I agree.

Perhaps Fr. Kelly ought to expand. Here is his fantastic resource center, for those who haven't had the pleasure:

http://sacredmusicproject.com/

A story: Last week I printed out the SMP Communion from 15th ordinary, The sparrow even finds a home. My schola (young people, mostly preteen) complained that it wasn't the one they knew (3rd Lent). Which they then sang from memory.

What Jeffrey has observed is indeed a glaring need. I am perplexed that no Catholics have done this.
There should be a modern-language version of the Palmer-Burgess Plainchant Gradual and ditto of the AUG.
I have been wondering for years why such did not exist.
Of course, our Latin-only colleagues would disapprove loudly.
As for the AUG and the Palmer-Burgess: it doesn't take a lot of ingenuity to gently modernize words or phrases that Some might consider too archaic.
Then, there is Bruce Ford's American Gradual - what's wrong with it?

It is a genuine pity that there are those who are in utter ignorance of their heritage. Moreso that they are put in positions of responsibility.
A lot of important people have a lot invested in that ignorance, too!
It has, I think, been deliberately institutionalized.

An enormous problem in a time of economic depression is that parishes will be budgeting for resources for the new translation. Because of the convenience of having Ordo, readings and music, I suspect missalette publishers are poised to gain the most during the next 3-5 years, as congregations digest the new translation until the point that it no longer seems new (I would call this the period of transition, which is much more than simply preparation and initial implementation). More prosperous parishes might consider new hardbound hymnals, but I suspect that kind of commitment might be beyond many parish's scope. However, after the period of transition has come and gone, and if economic conditions have started to ameliorate more significantly (a big if), then there is likely to be a hunger for better, more permanent resources that are more cost-effective over the long term (the problem with hard times is that capital to pay for the up-front costs of things that are more frugal in the long run is often lacking - a truth that the truly poor have long known, and sadly). It might be wise to prepare for that opportunity, rather than trying to run to get something makeshift in place within the next year - with regard to the latter, the budget decisions will be made mostly between now and the end of the year, and you need to have a product or a dependable publisher in hand. Budget season always rules.....

I agree wholeheartedly

Jeffrey was in my neck of the woods and had it not been for a kidney stone, I would have been there. I think the ignorance factor is there as my folks who came back from Jeffrey's talk were literally amazed that these things called propers even existed.

What Jeffrey did this past weekend is crucial to the question. Except as mj indicated, its the clerics who need it as well as the musicians. And most of the poor presbyters in my archdiocese are the 45-60 range. Perfectly formed in the 80's sacro-pop.

The simple choral gradual has been my savior and it has been a beginning place for my fledgling groups. But other resources would be welcome.

I agree we need an edition of the propers. Agreed. No question.

But at this particular moment when the progressive liturgists of yesteryear are blogging at their very snottiest, what I feel we need more than anything else is a brief rousing youthful Hallelujah Chorus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJHqriXhK7Y

Now back to business.

I wonder if stage .5 could be simply the recitation of the propers. Or even just printing them in the worship aid. The pip's who are aware of propers have usually become so through their use at daily Mass, or by reading Magnificat.

"The translation issue at this stage just isn't crucial. Anyone hung up on that should really think again about priorities."

I don't see how having a text to set isn't a big priority for a composer willing to set it.

Edit: On the thread I linked above, another poster pointed out that the enormous amount of work of putting something like this together is a huge barrier. I agree.

Absolutely agreed, Jeffrey, on this very basic need. I wouldn't say that such a resource would be beyond the needs of people on this forum either, though. If anyone here is a music director in a mainstream parish it doesn't matter if they have the Graduale memorized by heart, until the parish is brought along they are stuck. So such a simple resource, I would say, is among the greatest needs right now.

The simplicity idea, I would say, is being tackled by 4 projects right now that I know of: The St. Meinrad Gradual (Fr. Kelly, to also be a part of the Sacred Music Project), the St. Louis Gradual (Fr. Weber), the Mundelein Gradual (similar perhaps to St. Louis Gradual), and the Graduale Parvum (a Latin/English resource being produced by Laszlo Dobszay that sets Graduale antiphons to 15 different simple Gregorian melodic forumulas).

I think that SLG and MG (if it is not absorbed by SLG) will be focusing on Missale propers, although Weber will include Offertory antiphons of his own translation from the Graduale. He detailed his plan http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/#2082533049928667169">here. Here is an excerpt:

The Saint Louis Gradual for the new translation of the Roman Missal. This volume will contain all the chants for the Proper of the Mass. Introits and Communions will follow the official text of the new Roman Missal. The chants for the Liturgy of the Word will be taken from the U.S. version of the Lectionary for Mass as approved by the American Bishops. As you know, the Roman Missal will not contain the Offertories. These I am translating from the Graduale Romanum. Three levels of settings will be provided: more complex chants, simple settings using the traditional Gregorian psalm tones, and short, simple refrains.

