Chant Café

You do not want to miss this excerpt from Beethovens Anvil by William Benzon:

Two paragraph sample but do read the whole piece:

Medieval Europe was inhabited by a collection of tribes and states, shot through with tendrils of Christianity following the remains of the Roman Empire and with the Islamic world pushing up in Spain. European culture, considered as a specific constellation of ideas, modes of expression, and forms of organization, hardly existed, nor did any of those people think of themselves are European. Europe, as such, originated in Christendom, and the core institution of Christendom, the Christian Church, was held together, not only by religious doctrine, but by religious ritual and practice.

Plainsong was at the center of that ritual, and much religious practice as well. During the medieval period most plainsong was used within religious communities as a daily aspect of their religious life, rather than being performed with a congregation on Sundays. While this body of music has its roots in pre-Christian music of the Jewish service, it is generally known as Gregorian chant, after Pope Gregory I, who played a major role in organizing and codifying the chants late in the 6th Century CE. these chants are generally regarded as the fountainhead of Western classical music, all of whose forms have some link to this Gregorian lineage, though many other musics will eventually be put to classical use. For this reason we can think of the classical music as developing under a Gregorian Contract.

CONTINUE

Homily for the Feast of St Pius X [August 21, 2010] Secondary Patron of the Archdiocese of Atlanta, Georgia Opening Mass of the Southeastern Litugical Music Symposium Preached by Msgr Andrew Wadsworth, Executive Director of ICEL

On 4 August 1903, when Cardinal Giuseppe Sarto, Patriarch of Venice, was elected pope, nobody could have known that among his most significant legacies would be the reform of liturgical music. Within three months of his election, Pope Pius X published his motu proprio ‘Tra le sollecitudini’ (‘Among our concerns’), which laid down principles for a return to the sources of the Church’s liturgical music and a reform that would in many ways introduce ideas that would bear fruit sixty years later when another Patriarch of Venice, Angelo Roncalli, would be pope and as Pope John XXIII would convene the Second Vatican Council.

It has been suggested that the motivating force and guiding hand behind this early concern for liturgical music was Sarto’s friend, the musician Msgr Lorenzo Perosi. Since 1898, Perosi had been Director of the Sistine Chapel Choir and in his own work he had tried to reverse the trend of the day which favoured Classical and Baroque music over Gregorian chant. Pope Pius X announced a return to earlier musical styles, as evidenced by the approach championed by Perosi.

He also ushered in a period of renewed scholarly interest in Gregorian Chant resulting in the publication of new authoritative editions. Pius X’s choice of Dom Joseph Pothier to supervise the production of new editions of the chant led to the official adoption of the Solesmes edition by the Holy See and established the basis for scholarship which continued there throughout the twentieth century and is still authoritative in our own time.

Usually when an account of the life of St Pius X is being given, these details are passed over in preference for his reforms lowering of the age of First Communion, encouraging the frequent reception of Holy Communion or the revision of the Breviary. While these things are obviously very important, the occasion of our Symposium suggests to me that the significance of today’s saint for our own work is something that we could easily miss and that would be a great shame.
As those who serve the Church with our gifts of music, I think we are in continual need of both encouragement and inspiration. Fortunately there is plenty to be had, ready for the taking, in the Church’s rich tradition, but often we need someone to help us identify or uncover the most relevant aspects of that tradition for our present tasks and our current needs.

The saints do that for us, for in the extraordinariness of their individual heroic witness and in the unworldliness of their holiness there are also clear indications of those many things which we share with them: not only their concerns but their particular likes and dislikes, their interests, their passions. As an Englishman, I often think of Cardinal (soon to be Blessed) John Henry Newman, who in between writing some of the most sublime theology ever composed in the English language, found recreation playing the viola either alone or in a string quartet.

Music is so very often transparent of the spiritual and nowhere more so than when we celebrate the liturgy. St Pius X understood that and greatly desired to bring about a renewal of the music of the liturgy that would enable it to be a more effective vehicle of the truths it expresses. In that first ‘moto proprio’, he wrote:

“Since [its] Sacred Music’s chief function is to clothe with suitable melody the liturgical text presented for the understanding of the faithful, its own proper end is to make the text more meaningful for them” (Tra le sollecitudine, 222,19)

I think that is as true today as when St Pius X wrote it, over a hundred years ago. In many ways it defines our task and implies an itinerary for our deliberations together. I pray that this great saint will be with us to share in our work and help us to find good paths for the renewal of our liturgy. St Pius X: pray for us!

The Chant Cafe is pleased to post the full text of Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth’s speech at the 2010 Southeastern Liturgical Music Symposium, August 21, 2010:

Towards the Future – Singing the Mass
A keynote-address to the Southeastern Liturgical Music Symposium
by Msgr Andrew R Wadsworth,
Executive Director of The ICEL Secretariat
Atlanta, Georgia – August 21 2010

I would like to begin by saying how very pleased I am to be with you today and as someone whose own journey has been associated with music-making, I find myself very much at home with musicians and welcome the time that we have together.

Like many speakers, I feel that I need to begin with something of a disclaimer – one website advertising this symposium recently described ICEL as being ‘responsible for the new translation’. With the best will in the world, I don’t think we can claim that to be true. ICEL is a joint commission of eleven Episcopal Conferences and is therefore essentially a group of eleven Bishops who undertake to present draft translations of liturgical texts to their respective conferences for comment, amendment and approval. As such, it becomes the work of many hands, as conferences are free to consult as widely as they wish in considering texts in the various stages of their evolution.

As you well know, the final stage of the process lies with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, who retain the right to make radical amendments to the text as they see fit, even at the final stage of the process. I suppose we can say that in this way, it is very much a work of the Church.

In speaking to you today, I would like to briefly explore with you some of the implications of receiving the new translation of the Missal, with particular consideration of its possible impact on liturgical music. Obviously, I don’t have to explain to you that music is integral to the liturgy, but perhaps we find ourselves at a good moment to be able to reassess how this principle has been applied in the liturgy we have experienced thus far and how it could be applied to our liturgy in the future?

We are currently in the season of summer schools and symposia which seek to deepen knowledge and understanding of what we are doing when we celebrate the liturgy. It is always interesting to identify the different models or concepts of the liturgy that are expressed in a series of intense seminars and workshops held all around the country. In one place, renowned for the excellence of its scholarship and the significance of its influence on all who celebrate the liturgy in English, a key-note speaker offered the following definition by way of an introduction to a course:

The readings from scripture and the prayers of Mass make up the given, largely un-changing liturgy of the Church. The homily, hymns, and songs are the creative, changing elements by which we interpret the liturgy, suggesting some possible meanings of faith for 21st century believers. We will look at hymns and songs that may help contemporary worshipers integrate the Sunday prayers and readings into their weekday lives.

I think this definition would be considered as largely uncontroversial, as it reflects an approach to the liturgy that has been relatively widespread in the years since Vatican II. I want to use it, however, as a spring-board to ask some rather big questions. For instance, is it helpful? Is it accurate as an assessment of the way we should approach the complex and intimate relationship between music and the other elements which make up the liturgy of the Mass? Is music really exclusively a creative response to the ‘un-changing liturgy of the Church’ or does it in some way form part of the ‘given’ aspect of liturgy which we receive from the Church? I would suggest that these are questions which come more naturally into focus as we prepare to receive the new translation.

We stand now at the threshold of the introduction of a new translation of the Roman Missal, an event of unparalleled significance in the forty years since the introduction of the first English translation of the Missale Romanum in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. While the transition from one translation to another is qualitatively less dramatic than the introduction of a new Rite of Mass, I think it is fair to deduce that the current translation has not only shaped our liturgical experience over the past forty years, it has also generated a common culture of liturgical music. For this reason, we are well placed to consider seriously what has been achieved and how things could be improved for the future.

