an extension of the hands

A lack of hand gestures is a good thing - this was an unnecessary trend.

18 people singing the Psalm together (or anything else you might sing at that time of the Mass like the Gradual) is too many.

I'm not sure what a music coordinator is and how you fit into the structure/hierarchy of your music program so perhaps you could tell us a bit more about this before we give you further advice on personnel issues.

what would be problematic about all of the choir members raising their hands?

I'm not sure if mine is contrary-thought, but here goes.
Psalmody is psalmody. I can't count the occasions at colloquia/intensives wherein the psalmist renders the first versicle, and the second is tutti. This is, IIRC, SOProcedure in choral evensong/Vespers, particularly when using fauxbourdon.
Should one become familiar then conversant with Proper settings such as RR's "Simple Choral Gradual," choral versicles can be cleanly and effectively performed.
Whether one is an exuberant director, ala the KMeister at St. Peters, or a more intuitive chironomy-st such as Dr. Donelson, choirs can be taught and led to precise elocution.

I dedicate this annotated comment to MJO.

Choral chanting of the responsorial psalm is certainly allowed: perhaps it is not the first choice according to the Missal instructions (GIRM). I know several places where it is done often. Some priests won't let you start it, but you already have it. Perhaps you could continue with both practices for a while.

Choral chanting of the Alleluia verse (Gospel acclamation) is also very much allowed, and is normal practice at our place.

Speaking of practice, choral recitation requires it. They must listen to each other. It helps to recite together without singing, trying for a natural spoken rhythm. It may help to practice on a single note or chord, instead of the actual psalm tone chord. It helps to note, or even mark in the book, where the accented syllables are, because good recitation lingers slightly on those syllables and goes quicker and lighter over the unaccented ones: and you have to agree on which are which.

Many people here are not fans of hand gestures by cantors. Can't stand 'em myself.

First, about 'cant': it has nothing at all to do with chanting. It is a noun signifier for language that is 1) hypocritical or insincere, 2) the particular patois of a given social group, 3) the (tiresome) whining of those who are rather stuck on some cause or other.

It may be noted that, in reference to chanting the responsorial psalm at mass, the bothersome and ridiculous carrying on by a certain chic clique about raising the hands or doing a pirouette, or both, to signal the (presumably) idiot people to sing their responsory is cant.

About the manner of singing the verses: this should, normally, be done by a single cantor or cantrix when the verses are plainchant or some other soloistic music. In some rites or uses (such as Sarum) four cantors would be required for a solemnity. Eighteen choristers singing a chant verse in responsorial psalmody is definitely amateurish, and blurs the responsorial (cantor vs people) form of responsorial psalmody.

However, rather than a cantor singing chant verses a choir may sing the verses to SATB or other choral settings of the verses. This is a valid alternative which, where viable, can add much to the psalmody, especially on solemnities. For such choral singing one could employ a faburden or an Anglican chant, etc., even very brief newly composed polyphonic treatments, that would compliment the tonality or modality of the people's responsory.

What has been said about the responsorial psalm applies equally to the Alleluya and Verse, which is, also, a responsorial form, the Alleluya itself being the responsory.

I suggest kindly that you rid yourself of the (adjective withheld) notion that a cantor (nor a choir) has as part of his or her or their responsibility the cueing by any means at all when the people are to sing their responsory. They know when. They are not idiots. They do know how to get through mass without instructions and prompts. And, lastly, this odious practice is tacky, ugly, amateurish, insulting, an eyesore, a blot on the liturgical aesthesis, and does exactly what no action by any 'ministerial' person at mass should do - calls attention to himself or herself in a most unseemly and foolish manner.

(I, like someone above, have some consternation about what a 'music coordinator' does. Wherever I were a choirmaster and organist the very last thing I would want to be burdened with would be an absolutely redundant functionary who presumed to have authority that in any way affected my work. This would be an intolerable and position-terminating affront.)

_______________________________________________________

A short addendum -

I thank Charles for the dedication of his 'annotated comment' above.

I suggest kindly that you rid yourself of the (adjective withheld) notion that a cantor (nor a choir) has as part of his or her or their responsibility the cueing by any means at all when the people are to sing their responsory. They know when. They are not idiots. They do know how to get through mass without instructions and prompts. And, lastly, this odious practice is tacky, ugly, amateurish, insulting, an eyesore, a blot on the liturgical aesthesis, and does exactly what no action by any 'ministerial' person at mass should do - calls attention to himself in a most unseemly and foolish manner.

Obviously, you have not been at my church. :-)

The psalm verses at this church are also done by a quartet in SATB (same every weekend with occasional switches because of absence). It avoids any cantor at all, as well as the unnecessary idea of having the whole choir chant the psalm every weekend.

Noel is quite right, but I would tweek his assertion slightly.

A skilled cantor may indicate by subtle facial gestures and definitive tone of voice when the verses have ended and the people should sing the responsory.

If the psalm is accompanied, the organist may, likewise, indicate through subtle changes of register, or the use of a solo stop, when the responsory is to be sung.

Still, though, if there is fault, most of it may be assigned to people who, being quite sentient, know and can deduce full well when to sing, stand, etc. The reasons they don't and just aren't going to are complex, and I don't wish to rant about them here and now. The people, though, are not as clueless as they act.

Matthew,

I was trying to phrase the question correctly. I'm a long-standing opponent of the C-130 airfield landing gesture. I'm not a fan of cats, but that look is priceless.

Jackson,

Thank you for your fuller explication of the noun, "cant". For the sake of the original poster, may I suggest that we provide alternative verbs. I'll go first: chanting.

