Guidelines for composing gradual and alleluia for EF?
  • raph
    Posts: 10
    Hello, I have a project of making simple polyphonic compositions for the propers of Sundays and Feasts for the EF for small amateur choirs, however I have a couple of questions about the gradual and alleluia:

    1 - Is it allowed to repeat the antiphon of the gradual more than once? I was thinking about, for meditation questions, compssing them like how slavs churches perform the prokeimenon at Divine Liturgy.

    For example:

    Cantor - Christus factus est pro nobis obediens
    usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis.

    Choir - Christus factus est pro nobis obediens
    usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis.

    Cantor - Propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum et dedit illi nomen,
    quod est super omne nomen.

    Choir - Christus factus est pro nobis obediens
    usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis.

    Cantor - Christus factus est pro nobis obediens
    usque ad mortem,
    Choir - mortem autem crucis.

    As you can se, the choir repeats the antiphon after the cantor sings something, and at the end the cantor sings half of the antiphon and the choir the rest. Is it licit to perform a gradual according to this scheme?


    2 - I've noticed that Byrd and some other composers often repeat the alleluia a lot. Is it licit to perform it in a similar fashion to the prokeimenon?

    Example:

    Cantor - Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.

    Choir - Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.

    Cantor - Ostende nobis, Domine, misericordiam tuam: et salutare tuum da nobis.

    Choir - Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 1,037
    What I’m about to say it’s not a hard and fast rule, but just some thoughts.

    While there might be more justification for the extended style of composition for the Gradual and the Alleluia, because these exist in the liturgy not to cover any motion but solely for their own sake, I think it is precisely for that reason, given the fact that the liturgy comes to a standstill and entirely focuses on these elements, without any external reference of length, that’s it is probably worth respecting the relative length of the average Gradual as a point of reference for the amount of time that is proportional and should be taken.

    As for the repetition schemes, if it’s polyphony the cantor vs choir roles don’t tend to matter as much. Nor does the amount of times the text is repeated, provided that the composition as a whole is coherent. If we’re talking about deliberate repetitions in a homophonic scheme, or relatively homophonic scheme, then I think that really begins to affect the structure of what these chants are.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,804
    You should look at the Isaac settings, he did all of the Alleluia in the Constance Gradual. N.B. Not all have been set and uploaded to CPDL.
    https://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Heinrich_Isaac
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,471
    The repetition would be of the response after the verse. This is allowed for the gradual in chant in the first place, which isn’t done often (but makes sense on June 24 for example).
  • Palestrina
    Posts: 437
    It's probably worth looking at Pius X's motu proprio, which sets some helpful boundaries on the repetition of text. On first reading, it seems the structure you've suggested would subvert the actual form of the Gradual and so wouldn't be correct in the context of the 1962 Missal. It would be fine to have Christus-Propter-Christus, but the form you have proposed is closer to a kind of responsorial psalm than the compositional form of the Gradual.
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,112
    It's easier to justify extending something than returning to it, having left it. Our music exists for the words, not vice-versa.

    De musica sacra et sacra liturgia, 21:
    "a) It is strictly forbidden to change in any way the sung text, to alter or omit words, or to introduce inappropriate repetitions. This applies also to compositions of sacred polyphony, and modern sacred music: each word should be clearly, and distinctly audible.

    b) It is explicitly forbidden to omit either the whole or a part of any liturgical text unless the rubrics provide for such a change."

    Byrd and Isaac worked under different rubrics.
  • Lincoln_Hein
    Posts: 136
    A related question: Is it possible to compose modern music for mass (EF) that is a single melody with lyrics accompanied by an organ and not two or more voices singing?
  • FSSPmusic
    Posts: 310
    Is it possible to compose modern music for mass (EF) that is a single melody with lyrics accompanied by an organ and not two or more voices singing?
    Yes. Is the concern that a monodic composition would be considered "chant" in an unapproved version, that it would contradict the wording in the DMS instruction to the effect that "Modern sacred music is likewise sung in many voice-parts, but at times with instrumental accompaniment," or something else?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • FSSPmusic
    Posts: 310
    Composers ranging from Rheinberger to Willan to Montani to Duruflé to Langlais wrote Latin liturgical music for unison chorus and organ.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • Lincoln_Hein
    Posts: 136
    I ask because everything that is a version of something simple to sing the text of the proper of mass that I have seen to date is some type of psalmodic tone: I have never seen a melody in proportional rhythm with modern notation created specifically for groups that cannot have the adequate proficiency to sing the chants of the gradual or polyphonic motets and that want something more than the monotony of the Rossini-style psalmodic tone.
    Thanked by 2FSSPmusic tomjaw
  • Lincoln_Hein
    Posts: 136
    I ask because everything that is a version of something simple to sing the text of the proper of mass that I have seen to date is some type of psalmodic tone: I have never seen a melody in proportional rhythm with modern notation created specifically for groups that cannot have the adequate proficiency to sing the chants of the gradual or polyphonic motets and that want something more than the monotony of the Rossini-style psalmodic tone.


    If I understood correctly: then making a simple composition like this, for unison choir accompanied by organ with the lyrics of the introit, gradual, alleluia, offertory, communio, is possible.
  • FSSPmusic
    Posts: 310
    I would think so. I'm not aware of a compositional restriction that applies to the Proper but not the Ordinary.
    Thanked by 2Lincoln_Hein tomjaw
  • Lincoln_Hein
    Posts: 136
    Anybody knows of a simple composition made by any composer for unison choir accompanied by organ to the propers ?