Three layers of music to consider:

1. Presidential chant and dialogues with the congregation: a worthy place to start, but I'd suggest Xmas is not the day itself to start. That you have supportive priests means that you have an opening for this layer that many other DMs do not have.

2. The ordinary of the Mass: Gradually growing and pruning the repertoire would be a good goal in many places. But again, Xmas is not necessarily the best day to start.

3. What to sing at at 3 or 4 points where hymnody tends to prevail in most of the US. During the Christmas seasons of all seasons of the year, one tends to find the most-sung and most-beloved of hymns being sung by congregations. So I'd be careful about *displacing* that practice if it's been the long practice of your parishes..... Anyway, if one can bring the first two layers into alignment long term, the more common preoccupation with the third layer of liturgical musicians recedes a bit in importance.

What's good is that the prospect of Christmas has prompted *you* to think about this. It doesn't necessarily follow that Christmas is precisely when you implement your solution to all of these things.

I like the Burgess and Palmer "Plainchant Gradual" which appears to be the GR in English, and as far as I can tell it stays pretty close to the original Gregorian melodies.

The only parish in which change is at all possible is one where the pastor wants change and you, as a church musician, are able to communicate and confirm with him exactly what changes are necessary.

You will read and hear all kinds of advice - to follow the GIRM, to stop singing hymns and only sing the propers - there's a huge laundry list that is pervasive.

But only if the pastor and you are on the same page and work together consistently, can change happen. Doing anything else threatens your job and the sense of peace in the parish. As Mellowly Yello Fluent says, "Do not under any circumstances be swayed by either your own primary inclinations or the insistence of parish "loud mouths."

In other words:
It's not about you.
It's not about them.
It's about keeping the pastor happy.

I'm curious about my second point. What are thoughts on ways of going about and presenting liturgical reform that does not accuse or lay blame on the parishioners for "doing it wrong"? I know speed is one consideration.

Romantic Strings,

You could try terms like "deeper spirituality" or "next level"; or you could presume no guilt on their part, assuming that they acted in good faith, but presenting principles which have applications to the change needed.

PM if you would like specific help along the lines I've suggested.

Cheers,

Chris

I would avoid talking about it. Period.

Make changes with the pastor's support. Action, not words.

Words can be used against you and the changes, all that matters is creating the musical experience. The spiritual aspect should be handled by the priest.

No one in the average congregation has any experience or training to understand what you are doing. To attempt to explain or justify what you are doing only adds fuel to the fire of those in the congregation who are discontent for other reasons.

Never ever refer to "the documents" or use Latin names for them.

The General Instruction to the Roman Missal is the church's IRS Guide, written in the spirit of Vatican II. And just as popular with many priests, whose training and experience has not been in support of it.

Vatican II has two faces.

People refer to it today to support going back to chant. People used it to get rid of chant. Mentioning it fuels the fire on both sides.

All that is important is the stamp you put on the music while you are there. Your work may be continued after you leave, or completely destroyed.

When you build a house it's yours, when you sell it, it's someone else to do with.

Be in the moment, smell the flowers.

There's not a one size fits all approach for this.

Usually, with smaller, less earth shattering changes, I've found that it's rare for people to say "So you're saying we've been doing it wrong all these years?" Every now and then that question does come up, and I say "Well, no, not WRONG, this is just preferable, that's all." I definitely make it clear that I'm not criticizing them or my predecessors. I sort of make it into a sentiment of "We're always striving to do better and better, just as my predecessors were." The comments from Noel about not referring to documents and giving long, academic explanations are right on. Keep it succinct and short; "This way is even more preferable for a lot of reasons," and try to find reasons that they will agree with. For instance, if you are replacing generic Communion hymns with Psalm settings of the propers, point out how now the Communion song has a refrain, which engages more people into the singing.

Now for large scale, huge changes (which you should only be undertaking in union with the pastor,) there might be no side-stepping it. An example of this would be when my pastor made the decision to wash the feet of only men on Holy Thursday. In that case the conversation really did come up about whether they were "wrong" all these years, and whether the bishop was "wrong" when he washes the feet of women. Even in this case we sidestepped for the most part issues of "right and wrong." My pastor simply gave a heartfelt explanation that regardless of what other priests and bishops do, his conscience won't let him wash the feet of women when the letter of the document clearly says "select men." This was a rougher change, but we've survived and the parish didn't implode.

Finally, the only time that I get into the documents is when someone comes to me one on one with questions and I sense that they are being open minded (i.e. ready to really learn, not just pick a fight.) In that case, when they say to me "Can you help me understand why it is preferable to use these propers instead of the hymns each Sunday," then I will give them a brief explanation of what leads me to believe that. But this is the only instance that I talk in those terms.