Here’s an idea to interview someone for DoM …
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,072
    However - I do disagree that this is a must. In terms of them needing to "get with the Church," that applies to the use of chant, not to the form of notation. Someone singing chant with modern notation in front of them is no less giving chant its proper place.


    This is incorrect. If it were correct, the Vatican would still sponsor the Ratisbon gradual. It is giving "less...its proper place", although of course any chant is better than none. I'm never one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but people that think there is no difference (frankly) should study chant more until they find that there is...because there IS! Whether or not that is relevant to a congregant is, as you say, a matter of degree. To a director of music in a Catholic situation, it absolutely is something of which we must have mastery.

    We have an obligation to read and study the Gospels too. Does that mean that we have to study original Aramaic parchments?


    This is a tired straw man. I have an obligation to raise my children. I guess I don't have to read the car seat manual, or the drug information label, but what kind of parent would I be if I did not? Singing from a "chant transcription" to modern notation means you are singing the bias of the transcriber. For example, see the attached PDF. There are numerous errors, all of which a congregation "learns".

    I'm not here to judge anyone. However, my experience across many parts of the country/levels of musician/etc. is that those who don't see a difference in the notation either 1) do not know chant well enough, or 2) are [probably] named Dobszay, are experts in chant, have made up their own hybrid notation, but only did so out of necessity.
    Sanctus Chant XVIII scrunched.pdf
    39K
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    It's not that I don't comprehend what you are saying. I do. Yes there are transcribing biases. Of course - same with Bach scores and any other antiquated music.

    I just fail to see why this is important. What you are saying seems far more important in an academic context than a liturgical one.

    When I'm entering organ competitions and the like, I am as much of a purist as you are being, since the whole exercise is very academic. When I'm playing for Sunday mass? Not so much!

    I DO see a difference in the notation and level of nuance. But do you really stand up there teaching and conducting your congregation in these nuances? When a congregation of 200 people is chanting that Sanctus, they will collectively breathe where they breathe and sing it together as they sing it. They aren't going to give an extremely nuanced, academically correct rendering of the chant.
    Thanked by 2Gavin MarkThompson
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,970
    I don't see how anyone can give "an extremely nuanced, academically correct rendering of the chant," when there are no original scores, and no two people seemingly agree on any one transcription. It is all transcribing bias whether round or square notes are used.
  • It was Fr Columba who reminded me that Guido said that one needs the square notation to know the pitches and the Carolingian to know how to sing them. There is much wisdom here which transcends a modern concern with what is being called 'notational bias'. Of course round note heads tell us nothing at all about 'how to sing' the chant. They are merely pitch signifers which suggest that every note is equal and that there are not some rather distinctive tonal and vocal inflections (not to mention a very non-static rhythm) which are as essential to singing the chant repertory as is a knowledge and mastery of bel canto techniques to the proper rendering of quite a bit of the operatic repertory.

    There is notational bias alright! One that suggests that there is nothing more to music making than lobbing out the 'right notes' one after the other versus one that knows that there is more to music (and certainly to chant!) than notes. One who has nothing but note heads cannot possibly have any idea how the chant should sound.

    There are several other laughable biases at work here:
    1. The people are (presumably) musically stupid and cannot possibly learn basic chant notation.
    2. I don't know chant notation, therefore I don't need to know it since I have note heads to tell me all I need to know.
    3. Chant sung with the dull equalism suggested by note heads is as advanced as people are capable of.
    4. It is also as advanced as I am going to bother with or care about.
    5. Father is not in favour of square notes (whew! this relieves me of a headache).
    6. Father is canonically charged with authority in all matters. This relieves me of any responsibility for musical integrity and the musical morality from which it flows, and certainly from any bothersome notions about guardianship of musical patrimony.
    7. I don't know this stuff, therefore my choir and people couldn't possibly learn it; and besides, you're not going to do it on my turf.
    8. One could go on, but this will do for now.

    Our publishers, every last one of them, are no help at all. They say that they sell what people want. But actually, people only want what they know about or that someone has advertised to them. Publishers do not cater to a 'market'... they create it so that they can constantly sell new stuff. Just imagine what might happen if they marketed English propers in decent musical settings as vigourously as they do their sacro-pop trash. If they put plainchant hymns in their hymnals in square notation, why in five years' time it would no longer be strange and people would stop being afraid of it. They would see for themselves that it is not only not wierd but rather fun.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen Gavin Salieri
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,970
    Father is always right. If in doubt, ask Father. Don't ask Father - enjoy unemployment.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • francis
    Posts: 10,775
    PGA:

