"Modern psalms"
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,483
    Ok I rarely get on this board to vent, but forgive me, I will today. WHY can't 'contemporary' composers who write responsorial psalms actually use the text in the lectionary? I'm not talking about using a different translation, I'm talking about putting extra words in, reversing words, repeating words, or just paraphrasing the whole thing. Does this show a respect for the Word of God as it has been given to us? I have been 'asked' to do a psalm for Palm Sunday by a certain contemporary composer, and I have to re-write it to fit the actual lectionary text, as it's SUPPOSED to in the first place. Did Mozart, Haydn et all change the words of the Mass or text to suit their music?
    OK END of rant.
    Thanked by 4ClergetKubisz chonak CharlesW Casavant Organist
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    Because, among other things, publishers preferred not to have to pay royalties to the USCCB for using their copyrighted texts....
    Thanked by 3Spriggo ClergetKubisz noel jones, aago
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,315
    Some classical and Romantic composers did omit texts, particularly in the Credo. Others (most) telescoped the text.
    Thanked by 2ClergetKubisz PaxMelodious
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Because, among other things, publishers preferred not to have to pay royalties to the USCCB for using their copyrighted texts....


    I think this is a red herring.

    I suspect there are two actual reasons:
    1) (The big reason) - Much contemporary "liturgical" music is driven by the melody, rhythm, and/or chord progression, so the text is mangled to make it fit better the music better.
    2) There are some cases where the text is mangled in order to emphasize (or invent) a particular theological point. I wouldn't say this is the majority case, but it certainly happens.
    Thanked by 5CHGiffen Andrew_Malton noel jones, aago BruceL Heath
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    ^Like Adam said.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    Adam for the win.
    Thanked by 3ClergetKubisz Adam Wood Casavant Organist
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    There are some cases where the text is mangled in order to emphasize (or invent) a particular theological point. I wouldn't say this is the majority case, but it certainly happens.


    That reminds me of the Mass ordinary that adjusted the melodic phrasing of the gloria's opening phrase to shoehorn "peace on earth" in there. The text was intact when spoken, but when sung.....
    Thanked by 1cmb
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,415
    Cupidity!
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,799
    Adam might be conceded a point or two, but I know several excellent Lutheran communion services by a composer who throws up her hands in horror at the thought of dealing with ICEL.

    What does it mean that "The Responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should usually be taken from the Lectionary"? "Usually" could be read as an accounting for the gregorian gradual (or the seasonal option) but the first half sounds an awful lot like "apt" to me.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Besides the Lectionary and the Graduale Romanum as sources, there are also the psalms in the Graduale Simplex (and any approved vernacular counterparts, such as By Flowing Waters).
  • TimTheEnchanterTimTheEnchanter
    Posts: 206
    In my experience, any recently released psalm settings from OCP (in, say, the last five years or thereabouts; it may go further back) have tended to use the exact text, regardless of style.

    And GIA recently released this "contemporary" set that uses the exact texts.

    So there's stuff out there if you need it.
    Thanked by 1Casavant Organist
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    In my experience, any recently released psalm settings from OCP (in, say, the last five years or thereabouts; it may go further back) have tended to use the exact text, regardless of style.

    And GIA recently released this "contemporary" set that uses the exact texts.


    This has been a shift. It seems it happened about the same time as the new translation - a greater emphasis on the right text. I believe that Bishops will not approve things marketed as Responsorial Psalms (or whatever else) if they don't use the correct text.

    Of course, a publisher could just publish a collection of "refrain-based songs with solo verses loosely based on Psalms, which you definitely shouldn't use during the liturgy of the word." But people like to buy things that seem approved and appropriately packaged.

    The problem isn't so much new stuff, but two or three decades worth of existing old material, much of which is very well liked and still commonly used, such as 'Lord, Send Out Your Spirit' and 'Shepherd Me O God'.

    I went home for Christmas. The parish I grew up in was still doing the same tired old setting of 'All the Ends of the Earth' that I sang there 20 years ago.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    I believe that Bishops will not approve things marketed as Responsorial Psalms (or whatever else) if they don't use the correct text.


    Since when have American bishops ever refused approval for such things, even with incorrect text?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Since recently is what I'm saying. Unless I'm wrong. But I do think in the wake of Lit. Aut. and the new translation that they have.

    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • Fr. Jim Chepponis
    Posts: 220
    Ant then there's this at paragraph 61 of the GIRM:
    In the Dioceses of the United States of America, instead of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary, there may be sung... an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, including Psalms arranged in metrical form, provided they have been approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
  • Casavant Organist
    Posts: 805
    How about when another choir in my church chooses an entirely different psalm for the Sunday just because the proper one is too hard? Ridiculous, and I don't know how the heck they actually get away with it.
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,325
    Noeisdas, you're right that it's completely ridiculous. It is also completely permitted under the current GIRM (see Fr. Chepponis' quotation).
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 442
    How about when another choir in my church chooses an entirely different psalm for the Sunday just because the proper one is too hard? Ridiculous...

    So you would prefer them to do the proscribed one badly? Or to just have the psalm said?
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,325
    There are many ways to sing psalms. Some are simple, while others are more elaborate. It's not hard to use a psalm tone. No one who is leading music for Holy Mass should be unable to point a psalm.
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn Casavant Organist francis
  • TimTheEnchanterTimTheEnchanter
    Posts: 206
    How about when another choir in my church chooses an entirely different psalm for the Sunday just because the proper one is too hard? Ridiculous, and I don't know how the heck they actually get away with it.


    I know many of us aren't fans of Respond & Acclaim, but that's one reason it's there. None of those are too hard by design.
  • Casavant Organist
    Posts: 805
    Respond and Acclaim is my go-to for easy psalms after the CBW III. It is actually not a bad resource
  • francis
    Posts: 10,825
    It's not hard to use a psalm tone.
    use the PBP. Perfect for getting back to basics.
    Thanked by 1WGS
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,187
    Not in Canada, because the Parish Book of Psalms and Respond and Acclaim use neither the Lectionary texts nor the CBW III (Grail 1986) texts.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • francis
    Posts: 10,825
    Andrew...

    For a small fee I can set the Canadian text to the PBP if you would like.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,187
    I'll underbid you, Francis.

    Happy Holy Week!
  • francis
    Posts: 10,825
    lol

    and also with you
Add a Comment