Are you currently having the soloist do full propers each Mass? If not, is one particular component always done in full tone (like the Introit, say)? What if you started with a particular chant each week - the Introit might be a choice - the group is familiar with the Gloria Patri; it allows you to discuss psalm-tone as well as proper-tone; it is typically one of the easier chants. An alternative might be the Communion verse... you could provide a psalm (only a verse or two) and use it antiphonally. Typically shorter, but not without some challenges throughout the year.

I find great advantage to incorporating sol-fege as a means of teaching chant... it allows you to cover a lot of different concepts (at different times through the year) around chant theory, including modality.

Regardless of your approach in terms of which propers or 'archaic modes', I find that there is always benefit to drawing attention to motifs and also to cross-references as they occur (for example, where else have we heard this line; where else do we sing this particular chant found in our season; where have we seen this text before; etc.. Obviously not everything all the time, but as it fits time-wise and pedagogically into what you are trying to accomplish.

Commenting as an untrained amateur singer, I find that the termination of a psalm tone is the key to understanding it. So if your choir has familiarity with the second half of the Gloria Patri, what they need is to relate that memory to the appearence on paper. And thus to sol-fege ... . Note that many, at least in England, are frightened by grammatical terms, even verb and noun, let alone adverbial clauses. Jargon/theory is mainly for communication among experts, and is seen by others as obfuscation.

I'm curious... if you were introducing polyphony or even hymns to a group that is unaccustomed to singing modern notation, wouldn't you think that a certain amount of theory would be beneficial? You wouldn't teach a course on theory of course, but wouldn't you would find ways to make points about different points of theory - if only to help ensure that learning new repertoire is easier each time?

Pedagogical (to me) wouldn't merely imply learning notes or phrases... just a thought.

errrrrmmm.....are you over-thinking this a bit? If your objective is to get your singers to render Chant Introits, Communios, (etc.) then why not just work through the music as you do with polyphonic stuff, and stop once in a while to tell them about one motif or another, or how the composer realized this particular word.......(etc.)

I agree with your overall objective, which is to make them into (better) musicians thus, better singers. But your cantor may well have aged-out of his singing unless you get to the practicalities right quick!

I'm afraid we must agree to disagree, MO. Part of our goal should be the musical growth and development of those who will lead liturgical music down the road - if we truly believe that what we do is more than simply the performance in the now. Certainly this is not all the time in every practice, but here and there as appropriate.

No, I wouldn't waste time counting 2's and 3's in chant - because (in my opinion) there is no value to that... but I absolutely have my choir count-sing polyphony; sol-fege in both chant and polyphony; discuss how we transition pitch seamlessly from Gradual to Alleluia; how we can handle transposition of chant; how to build psalm-tone on Propers; etc.. At the very least, it helps make the group become more and more functionally independent - and more importantly it assists in learning material and repertoire more quickly; it makes them more confident as musicians.

This is not a waste of time. Choir members should be able to understand the basics of theory (both chant and modern) to enable them to read more and more fluently; to become better and better musicians.

I'm very jealous of my practice time - and we work hard to get through our repertoire... so I'm not talking over the top, painful instruction. I'm talking about periodically taking some time to talk through things that help ensure the continued growth and development of the group.

Thanks for the debate. I appreciate the opportunity it presents to help me think about this process.

I've had the pleasure of learning chant from some excellent teachers, including at some CMAA events, but by the time I was learning from them I was in the 'advanced' group. I guess what I'm asking is: What happens in the 'beginner' group, and what is informing the approach taken there? Of course, I also recognize the difference between a week-long intensive program and what we will be doing (relatively brief rehearsal, weekly).

To address a couple of comments or questions above. (1) My initial attempts (self-taught) at chant were a struggle because I tried to understand everything that I was hearing and reading in terms of what I already knew -- modern, western, classical music. I wish that I had, initially, had a more systematic (as opposed to uninformed and random) exposure to the tonality of chant that would have, more quickly, allowed me to think in its terms. There's a reason that we practice scales and arpeggios and the like endlessly as musicians -- it is partly to achieve technical proficiency but also to establish the tonality of western classical music into our heads. I'm looking for a way to accomplish that same goal in chant (but also, in line with what one person said, sing actual chants -- I wouldn't get away with having them sing 'Agnus Dei' up and down all the modes for very long).

(2) Again, my intention (insofar as I have any intentions yet - I'm still trying to think through this process) is not to teach theory. Sing we shall, not talk. (I do agree with injecting an observation here and there.) The question is "how does theory inform my approach to teaching?" rather than "how do I get them to learn how to sing via teaching them theory?"

Thanks again -- very helpful discussion and I'm happy to hear more if people have the energy for it.

I should clarify that I'm not at all opposed to counting or the use of solfege during rehearsal, but it should be applied as needed, not to practically every new piece as a matter of course. I know of no more effective method of correcting rhythmic mistakes than count-singing, but no choir needs to utilize it for a straightforward four-part chorale harmonization, for example. Singing scales is important in private voice lessons... not so much in choir. They should know where do and fa are (and that there's always a clef at one of those!) so they recognize the half-step intervals, but they don't need to know the ambitus, final, and reciting tone of each mode to sing the Proper of the Mass. As choirmaster, singer, organist, I don't approach a minor piece in a fundamentally different way than a major piece, nor do I approach a mode 2 chant in a different manner than one in mode 7. My point is that modality is an aspect of theory and composition that is practically irrelevant to performance.

Since the pdf for the book is available for download, you can give it a try before any cash outlay for books, too... just sayin'.

We've been using SEP Entrance and Communion antiphons for about 6 months now with the choir (before I was doing them alone) and in the beginning it was a real struggle. Now, 6 months in, they are starting to get used to the antiphons (there are only a few melodies that are repurposed a lot). Additionally, I have stared to introduce Richard Rice's offertory antiphons which are more difficult - and they are doing a good job.

I approached this by just giving it to them. I sing the incipit and we go through it one time by sight reading. Sometime's it's good and sometimes it's a disaster. Then we go through the trouble spots with solfegge and repeat them a few times. Then usually they have it down. This has tremendously improved the speed that they learn other music. This year we are singing many new pieces for holy week (Victoria:O My People in english from OCP; Bruckner: Pange Lingua; Victoria: Hosanna Filio David; Tallis - If Ye Love Me) - to name a few. There are more.) and they are picking it up very quickly like never before.

I am a firm believer that a basis in chant (even a few months) quickly makes your singers better musicians (as far as recognizing pitch relativity and symbols, etc). Getting the right sound is another beast entirely. But slowly but surely we are getting there.

Settefrati93: Thanks. Overall choral improvement is one reason, I think, that our MD wants to do this, and it is good to hear supporting anecdotes. (Also, she is very enthusiastic about chant, which is great.)

(Just chit-chatting:) The Tallis is a regular for us. This Lent we are also doing some Bruckner. Christus Factus Est is a new one for us, and it is not easy! The modulations are challenging but the choir last night finally seemed to get it. For some reason, the choir picked up more quickly on Vexilla Regis (our other Bruckner for the season).

It's an important reminder, but just for the record, I'm not assuming it at all! We're doing better than 5%, but it still cannot be assumed. (In our choir about 1/4 basically does not read -- though they probably know 'every good boy does fine' -- about 1/2 makes some rough association between what they are singing and what they see, and about 1/4 read very well.)