How Do You Chant the Exsultet With Two Cantors?
  • TeresaW
    Posts: 42
    This is how we're doing this year, I've heard it by two people and it's gorgeous, but how would you divide it between two laypersons?
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,700
    how would you divide it between two laypersons?


    I wouldn't.
    Thanked by 4Ben Jahaza eft94530 StevenRabanal
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,325
    I also wouldn't.
    Thanked by 1StevenRabanal
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    I wouldn't either.
    Thanked by 1StevenRabanal
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Why not answer Teresa's question?
    Thanked by 3CharlesW CHGiffen Spriggo
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,325
    Okay, fair enough, Noel; I don't think your comment was out of line.

    I would say that there is, in my opinion, no natural way to do this, and no compelling reason to do so.

    I would ask the OP: what about it made it compelling when you heard it done? Did the second singer add harmony, like a drone, for example?
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Why not answer Teresa's question?


    Because " don't " is the answer to the question. It's a chant which is for one person.
  • KyleM18
    Posts: 150
    If you have to do it, split up the stanzas for each "This is the night", I guess. I would agree that is is not the optimal choice (I'd strongly advise against doing it), but you could do it probably like this (I'm writing for long form.)

    C1) Exult, let them exult...
    C2) Be glad, let earth be glad,
    C1) Rejoice, let mother church...
    SKIP THE SURSUM CORDA!!
    C2) It is truly right and just...
    C1) Who for our sake ...
    C2) These then are the feasts...
    C1) This is the night, when once you led our forebears...
    C2) This is the night that with a pillar of fire banished the darkness of sin.
    C1) This is the night that even now...
    C2) This is the night when Christ + Our birth would have been no gain
    C1) O Truly necessary + O Happy Fault + O truly blessed night
    C2) This is the Night of which it is written + The Sanctifying power...
    C1) On this your night of grace...
    C2) But now we know the praises + O Truly Blessed Night
    BOTH) The rest.

    Again, strongly advise against doing it, but its less of a liturgical abuse to do the chant alternatim than it is to do it accompanied with a praise band.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    While the Missal doesn't call for it, breaking up the Exsultet is not unheard of. For example, an arrangement by J. Michael Thompson divides the text among a deacon (priest) and two cantors, with a choir in the background.

    Teresa, if you look at the music in the Missal, you'll see that a full barline marks the end of a sentence. Those full barlines can provide you a simple way to break up the text between two cantors. (And as Kyle mentioned, omit the portion that is not to be sung by lay people.)

    http://www.icelweb.org/musicfolder/openpdf.php?file=ExsultetLong.pdf

    http://www.icelweb.org/musicfolder/openpdf.php?file=ExsultetShort.pdf

    It's probably best to keep things simple: I assume this will be performed in candle-light.
    Thanked by 3noel jones, aago melofluent CharlesW
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,700
    I assume this will be performed in candle-light.


    The lights should be on before the Exsultet.
    Thanked by 4chonak TeresaW CHGiffen Spriggo
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Yep, thanks for the correction. There's a rubric for that: p. 347 of the Missal: the lights are turned on after the Deacon places the Paschal Candle in its stand; the altar candles, however, are not lit until after the last OT reading/psalm/prayer (p. 368).
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,187
    "Lights" ("lampades") in the rubric surely means candles and lamps, not electric lights, which as far as I know are not envisaged or referred to in the rubrics at all.
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,415
    There have been times and places past and present at which more than one cantor is called for. Sarum is not alone in this. On great occasions as many as two or four cantors were specified on certain great feasts. When there are more that one cantor they sing simultaneously. The text is not divided up but sung in its entirety by all the cantors at once. As to whether this should be done with the Exultet, I think not. But, even if this were done it certainly should not be divided up piecemeal!
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    MJO:

    Wouldn't that be done for chants like graduals, tracts, litanies (that is, "choir" chants, for lack of a better term) and not things like gospels, epistles, and exultets ("sanctuary" chants)? It seems that distinction ought to be made here.
    Thanked by 2Kathy CCooze
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,415
    Ben -
    Yes, indeed.
    Your distinctions are quite valid and applicable.
    The Exultet is indeed in a different category than alleluyas or verses of a psalm responsory, or litanies, and incipits, etc. for which multiple cantors on great feasts mark the solemnity of the occasion.
    The Exultet is understood to be a proclamation by one deacon, who may delegate it to one cantor who omits specifically orders-required portions.
    Thanked by 2Ben Kathy
  • TeresaW
    Posts: 42
    When I've heard it with two people, they did opposing sections, it just flowed from one to the other. No one was acting as a drone or harmony, I don't think harmonizing this chant is a great idea.
  • TeresaW
    Posts: 42
    And this is a liturgical abuse? So I'm in trouble... if we split it up?
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    Gracefully.

    The Exultet is, in its full traditional form, an anaphora. (The related sacrifice, btw, is of the light consuming the beeswax.) So, in form, it is a presidential prayer. That presumes a single person. (Then again, we have concelebration, too.)

    That said, when it's offered in its non-clerical form in the OF, I've certainly encountered it in alternatim, to good effect, though realizing this effect is in tension with its historical form. (It was certainly better than the time I heard my parish priest (tenor) effectively raise the pitch over a major third during the course of his chanting the whole thing....)
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn Ben CHGiffen
  • TimTheEnchanterTimTheEnchanter
    Posts: 206
    I'm singing the Exsultet by myself (first time), but I have to alternate between English and Spanish (it's a bilingual parish). I'm using the Pedro Rubalcava setting, which has a "This is the night/Esta es la noche" acclamation in several spots. That setup made it easy for me to figure out how to divvy up the sections between languages, and it might help you find natural ways to divvy it up between two people.
    Thanked by 1TeresaW
  • TeresaW
    Posts: 42
    O my gosh Tim, we're doing a Bilingual Mass. I could totally see us doing that, you may be a life-saver!
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    Gueranger comments (Liturgical Year vol 6)
    The Altar, the Sanctuary, the Bishop, all are in the sombre colour of the Lenten rite; the Deacon alone is vested in white. At other times, he would not presume to raise his voice as he is now going to do, in the solemn tone of a Preface: but this is the Eve of the Resurrection, and the Deacon, as the interpreters of the Liturgy tell us, represents Magdalene and the holy women, on whom our Lord conferred the honour of being the first to know his Resurrection, and to whom he gave the mission of preaching to the very Apostles, that he had risen from the dead, and would meet them in Galilee.
    If we follow that we can surely envisage it being split among several voices.
  • TeresaW
    Posts: 42
    On the other hand, does anyone know a good source for the Latin version?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    And this is a liturgical abuse? So I'm in trouble... if we split it up?


    No, it is not an abuse. No anathemas have been hurled, no mantillas rent in grief, and no one will care if you do it as planned. I once did the full Thompson setting with priest, cantor, and choir. For a number of years, priests have insisted on singing it, and generally did it badly to the point most in the choir and congregation detest it and would like to delete it. This year, we are fortunate to have a new priest who can actually sing it.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    Source? yes on CMAA!
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,415
    With respect, I interpret Mr Hawkins' citation just the opposite as does he.
    With the assumed one person proclaiming the Exultet we are treated to liturgy on its own terms. Adding other voices introduces theatre where none belongs.
    Thanked by 1Ben
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    The Easter Vigil is theater.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Adding multiple voices does have a more solemn effect if they all sing the text together rather than alternating.

    As an aside, last night I was listening to a chant record in which *three* voices sang a single gospel reading, sometimes alternating, sometimes homophonically. Apparently the recreation was based on a manuscript at Engelberg.
    Thanked by 2noel jones, aago CharlesW
  • Reval
    Posts: 186
    The Easter Vigil is theater.

    Isn't every Sunday? In a good way.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,415
    When one has a 'bright idea' no precedent or consideration of any kind at all trumps the thrill of realising it. People will do what they will just for the pleasure of doing it, so long as no rubric or canon specifically forbids it - and even then if there can be discerned but the faintest sign of 'wiggle room' they will do as it pleaseth them.

