Just got done with a Mass using MoC. I thought a lot about it and have this.

The Mass itself is not unworthy of the sacrifice. It's overused to be sure, but it's not a "Broadway" Mass really. It does have some problems though.

1. Is there a Kyrie (I never hear it)?
2. The Gloria is dreadful as a musical setting of the hymn
3. The Sanctus is not too bad
4. The Memorial Acclamation and Amen are way overdone for the relative importance of that part of the liturgy (as most settings tend to be).
5. The Agnus has problems with text

All in all, I think this setting could be repaired. It does, however, need to be retired for a while. There are many good settings that deserve to be sung in the U.S.

The Mass of Creation, as originally published, was much more elaborate than the parts that have become liturgical standards. A few years ago, many priests in our diocese became enamoured of singing the canon setting (which has to be accompanied in violation of most everything). I assume there had been a workshop at the priests' retreat. Fortunately, the fad passed. One pastor I worked for regularly reminded me that he could sing this. Every time he did, I just changed the subject. However, some still want a cue and sing an elaborate high-drama buildup to that great big Amen.

mjballou, your comment caused me to rehearse the whole thing in my head again, all the way through to the sixth triple-forte amen! have you ever noticed how everyone feels oddly silly after that final amen?

"A few years ago, many priests in our diocese became enamoured of singing the canon setting ... One pastor I worked for regularly reminded me that he could sing this."
I read something about the MoC and its setting of the EP long ago where the definition of a "Musical Priest" was a take-off on the definition of "Gentleman" as a man who of course knows HOW to play billiards, but would never do such a thing.
I laughed myself silly.
I suppose Fr Keyes, Fr Haynes and any number of other "musical priests," COULD sing the MoC canon.
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

"...One pastor I worked for regularly reminded me that he could sing this."

Back in my 1990's NPM days I occasionally accompanied a guest priest who wanted to sing the canon of the McMass. Now when he asks me, I tell him (truthfully) that I can't find my copy of the accompaniment.

And here is my comment:

http://smcollinsus.blogspot.com/

Yes, and there's also a claim that the comment is a fake. Who can keep up with such things? Who would want to?

I advanced the theory that it wasn't Haugen. Although it doesn't matter if Haugen or some joker claiming to be him thinks Catholics should ordain women, it's still wrong.

Despite my opposition to the opposition to the Pope's Masses and my strategy of just remaining silent on it, I want to commend Aristotle for an excellent defense of sacred music on that WaPo blog. It was intelligent, principled, and very civil. Well done.

Thanks Jeff... paging through it now.

[chant-geek]Looking at the Responsorial Psalm on page 40 of the PDF, I find it easier to sing the D# as D-natural, turning the major key into an echo of Tone 7.[/chant-geek]

Maybe this is for Vespers? Or maybe a translation of the Gradual? In either case, it would be allowed (I think)

I did not offer any comments concerning the music during the Mass while my family watched. However, my youngest children did not refrain from making comments.

One said, "The music is terrible".

Another said of the music during the offertory, "heh! that sounds just like the star wars music at the end of episode 6 with all the ewoks (teddy bear aliens).

My only comment is that the music speaks for itself.

PS. It seems the intial list that was posted here was somewhat accurate.

The blogs have filled with thousands of outraged comments. I really do think this could be the end times for the effort to bury truly sacred music.

What further need have we of witnesses?

I have to wonder if the Holy Father perhaps thought, before he came, that the complaints about the sad state of affairs in Catholic music in America were an exaggeration. I'm sorry that he had to find out for himself in this manner.

Someone at another blog commented that the Holy Father sat during the Communion rite, head cast down. I don't want to read anything into it, but I have to wonder out loud if he was not experiencing, first-hand, the absolutely soul-crushing desolation caused by being exposed to such awful music in the midst of the Divine Liturgy. When I think that this is what so many Catholics are forced to live with on a weekly basis, I can't say I'm surprised that the Church is in crisis.

I must say that the gloomy predictions of Jeff and others were spot on. That was horrendous. It's not related to music, but they DID make the sanctuary fantastic for a Mass. Outside of that, there were no positives. REALLY, could they not have the "cantor" shut up for the Pater? And I'm tempted to say shame to the Holy Father for not chanting more of the Mass (spoken preface? SPOKEN PREFACE??!) but I'm sure it wasn't his choice.

I will say the Mass of Creation sounded spectacular, in my opinion. If that were the ONE time in my life I've heard it, I would be impressed. Unfortunately, I've heard it nearly every Sunday since it came out, so it's still done to death. Let it die in peace.

The unfortunate thing, as we all know, is that even if the other 2 Masses were to go wonderfully, and we know Vespers was heavenly, people will still focus on the worst Mass as the example of American music. I have never been more ashamed of our otherwise great country than watching that Mass.

