Canadian Missal Gloria

Yes, I pointed them out. I also pointed out he is fully talented enough to write one, and if it didn't work, he could write another.

Proloux Missa simplex's Gloria is simple, if he's looking for something easy to introduce.

Page 846 of the Lumen Christi Missal has a very good setting.

Available for free here:
http://illuminarepublications.com/products/lcm/ (click full preview)

See my initial comments. I already sent him the full CCW collection but the website itself seems odd to me. When you go to "Liturgical Music," you get stuff for the year. Mass ordinaries and other stuff you have to find by going to "site map." Unless I missed something, which is possible.

Besides, when I got back to him my young friend had written a metrical setting himself, which I had encouraged him to do, as he is quite good. Thanks for all the suggestions.

And I should have added he wants to retire Proulx because they have been doing it for a while.

I have one. Let's see if I can find it.

St. Meinrad Kyriale I suggest Mass XI and Mass I

Amen and amen, Noel. I have said the same for years!

"After all, Glorias that use the opening phrase over and over again as an antiphon are banned but popular."

Are they? I think they are disdained, but not banned.

Troped Kyries are a legitimate option. It's the troped Agnus Dei that isn't.

Then you're banishing any polyphonic or orchestral setting that happens to repeat texts. Be careful with over-legalism, as it can banish some truly wonderful things.

There's a huge difference between "Glory to God, Glory to God, Glory to God in the highest" and "have mercy on us, Glory to God [...] good will. For you alone..."

One repeats words or phrases in their proper location (something approved by the church by her approval of polyphony), and the other takes texts from completely different places. A "responsorial" gloria is far different than polyphony. One is repetition of texts, the other is the reordering of texts.

If that's scrapping (sp) the bottom, there are a hell of a lot of people down here with me, too bad there's no accounting for our collective bad taste. I have set the Old Scottish Chant to the G, but felt there would be too much criticism from the My Anglican is Better side to actually make that public.

As a friend's mother said, when asked if she believed in heaven..."I've never thought about it, I figure, no matter which one I end up in I will find relatives there."

Must those of us who bring up the Anglican side of things always get put in our place, since no matter where our place is, we'll have friends and relatives there...just not the Anglican ones, I guess.

Of course, you pick on the unwashed among your own people, too: This setting is very widely sung in the Episcopal church and is very 'piscopal. While I am a fervent lover of Anglican chant, I do not think much of singing Gloria to repetitive tones, whether they be Anglican

Let them know, there's always room at the bottom with us.

The Anglican chants and music is superior to the RC, without a doubt...I truly believe that, so let's encourage rather than stand above and criticize people away from it.

Repetition until you, as a musician, are totally bored, is the initial point at which people in the congregation are beginning, just beginning, to be comfortable and wanting to sing. Music, as Ralph outlines, would be very effective.

Is the GIRM not the unofficial wiggle-room for those bishops who ignore and even hate Rome?

To me, yes; just as much as a telescoped setting of the Gloria or Credo.

Just because something was (vaguely) permitted in 18th Century Austria doesn't mean that it is proper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opf30ZwVdvM

Just to check, where is this crucial dichotomy of "repetition" vs. "reordering" found in any authoritative documents of the Church?

Repetition -> Strongly (implicitly) approved by the Church's endorsement of polyphony. The very nature of polyphony demands it. No one would argue this.

Reordering -> You're missing the point. You're looking at it the wrong way. No where has it been specifically allowed, so that means it's not. The church says no changing the text, but allows repetition. But where does it allow reordering? They are not the same thing.

Also, let's look at tradition: if there had been a massive tradition of using "responsorial Gloria's" before the reforms, I would understand the argument. But as it is now, it's a new innovation.

So the Credo of Mozart's Coronation Mass (KV 317), which ends, "... et vitam venturi saeculi, amen (x20). Credo in unum Deum, amen, amen," would rule it out for sacred use in your mind. Okay.

Yes, that would rule it out. Not the approved text. Old ≠ always correct.

See, go away for a few days. Yes, typo, I was thinking Agnus Dei. I am not sure I understand troped kyries, but I am sure someone can tell me!

Ben, does this mean that the repeated "Salve" motive in the Quinta Vox of the attached Josquin "Salve Regina" which persists through all three parts of this setting is illicit?

