Supporting the cantor

Question:
Does the Church permit the playing of the organ at the Requiem High Mass?

Answer:

At the Requiem High Mass, the Church prefers that the chant be sung a capella. As this may be difficult for smaller choirs, the Church does admit the use of the organ to sustain the voices. But the Church certainly does not allow the organ to be used as a solo instrument at the Requiem High Mass. Thus when there is no singing the organ should remain silent. (Caer. Ep. I. 28, 13.)

Here is a sample that I just worked up in the last 30 minutes to demonstrate an organ/cantor arrangement.

http://www.bizextend.com/transfer/requiemAeternam.mp4

Francis,

I've always understood (perhaps in error) that the Requiem should have no organ, full stop.

CGZ... has that always been the rubric?

The 9/3/1958 Motu Proprio (Pius XII), Part F.81.d: :

[...the playing of the organ and all other musical instruments is prohibited during...] Offices and Masses of the Dead.

This applies to the EF, of course.

Today, funerals are Happy Clappy; we all know that when the casket goes out of the nave, the soul immediately hits Heaven. Right??

De Musica Sacra after §81 quoted above :-

83. However, during the seasons, and days just mentioned, the following exceptions to the rule may be made:
...
c) the organ only may be used at Mass, and Vespers for the sole purpose of supporting the singing.

my question is, did the rubric hold throughout the centuries that the organ was never employed for the Requiem?

I would think one would try to model the idea of the Requiem - simple music - in any arrangement. The melodies of the Requiem are not florid for a reason.

The requiem for JFK at St Matthew's Cathedral in Washington did not feature Mozart's or any other complete setting for the Requiem Mass, but a composite of divers bits (though the actual record is not fully complete for some reason...*). Suffice it to say it was not one of the great highlights of Catholic sacred music history.

It was the requiem Mass (broadcast) offered 8 weeks later in January 1964 at Boston's Cathedral of the Holy Cross where the Mozart Requiem setting was used, with the BSO as orchestra under the baton of Erich Leinsdorf.

* Thomas Day commented here in 2014:

https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/137179#Comment_137179

did the rubric hold throughout the centuries that the organ was never employed for the Requiem?

The Catholic church music publishers of the early 20th century printed a plethora of Requiems with organ, including for solo/unison voices. These were independent (though usually simple) organ parts, not continuo or "for rehearsal only". If there were a rubric against use of the organ, it was being flagrantly disregarded by publishers who needed to be observant about such things. This is before we consider the several centuries of orchestral Requiems before that.

we still need a source for the prohibition of the organ at a requiem before we can fully understand it.

Predmore cites the Caeremoniale Episcoporum and S.R.C. 2959, 1; 1490, 8; 4243, 5, and notes that "However, the organ may be used at these times and for these Masses as an accompaniment for the singing. Silent organa, cum silet cantus." The Catholic Encyclopedia also mentions that the organ may be used to accompany singing during Advent and Lent and at Masses for the dead, but that it must cease with the singing. It goes without saying that ecclesiastical legislation on music is often modified by custom and local regulations.

ignored when inconvenient

That too! In all seriousness though, it's right there in the text:

Local Ordinaries may determine more precisely the application of these prohibitions, and permissions according to the approved local or regional customs. (De musica sacra 83)

But was there any legislation on this particular point?

Yes, in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum: https://www.ceremoniaire.net/print/caer_ep/Caeremoniale_Ep-latin.pdf
p. 51 ff., some of which may have been modified by subsequent legislation.

The regulations for the Province of Rome were more restrictive and specified that the organ may be used to accompany the singing during Advent and Lent and at Masses for the dead in a subdued manner only in cases of real necessity (no. 26). The current FSSP Ordo also includes the words if necessary (p. 40), but the former Ecclesia Dei Commission answered several dubia about sacred music including a question about whether the custom of congregational singing accompanied by the organ throughout the year is considered sufficient to constitute "necessity":

Dubium: In churches where the congregation sings parts of the Ordinary of the Mass antiphonally with the schola cantorum, and where the faithful are accustomed to rely on the sound of the organ as their cue to sing, is such use of the organ sufficient to constitute "necessity" during Advent and Lent and at Masses for the dead?
Responsum: In the affirmative. (Protocol N. 39/2011L)

Organ accompaniment is unobjectionable so long as "when there is no singing the organ should remain silent" is observed. Anyone who says otherwise either 1. doesn't know what he's talking about, 2. is stuck in another century, or 3. both 1 & 2. It would be straining at gnats to argue that organ during a half measure of vocal rest violates this principle.

