Moving beyond the Simple English Propers

matthewj

I had a long Facebook conversation the other day with a very talented and interesting Music Director. Something that he said gravely disturbed me - he mentioned that his choir had been singing all three propers from the SEP every Sunday. Since 2011.

Huh?

The Simple English Propers were a revolutionary project and are a resource that filled a very nice gap. They are a wonderful product that can be used as a beginning point for beginner directors and beginner choirs singing chant at Holy Mass. But how on earth could you sing them every week for years?

I worked at a Parish from last December until a week ago. It was, more or less, for the first 10 years of its existence a Life-Teen parish musically. Most songs during Mass were praise and worship on piano or guitar-based with a sprinkle of traditional hymnody thrown in. Chant, with the exception of Agnus Dei XVIII, seemed non-existent from the choir (though plentiful from the sanctuary). When I came in we made a rather drastic shift to using the propers found in the Lumen Christi Missal and in Fr. Samuel Weber's work, propers from the Gradual when we had time, and solid hymnody & organ music. The folks in the choir learned quickly how to do things, how to read neumes, etc. I did use the Simple English Propers (and once or twice the Ostrowski Mode II Propers) when needed - primarily when I knew I had a cantor who did not have time to come in and rehearse with me (single parents or working a hectic schedule) that could benefit from the YouTube videos available for the SEP that aren't available for the newer material (yet). But when I had time to rehearse with the singer? The SEP never entered my mind.

The Simple English Propers were a great place to start. But they're all the same... Every Introit by the same mode is nearly the same. Every Offertory in the same mode is the same. Ditto for the Communio. It makes the Propers (which should change with every Mass and have a melody and text that unite together beautifully!) seem stagnant and "ordinary."

The Simple and more solemn versions put out by Bartlett for the Lumen Christi Series, on the other hand, treat the text in a much more specific way. The text and the chant work together - each chant having a life of its own with the text - rather than being systematic. Similar things could be said for the Introits/Communios of Fr. Columba Kelly and the proper chants put out by Fr. S. Weber. They're really beautiful pieces of music that I think can really stand the test of time in a way that the SEP cannot. On weekends where we would do pieces from the SEP I would be dreading them by the 4th or 5th Mass of the weekend - but that is again not the case for the Lumen Christi chants or Weber chants. These have life - though not quite to the level of the actual chants of the Gradual - and can be repeated with success and without becoming tedious.

At my last rehearsal for the parish I mentioned above, I went through all of the Propers for the first few Sundays of Advent with them to give them a heads-up before they began working with the Interim Director of Music. Usually these required some real spoon-feeding (I sing the phrase, they sing the phrase, repeat, repeat, repeat). When we got to the Communio for Advent II from the Lumen Christi Missal, something amazing happened. They got it. Instantly. No repeating back and forth necessary. HOW COULD THIS BE? Well, they sang it the previous year - my first Sunday at the Parish. They began singing it better than they'd ever sung chant before. And it was different than when we'd occasionally use the SEPs and come across a Mode I Introit - they all knew that pattern and would pick it up but without excitement. This had excitement! It was like they were seeing an old friend for the first time in a year! The fluidity of the text and tune for the Communio of Advent II propelled them forth and they sang it like it was something they'd known for years! It was thrilling! Hearing the words "Jerusalem, arise and stand upon the heights," sore forward and upward gave me almost as much enjoyment of hearing the words "ad te levavi" sung by a professional choir.

I've put together a few examples of this, comparing the different versions of the vernacular chants available for specific days. I've included the SEP, Lumen Christi (simple or gradual), Fr. Kelly, and Fr. Weber's chants in these. I make no editorial comment on which of these I think is best in each case, but if you sing the SEP version and then ANY of the other vernacular versions, I'm sure you'll see concretely the point that I am trying to make.

The Simple English Propers were a necessity in 2011. They filled a gap that was left empty for too long with a neat and tidy easy to use book, a wonderfully put together website, and an easy-to-use resource. Now, however, we have to move beyond them. If you're not at the point of opening the Graduale Romanum every week yet, it's time to look at the other options: The Graduale Simplex, the Lumen Christi Missal/Gradual/Simple Gradual, Fr. Weber's resources, Fr. Kelly's resources, and others. The better the chants are that you are using, the more successful the future of sacred music will be. Any choir presently singing the Simple English Propers (except those who totally rely on the youtube rehearsal videos) could open the Lumen Christi Gradual and sing the simple versions this Sunday. We need to realize that the SEP can be a tool that is useful in some cases, but that in most cases it is time to move beyond them.

