Matthew Baute has posted a year’s worth of accompanied communion propers in modern notes, performed in a style familiar to many people, but with an eye toward the transitioning toward sacred music. The collection is put together under the influence of Fr. Samuel Weber.
Although I appreciate the intention and effort, and this maybe a transitional step, it makes me wonder this kind of lounge-style music should be used for sacred texts(this is not even contemporary hymn texts)for Holy Mass. I listen to the audio and couldn't concentrate on the text, because the style of music just reminds me of someplace else, bars, elevators… anywhere else but church.
The casual style music has already played an important role in leading many people to approach Holy Eucharist very casually. Should this kind of music style be encouraged in Holy Mass, so the singing of propers become popular?
The style issues MUST be addressed. This is one reason I favor square notes.
I don't know if the original anonymous writer listened to the entire set, but many of them are reminiscent of the Respond and Acclaim psalms and aren't especially offensive. The Ash Wednesday setting is quite solemn.
We used Adam Bartlett's Simple English Propers with our own organ accompaniments at Midnight Mass. For the sake of time, I wrote a sheet in round notes for the organist and added appropriate supporting chords. There doesn't seem to be much difference between our approach and Baute's; granted, we didn't use piano or guitar.
I also have no interest in critiquing Mr. Baute's efforts. I listened only to the "introit" for today's Feast. I believe that these sorts of well intentioned forays actually exist randomly in many locales by many local writers. And they have a sort of "merry-go-round" similarity that bespeaks a sort of earnest, but simplistic compositional ethos. This has been the case, to my experience, since Ray Repp reminisced his seminary days with his "Benedicamus" project.
At Intensive Ed Schaefer begged the question "When does the gateway actually lead to the implementation of the genuine practice? (paraphrase) That is no small question to ponder. Allowing for Active Participation, or even FCAP as the objective, can contrived emulative settings actually be counterproductive to the acknowledgement of the veracity of the original settings in the GR? As was discussed at length with Dr. Mahrt, aren't there differences in intent between Mr. Baute's "solution" (or other R&A types) and the extant chants or closer cousins, including SEP?
Another fairly decades' old nit to pick, one that even Tom Conry was keen enough to admit: don't these studio-exacted models, with the intimate kiss the microphone, breathy vocals, pose an extremely artificial and inefficient guide to actual live performance modality?
As most of us know, you have to have to have been near or at the summit of the mountain to know the worth of the effort of making that ascent.
These kinds of efforts, laudible to a mean extent, just remain efforts at circling the mountain's diameter at a much more comfortable height.
I guess it depends on your view point. I'm a "right text first" kind of guy. Yodel the propers with a steel drum band accompaniment if that's the only way to get them done in your parish.
Maybe it would be better to use the existing Gregorian tones for the Psalm verses (those which have cadences suitable to English) in order to facilitate eventual transition to real Gregorian Chant if occasion presents.
As to the self-made antiphons, I know that they are allowed under "alius cantus aptus" clause, but still …. BTW, under IGMR, they should be approved by the bishops' conference, shouln't they?
Andris,
Settings of antiphon texts found in the Gregorian Missal, the Graduale Romanum, or the Graduale Simplex don't have to be approved–only the texts of alius cantus aptus.
That said, I haven't looked to see where Baute's texts originated.
The style problem that Jeffrey made note of above goes deeper than most imagine.
The "call for full, active, conscious participation", at least as has come to be understood by most, is at the root of the problem. Since the early 70's, it has touched off a frantic search for the "Holy Grail of Community Song"… that type of music, that style, that instrumentation that will suddenly and magically cause everyone in the pews to rise to their feet and sing with the gusto of a crowd at a Tent Revival. It hasn't happened and…. News Flash…. it isn't going to happen.
Setting the communion propers to P&W style music is a worthwhile effort if the goal is to gradually turn the faithful's expectations to having sung propers. I'm not sure that I see how this will be accomplished though. With rare exceptions (and they are rare… very rare), the faithful in the pews at most Teen Masses, P&W Masses or whatever you may call them, sit and listen to the "Praise Group" sing the songs at Mass. They may mouth the words, or mumble in an almost inaudible effort, but they by and large just watch and listen. If the music is changed to the actual proper texts set to contemporary sounds, they will watch and listen to that. They won't "sing the propers" as a result of the effort any more than they will sing "Now is the Time To Worship" or "Breathe". They are being presented with better texts to listen to, and for that reason it may be a step in the right direction.
