There is no question that ICEL and the USCCB, and the Vatican as well, hope that the new Missal translation will be a time of musical reform as well. The chant-like musical settings of the Mass in the Missal have been public for a very long time now (that this link is nearly impossible to find on the ICEL website is surely not deliberate).
These are the settings that many Bishops and Church officials hope will become the default settings for all American parishes, the ones used at daily Masses and most Sunday Masses as well. The goal here is to have something like a nationally shared Mass setting that isn’t the “Mass of Creation.”
The CMAA has made a complete set of videos of this music available for everyone.
At the same time, ICEL/VOX/USCCB are not somehow restricting the rights of publishers to produce and market alternative settings of the texts, and this is precisely what GIA, OCP, and WLP have done.
What must annoy these companies in the extreme right now is that, apparently, and from what I can gather, they are not yet permitted to commercially distribute their settings because the final Missal has not been approved. The delays go on and on and on.
As a result, the companies seem to be doing everything they can do to market the settings without actually distributing them. They provide PDF previews. They provided MP3 recordings. They have interviews with the composers. They write about the merits of this one or that one. They can do anything but actually sell and distribute their music.
Therefore, right now, they are all under some kind of restriction, and you get statements such as this from GIA:
All pre-orders will be given first priority and will be shipped to you as soon as they become available for delivery. You will not be billed until your order has been shipped. Check out the rich variety of new and revised settings available from GIA and order yours TODAY!
And there is this from WLP:
VIEW and LISTEN to all the new and revised WLP Mass settings with the new English translation of The Roman Missal. Request a FREE copy of WLP Presents: Musical Settings of the Mass by calling 1-800-566-6150. All content pending final approval.
If you try to actually buy the sheet music, you discover that it is unavailable or listed as out of stock.
And here is something similar at OCP:
The USCCB has set the First Sunday of Advent, November 27, 2011 as the official implementation date for the new Roman Missal. This means you can now order the resources you need to learn, teach and implement the changes in your parish! Click on the links below to hear sound samples, preview sheet music, order accompaniments and read exclusive composer interviews to engage your community!
Once again, you have no luck if you actually try to buy any.
The restrictions are all apparently in place.
And yet there must be aspects of these restrictions that I do not understand because OCP is offering free downloads of its music in so-called Assembly editions. Here is Dan Schutte’s Mass of Christ the Savior, Estela García-López’s Misa St. Cecilia, Christopher Walkers’s Celtic Mass, and so on.
If GIA and WLP are also providing such complete Assembly editions, I’ve not yet found them. Even more than that, OCP is taking this a step further with a complete book for congregations that includes many of its to-be-published settings for $2.99. When I add to the cart, the software says it is in stock, a fact confirmed by an email that I received this morning from OCP that says: “Due to overwhelming response, we’ve sold out of our initial inventory. With more arriving by November 19th, now’s your chance to reserve your copy!”
So apparently, OCP has been publishing and distributing alternate music for the New Missal for some time. OCP also published some of its music earlier this year in its Today’s Liturgy publication.
I’m not at all sure that I understand what publishers can and cannot do right now and I’m not privy to any of the communications between ICEL and these publishers. Maybe there is a reason for all of this. I just do not know. It also would not surprise me to learn that there is some degree of confusion out there or that OCP is pushing the envelope just a bit in its own enterprising interests – and here again, I’m not objecting to such an approach but only drawing attention to the range of responses out there to restrictions which seems rather vague and with uncertain deadlines and finish lines.
1. Have someone write a Mass setting using the new text.
2. Instead of giving it away, as CMAA has done with it's other chant settings, try to SELL IT.
3. Wait. See what happens.
4. Publish your cease and desist letter here, for all to read.
And this is what happens when there is a clash between copyright, for-profit sales distribution, not-for-profit free distribution, official versions and commercially produced versions all mixed together. The lines become quite blurred and border on absurdity.
