Simple English Propers

[IncenseTom]

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere.

Today at Mass we sang the Introit from the Simple English Propers for the 29th sunday (instead of an opening hymn). The choir sang well, comments from the congregation were positive and the PP said he very much enjoyed the prayerful entrance procession.

A while ago we sang one of the Communion antiphons from the SEP and this also went down well. The choir need a few weeks to get the hang of them so we are aiming to sing one of the propers per month (taken from the SEP). Just chipping away at the hymn sandwich!

Has anyone else tried them out? How have they gone down elsewhere?

[Southern Comfort]

I think this may have already been discussed on another thread previously.

IncenseTom, I assume you mean Adam Bartlett's Simple English Propers available online, and not the book of the same name published many years ago by Kevin Mayhew.

If the former, the translation of the psalms used is the New American Bible, which is not approved for use in England and Wales. If the latter, the text of the antiphons is the 1973 Missal, not the current 2010 Missal.

[Howard Baker]

Since there is no official English translation of the Graduale Romanum texts, and since in many places the Entry Antiphon is not sung at all but is replaced by a hymn, I'd have thought any English version of the GR or Graduale Simplex texts would be acceptable, or at least a step in the right direction.

[IncenseTom]

Yes, I was referring to the Adam Bartlett version.

Is it then the case that a hymn taken from an approved hymnal is the preferred option over a psalm text which has not been approved for use in E&W even though this may be closer to the actual text of the Entrance Antiphon?

That does seem a tad strange to me, particularly when parishes are trying to move away from the hymn sandwich.

I also happen to know that the Diocese of Leeds actually promotes the use of the Bartlett Simple English Propers and that they are used at the Cathedral.

[musicus]

Correct me if I'm wrong (need I say that?), but surely no hymn books are 'approved' for the UK, except the very recent editions that have been through the new process (e.g. Laudate revised).

[IncenseTom]

Exactly - other than revised hymnals none have been approved. Just to be clear, I think i'm correct in saying the revised Mass settings in revised hymnals are up for approval and not the hymns themselves.

In which case, we have a situation where non approved hymns are favoured over American psalm texts which are in fact much much closer to the Entrance Antiphon which the church gives us for the Introit.

Lets not forget that the propers are based on scripture - the word of God - and that hymns very often use a composed text - the word of man.

[johnquinn39]

We sang Bp. Dudley Smith's 'Safe in the shadow' to the hymn tune by Norman Warren.

This has a tenous link with the introit (protect me under the shdow of your wings).

However, it is a scripture paraphrase (Ps. 90 / 91), and people really sing their hearts out with this setting
which has been used for around 12 years now.

I'm not sure about using the propers word for word. Would singing all of the psalm propers end up
diminishing the importance of the resp. psalm?

Also. I'm not sure about these musical settings (Adam B's). Do they have enough musical interest to
make them digestible for congregations?

Also, I'm not sure about using the one-year cycle ,when the 3 yr. cycle ins the norm.

Some of the hymns used in the parish I serve in are not exact translations of scripture, but they are all scripture-based, and so not the word of man.

[IncenseTom]

Whilst I like the Propers I would agree that to do them every week would be too much.
That said, I would like to aim to do one a month - that way I don't think the congregation would get sick of them.

[Southern Comfort]

Just to be clear, I think i'm correct in saying the revised Mass settings in revised hymnals are up for approval and not the hymns themselves.

You are not correct. Every single hymn in the revised hymnbooks published in England and Wales has had to go through the nihil obstat/imprimatur process, as discussed on another recent thread. The approval process for Mass settings is separate from this, and applies to sheet music as well as hymnbooks.

Is it then the case that a hymn taken from an approved hymnal is the preferred option over a psalm text which has not been approved for use in E&W even though this may be closer to the actual text of the Entrance Antiphon?

I think the point is that using a different psalm translation (NAB) from the one universally used in these islands (Grail) would lead to considerable confusion. That is why the Psallite collection, which uses the Grail psalms alongside its antiphons, is a route down which more than a few people are going.

[mcb]

Is it then the case that a hymn taken from an approved hymnal is the preferred option over a psalm text which has not been approved for use in E&W even though this may be closer to the actual text of the Entrance Antiphon?

I think the point is that using a different psalm translation (NAB) from the one universally used in these islands (Grail) would lead to considerable confusion.

