I found this commentary interesting as a window into how an evangelical might think about Gregorian chant. To most Catholics, this commentary will seem silly or naive or historically inaccurate, but, as I say, it is helpful to understand how other faith traditions regard this music.
The Joy of Chant
Ask a kid what’s fun to do and it’s unlikely you’ll get the answer, “Learning Gregorian chant.” But about 40 kids in Ave Maria are having a ball learning to sing the medieval liturgical music.
They’re doing it using a type of instruction called the Ward Method, which uses exercises and fun to learn music.
At their first practice Wednesday night in the choir loft of the Ave Maria Oratory, it was hard to tell who was having more fun – the kids or their teacher, Jennifer Donelson, who energetically worked the children through a program of both physical and musical exercises to develop their sense of pitch and rhythm.
Dr. Donelson is so enthusiastic about the class that to do it, she’s driving once a week across the Florida panhandle from her home near Ft. Lauderdale, where she teaches music at Nova Southeastern University.
Read the article in the Ave Herald
Vigilate!
For years, this has been my top favorite Byrd Motet. Here is another performance online.
I’m just not that into chant
Here is a question I was asked this morning:
What if the people (even the clergy) find the chant distracting or boring; then it serves no real liturgical purpose at all. Chant in this case is not achieving the prime aim the Church has asked of liturgical music – “its proper aim is to add greater efficacy to the text, in order that through it the faithful may be the more easily moved to devotion and better disposed for the reception of the fruits of grace belonging to the celebration of the most holy mysteries”
This critique of chant could also be made of the entire Divine Office and the Mass too. What if prayers they don’t move a particular people to devotion? What if a group says that this arrangement of set prayers do not dispose them better toward the sacraments? For that matter, what if someone says that the sacraments aren’t so great either? Many people do not like prayer either. Should we consider getting rid of them too? In this case, the entire religion becomes shaped by the community’s subjective preferences.
The liturgy knows something that the complainers may not know. No everyone is prepared to appreciate what the Church has to offer in any aspect of its belief and practices. In that case, what is needed is conversion and formation. The primacy of form in the liturgy is wiser than any critic. The suggestion that the liturgy better prepares people presumes that people are properly formed to accept that preparation.
Simple Propers for the 23nd Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C
Last week the Chant Café began an Experiment in Sacred Music Resource Production with an aim toward the singing of propers. There has been quite a response so far to this call for an open source effort that has the potential to create something “bigger than the sum of its parts” and to perhaps assist in bringing the singing of the proper texts of the Mass into the liturgical celebrations of ordinary parishes.
Click here to download simple settings of the proper for the Twenty Third Sunday in Ordinary Time.
We are calling this an “experiment” for many reasons. One reason is that we are taking a very non-conventional approach to the creation of liturgical music resources–a team of committed voluteers are busy working, at this very moment, on a database of liturgical source texts for the singing of the the Introit, Offertory and Communion chants. (There is still room for more to join in the effort!)
The second reason why this is an “experiment” is because we are not quite sure what the best solution will be for the parish that is beginning to sing propers for the first time.
Last week we posted some sample settings of the precessional propers for the 22nd Sunday of Ordinary Time.
This week we have a new batch of samples that we would like to present, and we invite you to take a look at them, sing through them, even sing them in this weekend’s liturgy, email them to friends, and, most importantly, share some feedback here in the comment box on what you think of them.
If you are in a parish that sings more elaborate musical settings of the Mass proper, even the Gregorian propers, fantastic! But think of the parish down the road that sings four hymns or songs out of the Gather Book, or the Music Issue–Would any of these settings of the proper be a practical solution for them if they were to sing this weekend’s communion antiphon? Maybe you could email them this PDF file and see what they think. Maybe they’ll give it a shot this weekend.
Here’s a quick look at a few of the samples that we put together this week:
First we have a few simple Gregorian psalm tones. Fortunately the English texts this week have mostly Latin-esque terminations. This makes for easy use of the Gregorian tones. When the ends of lines end with words like “God” or “Lord” (i.e. the final syllable carries a hard accent, which is likely 75% of the time in English) then using the Gregorian tones effectively becomes much more tricky. Still this could be a very practical way for parishes to begin singing the propers in a way that is deeply rooted in the Gregorian tradition.
Next we have a few English antiphons using Gregorian “solemn tones”. These are the tones found in the Graduale Romanum which are intended to be used with Gregorian Introits and Communions. That these are a bit more ornate makes them slightly easier to use with English texts, although problems do often occur with them. The effect here seems very nice to my ear. The question might be raised, though, as to whether this would be too difficult for the singers of an average parish today.
Then we have an Introit and Communion that are set to melodic formulas that were composed by myself and Fr. Columba Kelly, OSB. These are experimental formulas and we hope to compose several more in the 8 modes. The goal in this approach is to develop a set of melodic formulas that are composed from the conventions of the Gregorian musical language, and that will work very effectively with the cadence patterns of the English language. The overall melodic shape is something like an Office antiphon, and although they make great use of reciting tones, the effect is more like an antiphon than a psalm tone. The formulas can be applied to any English text and the hope is that the melodies are learned well once, and when they are used with different texts the melody will be intuitively recalled by the singer. So with a set of 8, 16, 24 or these melodies a parish could sing all of the Mass proper with formulas that they only have to learn once. I’m very excited to do some more experimentation with this model. So far I’m very happy with the results. What do you think?
Compare these with one of last week’s Introits which used the same Mode 1 formula, along with a few other Mode 2 settings that utilize the same melodic formula:
Lastly, we have two examples that use St. Meinrad Tones. These tones are very simple and work well with English texts 100% of the time. They do not follow the traditional 2-part arrangement of the Gregorian psalm tones, but are expandable for up to 6-lines of text, with a different melodic formula for each line. This works well with the “Hebrew” grouping of the psalms that is found in the Grail Psalter, and the forthcoming Revised Grail. The overall shape of an antiphon, using these tones, is similar to the melodic formulas described above. There is an overall “Roman” arch in the melody, with the typical Gregorian melodic “swirling” along the way. I am very satisfied with the result of this approach. It offers an ultra-simple method for parishes who would like to begin singing the propers, is rooted deeply in Gregorian modality, and it works instantly and very intuitively with the termination structures of the English language. What do you think of these?
And very lastly, the psalm tones for the verses are composed by Fr. Samuel Weber, OSB. These are similar to the St. Meinrad Tones, but arranged for the traditional 2-line layout of the psalms. These are even simpler than the Meinrad tones, are firmly rooted in Gregorian modality, are quite beautiful yet are incredibly easy to sing. These tones are also used in the Mundelein Psalter. Using these tones with the above antiphon settings allows for a nice contrast between antiphon and verse and seems like a very good solution especially for the parish that is singing the propers for the first time.
Please share your thoughts! What would be most effective for your parish, or the parishes you know? Feedback is very welcome!
These musical samples use texts that are in the public domain and Creative Commons.
Psalm tones for the verses are by Fr. Samuel Weber, OSB, and some of the antiphons are set to “St. Meinrad Psalm Tones”, property of St. Meinrad Archabbey, all rights reserved. Licensed in the Creative Commons.
Psalm tones for the verses are by Fr. Samuel Weber, OSB, and some of the antiphons are set to “St. Meinrad Psalm Tones”, property of St. Meinrad Archabbey, all rights reserved. Licensed in the Creative Commons.
Kyrie in 1904
IdleSpeculations offers a tribute to Msgr. Perosi, the director of the Sistine Chapel choir back in the day when Pope Pius X issued his Motu Proprio on sacred music. As part of the post, which has some wonderful material, we are given a link to a 1904 recording of Kyrie VIII – not very artful singing but consider the technology – this is not a live space – and perhaps but styles change over time. It is a very interesting audio file – here is a direct link.
A Case for the Voice Alone
Quite often people send me queries about what instruments are permitted and what instruments are forbidden at Mass. This is the way the message begins but then there is often a followup, usually concerning a specific (sad) situation that has come up in a parish or seminary setting. The organ is neglected as the piano is brought front and center. Or a new guitar player is permitted to do his thing during Mass.
These are often cries of desperation, stemming from an intuition that something is going wrong and surely there must be some rules governing this situation, something to cite to say no. It is not always about trying to push music in a more traditional direction. In one case this past year, a leader of a praise team found herself annoyed that a bongoist insisted on joining the group but she didn’t want him. She hoped for some legislation that would disallow bongos but permit extended soloing on praise music with piano accompaniment. I could cite no such legislation.
The situation just isn’t that simple. It isn’t just a matter of placing all instruments in the category of “permitted” or “forbidden.” Church legislation is pretty clear that the organ is favored, occupying an exalted place among liturgical instruments. But current legislation does not ban other instruments. Most anything is permitted as a technical matter, but the problem with this focus is that it hones in on the letter rather than the spirit.
I won’t comment on the possibilities for the bongos – I seriously doubt that there are any – but I can imagine situations in which the guitar would actually be an improvement on the piano. Now, to be sure, I’m devoted to the piano as a solo instrument. But it is a percussion instrument, with hammers that hit keys, and this sound alone cuts against the style of sacred music which is always toward a constant upward elevation, as modeled by the style of plainsong. Our cultural associations with the piano range from dramatic symphonic settings to lounge environments; liturgy is not really part of that association. While the guitar might have an improved sound over the piano, it too has cultural associations that do not make it a natural partner with the liturgical sound.
There is a strong case for the organ but my own preference is to use it as a solo instrument. This is when its voice is most beautiful and expressive. It is a waste of a great instrument, and a competent musician’s talents, to turn the organ into nothing but a instrument to accompany voices, whether the chant or congregational singing. I’m completely unconvinced by the cliche that the organ helps people in the pews sing better; I’ve experienced the opposite too many times.
Here is what I do not understand about all of these discussions: why is it that people so rarely consider that the human voice alone is the proper and ideal liturgical instrument? I really think that people have a fear of singing without instruments. They believe that it cannot be done without some external thing to give them the notes, rhythm, and groove. This is the first and greatest mistake that takes place within all these discussions of what instruments are permitted at Mass.
One thousand years of Christian song took place without instruments, so far as anyone can tell, and the organ itself had to earn for itself the right and opportunity to be heard alongside that primary instrument of the human voice. We need more of that: voices alone. Only the human voice can bring together those two necessary things at once: the text and the notes. Too often it is not even considered an option.