I am sure that many of you here today were among the first to recognize that a change of translation, a change which implies a difference of style, register and content, would have considerable implications for our liturgical music. I am sure it will have occurred to you that it would not just be a matter of adapting our current settings and songs to the new texts, rather in the way that one might alter an old and well-loved garment to meet the demands of an increasing or decreasing waist-line! But rather, the new texts would quite naturally inspire new music which responds more directly to the character of the texts themselves, reflecting in an original way their patterns of accentuation, their cadence and their phrasing. Is it too much to hope that this might be a wonderful opportunity for reassessing the current repertoire of liturgical music in the light of our rich musical patrimony and like the good housekeeper being able to bring out of the store treasures both new and old?

Maybe the greatest challenge that lies before us is the invitation once again to sing the Mass rather than merely to sing at Mass. This echoes the injunctions of the Council Fathers in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and reflects our deeply held instinct that the majority of the texts contained in the Missal can and in many cases should be sung. This means not only the congregational acclamations of the Order of Mass, but also the orations, the chants in response to the readings, the Eucharistic prayer and the antiphons which accompany the Entrance, the Offertory and the Communion processions. These proper texts are usually replaced by hymns or songs that have little relationship to the texts proposed by the Missal or the Graduale Romanum and as such a whole element of the liturgy of the day is lost or consigned to oblivion. For the most part, they exist only as spoken texts. We are much the poorer for this, as these texts (which are often either Scriptural or a gloss on the Biblical text) represent the Church’s own reading and meditation on the Scriptures. As chants, they are a sort of musical lectio divina pointing us towards the riches expressed in that day’s liturgy. For this reason, I believe that it is seriously deficient to consider that planning music for the liturgy ever begins with a blank sheet: there are texts given for every Mass in the Missal and these texts are intended for singing.

Initially, even if you agree with this assertion, you may feel there is a dearth of suitable material available. This is something of a ‘chicken and egg’ situation. Praxis has governed the development of our resources of liturgical music and for the most part, composers and publishers have neglected the provision or adaptation of musical settings of these proper texts. Despite this, a brief trawl of the internet produces a surprisingly wide variety of styles of settings of the proper texts which range from simple chants that can be sung without accompaniment to choral settings for mixed voices. Some are obviously adaptations of Gregorian Chant or are indebted to that musical language, others are more contemporary in feel. In addition, I know of a number of initiatives which seek to provide simple chants in English for the texts of the Proper of the Mass, chants which are specifically destined for parish use. Of course, there is nothing to stop us singing Latin chants in a predominantly English liturgical celebration. The presence in the Missal of Latin and English versions of some chants, embodies this principle. I think it is reasonable to expect that the quality and quantity of material available will continue to increase as we grow in our knowledge and experience of using the new texts.

Chant is proper to the Roman Liturgy, whether it is celebrated in Latin or in vernacular languages. This is a fact established in all of the major documents which treat music in the liturgy from the time of the Council onwards. Why has there been such a universal loss of experience of the chant? I am personally convinced that part of the reason why we lost our chant tradition so easily was that so few people understood the intrinsic link between the chant and the liturgical text. Chant is not merely words set to music; in its simplest forms it is essentially cantillation – it arises from the text as a heightened manner of proclaiming the text. In this, the Church continues the Jewish tradition of a sung proclamation of the Scriptures. For that reason, it preserves the primacy of the text as distinct from other forms of music that have a tendency to impose a structure and a form rather than receiving one. The most obvious example of this would be the signing of the psalms – a simple tone is sufficiently flexible to allow for natural expression prompted by speech rhythms, whereas metrical settings can have a tendency to dragoon the text into pre-determined shapes.

The present situation of neglect of these proper chants is due both to the liturgical culture which prevailed before the Council and the practices which were universally accepted upon the introduction of the revised liturgy. Contrary to the suggestion of some who currently champion the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the musical repertoire of the Catholic community at the time of the revision of the liturgy, was not predominantly Gregorian Chant or the jewels of sixteenth century polyphony. Low Mass with vernacular hymns was standard fare for most parishes with High Mass or Sung Mass reserved for only the greatest occasions and for most Catholics was something of a rarity outside of cathedrals or religious communities.

