It looks interesting, but those texts are LOOOONG! There's less than 2 months until the submission deadline. Plus, they want it in a responsorial form with the antiphon set for congregation which can be, well, not my cup of tea. YMMV. So, unless you've got some free time to devote to composing some that could really contend for the $2k, one's efforts might be best spent elsewhere.

Never thought of it that way, MJO. I was going to try my hand at it, but you make a good point.

It's not that I think there's anything fishy about this. I just don't care for the fact that it specifies the antiphon has to be for the congregation. I think better results can be had by making the whole thing for the choir. Plus, it's a lot of text to set in a very short period of time. Just ONE of those verses for the Communion would be enough text for a medium length motet. These things said, I can think of things to do with $2k.

EDIT: I must add that I'm grateful that this got posted. More competitions for composing sacred music with decent prizes would be welcome.

An item sung repeatedly by congregation in alternation with cantoral or choral verses is ipso facto a responsory, NOT and antiphon - since what is being performed is a responsorial form, NOT an antiphonal form (which is quite different) with its antiphon. The Introit and Communion have never been responsorial, but antiphonal forms. The compositions being invited may be useful, even desirable, even beautiful, for entrance and communion music, but they cannot be called propers or The Propers - they're not. The honourable people sponsoring this competition should, I'm sure, be aware of that. Truth in packaging. There seem to be those who slap the term 'antiphon' onto just any and every congregational tune that gets repeated in alternation with a cantor or choir. Some education in liturgical musical forms and procedures seems evidently to be in order and will reveal that this is an inappropriate application of the term 'antiphon'. Shouldn't church musicians, of all people, use our terminology correctly and show themselves to be genuinely knowledgeable of chant forms and liturgical musical forms? It seems to me that they should. One should rightly expect them to. They are, after all, the scholars, guardians, and communicators of that music 'which is of greater value than any in the Church's treasury'.

An antiphon is that (and only that) which is sung by both choirs or groups after each group has sung alternately (antiphonally) verses of a psalm or other text. It is this and nothing else. Except that there are indeed some chants sung quite by themselves (e.g., In paradisum) which are commonly called antiphons.

Too, I shouldn't want to add to the current fad for writing entrance and communion chants as if one were somehow restoring The Propers. A complete set of propers for any given mass includes 1)introit, 2)gradual or respps, 3) alleluya and verse, 4) offertory antiphon and verses, 5)communion antiphon and verses. We should be composing complete propers for every mass, not these two abrupt 'antiphons' out of the missal (which are NOT supposed to be sung at all), or mere selections from the proper proper texts. There are five items which constitute The Propers. Should we not be composing our 'propers' accordingly and not stoking the trendy notion that these entrance and communion chants are somehow The Propers? Yes, we should. The Propers are a whole, a whole which consists of five members. Their texts are in the Graduale Romanum and may be set to music in Latin or English - oh! there is no official translation? That's no excuse. At this moment there doesn't need to be. Perhaps if enough people use a good translation it would be adopted - or would serve as an impetus for the progress that really needs to be made. (In fact, a logical translation source would be that approved for the rest of the lectionary. Who could object to that? Except its not exactly musical.)

I was simply spelling out what I think they want / would get excited about / apparently will pay $2K for. Period.

You are entitled, father, to think me 'incorrect'. I do not agree that you are correct in doing so.
Antiphonal singing is a specific manner of singing verses by two groups in alternation, who both then sing an antiphon.
Responsorial singing is a manner of singing by a cantor (or, possibly, a choir) who is answered by everyone singing a responsory after each of the cantor's verses.

I do grant that antiphonal singing can, or could theoretically, occur without an antiphon being involved, though I can't think of an incidence of this in liturgy - which isn't to say that there absolutely isn't one. An example would be two groups singing stanzas of a hymn in alternation, antiphonally. The only psalmodic form which has neither antiphon nor responsory is in directum, in which everyone sings straight through the text. A ready example would be the tract. The point is that the antiphon is what is sung by the two antiphonal groups after each has sung a verse or verses. A responsory is what is sung by all after a cantor sings a verse or verses. Antiphonal and responsorial singing are two very distinct forms.

