I own the first two of these and would give much to own the last two. They are treasures, indeed! Many thanks for putting them up here. From where, in fact, did you aquire them? One is left speechless from wondering why there are no Catholic equivalents to these volumes.

Well, MJO, it seems like the Catholic equivalent would pretty much be these books.

Having these books available in this way is just astonishing.
They will, hopefully. form the basis of good liturgical-musical practice in a high proportion of the parishes of the new Anglican Use Ordinariates.
Would that ordinary Latin Rite parishes adopt them!

Looking at the this past Sunday's Offertory in the Plainchant Gradual, I have to say I am torn between the version found therein an the more recent effort in Bruce Ford's American Gradual. (Without referring to the introductory materials of the latter, one can certainly find evidence of a great debt to the work of Palmer / Burgess). I suppose my ideal for English chant would be a a combination of the two: a square-note edition like the Plainchant Gradual that used more modern language like the American Gradual. Really, the only thing keeping me from using the PG on a regular basis effective immediately is that phrases like "whoso dwelleth" would likely be a stumbling block for my parish.

Even though these materials are currently out of print, aren't these still under international copyright? Its my understanding (from the Sister's at St Mary's and their Press), that a single copy can be re-printed for individual use and scholarship (upon asking their permission), but not for sale. Comments?

Decades long ago, I bought many of their publication and still have them. As the Director of an organization called the "SARUM SOCIETY," it is my hope that I can gain reprint permission from St. Mary's and to be able to offer all their materials once again.

An incredible resource that will save me years of adapting and typesetting. Thanks JT. (do let us know about the copyrights on this before we start publishing it for the rest of mankind and womanshouldbejustaskind)

These are, as Jeff O. would say, FANTASTIC!

Adam, I wasn't attempting to put down the new translations by comparison. But these are singable and beautiful.

I detect a lack of enthusiasm here. Where is the evidence of you hysterical joy?

Ok, I'm teasing but, truly, doesn't this thrill you just a week bit?

I see all kinds of problems though in the interpolation of the English text underneath a mostly unaltered Gregorian melody that was written for (and indeed custom fit to) a different Latin text. This is the greater concern that I have than the concern with the style of language. Because Gregorian composition was a craft that sought to perfectly wed a text with a melodic setting I doubt that there are more than a few possible situations where an English text can effectively be inserted into a Gregorian melody that was written for a Latin text.

That theory sounds very nice, and years ago I believed it. But it is simply not true, Adam.

I'm sure you are familiar with the hundreds of cases of re-employment of melodies in the Gregorian repertoire? (it is also called "adaptation")

Undeniable and 100% demonstrable proof of this (with too many examples to even begin to list here) can be found if one simply opens the Apel book and looks at the INDEX. Look up "adaptation" in the index, and read all the references, and look at the hundreds of examples he cites. In particular, look at adaptation in the Alleluia's, and pay particular attention to the earliest ones we have (circa 9th century). I think the Apel book is like $6.00 on Amazon.com

One of the advantages of traditional sacral English texts is that their structure is often closer to Latin than modern equivalents. That not only strengthens the link with the Latin roots of many of our sacred texts - it also makes it easier to set to chant.

Jeff O

Sorry, but I have to agree with Adam here. Yes, adaptation is all over the place. But it applied to the Latin. Not English. You can take an English song or hymn and change the text at whim. You can find something that works - because the language has the same sound, the same cadence, the same stresses or lack of stresses. But if you start plugging in another language, well, blech - or you have to work REALLY HARD to make it work. It's not a natural fit.

I'm not against English chant. But it better make sense and be beautiful and seem natural. I think there is a bit of a problem with making too much of a hoopla over the English stuff (Not talking specifically about the examples here), lest we forget the ideal.

Hi, Arlene. I was not speaking about the English: I was only speaking about his statements about Gregorian chant. And (historically speaking) adaptation has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Years ago, the thought was that adaptation of Gregorian melodies only happened "after the age of Gregorian composition had been lost." But this simply doesn't square with what we know about the earliest MSS. For myself, I love adaptation, and it's one of my favorite things about Gregorian chant, because it is so unifying. One is always hearing familiar phrases, tossed in here and there.

Again, I am not speaking here of the English. I really have not looked at those books long enough to make an educated statement about them. I never even knew they existed until Jeffrey Tucker posted them. I had some Burgess accomps, but that's it.

I can only speak to the broad Gregorian repertoire.

For the record, I absolutely love Fr. Columba K.'s modal adaptations, and at the moment am currently editing a video where we promote his work. It is truly lovely, and it makes sense to modern ears. I think it can lead them into being able to truly appreciate Gregorian chant, especially if they are scared of Mr. Latin.

That being said, I'm not sure I would label his work "Gregorian chant."

@Arlene: you mean you're not in favor of getting rid of all Latin chant? I'm shocked ! ;-) Now I'll have to re-watch SBU. :-p

It should be pointed out that Bruce Ford's work, which I understand to be carrying on the tradition of Burgess and Palmer, is a vast improvement over what Burgess and Palmer were trying to do. Ford understands the historic techniques of adapting existing melodies to new texts, the techniques employed by the composers of the Gregorian repertoire themselves and by the composers of modern neo-Gregorian chant (Signum Magnum, Cogitationes, etc.) Burgess and Palmer did not, and the result is far from ideal.