Perhaps we'd like to discuss the comparisons I've posted. Obviously if any of the owners of these chants would like them removed, I'd be glad to do so.

hartleymartin

The SEP are but one of rhe chant collections in my toolbox for church music. I am working on a scheme where in my college choir we start with SEP each year to help the new and often quite raw beginners get into it, and then later on move to BFW and the GS.

Wendi

We use a combination of the SEP and the Lumen Christi, along with the occasional choral version as rehearsal time allows.

Sometimes though, our choir finds the simplicity and familiarity of the SEP very comforting. It is IMO an invaluable resource when introducing a choir (or a congregation) to square note notation, and chant.

As for it being ordinary...I must respectfully disagree. Yes, the chants are simple and unchanging...the very simplicity of them has a meditative quality that some people find very helpful in drawing deeper into the mystery of the Mass.

As usual...YMMV

MaryAnn Carr Wilson

Matthew, agreed in toto.
I'm afraid that temporary steps are often seen as permanent solutions. People get the impression that they're singing "the" propers, when they're singing serviceable and sometimes lovely paraphrases of the authentic propers. We're living through an extension of the Rossini Syndrome, when directors are tempted to say "Propers- check! Now let me move on to other stuff".

So choir directors have a responsibility to be teaching the authentic propers whenever possible if they take seriously the directives of the Church. The "whenever possible" is where things get sticky.

One hurdle we can't clear as musicians is whether the pastor is ready for chants of the Gradual.

Other hurdles, well, we should be striving, quickly and diligently, to clear those.

The restoration of Gregorian chant means, in part, the actual singing of the actual propers.

melofluent

MACW and MJM, I fretted over responding at all as there are so many factors to consider, and I vociferously believe that cyberforums amplify generalities beyond the purpose of servicing fruitful discussion. MA, you have neatly summed up the presumptive endgame of the dialectic of RotR. You and untold others have providentially found "sanctuary" in parish/cathedral/other worship communities inwhich you can practice both your chosen sacred art and worship in total synchronicity. Others have lost jobs but go off the professional grid to remain true to their convictions. Others, like Ed Schafer and Richard Rice, have labored long and hard straddling the fence only to realize their own personal futility with this built-in problem.
But to call the question so boldly, putting the primary responsibility upon the shoulders of a woefully undervalued, often terribly mistreated and villified and tho' armed with professional credentials on sheepskin and in their hearts, considered "the help" when it boils down to it by all a church's constituencies, particularly those who vest up on Sundays, is a horse pill too large to sell as the panacea here, and by the efforts and practices of CMAA as we've experienced for a decade.
MJM- one has to consider the experience of singing chant (hearing chant) as much more than a repertoire choice. To admit boredom and insufficiency with SEP only points the bony finger of indignation at the tool, not the humans employing them. And it also reveals a tendency in our own hearts to idealize the ultimate nirvana, in other words, we "consummed" this and other innovations under pretense that they were never meant as a terminus. Who are we to make that call? I'd like to remain naive enough to think that Richard's exquisite Choral Communio collection stands strongly among many of those found on Aristotles polyphonic spreadsheet. I'd like Kathy to keep applying her vision of translated Latin propers into artful and provocative strophic hymn verse.
One could prattle on literally forever, but there is a reason CMAA and CanticaNova and others labor against the convenient tides of commercialism to keep the Mahrt paradigm as efficacious as possible, so that they are helping hands to receive folks where they are and help them move towards a better path. Thanks.

MaryAnn Carr Wilson

Melo, with utmost love and respect, I've been saying the same thing since I figured out the Church's quite clear paradigm and fell in love with it. I've been repeating it in and out of season, in and out of jobs with greater and lesser freedom to implement propers:

Church musicians are called to restore Gregorian chant. The restoration of Gregorian chant means, in part, the actual singing of the actual propers.

It's a bold thing to put on the shoulders of church musicians. But it is what we are asked to do, and it is a beautiful thing.

I freely acknowledge its not possible in some circumstances, and that's where chant adaptations fill the gap- for a time, as Matthew reminds us. Still, in many other circumstances choir directors can and should be restoring sacred music. Simplified propers are not enough in the long term. Not in the EF, not in the OF.

My hope is that every director thoughtfully considers whether their program is aligned with restoring sacred music, and reorders their own priorities as needed and as they are able.
If not us, then who? If not now, when?

melofluent

Of course, MA. But we must acknowledge that even little "gaps" occasionally become canyons which will never be bridged again. And the notion that we can push the liturgical eschatology to fulfillment is noble, but history has proven that we are required to stay awake, keep the lamps lit and to keep the faith. The Church clock moves inexorably slow.