    Yea, for that reason I vowed never to take a job where I did not know the situation in full. So in my most recent position, I made SURE that I was going to be supported. That was great until the pastor was moved to Rome. Ha ... Ha ... then the wolves came out in packs. Ya do what ya can, and leave the rest to God. They were certainly surprised when I pulled out my guitar and at the same time played the pedals with my feet. I called it the gorgan.
  • The point of sight-reading in any audition process is not so much to find the freakishly talented candidate who can sight-read anything (though there are some people like that). The point is to get an idea of how quickly and how well a candidate can "get into" a piece and get a good estimation of it across. If a director of music candidate has trouble even approximating a chant at sight, it would be a warning sign (presuming, of course, that chant is desired in the parish's music program - I assume this is a given in the original post). It would be reasonable to wonder if such a candidate could keep up with a rigorous schedule of rehearsals as a leader - learning multiple chants and other pieces each week in order to teach them. Ditto for sight-reading a hymn or a choral anthem accompaniment.

    When I audition singers for an advanced schola I ask them to sight-read a vocal line from a polyphonic piece. If they can't do it perfectly the first time, I ask them to try again and I observe how much they improve. If it's not perfect the first couple of times, I say "now you and I are going to learn this excerpt together" and I see how long it takes me to teach it to them. I learn a great deal about their ability to learn and improve in just a few minutes this way. I also tell them they are auditioning me as a director. After this audition, do they enjoy the process of learning music with me?

    I think the sight-reading in a job audition should be similarly constructive and two-sided. When it is, a great deal can be learned about the candidate and how they think and work, and how they get along with their employer. The interviewer, hopefully a qualified musician, can ask many questions before the candidate even starts sight-reading. "How do you approach a fresh chant?" "Can you identify modal structural points and see potential difficult or troublesome spots approaching?" "Can you see a more basic structure underneath the elaboration?" These kind of questions, as part of a job interview, provide fascinating insight into the mind and knowledge of the candidate. And make the sight-reading so important.

    If you just want to see if someone can sight-read something impressively, and do not have intelligent questions and specific things you want to learn from this exercise about the musician's approach to music, then I'm not sure you are qualified to be giving the interview. Any poser could hold an interview and ask for extremely difficult tasks to be carried out. "Well, since you can't sight read a Bach trio sonata movement, I'm not sure you're qualified to replace me at MY job." This is all the easier if the employer trusts the outgoing director and knows little or nothing about music - a state of affairs that is extremely common.

    I'm at a good cathedral position now, so I don't think this is sour grapes; but I have been bothered in the past by interview questions and tasks that speak more of the pretension and ego of the outgoing director than about zeal for excellence in sacred music. Always have a clear goal in mind for each interview component. One post above mentioned realizing figured bass with an improvised melody. A cool skill, but essential for a music director?
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen BruceL
  • One thing I forgot that is specific to sight-reading. I've known people who can sight-read flawlessly simply because they have perfect pitch. These people may, with very little understanding of mode and structure and interval, sight-read perfectly even in the most difficult passages. That's why it's so important to use the sight reading exercise to see how they approach music. A perfect sight reader with perfect pitch MAY actually be worse at teaching music to amateurs than someone who doesn't read perfectly at sight but understands how to break down a piece, identify structure and modal emphases, and generally make it more learn-able. Again, the interviewer needs to have a good understanding of WHY the candidate was asked to sight-read in the first place.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,791
    before the candidate even starts sight-reading. "How do you approach a fresh chant?" "Can you identify modal structural points and see potential difficult or troublesome spots approaching?" "Can you see a more basic structure underneath the elaboration?" These kind of questions, as part of a job interview, provide fascinating insight into the mind and knowledge patience of the candidate

    Fixed. And seriously, is it really ever a good idea to approach the interview with the program of teaching something to the candidate who is supposed to be an expert in his/her field, rather than seeing what you can learn from them? I have no idea what the correct answer is to what is the 'function' of tetrachords and doubt whether I could suppress a deep sigh before making the attempt.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Adam Wood
  • Richard - absolutely! A lot of people might be frustrated at having to explain many things to a room of experts and laymen (the interview committee) before they get to show off their musical chops. And that tells you a great deal about them as a candidate.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,468
    This entire thread is based on a complete fantasy.
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    This entire thread is based on a complete fantasy.


    As are many of them. But really, I do hope that some younger priest looking to hire someone doesn't come here for ideas on what they should be doing in the interview, see this, and think "Yes that's a perfect idea!"
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,970
    As are many of them. But really, I do hope that some younger priest looking to hire someone doesn't come here for ideas on what they should be doing in the interview, see this, and think "Yes that's a perfect idea!"


    I am hoping they don't look at this and say, "yep, those CMAA folks really are nuts."
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Charles, it would be difficult to assess whether that horse is already out of the barn. But, OTOH, our pastors evaluate individuals hopefully upon their own merits, not solely upon perceptions based upon affiliations.
    Adam, your summary is spot on.
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,072
    This entire thread is based on a complete fantasy.


