Picking and choosing different parts from different Ordinaries
  • I know for sure I read in some official document on Sacred Music about the Church discouraging the use of mixing Ordinaries in the same Mass. Anyone else familiar with this? I need a citation.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,171
    I'm not sure about that. There are ad libitum options in the Ordinary, after all.
    That, and then there's the "Missa Jubilate Deo."
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Well "Missa Jubilate Deo" would now be considered "an ordinary", similar to the Missal Chants in the Third Edition. I could swear there is something in Musicam Sacram or Sacrosanctum Concilium or GIRM that touched on this.
  • Alright - found it. Not from an "official document", but from Archbishop Sample's Letter "Rejoice in the Lord"

    3] Optimally at Mass the Ordinary should consist of one musically unified suite
    rather than mixing together parts of different settings.
  • JonLaird
    Posts: 219
    Without reading the full context, I'm inclined to think that Abp. Sample did not have Gregorian ordinaries in mind. At any rate, my understanding of the Gregorian ordinaries is that most (if not all) of them were not composed as "musically unified suites," but were compiled after the fact.
  • Each of the Gregorian masses is, indeed, a compilation of chants composed at widely divergent times. There is nothing at all wrong with choosing from among them to create one's own 'suite'. Great care should be taken, though, if one does this. It isn't something that every amateur should practice his or her creative urges on just for the sake of doing so.

    As for Abp. Sample's letter, I rather think with JonLaird that his excellency must have had latter day composed masses by Palestrina, Mozart, and such, in mind. This would, indeed, be an exercise of extremely poor judgment.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I rather think this is where the acumen of the local DM must come into play. For example, out here in CenCA we use Chuck Giffen's Alleluia and Amen (Ascenciones) as complimentary to Paul Jernberg's other movements of S. Philip Neri. We could likely reverse that between those two settings and still be cohesive. It's a matter of tailoring. In any case, it's not hodge-podge. If anything, continuity should apply more to that illusive category "contemporary."
    Thanked by 1bhcordova
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,792
    The Graduale Romanum itself says that the organization of the Mass parts, except for the Ferial Settings (Masses XVI and XVIII) are not a matter of hard and fast rule, but that settings from one grouping may well be used with another, as well as utilizing the ad libitum chants. Incidentally, the grouping of the Masses in the 1974 Graduale Romanum did not reach that state until the publication of that book -- the grouping in the 1912 Graduale didn't reach that state until that book, etc. In fact, one could argue that, following the practice of older books, the Kyrie and Gloria of Mass XI should be sung with the Sanctus and Agnus of Mass XVII, and that the Kyrie(s) of Mass XVII should be sung with the Sanctus and Agnus of Mass XI.
  • However, the mixing of parts from different modern/contemporary/folk/pop style settings (even those that are otherwise artistically and liturgically appropriate) will generally (though not always) be a disaster, though it be permitted by the books.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,374
    That's a generalization: before 2010 I never found anything jarring (well, let's instead say mismatched) about Andrews' New Mass Gloria, Vermulst's People's Mass Sanctus, and Proulx' Agnus.
  • VilyanorVilyanor
    Posts: 383
    I'm inclined to think that Sanctus II fits with extremely well with Kyrie and Gloria IX. I'll get back to you on which Agnus.
    Thanked by 1Ralph Bednarz
  • For the Gregorian settings, my understanding is that early chant manuscripts didn't group the pieces into sets of ordinaries at all, but rather had a section of Kyries, followed by a section of Glorias, etc. I think I read somewhere that Mass I was the earliest 'set' and was associated with Easter.

    Consistent with Salieri's comment, I also remember looking at some of the 19th century pre-Solesmes books posted on line, and the grouping of Mass parts are rather different from the Solesmes groupings.

    Just last Sunday, we introduced a mixed set of Mass parts.
    Thanked by 2JonLaird hilluminar
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,709
    On page 78 of the Liber Usualis, after the standard Mass settings and Credos, there is a notice:
    This Ordinary is not meant to be a matter of hard and fast rule: chants from one Mass may be used together with those from others, the Ferial Masses excepted. In the same way, in order to add greater solemnity, one or more of the following "Chants ad libitum" may be employed.

    On the other hand, Abp. Sample's counsel about using a single Mass setting makes good sense with most non-chant settings of the Mass in English, because composers of such settings tend to create them with some consistency of form, so as to make them easier for congregations to learn.
    Thanked by 2Jes hilluminar
  • mahrt
    Posts: 514
    It may be that certain ordinary cycles have a liturgical identification, Mass I for the Easter Season or Mass IX for feasts of the Blessed Virgin. Most cycles do not have a musical unity, that is, the individual movements are in different modes and do not share motivic material. The Easter Mass is an exception, though, since it is musically unified.
  • Yes, the original concern was people wanting to pick different parts of different polyphonic Ordinaries for their wedding. I find this a disruption of the Ordinary as a whole.
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood Jes
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,374
    Then there are examples of "consistency" of the hair-pulling kind: Missa Emmanuel.