MaryAnn Carr Wilson

Sometimes though, our choir finds the simplicity and familiarity of the SEP very comforting.

The choir I inherited said the same thing about Rossini propers. People naturally like what they know, and after singing Rossini for dozens of years to "get the propers part of rehearsal out of the way" and onto their favorite polyphony, they couldn't imagine the bike without the training wheels. They were stuck in "good enough".

The pastor wanted them weaned from Rossini, and I was happy to help with that. Five years later, we are now assimilating Graduals and a few remaining Alleluias. They know the other propers fairly well. The schola that was attached to Rossini is now flying free with the authentic chants. And they still get to sing polyphony. :)

Sometimes we singers and directors unwittingly become the hurdles in restoring Gregorian chant. as described in this story. Putting serious effort into singing chant is nothing new; though now the added hurdle of Latin-phobia looms large.

irishtenor

That's the biggest thing for me, MACW: LATIN. I have a member or two who are ready to raise a fuss whenever we do anything in Latin--even beautiful polyphony! Without the pastor spending any political capital on encouraging the use of Latin, it has been very difficult to move in that direction.

That said, we've made great improvement in our English repertoire, so maybe I shouldn't complain...

MaryAnn Carr Wilson

When Latin is the big hurdle, sometimes (Melo, I said sometimes!) it goes back to the catch 22 of composing tons in the vernacular. Folks with Latin allergies use the well intentioned efforts of others writing transitional vernacular adaptations to avoid the actual propers, because [shock!] that would involve using Latin. The temporary solution becomes the permanent.

"Well, we are singing propers, so no need to sing from the Gradual." Face palm.

Chris_McAvoy

That is very good that Many people move beyond the SEP and recognize their "training wheel" quality. The Roman rite existed for 2,000 years without the SEP, I think it can exist for many more with or without with them. But it could not exist as well without the original Latin Gradual, or at least very closely imitative version in another language.

Much like "organs" I never have been very impressed or enamored with the Simple English Propers. They are a useful tool that can become the end of the means instead of means to the end. I do applaud their intention and agree with the basic idea is as useful, but I can never say I genuinely like them or promoted them, except as a "last resort".

I think that my motives of starting with the elaborate chants right from the beginning, even if they are not sung as well and are overwhelming is in the long term more beneficial than too much emphasis on simplicity for too long a time.

All forms of simplicity within the Latin Church is something I see as best to move away from into the world of complexity and elaboration. 2 hour masses, instead of 1 hour.

I think the idea of english chant is good, but if it does not imitates the exact same melodies used in the ancient latin propers, I lose interest.

Aristotle Esguerra

I'm not certain how long my FB convos with MJM are or if our working definitions of "long" are similar—but I can say that the praxis MJM described is similar to my own regarding SEP, that is, a steady diet of it (with occasional polyphonic substitutions). I freely admit to "autopiloting" with SEP. It has served as a stable, easily accessible means to lend more coherence to the three-year Sunday cycle both musically and theologically (the strongest aspect of singing vernacular propers are the verses—and I say this as one who directed Gregorian chant for five years at an OF-turned-EF Sunday Mass). And I have found that asking my choristers questions about the propers, such as "when else do we sing this Psalm during the year?" has resulted in more than a few "a-ha" moments and a greater awareness of the true Actor of the liturgy.

At the choir Mass the SEP propers (antiphons + at least one verse at the Introit, and often all the verses at Offertory and Communion) are joined by two hymns (bookends), up to four choral works (prelude, offertory, communion, and either second communion or choral postlude). This is to balance out my pastor's request for (lots of) choral partsong with the Church's desire to restore all things (foremost the liturgy) in Christ (the texts of the proper chants being largely from the Psalter that his own holy tongue uttered), and my own desire to foster greater liturgical literacy and sensitivity among my choristers. It's quite the balancing act.

The Latin question is answered thusly in this situation—outside of the Sanctus, Agnus, O Salutaris, Tantum Ergo, and polyphony, it won't be had at the moment. And for what it's worth, I'm not particularly keen on incorporating, however excellent they may be, more complex, closer-to-Gregorian-melody chants from Palmer-Burgess or the American Gradual. I may consider using the Lumen Christi Gradual when it becomes available in a single volume, but that brings me to another strength of the SEP—it's in one volume.