    Should one decide that more than one cantor is absolutely de rigeuer for his or her parish's exultet he should at least follow Chonak's sage observation just above.


    (Perhaps it wouldn't be out of order to ask
    'How many cantors does it take to screw in a light bul... sing an Exultet?'.)

    Thanked by 1Ben
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,186
    How do you chant th'Exsultet with two cantors?
    How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
    How do you do this at the Easter Vigil?
    Will one of the cantors be dressing up as a clown?
    Thanked by 4Ben bkenney27 eft94530 Ali
  • bkenney27bkenney27
    Posts: 444
    WAIT!
    I need to hijack this for a second. "Skip the sursum corda." But in some books, it says to literally only skip "The Lord be With You," and indicates that the lay person would still chant "Lift up your hearts..." etc. Is this in error?
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,186
    "Skip the sursum corda." But in some books, it says to literally only skip "The Lord be With You," and indicates that the lay person would still chant "Lift up your hearts..." etc. Is this in error?

    Roman Missal, Third Edition instructions (pp. 347ff.):

    • Longer form: Omit "Therefore, dearest friends… The Lord be with you. R/. And with your spirit."

    • Shorter form: Omit "The Lord be with you. R/. And with your spirit."

    Sursum corda… isn't skipped in either case.
    Thanked by 2eft94530 bkenney27
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577

    The Easter Vigil is theater.
    Isn't every Sunday? In a good way.

    No.
    Theater is for actors/pretenders.
    Liturgy is for believers.
    Thanked by 2Ben M. Jackson Osborn
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    image
    Thanked by 1Aristotle Esguerra
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    Theater is for actors/pretenders.
    Liturgy is for believers.


    Liturgy is the grandest epic dramatic re-enactment of all time.
    Thanked by 1MarkS
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,415
    There are some fundamental premises of which we should not lose sight in comparing liturgy-ritual and theatre. To begin with, people 'doing' theatre and people 'doing' liturgy are engaged in categorically different activities - they are 'doing' vastly different things. There are, of course, similarities in that both 'call to mind' events and realities that are either fictitious, biographical, or historical. All of these apply to theatre, which is to be appreciated at face value or in any philosophical or moral category that is relevant in specific cases. Their application to liturgy-ritual is essentially different in both substance and accidence. To anamnesis theatre is an utter, uncomprehending, stranger, whilst liturgy and ritual are its own familiar friends, its blessed crucibles, the structure of contemplative prayer and sacred acts within which it happens. Theatre may 'call to mind' or 'memorialise' certain events. Anamnesis is more than memorial: it makes its object objectively present.

    Liturgy-ritual is different entirely in its societal function and in its divine, numinous, dimensions which flow from the direct communion betwixt humanity and the ontological totally Other. This is most emphatically not theatre. It is a life-altering encounter which brings Creator and created into direct contact - as direct, that is, as is possible in this fallen universe. Theatre? Hardly! The very idea could but a shabby and distant likeness be. Outwardly, of course, one can observe that there are similarities to theatre; but, the believing soul knows that theatre is more distant from the realities of liturgy-ritual than is the earth from the most distant galaxy - nay, a distance greater than which there can be none greater.

    Failure to appreciate these profound differences issues, I suspect, from the unfortunate state of mind from which has issued near all the 'liturgical abuse', all the people-oriented (theatrical) tom-foolery, and all the shameless irreverence which characterise the worship of far, far too many churches in our time. At no time in history has such blindness and idiocy been suffered so ordinarily and without swift correction.

    But, having two cantors sing the Exsultet seems a far cry different from 'liturgical abuse'. Or is it? It is a thing about which those responsible should wonder just why they are doing what they are doing to what history and rubric has assigned to one deacon or his one delegate. Is it being done because the ritual demands it? No. Is it being done to make it more appealing or entertaining? Maybe. Or, because someone just wants to satisfy an irresistible urge to have had 'two cantors sing our Exsultet', and they did it so well!'. This is the slippery road that leads to theatre - as opposed to Christian liturgy and ritual.
    Thanked by 4eft94530 PaxTecum noel jones, aago CHGiffen
  • donr
    Posts: 971
    The Mass is not Theater in the least. It is an active participation in the once for all sacrifice of our Lord and Savior on the Cross at Calvary. To miss that point is to not understand what it is your attending. We join out voices with the Angels and Saints in heaven and in our churches at every single Mass.
    It is why sacred music should remain sacred and not just some banal crud provided for us at some Liturgical functions.
    I pray to Saint Cecilia and St. Gregory for their intercession for us to fully understand this.
    What_Happens_at_Mass.jpg
    800 x 523 - 72K
    Thanked by 5eft94530 PaxTecum M. Jackson Osborn a_f_hawkins CHGiffen
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,415
    I pray to...
    When beseeching St Cecilia's intercession on behalf of our music don't forget that other patron saint of music, the Xth century St Dunstan, who was skilled at music and noted for the practice thereof in addition to being Abbot of Glastonbury, bishop of several dioceses, and Archbishop of Canterbury. He was for centuries England's most popular saint.
    Thanked by 3a_f_hawkins donr CHGiffen
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    I knew the chief sacristan at a metropolitan cathedral who regarded his job as that of a stage manager, and was a member of Actor's Equity. He was devout, and in order to fulfill his religious duties he went to Mass elsewhere. He said there was no way he could worship properly if he had feelings of responsibilty for the theatrics.
    Thanked by 4CharlesW M. Jackson Osborn Aristotle Esguerra CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    He said there was no way he could worship properly if he had feelings of responsibilty for the theatrics.


    I understand. I don't consider myself to be worshiping when I am conducting and playing on Sunday mornings. It is work, pure and simple, and like your example more akin to stage management. To worship, I go to liturgy when I am not responsible for anything happening musically.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    introduces theatre where none belongs


    Excellent observation. That's why we do not do Bach's "St John Passion" on Good Friday instead of the reading as specified in the liturgy. No question that the Bach is artistically wonderful and illustrative of the text par excellence. But it's really theater.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,415
    But it's really...
    This may be true. Still, some qualification seems appropriate. Certainly it's the most profound of all such settings, which grew out of choral settings of the various passions which reach back to the middle ages. Bach, as I'm sure everyone knows, was not doing anything new: only, in his fashion, carrying something old to perfection. One of my Holy Week 'rituals' is to go on Palm Sunday evening to Christ the King Lutheran Church (just across the street from Rice University) and hear the Bach Society Houston's annual performance of one of Bach's passions. Now Bach Society Houston has an international reputation and has been to Leipzig many times. One could not ask for a more excellent presentation of 'the fifth gospeller's' telling of our Lord's offering of himself for sacrifice, even if he does 'illustrate' or 'meditate' on aspects of the text by inserting germane chorales here and there.

    Neither liturgy nor theatre to me, Bach's passions are in a class by themselves. Sacred drama of an unparalleled beauty they are, to be sure. But the emphasis is upon 'sacred'. One, indeed, can hardly refrain from asserting that they have a mystical dimension, that they are sacramentals. Like a Beethoven mass, they are far too complex and lengthy for liturgy, though they grew from the same stock as choral settings of the passions which have a very long liturgical pedigree. Even now there are many Catholic churches (Walsingham being one, and there are numerous others) at which the passions are sung to much simpler, yet dramatic, choral compositions which are of 'liturgical proportions'.

    (Whilst we are on the subject - how many of our forumites are singing choral settings of the passion this Palm Sunday and/or Good Friday at their churches? And whose passion?)
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Chanting the lectionary setting, first time with a priest as a Christus. Yahoo.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    Means you should get more insurance....
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    Neither liturgy nor theatre


    Sacred drama of an unparalleled beauty


    Umnnhhh....OK; I'll take "drama" instead of "theatre." But I think "sacramental" is pushing a bit too hard, although I agree with the spirit of what you're saying--just not the letter.

    And yes, both the St J and the St M are un-matched.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    No question that the Bach is artistically wonderful and illustrative of the text par excellence. But it's really theater.


    Bach was a Believer and this was his expression of his faith.

    He did not write the Mass in B Minor for concert or theater, he wrote it in an attempt to be employed by a Catholic church!

    For those who find Gregorian Chant to be the best of all chants, Bach is the best of all Baroque. His sons all abandoned Baroque music and took off into the new world of Classical music.

    Bach's Baroque is the Gregorian chant of its time and era, the fullest exploitation of the greatest form of the art.

    Would you call chanting the Passion as drama? So why would be singing it in Baroque style by a masterful composer be drama?
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,415
    ...is pushing a bit too hard, although...
    Nay! Not at all. Not the least little 'bit'. I shall stick by 'sacramental' as a modifier of Bach's passions - and much of his other sacred music. I think that we all know the difference betwixt a 'sacrament' and a 'sacramental'. The latter (though they are inherently Catholic) are certainly not dependent on Catholic, or even Christian, provenance. Bach's music, especially his passions, is sacred space. And yes, music is spatial!
    _________________________

    Noel spoke well about Bach's music just up above here. He might have added that Bach's sound world is unique amongst all music of all time and has about it a mystical ethos. I have no doubt that I am in the presence of God when playing or directing Bach.
    ____________________________

    And, whilst respecting Charles' feelings about making music at liturgy, I must say that functioning as an organist and choirmaster only intensifies and makes more intimate my spiritual experience. Music is what God gave me (and us) by which to glorify him and inspire others. Making music is prayer. Not making it is like having a part of oneself in shackles. (This is precisely what is wrong with spoken liturgy!) It, music, goes beyond any words. This doesn't mean that I feel empty when not serving musically at mass - far from it. But serving musically is every bit as intimate an involvement as that of those who serve in the sanctuary. If more people, more musicians, more priests, more choristers, felt this way and understood it we might have better music, more well behaved choirs, more musical reverence, than we do in many places. Music IS an act of worship. If for any it is a chore, they are in the wrong place.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen CCooze
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    Singling out parts of Jackson's remarks, because they speak so eloquently to the topic at hand:
    Music is what God gave me (and us) by which to glorify him and inspire others. Making music is prayer. Not making it is like having a part of oneself in shackles.
    This.
    It, music, goes beyond any words.
    THIS.
    ,,, serving musically is every bit as intimate an involvement as those who serve in the sanctuary. If more people, more musicians, more priests, more choristers, felt this way and understood it we might have better music, more well behaved choirs, more musical reverence, than we do in many places
    This.
    Music IS an act of worship. If for any it is a chore, they are in the wrong place.
    And THIS.
    Thanked by 3CCooze M. Jackson Osborn Andrew_Malton
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    Technical foul, MJO.

    From (Fr.) Hardon's Pocket Catholic Dictionary, on the word "sacramental":

    "...The variety of sacramentals spans the whole range of times and places, words and actions, objects and gestures, that....on the Church's authority....draw on the merits and prayers of the Mystical Body."


    Earlier in that definition:

    "....their efficacy depends...on the influence of prayerful petition; that of the person who uses them and of the Church in approving their practice."


    The Church has not 'authoritatively...approved' Bach's works as "sacramentals."

    We agree that the works are sublime. But they are not "sacramentals." (However, given the proclivities of the current Pope, anything could happen.)
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    We agree that the works are sublime. But they are not "sacramentals." (However, given the proclivities of the current Pope, anything could happen.)


    I don't always agree with you, but this time I do. I am equally concerned about those "proclivities" and sometimes fear for the future.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,415
    Many thanks for the correction, dad29. It seems that I have long held a 'generous' view of what constitutes a sacramental. This means that we need a word for those things by which we know that we have been 'divinely touched' but don't seem to earn for themselves specific ecclesiastical approbation.
Add a Comment