For NO peoples... Regarding changing psalmody sets
  • Bombarde16
    Posts: 117
    Hello Hivemind!

    I pray that you are all finding this lent to be ever so slightly restful, as well as fulfilling and prayerful in all your doings.

    I am looking at the possibility of replacing, rather permanently, the ubiquitous R&A of Alstott at the parish where I am the Director of Sacred Music.

    Pros for change:
    - no more purchasing the same material year, after year, after year, after year, after....
    - the approaching of much more inspired psalmody, perhaps even keeping in line with TLS and Pius X's call regarding things being more in harmony with that pure form, etc...
    - we already supplement with psalmody from Serviam Scores, Royce Nickel, CCW, Marier (when possible), and my own psalm settings when we have the occasion to do so... (these go over well, but are typically VERY short responses...)

    Cons for change:
    - the congregation has sung them for 30+ YEARS... as a result, they sing them rather well. (not a good reason, I know, but a reason nonetheless...)
    - The Pastor is not a huge fan of printing worship aids at the moment, so i wouldn't be able to get the responses in front of the people... (they would have to learn it all by wrote; again not a horrible thing, but a consideration...)
    - The Parish has undergone alot of change in the last year or so and we are currently working on introducing new, more edifying and dignified Mass settings... so I wouldn't want to do this to upset that balance of old/new to quickly or soon...

    Possible (unified) sets I'm looking at having as our base line:
    Royce Nickel Collection (Lulu; chabanel psalm sites...)
    Richard Rice Psalms (as set in the New Roman Missal Chants...)
    Collegeville CHANT Psalter (I use this for ANY feast day Masses that we celebrate with music, and they go over quite well there... this is probably the leading contender)

    What are some problems (or healthy, good suprises) that you have encountered when making a change like this? What was your pushback/support like? How was your pastor supportive or not?

    Thanks for your time and input!
    Bombarde16

  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,296
    Just one data point:

    I was the DM at a very traditional NO parish from 2015-2018. We sang mostly Gregorian chant ordinaries, sang the Credo and Pater Noster every Sunday, choir that sang solidly, army of altar boys, St. Michael Prayer, etc. Hopefully that gives you an idea.

    However, the parish had used R&A for a long time. The woman who succeeded me replaced R&A with Chabanel Psalms and people still gripe at me about it, 5 years later.
    Thanked by 1Bombarde16
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,025
    I switched my parish from R&A to the Collegeville Chant Psalter almost two years ago. It went smoothly. Nobody complained. The congregation sings the responses well because they are almost all rather intuitive to sing. I like that the Collegeville collection sounds good when sung unaccompanied, which R&A does not.

    Are you aware that you can buy a downloadable pdf of the Collegeville Chant Psalter with unlimited reprinting permissions at Simply Liturgical Music?
    https://www.slmusic.org/product/the-collegeville-chant-psalter-ruff/

    The only drawback with using the Collegeville collection is that the way the book is formatted is too confusing for my psalmists to sing from at the ambo. Therefore, for each Sunday I cut and paste to create a simplified psalmist sheet such as the one I've attached here for this Sunday.
    Psalm.pdf
    459K
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen Bombarde16 Paul F. Ford
  • davido
    Posts: 874
    We ended with R&A when we discontinued Breaking Bread during Covid. I sampled from various sources for a while, musical congregants didnt like learning them by ear.
    We now have Source and Summit. Congregants like that what is sung matches what is in the book; I like that the responses are predictable and only 8 psalm tones are used, so rehearsal time is minimal, even with kids choir.

    Best part is never having to play R&A’s “if today you hear his voice” again.
    Bad part is Source and Summit is no longer available as a complete collection, only a subscription.
    Thanked by 1Bombarde16
  • davido
    Posts: 874
    If learning psalm responses by ear is a problem, I found this collection to be easy to pick up: https://sites.google.com/view/magdalenesacredmusic/service-music/responsorial-psalms-meinrad-tones?authuser=0
    It’s incomplete, but you could easily point the missing Sundays yourself.
    Thanked by 2Bombarde16 Lars
  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 264
    My parish is an R&A parish. We temporarily went over to the Guimont psalms whenever we had our short, but at the same time too long, stint with Gather 3, and they picked up on those psalms very quickly. We went back to R&A when we left Gather 3 right before Ash Wednesday.