We live in time and as such need to prioritize our battles. If I were in a situation where the pastor's vision of sacred music explicitly included the Gregorian propers, I would move to fulfill that vision (and I dare say with aplomb). But that is not my situation—in fact, the Gregorian propers are not a viable option, therefore "wherever possible" does not apply here. The pastor wanted the choir weaned not from Rossini to Gregorian, but from "show tunes" to "sacred music" loosely defined (which I found out later was "polyphony/harmony"); and thanks be to God that has happened, and not merely for the aesthetics. But until the pastor—who remains the competent territorial authority for the liturgy in our parishes—calls for the move from vernacular to Gregorian propers, no movement will be made.

For all my chafing about it, I admit there is a certain comfort in liturgical validity and liceity (read: the 100% daily minimum) as defined by the Latin church. But there will be no liturgy executed perfectly in this world, and in the liturgy of the world to come, roles like ours may well be superfluous. (I also take comfort in that possibility.)

melofluent

All great points.
One point you're all missing: the medium and the message might need to align. Chris, with respect, "I" doesn't count for much when you're lovingly trying to rehabilitate the great "unwashed." Would you, who are in unique situos, try to empathise with the rest of us for whom comprehension, accessibility and form are still bones of contention. For the record, after I became enamoured of the GREAT CMAA, i force-fed my schola and the congregation they assisted with the GR Communio's, thanks to RR. Esoteric.
When RR compiled and released the SCG, both my choir folks and the PIPs were down widdat.(We had a year's flirtation with Bruce Ford, praise God for him.)
But it was not until SEP that the whole enchilada (concept) of praying in perfect union, thanks to simple neumes and recitational English, became a watershed.
We are where Matthew is, but without regret for greener pastures. We sing SEP introit, occasional SEP/SCG Offertorio, and RR's Choral or SCG Communio's in a stuffed agenda, and have never heard complaint one from ANYONE.
As MACW and MJM both know, I expand the envelope as God agrees to my silly strategies. But if there's one thing I know after four plus decades, don't force-feed GEN YOU WINE Catholicism down the folks' throat, even in America.
Take this as my advice: if visitors or SHIP OF FOOLS unknowingly to you, sits in your pews, just make sure they've recognized they were at a Catholic Church by the musical affect if nothing else, by your choices. And do make sure your singers love the sound of singing as one. Then, you're done.

hartleymartin

I think it varies from parish to parish and from choir to choir. Some have no problems with learning new stuff and others seem to fiercely resist doing anything other than the 4-hymn sandwich that they know.

Where I've just accepted a post as an organist, most of the people have never heard of "O Come Emmanuel" and it seems that for a number of years now that they have just sung the same handful of hymns every single Sunday except for carols at Christmas. I've got some work ahead of me...

Kathy

I just want to say that I feel this is a very important conversation.

Also, that Mary Ann's very concrete suggestion is in danger of being looked on by some as a pie-in-the-sky ideal, rather than the absolutely possible ideal that it is. You could, you can, sing true Gregorian propers. Yes, it might take rehearsal time that might otherwise be devoted to learning new fun anthems. Or, it might take a super-schola that rehearses at a different time. It might take the propers out of the congregation and into the schola, which is fine. But she is right, and this is possible.

melofluent

My friends, please know that I'm on the same page theoretically. But a ton, a vast majority of RCC musicians and congregations do not have any vestigial memory or experience with the noble simplicity and beauty of the Latin Mass in either form. As has been discussed on these boards, you can have a congregation attending a funeral full of Catholics that you know personally and see every Sunday morning who suddenly "forget" all the responses, the postures and whatnot because it's a funeral.
Now imagine all the parishes all over the globe who have no one, literally no ONE person qualified or even disposed of heart to celebrate the liturgy in more than a perfunctorial or worse, self-aggrandizing manner!
What I pray for is the continuing example of HHFRancis drawing the attention of sleepy, earth-bound nominal RC's back to the beauty of the gospels and then into, by example such as Kathy's experiencing in Rome, the beauty of liturgy enacted by ALL the faithful in their rightful capacities.

melofluent

To illustrate points I've made in earlier posts, this excerpt is from an interview Jeff Tucker just posted today at the Cafe. The only reason I think it salient to this important conversation is that it illustrates the divergence of approaches and even mandates within our own movement:

I want to mention one more thing before I close: I think it’s really urgent that we stop thinking about the problems of the music in the Mass as a war between styles. It’s not that styles don’t matter, but if that’s all you’re thinking about you’re really missing the point. To my mind, if you’re able to accomplish the propers of the Mass with a guitar then that’s a gigantic improvement. Even if it’s using pop styles, it’s a huge improvement. I don’t think that we’re on the right track if all we’re doing is arguing about why type of music needs to be played in Mass. What we need to be talking about is the texts and that’s where it has to begin.

