I consider Gregorian Chant (and other forms of chant, generally) to be an excellent sign/symbol/metaphor for the incarnation: fully human and fully divine. (I touched on this a bit in my suggestion that Ascension Sunday would be a good opportunity to introduce a bit of chant if you aren't already doing it).

[On my blog] I have described the quality of chant as "earthy heavenliness." There is nothing quite so sublime as the sound of chant echoing through a resonant cathedral, and yet the music is fully human and natural- coming from the mouth, throat, mind, and soul of a human without aid of any humanly-created thing (this is partly why I'm against any accomp. to chant). It is imminently human- closer to the sacred ground and dirt floors that lovers of folk music associate with ethnic styles. Any performance of it will lay bare even the smallest of vocal defect or attempt at artifice, revealing the flawed humanity of the singer and spurring him or her on in the virtuous pursuit of musical perfection. The courage to sing Gregorian Chant, as naked as it is, brings the singer back to Eden, when we were not ashamed of the forms our bodies took, and did not feel the need to hide behind instruments of our own creation.

When Chant is sung correctly (without accompaniment) our music is unchained from the pernicious (yes, I said it!) yoke of tempered tuning, and the actual harmonic relationships created by God are finally heard, untampered by human ingenuity. In this way, it ACTUALLY IS closer to the "Music of the Spheres." (This is the bigger reason I am against accompaniment to chant).

As I have said in a number of comments on other blogs, posts on my own blog, and (I think) a few threads here at this forum- I love contemporary music, and folk music, and I have no issue with them at Mass (within limits). I have no problems with guitars and drums and David Haas. But there is nothing like Chant. The fathers of Vatican II were right to call for its restoration, and (even when I disagree with their theology and intolerance of modernity) I find that the Reform2 crowd embodies the "Spirit of Vatican II" more than any "progressive liturgist" ever could, when they work tirelessly (and often for free) to restore Chant to its Proper place in the Mass (and its Ordinary place, too).

No money this year.

And I am planning to start the Masters in Liturgical Music summer program at St. Joe's in Indiana next summer, which means I'll probably be missing out for the next few years. (I will, however, have the chance to study with Columba Kelley while there, so that will be a consolation).

If something happens that I don't start that program (not passing my entrance exams, which is likely considering my keyboard skills), I'll attend the colloq. instead.

Perhaps we can meet some otherwhere. I'm in TX, so if you're ever on your way to the Watershed people...

(And by the way... if everyone can pray that over the next year I'll have the discipline to practice/study for my entrance exams, that would be great... I graduated from music school just 6 years ago and its amazing how much I've forgotten).

Church musicians might be interested in doing this in summer, chant class.

I give out this note to parish people (usually inserted at the end of the leaflet for the Mass and in church bulletin),

- As our Holy Church and our Pope wish that Gregorian chants are used more widely and sung by more Catholics in the Holy liturgy, the chant classes are open to everyone who is interested in learning Gregorian chants. The classes are held on Tuesdays at the church of Resurrection chapel at 7:30. [my email address] for more info. -

with a couple of quotes like this,
"The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given first place in liturgical services." (Section 116, the Second Vatican Council, in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)


I also love this quote by our Holy Father,
“…let us especially entrust all lovers of sacred music to her motherly protection, so that always enlivened by genuine faith and sincere love of the Church, they may make their precious contribution to liturgical prayer and effectively contribute to the proclamation of the Gospel..” Sistine Chapel, 2006

May I ask what exactly the Romantic view is?

Is this one?

"An authentic renewal of sacred music can only happen in the wake of the great tradition of the past, of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony" Pope Benedict XVI, Sistine Chapel, 2006

So Charles, in your opinion why chant is good liturgical music?

Chant is part of the liturgical package. Not the most important part by any means. Christ, present on the altar, is the most important part. The core of my conviction is acceptance of the doctrines and the valid apostolic succession of the Church. It isn't music. Music is part of the means to an end, not the end itself.

Amen, mjballou, Amen!

