@francis, understand and concur. Oddly as a VERY poor sight-reader, I find the improvisation 1000% times easier than singing and sight-reading at the same time! No doubt due to my tremendously bad habits as a keyboardist....

Perhaps this comment is best taken elsewhere, but @gsharpe34, could you elaborate on your comment:

"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."

To me, the "vocal accompaniment" one would hear in a place with good acoustics is still much different than what one would hear with an organ providing harmonies. As far as I can tell, i.e. based on almost any school/philosophy on organ accompaniment of chant that I have heard, even the most minimal ones, I don't think anyone can seriously/honestly claim that the organ is only providing what one would hear in a very "echo-y" space. Either one will have constant chord changes providing notes that are not sung anywhere around a given note (in the more "active" accompaniments), or one will have a constant "bass" note that changes less frequently (in the less "active" or more minimal accompaniments) but that still is never being sung in the actual chant melody.

I have heard a similar argument before, which is why I am interested in why or how you can claim this - again, namely that the organ accompaniment is meant to provide for lack of good acoustics.

One of my objections to accompanied chant is precisely that it imposes on the listener (or singer) certain harmonies that need not be imposed. For example: I spent some time at a Benedictine monastery that uses pretty minimal accompaniment for the Mass ordinaries and for Vespers (and for more on certain occasions). Before coming to this monastery, I had both used (I was/am an organist) and heard lots of chant accompaniment, but circumstances just happened to be that I had neither heard nor used accompaniment for Credo I - I had always done it a cappella. I had in my own mind possibilities for accompanying it, but it was obviously left to my own imagination. Then once at the monastery, I heard accompaniment for this Credo for the first time, and it was entirely different than what I had imagined. To make the explanation simple, I had imagined basically a "minor" (key) accompaniment, while instead a "major" accompaniment was imposed upon me and was actually initially very jarring. To be sure, this accompaniment was beautiful, as it still made sense (and I don't mind minimal organ accompaniment); yet I felt the loss of letting the "vocal accompaniment" (as you call it) take hold of me and instead having another accompaniment imposed upon me - my perception of Credo I is forever changed!

Again to be sure, most people in the pews don't have an issue with having an accompaniment "imposed" upon them, whether because they are not musically sensitive or because they are not trained in musical matters and thus can't imagine any harmonies at all, or even because they in general are just happy to hear chant at all, etc. And in that case I can understand that organ accompaniment is not really that big of a deal.

If you would like to respond, it might be best to PM me on here, as I don't want to derail the thread.

I confess that I have seen no accompaniments for ordinaries or propers which impress me as anything other than "we need an accompaniment, and it needs to be accessible". I've been told by a friend that I should write down what I play as accompaniment for the ordinaries we use [the musical settings, not the clerics], but I've only rarely been tempted. Leaving town in June of this year for the baptism of my first grandchild is one such occasion, because I need to leave something for a subsitute, if I can find one.

@CharlesSA, I'll take a chance at a reply (Chris will likely agree....).

I readily admit what you say here:

Either one will have constant chord changes providing notes that are not sung anywhere around a given note (in the more "active" accompaniments), or one will have a constant "bass" note that changes less frequently (in the less "active" or more minimal accompaniments) but that still is never being sung in the actual chant melody.

But consider this framework (admittedly susceptible of exceptions based on random variations of certain pieces, the fact that not all chant pieces neatly fit into a mode, and that sometimes the placement of the clef changes the applicability or patterns of a mode),

I pitch almost all chant (and accompaniment) so that the reciting tone is on g#.

Minor modes are 1, 2, and 4. The others are major.

Modes 1, 4, and 6 overlap, because the are set in E or the relative minor (c#).

Modes 2 and 8 overlap, set in f minor or relative major A flat, except that mode 8 ends on the authentic note (the "V" in A flat, i.e., E flat)

Modes 3 and 7 are sui generis - with 3 being in A/f# and 7 in Gflat (ending, as in the case of mode 8, with the fifth) - except that in terms of key signature one can broadly say that Mode 5 overlaps with Mode 7 except that Mode 5 employs a leading tone (putting it in D flat or C# major if you prefer) while Mode 7 resolves on the 5th, giving us the characteristic whole step below the "tonic" (even though from the point of view of modern music the "tonic" for Mode 7 is the 4th above where the pieces resolve).