Another common mistake are the great hymn wars. People say: “I like that hymn”, and then somebody else says, “God I hate that hymn”. This is a totally pointless debate because they’re not talking about anything that really matters. Really? There will be no resolving this debate as long as it’s taking place on these terms. It just ends up dividing people when the whole point of music is not to create factions and tribes that just bludgeon each other forever. That’s what’s been going on for the past 50 years and it’s gotten us absolutely nowhere. So those are the two things that we absolutely must avoid. And insofar as it’s possible, we need to be ensure that we are not demonizing the other side

This is the conundrum as I see it: we need to be able to get passed these obstacles and yet be consistent with our own thinking, and open, even persistent in talking to the Flowerday's, the Haas', the Farrell's so that we can build, ever so slowly consensus. I doubt if anyone here truly believes that at JT's core, he would defend the primacy of the proper text were it set to something akin to "Enter Sandman" by Metallica, but he's obviously making an inviting gesture, an evangelical gesture, kissing the elephant man (so to speak) in the room just like.....

matthewj

I think some people - including a few who have emailed me over this - have misinterpreted my point. I'm not saying you have to immediately move beyond the SEP to the Gradual - I understand Latin and difficulty-level are still problems in many places.

But - it's time to move beyond these settings. Look at the Lumen Christi settings. They're not more difficult in most cases, but are much better settings for the texts. Look at the Fr. Weber settings. In many cases they are more difficult, but they are achievable for many choirs.

Adam Wood

I want to mention one more thing before I close: I think it’s really urgent that we stop thinking about the problems of the music in the Mass as a war between styles. It’s not that styles don’t matter, but if that’s all you’re thinking about you’re really missing the point. To my mind, if you’re able to accomplish the propers of the Mass with a guitar then that’s a gigantic improvement. Even if it’s using pop styles, it’s a huge improvement. I don’t think that we’re on the right track if all we’re doing is arguing about why type of music needs to be played in Mass. What we need to be talking about is the texts and that’s where it has to begin.

I AGREE WITH THIS.

I went to All Saints Mass at a parish near where I work, which has (supposedly) a "traditional" music program. They have the V2 AND the St. Michael in the pew.

All organ. All traditional hymns.

But the music made no sense. It had nothing to do with the liturgy. The veneer of traditionalism was basically Protestant traditionalism, and it was SO BORING.

This is not an improvement, no matter how much you hate "Song of the Body of Christ."

hartleymartin

I've been to plenty of masses where it seems that the hymn was chosen by throwing a hymnal across the room and seeing what page it landed open on.

One such recent gig was on a Marian feast and the hymn they chose was clearly a Lenten one!

The worst part was that no-one in the congregation new it, and even the cantors had to learn it 30 minutes before mass. It wasn't sung badly, but if you're going to put a hymn into the liturgy (after chanting propers!) the whole point is that it is something which fosters the participation of the people and is something that many people will know or at least can pick up by the second or third verse!

melofluent

Sez Little Joe Adam Cartwright: "But the music made no sense. It had nothing to do with the liturgy. The veneer of traditionalism was basically Protestant traditionalism, and it was SO BORING."
Too shay-and I reiterate:

if visitors or SHIP OF FOOLS unknowingly to you, sits in your pews, just make sure they've recognized they were at a Catholic Church by the musical affect if nothing else, by your choices. And do make sure your singers love the sound of singing as one. Then, you're done.

vogelkw

Please don't forget that there are many places that can barely even move to the SEP let alone move beyond it. For example, I lead the introit and communion antiphon from the SEP occasionally for feasts on weekdays, but as an associate I have little influence in the movement to have propers used at Sunday Masses. Another example: My sister started a small choir at the church she was at, and I told her about the SEP. Even with the practice videos, she and her choir members only felt able to do a setting from the SEP because they also had ryand's accompaniment. Finally, our diocese has asked all parishes to learn two chant settings of the Mass. This has revealed a certain fear/inability to chant. When led by our parish musicians chant often sounds not like chant, but like whatever musical style in which they were trained/self-taught. So many Catholics first need to be taught how to chant, even with simple chants. I am grateful for the existence of the growing list of English proper resources because it gives me hope that parishes can move to the propers, even if our desire should be to move beyond the minimum the the most beautiful. Fr. Vogel

Richard Mix

Hm, propers with guitar vs. 16c polychoral alius cantus: this is rather hard for me. Since "gigantic improvement" implies comparison to some standard, maybe the wags at Ship of Fools would say it's actually preferable that they end up confused about whether they're in a Catholic church.

