We could be the publishers of the very first Parish Fakebook of English Hymns.

I guess this would make sense if we are promoting guitar music in mass.

im reminded of the rather pityful attempts at playing traditional music by incompitent musicians back in the early days of vatical II. such playing made singing laborious and with little energy and directly lead to the glory and praise hijack. No offense orourkebr but playing block chords and a melody sounds like chords and a melody. it does the traditional movement no favors.

thank you for these opinions!

believe it or not, I sometimes find it easier to read off chords.......on the organ........I am assuming the person who requested this wants to use it in this way.

Blech! I hate those things. Makes me think of late-night jazz gigs, bebop, cigarettes, and liquor. or: praise bands.

im with aristotle on contemporary music. much of this stuff has unplayable accompiniments anyway so chords are great. with organ based hymnody, well thats another story. since these chorales have a choral foundation,part writing is kinda important.after all would you put chords to a bach chorale?

Just FYI:

The site already HAS organ accompaniments written out.

You will expand your market if you include them for guitarists and non readers of musical score.

Mary Jane, can pedaled harps "do" 7b5 chords? (Nevermind the "why" part of that! I don't suspect the late Leon Roberts would have orchestrated his works for harp.)

Like MJB, I cannot understand how truly accurate chordal assignments added to select and particular hymns (set in SATB) indemnifies a hymnal's integrity. And I would think that Noel and Jonathan et al are quite capable of imagining that adding chord symbols to THAXTED or SINE NOMINE in the PBEH wouldn't be in the best interest of the realization and performance of those hymns, while using them with HYFRYDOL or SLANE (and such) would be amenable.
I hope that Richard R. doesn't take me to task for confessing that once our schola had acquired been fully initiated in the metier of the Simple Choral Graduale, I took the liberty of assigning chords so that the contemporary ensemble (in which I have a number of schola people doing double duty each Sunday) could be "reinforced" by the "rolled chord" approach on classical guitar and piano softly. By doing that, the propers are being advanced at the so-called "contemporary Mass." How can that be a bad thing?
This illustrates two presumptions on my part: One, in the hands of accomplished guitarists and pianists, certain hymns can (and do) powerfully support the singing by the congregation of, at least, the melody (with SATB or other voicings in the choir); point two- the inclusion of accurate, no compromised or dumbed down reductions, symbols in the PBEH should be an encouragement towards excellence and improvement of both repertoire and skills on the part of ensemble musicians whose diet of lead sheet accompaniments for hymns was paltry, or who just stayed in the comfort zone of the 80's. One should remember and offer some gratitude to the SLJ's, Joncas and others of that era for their efforts to move guitarists and pianists away from the slavish adherance to root position chording, and the subtleties of inversions and compound chords.
I think a consensus among the hymnbook's compilers could be reached in this matter.

Jeff:

chording is an age old tradition. For those who improvise well, they much prefer to do so from a continuo than the written out scores which are usually quite lame IOHO.

-----

Basso continuo parts, almost universal in the Baroque era (1600-1750), provided the harmonic structure of the music. The word is often shortened to continuo, and the instrumentalists playing the continuo part, if more than one, are called the continuo group. The titles of many Baroque works make mention of the continuo section, such as J. S. Bach's Concerto for 2 violins, strings and continuo in D minor.

The makeup of the continuo group is often left to the discretion of the performers, and practice varied enormously within the Baroque period. At least one instrument capable of playing chords must be included, such as a harpsichord, organ, lute, theorbo, guitar, or harp. In addition, any number of instruments which play in the bass register may be included, such as cello, double bass, bass viol, viola da gamba, or bassoon. The most common combination, at least in modern performances, is harpsichord and cello for instrumental works and secular vocal works, such as operas, and organ for sacred music. Very rarely, however, in the Baroque period, the composer requested specifically for a certain instrument (or instruments) to play the continuo. In addition, the mere composition of certain works seems to require certain kind of instruments (for instance, Vivaldi's Stabat Mater seems to require an organ, and not a harpsichord).

The keyboard (or other chording instrument) player realizes a continuo part by playing, in addition to the indicated bass notes, upper notes to complete chords, either determined ahead of time or improvised in performance. The player can also "imitate" the soprano (which is the name for the solo instrument or singer) and elaborate on themes in the soprano musical line. The figured bass notation, described below, is a guide, but performers are also expected to use their musical judgment and the other instruments or voices as a guide. Modern editions of music usually supply a realized keyboard part, fully written out for the player, eliminating the need for improvisation. With the rise in historically informed performance, however, the number of performers who improvise their parts, as Baroque players would have done, has increased.

Basso continuo, though an essential structural and identifying element of the Baroque period, continued to be used in many works, especially sacred choral works, of the classical period (up to around 1800). An example is C. P. E. Bach's Concerto in D minor for flute, strings and basso continuo. Examples of its use in the 19th century are rarer, but they do exist: masses by Anton Bruckner, Beethoven, and Franz Schubert, for example, have a basso continuo part for an organist to play.

----

from wikipedia

I am a bit hesitant about the possibility of encouraging guitars as a result of including what has become a "guitar score" format. Why not use the numeric notation ( I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, vii) which should be more than familiar to organists since that seems to be the desired market here. It is also a blessing when transposing.

I appreciate all these thoughts! May God bless you all.

Well, my youngest son has just started his college experience on the clarinet at Baylor U. He has never had piano, but is taking the required course for non-keyboard majors. There is no excuse for not being able to read from the grand staff, and figure out both hands working together.

In other words: here's the melody, here's the accompaniment, JUST DO IT!

I like to see the chords above a regular keyboard accompaniment for things like this because chances are good that the additional instrumentalists (like me, the harpist) may be working with a keyboard player. Plus I don't mind seeing suspensions, etc. - they give me ideas.

I hope we don't have to prove an ability to read the alto clef at some point:)

And I'm not totally arguing for them, J. Claiming the fifth.

Jeff: You must have too much time on your hands!
Really I have done this too, with Meinrad tones over pointed texts.
If you are targeting guitarist or musicians who prefer lead sheets you will need to present them using a most popular format. (I'm not sure what that would be- "Glory and Praise?") And with your psalms , voice placement would be effective too. Em/G > Am/F#> Em..etc
I always thought the Gelineau psalm setting would wear well among guitar liturgy but the open tetra chords were difficult to identify and execute .
The best part of singing the psalms is the preparation. The work, the sacrifice and the time is a great joy.
A Jewish cantor told me he is required to sing from a Torah without vowel marks, without spaces between the words, and without a musical score. This assures that the one who proclaims the word is well studied and knows most intimately the nuances of meaning in music and text which must be communicated to the congregation. He is then worthy of the tasks: and then that which seems so obscure and unfamiliar becomes very intimate. Cherish the word in your heart!

Noel, do we need an instrument sustaining a melody line to successfully support adequately prepared chanting?
Doesn't it logically follow that equally capable voices can sustain the melody line of a metric hymn that is adequately supported by a fully realized chordal accompanist with guitar? The voice is the noblest of instruments of praise, yes?
I know this skirts the documental primacy given the pipe organ, but that's not the relevant point in your opinion.

I would definitely include the chords on the Chabanel Psalms. But I might make mention that it is not to encourage the use of guitar during the liturgy (perhaps not on every Psalm, but a general statement in the publication).

It's a sticky decision, but let me draw another comparison.

For the liturgical "purists" here, I would venture that Latin Chant is preferred in our selection of music as opposed to the vernacular, yes? Then, why would we encourage vernacular settings of the ordinary by composing new settings for its use?

There is no way around sending a mixed message if you involve yourself in the present liturgical music machine! Is there?

I'm appreciative of Mia's last sentence.
But I'm also wary of demeaning and demonizing the instrument because of the "instrumentalist."
There are many of us who can realize a basso continuo on the guitar from I-IV-V6-I nomenclature.
We also know what the proper accompaniment instrument should be. We also know that sometimes that instrument and a capable player is not present.
If anyone should think that guitarists cannot "do" choral music, I suggest that one listens to the LA Guitar Quartet's rendition of Morton Lauridsen's "Dirait on."

"For the liturgical "purists" here, I would venture that Latin Chant is preferred in our selection of music as opposed to the vernacular, yes? "

No it isn't, at least for this purist. I fully support vernacular liturgies and think the western Church should have had them hundreds of years sooner. The church fathers clearly intended for the liturgy to be in the language of the people and for it to be understood. Far too many forget that Latin was the vernacular in the the fourth century. Does that mean I am anti-Latin? Again, no. As popes have indicated, we should all know the Latin ordinary, even if we don't use it every week. Also, there is a body of gorgeous and priceless music that should be preserved. I don't see the Latin/English debate as an either/or. There is room for both.