So, with respect, about that responsorium, Ingrediente Dominus, it, being a responsorial form, the structure is responsory, verse, repetition of the last part of the responsory, not antiphon - this is not an antiphonal chant.

While responsorial singing is important in the office, it also occurs during mass, and always has. The traditional Roman gradual (properly called a gradual responsory) is, in fact, the vestige (with its 'responsory' and one verse) of responsorial singing. The responsorial psalm of our time is an obvious restoration of the original responsorial manner of singing the psalm at mass (it most definitely is not a nasty innovation of Vatican II). The other responsorial form at mass is the Alleluya and its verse, the alleluia itself being the responsory.

I do grant that antiphonal singing can, or could theoretically, occur without an antiphon being involved, though I can't think of an incidence of this in liturgy - which isn't to say that there absolutely isn't one.

Well, if you have true antiphonal singing, the part both groups sing together is automatically the antiphon. It doesn't matter if it's called that or not.

The reference is specifically to the antiphon of the introit...

What I'm referring to is this:

...the cantors begin the Introit [Antiphonam ad Introitum]. (...) The Choir continues until the Psalm. The first part of the Verse of the Psalm as far as the asterisk, and the V. Gloria Patri are sung by the cantors, the full choir taking up the rest of the verse. Afterwards, the Introit as far as the Psalm is repeated by the full choir.

This is what the Latin rubrics for the chant of the Mass give in the Vatican Edition Graduale Romanum (1908); of which I happened to grab a translation from the Liber Brevior (1954).

Likewise, the rubrics for the Graduale Romanum (1974) direct that:

When the antiphon has been sung by the choir, a verse is presented by one or more cantors, and then the antiphon is repeated by the choir.

(Translation by Richard Chonak here.)

So, by the rubrics, each verse in the EF is begun by cantors and finished by the full choir; and in the OF each verse is sung entirely by the cantors.

No?

I understand that neither of these procedures may be antiphonal singing, and that the latter may in fact be responsorial singing; but the rubrics in both cases still call the repeated portion of the introit, the "antiphon".

[Furthermore, when the priest reads the Introit or Communion at an EF Low Mass, each is still called an "antiphon": what else is there to call it? And thus it happens that the terms, used in the OF Missal for the so-called "Missal Propers", remain "Entrance Antiphon" and "Communion Antiphon". This being the case, they may presumably continue to be called such even when you set them to music and add psalm verses sung by cantors.]

Rather than "uninformed sloppiness", these examples all seem to be more a case of retaining the historical title for a thing, even though the meaning of the title no longer accurately reflects the type of thing that it is being used for.

Just imagine writing different music for each verse between the response. Seems like overkill.
I'd argue too much going on but okay, challenge accepted!

Jes -
A mildly developed melody for each of the cantor's verses in responsorial singing would indeed go far to restore the responsorial psalm to its ancient form, of which, as noted above, the Gradual in the GR is a vestige. I consider this to be highly desirable. Too, it would put the current utterly clueless versions of the psalm to very well deserved shame.

Fr Columba has written several of these for my schola, and I, myself, have written a number of them. They are quite effective, very beautiful, and certainly far supass what is usually on offer.

A relatively easy chant-like responsory for the people, contrasted with mildly developed freshly composed chant melody, different for each verse, makes of our responsorial psalm a true meditative Gradual Responsory - which is what it is supposed to be.

Maybe it would be useful to see what the winning submissions were last year?

Entrance Antiphon for Chrism Mass

Communion Antiphon for Chrism Mass

These happened to be great texts, and I think both are useful at other times of the year. Maybe not in your situation, but could be.

The thing that gets me is the submission of a score without a name on it.

I'd suggest that this is generally a common practice in composition contests. So you know what happens when you submit a piece to the contest (I'm the one who receives it)—I print out the entry form, entrance antiphon and communion antiphon, then write a number (say 6 if it were the 6th received) in the upper corner of every page to uniquely identify it, then I file the entry forms and the submissions in separate files. Should there be any identifying information on the score, I white it out. When the submission period is over, I scan all of the entries to one big PDF, and send it to the committee of judges, and after they make a selection, they tell me a number, and I send them the entry form for that number.

