Chant Café

Noel Jones offers this guest column on the important topic of Anglican tones for the Responsorial Psalm.

__________

The Case for Singing English Chant Tone Responsorial Psalms

The Anglican Church has perfected the art of singing psalms in English and the suitability for their psalm tones for this purpose has caused them to be adopted for use in churches of many other denominations, including the Roman Catholic Latin Rite Churches, when singing in English vernacular.

For that reason, though they are known as being Anglican Chants, they deserve to be called English Chants as they, like hymns, have escaped the bounds of being associated with one denomination.

Why consider singing these compact and concise psalm tunes for the Alleluia, its Verse and the Responsorial Psalm?

They are eminently adaptable to your musical circumstances. They may be sung by a semi-professional SATB choir but also by a middle school cantor in unison, melody only, unaccompanied. They are English psalm tones for all reasons and seasons.

But even more compelling is that they greatly increase the ability of a congregation to respond in song. In simple terms, this is one way of satisfying the pressure on many of us to get the congregation to participate in the Mass in song.

Why are these easier and preferable to the printed pulp missal psalms that are out there in most pews?

They are written solely to be sung in support of the psalms rather than being musical works on their own, just as the Gregorian Psalm Tones were written to serve the psalms without attempts by a composer to elaborate and adorn the music.

Yes, the Gregorian Tones may be used to sing the Alleluia, Verse and the Responsorial Psalm in English, however, the English Psalm Chant Tones are more suited to English. It is a matter of the structure of accented syllables in Latin versus English. For English, these psalm tones win out.

But the best part is this, they are sung to simple melodies of 10 notes in most cases. And they can be repeated for a series of weeks until people become familiar with them. Do they become boring? No, because the organist traditionally changes registrations to reflect the meaning of the words and the singers also interpret the text and music more so than is common with Gregorian Chant.

Why are they not included in current Catholic hymnals? Some feel that they, like Gregorian Chant, are to a large part in the public domain, meaning that publishers cannot control their use and charge for using them. Others recognize that it is merely because they are not Catholic. This attitude must be confusing to Catholics in Great Britain who hear them commonly, if not in their home church but in broadcasts from Westminster Cathedral, whose choir appears on YouTube singing these English Psalm Chant Tones.

But what’s the best reason for singing them? They are based upon Gregorian Chant as it evolved into a form that suited the English language. One famous Gregorian Psalm Tone, Tonus Peregrinus, survived the transition and it exists as a Gregorian Chant and an English Chant unchanged. What better to sing than Gregorian Chant that has evolved through years and years of singing into a unique form by the work of people that speak the language?

While the Roman Church ignored the centuries of work of putting the liturgy in English done by the English Church, the Roman Church has failed to provide music for English texts just as they have failed to provide authorized translations for singing. There is no rule against using English Chant Tones and common sense says that in the interest of improving music in the vernacular, they are the natural replacement for what most people have in their hands on Sunday morning in the United States and the rest of the English-Speaking World.

I have felt this way for a long time and used these psalm tones at Mass for four years at parish Masses and at high school Masses. As a result of this I am in the midst of finishing a beginner’s guide to singing these psalm tones, pointing (marking) the text of the psalms for singing them and providing many of the psalm tones in the public domain for copying, sharing and use.

How hard is this to put into place and get up and working in a parish? After four weekly school Masses, the high school choir students knew enough to take over the marking and rehearsing of the choir singing the psalms each week and rehearsed the psalms in parts under the leadership of a sophomore and sang them at Mass for the entire semester, also led by the sophomore, unaccompanied.

Fr. Ruff posts this fascinating article from Orate Fratres, Feburary 22, 1936. It is called Why People Do Not Like Chant. The author is stricken with grief that everyone but Catholics seems interested in Gregorian chant. Meanwhile, as regards Catholics, “the people have truly no voice at all which can be claimed Catholic.” If the situation was improving, which it was, this was interrupted by the ghastliness of the slaughter and upheaval called World War II.

I’ve attempted an HTML export here. I’m sure it has typos, but you get the drift.

Orate Fratres
February 22, 1936 NO. 4

WHY PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE GREGORIAN CHANT

IT is a well-known fact that the chant of the Church is not appreciated. Everyone who has been connected in some capacity or other with its restoration will bear witness to this statement. But no one really likes to admit it. It seems strange that, thirty-two years after the demand of the saintly Pius X for a return to the sacred chant, such wide-spread prejudices still prevail. This is the more painful, because Catholics are decidedly slower than non-Catholics in realizing the value of a treasure in their keeping.

