New Missal Music but do you have the password
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    I guess I'm puzzled by this note from ICEL



    Music for the Roman Missal

    The International Commission on English in the Liturgy, while working on a new translation of the Roman Missal, assembled a small committee of expert musicians to prepare musical settings of the texts that are set to music in the 2002 Latin edition of the Missal. They were directed to follow as closely as practical the Gregorian melodies given with the Latin text. The Music Committee has worked closely with the translators.

    The Commission has now approved settings for those parts of the Order of Mass that received recognitio from the Holy See in June 2008, in accord with Cardinal Arinze’s expressed wish that the publication of these texts ‘facilitate the devising of musical settings’. The Commission is now making these settings available on a secure website, accessible by a password, which has been communicated to the Chairmen of the Liturgy Commissions in each of ICEL’s Member and Associate-member Conferences. They will distribute the password as they see fit.

    The Introduction, giving a rationale for the choices made, is accessible to all.

    Work continues on music for the remainder of the Missal. This will be made available when the final texts are known.


    Then follows a link to an explanation of how the music came to be with a final instruction:

    For access to the music discussed in this report, please click here and enter the username and password provided by your national liturgical office.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Here is the new Our Father

  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Mass of Creation, Part 2!
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    I thought there had been a move away from private Masses? And now it turns out that you have to have a password to see the music.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,016
    This is good, right? That's the Gregorian melody.

    Unlike the chanted Our Father melody currently in use, this doesn't resolve more often than the melody for the Latin (eg, "as it is in heaven.") This seems to me to be a big improvement.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    I agree. Big improvement in this melody. I still like Mahrt's better but that's ok.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    I rather liked Richard Rice's (or was it Kurt Poterak's?) from Colloquium 07.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    They should have taken Dr. Mahrt's --- did they consult him?
  • Bruce E. Ford
    Posts: 408
    The adapters failed to analyze the set-forms of the Latin chant thoroughly before they started to apply them to the English texts. They took a phrase by phrase approach, failing to recognize which notes in each part of the formula were essential and which were epenthetic. In another member of the formula they broke a two-note neume (ga) that in the Latin chant is never broken, even though the English text did not require the change. They may have been expert musicians, but they weren't students of chant composition.

    Compare "who art in heaven" with "thy kingdom come." The same member of the formula was used in both phrases of the Latin chant; but the second time it was expanded to accommodate the greater number of syllables in "adveniat regnum tuum." These adapters retained the extra notes when they set "thy kingdom come."

    Winfred Douglas did a much better job 100 years ago. I see only a few defects in his work. He misplaced the final accent of "hallowed be thy Name" because he refused to modify the cadence, even though it is, in fact, a "disguised" redundant cadence. He also ignore the accent on "this" in the phrase "this day," and the accent on the second syllable of "forgive" in the phrase, "forgive us our trespasses." These defects are easily corrected.

    I would propose the attached. Unfortunately, ICEL carries out its work in secret and does not invite suggestions from outsiders. In the Episcopal Church revision of the hymnal and the Prayer Book were open processes, and little was adopted without trial use.
    Thanked by 1Pax
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Just wrote bcl@usccb.org for logins
  • Richard R.
    Posts: 675
    Whichever of you chant adaptors that has aided and abetted the use of grouped stemless modern notes (with SLURS even, just in case the mushed-together look isn't graphic enough), in place of traditional notation, can congratulate yourselves that ICEL has jumped on the bandwagon. What a foul-looking, irrational, totally meaningless compromise this system is. All such publications will receive just scorn from even remotely intelligent musicians in future years, mark my words.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Actually, no, I'm wrong. This looks like it might be good... I'm in shock over this. Something good from ICEL!
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,003
    IMO, it is not one bit better than the 1974 Sacramentary. Yes, the melodies are drawn from the Gregorian. But their modifications to fit the English loses virtually all the original rhythms. So, if you do go from Latin Mass to vernacular, confusion reigns! When we experimented with Rite II at Our Lady or Walsingham (years ago!) we opted to use melodies by Mason Martens rather than the modernized Gregorian, precisely because we intended to return to the Rite I version after only a short time.