MaryAnn Carr Wilson

Since we are all fools for Christ, and the barque of Peter is the Church, I have no problem being on that ship of fools.

Singing the authentic chants is a clear goal, given by the Church, and there's no need to be uppity about achieving that goal or defensive about not being able to, for whatever legitimate reason.

Do the best you can, while moving toward the authentic chants.
If that means SEP for now, even with accompaniment, so be it. If that means something in between for now, so be it. If that means singing the actual propers for years and needing to go deeper in study and beautiful rendering of those chants, so be it.

Aristotle Esguerra

To be clear, I don't object to MJM's point that the SEP melodies are inferior to either Bartlett's LCG or Fr. Weber's—how could I? I do, however, object to the extra paperwork that migrating to either collection currently would entail. To reiterate the altar-of-convenience angle, which is a huge factor in my sticking with the SEP:

I may consider using the Lumen Christi Gradual when it becomes available in a single volume, but that brings me to another strength of the SEP—it's in one volume.

My choirs instinctively reach for the "beige book" at the three major processions—it's become part of their kinesthetic worship regimen. So if I were to migrate to another collection, it would need to be 1) comparable in difficulty to the SEP and 2) a one-volume hardcopy book.

So I will be looking out for hardbound copies of not only the LCG but also Fr. Weber's gradual, which based on this preview seems to offer multiple melodies of varying difficulty for each of the processional chants—an intriguing solution.

If I'm around long enough, I would consider either of the following migration paths:

SEP > LCG > Graduale Romanum
SEP > Weber neumatic/melismatic > Graduale Romanum

But I currently envision falling short of the Graduale Romanum in either case.

M. Jackson Osborn

There seems still to be no talk of a truly COMPLETE English Graduale, meaning something of the calibre of Fr Weber or Fr Columba that contains Introit, Gradual AND Responsorial Psalm for years ABC, Alleluya and Verse, Offertory and Communion, all in English translations of the Graduale Romanum texts. Note that I included the responsorial psalm: this needs to be an option for the vast majority of parishes which would opt not to sing The Gradual; and, there is nothing at all wrong with it: it is not a new-fangled invention, but a quite ancient (more ancient than the truncated Gradual, which is what is left of a responsorial psalm) item of the liturgy. Why do we have books of propers which are not complete books of propers because they omit the responsorial psalm and the Offertory Antiphon, and sometimes do not use the texts from the Roman Gradual - using instead those 'antiphons' in the missal which were (as we all know) not intended to be sung? Also, I scratch my head as to why antiphonal propers (Introit, Offertory, Communion) are now commonly effectively turned into responsorial ones. The only propers that are historically responsorial are the Gradual/Responsorial Psalm and the Alleluya and Verse. The historical shape of the propers is carelessly distorted by the provision of responds in chants that are supposed to be antiphonal. An antiphon and a respond (called by some a 'refrain') are not the same thing. We need a Complete English American Gradual that is faithful in form to the historic propers.

Andrew_Malton

MJO, please clarify or draw more clearly the distinction you hold between respond (or refrain or responsory) and antiphon.

Ignoto

Why do we have books of propers which...sometimes do not use the texts from the Roman Gradual - using instead those 'antiphons' in the missal which were (as we all know) not intended to be sung?

Perhaps because the books of propers are following the Roman Missal.

As Bugnini said, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal "prescribes how each 'sung' text is to be handled when the Mass is actually a Mass with singing and when the Mass is simply read. The entrance and communion antiphons, for example, are to be sung or read for their value in showing the meaning of the celebration and feast" (p. 387).

I am also interested in learning more about the idea and historical context of the "antiphonal" antiphons vs. the "responsorial" antiphons. By "antiphonal," do you mean left/right or men/women as opposed to antiphon/verse?

Perhaps the first two of the four options listed in GIRM 48 could include the "responsorial" Entrance Antiphon form and the last two options could include the "antiphonal" Entrance Antiphon form (if, for example, the men and women took turns singing): "This chant is sung alternately 1. by the choir and the people or similarly 2. by a cantor and the people, or 3. entirely by the people, or 4. by the choir alone."

However, since GIRM 87 only lists three options for the Communion Antiphon (not allowing the singing to be entirely by the people), the "antiphonal" form potentially could only occur within the choir itself. The "responsorial" form would then occur when the latter two options are chosen: "This is sung either 1. by the choir alone or 2. by the choir [with the people] or 3. a cantor with the people."

M. Jackson Osborn

Andrew Malton -
A respond (often mis-labelled a 'refrain') is literally just that, a short chant (usually a verse from the given psalm) that is sung responsorially by all between every several verses of a psalm, the verses themselves (historically being somewhat more elaborate) being sung by a cantor. The historic Gradual, the Responsorial Psalm, and the Alleluya and its Verse are 'responsorial' psalmody. This is quite distinct from antiphonal psalmody, in which all sing an antiphon, followed by groups I and II alternating verses of the psalm, followed by all singing the antiphon. In this type of psalmody the antiphon may be repeated only at the end of the alternated verses, or between every two verses or multiples thereof. The Introit, the Offertory, and the Communion are such antiphonal psalmody. The distinction between antiphonal and responsorial psalmody is quite ancient, and is preserved in vestigial form in the mass propers as we have inherited them in the Graduale Romanum. It is sad to witness that this distinction is stood on its head in several settings of 'propers' now being used and highly touted. Also sad that I have yet to see a collection of 'propers' which really has ALL the five propers for any mass (and, we may consider the Responsorial Psalm as an option in place of The Gradual as part of a complete set of propers).

You may have noticed that the responsorial psalmody between the readings and preceding the gospel is meditative or reflective, whereas the antiphonal psalmody takes place during the action of processions, i.e., entrance, offertory, and communion. Another historic distinction that is lost totally with the current fad for turning all the five propers into responsorial forms.

melofluent

There seems still to be no talk of a truly COMPLETE English Graduale, meaning something of the calibrelike of Fr Weber or Fr Columba that contains Introit, Gradual AND Responsorial Psalm for years ABC,

Jackson, far be it from me to illuminate the obvious, but the whole point of the dialectic from Matthew to MaryAnn is that there is NO apparent recognitio, much less mandated legislation which provides for the protocols of CREATING a COMPLETE ENGLISH GRADUAL. That's what MaryAnn is emphasizing: the paradigm still is lodged in Latin. Therefore, all politics will remain local, save for maybe the Ordinariate and TLM communities. That is the RUB.
I think the heart of catholic ethos resides in the unmetered chanting of sacred texts, whether in vernacular or Latin remains a local decision, as does polyphony (like everyone will suddenly stop singing IF YE LOVE ME), hymnody and yes, sacred song.

hartleymartin

I have a very different problem in that one particular group I work for insists on chant propers, but uses only the antiphons in the missal. I think I'm going to have to write a guide on selecting church music and explain to them what commons are and how to apply "et alius cantus aptus"

CharlesW

A book with everything would be great. Currently, I search, cut, paste, photocopy, and shuffle entirely too much paper to use English Propers. I know it would be simpler to drop the whole concept of Propers - which may be part of the problem and a reason they have fallen into disuse.

Kathy

Charles W, you are going to love this http://illuminarepublications.com/lumen-christi-series/

donr

@hartleymartin I also have to use the antiphons out of the missal if I am going to use anything at all. This is supposed to foster "active participation".
I am still trying to teach what active participation really means. I do use the Propers out of the the SEP occasionally but mostly use the LCM for this and other reasons. I have also used Fr. Weber's great works. Don't really care for BFW

Jani

We just started using SEP last week. Do we have to quit already?? ;-)

rogue63

Here's a little Molotov cocktail---

Does it not smack of Gnosticism in insisting on the Latin language music of the Graduale? The GIRM makes no specification for language used---does the American Gradual satisfy?

MaryAnn Carr Wilson

Rogue, in short, no.
The Church asks for a restoration of Gregorian chant, that we sing what is our heritage when possible. The Church is bigger than America, bigger than English speakers.

I don't see how singing the chants proper to the Mass can be called Gnosticism. I'd say that would smack of something closer to American tunnel vision, and the fruit of it can separate us from the universal body of Christ.

There is a standard- the Graduale Romanum. If you can get there, fine. If you can't, God knows why. There are real reasons, legitimate reasons, real hurdles to implementing the actual propers. It takes time, and the will to do it or allow it. But for pity's sake, don't hurl Gnosticism at people for upholding the standard.

Adam Wood

The GIRM makes no specification for language used

I would... dispute this.

rogue63

MaryAnn did not address my question about language---I wasn't talking about music. I never said the proper chants constituted Gnosticism---my choir and cantors sing three of the 5 propers every Sunday. I asked if specifically the insistence on Latin constitutes Gnosticism, and I haven't heard an answer yet.

MaryAnn, are you suggesting that Gregorian chant should not be sung in English?