I mention this in order to emphasize that the practice of singing the Mass was lost to us a long time ago. It is true that the most commonly sung setting of the Ordinary of the Mass prior to Vatican II was the Missa de Angelis with Credo III , but these soon gave way to a multiplicity of Mass settings which may had been locally composed and remained largely unknown beyond a particular parish. Publishers extend this phenomenon by creating a national repertoire by default. I am personally very aware of this as I travel in my present work and I often find myself at a celebration of Mass in English at which none of the music used is remotely familiar to me. This is a strangely alienating experience that does little to engender a sense of the universality of the Church, but rather limits its parameters to that which is national or parochial. Does this necessarily need to be the pattern for the future, or can we and should we look to see a change? I think it is worth considering that discussions which focus ideas about a common repertoire on a national or international level may be more appropriate now than at any stage during the past forty years.

I would suggest that ours has essentially become a predominantly Low Mass culture with music increasingly seen as incidental rather than integral to our liturgical celebration. In all honesty, I would also have to acknowledge that we clergy have often not helped in this regard when we have refused to sing those parts of the Mass which of their nature should be sung, at least in celebrations of greater solemnity. We cannot claim to have a sung liturgy if the priest doesn’t sing any element of the orations and the antiphons of the proper are not sung. This is true no matter how many timpani and trumpets are employed. Regardless of the quantity of musical overlay, the underlying impression remains basically that of a said Mass with music added. In this respect, it is not only our lay people who face the challenge of a changing liturgical culture. As those responsible for liturgical music in your communities, you will all have to work hard with your priests to build their confidence in this respect. In conversation with one diocesan bishop recently, he admitted to me that he had never sung anything on his own in public, not even ‘Happy birthday’! In addressing such cases, psychology is just as important as musical knowledge. When I worked as a répétiteur in an opera company in London many years ago, it was just as important to communicate to singers a sense of self-confidence in what they had to sing as it was to teach them the notes!

Apart from an encouragement to sing the orations, the preface and on occasion the Eucharistic prayer, the new edition of the Missal will also evidence the Church’s invitation to proclaim the readings of the Liturgy of the Word in song. This can be particularly effective if used sparingly at solemn celebrations. It also extends the ministry of lector or reader to those who can sing in addition to those who read well. I recently took part in a study day on the new texts for a group of men in formation for the permanent deaconate. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that in the said diocese, formation included instruction in singing the Gospel and the orations. Our study day ended with sung Evening Prayer in which the group of about 40 men seemed quite at home singing the psalms and other elements of the office. Patterns of formation will need to change to encompass a different musical expectation.

On a practical level, there is already a considerable number of resources aimed at preparation of the musical elements of the Missal which are almost ready for publication. Although I appreciate the enthusiasm and sometimes the impatience of musicians eager to have this material freely available at the earliest possible stage, the continuing evolution of these texts, even into the final stages of their preparation, makes it very unwise to release musical settings before the definitive version of the text has been established by the Holy See and communicated to our Bishops’ Conferences. Such texts as have been released to date are always designated as draft texts which still may be subject to amendment. I realize what a difficulty this represents for composers and liturgical musicians. It is a situation brought about by the collaborative manner in which these texts are produced in a complex process of many stages which is ultimately controlled by the Holy See.

Consideration of liturgical music resources brings me to a more controversial point: musical repertoire has for practical purposes largely been controlled by the publishers of liturgical music and while this is unavoidable, for a whole variety of pragmatic reasons, it has rather reinforced the perception that I cited at the outset of this address: that music is exclusively part of the creative element in liturgy rather than part of that which is ‘given’. Perhaps this is a good moment for reassessing some of the criteria that govern the selection of music for publication? While I would personally advocate and endorse a rediscovery of our chant tradition, I would want to stress that the recovery of the singing of the proper texts of the Missal is not necessarily to be equated solely with this one musical genre but would also potentially admit a variety of different styles. In the same way, the Church permits a variety of legitimate interpretations of the liturgical norms which result in celebrations of diverse character. The unity of the Roman Rite today is essentially a textual unity rather than a ritual uniformity – we use the same proper texts when we celebrate the liturgy.

It is my sincere hope that the occasion of a new translation of the Missal will be an opportunity for a reappraisal of many of the elements of our liturgical experience. The liturgy is the point of contact for the greatest number of our Catholic people, it is not only a window to heaven, but also the Church’s shop-window in a largely unbelieving world. If we are to draw many more to the hope that we hold, I believe that our experience of the mystery which is ‘ever ancient, ever new’ must effectively convey the spiritual realities that we celebrate in all their richness and depth, both to the Catholics of our own time and those yet to come.

I want to thank you for all you do in the service of your communities. Your work is an essential aspect of the way the Church in every generation announces the mystery of Christ. In the words of Psalm 46, my encouragement to you is ‘psallite sapienter’ – ‘sing wisely’, immersing yourselves in a tradition that is older than Christianity itself, a tradition by which the Song of the Church arises in every place as a thing of beauty and truth. We need both beauty and truth and our liturgical song can be a vehicle for them both. Thank you for honoring me with your attention.

So far as I know, no blogger or news source has yet commented on Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth’s speech at the 2010 Southeastern Liturgical Music Symposium . Msrg. Wadsworth is Executive Secretary of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. His speech was given the day following the historic release of the new English translation of the Missal that will be implemented fully and finally on Advent 2011, with no grace period of transition.

I do not have the transcript. (Update: that is now available here.) Nor do I have a recording. Surely both will come in time. I do have my own (inevitably selective) memory, so I will reconstruct the high points for me.

But first let me say this: this was easily the most momentous and extraordinary speech on music I’ve ever heard from  any member of the clergy with his high position in the Church. His speech was warm, funny, engaging, articulate, well crafted, poignant, clear, and brilliant in every way. It displayed vast knowledge of the significance of the new translation, the current reality in parish life, and the ways in which the new Missal will help to achieve the heretofore elusive dream of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Most of all, this speech revealed something that I had not entirely grasped before: the music issue is very well understood within ICEL; indeed, reform of music is part of the process of reform that the new translation represents. Msgr. Wadsworth is himself a student and protege of the brilliant chant scholar Mary Berry, founder of the Schola Gregoriana, and an outstanding singer, as we learned from his celebration of Mass that morning.

And, by the way, the speech was extremely well received. Monsignor was surrounded by people all weekend asking for his autograph.

What did he say? I hesitate to summarize without direct quotes because I do believe that this speech will be looked back upon as a major turning point in modern Catholic liturgical history. But let me summarize his major themes as they affect music. The clarity of the new translation provides an opportunity to revisit the meaning and purpose of music at the Mass, and the hope of St. Pius X that the primary musical goal of the Mass of should be to sing the Mass and not merely sing songs at Mass.

Singing at Mass means giving priority to chant because chant is the Roman Rite’s mode of expressing text in song. It has always been so from the earliest years: there is no separating liturgical text from liturgical song. They are bound up with each other in every way. Further, it is through chant that we achieve unity between the music of the celebrant, schola, and people. Gregorian chant in Latin is the standard; English settings of chant require adaption from Latin but this is not an impossible task, as the many online editions of English chant demonstrate.

Msgr. Wadsworth’s primary emphasis was on the texts of the propers of the Mass, which have been the source for liturgical song for the whole history of the Roman Rite but which were unduly neglected before the Second Vatican Council (Low Mass with hymns was a common practice), and, this neglect has continued in the postconcilar period. He urged musicians to revisit the propers as the source of liturgical song. The propers are the texts of the Mass itself and should become the primary focus of composers and publishers in the years ahead.

