste and see the goodness of the Lord, followed in the verses (Grail) by Taste and see that the Lord is good. That kind of inconsistency is both stupid and confusing, undermining the ability of the text to nourish us through repetition of the same phrases. We have not been used to it in this country and should not become used to it.

[JW]

Another issue with using other than the Grail text for psalms is that the People will be confused when following from missals, missalettes, published Sunday newsheets etc - leaving them even less likely to participate than they are at the moment. We are supposed to be promoting active participation by all in the liturgy.

I've spent an hour or so writing in the Grail texts (legibly!) for Jeff's setting for Sunday 5 (which I'll use) - an issue with these settings is the extra work they involve, when we already have settings that are set to the correct words.

[Nick Baty]

missals, missalettes, published Sunday newsheets etc

The simple answer is to stop using them. They do nothing but hinder our celebrations.

[gwyn]

missals, missalettes, published Sunday newsheets etc

As Nick Says, bin 'em. Hideous abominations. Let the reader understand.

[presbyter]

Quite simply that the NAB is not a nice translation, and in particular the psalms.

Yes. I'm afraid Antoine that, for example, "and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for years to come" would give me a sensibility shock.

I think the style of the settings (the three videos) is good and appropriately meditative. The texts are well served by the music. Perhaps the tessitura of "Blessed are..." tends towards the extreme for the average Cantor? Sounds good on the recording with a young soprano but I'd have to transpose the music down a peg or two for it to work in my parish.