I have theorized that the purpose of this delay in approval is to encourage the learning of the ICEL Chant settings as they are the only available version to get started with. I also suggested that the approval might come SO LATE in the game that parishes will have to start with the ICEL settings. Whether that would be intentional is anybody's guess….
Doing what you want until busted for it is an ancient (well, 40 years) Catholic tradition. So I suspect that's what OCP is doing. And I suspect that Chironomo is right on what ICEL is doing.
this article sounds like a defense of WLP, OCP, and GIA and an attack on ICEL…or do i misunderstand?
I was able to purchase and download the sheet music for Proulx's Gloria Simplex from WLP, so not all their new translation catalog is restricted. Admittedly, it wouldn't break my heart if the revised Mass of Creation et al weren't readily available come Advent 2011.
Looking on OCP's website, I'm grateful that they are publishing a Mass setting by Luke Mayernik, and am pleased to see that Bob Hurd is revising his Missa Ubi Caritas. Hopefully he will set several more of the Eucharistic Prayers to the chant.
I'm sure I remember someone writing this before, so I don't take credit for the idea. But it seems to me, if the ICEL chant settings of the new Missal text stand a chance at being the new ubiquitous Mass setting in the US, as much as I aim for the idea of unaccompanied chant, there's going to need to be accompaniments written for them. And as much as I believe in the use of the organ over other instruments for liturgy, the accompaniment is going to need to be piano and guitar friendly. And set the chant melody to some kind of rhythm. I'm not saying such is ideal, but it would be a way for getting those melodies into everyone's heads in a style people are (for better or worse) currently conversant with. This way, when they go to a parish that uses the chant in the traditional way, maybe they'll have an epiphany.
I'd just like to comment on how the settings linked to in this post are still totally unusable for congregational singing. See: Schutte's "When We Eat.." and "Lamb of God," or Garcia-Lopez's "Gloria" and "Alleluia."
Really? These writers think that an apathetic congregation (made so by hearing this tripe for decades already) is going to hit those random leaps of a 5th or 6th? They're really going to get the off-beat rhythms in sync with one another?
This is what happens when the harmony precedes the melodic idea. What should be the most important aspect of "active participation" in congregational SINGING? Yes, the melody!
Yet here we get more of the same unusable melodies by the same composers who have ignored the irrefutable evidence that the holy men who write/wrote the whole liturgy that we celebrate find this type of music entirely unsuitable for liturgical use.
And so the world turns…
Rich: please don't tell us you REALLY think that chant can be accompanied by guitar or piano and actually sound authentic???
Anonymous: you are correct – TRIPE begets more TRIPE! May the Lord inspire composers to listen to the venerable holy men and imitate them in their new compositions.
RedCat, CAGO
"Rich: please don't tell us you REALLY think that chant can be accompanied by guitar or piano and actually sound authentic?"
Since nobody was taking YouTube videos before Cristofori or in the age of the lute, we have no traditional measuring stick for an authentic period sound of plainsong.
Good music, and this certainly includes chant, will perform well in most musical formats, assuming skilled musicians and quality instruments. A good case can be made that plainsong accompanied by piano, guitar, harp, or dulcimer, might be superior to the organ. Plucked percussion instruments offer a counterpoint to the human voice, a wind instrument.
Heaven forbid we should be chained to how they did it in 1550.
Todd, hang it up.
Last evening I heard an arrangement of a Chopin piano piece played by the Cincinnati Pops led by Eric Kunzel. Hordes of string players playing what were originally percussive piano chords. Miserable.
Chant is sustained tone and any accompaniment by piano, guitar, harp, or dulcimer imposes a rhythm upon the chant that is foreign to chant which has a rhythm, but one that comes out of the manner of singing.
To say that chant might be superior with your "case" is a silly as saying that the Church might be superior if we ordained women priests.
