Very thoughtfully stated, SkipR. I confess to having similar reservations. Before I learned to sing the G.R. propers I thought learning to sing them would be an impossible task, but it hasn't been so difficult after all; learning the EF propers has been the most fulfilling, satisfying, uplifting, illuminating, amazing thing I've ever done. Duc in altum, I say.

Yes, Charles, it certainly seems as if implementing English chant would be more palatable to the average OF parishioner (and Pastor, for that matter). I can't tell you how many times I've been told I can't do Latin because "they can't understand it." That being said, the full Gregorian Chant in Latin is the true, most beautiful sacred music of the Church. I see Skirp's point: how do we move from SEP and the ICEL Mass to the Graduale Romanum? Although the musical styles are similar, the GR is more complex musically (and more fulfilling to sing, but I'm told that sort of doesn't matter), but the real issue is going to be the language change. My thought is that resistance to Latin is a form of xenophobia: anything foreign or that we can't understand is dangerous.

CharlesW brings up a good point. Each language really kind of requires its own melodico-musical rules. Gregorian chant, as a musical style, was composed around the Latin language; that's why the Burgess-Palmer Graduals are nice, but really don't work, musically, because of the poor wedding of music and language. The Carpatho-Rusyn plainchant--prostopinije---suffers today in both ACROD and the Ruthenian Catholic Church because of its being tied to English. Some of the new stuff (well, 2006) from the Eparchy works well, but a great deal of it doesn't.

The English language,with its monosyllables and barking/grunting diphthongs and fricatives, demands a different musical style than that composed for Latin, or Slavonic, or anything else. Hornshoeing an English text into a Gregorian melody does a great disservice to both things.

The English language,with its monosyllables and barking/grunting diphthongs and fricatives, demands a different musical style than that composed for Latin, or Slavonic, or anything else.

This based on a fantasy of Latin, invented in the modern era.

One wonders if Tallis' 'O nata lux' should be sung (historically) using a pronunciation similar to Public School Latin, since from what I've heard, Mediaeval English Latin was pronounced closer to that than modern Roman Church Latin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa4ml0EwKT8

A fine point, Salieri -
In fact, English itself was pronounced quite differently from modern English from after the great vowel shift of the XVth century. But regardless, there has never (until modern Italianate 'Church Latin' became a widely [but not universally] accepted convention about an hundred fifty years ago) been anything near a universal pronunciation of Latin. Throughout most of history Latin was everywhere pronounced as one's native language was pronounced. In the Germanies it sounded like German. In France like French. In Spain like Spanish. Holding that chant can only be sung in the fairy tale Italian manner favoured today as if that had been universal throughout history is to be somewhat deluded. Indeed, Latin has nowhere been pronounced like Latin since the dawn of the dark ages. If we were to pronounce Latin like Latin it would sound reasonably close to what is known by linguists and academic scholars as 'classical Latin', which had quite a few rough consonants, rolled 'r's, and bold diphthongs. It certainly didn't sound like Italian.

We today sort of snicker at the Anglicised Latin which we hear in British universities and public schools, but this is only a continuation in Britain of what was done in every land for most of history. So much for notions about chant wedded to a non-existent pronunciation of pure vowels and no assertive consonants and other things which we are supposed to believe are inherently barbaric. Actually, I have no trouble at all capitalising on the distinctive vowels and consonants of English in the performance of chant in English. If one wishes for something to sound beautiful he will render it so. If one wishes to discredit something he will, likewise, do so with a mocking, facetious, and deliberately offensive example.

Whoa, Adam. What fantasy of Latin? It's a pleasant language to sing. So is English, but it's much more difficult to sing well. And it's true; English, as a descendant of Old Norse, is filled up with the sharp Scandinavian sounds. Monosyllables are sharper than continous mouthfuls of vowels. Who says I'm discrediting anything? I'm just saying I prefer to use melodies adapted or specially composed for English than pushing English texts into Gregorian originals.

So is English, but it's much more difficult to sing well.

I don't know, those 300-pound sopranos are equally intimidating in any language.

Having attempted some English adaptations of simple chants myself (Office antiphons and Mass Ordinaries), I can vouch for the difficulties of applying words of one language to a piece written for words of another - this is not peculiar to chant, I'm sure we've all sung rather pathetic attempts at this in, say, English language editions of Lassus Madrigals, or such.

