Jeffrey, it's long past time to start using the word "regressive" to describe those who want to continue wandering in the desert of the last forty years.

The way forward is, as it has always been, that of organically developing Roman Catholic tradition.

I found all of your comments helpful and interesting. My main impression of the document is it's 'low church' tone, something which was (and delibrately?) most evident in MCW. The new document seems to imply that congregations are geneally stupid (hence the comments about 'small variety of somple somgs etc') and that it is really best to have a simple liturgy that is aimed at the lowest com. den. Instead of the high, poetic and beautiful language of writers like Pius X and our present Holy Father, the document reads like an auto manual for fixing a a mufffler. It all depends on your conception of what the liturgy is, and them one will find music to fit that conception. Maybe there is real fear of 'too much highbrow polyphony' that will drive parishioners away. That sometimes seems to be the sense that one can read between the lines with witing of folks like Msr. Troutman.Your comments and dissagreements are most welcome.

Jeffrey,

My copy of the LH, published by Solesmes with a date of 1990 appears to have a much "cleaner" almost "urtext" look to it as compared to, say, an old copy of the Liber Usualis I own, or the Gregorian Missal.

Here's what I understand from a musicological point of view regarding Solesmes editions: if you look at original chant manuscripts, none of their markings appear. As I understand it, at some point in history Solesmes developed from whole cloth (if recent scholarship is to be understood) this system of interpretting neumes, incorporating their own set of diacritical markings and imposing a rhythmic structure to the singing of chant. But, it seems that as early as the research and work of Dom Eugene Cardine (of Solesmes) this rather strict and rigorous interpretation of the execution of chant began to be questioned. Scholars more vested in the semiological interpretation seem to have a better fix on the issue now, but the interpretation/notation/diacritical markings war seems to wage on.

I have gathered from those currently working with the interpretation of chant that a strict adherence to the Solesmes style of singing chant is being "poo-pooed." I tend to agree with them, especially since the purpose (to my mind) of chant is not so much to sing a melody or phrase, but rather to support the text, including the syllabic stresses and nuances found in the spoken language.

Now I have to get ready to conduct a festival of nine lessons and carols in the style of King's College, and have a pint afterwards. How Anglican of me.

Gavin

I think you forget one simple fact: 'people' go to church to worship, not get involved in political fights. All this
mess after Vat II I believe is a continuation of the culture wars of the 1980's. I was in high school during
Vat II, was a church organist/choir director up until 1975'ish when I quit because I couldn't take it any more.
4 years ago I returned to find a Church that I really do not recognize. I was certainly shocked by the liturgy & the music. However, I started a small schola in our parish and began singing Gregorian Chant once a month for the past 3 years. I remember the first few Masses, older members of the congregation came to me with tears in their eyes saying they cried thoughout the whole Mass because they thought they would die without ever hearing
Gregorian Chant in the Church again. A few younger people thought it was very cool. We continue to sing
all the propers/ordinaries one Sunday a month with an english language Novus Ordo Mass. From the late 60s on, this would never have been possible. I see many young families with kids at church! They like many things.
But one very important thing is they ALSO like Gregorian Chant. I really don't think 'the people' are stupid. I
believe they are sick of the turmoil & the politics.

I'll tell you one paragraph that I was very happy to see:

38. As a leader of congregational song, the cantor should take part in singing with the entire gathered assembly. In order to promote the singing of the liturgical assembly, the cantor’s voice should not be heard above the congregation. As a transitional practice, the voice of the cantor might need to be amplified to stimulate and lead congregational singing when this is still weak. However, as the congregation finds its voice and sings with increasing confidence, the cantor’s voice should correspondingly recede. At times, it may be appropriate to use a modest gesture that invites participation and clearly indicates when the congregation is to begin, but gestures should be used sparingly and only when genuinely needed.

This should, in theory, get rid of the soloists like Mr. Caruso. Of course, this assumes that people will read and follow the document. I think our experience has been that people do what they want.

I recognize the scholarly concerns about the Solesmes rhythmic markings, which Solesmes added, and I think, did so openly. I think the episemas, dots, and bar lines are all added. Don't the quilisma and salicus represent actual neumes?

However, before we start accusing Solesmes of 'tinkering with the chants', isn't it also the case that they actually restored the full musical texts from the truncated versions that existed before? I've seen 17th-19th century printed chants, and a lot of the melismas are missing, and the text underlay is moved. So aside from the issues of the rhythmic method, don't we owe to Solesmes the existence of the full musical texts (ie, all the notes) in the Vatican and Solesmes editions (with or without added rhythmic marks)?

Concerning the issue of whether the "people" are dumb, I would put it differently: after forty years of dumbed down music and liturgy, the people in many places are impoverished and uneducated. Our task is reeducation. Only slowly and with care do you raise the level of taste and appreciation and piety of the people. Yet it is worth it. After many years of gradual improvement, a vital and beautiful liturgy is possible, I am convinced.