    If this is an example of ICEL's translations, and their composers' fudging, I see the whole exercise as a very strong reason to return to the Latin Mass, preferably the EF. This is just another generation's madness!

    As Bruce mentioned before me, I will expand just a bit: this whole English translation business was quite carefully, and successfully, achieved many generations ago. Our elitist Catholic leaders simply refuse to use any of it!
  • Chironomo
    Posts: 29
    Gavin...

    I was wondering what you were commenting on before... this is nothing like
    Mass of Creation! I'm still trying to discern exactly what's up. I was intrigued by one particular comment in the introduction:

    But it was decided to imitate the Latin with its displaced accent more closely here, in part because the Latin setting is likely to be sung with great frequency by congregations in the future, which argues for similarity between the Latin and English settings.

    Didn't expect to see that in an ICEL document!
  • Chironomo
    Posts: 29
    Richard R. -

    I so totally agree... why not just use the Gregorian notation? Far less complex once learned, and it would be yet another element of our tradition put back into it's proper place...
  • Bruce E. Ford
    Posts: 408
    Richard R. wrote: "What a foul-looking, irrational, totally meaningless compromise this system is. All such publications will receive just scorn from even remotely intelligent musicians in future years, mark my words."

    Give me a break!

    I would prefer to publish all my work in Gregorian notation; but the people who use it tell me they would not use it if I did. (A few who do not use it tell me they would use it if I did.)

    I take no position on whether the priest's music in the missal ought to be notated in chant notation or in modern notation. I suspect, however, that fewer priests can read the former than the latter. So, if the goal is to get them to sing their part, removing an impediment is wise.

    Conventional chant notation constitutes a transcription of staffless St. Gall notation. Much of the authentic "Gregorian" repertory antedates all systems of music notation. Furthermore, conventional chant notation does NOT convey everything conveyed in the St. Gall and Laon neumes.

    A page of stemless noteheads looks cleaner (and more like a page of chant notation) than a page of eighth-notes and quarter notes. With the addition of a few diacritical marks stemless notation can convey almost as much as conventional chant notation.

    I respect, and, indeed, share Richard's preference for conventional chant notation; but I think that his disdain for "modern chant notation" is intemperate, to say the least.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Is their a rhythm in this 'Our Father'? Is there any other musical elements besides pitch shown in this kind of modern notation? I don't call it a music. Chants, whether it's in English or in Latin, deserves better music than just black note heads. This supposed to help the singers who are not trained as musicians? How do you expect they can interpret those black notes and make music? People who sing from this kind of notation need to learn to sing chants. They will be learning from the musicians who are trained to read chant notation anyway. Otherwise they will be singing just note-heads. So give them the real thing, not the instant-quick -fix, which can only give the superficial ideas of chanting. No wonder people turn to the catch tunes. Maybe it's about time to help people to take church music seriously.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Between Richard's and Bruce's position, there is a compromise: Gregorian notation for official books and modernized versions for singing editions for those who like to use them. This is more or less what Solesmes has attempted over the years with its Liber U in modern notation. Since we are talking about the Missal here, it seems that Gregorian notation is something the USCCB should have embraced.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,763
    I'm with Steve; the melody in the current 'Sacramentary' book is one of the few successes of chant-like music in common use. Replacing that tune -- which has been in use for about 45 years, I think -- with this one isn't going to produce a clear benefit. Congregations can sing the current one without reading from a booklet, and that won't be possible any more.
  • I don't like it. The rhythm doesn't seem right. I too like Mahrt's better. And I think it should be in chant notation.
  • Bruce E. Ford
    Posts: 408
    Attached is John Boe's analysis of the "set-forms" employed in the (Latin) festal Pater noster chant.