Andrew_Malton

Lobbing a Molotov riposte I would assert the reverse, namely that the general instruction only grants first place to chants extant in the Graduales, therefore Latin and Gregorian; and all adaptations, simplifications, and flowing translations are alii cantus.

rogue63

Touche! The abundance of options for the modern liturgy does make it difficult. And Adam is right that the GIRM suggests Latin in its instructions, but it does not specify.

MaryAnn Carr Wilson

the general instruction only grants first place to chants extant in the Graduales, therefore Latin and Gregorian; and all adaptations, simplifications, and flowing translations are alii cantus.

Bingo. The pre and post conciliar standard is reinforced in the girm.

We are not talking about Gnosticism.

MaryAnn Carr Wilson

Gregorian chant is the marriage of the Latin (Greek) texts to melodies. There is no such thing as Gregorian chant in English.

However, there exists some worthy, or otherwise serviceable plainchant in English. I think it's good to use that when needed. It has a purpose and makes a contribution.

This being said, vernacular adaptations of any sort should not distract us from realizing the standard of singing the authentic propers.

Jacques Perrière

Yep. Gregorian chant is Latin. (With a bit of Greek...)

Back to the definition, French Wikipedia says: « Gregorian chant is an anonymous sacred chant, usually interpreted by a choir or a soloist called cantor. It is intended to carry the liturgical text in Latin. » (Le chant grégorien est un chant sacré anonyme, habituellement interprété par un chœur ou par un soliste appelé chantre. Il est destiné à soutenir le texte liturgique en latin.)

SEP is about filling the area where the GIRM talks about "(3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the diocesan Bishop".
Call it chant or English chant yes, but not Gregorian chant.

melofluent

All well and fine, but none of this rubricism addresses the disparity and divergency of thought by the promulgation of now myriad vernacular English settings out there (Mueller the latest, they seem to arrive daily now) as well as the exhortations by the editor in chief of "SACRED MUSIC" quoted above as well as others (myself included) that exist within the CMAA community itself.
There's no way around it, all politics is local.

rogue63

Some of us seem to live and move and have our being in ivory towers---good luck to all of you!

I've been dismayed at the contempt hurled on Mr. Bartlett's fine projects here. "Yeah, yeah, they're great and everything, but let's move on the real stuff!" What if the SEP is the upper musical limit of the choir, the director, or the parish? I think all of you naysayers owe Mr. Bartlett a big apology---this is no different than slicing up certain other composers in public. The SEP are excellent work, and have served multiple choirs under my direction very well, and if they become the end result for a parish, then we should be thankful they didn't end up with projection screens and Bill-Evans style combo. The good and the perfect are not enemies.

melofluent

Rogue, I don't think MJM or anyone else has been publicly contempuous of SEP/LCM or Adam personally at all. But, I do think the tone drifted here and there to a sort of elitist contempt, and that is definitely not what CMAA needs to again display before our own clientele and the larger public liturgical world, some of whom monitor us here secretly and have long ago deemed every one of us snobs.
Chant, chant, chant- is the peoples' music.
All the scholastic hoopla is good for energizing dormant brain cells, and I sure as heck love what Olbash's brother and others are doing with performance practice research and imagination, but can we agree simply to sell the ethos of "chant" first and foremost, and not get bent over what qualifies as "Gregorian chant."
As I understand it, the very concept of the collected chants being "Gregorian" is a bit fallacious anyway.
Just chant.

Adam Wood

Yep. Gregorian chant is Latin. (With a bit of Greek...)

Back to the definition...

That is not how definitions work.

Jacques Perrière

@Adam Wood: yeaaah, maybe the meaning is different between the French word and the English word...

CharlesW

As I understand it, the very concept of the collected chants being "Gregorian" is a bit fallacious anyway.
Just chant.

Yep, Pope Gregory wouldn't recognize most of it if it bit him on the arse. There is English chant, Latin chant, and a host of other collections. I think the Rice and Bartlett works beat the daylights out of "We Are Called," any day of the week. I am glad those collections exist, and use them along with music written by others.

...some of whom monitor us here secretly and have long ago deemed every one of us snobs.

We are not all snobs. Some just seem to suffer from incense poisoning. ;-)

MaryAnn Carr Wilson

No one is disparaging Mr. Bartlett.

The message is basic. Keep in mind the universal Church's standard while doing the best you can in your local circumstance. Be charitable, diligent, obedient, and incremental in your approach.

No need to be defensive. No need to pretend there isn't a standard just because the liturgical life of most local parishes is in a protracted identity crisis. No need to shoot the messenger, call fellow workers in the vineyard heretics living in ivory towers. What does that accomplish?

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories