Sung psalm with spoken verses
  • petrus_simplex
    Posts: 72
    Please help! I am teaching at a Catholic school grades K-12. The students attend daily Mass, and (just like my recollections from the 1970’s) they will alternate between a sung psalm response led by the cantor and the spoken verse read by the lector.

    I had thought that this practice was frowned upon, but I can’t find any sources to substantiate that. Could someone please point me in the right direction?
  • lmassery
    Posts: 422
    The GIRM will never prohibit every bad idea because it would be a billion pages long. It should be enough to explain that the rubrics say something may either be sung or spoken.
    Thanked by 2LauraKaz Chris Garton-Zavesky
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 1,021
    This one hits like Sung Preface Dialogue / Spoken Preface, or Sung Gospel Dialogue / Spoken Gospel.

    Normalize singing variable texts to formulae!
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    The integrity of the item itself requires it, and common sense tells us this:

    If Father were to sing his part of the Sursum Corda, and the congregation spoke its part, that would be silly, on the face of it.

    If the Kyrie in the OF had a cantrix singing her part and the congregation speaking its part, this, too, would be silly, on the face of it.

    If the psalm has a sung response (or whatever) it has sung verses.

    I saw demonstration of this the other day at a parish which passes for "conservative": the Alleluia was sung and the Gospel was proclaimed in a spoken manner. At the end of the Gospel, the priest sang "The Gospel of the Lord" and assumed everyone would sing in response, which everyone did. It MAKES NO SENSE to sing part and speak part of the same action.

    Thanked by 2ServiamScores LauraKaz
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    The verses are the more important part. They are the psalm. It is permitted, according to the GIRM, to sing the psalm verses straight through without repeating the refrain. So if any part of it ought to be given more prominence through singing, it's the verses.

    But as Chris rightly notes, singing only part of a liturgical action makes no sense.
    Thanked by 5francis Liam Chris Garton-Zavesky ServiamScores LauraKaz
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 268
    Could that be changed to sung psalm refrain with cantor singing verses on easy psalm town or even recto tone? The psalm tones from the Graduale Simplex are very simple and probably could easily be modified to an English setting.
    Thanked by 2Paul F. Ford LauraKaz
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,080
    The General Introduction to the Lectionary states this, starting at #20:

    20. As a rule the responsorial psalm should be sung. There are two established ways of singing the psalm after the first reading: responsorially and directly. In responsorial singing, which, as far as possible, is to be given preference, the psalmist, or cantor of the psalm, sings the psalm verse and the whole congregation joins in by singing the response. In direct singing of the psalm there is no intervening response by the community; either the psalmist, or cantor of the psalm, sings the psalm alone as the community listens or else all sing it together.

    21. The singing of the psalm, or even of the response alone, is a great help toward understanding and meditating on the psalm's spiritual meaning.

    To foster the congregation's singing, every means available in each individual culture is to be employed. In particular, use is to be made of all the relevant options provided in the Order of Readings for Mass regarding responses corresponding to the different liturgical seasons.

    22. When not sung, the psalm after the reading is to be recited in a manner conducive to meditation on the word of God. The responsorial psalm is sung or recited by the psalmist or cantor at the ambo.


    Thanked by 3Liam DavidOLGC ServiamScores
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,185
    "established"
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    When not sung, the psalm after the reading is to be recited in a manner conducive to meditation on the word of God.

    Another neglected idea, but then the GILH is neglected a lot.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Mark,

    Square this circle for me...

    In direct singing of the psalm there is no intervening response by the community


    The singing of the psalm, or even of the response alone, is a great help toward understanding and meditating on the psalm's spiritual meaning.


    How can something which can be omitted then be sung?
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    In direct singing/saying of the psalm the antiphon is still present before and after the psalm, what is omitted is the intervening repetitions (which may be after each verse or stanza or a group of verses).
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,884
    One thing I experimented with recently (for school masses) was to come up with my own simple formula à la Meinrad tones, and apply 6 weeks' worth of psalm refrains to this one tone. The verses were also derived from the same melody, so there wasn't much music to learn. Consequently, the kids only had to learn 2 measures of music (verses were 4, with two measures being the same as the refrain) and were able to repeat that same little lick for multiple weeks straight. It is boring, I'm loathe to admit, to do it this way, but it is sufficient and the kids are capable of doing this.
    Eastertide Fridays Psalms (3-6th • A, 2023) • Full score V2.pdf
    172K
    Thanked by 1LauraKaz
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 338
    It's actually not uncommon to sing part of something and recite part. It's done 99.9% of the time in the case of the Eucharistic Prayer, where we sing (maybe) the preface and the Sanctus, speak some of the prayer, sing the memorial acclamation, speak some more of the prayer, then sing the doxology and amen. At our 11:00 Mass pastor always sings the sursum corda but every now and then says rather than sings the preface itself (not sure why; I presume it's because he has a sore throat or something). At the same Mass I myself always sing the announcement and conclusion of the Gospel, but read the Gospel. I would be willing to sing the whole thing, but that seems maybe a step too far for some.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Deacon Fritz,

    A thing can be a common practice (especially, but not exclusively in the modern rite) and still be a bad thing.

    What the practice you describe establishes seem to be two:
    1. Unity of the rite is un-necessary.
    2. We'll expect the congregation to sing, but never the priest. (Leading by fiat, rather than by example).
    Thanked by 1LauraKaz
  • francis
    Posts: 10,818
    the method i show in another thread allows the children to sing the psalm without practicing but one time right before Mass... granted, it is the same psalm tone from Friday to Friday but quite effective... attached is for tomorrow using Psalm tone VIII. I have developed a special pointing which tells them when to sing the notes up or down, not particularly on the accented syllable.
    Screen Shot 2023-06-01 at 10.02.39 PM.png
    1170 x 1302 - 138K
    Thanked by 3ServiamScores LauraKaz Bri
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,884
    That is a clever way to go about pointing, Francis.
    (As an aside, what font is that? It’s rather nice.)
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 338
    Chris,

    I agree on the point about priests singing their parts. I often say that one reason I sing as a deacon at the liturgy is to show the congregation that if I can sing in public, anyone can.

    My point was simply that the notion that if anything is sung then the whole thing should be sung does not seem to be the actual practice anywhere, and the Eucharistic Prayer is a prime example. I can count on two hands (maybe one?) the number of times in the past 40 years that I have heard the whole thing sung (kudos to the monks at Pluscarden abbey, btw). Even prior to the council (and in both East and West) the practice was to sing some of it and to say some of it sotto voce.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • ContinuousbassContinuousbass
    Posts: 357
    In a K-12 world, confirmed psalmists should be singing/chanting the entire psalmody. I think speaking any part of the psalm should only be the ultimate and final last resort in the case of a lector who can only read and the liturgists did not find a suitable psalmist prior to the liturgy.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,884
    And, it should be said, it is not necessary for the kids to do everything at a “school” mass. The mass is not the plaything of children, and if they are not capable, it is perfectly legitimate to have an adult cantor and do the readings. (Teachers seem very confused about this, and labor painfully under the assumption that a child doing something poorly is preferably to an adult doing it competently.) No one has a “right” to minister from the loft or the altar. I cannot recount how many painful masses I’ve sat through with child lectors who can barely spell their own name, let alone pronounce “Melchizedek”. (Sorry for the tirade)
    Thanked by 3LauraKaz trentonjconn hilluminar
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Serviam,

    You make valid points, and I applaud your tiradic manner. I would, however, draw your attention to a thread hereabouts to challenge your proposal that adults do things competently.
Add a Comment