I will be assisting Fr. Kelly on the next leg of his project (St. Meinrad Gradual) that will begin with the new antiphon translations of the Missal and that will continue with Graduale propers thereafter. These will be even simpler than the current resource (particularly with the Introits) in order to be more accessible to this group that Jeffrey mentions.

The idea being purused with the Graduale Parvum, though, is the most intriguing to me of late. The approach here is a step up from psalm tones in that it will utilize 15 melodic formulas found in the Office antiphons, yet will remain very simple. This approach solves the problem found in the sheer number of proper antiphons by setting them to familiar melodies, yet the monotony of pure psalm tone settings is also avoided. See Dobszay's essay in "The Genius of the Roman Rite" ed. Lang for more on this, including musical examples.

I have shared with some in this thread a discovery that I made this summer that is yet to be confirmed by studying the text, but here it goes: The issue of "approved" translations is still one that is sticking with me, despite the many good arguments I have heard against them. Liturgiam Authenticam goes on and on about the importance of the liturgical text and its proper translation. With all the attention that is given to the efficacy of the liturgical texts of the Missal, I can see the propers argument, being made to "Group #2" (c.f. above), as being severely weakened if they are shown as an "alius cantus aptus" variety, not actual liturgical texts that form an integral part of the liturgy. This is the strongest argument, I think, and I see very few in this group not conceding to this idea. If people are convinced of the efficacy of the liturgical texts and see the propers as an actual part of the Mass, then I think they will be compelled to sing the propers.

What I have been told by a most informed source is that the antiphons of the Roman Missal will correspond to the translations of the Revised Grail Psalter, in response to Liturgiam Authenticam article # 36.

...it is of the greatest importance that the translation of the Sacred Scriptures intended for liturgical use be characterized by a certain uniformity and stability, such that in every territory there should exist only one approved translation, which will be employed in all parts of the various liturgical books.

So the antiphon translations will match, as best as they can, the psalm translations of the RGP. This means that we can follow suit and extract needed texts from the RGP for those antiphons of the Graduale which are not contained in the Missal. This, I think, will cover most missing Graduale texts, although non-Psalmic and ecclesiastical texts will be missing. What this means is that we are able to achieve "official translation" of the Graduale propers by finding them in the forthcoming Revised Grail Psalter. The one problem to be solved, though, is when the RGP actually doesn't properly translate the antiphon (which goes to issues of the different translations of the psalms in the Latin liturgical books... e.g. Jerome's psalter, the Vulgate, the Neo Vulgate... c.f. Peter Jeffery "A Chant Scholar Reads Liturgiam Authenticam" for more info.)

I am happy to say that Fr. Kelly is very much in favor of going this route, where, once he finishes the Missal propers he can fill in the missing Graduale propers with the texts of the RGP. This will take some time! But it seems like a very good solution for the current needs of the Church.

I can imagine that some will not be favorable of this idea, especially because of the copyright status of the RGP, but it seems that this is very much in line with the mind of the Church and I really believe that it is the right course of action to pursue.

Also, re: RGP – from the GIA website:

"When the Vatican sent its recognitio for the Revised Grail Psalms to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, there were also 341 alterations to the text. The bishops are currently in dialogue with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments seeking clarification on the changes. As of the posting of this notice, GIA has not received the final text. Once we do, it will take a brief time to incorporate the agreed-upon changes and submit the final version to the Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship in Washington, DC, for approval. At that point, it will be immediately available to all via digital means and, soon thereafter, in printed form. (For information on licensing the Revised Grail Psalms for print and use, go to licensing.) For more information on the Revised Grail Psalms visit www.conceptionabbey.org"

Just an update on the status of the RGP. As a sidenote, I would like to hypothesize that these 341 changes to the RGP were made to help them correspond to the antiphons of the Missal. The Grey Book of antiphons sent by ICEL to the Vatican was completely rewritten, and I have verified this first hand. I think that the RGP will play a very big role in our work as we move forward. This is why it is so necessary for it to be able to be shared freely. Go get 'em Tucker!

Adam, I understand your point about texts, and I'm not really willing to argue against it. It seems like a fine idea. But two things: 1) alius cantus aptus is not going anywhere and that means that there need not be any approved translation for sung propers, and 2) there is no official translation for Graduale propers in any case. Truly, this just isn't a big deal. the danger of making a big deal is that 1) you will be acting with far far far more scrupulosity than the the Church or any authority at ICEL or the USCCB, and 2) you sweep away the whole body of English chant current in use.