So I don't see why anyone would want to use this material, given the availability of Ford's work. Unless the attraction is the Tudor English (or faux-Tudor, as the case may be). Here it bears mentioning that there is no tradition in the Roman church of using English of this for a liturgical purpose. At best, there is arguably a tradition of devotional prayer using "thee" and "thou" in the manner of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, but not the "whoso dwelleth" stuff of the King James. It could be argued that the Roman Church should have gone in this direction during the vernacularization of the 60s, but that's not what happened. I can see this stuff being used in the Anglican use, or by Anglicans themselves, but it would sound totally out of place in the Roman Rite.

It is wonderful to see these commended for use even if some do not greet them with undiluted joy.

The nuns at Wantage, these editions, mention of the delightful Beale Thomas ... all occasions for joyful thanksgiving. As one whose childhood was spent with these editions I sincerely pray they will find a place among English-speaking Catholics. I have always been surprised at the Roman Catholic paralysis when putting these chants into English and singing them. (I recall the first time someone asked me why I was not Roman Catholic my immediate answer was that I could not become Roman Catholic and give up Gregorian chant. I thought this a very sensible answer at the time, and the tragedy of it has certainly grown more obvious over time.)

I would offer that Dr. Palmer's work and that of nuns at Wantage (and in the States, C.W. Douglas and the nuns of the Community of St. Mary, Eastern Province) are profoundly useful and as Jackson mentioned could be updated to the current vernacular. In the States the Episcopalian nuns at the Community of St. Mary, Eastern province did a great deal of this work in their "current English" diurnal of a few years ago. I have found that when the Chant is put into another language whether it is Czech, Hungarian, Croatian, or Japanese -- whether done well or catch-as-catch-can -- the Chant takes on new life and becomes its own revelation of the Eternal Word.

Jeffrey, regarding enthusiasm: I sent a link to the PG to my fellow cantor (he and I chant the Offertory in English from the AG and the Communion in Latin from Communio every Sunday for the three Masses that do not have a polyphonic choir) asking him to compare this Sunday's Offertory in the PG and AG. His response was "I want to sing these" (i.e. the chants of the PG) and his only question was "Why did we not consider these before now?". I of course replied "They just became available TODAY!!!" So, how's that for enthusiasm?

On the subject of adaptation, consider my experience of singing this past Sunday's Gradual Angelus suis. I'm currently rehearsing a Spanish Renaissance Requiem with my choir and spending a lot of time really studying the Requiem chants (by the way, if haven't already check these out). Now, when I sing the Gradual Requiem aeternam I feel the music is perfectly wedded to the text. And when I sing Angelis I feel the music is... perfectly wedded to the text. Then I realize it is almost exactly the same music (in the Solesmes editions). I can't tell which one came first, and which is the adaptation -- or if they are both adaptations of something else. I think this has to do with what Jeff O. is saying about the "myth" of chant being suited to the text. I think one can skillfully set English to mostly unaltered melodies.

Regarding Bruce Ford's work, I can't commend it enough-- what an invaluable contribution! However, I find the notation a real impediment, especially for my colleague who is not as familiar with the Gregorian idiom. That is to say, even when the chant is transcribed in 5-line stemless notehead notation, I can still usually imagine the neumes they represent, and interpret them accordingly (with attention to the text, of course). But when singing from the AG I not infrequently get the feeling that "something is not quite right," and when I consult either the Solesmes notation or one of the manuscripts, I often find something different in the exact spot where I felt something was a little off. Not having the Latin chant memorized, how did I know that? I'm guessing those spots are the artifacts of English "adaptation." I will have to see what happens when we experiment with the PG chants, but I imagine the square notes will enable us (with our particular skill sets -- other choirs would almost certainly have a different experience) to give a better overall rendering of the chant, even if the adaptations are perhaps not as skillful as Ford's.

Absolutely marvelous.

It would be of extreme value if there were any way to link all the the current English propers together for instant comparison and choice....

As Noel said, it would be a great value to have side by side comparisons. Once I had a little book that compared the variations between Norbertine, Carthusian, Cistercian and other traditions of the same Latin chant though not always the identical text. Were the idea of that little book turned into a website it would be a perfect model for the side-by-side comparisons of those done into English.

There was also a splendid edition of Tenebrae published by the Nuns of Wantage. Would that all of those editions could be gathered together and put online.

Whoopee! I don't have time to say anything else. More resources, more joy!

here's what happens when everybody does his own thing (instead of using the Latin)

:-)

Jeff-- How about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ovRwra4kzQ

as an example of what happens when everybody does their own thing? I love your example, actually--it grows beautifully and organically out of the tradition. Imagine if this was the norm in American parishes? What a phenomenal improvement that would be!

I should clarify that I like Jeffrey O's, not the one linked by Adam (which is so depressing!)

it's pretty well done, no? Somebody knows what they're doing!

Ok, I'll toss this out. Does Palmer's work not assume that Gregorian music is merely music, separable from its texts?

If chants were composed very much with the Latin in mind, then using them to set a completely different language destroys the original relationship between music and text and is merely a palimpsest.

Personally, I can grant this and still like the results. Palmer and Ford and many others illustrate how skillful the adaptation can be, and how successful. I also think the exercise of setting Gregorian melody to English (or Hungarian, or Korean) text is extremely useful because it throws into relief how the chant composers 'composed,' as it were.

Maybe it's heretical to say this, but these volumes instantly make me muse on their utility in defining and then constructing a highly informed, new vernacular chant that grows directly and organically from Latin chant -- that that the value of these volumes lies chiefly in their stimulating a basis for new chant composition.

That said, I would sing them in a heartbeat if it meant the local Mass would move closer to the ideal given to us by the saints.