You are either with the program or against it. Since you are silly enough to try to fool people by saying that there is no traditional measuring stick can we trust anything that you say? The measuring stick does exist -the writings from that era. Show me a manuscript that raves over the glory of the chant accompanied by harp or any percussive instrument back then and I will back down.
You really, really need to spend some time studying and getting some background for your arguments – if you had you'd see that your comment about counterpoint totally negates everything you've tried to say.
Counterpoint and chant are not exactly in bed together.
Next you are going to argue that Bach's Unaccompanied works for violin and cello are superior when accompanied. Accompaniments have been written for them. Surprised that they are never heard on the radio?
"You are either with the program or against it."
On the other hand, we have Mark 9:38-40.
You obviously just prefer to hear the piano than the organ, so be upfront about it and stop making silly arguments. If you say, "Heaven forbid we should be chained to how they did it in 1550," then you contradict yourself when trying to make the argument that a guitar or piano would be "more authentic" for plainsong.
The contradiction is that you see using the organ as being chained to the past… yet if you argue (incorrectly) that a percussive stringed instrument is more authentic to plainsong, you are chaining us to the past!
That chaining of course assumes that it would indeed be more authentic, which it isn't, and here's why:
1. The term plainsong refers specifically to liturgical chants. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plainsong
2. The church wrote the chants, and the church has said time and time again that the organ is especially suited for accompaniment of the voice. We don't need to review the endless documents in support of that here, I'll just note that the organ is always referred to as a treasure of the church and the guitar or piano never even mentioned… except when St. Pius X banned it from liturgy.
But the piano would possibly be more authentic? I don't buy it. When the church that wrote the chants continually reaffirms in no uncertain wording that the organ is best, then we would be unreasonable to make any arguments to the contrary. When the composer specifies a piece to be played on the violin, do you instead pick up a flute and call it an authentic historical performance (rather than a transcription/arrangement)?
3. Gregorian chant comes from the 6th century A.D. and the organ's history goes back 900 years before that to the 3rd century B.C.! I promise you that they had organs during the origins of plainsong.
All of this is superfluous anyway since plainsong was originally unaccompanied. So to make any argument about an accurate "historical" accompaniment would be to ban all instruments from use with plainsong (works just fine for the Byzantines).
As the church moved forward, which you are obviously in support of based on your avoidance of being "chained to the past" (something none of us want), the organ came to use… and again, its liturgical superiority over all other instruments has been affirmed for centuries until this very day.
And a final comment, you misuse the term counterpoint. Timbre has nothing to do with counterpoint. Counterpoint can exist between different instruments, or different voices of the same instrument (on the keyboard). This does not necessarily mean different timbres (different organ stops, etc). See: The Well-Tempered Clavier. Counterpoint, with a single instrument & timbre.
What you refer to are the timbrel differences between piano and voice, which is actually why it is LESS suitable for chant than the organ.
Although the organ is also a wind instrument, it has a distinctly different timbre… many, actually… all different than the human voice.
It is more suitable for vocal accompaniment exclusively BECAUSE it is a wind instrument and capable of so much sustain.
A choral piece by Palestrina can have the same general effect if played on the organ, but certainly not on the piano. In this way, the sound of the organ mixed with voice is more authentic to an all-vocal ensemble than anything a percussive instrument could ever offer.
And after all, your whole point to begin with was making plainsong more authentic. A capella is authentic.
Actually, Ryan, I prefer ensembles of mixed instruments to any keyboard alone. I also never advanced an argument that my preferred instruments were "more authentic," only that they were superior if the judgment favors variety in timbre over a more homogeneous sound.
Pipe organs are not superior "liturgically," but only musically. They permit one person to accompany in such a way that no other single person or instrument can. But I would forward the notion that full ensembles are potentially an improvement over the pipe organ: not only can they function like the pipe organ, but they do so as an example of a cooperative community: different gifts being put to use for the greater good.