Considering the new document by the Bishops: after reading and rereading and pondering, I have decided to think of it this way: is the glass half empty or half full? Progressive solemnity is addressed. The Jubilate Deo Mass is mandated, albeit 30 years late and a dollar short. Just those two things alone, if implemented in an "average" parish, will change everything. Chant has a Divine life of its own. Just one small piece of it changes everything. Our job is to prepare. Preparation is everything for a musician. What I fear most is people striking out with vehemence and not much wisdom or training. The very ambiguity of this document on many issues ( even the contradictions contained within it) are in our favor, because we will move more slowly. I learned from Dr. Edwrad Shaffer, in a chant class, that our first job is to pray, because Gregorian Chant arose in an atmosphere of prayer. Our Holy Father has said that the change will come from "islands of tranquillity". I come back to that again and again. Thank you, Dr. Mahrt, for your words of reason and peace. Your example has taught me much. I think that the glass is half full! By the way, my bishop (Joliet, Illinois) has invited us all to a meeting to discuss the document. This is the first word from our bishop on the liturgy. Good news!

bsven-
I look forward to hearing what your bishop has to say on the matter.
He gave the keynote address at a function I attended in Mundelein earlier this year.
His presiding at a closing Mass and his address (on the evangelical power of the Liturgy,) were, both, thoughtful and moderate.
One participant who was from his diocese was eager to know his take on ad orientem and the (at that time only rumored, IIRC) motu proprio, but was loath to ask him herself, as she wanted to stay off his radar before she and others made a formal request.
I have a big mouth, so I had no trouble bringing up the subject in the Q & A.
His answers were interesting, basically that we had nothing to "fear" from older practices.
I suspect that he had misjudged his audience, thinking we were typical of trepidatious FDLC types.
But most of us were looking forward to the liberalization of any restrictions on the older rite, and a return to proper orientation with an eager anticipation.
In any case, his answer was cagey, political and revealed very little of his own attitude.
My impression of him at Liturgy was that he himself was not musical? ,(in his defense, that may only have been in contrast to the other priests, who, since they included Fr Samuel Weber, and Fr Douglas Martis, set the bar awfully high...,) but was intent on doing whatever needed to be done musically and liturgically, on giving the Lord His due.
I suspect, or at any rate hope he will be equally dutiful in implementing SttL.
Please do report back after you meeting!

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

First, in answer to "G", I was also at that lecture by Bishop Sartain (sp?), and I had the exact same response in my mind--that he had totally misread his audience, because we all were waiting with baited breath for permission for the 1962 Mass; but he was trying to reassure us that there was nothing to fear. I put this response down to two things: first, although I have no hard evidence, I suspect that he is surrounded by people who do have fear. He only knows the situation in the diocese from what he hears from the people around him. He is, after all, a newcomer. ( I have waited in line for an hour on two occasions to just say to him "Gregorian Chant".) Second, He gives the impression of being being very sincere, sweet, concerned about our wellbeing. His column in our diocesan newspaper is downright lovely, direct and humble. However, he is obviously a smart and well accomplished man who might not be in touch with the savvy of the common guy in the pew. Therefore his first concern is that we will be afraid, rather than that we will be welcoming: he underestimates us. But if you would understand (maybe you do) the black hole that is music in our diocese, maybe this would make more sense to you! Secondly, to Dr. Mahrt on Progressive Solemnity:
I must say that I was mystified by the Bishops' definition of P.S. at the beginning of this section, which seemed to define the word "progressive" as meaning wherever you land between zero singing and, on high feasts, lots of singing. But as I remember Musicam Sacram, it simply said that there is such a thing as a solemn Mass, and proceeded to define it according to the parts to be sung, but, most importantly, said that every parish should have at least one solemn Mass every Sunday, meaning that we all should be chanting the whole Mass, more or less, every Sunday at least once. The word "progressive" seemed to mean that you start with the dialogues and move on in time to ordinaries and propers. However, as the document (STTL) proceeds, into "The Parts to be Sung", we are given instruction to actually sing all the parts of the Mass, which seems to me to be the point. How often should we be doing this? #116 says: even during daily Mass. Granted, this document is full of contradictions, but there is enough there to run with it. The meeting with Bishop Sartain is in mid January. I will let you all know what transpires!

"The people looking for analysis of 'Sing to the Lord' are a self-selecting group; hopefully this thread will be indexed by some of the major search engines, bringing more people into the discussion. So while outside of this forum there may not be a great deal of attention, outside forces will bring interested parties here."

Indeed it was. I searched for the document, and this thread was one of the top hits. :)

Well, perhaps it's better to think of it as a North American approach to the Roman way. In the Roman way, it would be understood without saying it. North Americans don't like unstated interpretive rules. A Roman would understand that, of course, there is this beautiful, lovely norm, but how that norm is implemented in practice will involve careful consultation - which doesn't necessarily mean deference, but sometimes it does (particularly if it will alienate donors whose absence would fundamentally impair the mission). The model is the abbot who has power on paper, as it were, but understands his effective authority depends much on such consultation.

Indeed. Romans are typically comfortable with beautiful abstract norms that are subject to discretionary execution, as it were. It's their legal culture. Folks in the Anglosphere are typically uncomfortable with discretionary execution, and tend to want exceptions stipulated - and then the exceptions can gobble up the main rule to the point that it becomes secondary. (An American applying Roman rules with an American mindset is likely to become frustrated. Roman rules are not a Marcella Hazan (or Yul Brynner-as-Rameses "So let it be written; so let it be done!" II)-style recipe, to be simply implemented as written. Marcella is someone who understood the American mindset very well, and wrote in the imperative voice with that mindset in mind...)