Francis I was thinking the same thing. How often do questions from an original post go unanswered? More frequently than you might imagine.

Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn. I can say with certainty that if I am ever asked (again) to be the musician or choir director at an EF Funeral Mass, THERE WILL BE NO ORGAN, NO PIANO, NO FLUTE...........nada. Zero. Zip.

Unlike some others here, I don't worship "progress," so the Mass (and the regulations) of the last 1500 years are just fine.

I haven't had a bad experience, but I am one of those that things like Mozart's requiem are NOT the ideal for requiem Masses. Another poster made a reference to my opinion on the matter: given the official music (i.e. the ordinary and proper chants given for a requiem), the requiem Mass is supposed to be more simple and subdued. I suppose that wouldn't necessarily mean the organ can never be minimally used, but to my mind that would mean, especially given the legislation over the centuries, it shouldn't feature as an essential part of the music.

Polyphonic settings, while unaccompanied and more desirable than orchestral Masses, are likewise not the ideal.

Since it's merely an "Instruction" given by the highest Vatican authority, well.........who cares??

Exactly - an instruction given by the highest Vatican authority explicitly mentioning the lawfulness of organ accompaniment when solo organ playing is forbidden and explicitly authorizing local ordinaries to regulate its provisions, both prohibitive and permissive, according to approved local or regional customs. Sounds like a hard pill to swallow for some here!

Hermeneutic of continuity....

....means that all the propers at Requiems are to be sung to a psalm tone by the organist, except the sequence, which is sung at ♪=180; the ordinary a hair slower.

On a less facetious note, Francis, I would think organ/solo voice would get the most use. The rare sort of people who would care to spend hundreds of dollars on a pro quartet, or yet more on a choir, for their funeral, probably already want Victoria or Mozart or Fauré or Duruflé's Requiems. Soloist and organist probably already are included in most parishes' funeral fees, and are pretty much the default forces at hand for Catholic funerals in the US. Thus, if you want your work sung more often, I would write for that combination.

I'd love to hear what you come up with on any of those combinations. Agreed that organ and voice would get more use, including at OF Masses.

I know there are a lot of requiems out there, but rarely do most actually work for liturgical use, so any addition to the repertoire would be amazing.

I agree that a lovely addition to the repertoire would be terrific, especially if it were accompanied.

Or, as Jeffrey remarks:

<font color=purple> YOUR (purple) TEXT HERE </font>

Which results in: YOUR (purple) TEXT HERE

I like that very much! I can't wait to see and try out the final arrangement.

@francis - the chant / accompaniment version is beautiful. I am with those 100% arguing that the mind of the church allows organ with voices even when organ is disallowed by itself (too much historical and legislative testimony to recite here) - except for the inter-gloria portion of the triduum.

May I be so bold as to make two suggestions (based on my long but amateur study of chant accompaniment)? 1. Suspensions/dissonances strike me as a bit overly long, interfering with the ictus in various places (assuming you want the gregorian rhythm to predominate); 2. Since the use of the leading tone against an authentic cadence backdrop is not super natural or historical in the chant structure, could I suggest that at the end of your excerpt, if you want to go from the IV to the V before resolving on I, to avoid the authentic cadence and the use of the leading tone as the major third of the V, end in the relative minor by way of any number of options for the base line - the most logical (but with probably too much movement) would be IV-ii-V-iii-vi (using the relative major as the reference for the numerals). Or something that achieves the same effect with fewer steps....

Apologies for the detail, but I perhaps compete with madorganist when it comes to obsession with chant accompaniment.

PS For those opposed to organ with chant, it seems to me nothing other than compensating for a lack of acoustics - with lengthy reverb, the notes overlap and create their own harmonies - in effect providing vocal "accompaniment" to the chant melodies whether one likes it or not. The organ simply supplies this where it is wanting or makes it explicit for listners who wouldn't "hear" it naturally. Arguably the harmonies of decent accompaniment become intellectually and psychologically implicit once someone digests and absorbs the familiar melodies - so they are there no matter whether express or implied. That's also why (it seems to me, respectfully) that the Bragers accompaniments have so many passages which are rather off-putting and unnatural.

Your composition would provide a welcome alternative.

Hi Francis - would be very glad to do so, but no promises on timing! Please pester me to make sure I get it done. I agree a community of collaborators on accompaniment would be welcome. I think the goal should be to determine a way to exchange notes on principles and tips for improvisation rather than merely writing structured accompaniment - this way the culture of improvised accompaniment will be improved and fostered. I know there are places around the world where the improvisation is used, but they are naturally hard to capture for a wider audience and benefit from.