I rather think not.

Also attached is a live recording by Zephyrus of this work; however, it is greatly compressed (at 32kbps) to fit within the 2kb limit on file sizes here.

One strike against the responsorial Gloria for me is the disruption of the flow of the text by a congregational refrain. Refrains/Antiphons/Responds are not implicitly a bad thing, they have their place, but the Gloria (and Creed) are not them.

I remember Mgr Wadsworth's Colloquium XXII address (subsequently reprinted in Sacred Music), wherein he mentioned the performance of the Creed at the Dublin Eucharistic Congress where a congregational response (Credo, Amen.) was used as a refrain in the text. "Not one of the approved methods", to paraphrase Mgr. Wadsworth.

The rubric for the Creed is:

GIRM 68: The Creed is to be sung or said by the Priest together with the people on Sundays and solemnities. It may be said also at particular celebrations of a more solemn character.
If it is sung, it is intoned by the Priest or, if appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir. It is then sung either by everybody together or by the people alternating with the choir.

According to the tradition of church music, the phrase "the people alternating with the choir" means alternatim performance, choir and people singing alternate phrases of the text; not a "refrain" setting where the choir sings the whole text punctuated by the people singing a refrain.

The rubric for the Gloria is almost exactly the same:

GIRM 53: [...] It [the Gloria] is intoned by the Priest or, if appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir; but it is sung either by everyone together, or by the people alternately with the choir, or by the choir alone. If not sung, it is to be recited either by everybody together or by two choirs responding to each other.

It says nothing about the people singing a refrain, either. If the Rubric for the Creed does not envision a "responsorial" Creed, then neither can the Rubric for the Gloria envision a "responsorial" Gloria.

Also, I think it should be noted that this is from the GIRM as adapted to the U.S. If the USCCB wanted to make the "responsorial" Gloria a licit option in the US, they could easily have voted when approving the US adaptation of the GIRM to make this rubric reflect that: "...sung by everyone together, or by the people alternately with the choir, or by the choir alone; a refrain may also be sung by the people, punctuating the text sung by the choir.", but they didn't.

The GIRM is Law and has the recognitio of the Holy See; SttL does not. SttL allowed for troped settings of the Agnus, but the Holy See made them revise it; the same fate may come to pass for "responsorial" Gloriae.

Mass of St Francis by Paul Taylor is a popular congregational setting of the Mass Ordinary being used in Australia.

The "Antiphonal/Responsorial Gloria" has it's origins in the idea that congregations wouldn't sing the whole thing, so the one phrase would be repeated by the congregation and the rest sung by a cantor/band. There was some merit in the idea in that it encouraged the congregation to chime in, but at the same time it grossly under-estimated the ability of congregations to learn the whole thing.

STTL No. 109 says: "Composers who set liturgical texts to musical settings must respect the integrity of the approved text. Only with the approval of the USCCB Secretariat for Divine Worship may minor adaptations be made to approved liturgical texts."

So are composers of refrain-style Glorias (which rob the people of singing most of the text) submitting them and getting approval from the USCCB SDW (EIEIO)?

Then we can only stand by the merits of the question without the extra support of an argument from law.

Thanks, Chonak, for the quote about composers respecting the integrity of approved liturgical texts. I think they also need to respect the literary forms of the texts.

A few years ago I was asked by some folks at GIA to update the John Lee psalm tone setting of the Gloria. I was happy to do it, but I must confess that this particular setting, while extremely practical and easy to sing, has never been a favorite of mine because, IMO, it does not respect the hymnic character of the text. I would rather sing a Gloria that has a refrain and that clearly comes across as a hymn, than one which sounds like the chanting of a psalm.

Add to that the fact that there are some serious textual challenges in the new ICEL translation. Psalm tone and Anglican chant tone settings can make the infelicities of the new translation even worse. Check how every setting of the Gloria treats one of the worst of those "infelicities": gló-ri-fy you, an accented syllable followed by three unaccented syllables (like "sanctuary" in psalm 63). That phrase is found in a sequence in which each verb gets the stress: We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you... Check to see how many settings which use a psalm tone have the last phrase coming out as: we glorify you.