Fr. Kelly's Entrance and Communion propers

Hildegard

I'm planning to implement a few of these with my schola this year. This may be a dumb question, but how exactly do you order the antiphon, psalm tones, and congregational response? Is it Antiphon/response/psalm/response.../.../(however many psalm verses you do)/.../...psalm/response/psalm/antiphon?

We've been using the Simple English Propers, but I'd like to get the congregation (who do not have the words of the propers in front of them) more involved in singing with us, and Fr. Kelly's congregational responses are short, beautiful, and easily repeatable without something in front of them, or so they seem. Anyone had experience implementing these with that goal?

Here's what I'm referring to: http://www.saintmeinrad.edu/media/110095/CK_Communion_Book_2012-08-15.pdf

M. Jackson Osborn

To start off with, you are actually asking about two distinct methods of singing the psalms, about which there seems to be unending confusion even by persons who ought to have this knowledge under their belts. Things are called antiphons that aren't, responsories are called antiphons (or worse yet, 'refrains'), and, in general, the terminology of the various methods of chanting psalmody is hopelessly mangled.

A. First, you ask about 'response'. This has to do with 'responsorial' psalmody in which the congregation sings a 'responsory' after after every one or two verses of a psalm which is sung by a cantor or a choir. The 'responsorial psalm' and the Alleluya with its verse, which are sung at most masses, are examples of 'responsorial psalmody', so called because it is defined by the singing of a 'responsory'.

Responsorial psalmody, then, is sung as follows -
A. The people sing the 'responsory'.
B. A cantor or choir sings psalm verse(s), after which the people repeat the responsory.
This yields an ABABAB...A form.

B. Second, you ask about 'antiphon'. The introit, offertory, and communion chants are examples of 'antiphonal' psalmody, so called because an 'antiphon' is repeated by groups A and B after each of them have sung psalm verses in alternation. The antiphon may be repeated after every two or four, etc., of such verses, or, only at the beginning and end of the psalm. There is much legitimate scholarly debate upon whether the antiphon was more anciently repeated after every several verses, or only at the beginning and end. It is quite likely that each method prevailed relative to time and place.

Antiphonal psalmody, then, is sung as follows -
A. Groups 1 and 2 sing the 'antiphon'.
B. Group one sings a psalm verse
C. Group two sings the next psalm verse
D. Groups 1 and 2 sing the antiphon.
(Or the antiphon may only be sung before the first and after the last verse.)
This yields one of two forms: either ABC,ABC,ABC....A, or ABC,BC,BC.BC....A.

One will immediately comprehend that the three (intr., off., com.) proper antiphonal chants of the mass are 'processional', and the two (resp. ps., and Alleluya) proper responsorial chants of the mass are 'meditative'.

C. Now then! This distinction is quite blurred with the increasingly common practice of singing newly composed or adapted introits, offertories, and communions in a sort of hybrid neither antiphonal nor responsorial manner. Fr Columba's (and I am a great, very great, student and admirer of his!) and others' introits, offertories, and communions call for singing these historically antiphonal chants as sort of half antiphonal and half responsorial - not really one or the other. Following the procedure implicit in their editions, one sings these chants as follows -
A. Choir or cantor sings the 'antiphon'.
B. Choir or cantor sings verse(s) of the psalm
C. The people sing a simplified version of the 'antiphon' (which is labelled a 'refrain'.)
D. Choir or cantor sings more verse(s)
E The people repeat the mini-'antiphon' called a 'refrain'
F. Choir or cantor sings more verse(s)
G. The people repeat the mini-'antiphon'
H. Choir or cantor sings more verse(s)
I. After the last verse(s) the cantor or choir repeats the original 'antiphon'.
This yields the following form: ABCBCBCBCBCBC...BA.

What this is, then, is actually 'responsorial' chanting featuring a melodically developed responsory for the cantor or choir and a simpler responsory for the people. There is no 'antiphonal' singing involving two distinct groups. Thusly, the so-called 'antiphon' should, in this manner of chanting, be called a 'responsory', not an 'antiphon'. This is really a non-historical, hybrid, form.