Perhaps Gregorian chant is not the *only* music with the flexibility, subtlety, artistry, and submissive intent to enhance and convey the scriptural and liturgical words it accompanies. But I'd be hard pressed to name another kind of music that does this so well.

Do you think you got the impression people say chant is 'everything', because of the nature of the forum? I've been in this forum for about 2 years, but I never heard anyone say that. As far as I know, people here who love chant has faith that knows chant is not everything. But people like me is sad to see that many Catholics in parishes don't even hear chant in Masses at all.

Chant is foreground, not background. The texts sung to Gregorian chant are *liturgical* texts--they are integral to the Mass.

In essence, if you have a valid consecration of the elements, you have a mass. All the rest adds something to the mass, but is not essential to the same degree.

My parish has a Traditional Mass, a Spanish Mass, A Byzantine Divine Liturgy, and 5 NO masses each weekend. The numbers are pretty stable at each type of liturgy. The people who are interested in a particular liturgy attend, and particular liturgies are not attracting people from any of the other liturgies. The only growth is from people who are new to the city.

I am glad we have chant, vestments, etc. They add to the mass, and I have never advocated removing any of them. But I think one valid criticism of the "Traditional Mass" crowd, is that they are often too attached to externals. It's a matter of perspective, I suppose. While all the "goodies" are important and nice to have, scripture mentions nothing of chant, scholas, cantors, communion antiphons, vestments, polyphony, or Latin in that original upper room. Those are all creations of Europe in or near the Middle Ages. Again, perspective is a good thing to have. The parts of the mass from the upper room are critical and essential, the rest is not. It's all beautiful, inspiring, and such, but not essential.

Charles, unfortunately we were not in that original Upper room. Instead we have Church through which God continually teaches and pulls us together with Her tradition. And chant is one of them. Personally God's presence becomes more real to me through chant, the Church's own music. Because it teaches you humility, the humility to accept the teachings of the Church instead of my own, and that is necessay to meet God at the Eucharist. It also sounds logical to me that since the sacrament is given through Church, we have Church's own music in Mass.
The Church's teachings and traditions actually enhance our understanding of the Scripture, including the upperroom, which is essential to our faith. She helps us to receive graces more fully from the sacraments and understand His teachings.

to clarify, I don't mean that chant is more important than the sacraments. What I mean is that for me personally chant was the road to the faith and the core of the ritual that keeps me constantly engaged and in a state of awe. it is my way of prayer and my means of transport to the sacraments.

JT, I think most of us understood what you meant, but thank you for clarifying.

"Untampered by human ingenuity"
By which I mean, human created instruments and (especially!) tempered tuning, as opposed to the instruments and harmonic relationships created by God.
(On that note- the only time I have ever felt worshipful when singing "Praise and Worship" music was when singing it with people from the Church of Christ tradition- who sing accapella. It's amazing what removing instruments and adding four-part harmony and counterpoint can do for songs like "Here I Am to Worship" and "Hide Me Away, O Lord.")
(And also- I can't believe there isn't more discussion about the tuning issue around here...)

Jeffrey- I understand where you're coming from. For me it's not just chant and polyphony, it's many styles of music- but still: "the road to the faith and the core of the ritual that keeps me constantly engaged and in a state of awe. it is my way of prayer and my means of transport to the sacraments."
Yes!

I think my point was that there was no Tridentine Mass celebrated in the upper room. What was celebrated is the core of our faith, but it did not involve Latin, Gregorian chant, or gothic vestments. All those are add-ons since the original event. Are they important? Yes, but not to the same degree.

I am aware of what Pope Benedict says about the two forms of the Roman Rite. I think he is stretching that a bit. Perhaps in its ideal state, the NO is close enough to be called another form. But as practiced, the connection is not always evident.

Re: Tuning

All music of every tradition naturally follows certain physical laws that govern which frequencies become assigned as notes which get sung. These physical laws create the over tone series, which is the basis for musical scales and the relative "size" of intervals like a major third or a perfect fourth. These rules govern both melodic (horizontal) movement and harmonic (vertical) relationships.