Whereas here and there (and at that oftener than one would surmise) those outside the fold are curious to know about it, those of the flock are in general very reluctant to show any genuine interest. While a “Guild of Protestant Organists,” or the department of music of some secular university, or again some musical group, will professa sincere eagerness to penetrate the charm of Gregorian melodies, Catholic institutions and societies (not to speak of parishes), have ignored the fact, sometimes even contemptuously, that there is such a thing as an art called Gregorian. Some readers who have not gone through the hard grind of introducing the chant, wonder, perhaps suspiciously, at this frank statement; but it would be convincingly vindicated by all teachers who have tried in some way or other to labor in the barren field. No illusion can prevail against such an acknowledgment; and it will serve the restoration of liturgical music better than a proud denial of guilt. Remedy can begin only where there is consciousness of the evil.

Why should it be within the Church herself that the chant is today mostly discredited? If there is an intrinsic value in Gregorian art, we have utterly failed to make it one with our religious concepts and our actual religious experiences. And thus we ask ourselves if the problem of the chant is not just as much of a religious as of a musical nature? This has long been our personal conviction. In other words, if our people cannot give vent to their inmost religious sentiments through the chant, it is because these sentiments have taken a direction entirely estranged from the inspiration of the chant. A break between the chant and our religious sentiment does not prove the chant wrong; it proves that we are wrong. For the chant was the most authentic utterance of religious experience in the early centuries.

It is deplorable that so far nothing has been able to overcome the prejudice against the chant, at least to a marked degree. It has, indeed, been welcomed in a few places; but in the majority of churches and chapels there is not even heard the faintest echo of its wondrous strains. We can by no means say that the chant is the general vehicle of Catholic devotion; in very few places indeed has its authority prevailed to the point where it is made the main source of inspiration in Catholic services. The chant was perhaps by “mission” the “voice of the Church”; it is not any longer the “voice of the people.” And having lost its tradition, the people have truly no voice at all which can be claimed Catholic.

The most intruding vulgarity has invaded the t,emple, and holds fast against the most courageous attempts towards the restoration of the chant-attempts which, indeed, have been multiplied during the past twenty years. Many came to the rescue of the dishonored chant; paleographic science has vindicated its glorious authenticity and its unique place in the evolution of musical art; men of genius and taste have marvelled at its simple beauty; schools have opened their portals to students eager to learn about its beauty and form; demonstrations have proved that it can enhance, by its own power, the greatness of our liturgical services. But the choir loft has remained estranged.

Although the authority of the Church is unchallenged by the opposition, both of these have been traveling in parallel ways without ever meeting in open clash. While the decrees of the Holy See and the ordinances of the ordinaries have repeated or interpreted the principles of the Motu proprio with an ever increasing clearness, choir and people alike have been drifting along carefree and forgetful. And perhaps sheer authority will never give back to the faithful the voice which they have lost. Chant is not to be confused with a matter of faith. Were it such it could be enforced through penalty; but such is not likely ever to be the case.

Pius X was the first to realize this difference. This he expressed in his introductory letter to the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, when he insisted on having obedience prompted by the knowledge of the motives which command a reintroduction of the chant into Catholic life. Undoubtedly Catholics do not like it because they do not appreciate it. And until they are educated to like and enjoy it, it is unreasonable to hope that they will sing the chant.

Therefore, instead of deploring sine fine this sad lack ofappreciation, let us survey the groups which make up Catholic opinion in the matter. After we have studied them, remedial plans can be suggested. Proceeding from the altar to the choir-loft, we will meet the clergy, the children, the congregation, and the mixed choir.

The restoration of the chant depends largely on the stand taken towards it by the clergy. We take this opportunity to mention this attitude though our doing so requires respectful criticism. Would it be offending in any way to say that the clergy at large does not profess an enthusiastic admiration for the chant? Is it not true that priests in general are not crediting Gregorian melodies with being the “supreme form of liturgical music” and doubt very much its practicability? Such a skeptical attitude has its excuse: most members of the clergy never received a good foundation in the knowledge of the chant, and many have been quite disgusted with the failure of their loyal attempts to introduce it in their churches.

However, one would not be bold today in asking the following questions: “What would eventually be the vote of the clergy, should a free poll be organized on the question of restoring or rejecting the chant from our liturgical services?” “Can it be said that a concerted effort’ has been attempted by an organized priesthood to bring about the restoration commanded by the Holy See?” “Is the study of Gregorian chant still a side-line or rather (what it should be) a main feature of the program of education in our minor and major seminaries?” Whatever answer you give, blame or excuse, it remains evident that the lack of efficient leadership among the clergy in this matter is apt to have a disastrous influence on the opinion formed by the laity. And this is sufficient to diagnose the most important cause of the great difficulties encountered in the work of restoration.

Close to the sanctuary we meet the children. And what they feel about the chant is a very important matter. Their opinion is likely to be free from unjust prejudice, and everyone is conscious that it has an important influence on the future. American children show a delightful openness of heart towards the chant. You may call to the witness-stand all those who have ever worked with them in any State and none will deny this optimistic affirmation.

Exception made for rare, forlorn places, and even there, they always respond to an intelligent presentation by a soulful rendition. Children never dislike the chant, and are prompt to express both their lovely appreciation of it as well as their sharp criticism of vulgar sacred music.

This attitude calls to mind the ex are infantium of the psalm. More than once we had to learn from the little ones what our sophistication or indifference had forgotten and sometimes forsaken. Before the children discovered for us the chaste beauties of the chant, they brought back into the world true Eucharistic life. And their spontaneous return to charming Gregorian songs was preceded by their intimate friendship with Jesus in the divine Eucharist. Now then, we have the experimental proof that like or dislike of the sacred chant is more a religious than a musical problem.

The congregation presents a more complex attitude: it is neither “likes” nor “dislikes.” It is the same apathy into which the loss of liturgical cooperation has brought them. How could they be expected to sing with pleasure the musical expression of a prayer which has no longer any meaning for them, especially since they have been gradually reduced to mere onlookers and listeners? This attitude is more or less passive; but all pastors who have tried to overcome it know how hard they have to fight and how many times they have to retreat before a new effort. However, the faithful in the pews appreciate the chant. It has been a repeated experience with the writer that if you do not advertise Gregorian chant with the undiplomatic publicity that it is the music imposed by the Church, but just prepare a service well with a group, many comments will attest that the congregation is pleased. And they all will emphasize that “it was very prayerful and soul-stirring.” We ave had so far but a single inscance to the contrary; it came from a “high-society center.”

It is in the choir-10ft that the enemy is entrenched as in a fortress. Oftentimes the pastor looks on his choir as his crux, and rightly so, though he may at times forget the good will, the regular attendance, the fidelity of many members. The choir members are not to be blamed; the institution itself is the deep-rooted evil. It has grown and outworn itself into a spirit entirely opposed to the essential objectives of a liturgical choir. It is neither religious nor musical. A religious, a liturgical, a parochial spirit are usually well-nigh impossible with the mode of enrollment, the lack of religious functioning, the location for singing; a musical spirit cannot be formed with the usual repertoire of vulgarities or secondrate music which has been for so long the lot of Catholic choirs.

Add to that the sore fact that many of those who assume (or have to assume) the mission of directing the choir are not prepared to exercise a real authority to educate their group. Their musicianship and their knowledge of the liturgy are too elementary. Unfortunately, improvised musical directors, unless they be humble enough (and some are indeed), will either discredit the chant which they do not appreciate or will ruin it by lack of real presentation. And even when they do fulfill their task, they will encounter many difficulties which at times look insuperable to the most courageous pioneer.

From the examination of groups which make up this criticism, as well as from general considerations, we may sum up the reasons why the chant is not liked, or positively disliked:

1. The loss of that special spiritual feeling which comes only with the experience of liturgical life.
2. The lack of positive leadership impossible to many priests who did not have the opportunity to study the sacred chant welt
3. The passive attitude of the laity in the liturgical services.
4. The incomplete formation of many of our choir-directors.
5. The deformed spirit of our mixed choirs.

The picture looks dark. Perhaps it is well to see it thus. But there is a very bright spot among the shadows, and so the situation is much more hopeful than is our description of it. It will be the object of the entire series of these articles until next Advent to propose remedies. We ask the reader patiently to wait for them.

ERMIN VITRY, O.S.B.