I believe it was RedCat who questioned the "authenticity" of chant accompanied by piano or guitar. I admit I'm less concerned about "authenticity" than I am about spiritual fruitfulness or musicality. There's no question that plainsong has adapted very well to all sorts of instrumentation from the modern symphony to single instruments like the harp or guitar. I'm most definitely not of the school to shut down my musical options. And if the pragmatic witness of composers like Vivaldi and Monteverdi are any indication, neither were they.
Aim high, no matter what the repertoire is, and aim with hope for good things.
For the record, I don't think that chant should be accompanied by piano. I do, however, think that Catholics who come to know (perhaps surreptitiously) chant that is accompanied by piano is better than having those same Catholics not even know how to sing a Chant Ordinary because a bunch of us purists discourage its use with piano – and so those music directors continue to lead their congregations in singing the revised version of Mass of Creation
Rich, I entirely agree. Make do with what is available.
Of course, this is the "spirit" of what Pius XII had in mind when he "allowed" the use of electronic organs in lieu of pipe, so long as it was offsetting the purchase/construction of a proper instrument for the church. Instead, we have a banned instrument as the most popular in American Catholic parishes.
The reason I mention this is that there is very clearly a lot of great liturgical music that music directors can "make do" with which is free and easy to find. Yet look at how they "make do:: Spirit and Song. Gather. Etc.
If you give these sorts of people an inch, they'll ignore the whole Vatican and the man with silly hats who runs the whole thing.
Todd, the number of musicians involved is not even remotely an issue brought up in the favorite papal documents in support of its use. Way to grab for straws.
And please compare yourself to Vivaldi in private. It's embarrassing when you do it in front of other people.
Ryan, Happy Friday to you, too. I don't need papal documents from any era to work with choirs or ensembles or parishes of any size. None of us need permission to wave our hand or play a note of any sort.
I might also suggest a measure of reading comprehension: there is a distinction when a person admires musicians and composers of distinction. I'd even give you allowances for wearing bow ties … if that was your fashion preference.
"I don't need papal documents from any era to work with choirs or ensembles or parishes of any size. None of us need permission to wave our hand or play a note of any sort."
True, but the liturgy is something entirely different than just getting together and playing some notes. If we wish to celebrate the Catholic liturgy, there are some very clear guidelines on how music fits into the celebration… it's purpose, effect on the faithful, and what is appropriate. Considering that none of us here wrote the liturgy, none of us here have the authority to say "I do what I want" and ignore the documents of the church. Not even papal, but conciliar, documents make it just as clear. Pride of place, etc.
Let's be very clear that everyone can play whatever sort of music they'd like to on whatever instrument in whatever sort of ensemble… on their own time. When we celebrate the Roman Catholic mass, we need to play by the house rules.
I had to wear a bow tie as part of the uniform (costume) for a secular choir I once worked for. It was the worst experience of my life.
"True, but the liturgy is something entirely different … there are some very clear guidelines on how music fits into the celebration"
Oh, I agree. I think you'll find that even musicians here have transgressed on rubrics, not just guidelines. I think they might do it in the name of a greater good. But we all make choices.
Being a musician criticized in the past for bringing up rubrics and the GIRM here, I'll state that no Church guideline guarantees I'll be handed a competent organist. The Church permits me other instruments. So I utilize their talents.
One example: I can find very good pianists in much greater number than decent organists. The bottom line is that the Mass is sung. The people participate. None of my parishes have ever settled for second-best, and I always hear full-throated singing from both pews and choir. And I usually do it with ensembles.
Thanks for taking the discussion temp down a few notches.
Throwing in a bible quote is such a cheap shot.
You have a very limited view of what church music should and could be, which is unfortunately encouraged by the church. For so many it's all about what's new, what's novel, what can we do now to liven things up.
For centuries the goal was to carry on tradition and try to meet the standards of those who have gone before us. Today it's all too often, do what we like and break new ground. Be on the cutting edge.
Can spinning disco balls and fog machines be next?
Really, the arguments you present are cruel and unusual punishment to those who just want to be faithful to the church. But they do increase readership and a chance for us to convert more to the cause (notice, it is not OUR cause) so please, don't stop.
" I don't need papal documents from any era to work with choirs or ensembles or parishes of any size. None of us need permission to wave our hand or play a note of any sort."
Once again, foolishness. You may NOT wave a hand or play a note without the permission of the priest. And he, though you are unwilling to be part of the overall plan of responsibility that a parish musician has to the church, is the church over you as a church musician.
Subsidiarity is an important part of the Catholic church.
" … such a cheap shot."
Well, besides being a winner, it was germane to your point.
"You have a very limited view …"
Actually, it's quite clear to everybody else I have a much wider view. That's what so many CMAA folks object to: in addition to chant and polyphony, I program, play, and enjoy many other styles.
"You may NOT wave a hand or play a note without the permission of the priest…"
That's just the thing, isn't it? I've had regular employment for over two decades by pastors who told me to do my best for them and the parishes I've served within the Church's rubrics and guidelines. My last serious job search netted fourteen interviews out of twenty applications, and I cut off the job offers when I accepted number 3. Clearly, lots of pastors and parishes are looking for the leadership I have to offer.
I am sure that their are many priests who are thrilled to have a person who is more than willing to do the music the people want – there are some in this diocese as well, including the one who hired a woman who cannot read music to be director of music of the cathedral.
But I doubt that you would find employment here, for example:
http://www.ktotv.com/videos-chretiennes/emissions/nouveautes/ceremonie-a-rome-consistoire-pour-la-creation-des-nouveaux-cardinaux/00054368
Tell me if I am wrong….
Why is it that so many people think that doing what they want to do and reading into the church documents a justification for what they do is a just thing?
The US is really, really bedeviled by weak priests and bishops who are more interested in pleasing people and themselves instead of trying to be models of what the church calls for?
"The US is really, really bedeviled by weak priests and bishops who are more interested in pleasing people and themselves instead of trying to be models of what the church calls for?"
And the alternative is clergy who would be more interested in pleasing you?
I have no idea why your diocesan music director suddenly appears in this discussion. I can read music, play about a half dozen instruments competently, I have a theology degree, and I program everything from plainsong to praise-and-worship music, depending on the setting. The main difference between you and I lies along not the spectrum of trained musician and patzer. (I suspect we both are close to the former.) The difference is that you seem to have planted your flag on one hill, and I'm more comfortable moving around from place to place–whatever the Gospel calls for.
I have nothing else to contribute to this discussion.
The US church is aptly named.
Why has the Vatican stopped visiting choirs from singing "everything from plainsong to praise-and-worship music" and insists on polyphony and chant?
We do not err by conforming to the Vatican's lead. We err by doing what we program "depending on the setting." The readings of the liturgy are never changed depending on the setting but are specified by the church. The music once was as well and once again will be.
There are those who do not agree with Rome on many things, including music. Should they be leading worship in parishes?
I am disappointed that when confronted with the music at the Vatican yesterday, a rather standard Roman Catholic church setting, you decide to drop out of the discussion. It is difficult to understand why US Catholic musicians choose to snub the Holy Father.
"I am disappointed … you decide to drop out of the discussion."
Really?
You shouldn't be surprised. Why not go back to look at your posts here and ask yourself if your main concern was music why you got personal from the start and why you brought in topics like women's ordination and your diocesan director's musical abilities, and disco balls and such?
Who would want to have a serious conversation with a person who lobs everything on his front porch into the exchange?
I doubt that we have much in common and, living in Tennessee, it is a requirement that at least one large white appliance, often non-functioning, be placed prominently on the front porch as a design feature.
