As promised, here is another experimental set of “Simple English Propers” that are aimed at the average parish situation.
Download simple propers for the 24th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C.
The processes in use here were described in great detail last week. The same processes were applied to this weeks proper texts. Antiphon translations are taken from the Gregorian Missal, and psalm verses are taken from Douay Rheims, although slightly modified to reflect a more modern English.
We at the Chant Café would love to see a conversation about these settings spring up in the comment box. As I said before, these are “experimental”, and there is nothing that can advance an experiment like review and critique. Please don’t be shy. No one’s feelings will be hurt. We really want feedback from all walks. Many of the more “expert” opinions have already been discerned, but feedback from people who are considering the needs of their parishes who don’t sing the propers at all would be most valuable!
Music directors and schola directors–Ask yourself: “What would I do if I found myself in a parish that didn’t know what propers were, and had no exposure to chant in any form, whatsoever.” How would you bring them along? What would you recommend to a parish musician across town that would like to begin singing the propers at Mass? With no experience in chant, with virtually nothing but a humble interest? Where would suggest they start?
This is the sort of need that this project is seeking to address. Please share your thoughts, especially while we’re still in “experimental mode”!
Hi Adam,
Here is an honest assessment of the propers you posted. I sat here at my computer and sang through them, not without difficulty and repetition. Since I am a traditinal musician most used to the five line staff and G & F clefs, the transition to the four line staff and solfegge slows me down considerably. What about our choir members and cantors who don't have a lot of musical experience, but who want to sing chant? Are these propers available in modern notation yet?
Just be careful when placing the turns on the psalm tones that they don't hamper the natural stress patterns of the syllables. "Conceived cease" in the Offertory is particularly awkward, through no fault of your own. The words are just hard to say smoothly.
You could move the turn to "has" to make it con-CEIVED (as opposed to CON-ceived) but that doesn't seem perfect either. Perhaps a marking after "ceived" to indicate a slight pause, or at least a lengthening?
@RedCat: Yes, the notation will be a challenge for many, but consider this: These antiphons are set to melodic formulas. Once you get this formula in your "ear" you can rely on this and follow the "ups and downs" and the accent patterns in the text and, with a little exposure to the formulas, the melodies become intuitive. I think that most parish choir members today, sadly, still rely heavily on rote learning. So what this approach could offer is twofold: 1. antiphons set to what will quickly become "familiar" melodies, and 2. exposure to 4-line notation to help break the "chicken and egg" situation which has kept people away from square notes. Further singing of chant that is more complex will necessitate singing from square notes. There is an adjustment, but this could be a very simple "gateway" to square notes for people, I think. Lastly, having some recordings available of a few settings of each "formula" would probably be helpful for singers who are first learning the psalm tone or formula. What do you think of this?
@Anon: What you have identified resonates very deeply with me. The "conceived cease" "2-1" accent pattern is virtually non-existent in the Latin language (to my knowledge), therefore it was never anticipated in the development of the Gregorian psalm tones. So we end up having to alter the tones to make the English text work (as I did with eliding many of the "hard" final syllables). I have read many discussions and commentaries on the issue of using Gregorian psalm tones, and my conclusion so far is this: people who sing with a reliance on the accent patterns of the text end up not being able to use the tones with English, for the reasons stated, and that people who sing with an "equalist" approach, avoiding the stressing of syllables altogether, do not seem to mind the melodic/textual issues that arise from using Gregorian tones with English.
A very useful alternative, or so it seems to me at this point, would be to use melodic formulas that were crafted to work well with the English language. An example of this is this week's Introit sheet–there is a slightly more elaborate formula that can be adapted to a variety of texts, followed by a St. Meinrad psalm tone.
Just two points:
1. These do not appear to be the Psalm translations we normally use in England and Wales.
2. The idea of melodic formulae suited to the English language seems the best yet!
@Patricius–
Thanks for the feedback! The psalm translations are a "Modified Douay Rheims", a translation that is in the public domain. If we were to use a copyrighted translation that is not shared in the Creative Commons then the settings would be severely shackled.
I think these are excellent, and would make a fantastic bound edition when the cycle is complete (The Graduale Simplerex? The Modern Gradual?). When it's a full collection, I would include some instructions for using the tones with other translations (tips on pointing, etc).
I also think modern chant notation (5-line, round-note, stemless) would be helpful- not critical, but helpful. If you were going to bind it into a sellable hard-copy, I'd release two editions.
My own view is that modern notes would be a mistake. Part of the purpose here is to provide a bridge to the real music of the liturgy, and that means reading neumes.
I misspoke above: The "conceived cease" accent pattern is not "2-1", it actually is "1-1", two accents back-to-back. (con-CEIVED CEASE)
So a 2-1 pattern does happen in Latin, for example "Deus est".
A 1-1 accent pattern would be extremely rare in Latin, whereas it is quite common in English.
While I understand the problems surrounding the use of copyrighted translations, I have found from some personal experimentation that the Grail Psalms work very well with psalmtones – with accents (or shadow accents) coming regularly in groups of 2s and 3s – regardless of what one thinks of the actual translation. I believe I read that that was the impetus behind their existence in the first place.
Hopefully, through projects such as this, by the time the Revised Grail Psalms are released and their used mandated, interest in singing the Propers will have grown to the point that it would be cost-effective to publish them in this format.
But oh, that we wouldn't need to worry about copyright issues with liturgical translations!
Original anon here, and I completely agree, Adam. It is difficult to create a loving relationship between syllable stress, enunciation, and aural intelligibility.
The "equalist" recitation style to which you refer increases musicality but hampers intelligibility. Setting the music to enhance the natural stress can distort the musicality. Quite a conundrum!
In the original Latin, it isn't always easy to get the nuance right either, as the "monster truck" reciters demonstrate: "Lætatussuminhisquædictasunt mi-hi: IndomumDominiibi-mus"! Do they know that Latin has syntax, rises, falls, and breathing, too?
All that aside, I appreciate your efforts very much and applaud that you are thinking critically about all this.