Re-iterating Ordinary text phrases, ie. "echo" format
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Thinking about a particular Mass setting back in the 70's by a Seattle duo, Ellis and Lynch, that featured essentially a sort of call and response echoing of the text of the Holy, I remembered it being quite successful at the time.
    I'm feeling the need to spend some time reconciling the muse with the actuosa in a new setting, but I'm wondering if the essential text (say of the Holy/Sanctus) is not altered in any way, but restated, is that expressly prohibited?
    We've covered this ground with refrain Glorias, Viennese Masses wherein certain phrases are repeated or overlap into the next phrase in choral voicings, etc.
    But would this approach fly legally with church legislation?
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    I don't see why it would be prohibited; there's a long tradition of it, as you point out.
    Thanked by 1melofluent
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    "and on Earth, peace on Earth, peace to people of good will" apparently got an Imprimatur.

    Just sayin'.
    Thanked by 1melofluent
  • donr
    Posts: 969
    Actually Adam there is no imprimatur on that or any other Gloria found in the "Today's Music Issue" I dare any one to produce it.

    and the text actually says. "and on earth peace, on earth peace to people of good will." which repeats the words "on earth peace"

    It is sung the way you have it which actually adds the phrase "peace on earth" violating the no adding of words to the Gloria clause but it is not read that way, so they get away with it.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,100
    Actually Adam there is no imprimatur on that or any other Gloria found in the "Today's Music Issue" I dare any one to produce it.


    It is publish'd with ecclesiastical approval, which, in current kirk-musik-speak, is dynamically equivalent to ye Imprimatur et Nihl Obstat of olde.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • donr
    Posts: 969
    I like how they say its approved in the "Today's Music Issue" but in the "Today's Missal" it actually states "John G. Vlazny, Archbishop of Portland in Oregon. Published with the approval of the Committee on Divine Worship, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops." in bold.

    funny.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,703
    Well, I do know someone in charge of music at a university chapel who decided a setting like this, apparently even after MR3, was not approved (or shouldn't have been) because it wound up being Holy-Holy-Holy-Holy between the men and the women in the congregation, instead of either 3 (M-W-M or W-M-W, I suppose) or in 3 groups of 2 (Holy-Holy, sung 3 times). The first alternative was better, IMO, but they just chucked the setting anyways.
  • rollingrj
    Posts: 314
    Melo, I think you are looking for this, from Tra Le Sollecitudini :

    9. The liturgical text must be sung as it is in the books, without alteration or inversion of the words, without undue repetition, without breaking syllables, and always in a manner intelligible to the faithful who listen. (Emphasis mine.)
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Thanks, Ron.
    So, if I'm taking your interpretation-
    Sopranos: HOLY, HOLY, HOLY LORD GOD OF HOSTS....
    ATB/Cong.: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts.....
    Sopranos: HEAVEN AND EARTH.... etc.

    amounts to undue repetition?
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,367
    A single repetition is not "undue." One must be discussing the say-10 or 20 repetitions in a section of a Mozart or Haydn Mass before the "undue" issue is raised. Even then, not everyone will agree, as witnessed to by Church practice after 1903.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • We all know about St Augustine having said that he who sings prays twice.
    Well, the great poet-laureate Alfred Lord Tennyson is said to have said 'you song writers make me say three times what I only said once'.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Gavin