My point is this… that "call for full, active, conscious participation", if understood to mean that the goal is to produce vigorous and enthusiastic singing by the assembly, is an unrealistic goal, and the pursuit of it has caused extensive damage to the liturgy with very little to show for it.
In my experience, I have heard the faithful sing enthusiastically (and audibly) in only a few instances:
The chanted Tantum Ergo on Holy Thursday while processing to the Reposition of the Blessed Sacrament (try it…amazing results).
The chanted "Our Father" during Mass (it is the most enthusiastically sung music during Mass, hands down).
The chanted "O Salutaris" we sing every day during Exposition. Ditto for the Tantum Ergo at Benediction.
On Marian feast days, we chant the "Salve Regina" at the conclusion of Mass (sort of in place of a recessional hymn). Again, it is the most enthusiastically sung selection at Mass after the Our Father.
Unfortunately, the advocates of FACP seem to dismiss the obvious and feel that this is not participation, but rather a "rote repeating of something these folks learned as children". I have heard some comment that they have no idea what they are singing. I would strongly beg to differ. So long as the effort continues to find that "magic music" that will fulfill the FACP dream, the actual music that can accomplish that goal will be sidelined.
Chiro-
YES!
Concert-style contemporary music is at least as (sometimes moreso) elitists and anti-congregational as melismatic chant or sacred polyphony. What's worse, is that with some doing, you can teach amateurs how to sing chant and choral music decently well, but without some innate "star-power," the pop stuff can never be taught.
If you want more congregational singing, adding more instruments will never be the answer.
Adam, I feel it appropriate to point out something that I finally "got" at Intensive last week, and that cross-refers to your exchange with "John" at MSF. (And being just ahead of you in the learning curve.)
Dr. Mahrt precisely and elegantly presented an exegesis of the purpose for melismatic chant and polyphony in the gradual, alleluia, tract and sequence last week that BENEFITS the congregation's participation. Of course, the difference of POV and point of departure with FCAP advocates is as long and wide as the Mississippi, and I don't see a point to discussing it now.
I'd be careful of characterizing melismatic chant and polyphony as being in the same boat with P&W as essentially "anti-congregational."
Charles;
I would hope that you know me well enough at least to know that I don't necessarily agree with Adam on his one point although he uses my argument to support it! I was trying to make the point that chant is actually better suited to assembly participation than is concert-style Praise and Worship music, and further that it doesn't have to overcome the obstacle of justifying it's suitability to the liturgy.
That is an important point that seems to be absent from many discussions… P&W (and much contemporary liturgy music as well) has to overcome an enormous obstacle in justifying why it is suitable for liturgy… historically in the past 50-100 years, music other than chant and polyphony have relied on the "assembly participation" argument to overcome that obstacle – "It may not be what the church calls for, but at least people will sing!". My point is that such an argument is hollow; it does no such thing. All that happens is the "Schola" becomes an "Ensemble" or "Band" or whatever, and sings something else for the faithful to listen to. The question we have to ask, is "What exactly SHOULD they be listening to"?. Is the good feeling we supposedly get from at least TRYING to get them to sing enough to continue justifying following a failed model?
I don't know that what is presented really counts as P&W, but rather settings made accessible to those who routinely perform in a more contemporary idiom. What's more, they're easy, enjoyable, and quality music.
I really must agree with Adam that style is secondary. What this promotes is the idea that there is something particular you should do at Mass. It discourages musicians used to a status quo from "picking the music", or allowing the monthly magazine to tell them what to do. Once they get used to the concept of a proper text to be sung at Mass, we can lecture them about the proper repertoire. But getting them used to the idea that there are ideals far greater than "my favorite song" is a huge hurdle, and I think this is the resource to defeat that very problem.
Gavin;
As I said (and have said for years…): If the purpose of such a project is to make that transition, I'm all for it. But as has also been said several times already in this thread – style does matter, and not always just for reasons of taste or preference. Once the musicians you speak of come to the realization that there are important and specified texts for the Mass, the choice that will then present itself is between the contemporary settings of the Proper texts, and the traditional settings, or chant settings in English. At that point, when the texts are identical, how is one going to avoid the very obvious fact that the style (contemporary vs. traditional) is the defining characteristic of one choice over another? If and when we would reach such a point, there will still be a divide between contemporary and tradional musical styles, and I would doubt that there will be advocates on either side who will breathe a sigh of relief and say "There, now it doesn't matter whether we sing the traditional chant or the contemporary settings."
