Crowd shots - majority of people were looking at programs and moving lips during the opening hymn. Amazing.

Spoken Credo
Offertory Hymn I didn't recognize
Ave Maria - Victoria

Roman Canon.

Anamnesis from Mass for the City "Dying you destroyed..."

Clergy (with each other) and people in the pews (did I just see Speaker Gingrich?) shake hands at the peace.

A number of people haven't seen that since Summer.

Priests shake each others hands during the sign of peace... Didn't see anyone do the traditional 'embrace'/Pax.

Did you see anyone kneel? I didn't watch the entire procession..

It would be so nice if the musicians and cantor(s) especially would sing without microphones. I would love to hear the choir more with the cantor(s) integrated within the choir. I know the Victoria AVE MARIA and the Rachmaninov Vespers well. I am pretty certain that that was the MAGNIFICAT that was performed but I am not 100% sure; or was it the AVE MARIA from the Vespers?! My memory is slipping :) . Truly GREAT pieces of traditional sacred classical music. The Rachmaninov was nicely done.

Patronal Medal being awarded to Msgr. Paul Lenz, vice-postulator of the cause for canonization of Bl. Kateri Tekakwitha.

I believe the text of the opening hymn was commissioned by the Shrine some years back. Theologically it is very strong. The tune is Iste Confessor. Not only is it a splendid hymn tune, but the lines are long and no rhyme is necessary, so serious theological development is possible.

Regarding the cantor's volume, apparently it always come across louder on tv. I was there, and the integration was just fine.

Nice to hear the bells during the Eucharistic Prayer! And the Rachmaninoff piece ended with a certain sensitivity and forward motion. Just excellent.

The Lamb of God was by Gerald Near, I believe.

Ken said it. He's right.

Cantors MAY sing the psalm from the Ambo. That has turned into MUST in too many places.

Kathy, it's unclear on TV where the sanctuary's back border is. The choir are certainly visible in their blue robes behind the clergy, but they didn't appear on TV to be taking part in any liturgical action.

Having a mic up at your mouth within a few feet, is one thing and having it away at a reasonable distance for recording (whether live or for broadcast) is another matter. Many great ecclesiastical buildings, as large as the Shrine, and in come cases even larger, have no problem recording its musicians in a manner that is musically appropriate. I realize it was live. However, many of the other large churches I know of also broadcast events, their choir(s) and even soloist(s) at very audible, well balanced, and blended levels.

Perhaps the Shrine should re-examine their mic system and set up. I am sure the choir and musicians of the Shrine are more than competent. I just would like to hear more of them or perhaps I should say, I would love to hear them in their full glory!

I am NO Monday morning quarterback and I take offense to that IF it is thrown my way. I have been in many situations like unto the Shrine. If I were its Music Director, recording engineer or even the administration, I would want to know what other professional church musicians think and how it comes across in a televised manner. I intend no negative criticism; especially to other musicians. I merely am exercising my right to speak out in a manner in which I offer personal insights based on many years of experience, education and knowledge. After all, isn't this a forum for discussion of perspectives of like and dislike manner?

Large acoustical spaces were designed to NOT need amplification for music. Does the softest stop of the organ need amplification? NO! A general rule of acoustical science is this: 1) the less reverb in a space, the larger the musical forces must be, with more vibrato for color and warmth while, 2) the more reverb in a space, the smaller the musical forces must be, with less vibrato. The acoustics will carry the sound produced and actually do the amplification for you.

Finally, I think I recall reading within the past two years, in a CMAA Journal, this very subject on microphones and amplification. If I recall correctly, it too was not in favor of mics for amplification in large acoustical settings.

Chrism, the sanctuary's back border is quite a ways behind the choir, which stands in front of the high altar with its steps and baldachino. Then there is another sizeable space between the high altar and the apse wall.

We've all got our acoustical challenges, but I don't think most of us would be able to hit a major league home run from one end of our church to the other.

frogman said:

"Cantors MAY sing the psalm from the Ambo. That has turned into MUST in too many places."

Please forgive my ignorance, but it is my understanding that the GIRM states that the Psalm should be sung from the ambo or "another suitable place." This seems to suggest that the ambo is preferred, to my eyes, though I'm quite possibly missing something somewhere.

Also, even though I know the National Shrine is quite acoustically live, it seems to me like it would be difficult for one person to communicate the consonants clearly enough for the words to be understood without some sort of amplification.

Ken of Sarum,

I'm right with you in opposing amplification in principle - but - have you ever been to the Shrine? The acoustics there, while they may sound "live," are more like a cave - even a large choir simply cannot be heard throughout the building without amplification. Even with it the singing (as well as the speaking) can sound distant.

