Rev. Dr. Percy Deamer opened the preface to the Oxford Book of Carols

Carols are songs with a religious impulse that are simple, popular, hilarious, and modern.

and ended

.. people crowd our churches at Christmas, Easter, and Harvest Festivals, largely because the hymns for these occasions are full of a sound hilarity; ..

If only we had some with theologically sound texts!

Please define true artistic merit, then.

I am aware of his position as a sedevacantist, but there are two things here that I adamantly protest:

1. The fact that he is a sedevacantist does not make him an idiot. By rejecting his rhetoric outright, and citing the fact that he is a schismatic heretic to do so, you are indeed stating that his position negates everything he says, and we don't have to regard him at all.

2. Please refrain from the above-mentioned types of ad hominem arguments. I brought it up because I think he has a good point about it. Please argue the point.

Adam

Like shooting fish in a barrel. Cekada's comment is meant to provoke, but it won't hunt.

Ok, thank you. I see what you're saying now.

I would agree with your first two points of refutation. I would argue the artistic merit of the last three, although many of them are indeed quite singable. I don't think that The Beatles and The Beach Boys are anywhere near the level of artistic merit of the Gregorian ordinaries. Although, you didn't say they were all equal.

I took Rev. Cekada's statement in the light of appealing to the lowest common denominator. Here begins my own rhetoric:

Why, then, aren't we seeing more of the first two points you mentioned, specifically the simpler Gregorian ordinaries? If we have music that is of high artistic merit and is indeed singable for the average non-musician, then why not use it? Why focus on campy, touchy-feely typed music? Why is music of high artistic merit, but not singable for the average non-musician vehemently prohibited?

The answer that I would pose is this: we have seen a declining artistic standard from the general public. The objective artistic merit of something, in this case the music, is of little to no concern anymore. Music is not valued for its own merits.

I think that people recognize the difference between music that objectively has high artistic merit, and that which does not. I think that they are attracted to that music which does.

I also think that before anymore discussion on what does or does not achieve high artistic merit we must have the definition of "high artistic merit." I find, in accordance with Dr. Mahrt's statement that art must have "goodness of form," that the following definition fits:

The high artistic standard demands work that is considered high art. High art has what Dr. William Mahrt of Stanford University says is, “…goodness of form.” This is work done correctly according to an established set of rules and/or criteria. This normally requires some sort of training, and is the basic difference between trained and untrained musicians: trained musicians have been taught what the rules and criteria for good performance are, and they have been taught and conditioned to follow them.

With respect, the Rev Anthony Cekada is mistaken.
Hence, the popularity of -
Salve festa dies
Sine nomine
Down Ampney
Adeste fideles
Lauda anima
and hundreds of others.

Yesterday at the local OF Mass here, our song leader beautifully sang "Gentle Woman" at the Offertory, and "Like A Child Rests In His Mother's Arms" for Communion, and we dutifully tried to follow in our books, but the irregular rhythm, fermatas and rallentando's made it difficult to render a solid congregational chorus to her lovely leading voice.

I would allow as how this thread has truly jumped the shark. And forensically I believe that is due to the "Blind Sages describing an elephant" syndrome. Why must we always insert our agendas and desire for conformity into others' experiences and practices? That's clearly counterproductive.
For myself, I believe that Julie's anecdote suffices as an illustration of this perceived problem. We had a full church at noon yesterday (700+) including the school kids. The Offertorio, of course, was the "Ave Maria" antiphon. I saw an opportunity to sing the chanted "Ave" and then transition from Dminor to Dmajor into the Landry tune, which I virtually never program (I'm both accompanist and song leader.) My school kids sang the chant and the adults didn't....everyone sang the Landry easily and fully. To me, the issue is not always tied to musical coherence or artistry nor to text worthiness. It's always about performance practice and competency. Jackson's point about Salve festa is well taken, but programming it beyond Easter/Pentecost requires a very solid organist/choir/leader to confidently engage a congregation in that demanding hymn. The same could be said for RVW's The Call. It can easily be rendered by congregation (despite its original provenance) if the leader is aware of how to best guide the people through the melisma at the end of each stanza.
Despite the tangential digressions, I think the thread is valuable in many arenas. But I do respect the original post/poster in that we ought to be mindful of the primary concern about eliciting congregational participation. Fractionating the concern into deep academic theology, the old who-sings-what? divvying up of musical portions of the Mass, idiosyncratic music theory issues, well it's okay.....but I doubt that it's all that helpful in diagnosing and correct a local and obvious situation. YMMV

True dat. But, if my conditions are present as I described, there's no good reason not to use it in lieu of four or five Sundays of "Jesus Christ is Ris'n Today." Again, YMMV

... there's no good reason not to use it in lieu of four or five Sundays of "Jesus Christ is Ris'n Today.