The trouble is that, when starting from any given tonic note and building a full natural scale above it, the distance between, for example, Do(1) and Re(2) is not exactly the same as the distance between Re(2) and Mi(3) or Sol(5) and La(6). This isn't a problem when singing accapella music, and wasn't even thought of as an issue for thousands of years.
But, with the introduction of keyboard instruments, it's a huge problem. You need the relationships to stay constant from one half step to the next half step, but they simply don't when using the perfect math of the overtone series. The answer was fought over and debated among musicians, theorists, and composers for quite some time. There were several competing tuning systems in use during the time of Bach. What won out was the system we use today: tempered tuning. Some of the half steps have been smashed, others stretch, so that each one is the exact same distance from the one above and below it. The end result is that thirds, fourths, fifths, and sixths on a piano or organ keyboard (or guitar frets, or almost any contemporary instruments with discreet pitches) are all the wrong the size. They simply don't sound right. Most people wouldn't know this, but it still affects the way we hear the music and perceive it. (Try playing a Barbershop Quartet on a piano... it just won't friggin' sound right no matter what you do).

Tempered Tuning was an amazing achievement of human ingenuity, and without it we probably wouldn't have Bach we certainly wouldn't have Mozart or Beethoven. But the fact remains that it tampers with the perfect harmonic and melodic relationships created by God.

Tempered Tuning is modern music's dirty little secret, and most musicians -even conservatory trained musicians- don't have any idea about it. For the most part, it isn't discussed or talked about in music schools because... well- what are you going to do it about it? Abandon the piano?

The good thing, though, is that as soon as singers (and string players) with decent ears are left to their own devices, they will automatically revert to natural tuning.

Again- this is why I'm so against accompaniment to chant. It isn't just that isn't idiomatic. As soon as you play an organ with the chant, the chanter is actually singing the wrong notes. Especially in a modern parish where people think chant is boring- this is intensely problematic because people cannot make an accurate judgement about the quality, beauty, or usefulness of music if they have never actually heard it. The power of natural tuning should not be underestimated- hearing a chant or piece of polyphony without tempered tuning after having done it with instruments almost feels like your ears have popped like on an airplane. If there is any spiritual power in the particulars of Gregorian chant, natural tuning is certainly a part of it.

For more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_temperament
http://www.amazon.com/Temperament-Solved-Musics-Greatest-Riddle/dp/0375403558


This isn't romance or metaphysics, it's just basic math.

Michael, I think we agree, essentially. I am not saying we should ban anything, but keep in mind that some things are of a higher order and significance than others. I address that to the "chant is everything," crowd. Chant isn't everything, it is one thing among many things, some being more important than chant. As for those trappings of medieval royalty, they don't have quite the same effect in polyester, do they?

As long as they think music is meant to "lift them up"

Isn't that the point of the whole Mass? Spiritual zoloft or red bull, whichever you need...?

The other thread about Lifeteen reminded me that instead of a homily one week we were treated to the impressions of several teens who had just come back from retreat.

The "main thing" about the four days?

The most articulate one elucidated: "made great new friends, really great music in the evenings... "oh, and so much fun, even the Mass was fun!"

Actual quotes.

Save the Liturgy, Save the World!

Doug-

Oh for goodness sakes.
I've tried to make it pretty clear that I'm no "body bad, spirit good" purist, or that I think we need to have only just intonation. I'm one of the "it's okay to have guitars, piano, and drums at Mass" people...

And I know it was a gloss on history- This is a conversation, not a classroom.

I'm only saying:
-Tempered tuning ruins chant and Renaissance polyphony. The very essence of the music is the notes being sung, and if you use the wrong tuning system, you're singing the wrong notes.
-If you believe that God is the creator of all things (visible and invisible) and is the author of the natural laws of math and physics, then it follows that just intonation is created by God, whereas tempered tuning is created by human beings. That doesn't mean tempered tuning is bad (we celebrate Mass inside a building designed by a human, instead of a cave or a beach), but it does mean (to me, at least) that there is something special about just intonation and it's edifying effects on faith.

"So my objection to Lifeteen is not so much that it's bad for kids, as that it's not good enough."

Well said.