Once I did hear a choir sing there without amplification. The choir was on the steps of the sanctuary and I was in a pew near the front - so I was about 30 or 40 feet from the choir. They were singing their hearts out but - and this sounds bizarre - they sounded a mile away. It was as if there was a giant plate of glass between us. Evidently most of the sound got sucked up into the large dome.

So I would call amplification in that church a "necessary evil." Whether or not the singers / cantors at the Shrine work well with the amplification as it presently exists is another question. Like Kathy said, the sound you are getting from them on TV is much more dominant than in the building itself.

Sam Schmitt

Many have taught that the ambo is THE place according to the GIRM, you are correct, but today it is easy to access the 2003 GIRM:

So here is the GIRM:

It is preferable that the responsorial Psalm be sung, at least as far as the people’s response is
concerned. Hence, the psalmist, or the cantor of the Psalm, sings the verses of the Psalm from the
ambo or another suitable place. The entire congregation remains seated and listens but, as a rule,
takes part by singing the response, except when the Psalm is sung straight through without a
response. In order, however, that the people may be able to sing the Psalm response more
readily, texts of some responses and Psalms have been chosen for the various seasons of the year
or for the various categories of Saints. These may be used in place of the text corresponding to
the reading whenever the Psalm is sung. If the Psalm cannot be sung, then it should be recited in
such a way that it is particularly suited to fostering meditation on the word of God.

How did the church ever survive without amplification?

Seriously, we have become a spoon-fed people who expect everything to be given to us...it used to be that when you wanted to hear a choir's words you sat close to them.

If the organ was too loud you sat on the other end of the church.

Now every seat has to be "perfect".

How did the Mass survive centuries without use hearing every word and seeing every action? Let's all rent a copy of Being There and then talk this over with a view as to perception. (have a glass of wine or stronger while watching if that helps."

Rich_Enough - I have been and sung there and also sung at St. John the Divine in NYC. Both spaces are indeed enormously huge; I agree.

May I suggest another alternative to amplification that I tried to hint at earlier? ENLARGE THE CHOIR and MORE CANTORS SINGING AT ONE TIME! The choir there at the Shrine is too small for the space. Yes, I know full well all that that implies. But lets think on matching the ensemble to the space. St. Mark's in Venice, Italy learned that lesson and even the men and boys choir at the Vatican is a size larger than most men and boy choirs. St. Paul's Anglican Cathedral in London is a larger than average choir too.

If the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City, Utah can have a huge choir for there premiere spaces, then why not the Shrine? Isn't the organ in the Shrine also a larger than average instrument? YES!

I was curious, so I looked it up. The Shrine has a core choir of twenty (20) professional singers. WAY WAY WAY too small for a place of that size! A choir of 200 would be more like it.

juhorton - I am a big believer of a program with full text, melodies and all music listed in it. Its the least that could be done when its a major church.

I think the dogmatic declarations against microphones are unhelpful. Kathy is (at least as far as I know her from her postings) not going to cantor on Sundays and do a karaoke act, screaming into the microphone. I wouldn't be surprised if she told us her own church should remove the sound system.

Churches need amplification. The texts being said or sung are (ideally) sacred and can greatly edify (/strengthen/sanctify/whatever verb you want to use) the participant. Please note, however, that I said "amplification" and not "microphones". A church should have amplification in the form of sound acoustic engineering. That the shrine was apparently built without it is a shame. Now, without the natural acoustic improvement, what do we do? THAT is where speakers come in handy. And they CAN be done without the cantor blasting your ears off. I remember a visit many years ago to Princeton University's chapel services. They have some speaker layout where the sound of the preaching seems to be natural, but is in fact artificially enhanced. I believe they had small speakers under the pews or something.

Anyway, I do believe that amplification is crucial, and in the case of making up for poor design, even some electronic enhancement is helpful. I think that's all Kathy was saying, and thus there's no point in sweeping condemnations which ignore the very real circumstances others may be in.

As for myself, I'm probably going to go blue in the face again tonight from encouraging my choir to use consonants to get the text across...

Gavin, if the sound engineering is done to get over acoustical shortfalls and the use of the sound reinforcement equipment results in a seamless situation, meaning that one is not sure if sound reinforcement is in use, then it does have a place in the church.

However, this is rarely the goal of sound system designers. And something that they are not trained to be sensitive to as well.

Couple that with people "running" the sound system who are also not senstive to the need for it to reinforce.

So is badly amplified sound better than not using microphones?

Yes.