Sometimes when I hear modern music sung at the Ordinary form, The vowel sounds seem so exaggerated. There is sometimes too much emotion and personality in the music, sometimes distracting, many times not. Maybe singing in the Subdued Voice, can add to Church musicians' arsenal one more tool of expression.

This sounds like the typical French monastic style of singing, where there might be eighty monks in choir but they can hardly be heard in the nave. In my opinion, it's a far cry (maybe far whimper would be more accurate) from an ideal for congregational singing. I'll take hearty, robust singing, no matter how unrefined, any day over what one writer has called "shamefaced congregational mumbling," which is unfortunately all that obtains in most Catholic churches in the US with the exception of a handful of the more popular traditional hymns such as "Holy God, We Praise Thy Name" or "Immaculate Mary." A good organist can't even inspire the people to sing Christmas carols enthusiastically in many of our parishes! More vigor and vitality is the solution to this sad state of affairs, not an exaggerated and misguided notion of "reverence." Of course, this is only my opinion, but if anyone came up to me saying that the singing in our church needed to be more reverent, I would politely suggest that he or she might be happier at the early Mass with no music.

Here is a recording of monks at Heiligenkreuz in Austria singing Gregorian chant excerpts from the Requiem Mass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcP2YW5mhPg

The singers are united rhythmically, varying in volume, and with clear Latin pronunciation.

I think this style of singing would not keep many people coming back to church on Sunday. And I don't think it is "more reverent" per se.

He was doomed the moment he used the trigger word "reverent". :)

Often times there are loud singing behind me in the congregation, usually off keys, very distracting, especially during communion. Even when I am joyful, I like singing quietly. If you are also in a choir, better to sing with a choir voice than a solo voice, Blending is better than 'outstanding.' I think the same thing applies to the congregation singing, but no one cares about that by just asking 'sing loud.' Does loud mean joyful? Also I don't think enthusiasm is the same as joyful. Watching a football game, one can be enthusiastic (emotional) but not necessarily joyful. I think joyful means something much deeper.

I was wondering when anyone else would bother to notice that (and the manner of posting under two different names), but did not to appear too quick to point that out, but did respond to people who took it straight.

The problem with the posting is that it puts the blame for outlandish singing on the mechanics of vocal production.

The problem is actually aural. I tell my students that the most important part of the body for singing is the ears.

This is exactly how most people in my congregation sing. Maybe he's serious and maybe he's sending us up, but I have to think seriously about how my people approach the question of singing out loud in church and most of them are not keen to stick out or be overheard or hear anybody else doing those things either. Most of them are content to let the choir do it. And a lot of choir members just want to sing along quietly too, seek the back pew and avoid the microphone. This is something that has to be paid attention to and besides figuring out what section to put a singer in you have to figure out whether they're a follower or a leader, and if a leader whether a sensitive responsible one or the other kind. Just saying.

Does the video show Snoopy or one of his two sock puppets?

EliRotello and PaterNosterQE3 are clearly the same person. I'm curious who eft thinks the third member of this Unholy Trinity is. I'm also curious why this caca puesto wasn't B&&V&.

I'm curious who eft thinks the third member of this Unholy Trinity is.

It's probably CharlesW; those Easterners are known to be subversive. ; )

If I'm correctly imagining what you're describing: I haven't watched the video yet, it sounds like this technique would not produce desirable results in those who have not worked at making it sound good. Having a congregation of mostly untrained, and completely unrehearsed singers attempt to sing in this manner would probably not be effective.

Fake or no, the general idea certainly has precedent. From the Preface of Walford Davies and Ley's "The Church Anthem Book" (1933):

"There is a frequent order issued by choirmasters to choirs: ' sing out '. A corresponding order should perhaps as often be issued and perhaps even more treasured: ' sing in '. This is what a man does when in quiet talk with a friend he remarks on some fine melody: ' Isn't this lovely? ' and sings a stave of it. Singing-in produces a magical result when a whole choir sings as though they were all quietly showing a friend how beautiful this and that phrase can be."

The described technique, however, is undoubtedly for choral singing, not congregational.

I think that when a populace has the federal reserve and the atomic bomb, it does something to the people of that populace. I think that the Subdued Voice can subdue that attitude, and that there is technique to it. Mumbling is something else. Singing subduedly annunciates every syllable correctly in a modest and almost haunting way when done in choir.

Then you'd essentially have the old High Mass/Low Mass differences again that so many progressives have fought to eliminate.

There are problems with performance practice in many churches. Perhaps, Elia, it would be useful to talk about that, or show examples, if you can find video demonstrating them.

The solution, whatever it is, should not sacrifice the intelligibility of the text so much.

By the way, was there a reason for choosing the particular song in your demo video? The "St Louis Jesuits" team were not very skilled composers, especially in that early period. The phrasing of that song seems to have a theatrical quality that is not very suitable for the Mass. I'm thinking, for example, of the long notes at phrase endings.

Incidentally, has anyone noticed that OBOB doesn't really contain a complete sentence anywhere in the piece?

The "St Louis Jesuits" team were not very skilled composers, especially in that early period.

Blanket indictment time, huh?
OBOB....is a stinker tune, but Foley more than made up for that with "Take, Lord, Receive....Who has known.....May we praise You..... etc."

Yes, indeed!
And that quite purposefully so.
(Anything, anything but!)

Since this thread is clearly destined for disintegration:

Lately when serving as cantor, there is a lady sitting near the front who sings so strongly that I have difficulty hearing the choir or organ while she sings. Our church is large enough it is trying to keep the cantor, choir, organ, and congregation together is nearly impossible in the first place, and this now renders it entirely out of the realm of possibility.

This comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand, just a random thought floating around my head that I reached up, grabbed, and shared.

It's probably CharlesW; those Easterners are known to be subversive. ; )

The east has witnessed the Latin church blithely follow Augustine and later the Scholastics into error compounded upon error. However, I have no association with the originators of this crazy thread. LOL. No subversion here.

I do have a couple of singers who could benefit greatly from a "Barney Fife" microphone. There was an episode where Barney wanted to sing a solo, but was horrible. They hid a good singer behind the curtain, told Barney his microphone was super-sensitive, and had him sing in a nearly inaudible voice while the good singer was the one heard. I could go for subdued voices in that case. ;-)

Wonder if I could get a quantity discount. ;-)

I think that some techniques that have been discussed before, have some correlation with the Subdued Voice. For example, singing with covered sound: https://youtu.be/uo6dDQiBGyI

I think covered sound has a modesty about it.