I don't think melismatic chant is anti-congregational. It is clearly anti-congregation-is-going-to-sing-this-particular-piece. That was my only intention with that, and to point out that rock-concert music has a similar effect. The discussion on whether that effect matters is another point altogether. I just think it's important to deal with "contemporary" music on its own terms (how it fails its own goals) before moving on to the larger problems (how those might have been the wrong goals in the first place).
As to the point- text first, regardless of style…
Right now, there is an infinite number of options. If everyone HAD to do Proper texts, regardless of style, the number of options would drop, and the egregious theological goofiness of vernacular pop songs would be contained (a bit). Some parishes would do pop-infused Propers, others the SEP, other the Graduale- but at least we'd all be singing the same (good) text. And music directors would be nearly forced to at least expose themselves to better music, because they would have a specific agenda (must find setting of propers, must find setting of propers…). While advocating for such a situation might impede the ideological purity of Musica Sacra folks, it is highly unlikely that it will impede or delay any parish moving toward the "ideal" of full Gregorian Propers from the Graduale.
As to the style of the Propers presented here- definitely not P&W. However, after listening some other music at this composer's site, it's clear he is steeped in the P&W style, so I assume he would know what would float with that crowd. And if he thinks they'd go for this, I say- WAY BETTER THAN "SHINE JESUS SHINE!"
JH, I'm in your amen corner.
That's why I mentioned earlier Ed Schaefer's calling into question the strategy of so-called "gateway" or transitional strategies as to whether their nature, or "style," inevitably leads to the authentic "real McCoy" given principle place at service by authoritative legislation. Dcn. Dr. Schaefer's question was offered in response to my question about whether there is a sort of "endgame" objective, that is either embraced by one contingent of church musicians or villified by another.
In my practice, I have rotated introits, offertorios and communios from the GM, Richard Rice's SCG, Bruce Ford's AG and Paul Ford's BFW. And on a couple of occasions, Weber and Anglican Use propers. I think most of us would agree that these sources (not the GM, of course) still adhere to a musical ethos in concert with that legislation. There is a semblance of universality that those sources maintain that addresses more than the textual proprieties of the propers. So, even though in some parishes that, for example, would choose to implement the ICEL chant ordinary and Adam's SEP's but might never have the resources or will to cross fully over to the Roman Gradual, their practices would still present the native culture we know as Roman Catholic.
I've rightly taken some criticism from some composer friends for that opinion being mistaken for derision of other stylistic projects to set propers, such as Psallite and a collection being unveiled by GIA. But a set of propers in the ubiquitous "Respond and Acclaim" school of composition, to me, satisfies the letter of the law, but not the spirit. And I'm not demeaning Alstott or anybody else's work by stating that opinion. Au contraire, I'll defend its utility as a virtue.
But, as a DM in a huge parish (of four churches) I believe, and the canon calls for, at least one Sunday Mass be designated a Solemn, or at least Principle Mass. And the culture of that Mass should be rooted firmly to the clearly heirarchical aspects called for in the prevailing documents.
HOW we pray matters as much as what we pray. It truly reveals our attitude towards Holy Sacrifice in the liturgy.
When I asked children whether we could sing songs about God to something like cartoon tunes, of course they all said 'no' and laughed to such a silly question. But one kid in the front surprised me quietly by saying that it's same as calling God's name in vain.
If we sing sacred texts to tunes like from soap operas, it's a true mockery to His Sacrifice.
There was a bit of scandal recently on a potential super bowl commercial that showed Catholic Eucharist with new flavors of consecrated host and wine, torito and Pepsi. The priests and people were happy, and the attendance of the parish increased and so on. (The Pepsi and torito company sent emails of apology and promised not to air it after many people signed and sent emails of protest.)
Of course, secular world doesn't understand the Holy Eucharist, but it seems to me that how WE
Catholics approach the Holy Eucharist is a main cause for such mockery and disrespect, and the casual style of contemporary music in the liturgy cannot escape the blame.
Most of us take time to teach our children how to pray properly. Church musicians, and especially music directors, we are leading our fellow parishioners to pray in a higher level. Do we take time to teach them pray properly through music even it takes time, or aim only for instant successes?