... Just as there is no reason not to use "At the Lamb's High Feast We Sing."

Or "Hail thee, festival day"

Um, that's RVW's "Salve festa dies" which is what I assumed people were talking about.

Um, that's RVW's "Salve festa dies" which is what I assumed people were talking about.

Of course it is. I assumed the original mention of it was in re: the chant (since there Latin involved). Anyway, there are plenty of things to sing besides:

Jesus Christ is Risen Today Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la.

Just to clarify, I was, I thought, obviously referring to the hymn tune, not the chant. It was, after all, the first in a list of such hymn tunes. This is not to suggest that the chant itself should be any more daunting.

And, Kathy, i shall assert, once again, that what Catholics 'can't do' they have been taught that they can't do by a culture that stifles their interest or ability to rise beyond a certain level. That they have been musically 'dumbed down' is a self-evident truth. Catholics have the same brains that others do. Their limitations are imposed, cultivated, and learned.

Is it just me, or is the singing on verses 1 and 2 rather inaudible?

Is it just me, or is the singing on verses 1 and 2 rather inaudible?

As explained on the YouTube page, the procession is a big loop around the inside, and there are times when the voices are less prominent on the recording because of the distance from the microphones.

re. THE CALL

the "hymn" version is so simple musically that, with the same bowdlerized accompaniment for all three stanzas, it borders on being boring and trite.

Yes and deedy doo it becomes banal with the minor mode accompaniment as I experienced from OCP's arrangement. Which is precisely why I re-arranged the accompaniment and, gasp, even SET a verse in major mixolydian! The melody fared quite well with that. YMMV.
I'm kinda sorta with Liam, save for Jerusalem. I don't think that many "proto Anglican" types of hymns translate well enough to the NO for prolific use, particular those like SALVE FESTA DIES and the "Lutheran" FESTIVAL CANTICLE. "De gustibus in aeternum" be your guide. Others, KINGSFOLD, CRUCIFER and such fare better.
JERUSALEM I regard as a choral work, not hymn, because of its original and particular text. It is an wonderfully extreme piece of music, and as such has been pilloried or parodied away from standard Murican hymnody. And if I use it as a choral work, I use other texts (O day of peace, etc.)

I love that hymn, and it is a challenge for PIPs.

MJO

It's about as much fun as a root canal.

As for your point about harmonic (movement) being critical for hymns: actually, I don't agree with that as a general rule. Fine tunes work well without harmonic movement beneath or above them. Indeed, there are beautiful tunes written without any such support in mind (see, for example, Quaker and Shaker tunes).

As an example where I think your point has validity, I will invoke a favorite tune of mine that RVW put in the 1906 English Hymnal: DANBY, which is typically paired with Longfellow's (well, the brother of the more famous Longfellow) text, 'Tis Winter Now. It can be sung effectively a cappella, but gains with harmonic support - true for the vaguely British Isles tunes' penchant for repeated notes at final cadences....

JulieColl - On the other hand, when they broke into Hail, Holy Queen and the Benediction hymns and Holy God, the response was immediate. The people took those up with gusto and feeling. No uncertainty there in the least, and it's not just because they are so familiar. "Gentle Woman" has been around for ages, but it's far more suited for solo singing than congregational singing, it seems to me.

Julie, why do you think it is that the people sing these hymns with gusto and feeling? If we rule out the familiarity of the hymn?

Little or no syncopation.
No leaps or drops greater than a fifth.

It does need a detailed road map.

At the church where I work (I'm just a cantor, not the DM), even the choir isn't able to follow scores that require flipping back and forth, so if I wanted them to sing HTFD (a beloved hymn), I'd want to make a score that lays everything out in sequence with no need to turn back. The congregation? Not yet.

congregational singing belongs in the dialogues and the ordinary. otherwise, it is highly overrated and unduly required. busy nor distract not the minds and hearts with requirement for superfluous sounds in deference to that we much more need in the prayers for the souls of the living and the dead.

...their rosaries may make the difference in your eternal destiny. do not distract them from the task with songs that gain nothing

Wasn't Festival Canticle written originally for the ordination of the bishop of the Diocese of Tyler?

Wasn't Festival Canticle written originally for the ordination of the bishop of the Diocese of Tyler?

That does not compute. The Diocese of Tyler was erected in 1986. Richard Hillert composed Festival Canticle in 1975.

Surely a part of whether a hymn is easy to sing depends on how well led it is, by the organist. I know hymn tunes I've sung (or, more accurately, tried to sing) with the interference of a weak organist or someone who merely plays one at a console on demand ..... hymn tunes I know and love, and find these difficult to sing.