    Adam, 5-10 years ago, I would have said "yes". It's not true anymore, though, in large parts thanks to the efforts of the CMAA and others in the traditional music movement.
    Thanked by 1Felipe Gasper
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Yep, those CMAA folks really are nuts.
  • What fantasy? Many parishes nowdays have a chant schola, or would like to start one. In those cases, it's perfectly reasonable to look for someone with fluency in chant. The sight reading test is a good way to evaluate this skill, as long as it is administered intelligently, with the clear goal of seeing how the candidate approaches a fresh piece of music.

    The only thing I object to is the implication that a sight reading test is somehow pass/fail in itself; or that failing the test disqualifies a candidate for a position. Any motivated musician hired in July should be able to read, sing, and teach chant by the time the schola starts in September, even with no previous experience. Still, all things being equal, I would prefer to hire someone who already has chant fluency, rather than someone who needs to work hard to acquire it quickly. All things not being equal, it is hard to say where existing chant knowledge ranks among numerous other considerations.

    Richard - I see what you're saying now. My sample questions would be too pedantic in a real interview. They are really more the questions I would be asking myself when seeing how the candidates deal with the chant. Do they try to muddle through, or are they able to systematically break down and learn a chant - in a way that shows they understand something of the mode and structure?
    Thanked by 3Kathy BruceL kenstb
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,468
    The fantasy is not that musicians will be hired because they know chant. That happens.

    The fantasy is the following combination of events:
    A) Parish wants to hire a musician who knows chant. AND
    B) Priest and other interviewing staff know enough to be able to assess the chant creds of musician using test described. AND
    C) Though (B) is true, yet they wouldn't have already thought of using this or another test, or otherwise have some way of verifying chant creds. AND
    D) Will read this forum for tips.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,228
    Well, OK. Delete "D)" above and it's happening all over!!
    Thanked by 3Kathy francis kenstb
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,503
    I take this to be a more theoretical thread than this, Adam. The OP wanted to discuss the merits of the question, not give a lead sheet to imaginary interviewers imaginarially waiting for advice.

    I personally think the forum has broad enough shoulders to consider theoretical questions.
    Thanked by 2BruceL CHGiffen
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,468
    Which is why I didn't jump in at the beginning. But at a certain point in the life of a thread, it's worth pointing out that the heated discussion has nothing to do with reality.
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,203
    I agree with your point, Adam, but it's like, so three days ago.
    Thanked by 2melofluent Adam Wood
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Digression: Chonak, your avatar pic was a wonderful moment in the course of Indy. And one that will live in aeternum.
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,072
    I'm just implying that Adam's attitude (pax) is one reason why Catholic music in this country is disjointed. The people with chant knowledge are out there, you just have to find them...and actually pay them. I received my first "break" in the Catholic world through a word of mouth ad for one of the best organist positions in my diocese in college. That SHOULD have been a job that was advertised more broadly and clearly. This is still, sadly, the case.

    I understand your B), but this is yet another reason why every seminary should have a music course that seriously considers how to hire a parish musician. I don't know many (any?) that do. Otherwise competent priests often become totally different people when asked to hire/prioritize for a musician.
  • It wasn't fantasy for my current job. Though, for other positions it would have been fantasy.

    I must concur with Bruce (as usual) that the scene in many places is different now than it was 5-10 years ago.
  • Kirchenmusik, your post about how you'd interview/ begin to train a candidate really resonates with me. You described how I interview candidates for choral scholar positions, and gave me some good ideas- thanks!

    Another point is weighing how much innate leadership and balanced devotion a candidate demonstrates. We currently have a choral scholar who came in with mediocre musicianship, as he was new to the music degree program. But I could tell that he had the makings of a great choir director, and he loves our Lord and His Church. This kid was so gung-ho, worked diligently in every area, and now after 18 months has really started proving himself. It's great to see!!
    Thanked by 2Kathy BruceL
  • What’s interesting is that I posted this idea as much for the liturgical knowledge that would be required to *find* the correct chant as for the musical acumen that sight-singing requires. You have to know how the book is organized, know or figure out what “tempus per annum” means, and discern which chant is the offertory. You have to know how to pronounce Latin to some degree.

    I would expect relatively few candidates for a DoM position to “pass” this part of an interview with flying colors. I would think it reasonable to give the candidate a few minutes alone first, too, to suss it through before singing it. After that, Gavin’s suggestion of how to teach it, or at least to talk about how to teach it, would be a great follow-up.
    Thanked by 2Kathy CHGiffen
  • donr
    Posts: 971
    I believe that it would be fair, when setting up the interview to state your intentions. Something like: "During your interview you will be required to sing the offertory for the 19th Sunday in OT.
    That way it will give the candidate the opportunity to find and review the chant prior. Then as Gavin states have the person teach it to you.