Alternating at the mediant cadence?

Salieri

I know much about chant, but this is one thing that has always puzzled me and I have never found an answer; does anyone have any insight into this: Why do some people when chanting/reciting the psalms alternate at the mediant cadence?

Group A: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son *
Group B: and to the Holy Spirit.
Group A: As is was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, *
Group B: world without end. Amen.

The old books tell you to alternate complete verses between sides of the choir, but where does this half-verse thing come from - is it just a mistake that people unacquainted with the traditional sung office made when they started reciting the LotH? Or do people assume that the asterisk means the same thing in every single chant? To me it just doesn't make sense. I have a colleague who will occasionally chant the SEP with me at Mass, and he only sings the second half of the Psalm-verse, and I find it incredibly annoying. Should I just accept this, or try to correct the issue?

Adam Wood

It's a somewhat common practice among Anglicans, I understand, and in the most contemporary American BCP, it is listed as one of several options for Psalm recitation.

I don't know if from whence it originates, but I imagine there's a lot of cross-influencing.

On a side/related note, this essay does not address your question, but does present some thoughts on the nature of the this-seems-too-long pause at the mediant cadence:
http://www.chantcafe.com/2013/09/the-mediant-pause-and-grammatical.html

M. Jackson Osborn

Adam is right. This method of reading (not singing) the psalms is widespread amongst Anglicans and Protestants. It is called 'responsive reading' and may be practiced by Reader-Congregation, or Group A-Group B. The psalms are never sung in this manner, which is a decidedly 'low-church' phenomenon.

Adam Wood

The psalms are never sung in this manner

Never?

I feel like when I was at RSCM with Richard Tanner, we (once or twice) had one side (Dec or Can) sing up to the mediant, and the other side respond.

I could be mistaken, though - that was 4 years ago, and I have no recollection of doing anything like that anywhere else.

The influence of various recitation styles may have gotten mixed up in my own memory with chanting - which is likely how these sorts of cross-influences happen in a larger scale.

M. Jackson Osborn

I can't question your experience, Adam; but in my experience that would have been rather strange. Unless you really wish to 'stick to your guns', I would suggest that what you witnessed was Decani and Cantoris singing alternate verses, which is quite common.

Incidentally, at a choral workshop I once asked the Englishman standing next to me if we were 'Day-cah-nee or Cahn-toris', and he said 'oh, we are Dee-cayn-eye'.

Adam Wood

It's a vague memory, so I have no guns to stick to on it.
And even if it happened, that doesn't make it common.

Adam Wood

FWIW - I have witnessed a lot of "Low Church" responsive reading.
Not a fan.

Salieri

So, it seems then that really the only way to chant a psalm (e.g. with the Communion Antiphon or in the Divine Office) would be the traditional antiphonal practice of D & C alternating verses not the 'responsive' practice. No?

Would this then be similar to the problem of the introductory verse and Gloria at the beginning of the hours which should be sung/said:

V/ O God + come to my assistance.
R/ O Lord, Make haste to help me. Glory be to the Father. &c.

but is often rendered:

V/ O God + come to my assistance.
R/ O Lord, make haste to help me.
V/ Glory be to the Father...
R/ As it was in the beginning... Amen.

???

ScottKChicago

Adam Wood

But I daresay it overthroweth the structure of the psalm-verses

I'll remember this next time I try to explain to an Episcopalian why they are doing it wrong.

They LOVE IT when I tell them they are doing things wrong.

M. Jackson Osborn

Verily, it doth indeed!

ScottKChicago

Ben

We always do it by the full verse

Cantor chant's antiphon.
Cantor chants this here * then side one finishes the line.
Side two chants * this whole line.
Side one chants * this whole line.
Side two chants * this whole line.
Side one chants * this whole line.
Side two chants * this whole line.
Side one chants * this whole line.
Side two chants * this whole line.
Side one chants * this whole line.
Side two chants * this whole line.
Both sides chant the antiphon.

etc.

M. Jackson Osborn

Many thanks for the St Thomas' evensong psalm. Would that a congregation of Catholics would (not could, but would) sing a psalm so decently and to Gregorian tones! At St Thomas' Episcopal School in Houston an entire student body of 700 sing the day's psalm in this manner at chapel every day, and to a different psalm tone every day.

Ben has outlined the correct manner of singing antiphonal psalmody, such as the introit, offertory and communion psalms are supposed to be; not turned into responsorial performance as seems to be becoming all too common. Of the propers, only the gradual/responsorial psalm and the Alleluya with its verse are responsorial forms.

noel jones, aago

If responsive reading/singing was not permitted, the Amen would not exist.

ryand

Reading this thread and Adam's Cafe post, I realized a month ago that I've always done the pause backwards. I got back into singing Compline earlier this week and it's a remarkably different experience with the psalm verses when done this way. Just wanted to share that experience and thank Adam for his explanation. Its profoundly different to sing them in this manner.

mrcopper

Me too, with some of the above: I never understood or appreciated the pauses, but took the time to read Adam's essay, and now do both better. Thank you, posters.

A further clarification, please: let's say a composer wanted to elaborate the antiphon somewhat, and then give space for the psalm to be chanted/spoken, and then elaborate the antiphon some more. 1) is that ok? 2) can the antiphon text be repeated as part of the elaboration? 3) can the antiphon elaboration at the end be different from the antiphon at the beginning?

Salieri

Are you speaking polyphonically or monophonically?

To set the Antiphon (or the portion after the chanted incipit) polyphonically, then sing the psalm to chant, then set the final Antiphon (including the incipit) polyphonically? Not only would I say that that's OK, but it's part of the rich tradition of Sacred Music.

(Personal taste warning!) As for repeating texts: I must admit to be a bit of a 'puritan' here. I'm not too fond of liturgical settings that go: "Et in terra, terra, et in terra pax, pax, pax, pax hominibus, et in terra, et in terra, pax, pax, pax, pax hominibus, bonae, bonae, bonae voluntatis. et in terra, et in terra, pax hominibus, hominibus, bonae, bonae, bonae voluntatis." for four minutes, only to spend another six minutes on two soloists arguing over whether it is better to "Laudamus te" or "Benedicimus te". Repeat texts in whole phrases, if possible, or judiciously repeat singe words. I follow the example of Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli, or the English music of the Tudor period (Gibbons, Moreley, et al.)

Why not go one step further, and alternate the verses between monophonic chant and polyphonic chant (Falsobordone)?

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories