I quite like the silence and question whether it's appropriate to *always* crowd it out with music on the basis that some people will complain about it afterwards.

What's the point of having a silent canon (EF) if you're always going to make it not-silent by improvising on the organ?

(In case it's not clear, I don't think there's anything evil about covering it up now and again, with something musically worthy, but feel that sometimes these "pastoral" justifications end up catering to a tiny handful -- or even the pastor's, organist's, or liturgy committee's notion of what worship should feel like -- and are very difficult to reverse if others in the congregation don't find them edifying.)

There ought to be no music played during the Canon after the Sanctus has been sung, and before the Benedictus, according to the regulations in place by 1962. I can't remember where I read this, but I suspect it was in the front of the Liber Usualis. The Canon is not to be "filled"! In other words - 'Elevations' and other such movements are definitely out!

Palestrina--I cannot find that instruction in my Liber...

Palestrina - We routinely violated that preference it seems, when I was in boys choir in the early 60s. We sang the Benedictus immediately after the Consecration whenever we sang for a High Mass. There was then no music until the Agnus Dei.

NOW we're getting somewhere--thanks, Palestrina et al.

Priorstf: note that the rule Pal. cited applies to CHANT sung music. When one sings a Chant Sanctus/Benedictus, they are sung together before the Consecration. However, when singing NON-Chant music, the Sanc/Bene are split--with the Bene beginning AFTER the Consecration.

Thanks for the spadework, which confirms my thoughts on the matter.

I play for the OF only, so obviously I do not play during the canon! As regards the EF, like Michael I have to think of the venerable tradition of the organ Elevation. I don't see anything in Palestrina's comment which would forbid such an elevation or Benedictus - only saying that silence is "preferable", since the Elevation (I do believe) comes after the the consecration. I think it's a grand tradition, since music draws the heart to God who just became physically present. I will likely be playing for an EF in spring, and I'll make a point to learn a good Elevation for it.

If I'm using actual propers (mandatory at high Mass), I'll add either a hymn or motet after the offertory or Communion proper to keep some kind of singing going. After that, then I'll play some soft stuff (usually there's about a minute - tops - to kill). I'll usually sing a "processional" and "recessional" hymn in English with the congregation, as neither are part of the Mass. The Introit is usually sung in between the Asperges and Kyrie anyways. I'm not into playing the "soft stuff" out of laziness from picking a hymn or motet. Nor am I into playing background music during the Canon of the Mass (or any of the prayers for that matter - in either form). If the Sanctus is sung, it should be finished before the elevations (if the Sanctus is too long, break it off after the first Hosanna in Excelsis and take the Benedictus after the elevations). The only music that should happen during the elevations are the ringing of the Sanctus bells.

If I'm doing Low Mass, I'll still sing something at the offertory and Communion - either a hymn or motet, in Latin. I've heard people say that at low Mass you could use English hymnody at those two points. However, I prefer to keep them in Latin to stay in practice so when the next high Mass comes around I won't screw up. If it turns out there's about a minute or so left after the singing is finished, I'll go into soft music.

At the offertory, I use the priest's turning for the Orate Fratres as the cue to stop playing. At Communion, I use the priest's reading of his proper as that same cue.
BMP

"J. B. O'Connell, The Celebration of Mass, 1964 (incorporating rubrics of 1962) indicates that at the Solemn Mass, the organ could play quite a traditional role, including alternating with the choir in parts of the ordinary, playing the offertory, and "playing with a 'grave and sweet sound' during the Elevation, where customary." These alternations with the choir and playing of the offertory require that a singer sing the texts recto tono with the organ, but for the elevation, there would be no text."

This is interesting, and has caused me a few problems. Alternatim obviously did/does exist, but the legislation in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum (I think - I'm going on what I found somewhere in Hayburn's 'Papal Legislation on Sacred Music') seems to say that the text must be recited WHILE the organ verse is played. Confusing, I know! How does this actually work, without ruining the underlying organ music?? Does anyone have any clarifications from Rome on this point?

"Once the consecration has passed, there's nothing in that sentence that forbids music beginning again, as with the Elevation."

I think that the spirit of the legislation is that nothing should be played from the elevations through to the Pater Noster.

Yes, Mike, but I think you're talking about the "Missa Cantata," which was more-or-less a mixture of the Solemn Mass and the Low Mass.