I do have some reservations about Palmer-Burgess, and when in the past I've wanted to do an English-language version of a full proper I have generally used Fr. Weber's. Granted that it isn't always the most important syllable that gets the melisma, it is often an important word, and I have difficulties with the slavishness of singing in an English setting a word like 'of' to a gorgeous melisma that in Latin falls on, say, the '-um' of 'caelum'. I think to myself: Really? Put the 'of' on the punctum for 'cae-' and the 'heav'n' on the melisma for '-um'. This is not an exact example from any particular chant in PB, simply a kind of the problems I see in this book.

I also find it annoying when, being familiar with the chants of the Graduale, the melodies of PB are slightly different (since, I'm assuming, they come from the Sarum books in many cases) - Not different enough to be a new chant, but different enough to be annoying - like singing the Roman Office hymns after years of singing the Monastic ones.

As regards Bartlett's work - I think we all should wait to see what the Lumen Christi Gradual looks like before giving final judgment - the books out so far in the series are more or less intended to allow the Congregation to join in singing the Propers. I don't know of many congregation who could cope with singing the full version of the offertory Jubilate Deo omnis terra - in Latin or English.

You noticed, Noel, that this Russian Orthodox Cathedral choir is in London. The churches in Russia have not changed their liturgical language. That looks like a good recording to have. Thanks!

"What goes around comes around"... From our diocesan music office archives:

In June of 1964, the Pittsburgh Diocese sponsored a national workshop with the World Library of Sacred Music (WLSM). Among the many features of this workshop were discussions about the challenges of setting English to music and the art of adapting Gregorian chant melodies to fit the English words.

My apologies both for being late to this conversation, and for the the brevity with which I can engage in it right now due to some other extremely pressing projects at hand.

I have a few, very brief, thoughts and comments:

First, I would like to acknowledge that Gregorian chant has within it many different genres. With the broadest possible strokes, we might characterize three basic levels as: 1. Psalmody or cantillation, 2. Syllabic antiphons (i.e. Office antiphons), and 3. Neumatic or Melismatic chant (i.e. Mass propers). Each of these categories has great diversity within them, of course, especially the third. For example, we have Mass propers that are essentially syllabic in style (think of Oportet te, or Lux aeterna, among others), alongside graduals that have 90 note melismas. These are highly diverse and varied repertoires, and it is unfair to lump them together, fundamentally.

The first level, above, is formulaic in nature, and built upon the Latin patterns of accentuation. This cannot possibly be arbitrary, but clearly demonstrates the importance of word accent in the genre. When we look at Hartker's antiphonary (around roughly 1000AD), for example, in which he notates verses of psalms using Gregorian tones. There is one instance where there is a particularly difficult accent pattern (quóniam spés éius ést), and rather than finding a way to squeeze the Mode V termination pattern into this unwilling text, he actually *re-wrote* the termination in a way that would respect the accentuation pattern according to the rules of Gregorian composition. This seems unthinkable, but it reveals the mind of some of the most important Gregorianists of 1000 years ago.

The second level, as Jeff Ostrowski says in his post, is essentially grown out of and highlights the accentuation pattern of the Latin text. This is how most Office antiphons are constructed, and this is the model that the Lumen Christi Simple Gradual emulates.

The third level is much more diverse, and much more sophisticated, and I don't have time to get into this right now. Much insight can be gained from reading Gregorian Semiology or Agustoni and Göschl's Introduction to the Interpretation of Gregorian Chant (the first volume of which has been translated from German into English by C. Kelly, and in French by D. Saulnier). The insights of these studies dig into the nature and construction of the system of ornamentation used in the more ornate repertoire. They show, rather clearly, I think, that even the most elaborate chants are essentially ornamented versions of a skeletal structure that looks a lot like an Office antiphon, or, at times, even a psalm tone.

What I'm hearing above is that category three is "more beautiful" than one and two, and to a certain degree, no one can argue with this! Especially when it is sung well. We all should certainly strive to teach and encourage singing in this genre as much as possible.

I must say at this point, also, that much damage can be and is done when this repertoire is sung poorly. For all of the criticisms that we can make of Rossini's pre-conciliar pastoral efforts, his fundamental belief was that it was better to do something simple *well*, than to do something complex poorly. I tend to agree with this, and my parish experience has confirmed it.

Is it damaging to sing English chant that is modeled after levels one and two? I'm not sure. It's hard to speak of doing damage when one is walking through a proverbial war zone full of piles of rubble.

Still, I tend to agree with Richard S. in that purely psalm tone propers can be damaging in a certain sense, being that while they have an instant gratification effect, they do not do justice to the nature of the Mass proper, which demands more musical sophistication, especially for Sundays and Feasts. Switching from full organ and choir hymns, or guitar driven folk songs, or whatever else it might be to psalm tone propers can be shocking, and I suspect that many in this case would form a potentially negative impression of chant and propers in general.

This, I think is why SEP and the Lumen Christi Simple Gradual (and online digital scores) – not to mention other excellent work by the grandfather of English chant himself, Dom Kelly, among others) is that they go beyond the first level, and produce something that is more sophisticated, has an intrinsic musical value, and does greater justice to the needs of the Proper antiphons of the Mass.

For many, the choices are simpler chants that mimic the genre of Office antiphons, or melismatic English chant that cannot be sung effectively or convincingly. In this case, it seems better to follow Rossini's guide and sing something that can be sung well.

As for simple chant styles "doing harm", I might ask if anyone here thinks it is "harmful" to sing Oportet te, or Lux aeterna, when they are proper to the day. These are simple in style. Are they less beautiful than the Graduals or Offertories because of this? This argument is not very well defined.

As for English chant that is composed in a text-based manner, giving emphasis to word accent in the style of the Office antiphons, sure, it can get a bit tedious, but this is part of the nature of the genre: The compositional palate is intentionally restricted so that the chants can be more easily sung. The Gregorian composers could have made every antiphon a Gradual, but they didn't. It turns out that the 10th c. needed simple chants also, and perhaps had pastoral realities to deal with also. Imagine that!

Lastly, if anyone doesn't like the English chant settings I've done, I don't quarrel with you in the least. In fact, I have said publicly several times that I think that many of the settings in SEP are rather poor. But they were limited by the very specific scope of the project, and difficult texts presented difficult problems. It was an interesting experiment, and I think that the results have been helpful to many. Great. As for the Lumen Christi antiphons, I personally think that these have a much higher musical value than SEP without sacrificing too much on the side of simplicity. Do they seek to rival or replace the Gregorian propers? No way! But do they draw inspiration from them, and seek to imbue the spirit of the Graduale Romanum into simple vernacular chants that are accessible to average parishes today? Absolutely.

I personally think that we are at the beginning of a decades-long process of vernacular chant composition. The winners will rise to the top, as Richard R. suggests, at least, we should hope that this will be the case.

I think that it is absolutely critical to continue to intensely study and to regularly sing the authentic Gregorian chant repertoire, since this is the "source and summit" of liturgical music in the Roman Rite. We must drink deeply of this water, and plunge its depths constantly. This is certainly my aim, and I hope that my liturgical composition will be better for it.

If every parish could flip a switch and begin singing Gregorian propers and the Church's musical greatest musical treasures tomorrow, this clearly would be the best thing to do. This cannot and will not happen, though, so we continue to develop, compose, teach, promote, enrich, expand, etc. the Church's lived liturgical experience, and constantly look forward to a more beautiful tomorrow. This is how I look at this work, anyway.

I see English Plainchant as being a stepping-stone to singing Gregorian Chant. You must remember that we're rebuilding a tradition largely from the ground up. In your average parish church, the singers in the "choir" often can't read music and rely on learning hymns by ear. Perhaps this is why the folk-music craze of the 1970s was so popular. Simple tunes that caught on quickly meant that it was just easier to do them.

One does need to develop something on an ear for chant, especially with the different modes in which chant is sung.

With much appreciation for the exhaustive and well-reasoned posts by Adam B and Richard R, I otherwise still have to wonder if there's a built-in echo chamber affect at play in the some of the manners in which we examine the subject the OP issued, one which has been discussed at great length in many threads for many years now, both here and at the Cafe.
The fairly recent posts of Fr. Kocik and Dr. Kwasniewski at NLM/CCW wherein the same question is called and definitively answered are among a steady, but slow, litany of personal resignation (a good thing!) to relieve an untenable tension. For some, "brick by brick" will never gain traction for a zillion reasons, not the least of which is that "our" preoccupations with the sad state of affairs in USA/RCC liturgics aren't demonstrably even on the radars of our two constituent clienteles, namely celebrants and congregants.
I will defend G's imperative, "Save the LIturgy, save the world" just as adhere to "Lex orandi, credendi, vivendi" to the bitter end of my pilgrimage, but I fear that, save for the incremental, discreet and often risky adjustments we make over weeks into years, we might never live long enough to be provided any sort of major platform by which we can even get "the folks (as O'Reilly calls them)" to even listen to a contention that the manner by which we worship really can change their lives, their faith and their Christian duty and mission.
I also will wage quiet guerilla "persuasions" that push the envelope and pray for a minute's time to sell my convictions to TPTB, and then exhort those parishioners, each and every one of them, who personally thank me for bringing "chant" back into Mass to take that to the same powers that be and lobby hard.
And I share the caution that a more artfully tight rendition of an English chant by Bartlett, whether "good or bad", argues better than an off rendition by Kelly or from the GR/GS/LU or whatever. YMMV.

I agree that popes and documents have told us what we should do, but those are all dead ducks these days - except for Benedict XVI who is still alive and I think, relevant. As for SC, the whole world has changed since then and I am not convinced our bishops have any of this in their sights as a priority. Until that changes, things will continue as they are.

Chants in honor of God are wonderful.
Chanting one's or our prayers and praise to God are joys and privileges.
Chant commonly referred to as "Gregorian" is the greatest expression of this form ever, IMO.
OTOH, other forms, styles, attributes and cultures of chant and chanting are also good.
In fact, some musical forms and styles can actually be "chanted" effectively and beautifully.
It is good to observe long traditions of "native" chant forms, particularly when exhorted to by magisterial documents and officials of our Church.
It is still good to approach the sacrificial altar with other chant expressions that are evidently dignified, particularly if they are derivative and fashioned mindfully from the tradition.
It is reasonable to hope and work towards unity and universality in these concerns.
It is reasonable and laudible to "live within means" in the progress of these over time.
As Mr. Bartlett clearly cited, "time" in these concerns can be measured in centuries and millenia.
It is unreasonable to believe that what works in your house means that will, by definition, work in other people's houses.
It is reasonable to wish, pray and hope that it would be so however. Over//out.

Suppose, mirabile dictu, fifty years after the Council, we could find in every parish, a congregation where a large mixed schola of young and old could sing with gusto the full G.R. propers (in Latin), where everyone in the congregation knew all 18 Mass settings in the Kyriale (in Latin) so well thay they could sing them antiphonally with the choir, where you could sing any of the six Credos in the Kyriale (in Latin) and the entire congregation could sing them by heart, and during the Mass, the congregation knew every single response to the prayers of the priest (in Latin)?

If we found such a community, would we not publicize it and praise it and present it as a model of liturgical renewal according to the wishes of the Vatican Council for the whole Church to follow?

Well, take a look at this video if you don't think this is possible and actually exists somewhere on this planet: (Note: Asperges starts at 3:20.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KluSH42j_M

Two questions:

1) How can we say it's going to take centuries and millenia if they're doing it now?

2) Why are we not doing this in every parish?

Julie, I'm a huge supporter of you and your perspectives since day one you showed up on the boards here. I think Aris' response to your questions suffice quite well, but since you quoted me in them-

1. Though you are obviously well-travelled and well-versed, consider the circumstances where you practice your office. Is there a BETTER place than a chapel in a cemetery with a schola and the EF to practice the Vetus Ordo? Can't think of one.

2. Consider teleporting yourself to a small parish in Darjeeling India, or outside of Lagos, Nigeria, a house underground church in Shanghai, a mission church in the mountainous rainforest of Amazonian Peru, or even a gilded, blindingly white ornamented parish church in the lower Alps outside of Munich with a handful of seniors at the one Sunday Mass...you get the point, yes? Centuries, maybe millenia will tell the tale.

