• As I understand, this is an adaptation of The English Gradual (1982) of Francis Burgess, which sets de propers to psalm tones. The "gradual reproduces the essential psalm tones and chants of the Burgess in the same modern notation, and the texts of the propers are presented according to the arrangement as found in Divine Worship: The Missal." (anglicanorumcoetibussociety.blog) See also www.newliturgicalmovement.org
    700 x 933 - 282K
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen cesarfranck
  • This book is a purported successor or alternative to The Anglican Use Gradual, It is said to have textual alterations to bring it into line with the propers as found in DW:TM. I have observed that, whatever its virtues, it omits the Latin incipits at the head of each chant. Such incipits have long been customary scholarship in Anglican liturgical books and one is sorry to see them cast so insouciantly aside. It is also saddening to learn that 'modern' notation has been used instead of chant notation, as if chant notation for the psalm tones was 'inaccessible' to those who might use this book. This is a disappointing (and insulting) step back from the AUG usage, which is in chant notation.

    This book compares in no way to the Palmer-Burgess Plainchant Gradual, which is an adaptation of the Gregorian melodies as found in GR into Old Church English. Burgess also edited The English Gradual, which puts the texts of the propers to psalm tones. TEG was superseded by the AUG. The St Peter's Gradual would seem now to have superseded the AUG.
    __________________________________________________

    As an aside, I notice that none other than The National Catholic Register refers to the St Peter's Gradual as being '...the minor propers....'. I point this out because we had quite a to do about the 'minor' or 'lesser' propers on another thread a year or so ago, some maintaining vociferously but in hopeless error that 'minor' or 'lesser' were strictly Anglican usages and that no Good Catholic should use such spurious qualifiers in reference to the (lesser) propers.
    For those who missed out on last year's discussion, the 'minor' or 'lesser' propers are the Introit, Gradual (or RespPs) or Tract, Alleluya & Verse, Offertory, and Communion antiphons and responsories of the day. The 'major' or 'greater' propers are the lectionary and collects of the day.
  • stulte
    Posts: 308
    some maintaining vociferously but in hopeless error that 'minor' or 'lesser' were strictly Anglican usages and that no Good Catholic should use such spurious qualifiers

    Why you decided to pontificate about this here is beyond me...(sigh)

    I'm personally saddened to hear that this new publication no longer includes the Latin titles as well.
    Thanked by 1cesarfranck
  • Carol
    Posts: 690
    I think MJO was writing to inform not to pontificate. I am grateful for the reminder.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen cesarfranck
  • stulte
    Posts: 308
    Most of his post was informative. The ending was gratuitous. Regardless, I hope this new book proves useful for those for whom it's intended.
    Thanked by 1cesarfranck
  • It was notable that the Register's review of St Peter's Gradual commended the book for use in ordinary Roman rite parishes as well as in the Ordinariate, which is its primary user. Let us hope that many will take this cue as a means of restoring the propers in their churches.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen cesarfranck
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,691
    The content looks admirable, but the placement of text under the reciting tones could be improved. I'd prefer seeing a breve instead of a whole-note as the reciting tone; and I'd want it aligned with the first syllable of the phrase.
  • As an aside, I notice that none other than The National Catholic Register refers to the St Peter's Gradual as being '...the minor propers....'. I point this out because we had quite a to do about the 'minor' or 'lesser' propers on another thread a year or so ago, some maintaining vociferously but in hopeless error that 'minor' or 'lesser' were strictly Anglican usages and that no Good Catholic should use such spurious qualifiers in reference to the (lesser) propers.


    In that discussion, the person attempting to defend the usage of "lesser" propers was asked to provide any evidence before 1965 of such an application—from a Catholic source, not an Anglican source. That person was unable to do so. After that, there really wasn't anything more to be said.

    (Specifically, the person said: “This distinction is of long standing and is quite Catholic in origin and use.” That is erroneous.)
    Thanked by 1Incardination
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,366
    Here's the original bee-in-a-bonnet thread, just in case anyone's interested.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,687
    And here is what Fr Wikipedia has to say about the proper of the Mass (emphasis and italics mine):

    The proper of the mass, strictly speaking, consists of the Introit, Gradual, Alleluia or Tract, Sequence, Offertory, and Communion - in other words, all the variable portions of a mass which are spoken or sung by the choir or the people. These are sometimes called the "minor propers" to distinguish them from the collect, secret, postcommunion, and readings - in other words, all the variable portions of a mass which are spoken or sung by the priest or other attendants, such as a lector or deacon. In Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic practice, there is a moveable portion of the service that, strictly speaking, does not form part of the proper known as the Accentus. Portions of the Accentus are often referred to as part of the "proper" if they satisfy the criteria of changing by date (such as the Preface and Epistle).
  • stulte
    Posts: 308
    Given that Wikipedia isn't particularly old, I'd want to look closely into the sources for that article.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,687
    This isn't particularly old, either, but this sample(!) description comes from the recent (Dec. 2018) document Divine Worship - Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon (Roman Catholic), Chapter 2 - Chanting the Propers:
    The Propers of the Mass are liturgical texts that vary from day to day
    according to the calendar: the Introit, the Gradual, the Responsorial Psalm,
    the Alleluia Verse (and the Lenten Tract which substitutes for it), the
    Offertory Chant, and the Communion Antiphon. These are sometimes
    refered to as the minor propers to distinguish them from the collect, prayer
    over the gifts and the post communion prayer, which are sometimes called
    the major propers. Together the major and minor propers for a given Mass is
    called the euchological formulary.