Plus, they want it in a responsorial form with the antiphon set for congregation which can be, well, not my cup of tea.

That is 100% ok. You are welcome to not participate in the contest, and to not use the resulting compositions. I'm sure that not all Cathedrals across the country used the resulting winners from last year, as it might not have been a good fit for their program. In my case, I did use them, and they fit very well. I have a preference to use the proper antiphon and it's verses AS the entrance/communion procession in lieu of singing a shorter antiphon/verse followed by a more common song. When it's not possible though, I do use separate pieces as it's important to me to expose the congregation to the propers in one form or another.

And thus it happens that the terms, used in the OF Missal for the so-called "Missal Propers", remain "Entrance Antiphon" and "Communion Antiphon". This being the case, they may presumably continue to be called such even when you set them to music and add psalm verses sung by cantors.

The texts used for the CRCCM contests have indeed been based on the "Missal Propers," as you call them. As the Roman Missal calls them Entrance Antiphon and Communion Antiphon, those are the names that were used in the contest. I hold no ill will against you if you dislike the use of those names in the missal.

Marc

MJO - "The compositions being invited may be useful, even desirable, even beautiful, for entrance and communion music, but they cannot be called propers or The Propers - they're not. "

MJO - as much as I generally admire your contributions and love of the word "simulacrum", the statement above is nonsense. And what is the point of making such an incorrect and damaging statement? Are you really saying that settings of the proper text which do not 100% follow the form of the chant proper are not, actually, propers? Of course they are. One could set the proper text in various different ways, for congregation, or soloist, or soloist in alternation with choir, or choir alone, and you would absolutely still be singing the proper. Simple fact - the Proper is what you are singing!! "Proper" is not synonymous with "Gregorian Chant setting of the Proper".

In addition, it is silly to say that either one must compose a linked setting of all five propers, OR do nothing at all. I have argued extensively for the composition of complete proper sets as a worthy long-term goal for the Novus Ordo (and a better way forward than full Ordinary settings, due to the structure of the NO). But composing settings for entrance or communion is a very worthwhile step in that direction, and it certainly is a way to bring the propers back into liturgical use. Why denigrate work that is liturgically sound and moves us closer to the goal? What are you hoping to accomplish?

MJO -

1 - I think the Missal propers question is more nuanced than that (of course, I am one of the guilty ones composing communion propers and drawing from the Missal as well as Graduale!). Very often, the Missal text is the same as the Graduale, and even when it is not, there is no reason one cannot set the text to music - it is "proper" in a wider sense, as in "assigned by the church to this liturgical moment." Simply because a text was originally included for spoken use does not mean that there is some proscription against setting it to music. The fact that there is so much overlap between graduale and missal should show that a spoken vs. sung dichotomy is overly reductionist and simplistic. What you are necessarily saying is "those Missal texts that DO NOT overlap with the Graduale are inherently unsuitable for singing.' This is already too strong, IMO. But then you go a step further and say "illicit", which a musical setting of the Missal text most certainly is not (if nothing else, alius cantus aptus would cover it). To sum up, these ARE propers, and the question of whether or not they can/should be sung does not change that fact.

2 - There is certainly historical precedent for Propers compositions being limited to individual movements, or incomplete sets. I think this is for the very natural reason that liturgical situations differ, and composers write for their own (or another particular) situation. For example: the Palestrina and Lassus Offertories, or - another huge example - the Isaac Choralis Constantinus (which does not include Offertories!). Not to mention the reason that composing all 5 movements for all feasts is an almost unimaginable task. Has anyone other than Byrd done this?

But, if someone wants to compose 5-movement propers sets, I say WONDERFUL!! Let's just not let the ideal become the enemy of smaller steps toward that same ideal.

what sense could it be correct to call this use "illicit"?

il·lic·it /i(l)ˈlisit/ adj. Something I don't like.

Jared -
This is good grist.

