At the risk of starting a fire-bomb attack -- not from you but from others here -- can you explain why your harmonic underlay seems much more like a theory exercise than an accompaniment to voices? I've been complimented on my accompaniment of chant ordinaries, but I've never understood why what I do is so highly praiseworthy. I have, over the course of two decades, been struck by how common the "theory exercise" approach to accompanying chant is, and I don't know why it is so common.
Congregations and choirs like their accompaniment to lead them where they're supposed to go -- which is why some guitar chord simplifications do such damage to musical line progressions: G major and E-minor aren't the same. I don't have time this nanosecond, but I'll try to give directly specific suggestions of how I might accompany the same chant, as soon as I can.
I think that as a good melody will generally illuminate a text, so should a good accompaniment illuminate the melody. Here's my shot at harmonizing this particular melody. Keeping in mind that chants typically move in melodic cells of "twos and threes," I tried to use chord progressions that, as CGZ said, would lead the melody forward, and without being clichéd, make the conclusion of the melody seem almost inevitable, given the linear and harmonic trajectory it was on.
Ooh, that's a great perspective. Perhaps, especially with chant, accompaniments ought to be fitted to the needs of the choir. That should apply equally to modern settings, maybe, thereby increasing the usefulness of a composer/arranger's work.
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.