Marylouise,

I seem to have opened quite a can of worms for you. I hope you find these responses helpful. One that is worth highlighting is this: if 18 singers can't sing together, is this the result of intentional training or lack of appropriate training?

If you're looking for ammunition to discontinue the practice of having 18 people crowd around a single microphone or (if I've misunderstood) all being picked up by area microphones, the best non-theological argument I can give you is this: since they don't sing as one voice, the microphone merely amplifies the distortion. Amplified mumble is still mumble, and amplified staggered speech is still staggered speech.

Two people can usually conduct a conversation taking turns to speak and neither overlapping nor leaving awkward gaps, because there are subtle clues in tone and expression by which signals of completion pass between them. I like liturgy to flow smoothly like that, but it is not everyone who can achieve that rapport over a gap of many yards, some of the signals may need to be less subtle.

I see the psalm between the readings (the Responsorial psalm or Gradual psalm as it is variously called) in the OF as being a piece of scripture which is proclaimed. As such hearing the words is paramount.

I knew I forgot something when I submitted last time, so let me add it here.

A.F. Hawkins,

You and many other people do see it as "being proclaimed". I might even be among them, but the next part is where trouble sets in. Who is the intended audience of the proclamation? This matters because if the intended audience doesn't speak the language of the proclamation, was the text still proclaimed, by your definition? Furthermore, since many more people attended Mass for 1500 years than were fluent in Ecclesiastical Latin, especially in the days before hand missals, it logically follows from your assertion that Scripture wasn't proclaimed for all those years to all those people?

At the discretion of the administrator, this can be divided as a new thread. Quaeritur: is the purpose of the Mass 1) the worship of God (in which case, the proclamation of anything should be done clearly, because doing so requires our best effort; 2) didactic, or, if you prefer, rhetorical, so that anything not done in the vernacular is, by definition, a failure; or 3) some combination of the two?

It seems to me that essential to Protestant "worship" is intelligibility in the vernacular, as this has been one of their rallying cries since the 1500s. On the other hand, for the public worship of the Church, is full, blinding clarity necessary or even a good thing?

Mr Hawkins' account of the spontaneity and mental awareness in conversation and its likeness to liturgy and ritual is beyond praise. I could not have formulated it better. To the extent that liturgy fails to flow like this is the degree to which it really isn't liturgy (or, even, an act of praise) at all. In such liturgy the see-me cantor, the announcer, the non-ritual remarks are wholly needless. On the other hand, the presence of the see-me cantor, the announcer, the non-ritual remarks precludes true liturgy. A people, properly catechised, who know, love, and are totally focused on what they are doing do not need prompters or explainers - these are an insouciantly offensive impediment to a continuum of spiritual focus.

Welcome, marylouise!

It can be very nice to alternate the verses: one verse by a solo cantor, then the next by the choir singing a four-part harmonized setting ("falsobordone"), and then the psalm refrain. If the psalm setting you use allows for this, consider it. To help the singers be rhythmically united, you may need to conduct the verses and the cut-offs closely; also you may get a better result with a subset of maybe eight voices, if the full choir isn't really used to getting that precision together.

The piano is great for leading small groups singing rhythmic music, being a percussion instrument, but fails to indicate breaths while also be unable to support singing with a steady tone.

It's time to let the pianists go and, using the techniques in the book, playing the trombone instead. Same techniques apply - wind instruments, both.

very bothersome to me is the tradition of group canting,

If you think that is bothersome, try 'group canning.' 18 people in the same kitchen, 18 boiling pots on one stove......oh, the humanity.....

/purple

"Group canning" also reminds me of a firm for which I formerly worked. During the 1990-91 recession (right after I left its employ), it conducted its first layoffs. It crammed *all* of its non-professional staff into its largest room, had them standing for hours while people were called one-by-one into side rooms to receive their severance terms; at the end of the day, anyone not called into the side rooms was not being laid off.

I kid you not.

The ostensible purpose of this exercise was to control gossip by non-professional staff.

Not a diocese. Private enterprise. You know, "efficient".

Please, Forum users, stick to the subject, especially on this information-seeking thread submitted by a new user, who deserves all our friendly consideration.

My choir sings the psalm in Anglican Chant style every week. It is not exactly Anglican Chant, but the refrain is in four parts as are the simple chanted verses. We sing it from the loft. I think it works well and my priest is happy.

Where is the not-exactly-Anglican-chant from?

It is from the Canadian "Catholic Book of Worship III." There are various settings of the psalm tones, some work, some don't. I just choose what I like and mix and match.

There are 3 part-time musicians at this particular church. I didn't make that clear above.

...not-exactly-Anglican-chant...

One of the many disappointing things about The Hymnal 1982 was its inclusion of 'not-exactly-Anglican-chant' for psalmody. The cadential patterns which really are definitive of Anglican chant have been altered into simpler two-note patterns. It is really sad that some chic idiots thought it necessary to assume (decreed, actually) that Anglicans could no longer sing Anglican chant and so, now, have guaranteed that several generations of Anglicans think it strange to them. (More of Screwtape's work - and his chic denizens.)

wouldn't canting be the opposite of decanting? If so, wouldn't it be pouring spirits into the bottle?

"Decanting" is a very popular and VERY over-used way for sopranos to show off. It is often spelled "descant", which was the original spelling. It became "decanting" after discovering that many "descanters" were drinking liberally pre-cant. This caused the "s" to drop out in shame.

Or something like that.

.