    The entire document is well worth a read.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,332
    Stulte:
    I cannot imagine MJO pontificating on any subject... (besides, he is Anglican use member lol)
    When he does venture his opinion, you may be assured that he does so from a rather vast surfeit of knowlege and experience.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,699
    I see in The Portal (UK Ordinariate monthly) that adapted NOH acompaniments are now available for this Gradual : see pp 10-11.
  • davido
    Posts: 506
    Can we get them posted here?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,699
    Article says he plans to put them online in pdf form. Stephen Collins and inviting contact :- smc2003 at bellsouth dot com. He points out that these are not 'official' and have not been authorised by anybody
  • I share Stulte's disappointment that the priest who is responsible for the St Peter's Gradual did not see fit to include the Latin incipits for each antiphon or responsory. These are essential for cross referencing with Latin originals and for scholarship in general.This is a serious neglect and is all the more disappointing because of its being of Ordinariate-Anglican provenance.
    Even worse is the use of note heads instead of chant notation - a serious and lamentable departure from the Anglican Use Gradual. I would never use this book. There are, to be sure, some minor differences in wording here and there from the AUG, but these easily can be corrected by reference to Divine Worship: The Missal, which has the full propers for every mass - which are required to be sung (or said by the priest) at every mass.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 931
    Agreed-- Incipits are essential imho, especially if you want to reference the original chants. I also do not like that the reciting tones are placed half-way down the sentence of text. (To be clear, I prefer reciting tones to restating the same pitch for every syllable, as it makes it much easeir to see when the pitch changes, however I don't like when you have to start reading text [here]_____________________[but don't get the pitch until here].)
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,699
    ServiamScores - I gather that in this organ edition Stephen Collins has adressed that latter point, placing the reciting tone where it starts.
    Thanked by 1Steve Collins
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    Yes, the typography on the whole is hideous.
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,021
    FYI, and organ accompaniment is now available for The Saint Peter Gradual, using Nova Organi Harmonia as a pattern.

    http://smcollinsus.blogspot.com/2021/03/divine-worship-missal-chanted-propers.html

    Here is an article about the project in The Portal:

    https://www.portalmag.co.uk/read-online.php

    March 2021 edition, pp. 10-11.

    And an interview on the project from The Portal Podcast:

    https://soundcloud.com/user-666404058/lent-5-passion-sunday?ref=clipboard&p=i&c=1
    Thanked by 1marymezzo
  • Yes, indeed - place the reciting tone (or the reciting tone bar) at the beginning of the text. There and nowhere else. Serviam is also spot on in that the a reciting bar is far more to be desired that a row of notes, one for every syllable. This results in staring at notes instead of the text and leads to a very wooden, un-nuanced, and artless delivery with every syllable pounded out almost as if with a tack hammer. We all know that the chant must follow the natural flow, rises and falls, of the language. This doesn't happen when one seems shackled to row of notes which one is focused on keeping track of.
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,021
    I also decided to include the incipits in my TSPG accompaniment, not only because I wanted to, but because they ARE included in DW:TM.

    It is finished and available: 90 sets of Propers containing 540+ pages; asking US$45.

    I supplied the first set to a Church of Australia pastor and have had queries from OF musicians about using TSPG and my accompaniment at their parishes. We are already doing so at my parish.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 931
    Steve, is there a reason why you used reciting tones for the antiphons but not the Gloria Patris?
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,021
    In general, if there were so few syllables on a given reciting note, it was easier to control the spacing in Finale with separate notes. It also made no sense to me for 3 syllables under a whole note that ostensibly could have at least 8 syllables.

    For the Doxology, I wanted to suggest a slight pause on "Son", which left just 8 syllables for the first reciting note. I guess I could have used a whole note, but the next section wanted a line break, and the final section has so few syllables to begin with, it just seemed more consistent to do it as I did rather than one reciting note then separate notes thereafter. IOW, I think it was a toss-up, and I chose separate notes. The rest of the work follows the same MO - if few syllables, then separate notes.

    My over-riding goal was to make both music and text scannable, left to right, at a consistent pace for one's eyes, including reasonable spacing between text itself, putting line breaks as needed, even breaking reciting notes with a tie where necessary. Indeed, the last two steps I did in Finale were 1. apply time signature spacing, and 2. adjust the measure handles to further even it out.

    .
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 931
    Deciding when to use a reciting tone and when to give pitches can be a real pickle sometimes... especially when phrases are not equal in length and there is no obvious symmetry to help justify it one way or the other.

    Regardless of the decision you come to on the Doxology, your engraving is to be commended either way. It is well-done and eminently readable.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    Steve, this is very well done; and the typography is a VAST improvement over that of the St. Peter Gradual, itself. If the SPG goes into a second edition, I hope they use your version as a model. Bravo.