The evidence for this Mode 5-7 overlap is apparent in the Benetictine solemn Alma, where there's a nice (and very moving) whole step below the tonic - even though the piece is a Mode v where to my knowledge such a device is never, e.g., in the Liber, found.

With that in mind, for instance, the opening notes of most lines of chant will outline the basic melodic structure - mode 8 going from V to I and establishing that major structure.

Mode 2, for instance, sets the minor structure (think of the opening lines of the Midnight Mass introit - you get the minor thirds that establishes the "tonic" [or "vi" if relative to the major key] of the minor chord, plus the ii-I (a flat to b flat to a flat) that is do-re-do of the relative major.

In this context, my point is merely that every line of melody (exactly what we see in renaissance-era and subsequent polyphony) establishes the major or minor key that that passage is in - even just a sequence of several notes, and where there's more reverb, the listener's intellect naturally seeks out sources of order to "impose" on the melody. You cannot sing mi-re-do, with nothing more, without the mind saying "this is a major melody that has resolved on the tonic." You CAN however sing sol-fa-me and get two options - the descending "descant" (if you will) above some kind of cadence ending on I (so that the fa-mi is just part of the standard plagal cadence in the familiar "A-men" to modern hymnody) OR it is the ending passage of a mode for, ending on a note that is the fifth tone in a minor triad that represents either the iii chord (using relative major figuring) or the V if you are using I as the minor tonic.

The fact that we can all hear accompaniment that uses wrong chords and inject accidentals in the wrong place, where they simply don't exist in the given mode, implies that, within an acceptable range of variations, there IS an intellectual / mental expectation that the chant melody, standing alone, calls for accompaniment that makes explicit what is arguably, and at least mostly, implicit.

The cases I find most difficult are, e.g., the sanctus and agnus dei from this time of year (Lent/Advent) because in those cases the Mode V's require lots of time and focus on the fifth (a flat if the piece is put in d flat), and excessive use of the V involves lots of V-I cadences, which are not super accommodating to chant - leading tones and authentic cadences being discouraged and too modern for the Gregorian mood. Move 5 hymn Amen being a notable exception - and the Adoro Te posing the greatest problem here as well.

A final point (apologies for length, as always) is the need for a liberated bass line - by way of organ pedals. Use of the base to accentuate thirds and fifths of a chord, so as to "tell a story" and provide primitive counterpoint with the chant is essential to decent accompaniment. Again, I would argue, and love to be talked out of, the basic point, admitting exceptions, that the chant melodies call for their own bass lines, which admit of variation, surely, but are more rigidly called for than one might expect.

Yours in accompaniment enthusiasm (if not fanaticism...)

@gsharpe34 - What you have written brings to full force my other (though I guess very related) reservation about accompaniment. You have written about all these keys and major and minor tonalities; this is all true and easy to understand for everyone in the modern music world - but is it not true that when these chants were composed, listeners and musicians alike would not have heard these things? Or rather, if they did, their minds would not have perceived them in the same way our minds today perceive them?

Perhaps all my reservations boil down to is the desire to be as free as possible from modern (meaning post-modality, so I guess meaning, give or take, post renaissance era) musical interpretations of music that was composed, in many instances, in the early medieval period. While I would not want to say it is wrong to directly add in this "modern" interpretation, I think it is better, good and right to perserve and foster an understanding of chant as chant; I believe accompanied chant (especially in certain schools) is not chant as chant, it is something essentially different. It is "chant with accompaniment." Certainly as I have implied above, it is (or at least can be) beautiful in its own way, and thus is still fitting for liturgy, and still more so than polyphony and other kinds of sacred music (drawing from Pius X who stated that chant contains the 3 qualities of sacred music to the highest degree); but I think it needs to be acknowledged that it is nonetheless different from unaccompanied chant and should be recognized as a legitimate and very good way to learn and understand chant.