Again, Adam, I am not arguing against your own choice of texts. I'm only saying that to make a big deal out of this right now is a massive distraction.

Let's not forget, please, please, the nature of the problem and solution. The problem is that since 1965 or so, the Introit for the entire Church years has been along the lines of All Are Welcome Here, So Sing to the Mountains and Sea.

Translations issues pale, pale, by comparison to this big issue.

"the sung Propers are different from the said Propers"

why is this? can someone explain the reasoning to me?

BFW is complete...it is the basic propers the church put forward for parish churches, any church. The entire church year, ready to be sung, good music, great lyrics (!) and what should be the basis of every parish music program.

It's NOT simple chant. It is chant that should be mastered on the way to singing the GR.

It's not more widely used for one simple reason. The publishers who have seized control of the church make more money by selling bigger books. Propers change each week...lots of extra newsprint...it was, inadvertently, the Vatican's Stimulus Package that worked!

It's also an ego thing. No one wants be seen riding a bike with training wheels, so there is this bias against BFW and GS...it makes much more sense to master them and move on, but that's a rarity.

To do BFW you have to convince the pastor that the pulp missal should be abandoned...very, very difficult to do.

What is needed more than anything else?


A Propers FAQ page!
It's maddening to sort through Forum posts and half-finished conversations and blog posts that reference other blog posts in order to get answers to things like "Why are there two sets of propers?" or "Is there an official translation of the Propers?" or "How are the propers supposed to be sung?" or "How do I know which Psalm to use with this antiphon?" or "What are my options for singing the propers?" or "Will the new ICEL translations include new proper texts, too?" or "If I'm a composer and want to set Propers, what texts should/could I use?" or "I'm Anglican... Can I use the Propers?" or any of the other questions that seem to come up over and over...

To do BFW you have to convince the pastor that the pulp missal should be abandoned...very, very difficult to do.

FNJ, did we discuss the "merits" of overhead projection versus pulp hymnal/missal at Coll.? I ask that as I've met with the Audio/Video contractor recently and outlined various schema for the new church/building due to be consecrated next summer. You ain'ta whistlin' "Dixie" with your statement above; it is exasperating to articulate strategies regarding worship aides in huge parishes with multiple language Masses, many different musical groups and directors under one's administration, and all such demands, and then try to coherently plan options for the new building and our other three parishes with the pastor. Such decisions are not easy for a pastor to negotiate, hence the fall-back inclination.

Just a side note about BFW. One does not need to abandon hymnals or annual music issues to use this resource. The publisher offers a very generous reprint permission for the assembly. I get by with 5 copies by alternating verses between two pairs of cantors. At this point, the congregation sings mostly from memory, although for solemnities and other special events I still have to prepare a special sheet. I'm fortunate to have a "choir" at all 5 of our Masses (although at 3 of them that "choir" is another cantor and I) to sing the Offertory and Communion from the GR or in polyphony. Although it is more than "complete" (containing the entire SG as well as supplemental items), I'm not sure i could imagine doing a full Mass from BFW every week for eternity.

One would assume the Bishop's meeting might include Mass, if so that is the place to sing the propers and in doing so, make the presentation.

This would have more effect than storming the NPM convention.

If the Bishops understand, then young priests would not be shot down as quickly by their pastors.

DougS, I mean of course that the translation isn't the critical thing. And yes, I'm working on a plan, with others who are doing the same.

Let's think about group 2 a little more. Are psalm tones truly the best idea?

Maybe this is a mischaracterization, but it seems to me that they are extremely averse to chant, even psalm tones. You might say, then, that musical "style" is a more important question than the introduction of propers. Group 2 might be amenable to propers if they didn't disrupt the parish's musical "identity." Decisions about the structure of Mass are determined more by the priest than by PIP, whereas everyone has an opinion about style. Get the priest on board with propers, and the people will go with it. They certainly do about all manner of UNorthodox things like lay preaching and whatever else you find at Group 2 parishes.

Assuming that group 2 would be amenable to propers is problematic. As someone else pointed out to me, few churches want to be the "weird" one, which is almost inevitably how the one using propers would be viewed by others--chant or not. On the other hand, sometimes it is the group 2 parishes who would do anything to be "different" or "cutting edge." Propers can certainly help them achieve that--like how "different" kids in high school read Hermann Hesse instead of Jane Austen.