D. So, to answer your question more succinctly, you should follow the pattern given under 'C', above.

smvanroode

One will immediately comprehend that the three (intr., off., com.) proper antiphonal chants of the mass are 'processional', and the two (resp. ps., and Alleluya) proper responsorial chants of the mass are 'meditative'.

Actually, the offertory is a responsorial chant. For example (Benedixisti, Third Sunday of Advent):

verse: Benedixisti, Domine, terram tuam: avertisisti captivitatem Iacob.
response: Remisisti iniquitatem plebis tua.
verse: Ostende nobis Domine misericordiam tuamet salutare tuam da nobis.
response: Remisisti iniquitatem plebis tua.

What we now find in the Graduale as the offertory "antiphon" is actually only the first verse and its response. You can find more verses in the Offertoriale (1935) or the Offertoriale restitutum (2007-2015).

This is really a non-historical, hybrid, form.

According to Jospeh Gelineau (Chant et musique dans le culte chrétien (1962), pp. 131-132), this "hybrid form" is quite old, dating back to the 8th century:

Plus intéressante encore est la présence, dans les Antiphonaires du 8e siècle, d'un versus ad repetendum tiré du psaume, qui a fort bien pu servir de répons intercalaire de la psalmodie, rôle qua la longue antienne neumatique réservée à la schola ne puvait guère remplir. On aurait eu alors une psalmodie processionnelle à fois antiphonique par ses origines et responsoriale en fait:

Antienne neumatique par la schola
Verset 1 du psalmiste
Versus ad repetendum par tous
Verset 2 du psalmiste
Versus ad repetendum
etc...
Gloria Patri...
Antienne neumatique

(Sorry, I only have the French book...)

For this form of chant Gelineau refers to Hesbert's Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex.

M. Jackson Osborn

Tres interessante! Merci!

So, then, it is an historical hybrid form featuring (I would yet maintain) a responsory (for there is, apparently, no 'antiphonal' singing) for cantor or schola and a simplified one for the people. I am much indebted to you for this insight! It really makes me feel much better. What name would one propose for this hybrid form, antiphonique par ses origines et responsoriale en fait?

David Andrew

"Responsory" and "responsorial" are not, so far as I know, the same thing.

The Responsory has a unique form and is used in the chanting of the offices. It employs a two-part sentence, the first part being sung by a cantor, the second part by "everyone" (the monks/nuns in choir, or the congregation). A second section is then sung that begins with a new thought chanted by the cantor, and the people then repeat the phrase of text they sang before. The third section begins with the Gloria Patri, but rather than concluding with the "as it was" text, the entire two-part first sentence is chanted by all.

A reponsorial psalm is, again so far as I can tell, a completely fabricated form unique to post-conciliar liturgy. The "refrain" or "response" is short, and repeated after every verse of the psalm it is associated with.
An antiphon, in monastic practice in the offices, and in the Mass, typically "bookends" a block of psalm verses. ISTM that the "new" practice of incorporating psalm verses in alternation with communion antiphons is an awkward adaptation of NO responsorial psalmody practice.

As always, YMMV.

matthewj

For the benefit of those who haven't seen the work being mentioned here, it is available for download:
http://www.saintmeinrad.edu/the-monastery/liturgical-music/downloads/

I might suggest the following would be a more "congregational friendly" way to do the chants with both antiphon and refrain:
- Choir sings the antiphon
- Cantor sings the congregational response
- All sing the congregational response
- Psalm verse (and Gloria Patri if only singing one verse)
- All sing the congregational response
- Psalm verse (or Gloria Patri if last verse)
- All sing the congregational response
- Choir sings the antiphon.

That being said... these responses are almost too simple. Most of Fr. Kelly's antiphons have a matching antiphon in the Lumen Christi Missal, which is intended for congregational use, set to the same mode. I would suggest that an implementation of the LCM antiphons for the congregation combined with Fr. Kelly's antiphons for the choir will yield a much more satisfying result.

Caleferink

Re: Fr. Kelly's antiphons: I had an opportunity to discuss these with him at the recent NPM Convention (don't ask about the rest of the convention - it was on my parish's dime). He said the reason the congregational "refrains" are so simplistic in his collection are so that people ideally wouldn't need any book, worship aid, etc. to sing it, especially at Communion (incidentally, he mentioned he didn't think the congregation should have to be expected to sing ANYTHING during Communion - let the choir/schola handle it).