No, I really can't see how this can be true. We sing all kinds of texts at the points where the propers might be sung, ranging from verbatim renditions of the text, right the way to freely composed hymns, which might show little or no connection with the Missal/Gradual text at all. Making use of alternative Psalm translations is very close indeed to the 'verbatim' end of this scale, and I can't see that there's any basis at all for arguing against them from a textual point of view.

[Howard Baker]

For amateur choirs the whole issue of propers is fraught. In my church we have been experimenting lately with the 'Anglican Use Gradual' (available for free download, ultra-simple plainsong, same melody week, text of the Graduale Romanum but in 16th-cent English translation), using its introit followed immediately by an entrance hymn; same at the offertory. This may not within the letter of strict liturgical law (is that so terrible?), but it is at least a nod towards a principle, whilst allowing also for the singing of hymns which congregations have come to expect and participate in.

[alan29]

For amateur choirs the whole issue of propers is fraught. In my church we have been experimenting lately with the 'Anglican Use Gradual' (available for free download, ultra-simple plainsong, same melody week, text of the Graduale Romanum but in 16th-cent English translation), using its introit followed immediately by an entrance hymn; same at the offertory. This may not within the letter of strict liturgical law (is that so terrible?), but it is at least a nod towards a principle, whilst allowing also for the singing of hymns which congregations have come to expect and participate in.

Ooh that really does nasty things to the English prosody at times, doesn't it. Its hard to understand why some words are "graced" with melismata and others aren't.

[IncenseTom]

Is it then the case that a hymn taken from an approved hymnal is the preferred option over a psalm text which has not been approved for use in E&W even though this may be closer to the actual text of the Entrance Antiphon?

I think the point is that using a different psalm translation (NAB) from the one universally used in these islands (Grail) would lead to considerable confusion.

No, I really can't see how this can be true. We sing all kinds of texts at the points where the propers might be sung, ranging from verbatim renditions of the text, right the way to freely composed hymns, which might show little or no connection with the Missal/Gradual text at all. Making use of alternative Psalm translations is very close indeed to the 'verbatim' end of this scale, and I can't see that there's any basis at all for arguing against them from a textual point of view.

Thankyou mcb - you've supped up what I was trying to get at.

[Nick Baty]

Also, I'm not sure about using the one-year cycle ,when the 3 yr. cycle ins the norm.

Totally with you on this one. For example, The Processional is a superb resource and it give several choices for antiphons (particularly for Communion) but it appears to stick to a one-year cycle. Btw, does this document have any status or is it simply the labour of love of one partciularly fine chap?

[John Ainslie]

For amateur choirs the whole issue of propers is fraught. In my church we have been experimenting lately with the 'Anglican Use Gradual' (available for free download, ultra-simple plainsong, same melody week, text of the Graduale Romanum but in 16th-cent English translation), using its introit followed immediately by an entrance hymn; same at the offertory. This may not within the letter of strict liturgical law (is that so terrible?), but it is at least a nod towards a principle, whilst allowing also for the singing of hymns which congregations have come to expect and participate in.

Interesting. The late Professor László Dobszay, a liturgical purist and champion of the 'reform of the reform' movement, didn't like the 'Ordinary Form' at all. Nevertheless he proposed, in the interests of congregational participation, that a popular hymn should be sung at the Entrance Procession, followed by the introit in full Gregorian chant sung by a schola. There was a similar nod to the congregation at the Offertory.

I made all the texts of the antiphons from the Roman Missal, Graduale Romanum and Graduale Simplex available in the Processional, still available from the Liturgy Office
(http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Missal/Music/ProcessionalBook.pdf). This was in the hope that composers will get to work on the texts and set them to music imaginatively. I see no point in simply rendering an Entrance Antiphon to a plain psalm-tone week in, week out, just to satisfy a rubric. That is what I remember doing in the 1950s: it was deadly dull. Music should inspire.

Being subjected to an unrelieved hymn-sandwich is to lose sight of liturgical balance and even propriety, but at least it gives the opportunity for the congregation to praise God in song. While (IMHO) a refrain with psalm verses is ideal for Communion, even if the people are reluctant to join in the refrain while they process, I am less convinced about the suitability of that musical form to engage the congregation at the beginning of Mass. However, when I hear the priest begin the Mass with a chanted 'In the name of the Father...' I do ask myself what kind of music should precede it and prepare for it...