I attended the Mass in DC today. Leaving aside any questions about the suitability of much of the music, what I found to be most disappointing and incomprehensible were the attempts to include "traditional" music-- and by that I mean the attempts to include chant during the Mass.
I usually enjoy the music of Richard Proulx, but this setting of Gloria VIII was surely not his best effort. The first two phrases of the Gloria just sound silly as an antiphon. Was it really necessary to mangle this piece of plainsong into a vernacular, responsorial Gloria? What would have been so terrible if it had just been sung as it was originally written?
A similar case is the Veni Creator that was sung during the offertory. What was the point of adding drums and pan flutes? If this was done in the name of multiculturalism then tell me, please, what ethnic group sings this chant this way? In both this case and the case of the Gloria there seemed to be some strange, almost obsessive desire to not allow the chant to stand alone; something clearly had to be done to it to make it more relevant to all of us.
At communion the Ubi Caritas antiphon was sung once without any verses. This was the only unaltered chant sung during the Mass (discounting maybe the well known Our Father adapted chant) and it lasted all of about 10 seconds. We then got 20 minutes of Lucien Deiss, Bob Hurd, blues, and latin pop music. I had to ask, what was the reason that the verses of Ubi Caritas were omitted? Was all this other music that followed better or more meaningful? Couldn't we have done without "Bienaventurados" (God knows there had certainly been a lot Spanish heard in the Mass by this point) so that this venerated piece of chant could have been sung in its entirety and not seem like an afterthought?
I really perceived an attempt, whether intentional or not, to both push every piece of chant in the program out of the way for everything else, and/or disfigure it by trying to make it more hip or "participatory." If there had been one piece of authentic Gregorian chant sung in its entirety during Mass (I'm not including the Tu es petrus sung before Mass), at least then there would have been something positive that we could point to. I'm sorry that this doesn't seem to be the case. It really makes one wonder about the aesthetic sensibilities and liturgical formation of those responsible for the music today.

This was the logical outcome of everything that the American Catholic music publishing juggernaut, hand in hand with a certain other Catholic musicians' organization, has been aggressively promoting for the past 20 years; yesterday was their proudest moment.

Maybe the good that comes out of this is that it is generating discussion of Catholic music in circles where it has never been discussed before.

My prayers are with the musicians in New York, who cannot be unaware of the uproar that yesterday's experience is generating. The NY lineup, although it does contain some questionable thing, promises sacred music of a considerably higher level than the DC Mass, and now many of the musicians must know they will be heading into it under the watchful eyes of thousands of infuriated and disappointed people. I am hoping and praying that New York will be excellent so that it can serve as a worthy Exhibit B to offset Washington's Exhibit A.

"but my fear is that it will have the flavor of a performance"

My suggestion is to not second-guess the sincerity of the singers or instrumentalists. Just because something is polished doesn't mean it is insincere. Accept it at face value as an offering to the glory of Almighty God.

What Post-Communion appropriate Latin chant would you recommend as possible for all 46000 Papal Mass attendees to sing?

I have been pondering the GIRM # 88 (Post-Communion) options. The preferred option is silence, but there are three more options. Unfortunately different translations give different option orders and the official Latin document is absent from the Vatican website. The translation consensus is that "everyone sings" (nothing about soloist or choir) whatever it is. Supporting reference:
www.vatican.va
English
Roman Curia
Congregations
Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Missale Romanum

or for the time-challenged:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_missale-romanum_index_en.html

English 88. When the distribution of Communion is finished, as circumstances suggest, the priest and faithful spend some time praying privately. If desired, a psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the entire congregation.

French 88. Lorsque la distribution de la communion est acheeve, le pretre et les fideles, si cela est opportun, prient en silence pendant un certain temps. Si on le decide ainsi, toute l'assemblee pourra aussi executer une hymne, un psaume, ou un autre chant de louange.

Italian 88. Terminata la distribuzione della Comunione, il sacerdote e i fedeli, secondo l'opportunita, pregano per un po' di tempoin silenzio. Tutta l'assemblea puo anche cantare un salmo, un altro cantico di lode o un inno.

Spanish 88. Terminada la distribucion de la Comunion, si resulta oportuno, el sacerdote y los fieles oran en silencio por algun intervalo de tiempo. Si se quiere, la asamblea entera tambien puede cantar un salmo u otro canto de alabanza o un himno.

I believe what David was getting at is that the execution of liturgical music brings with it a very fine line between 'look at me' and 'look at God'. I tend toward the term 'transparency' of one's soul or an individual 'performer'. I even tend to avoid ever using the words 'performance' or 'performer' in the context of a liturgical celebration. I prefer the expressions of 'latria, dulia or hyperdulia' or the attitude of adoration. These are the finer points of musical attitude that are even difficult for professional "liturgical" musicians to exhibit without crossing boundaries into the other realm. Another more gross way to express it may be 'as worked from the flesh' as opposed to 'as yielded from the spirit'.

A totally different way to draw this comparison is through the visual arts. It is a subtle distinction, but one that should be carefully examined and is often overlooked. To illustrate, look at the works of Michaelangelo and then look at the works of the Eastern iconographers. They are both beautiful, both full of distinction and dignity, and both belong to the class of high art.

However, the most obvious difference is the "transparency" with which the theology is displayed, (or as the school of iconography defines it, is "written.") That manner of 'writing' an icon (an artwork, or a musical composition, or the performance of one, for that matter) is intimately bound up in the delivery of the theology and becomes embedded in the execution of its very subject.

In the works of Michaelangelo, we tend to see more 'earthiness, humanity and flesh'. In the works of iconographers, this is hardly apparent. This is because the individual artist intends to become transparent. Especially in dimension. The works of iconography are mostly two-dimensional and the dimension of space and time becomes 'transparent'. This takes our eyes away from the 'content and substance of the flesh' (the artist) in a sense, and the autography of the individual artist is almost entirely dissolved into the presentation of the theological subject matter (God).

As Mary expressed it, 'magnificat anima mea Dominum.' As John the Baptist expressed it, 'illum oportet crescere me autem minui'.

That helps enormously!