When making musical decisions for any service, performance, get-together, the decisions made must separate the personal musical desires of the planner from what is appropriate for the group. Not enjoyable and not "something I have always wanted to do" no matter how tempting. If I am on a hill with a flag it is a flag that says that I have made the decision that says that I have joined the pilgrimage to reform the music in the Catholic church away from the direction of the major US Catholic publishing houses and instead following Benedict's instruction to put polyphony and chant back in their place.
And any talk of preserving the drivel that passes for music in most churches is not to be joined by polyphony and chant, but to be replaced. Move it, like the guitar Masses of the 1970's, to a separate time rather than ripping it away from people who have nothing else, but make the "normal" Mass times full of the music of the church rather than the people and then let the people decide.
While there are those in your situation, as it appears to be, that may fear this, chant is not hard to learn and polyphony is approachable as well. This way you'd still have a job but also still get to play and sing the music that you like at one Mass.
US churches took that music to Rome for many years and Benedict heard it there and now has banned it. If that's not enough to impress upon you and others the error of following the leadership of OCP and others, there may be no hope.
PDFTT
Noel,
When did Benedict explicitly ban that music from the Vatican? Any news or quotes on it?
I don't mean to doubt you or the story, I'd just love a source on this as it is most fascinating and great "ammo" for discussions with the Todds of our local parishes.
These norms were approved by the Most Reverend Archpriest of the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter in an audience of 17 December 2006 and he has mandated their publication.
Msgr. Tarcisio Cola
Canon of St. Peter’s
NORMS
FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF CHOIRS
IN THE CAPITULAR MASS
IN THE PAPAL BASILICA OF ST. PETER IN THE VATICAN
1. The Musical Chapel of the Papal Basilica of St. Peter is happy to welcome ‘guest’
choirs who wish to animate the Liturgy. They must demonstrate their suitability and
be able to guarantee a quality of song that is worthy of it surroundings.
2. The Musical Chapel of St. Peter’s Basilica follows the norms of the Magisterium of
the Church regarding liturgical song, and especially the Chirograph of John Paul II
and the latest pronouncements of Benedict XVI in the matter of liturgical music.
3. The liturgy is celebrated in the Latin language, according to the Roman Rite. Gregorian
chant has first place. The guest choir is expected to chant the Ordinary of Holy Mass
in alternation with the Musical Chapel of the Basilica.
4. As a general norm, the chants from the Ordinary to be executed are:
Sundays of Advent: Missa XVII Credo IV
Sundays of Christmas: Missa IX Credo IV
Sundays of Lent: Missa XVII Credo IV
Sundays of Easter: Missa I Credo III
Sundays of Ordinary Time: Missa XI Credo I
Feasts of Ordinary Time: Missa VIII Credo III
Feasts of the B.V. Mary: Missa IX Credo IV
Feasts of the Apostles: Missa IV Credo III
5. The guest choir may sing:
– at the Entrance procession until the moment when the celebrant reaches the altar.
The Gregorian Introit is sung by the Musical Chapel of the Basilica.
– at the preparation of the gifts and relative offertory,
– at Communion, after the Gregorian antiphon has been sung,
– at the end of Mass, after the Blessing.
The program of music must follow the Liturgy of the day and will be agreed upon
with and approved by the Choirmaster.
6. Singing in St. Peter’s is a stupendous prospect: all those who wish to do so may apply
to the Chapel Prefect, in full freedom, without restrictions on the part of any
organization, travel agency, or other. The application, which will be vetted by the
Choirmaster, is to be sent if possible along with some recordings useful for verifying
the qualifications of the choir and with a proposal of songs for the liturgy in which
the choir is requesting to participate.
7. Participation in the Capitular Mass is free of charge. Nonetheless, the Chapter of St.
Peter’s Basilica accepts with gratitude the free offerings of guest choirs who wish to
participate in maintaining quality liturgical service in the Basilica. An official receipt
will be issued.
These norms were approved by the Most Reverend Archpriest of the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter in an
audience of 17 December 2006 and he has mandated their publication.
Msgr. Tarcisio Cola
Canon of St. Peter’s