If group 2 is indeed open to propers, it seems like writing memorable antiphons in a familiar non-chant idiom would be a good way to reach out to them, but no one seems interested in producing such a thing. This is in part due to the fact that chant and propers are frequently presented as a teleological double helix. This is not good, because presenting the problem as a chant problem--EVEN IN PART--rather than a Mass problem will almost undoubtedly alienate group 2. Decoupling the double helix of propers/chant allows for stylistic variety while reintroducing integrity to the texts of the Mass. The question of chant can be avoided altogether: a good thing from time to time, because groups like 2 simply will not have it.

Would we really snub our noses at a parish that sings tonal propers that are in 4/4 or 3/4 time, have nice arch-like and singable melodies, and more or less fit the character of the texts? I suppose some would, but this would be A HUGE leap for group 2 and for the celebration of Mass.

Don't get me wrong; I love Francis's proposal, as well as the other ideas posted above, but let's get real. Do we really see group 2 jumping on it? Maybe they wouldn't jump on my proposal either, but I am willing to bet that they would accept "pretty" music more readily than anything that resembles chant.

I would love to see a collection of Proper texts in a contemporary-music style. I continue to think that concerns over musical style are secondary to singing the correct texts.
I know the hymn-settings exist already- but I'd like to see one in a style at least familiar to the majority of RC parishes in the US.
I've thought about working on this myself and was (you guessed it) stymied by my ability to track down exactly what texts I ought to be setting.

Doug S, I don't see group 2 as being automatically averse to chant. Many average faithful like it. The problem of musicians not liking it is often because they are unfamiliar with how to read the notation, etc. Psalm tones work here because they would make learning new music, in this case chant, mor accessible. I have worked as MD in three parishes and cantored reguarly in another ten at least and I'm speaking just from observation.

Adam, the problem with contemporary settings is at least two-fold, as I see it. 1) By the time a choir has learned the rep, it is no longer contemporary and we find ourselves in the same dated music situation (albeit with presumably better texts) where generations are divided by style. 2) This approach does not lead us to the stated reforms of the Council as reflected in the GIRM. Psalm tones lead to singing the full Greg. chants.

This is not a glamorous idea, or an exeptionally artistic one. It is, IMO, the most complete idea regarding how to ease chant AND propers into the average parish.

It is a realistic Starting Point, and I'm sure it will be presented as such. The people have a right to these prayers, even I they don't sing them. I imagine most directors would use these alongside at least some hymns, at least in the beginning. Still better than the current situation.

MA: Those are valid concerns, but I still think it would be better than theologically ambiguous texts set to John Denver chord progressions.

Yes, at least for the next 20-30 years... which is why the Church sets up chant, flowering from singly sacred sources and composed as it was over several centuries, to be our best timeless option this side the temporal veil.

As to texts, you are right.

Yes, all other things being equal, chant is still promoted as the ideal, having a primacy or pride of place.
So, Jeffrey's idea points to this, and I think CMAA should go for it, as no other organization has.

Work on the contemporary idea if you like, to be sure. Msgr. is correct, but as we know his personal preference also coincides with the Church's.

I wish we could be more careful with our use of the word "ideal." After a brief search, I did not find it in any of the most frequently cited documents concerning sacred music, save with respect to "the ideals" set forth in another document. An ideal by its very nature is absolute, and therefore doesn't "admit variety." How can it be both ways?

Consider this: MS #50 "Other musical settings, written for one or more voices, be they taken from the traditional heritage or from new works, should be held in honor, encouraged and used as the occasion demands." Held in honor! Should be used!

and this: SC # 113 "But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30." By no means excluded!

For me, it is an impossible mental game to reconcile these statements with the notion of a liturgical "ideal," which--and I can't stress this enough--from Plato to Kant to Collingwood has meant a thing-in-itself.

Maybe I'm making too much over nothing. Reading too much into things, as we scholars notoriously do. "Ideal" is just a word, right? It's not really an absolute, like I'm saying it is, right? We're just talking on the internet--no big deal, right? Just buds in the locker room. Except I personally don't want to lose sight of the fact that Jesus was God and man in a single being born into human history, not an ideal. We are Catholics, not Kantians. Reading what some have to say about chant makes me question that from time to time.

Edit: removed final thought I rescind on further reflection.

I think you might be going overboard here, Doug. I don't think anyone is saying chant-as-such is an ideal in the Kantian sense. Of course it's incarnational. It breathes, for heaven's sake. The ideal is not actually chant, but the thoroughgoing use of the chant.

I'd go so far as to say the exclusive use of chant propers is an asymptotic ideal, inasmuch as there have always been efforts to add other things to the Mass. Some have been completely incorporated, for example the Gloria, and a certain kind of polyphony. Some have flourished only to be later discouraged, like the sequence craze, the opera craze, the folk craze (which I contend was started by Ralph Vaughan Williams), etc.