Actually, I remain surprisingly optimistic despite a phalanx (for Chonak ;-) of obstacles.
At our staff retreat Thursday the retreat leader passed out a handout towards the end in which this question was posed, "Do you feel that there is a particular community in our parish not being served?" Because of time constraints, we didn't get to discuss or hand in our responses.
I plan on physically handing the pastor my response this week to that question. "Yes, the substantial number of parishioners who've queried me over 21 years as to why we do not provide a Mass in which Latin and chant serve as our worship tongue?" I'll try not to get fired.

I think the problem with the SSPX as an example is that it works for them because they are a self-selecting congregation. As is the one in the cemetery. As are most EF parishes.

SSPX is able to do the awesome things they do precisely because they were willing to turn their back on everybody else in the Church who doesn't think the way they do.

While what they are doing (and, JulieColl, what you are doing in particular) can be instructive and even inspiring, I don't that it represents a realistic way forward for a truly Universal church.

On the other hand: when I see the things Fr. Chris is doing in South Carolina at a really normal suburban parish or what is going on Sunday evenings at the ASU Newman Center, or talk to music directors who are implementing the Lumen Christi Series - that's where I see a real way forward.

If the video's example is not realistic, it's because of the political games with the sacred liturgy.

Julie's examples show that it can be done, it is being done, and it is the way of restoration and participation that is called for by the Church. The fact that it's being done in France, by the SSPX, is merely an embarrassment to those clergy and fellow travelers who won't allow it to happen here. By extension, it is an embarrassment to all of us who have the ability to make it happen and aren't allowed to do so.

As far as self-selecting communities go, where the liturgy is robustly celebrated people are voting with their feet. And with respect, I believe their numbers in France are much larger than the U.S. Episcopal community for which you work. That's not meant as an insult by any means. I just think you might want to think more universally and reflect more locally before dismissing small communities.

I do not defend any disobedience of the SSPX. I simply think we cannot dismiss their contributions.

My thoughts and prayers are with you, Melo, and if anyone can persuade your pastor, it's you. You have a 'catholic' and creative mode of expression and are very sensitive to the perspectives and sensibilities of others. I'd be very curious to see the 'angle' you would use with your appeal. You can be sure it won't be the stereotypical traditionalist rhetoric at any rate which most clerical types can see coming a mile away and have all the answers to already.

As for the SSPX example, even if it does seem like "pie in the sky" and an impossible goal for most parishes, it's vital that Catholic musicians have a concrete goal in mind and know that this model works and works very well so if the opportunity to emulate it ever presents itself, they will know exactly how to put in place and how to proceed.

That's exactly what happened to us---we fell in love with the St. Nicolas du Chardonnet videos of the Latin Mass on YouTube long before we came to our chapel. We never dreamed that we'd be asked to do the music at a TLM, but when the circumstances developed, we knew exactly what to do and the pastor supported us all the way. It's actually funny to think of our particular circumstances as self-selected; I feel like we were at the end of a road and had no other place to go, but it has been an exhilarating and blessed experience for our family.

I have been influenced by the quality of music in St Jude's SSPX chapel in Philadelphia. While I am not a regular participant certain circumstances led me to visit from time to time. I do not think that the SSPX is self contained. I know of many people who previously attended the "novus ordo" 10 years ago who attend BOTH - BOTH the SSPX chapel and the diocesan latin masses. Maybe they attend one or the other most of the time, but I don't think think the SSPX is self contained, especially not among younger catholics. Word does spread around among those who truly appreciate beautiful liturgy.

St Jude's Chapel is the only traditional latin mass I know of toward my area which sings a high mass every single Sunday of the year with such integrity. Whereas most other ones I know of take a break during summertime and low mass takes over. The careful balance of monody, harmony and polyphony sung there is also influential. Each form of song is used in a way that complements the other, much like is heard at the Colloquiums. That's an example to learn from, politics is irrelevant, good sacred music is good no matter where it is.

Hmm.. yes they are perceived differently in France...because Catholicism itself is perceived differently in France... look at the number of seminarians and integrity of priests and bishops in france and compare them to the USA.

I do not find anything lacking in the SEP, Illuminare, Frs Kelly's or Weber's chant when they are sung with a good rhythm of the text, rhythm of the neumes and a mora vocis. The simplicity of the melodies lets us tackle these essentials. These skills rapidly transfer over to the GR and will work wonders even on an OCP Responsorial Psalm Refrain.