Further, the Second Vatican Council used a phrase which was basically lifted from the writings of Pius X and Pius XII (although it is not a direct quotation)--that is, that "...sacred music is an integral part of the Mass."

This implies that there IS such a thing as 'music which is NOT integral part'...and I think that may include "wallpaper."

Sometimes I want it to be quite. Just Me and God! Communion is a great time for that to happen. It is the moment of intimation. Sometimes, music at that moment in time is just a distraction.

But that sentiment stands in opposition to the spirit of the liturgy. We don't just approach God as "me an' Jesus", we approach it as His Bride - that is, collectively. When we commune, it isn't just you communing with God, but you communing with God and in the process communing with everyone else who is or has communed with God. A congregational song, as the GIRM says, makes the unity of the moment more plainly manifest. However, any form of music allows God to speak to us. Especially the psalms, which is why the ancient practice was the Communion Antiphon + a psalm. At my parish, we use Psalm 145 during ordinary time with the antiphon "The hand of the Lord feeds us, He answers all our needs." What more needs to be said of communion? And yet in the Psalm God tells us more, that "he has compassion on all he has made," "loving toward all he has made," and "near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth," among much else. At some point I want to move to a weekly psalm with the proper antiphon. So I ask, during Communion, how can anything be more appropriate? In silence God can speak to one, but in music He speaks to all.

Furthermore, I'll repeat my claim that the Mass is properly ALL music. If we had the time to teach our congregation a chanted confiteor and train the lectors to sing the readings, at Christmas we'd have had music from the time I sit down on the bench until the priest begins his sermon. Sure, a chanted collect is different from a Gloria, which is different from a hymn, which is different from an antiphon, which is different from a prelude, which is different from a chanted reading. But it is all to be music, because that is the proper way to approach God, as so many psalms tell us. A lack of music may support a need for individualism or dourness, but it is not the best way to approach God and it is NOT in keeping with the mind of the Church.

Periods of silence, as in silent meditation, yes. After each reading, before the penitential rite, after communion, maybe even after the Entrance, absolutely. Don't-touch-the-organ-after-the-Offertory-antiphon-is-done-even-if-the-priest-is-using-incense-and-hasn't-taken-the-gifts-yet? No way. If Cardinal Arinze has a problem with me improvising after the offertory hymn or until the priest begins to cleanse the vessels, I'll just say it's a good thing that I don't work at his parish.

Well what precisely would you say, in the OF, constitutes unnecessary music outside of the examples I gave? And I should be specific as well in saying my organ music at communion policy is to try to end the playing while the priest is cleansing vessels. If I have an extremely short piece worth playing which will start and end during it, I'll play a whole new piece during, but not often. And if the music ends after the priest returns to his chair, my boss always starts waiting AFTER the music ends (same with a postcommunion). I think we can get more done dealing in concrete should-dos and should-not-dos rather than just saying "no unnecessary music".

"unobtrusive meditative music" is a term that I struggle with, essentially because it can lead to banal improvisations which have no "goal" or even "idea" to underpin their structure. It reminds me a little of elevator music - just filling a gap until the next big "thing" happens. I think that an ideal to strive for is that the improvisation should be built out of the music that has just been sung e.g. at the Offertory, perhaps the organist could take a fragment of the Offertory Chant, and use it as the basis for an improvisation, and, when the possibilities offered by this fragment are exhausted, return to the Chant to find another motif to use in a similar way. I'm not saying that this is easy - it requires an understanding of modal harmony, which is something that isn't really taught. I do, however, think that it is neccessary to take this sort of approach, otherwise the standard of organ music will not be very high.

Good for you, G!!!!

Keeping in mind that the Catholic Encyclopedia online is an edition from about 1912-1919 (give or take a year), I am fascinated by the statement "These chants [the ordinary] should never be accompanied by the organ or any other instrument." Is this view supported in documents of the time? Had it been abrogated by 1962? In any case, this entry should be food for some good discussion.

The liturgy has been an organic, constantly evolving rite over the centuries.

If I was a literalist, I would say we need our Liturgy to look exactly like the last supper, just like Jesus celebrated the first Mass. A low wide table, and we should all sit on the floor. It should'nt be more than 12 people or so, and the priest should wash eveyone's feet at every Mass.

Well, as you will quickly realize, that is silly.