    I will say I don’t think the “psalms not matching the book” was ever an issue for our parishioners. However, Guimont’s style is somewhat similar to Alstott’s, so I wonder if going from R&A to a more chant-like psalmody would be more of a challenge for them.
    Thanked by 1Bombarde16
  • lmassery
    Posts: 405
    I switched from RA to Nickel, putting refrains in bulletin, and never heard a single negative word about it from parishioners. They are easy to sing. I still some RA settings in the repertoire that are decent. Used an occasional SS, Serviam score, and Marier setting as well.
    Thanked by 1Bombarde16
  • Magdalene
    Posts: 9
    I've been using my own Psalm settings for the past year and half. Very simple chant style, but more movement than the Ignatius Pew Missal's that we currently have in the pews. No complaints and the congregation sings the refrain without any music in front of them.
    Thanked by 1Bombarde16
  • btodorovich87
    Posts: 97
    I would keep R&A for a while, and focus on the other excellent reforms on which you're already making progress. They're not the greatest things in the world but they're serviceable enough.
    Thanked by 1Bombarde16
  • OrganistRob320OrganistRob320
    Posts: 157
    My general response whenever someone comes and asks "Why do the words and music of the Psalm not match what is in the pew book?" is this:
    For some reason, OCP and Owen Alstott missed the memo from 2010 when they revised the Psalter that those are the texts we are supposed to be using. Instead they stuck with the same texts from 30+ years ago. All of the non R&A Psalm selections from OCP have been updated... I imagine they will get around to it sometime in the next half-century. Plus, with the collections I use currently, we paid once for a three year collection, not yearly cost for our Psalter.
    I alternate between Guimont Abbey Psalms and Canticles, The Chabanel Psalms, The Gelineau Revised, and on occasion something from individual composers with the updated texts.
    Thanked by 2Bombarde16 hilluminar
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,945
    Because, in the dioceses of the USA, the bishops have - for responsorial psalms that are sung, not simply recited - grandfathered the continued use of translations of the psalms previously approved for liturgical use. (This had the prudent effect of not requiring an immediate dumping and acquisition of new music.) This was something much discussed here earlier in the last decade.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    And that discussion noted that the oldest layer of propers still uses texts predating St Jerome's Vulgate. Retention of old texts that have tunes is the Tradition.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • stmichael_defendus
    Posts: 1
    My apologies for reopening this discussion, but I wanted to address the questions at the bottom of your post.
    I am doing very similar things at my own parish. I deployed entirely new psalmody during Advent. I’ve also made even more noticeable changes during Lent, such as eliminating the offertory hymn, in place of the proper, and singing all Eucharistic Acclamations a cappella during the season. I also made significant musical changes to all the music they were used to during the Tridiuum. My biggest help in making significant changes to what’s been done ad nauseam at the parish is the fact that our new pastor supports them whole heartedly and, in fact, has requested certain musical settings himself(He is very musical and has a fine voice, which I know is a blessing). I’ve found that no one really complains to me, but they make comments to him on the way out and because he is confident in the changes and well-versed in the ‘why’ of them, so he just politely brushes them off.

    A parishioner asked him ‘why can’t we sing more familiar hymns?’ And he just said: ‘what does that mean?’. They don’t have an answer. It is sad when hymns from 70’s are what they consider the only familiar ones, when Catholic musical history is so rich.

    So, I think if you aren’t an island with noticeable music changes, your pastor is on board, you are consistent with them without folding because people are resistant to chance and comfortable in the familiar, and the changes are done well(well sung by cantors, choirs. Etc.), the response will be positive!
  • DavidOLGCDavidOLGC
    Posts: 72
    Our parish stopped using ALL OCP music a couple of years ago, along with guitars and such, organ only.

    The first year we used Source and Summit, and this year we are using the Pew Missal.

    So far no one has complained, and from what I was told, a few high-profile congregants have appreciated the changes.
  • Richard R.
    Posts: 774
    Well, of course...

    But really, if your congregation is used to singing metrical antiphons, they should probably stick with that. I admit, when it comes to NO, I don't get out much. Still, I find most refrain settings much less egregious than the verses themselves. Any good adaptation of approved verses to chant tones would head you in the right, traditional direction. As for translations, please do everybody a favor and use whatever is in your periodic worship aid. (And please, can we settle this question once and for all? Before I'm dead?)

    I might add, around here, traditional-minded NO directors are tending toward through-composed psalms, all on Gregorian tones, with no congregational refrain at all. If it's even permissible (and it must be if everybody's doing it, right?) I still think it's not in the spirit of the NO (such as it is). It does solve the problem, though.

    --Richard Rice
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 685
    As long as what you replace is available to the congregation then you're on your way. If what you are using is not available, then your congregation can't participate and will eventuallty give up. I've have seen this happen and have experienced it.

    Also, it's hard to get the congregation to participate if they are chasing a moving target. I would keep changes limited to the penitential times of the year, Advent and Lent. I have found that most parishioners are more receptive to changes or are expecting things to be different during these penitential times because they should be, and if you have a choir or even a schola of people they can carry the congregation through these seasons.

    Then take out all the stops for Christmas and Easter, make them as beautiful as you can. Again, because most parishioners expect things to be different, and they should be! But from week to week, keep it the same.

    At St. Mary's in Akron, Ohio from 1977-2005, for the NO the Gospel Alleluia was Mode VI, and the tone used for the verse was the 6th tone every Sunday. As long as you know where to place the inflection its a no brainer. The responsorial psalm was recited, a pastoral decision.

    The only time the choir sang the responsorial psalm was for Christmas and Easter. This may seem contrary to modern Liturigal thought, but you'll have more of the congregation participating which is what you're after, and it should make your job as an organists easier.
Add a Comment