About composing and publishing only a part of the five propers, I suppose that we could bat that around for some time and, whilst reaching an accommodation, not fully agree. Your examples from history are, of course, kosher, sterling, and carry appropriate weight. Also, you are right in that composing a year's worth (plus solemnities) would be a monumental undertaking - which does not, ipso facto, make it less desirable. We are not exactly at a loss for such talent - it just isn't sought out and enlisted. Aside from the inevitable 'forgetfulness' when doing this that there are five items to a set of propers, there is the sad, very sad, result that (as I noted above) the offertory gets totally forgotten about, and the psalm and alleluya are left in the hands of those types who have given the responsorial psalm a bad name. This is lamentable. A gorgeous introit by Byrd, chant, or Ostermann followed up by a responsorial psalm and hippety-hop alleluya by Alstott or ilk is about as tacky and senseless as can be. Should we not profitably think of the propers themselves and, indeed, the entire rite as an aesthetic continuum? The psalm and the alleluia verse are propers, and it is incumbent upon us to do them justice. We also need to supply the orphaned and out-of-mind offertory antiphon.

Now: getting to what is and isn't 'propers'. I should think that there would be near-universal agreement that by this term is meant those chants and their texts of our ageless patrimony which comprise GR. These are the historic lesser (or minor) propers. They are what is meant when one speaks of 'the propers'. For purposes of the NO and established modern usage we should add to those the responsorial psalm (which is heir to the historic gradual responsory) as in use today as a viable option. While an adaptation of these chants into English is greatly to be desired, I agree with you without reservation that there are numerous ways in which these texts may be set to music in the language of one's choice. But, texts other than these are not 'propers', and that includes the entrance and communion antiphons found in the missal. They are something else. They may be exquisite music and laudably performed at mass, they may be 'appropriate', but we shouldn't fool ourselves: they aren't the propers. This does not restore The Propers. Getting through the door as a cantus alius aptus still doesn't make them propers - even if they are inarguably lovely in and of themselves - even if I might like them.

I shall interject here the assertion, yet again, that, though settings of the propers to modern polyphony or choral forms is highly desirable and should be encouraged, it remains that singing the chant propers in Latin or an English-adapted version is a thing to be fostered and treasured. We need, and need badly, an English version of the GR chants (plus chant for the resp ps as a viable option to the gradual) - in an English which is consistent in style to the rest of the rite. Purely personally, I think that the plainchant propers should be a desirable norm for ordinary Sundays, saving polyphonic or choral ones for solemnities.

(Sorry, Chonak, mea culpa: you are correct about the GIRM, which does give the missal's entrance antiphon as an option for singing, but states plainly (par. 269) that its communion antiphon is to be 'said' by the priest or minister. [Of course, heh-heh, there are those of us who know that, historically, 'say' and 'sing', when appearing in liturgical books, mean the same thing: 'sing' - but I think that, in this case, they don't. Or, maybe they do?])

Jared -
This has been a fruitful interchange, and you have managed to temper my thoughts - somewhat - for which I thank you. While I genuinely respect and encourage your understanding of these matters, I think it remains regrettable that probably no one (other than maybe yourself) is giving any thought at all to composing the offertory antiphon, or even the psalm and the alleluya verse. We have talked about these here, but, really, the concept of supplying a complete set of propers doesn't seem to exist in the minds of those who are composing entrance and communion propers-antiphons, whether chant-like or choral, nor, certainly, in the minds of those others who have (usually with regrettable results) focused on the psalm and alleluya. They are just doing what's fashionable at the moment. Whether they are chant or polyphony-choral, The Propers, all of them, need to be restored and conceived of as the whole entity that they are. No one (I'm pretty sure) is writing just kyries or glorias, or just sanctuses or agnus deis (though they are deplorably ignoring the creed) because we know that the ordinary is a definite thing. Ditto the propers. Still, many thanks for the enriching converse and for sharing your logic. And I hope that your work bears much fruit - at St Joseph's Cathedral and everywhere else!

!

FWIW, most people call the proper at Communion the verse, since it is not usually an antiphon properly speaking. Also, the Requiem Mass propers have four responsories: the Gradual, part of which may be repeated at any Mass according to the original Vatican editions but never is AFAIK, the Tract, the Offertory, and Communion, which is longer in the missal than typically sung.