    Between the lines I have inserted my own English version, which is really a revision of Winfred Douglas's version. An examination of the chart will show that the chant can be adapted to English words with its "set-forms" intact.

    Singing is easier when "set-forms" are consistently applied, even when the singers are not conscious of them. The singers still develop an unconscious sense of "what will happen next" that they lose when the "set-forms" are ignored in a transcription.
  • Dear friends:

    Having test-sung ICEL's Epistle adaptátion,
    I find it to be very wéll concéived.
    I am pointing the texts as recommended,
    and underlining the three syllables preceding the mediant áccent;
    everything seems to flów quite náturally.

    Granted, I know the Epistle tone in Latin,
    so the learning curve was mínimal,
    but at least with this formula it looks like they did éverything ríght.

    As you can see,
    I have pointed this respónse,
    so that people may use the Epistle tone | to chánt it
    and judge for themsélves.

    :-)
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,003
    Well, I don't really love the Our Father that we've been using all these years. But it does work, and the people know it. The problem is in trying to go back to the original chant, either festal or ferial, but not quite all the way when it comes to the feeling and the actual notes. Even in Dr. Mahrt's version, there is one note that is a step lower than its Latin counterpart. OTOH, using the Anglican Rite I version at one Mass, and then going to the Latin at the next, FEELS totally natural.

    Again - why do we insists on reinventing the wheel? The Anglicans charted the way for us late-comers to the vernacular!
  • All this is interesting, but I believe that refashioning Gregorian chant to fit the Mass ordinary with English text is the wrong road to take. Most of these adaptations don't work. The Sanctus from Mass XVIII set to English is a good example. How awkward! What is needed is a new Kyriale...setting the new texts to new chant. Already we have excellent examples of this: the mass settings by Theodore Marier in HP&SC, the mass settings by Jeff Ostrowski (Chabanel), the "New Plainsong Mass" by David Hurd, the creed from Martin Shaw's "Anglican Folk Mass", the ancient English mass setting by John Merbecke.

    English is a weird and unsingable language (compared to Latin). The unique sounds and natural accents of the language must be honored by the music. It can be done.

    If one wishes to sing the lovely ancient chants, then do so...but in Latin! To "adapt" them for English usage is desecration.
    Thanked by 1Pax
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Well, none of us can comment on what ICEL is doing, can we, since we don't have the log ins.

    My emails to the USCCB go unanswered.
  • Steve's comments are extremely valuable. To many musicians originally working in Anglican contexts, current Catholic approaches to setting English texts--as represented by the major publishers and bodies like USCCB--are quite amateurish and often innocent (as Steve has said) of previous successful accomplishments. In contast, the English-language materials hosted and discussed at MusicSacra/CMAA clearly draw effectively on a wide range of successful vernacular chant traditions. Why are the 'big guys' so limited in their models while the 'small guys' so broadly informed and--dare one say--Catholic?
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    I was reading Dr. Mahrt's commentary on MUSIC IN WORSHIP last night --- I feel it's scandalous that he's not been invited to be a major part of these type of things.
  • Donnaswan
    Posts: 585
    :i jsut got an Email from NPM with all proposed English settings of chant- I didn't need a password! LOL Titled Welcome to ICEL

    Donna
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    And you did this by writing where? what address?
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Ok, more information. Nothing new here.
  • I just received my username/password combination from BCL.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    me too
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    WLP's "Gotta Sing Gotta Pray" has a direct link, no password required.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    it is just a link to the main page of explanations.

    So the USCCB sent the logins to me. I think they will send them to anyone. It comes with the proviso that they not be sent around. It's beyond me why all this secrecy really. something to do with getting approval from Rome or I don't know what.

    I didn't really follow the controversy in Australia but maybe that has something to do with it? I don't know.
  • Clarification: The controversy was based in South Africa, not Australia. And yes, I think the South Africa situation helps contribute to the current secrecy.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Shows how closely I followed it.