Once one begins to add harmony to chant, it begins to illustrate (or rather, take away) one of the reasons why chant is more suited to the liturgy than polyphony - namely that one begins to focus more on the sounds of the harmonies and interweaving melodic lines rather than focusing on the melody of the chant and the text of the chant itself. This is proven, I think, ("this" being a focus on the harmonies) by the very fact that there are so many debates on who is "right" about their version of accompaniment; it basically just becomes a matter of, well, I like how this sounds, I think this is more beautiful, etc.

Note that by everything I am writing, I do not mean to say that harmony is bad. Polyphony is good and beautiful in its own way; other later forms of music are good and beautiful in their own way. I would even be open to admitting that some mixture of some aspects of each different kind of music is good and beautiful in its own way. But I am not prepared to admit that the primary purpose of the liturgy is simply for it to be beautiful, and thus when singing the text of the liturgy other things must be taken into account.

I am also aware that everything I am writing probably gives the impression that I am against "development of liturgical music" (similar to how many traditionalists today are accused of being against development of the liturgy) - but it seems to get into that question would be yet another tangent.

Fair enough - when one for whatever reason doesn't have an option to not accompany, it is good to be debating about the method of accompaniment!

Yes, thank you for the exchange - I appreciate it. I hardly ever get to discuss these things with anyone!

I think of accompaniment as a necessary evil for congregational singing. In my experience, congregational chant will drag at best, and at worst get progressively flatter and nearly fall apart without organ accompaniment. Short responses (Et cum spiritu tuo - Sursum corda - Deo gratias) are fine, but the Ordinary is a different matter. I hear it even with the Marian antiphons. If alternation is the custom, people even get confused about when to sing during the Gloria and Credo. I usually use Bragers, but am open to other options. Our congregational singing is rather robust for the Sunday High Mass, but midweek High Masses are another story, accompaniment or not. A friend at an SSPX chapel insists on not doubling the melody and only supplying chords. I've experimented with that, but find that better results are achieved with playing the melody. One advantage to leaving it out is that I can play everything with the left hand and pedal, leaving my right hand free to conduct the schola instead of relying on head nodding and facial cues. I'm interested to hear what works best for others - assuming @francis doesn't mind the drift in his thread!

The organ should follow the pace of the schola... the organ accompanies, not drives the chant... this is a subtle difference that it seems to me, very few organists understand.

our director keeps the choir on pace

Exactly. A choir, even a small schola, generally needs a conductor. How can a congregation be expected to be better at keeping time than a group of musicians who have rehearsed?

GIRM 104. It is fitting that there be a cantor or a choir director to direct and support the people’s singing.

[/off topic RANT]

A choir director who is also an organist can more easily understand the nuance involved in leading the schola and the congregation in the correct way. How many here do both?

I do. And just to clarify my previous comment, them is meant to refer to the congregation, not the schola.

@bhcordova

we are a very opinionated bunch (self included), and when one opinion appears, it is justification for every other opinion to be displayed... human condition.

@francis - I both accompany poorly (not a trained organist, but a fanatic about gregorian theory and it comes out with moderate success in the accompaniment) and direct. I second your comment about the schola leading the organ (leaving aside the need for something, organ or otherwise, to keep the congregation in shape), except that I would add that genuine accompaniment is, in effect, a kind of chordal counterpoint (I acknowledge the contradiction) to the Gregorian melody - so that it is not so much following the chant as it is supplementing, contrasting, underlying, decorating. Drones (both in bass pedal and higher registers), suspensions, dissonances, etc. - all if not overdone - are simply another art form that complements the chant. And I suppose in essence I am conceding CharlesSA's point that to an extent this is a separate art form from unaccompanied chant, but I stand by my assertion that it is perhaps not as distinct as he makes it.

Recommend you listen to the accompaniment by Dom Benoit, the master organist of the Abbey of Ss Maurice and Maur on the recordings from the early 1960s. So subtle as to be almost imperceptible, but what it adds is sublime. From the recordings I have surveyed (and I've surveyed a lot), it doesn't get much better. That's what I strive for (but rarely achieve!).

Yours w/ best wishes