Thank you to everyone for this lively discussion. FYI, the antiphon texts are verbatim from the 2008 edition of the forthcoming Missal translation. Lots of rework to be done when the final version is released. As this resource will be freely distributed over the Internet, GIA has given me permission to use gratis the Revised Grail Psalter for the verses.
My intent with this project is most certainly NOT to set the Communion antiphons in a Praise & Worship style. I thought the simple recordings were sung in a solemn style, but after reading the comments and re-listening to a few tracks, it's apparent I didn't achieve that. I can hear too much emotion and breathiness as well (old habits die hard). I will re-record for more accurate performance practice after I re-set the final texts. If you can ignore the recordings at this point, I would ask you to consider the melodies themselves in the scores.
The main goal of this project is to reach those musicians for whom the Graduale Romanum and Graduale Simplex are inaccessible due to language and notation (a huge majority of parish musicians today). This work is a resource to help them be more faithful in singing the official liturgical texts of the Church on a given Sunday. With the forthcoming translation, I thought it an opportune time to set and promote use of the newly-translated texts, as Fr. Weber is also doing. My experience as a parish Director of Music is that many of these musicians will not give the Simple English Propers the chance it deserves because of the Gregorian notation. I hope that providing a resource in modern notation with chordal accompaniment will enable them to make a big step in the right direction. By no means do I think this is the end goal, but I heartily agree with the commenter who stated that singing these texts rather than “Shine Jesus Shine” or “Sing a New Church Into Being” is a huge improvement. Consider SEP in modern notation with chordal accompaniment. That's much more of what I'm going for.
I'm grateful for what the Lord has done in my own heart over the past few years, from singing P&W and mainstream publisher music to leading our parish schola – we sang “Dominus dixit ad me” for midnight Mass this year. (if there's hope for me…) I look forward to attending this summer's Colloquim, as I have much to learn. But how to best address the members of the “contemporary choir” or the adult choir, whose members have no interest in joining the schola? This Advent / Christmas they sang the official Communion antiphons in a chant style with simple accompaniment. Now they know the Church asks more of them. In Lent I could propose that our choir directors use the SEP, but I suspect they will resent it – after all they're not in the chant schola, and it is in Gregorian notation – this will be the perception. Definitely some education needs to happen in the midst of all this.
To speak to Charles' metaphor of the mountain, the air is rare and thin at the top where everyone chants from the Graduale Romanum. I'll be happy if a project like this can bring people higher up the mountain so that their lungs can get acclimated.
Again, I'm grateful for this avenue for sharing and learning, and I appreciate the discussion.
Thank you for the comment, Mr. Baute. It certainly is a good news that many people are trying hard to bring back singing Propers to the liturgy. But I feel that if music directors feel that they need to have modern notation, instead of chant notation, to sing something like SEP or other chants, it would be better that they convert them themselves and give it to their choir members. Certainly those music directors who are interested in singing chant style would probably want to sing it in a better manner. Books like 'The Parish Book of Chant' explains the basics of reading the chant notation in the back of the book. Even if you one cannot sing it from right away, it might not be so hard to convert the notation. (It might just take sometime.) If you can read modern notation, it's not so hard to read chant notation either. Modern notation came from the 4-line staff anyway.
Also they should be careful about how they sing the chant from modern notation, so melody doesn't sound like the succession of 'lined-up staffless note-heads' (pretty dull, I would say. I heard many professional singers sing this way, although they usually cover up with their beautiful voices.) So the directors have to somehow demonstrate to them. That means the directors at least should have some basic knowledge of singing chant notation before they give the music in the modern notation to the singers. If the music doesn't sound beautiful, they would not want to sing it anyways whether it's in the modern or chant notation.
Some of my schola members who never learned to read music before are learning it pretty quickly. Eventually I hope music directors will inspire their choir members to learn chant notation and give their best to our Lord.
Mia
Good on ye, Matthew Baute, for your effort and gift to God's glory. And your willingness to share the intent,strategy and goals of your project here is much appreciated. Side issue, just to get it out of the way, my commentary about proper settings with R&A attributes was not referring to your project.
I believe we've been engaged, not only in the last half century, with the connundrum of quantity of new composition glut in the marketplace of ideas and creativity. And, truth be told, there is no truly simple solution to the glut of consumerist product.
That said, I appreciate your candor and ownership of your efforts. God bless.