So why do we try to 'freeze' the liturgy in time? All of the liturgical experiences that the church has had over the centuries were mostly all valid. I say mostly because there were always abuses, customs, and continued organic growth that was eventually adopted into the liturgy. Jeez. Palestrina has only been around for a little over 400 years, folks. That represents only the last fifth of the history of the liturgy.

Where I depart from this way of thinking is when Vatican II occurred. That is where major confusion entered because the liturgy no longer grew organically, slowly, and deliberately over time and from the people. It took a paradigm shift and was rewritten from the top down by a 'chosen' few. That has never occured with the liturgy before.

I don't think we should to subscribe to a 'best' or 'only' practice of the liturgy. The Church makes room for the music of old, the music of new, improvisation, chant, polyphony, hymns, instruments, organ, and more. I attended an Orthodox Mass a few weeks ago. They don't even HAVE instruments, or the organ. They chanted everything a cappella. It was solemn and beautiful. It was the prayer sublimely joined to music. As soon as someone says "I have the best way" or "This is the only official way to conduct music at the liturgy", well, aren't you kinda saying "I am for Paul! I am for Cephas!" "I am for Latin! I am for English! I am for a cappella! I am for Organ!"

"Proper chants should NEVER be accompanied unless the schola is....well....really....amateur."

Some choirs have difficulty staying on pitch, and I think that accompaniment can help them. I think the organist must remember, however, that the accompaniment is only meant as a support to the singers - which means that it should be as soft as possible, and, really, only needs to be heard by the choir. If the choir is close enough to the organ, then it's conceivable that a single 8' Flute with the swell box closed, should be sufficient.

"And Ordinary chants should be unaccompanied, as well--but that prevails only when there is strong leadership in the singing--like from a choir or at least a couple of strong singers."

Agreed - unaccompanied is the ideal. I just don't think it's very practical in many situations e.g. when you have a congregation of several hundred people (including many musical amateurs), it's unrealistic to expect that pitch will be maintained well. I started accompanying Credo III at my church when it became clear that there was no way the congregation wasn't going to go flat as a result of the descending triad motion that pervades that piece, even with strong leaders in the choir. That doesn't mean that the organ has to be ridiculously loud or bright (I don't think that there's often (if ever) justification for drawing any stop above 4') - just that it should be capable of leading. Whereas the choir may only require a "subtle" background accompaniment to keep it on pitch, congregations may require something more.

"I was always told that when you have pitch problems, using a 2' stop is the best remedy. A soft one, but a 2'."

What an interesting idea... it makes perfect sense. I may try it.
My choir has a real flatting problem, if we do anything unaccompanied, and I can't seem to do anything about the worst culprits, so unless it's loud and fast, (like one middle verse of an SATB hymn,) the closest we get to a capella is singing over a pedal tone.

My congregation has an unerring ability to drop a whole step by the word "heaven" and then maintain that key very well to the end of the Our Father. This happens regardless of the key the priest begins in (we have low legit baritone and high pop tenor priests.)

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

dad29 said:

"FWIW, Michael, the way I was trained, Proper chants should NEVER be accompanied unless the schola is....well....really....amateur."

I'm sure many on this forum have been waiting for me to add my nickel's worth (inflation!). Gregorian chant accompanied by the organ IS a tradition in the RC Church. So is unaccompanied chant. Amateur chanting without the organ usually sounds bad. Amateur organists accompanying chant probably sounds even worse. Good chanting with appropriate organ accompaniment CAN be a beautiful thing, and as I just stated, IS part of the Church's tradition.

I know there are only a few of us who are this strongly in favor of accompanied chant, far fewer than those against. But I will suggest to you that there are exponentially more people in the middle on this one!

And this is, of course, a tangent to the original question. I've been playing for EF Low Masses on a weekly basis for over 4 years. I know how long the Prayers at the Foot are, and the Offertory, and trim my hymnody to suit. I use Finale, and give the PIPs the most pertinent and beautiful texts to sing. The Communion time starts with me chanting the Communion Proper with organ accompaniment, which is followed by the hymn. I use short interludes or improvise if needed. That's the way I like it, and it's what my Pastor wants me to do.

And, in both the OF and EF Mass, the organist's primary responsibility is to know the cues for both beginning AND ending the music! I was at a Mass offered by Cardinal Arinze where he stood up and cut off the music from the choir loft after Communion. It was the 3rd choral offering during that time, constrcted with verses, and had a few more verses to go. As offended as some of my musician friends have been at my telling of this story, the director in the choir loft really should have found an early stopping point, IMO!