NPM's Chant FAQ
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    What do you think of this? Anyone know how long it has been up there?
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,185
    On first glance it looks fair. One might even say that it is positively spun, given that the reader who gets to the end of the FAQ finishes with this answer:

    Is Gregorian chant really intended for monks, or can it be sung by other men and women and children?

    Whatever the impression given by some popular CD recordings, Gregorian chant is for everyone. It was originally sung by the whole Church, congregation and choir alike (back when congregations spoke Latin). It has always been sung by religious both male and female, and at least a bit of Latin chant has been sung by congregations throughout history. Medieval monasteries typically had boy choirs (we know less about girl choirs but they were also a part of women's religious houses), and all the chant at every liturgy was sung in octaves by monks and boys. This provides historical justification for having men and women sing together in octaves today. On the other hand, one might vary the sound between men and women together in octaves, men alone, and women alone, not just because of the challenge of getting octaves perfectly in tune, but also for pleasant variety.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Oh I see that the document riffs on the meaning of "other things being equal":
    These "other things" are all the other concerns that one must also take into account - the structure of the reformed liturgy, the importance of active participation, the value of vernacular languages, the cultural context of the worshiping community, the customs and traditions of that community, the musical abilities of the singers, the ability of the worshipers to unite themselves to Christ's paschal sacrifice by means of Gregorian Chant, and so forth.

    That's quite a litany--in fact, it is a list of good excuses for getting rid of Gregorian chant all together--but there's one problem. The Constitution didn't actually say all that. I've thought a lot about this "other things being equal" point and it strikes me that it means precisely what it seems to mean: even if there are circumstances of place and time that mitigate against its being sung, it is still the ideal. So far example, if you have no singers who can sing chant, that doesn't topple the need to strive to do it.
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    I'm not sure where the author gets the idea that monks and boys sang together. Boys were not part of the monastic community as far as I can tell. In cathedrals there is evidence that the boys sang mostly on their own except for a select few who were trained to sing cantus in polyphony. I'm not going to tell anyone they can't sing in octaves (except my own schola), but I will wish them the best of luck!
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I don't think we can fault their listing of the "other things" which should be "equal". They, I assume, intend only to issue some guidelines which should determine just how wise it would be to introduce chant. To deal with them one by one:

    the structure of the reformed liturgy - A non-starter, since the reformed liturgy IS the Roman liturgy. All structure means is you don't sing the Benedictus while the priest is praying the canon.
    the importance of active participation - Do I even need to talk about this? Neither chant nor a schola singing alone inhibit active participation. Only the participant may do so.
    the value of vernacular languages - Finally a good point. But let's keep in mind that vernacular languages do not have to be used 100% of the time to be understood. I'd even propose that parishes should use Latin all year except at Lent. The idea of the vernacular, it seems to me, is to help people to understand what the Latin means, not to replace the Latin.
    the cultural context of the worshiping community - Given NPM's track record, I really have to wonder about this. How many "Spanish Masses" in white suburbs are they responsible for? And again, the cultural context is the ROMAN RITE! So chant is a NECESSITY given the cultural context!
    the customs and traditions of that community - Fair enough, don't rock the boat. But customs and traditions are not Dogma and Tradition. It's just "we've done it this way for 40 years." That doesn't mean it can't be changed - sensitively!
    the musical abilities of the singers - A good point. But I'd propose that if your choir can't sing so much as a Simplex melody, you just need to shut down the parish.
    the ability of the worshipers to unite themselves to Christ's paschal sacrifice by means of Gregorian Chant - I've tried to be nice, but this is just stupid. The underthought here is "whatever you do, DON'T EDUCATE THEM!" People should be brought to rise to the level of the liturgy. Part of that teaching is, yes, using a bit more chant than they're comfortable with. The other half is catechesis, and you don't get that done through the NPM "Mass is a big group hug" type of sentiment.

    Frankly, I suspect those who are interested in chant won't be stopped by things like that. If they see the value in chant, they'll act accordingly. So it's good that NPM is offering something actually Catholic, even if they think their members will only use it academically.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 756
    At first glance, I thought the response here and elsewhere contained elements of the ungenerous. The FAQ is in many ways positive, and the contrast with the NPM article from the 1970's that began the thread over at NLM is remarkable.

    And then it occurred to me that distance lends enchantment or detachment, whichever you look at it. I'm not from the US, so don't know a lot about the NPM, but we do have a national Catholic music organisation in EnglandAndWales - the Society of St. Gregory - that I won't touch with a bargepole, because of its deep involvement with many of the liturgical and musical dead-ends of the last forty years. Life's just too short to take it seriously. I remembered just how dismissive I was when I heard of its occasional involvement in chant and polyphony, observing that if it were serious about liturgical continuity it would immediately disengage from the trivial, condescending and embarrassing dross with which it often acquiesces.

    That parallel gave me pause for thought. I don't wonder some of you are suspicious about the NPM, and the tendency to interpret "other things being equal" as a get-out clause; I've heard it used so by SoSG types over here. On the other hand, the liturgical and musical abuses that these organisations have gone along with make it very easy for us to hole up in our bunkers, and fail to recognise a possible change in wind direction when we feel it. So let's see if we can encourage and engage; and perhaps even grit our teeth and give the occasional benefit of the doubt. We might even recognise that the Council Documents over which we argue are not an easy-to-follow blueprint, but evidence of the Church's thinking at a point in time, which we need to implement as best we can.

    Of course, that doesn't preclude our pointing out inconsistency, inaccuracy, flawed reasoning or plain old backsliding when we see it!
Add a Comment