I don’t need to explain further what a dramatic shift of focus that a new emphasis on Mass propers would be for Catholic music. It would mean a completely paradigm shift. I think back at that famous comment by the Concilium in 1969 (Notitiae 5, 406):

That rule [permitting vernacular hymns] has been superseded. What must be sung is the Mass, its Ordinary and Proper, not “something”, no matter how consistent, that is imposed on the Mass. Because the liturgical service is one, it has only one countenance, one motif, one voice, the voice of the Church. To continue to replace the texts of the Mass being celebrated with motets that are reverent and devout, yet out of keeping with the Mass of the day amounts to continuing an unacceptable ambiguity: it is to cheat the people. Liturgical song involves not mere melody, but words, text, thought and the sentiments that the poetry and music contain. Thus texts must be those of the Mass, not others, and singing means singing the Mass not just singing during Mass.

This statement is not an isolated instance. It represents a thread of thought that was alive in 1963 when the Constitution was passed, and it has been cited by the U.S. Bishops Committee on the Liturgy, BCL Newsletter, Volume XXIX, August-Sept 1993.

There were many other themes to his talk, e.g. he addressed relations between publishers and ICEL and clarified the role of ICEL has the guardian of the texts.

A few more points emerged in the question and answer period:

• The human voice is the primary instrument of liturgy; it doesn’t matter how many tympani and trumpets that one adds to a song, if one is not singing Mass texts, the music will not be intimately integrated into the liturgy.
• The differences between the Missal and Gradual propers are not a matter of importance right now; either text can be used as a source of music.
• Part of ICEL’s mission here is related to priest training; it is of utmost importance for the restoration of the sung Mass that the celebrant’s voice be part of the musical structure, and, to this end, ICEL is supporting training videos and recordings for free posting online. 

My summary notes on the points that stood out to me (again, as understood through my highly subjective mental filter) should not be considered authoritative by any means. The full text will appear in print in a matter of weeks.

As a diversion from the topic of this post, let me also add that I was very honored to have been invited to present at this conference. I’ll have more on that experience in a later post, but it was a special occasion of grace for me to have the opportunity to spend some wonderful evening hours with  Jerry Galipeau and David Haas, fine gentlemen and outstanding musicians whose knowledge of and experience in the Catholic music world far exceed my own.

It has been a whirlwind of a weekend, beginning with the much-anticipated but still surprising announcement of the final text for the new translation of the Missal.

It is a good time to read through the new order of the Mass. I’ve read many drafts along the way but now that it is final, my own impressions are becoming much more vivid.

We’ve had a translation for the Mass for many years that is hazy and obscure at too many points, one that generally strikes many people as somehow less confident about Catholic belief that, say, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Sometimes it is hard to put your finger on it.

And there are of course many specifics about the translation in use that have been points of estrangement. Many traditionalists have wrongly blamed the “Novus Ordo” for problems of the translation itself — and this becomes very clear upon reading the PDF file linked above. The improvement is dazzling. Even the famous “pro multis” controversy of old is settled at last. Most of the in-print attacks on the ordinary form that are in print will have to be thrown out or seriously revised. This translation provides far more continuity with Roman Rite history than any previous attempt.

Looking for a metaphor, I would compare the difference between the current and future translation as similar to a window that is frosted and one that is clear, or a pair of glasses once smudgy but now clean. It allows us to see the same reality but more vividly. With new translation, there can be no question about why we are there and what is happening about Mass — and it is tragic to say that has not always been true.

In some ways, the difference will not amaze anyone in the pews but it will settle many hearts. At last we will experience a lining up of what the sense of the faith tells us – what tradition and sound doctrine teaching – and what the celebrant, schola, and people say and sing during the liturgy. In some says, then, the new translation will be an instrument of peace in our parish. It will help the faith cohere in our public worship. My guess is that the difference will be slight in the short term but immense over the long term.

There is a strong expectation that the new Missal translation will lead to a gradual but dramatic reform of the music to which we’ve become accustomed at Mass. The propers of the Mass will once again take priority over hymns with random texts. The chant, as a style of music and a vessel for the text, will ascend in importance even as pop music will seem increasingly out of place.

Is this reform of the reform? Most certainly. It is a dramatic step, even a new chapter in postconciliar history, but not the last one. It is a new and very promising beginning.

Of interest to anyone truly concerned that music of the Mass have the widest possible cultural appeal.