I just thought I'd throw that out there for what it's worth.

Hildegard

Exellent input and exactly what I was looking for, thank you! And Calefrink, your comments reflect exactly why I was drawn to using these, so it's nice to hear from Fr. Kelly that that was what he had in mind. I know the congregational refrains are extremely simple on these, but I looked at the Lumen Christi ones, and I think those might beyond our congregation at the moment. We don't have the resources right now for every congregant to have the words of the proper in front of them, and as much as I love and appreciate the SEP, the antiphons are just too much for our folks to pick up by ear and repeat.

M. Jackson Osborn

David A -

The responsory in the offices is not, as you say, the same as responsorial psalmody. However, responsorial psalmody is not by any means the modern invention, a 'fabricated form unique to post-conciliar liturgy', that you suggest it is. The Alleluya and verse itself is a responsorial form, the 'alleluya' being the responsory; and this is certainly not a post-conciliar innovation. Responsorial as opposed to antiphonal psalmody is attested to by several early witnesses, the one being predominantly eastern in origin, and the other being more a western practice in even pre-Gregorian, Ambrosian times. (And, of course, we haven't mentioned tractus and in directum, other methods of singing the psalm straight through by all, without responsory or antiphon. Some of the most ancient and moving chants in the repertory are the tracts sung during lent, some of which are said (cf. Apel and Hiley) to have characteristics of definitely eastern origin.)

Ioannes Andreades

I've long wondered whether somewhat would come up with English offertory propers that were responsories true to the format of the Offertoriale. Way, way beyond my abilities. The offertories in the Graduale Simplex are essentially responsorial psalms.

James McKinnon was of the position that a responsorial psalm was the forerunner of the gradual, and that it included a refrain verse sung by the congregation at points during the psalm's proclamation, in agreement with M. Jackson Osborn's comment above.

It's somewhat unfortunate that the tunes of many of Fr. Kelly's verses are complicated enough that they cannot be sung back in their entirety by the faithful, who probably have the exact wording of the entrance and communion antiphons in front of them, whether in the missalette or private missal. The wording and tune of the simplified version of the antiphon thus must be memorized.

M. Jackson Osborn

'James McKinnon... a responsorial psalm was the forerunner of the gradual.'

This is precisely the case. It is curious (extraordinary, really) that those who have negative feelings about the responsorial psalm seem to imagine that it is an innovation. It isn't. If anything, it is a restoration. The gradual as we know it in the GR, more precisely known as the gradual responsory, is, indeed, all that is left of a responsorial psalm. It is a truncated remnant, the remains that were retained by historic persons who thought it was too long, took too much time. This does not mean that I have negative feelings about the gradual responsory - quite the contrary. It does, though, mean that one needs to maintain a contextual understanding of the elements of the mass, and realise that abbreviating formerly more extensive parts of the mass has a long pedigree, and none of it is immune to alteration or abruption. Even the kyries, whether six-fold or nine-fold, are all that is left of what was once an extended litany. (I do, though, think that one could well question the turning of the kyries into a 'call and response' form as has been done in the Novus Ordo. It seems to me that this was needless, and was, indeed, the work of some 'liturgist' who was staying up too late, grasping at just about anything to fulfill his daily quota of change for change's sake. On the other hand, I suppose it's not, in itself, a bad thing.)

Salieri

Just because something was done a certain way 1,964 years ago doesn't make it ipso facto a laudable practice to revive. If the Resp. psalm was performed with a respond that was musically well constructed, and, probably neumatic, with melismatic verses sung by solo cantor, than I wouldn't have a problem. My problem is with the triteness of the current Resp. psalm form, and therefore I feel that the Gradual, as received in the Grad. Rom. is preferable to the Resp. Psalm.

M. Jackson Osborn

I agree, Salieri, and do so wholeheartedly!
The problem touching on most performances of the modern responsorial psalm is the same as that touching upon the OF itself. It's not the thing, it's how it is performed, what is done to it by people who have no ecclesiastical, liturgical sense, whose musical praxis is rooted in the popular music of our time rather than in our heritage of liturgical chant.

Your solution is spot on! All the Respond and Acclaim books and their brother and sister publications should be put in file 13 and replaced with editions which feature exactly what you have suggested. A decent, rather quickly learnable but mildly neumatic respond contrasted with a somewhat melismatic verse for cantor would make of the responsorial psalm the restoration that it was meant to be. Further, the melos for the cantor's verses should be different for each verse. Such a real responsorial psalm would be a fit heir to the old gradual responsory. This is precisely what the gradual responsory was like before it got truncated into a mere responsory and one verse. Lest anyone think otherwise, I am not against the GR's gradual responsory, but I am for a genuine responsorial psalm. I have had Fr Columba compose these for me, and have composed some myself. And, whenever I am serving as a cantor, I prepare a simple chant responsory for the people and a neumatic-melismatic melos for each of my verses of the psalm. I do the same for the Alleluya and its verse, which is a responsorial form.

Andrew_Malton

This idea, namely to make the cantor's part much more melismatic while keeping the response simpler for the congregation, is an excellent one: provided always that there is is cantor able to manage! Our CBW psalms are a too simple, although certainly not "rooted in popular music"; however their are accessible to most every cantor.

In my chant adaptations for the Canadian Lectionary I provided a melismatic version (called "solemn") and a much more recitative version (called "simple"), for each Sunday, keeping the same respond.

(user/pass=guest/guest)

CHGiffen

Thanks so much, Andrew!

melofluent

Not that I disagree with any of my esteemed colleagues' opinions, but it is quite possible to melismatically render the R&A verses, albeit somewhat truncated by comparison. Wendy and I do so regularly, and on one occasion at a funeral, Alstott's ubiquitous Ps22/23, I employed a pretty wide tessitura. The pastor said afterwards, "Charles, I've never heard that sung like that, that was cool." There are worse things than "cool."

M. Jackson Osborn

Charles, you are right: actually, some of the resp. pss. in Alstott's books are not too bad (although it is unfortunate that we use so many things that 'aren't too bad' because we don't have much the is 'awfully good' to choose from). They may be better than some others. The worst thing about R&A, though, is the alleluyas. These catchy, silly little dance-like ditties are an ecclesiastical disgrace which are a liturgical insult and a far cry from that gravitas which an alleluya (by which the sacred name of Yaweh is extolled) should posses. (One might even be forgiven for wondering if they aren't inherently blasphemous, that they aren't, by their thoughtless frivolity, 'taking the Lord's Name in vain',)

Richard Mix

I really like what Andrew has done with facsimiles and it's a very attractive book, even if the solemn cantors seem to take a Summer vacation ;-) I wonder how you do the refrains, which have a curious mix of explicit and omitted time signatures.

Andrew_Malton

It's true that not every psalm has a "solemn" version: sometimes I just couldn't get one that pleased me. Not sure how they got to be mostly Summer.

As for the responds, they are usually metrical (although they still sound a bit like the chants they're based in, at least to me) but sometimes they aren't. I meant to use a time signature to indicate the difference but I may have forgotten sometimes.

Cantors seem to manage pretty well, but if I ever get around to fully revising them I will be more consistent. Usually, the cantor sings the respond, congregation repeats, and then the usual singing of verses followed by the respond again. At least one place has put copies of the "pew booklets" in the pews, so the people there can sing the refrain more easily.

By "facsimiles" you mean the occasional page of square notes for decoration?

Richard Mix · Screen Shot 2015-08-01 at 4.23.30 PM.png

They seem more didactic and cunningly chosen than mere 'decorations'. Looking at last week, here's how I would have interpreted the notation:

Andrew_Malton

I'm sorry, I cannot produce a figured bass to show you: but if you try it as written, odd though it looks, you might get a sense of the un-emphatic way I hear it.

If you look back at the twelfth Sunday you'll see one which is more melismatic. Here is how it sounds.

M. Jackson Osborn

Awfully nice, Andrew!

Richard Mix

Obviously I've spent too much time with Guimont! Your recording sounds about like what I would do with unstemmed notes, but I can't help thinking the 6/8 time signature is an unnecessary obstacle.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories