amazing!

If anyone wants to use this, feel free, and let me know how it goes.

It strikes me that these would be really appropriate for the Ordinary Form in particular

I agree, and I hate to be a killjoy, but writing one's own plainsong Propers for the EF High Mass is illicit, and for good reason: to preserve unity within the rite. I realize that you are sort of following the model of the Chants abregés, which had a particular imprimatur for its publication and use. The only allowed options at the EF are the chants in the book, Psalm tones, recto tono, or polyphony:

21. c) But if for some reason a choir cannot sing one or another liturgical text according to the music printed in the liturgical books, the only permissible substitution is this: that it be sung either recto tono, i.e., on a straight tone, or set to one of the psalm tones. Organ accompaniment may be used. Typical reasons for permitting such a change are an insufficient number of singers, or their lack of musical training, or even, at times, the length of a particular rite or chant.

(Source: De Musica Sacra (1958)

You can of course use these pieces as votive music at an EF Low Mass.

So are you saying the Chant Abreges is not allowed now either? What about the Rossini propers, which are not properly psalm tones?

I see what you are saying and I am wondering if the 1958 law still holds weight today. A letter to the Ecclesia Dei Commission would probably be necessary to answer the question properly.

Hrm.

So are you saying the Chant Abreges is not allowed now either?

I mentioned the Abregé in my first comment. Did you read it?

1) If there are EF scholas using them, then custom would pertain to them in those scholas, whether illicit or not.

2) They claim to be "ancient Psalmodic melodies" and they quote the Sacred Congregation of Rites protocol (no. 3697) allowing Psalm tones which was later incorporated into De Musica Sacra. Thus they at least claim to be in compliance. (Incidentally, they include a disclaimer saying that they can't be used wherever the choir is capable of singing the full Gregorian melody.) Rossini also makes the same claim.

I wasn't talking about capability, but about disclaimers on sheet music.

Modern plainsong does not qualify as licit modern sacred music, according to De Musica Sacra:

7. Modern sacred music is likewise sung in many voice-parts, but at times with instrumental accompaniment. Its composition is of more recent date, and in a more advanced style, developed from the previous centuries. When this music is composed specifically for liturgical use it must be animated by a spirit of devotion, and piety; only on this condition can it be admitted as suitable accompaniment for these services.

Still, I doubt the Church intends to hold the proscription against mitigated chant settings any more.

I don't see why not. Many statements from Church authorities and officials over the past three years have indicated consistently that the rules of the EF continue to bind at the EF, even notwithstanding Canons.

De Musica Sacra indicates therein certain parts that the local Ordinary can dispense from. Chant melodies is not one of those parts. I doubt the Vatican ever intended for each diocese to have its own Graduale in Latin. Rossini and the publishers of the Chants Abregés followed the rule, or at least respected its authority, and both are still considered worthy of use today.

I would of course welcome the Ecclesia Dei Commission's decision on the matter, and I heartily suggest ossian 1898 to obtain their approval before publishing.

Maureen, the Graduale Simplex was authorized by Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963) and reauthorized by Musicam Sacram (1967). It is for the Novus Ordo, where it is completely licit.

The discussion has been about the EF, where only the 1962 laws still apply, as modified only by particular law for the EF (i.e., instructions of the Ecclesia Dei Commission issued after 1984). The Graduale Simplex is not authorized for the EF.

"Alius cantus aptus" is a phrase derived from GIRM, which does not apply at the EF. You cannot use "alius cantus aptus" at the EF.

As I mentioned earlier, I think ossian 1898's work would be an excellent contribution to the OF, but that he should seek permission from the competent Roman authority before publishing for the EF something in plain violation of its laws. I've also hinted that he should add the standard disclaimer to the music, that it is not to be sung where it is possible to sing the chants from the Graduale Romanum (Liber). If he does receive permission, he should include that fact in the front matter of his book.

I have just been reading De Musica Sacra and there are a ton of things not done now which it talks about. For instance, take a look at this:

The Commentator
96. The active participation of the faithful can be more easily brought about with the help of a commentator, especially in holy Mass, and in some of the more complex liturgical ceremonies. At suitable times he should briefly explain the rites themselves, and the prayers of the priest and ministers; he should also direct the external participation of the congregation, that is, their responses, prayers, and singing. Such a commentator may be used if the following rules are observed:

a) The role of commentator should properly be carried out by a priest or at least a cleric. If none is available, a layman of good Christian character, and well instructed in his duties may fill the role. Women, however, may never act as commentator; in case of necessity, a woman would be permitted only to lead the prayers, and singing of the congregation.
b) If the commentator is a priest or a cleric, he should wear a surplice, and stand in the sanctuary or near the Communion rail, or at the lectern or pulpit. If he is a layman, he should stand in a convenient place in front of the congregation, but not in the sanctuary or in the pulpit.
c) The explanations and directions to be given by the commentator should be prepared in writing; they should be brief, clear, and to the point; they should be spoken at a suitable time, and in a moderate tone of voice; they should never interfere with the prayers of the priest who is celebrating. In short, they should be a real help, and not a hindrance to the devotion of the congregation.
d) In directing the prayers of the congregation, the commentator should recall the prescriptions given above in paragraph 14c.
e) In those places where the Holy See has permitted the reading of the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular after the Latin text has been chanted, the commentator may not substitute for the celebrant, deacon, or subdeacon in reading them.
f) The commentator should follow the celebrant closely, and so accompany the sacred action that it is not delayed or interrupted, and the entire ceremony carried out with harmony, dignity, and devotion.

When was the last time you saw a commentator at your local EF Mass?


And this one, which applies to my situation, being that I am teaching sacred music in a private EF school:

106. In private or elementary schools the following directions should be observed:

a) If the schools are conducted by Catholics, and are free to set up their own programs, the school children are to be given additional training in sacred music, and hymn. Above all, they are to be more thoroughly instructed in the holy sacrifice of the mass, adapted to their own age level, and in the manner of participating in it; they should also be taught to sing the simpler Gregorian melodies."

My chant is in fact primarily an adaptation for the students. Again I will seek competent opinion in this matter before I do anything, but there are a lot of interesting tidbits in De Musica Sacra...

ossian1898: No offense taken. If I were a competent authority, I could dispense you from the law.

ossian1898: "we should seek an Ecclesia Dei instruction on this"

I think you should seek permission for your work. If you make the request in the form of a question, and they give a formal response, then CMAA can publicize the response to your question.

I would strongly reject any suggestion that CMAA or its officers should seek any modification of the provisions of Summorum Pontificum, especially with regards to importing newer norms. Such an effort could make life difficult for CMAA members in existing traditional communities, and make it more difficult to bring CMAA's resources to improve the music of the EF.

Jeffrey Tucker: You'll really have to ask St. Pius X and his successors why he mandated the Vatican edition of the Graduale, but allowed polyphony. Why is Byrd allowed, and also modern choral work, but only Psalm tones and recto tono for monophony?

I think one main reason may be that it's a lot easier to impose bad monophony in the Propers than it bad polyphony (with weekly rehearsal). You say "simplified chant" -- what defines that, modality and square notes? Gather Us In is modal, and can be written in square notes. With enough cutting and pasting, you might even be able to claim it is derived from historical chant books. If ossian1898's work in stripping melismas is blessed for that reason, then fine, but I don't think it should be able to start a trend of writing simple melodies of all sorts. And I think this is a battle worth fighting.

I'm a fan of promoting any and all Propers for the OF, as a way of restoring form to the wasteland of the modern praxis. At the EF, however, I think branding one's own chant is generally deformative. Richard Rice did an excellent job combining the options in his simplified Graduale.

BTW, I thought Mrs. Ward's Propers were based on Psalm tones and recto tono. If anyone knows differently, please post a reference.

What if they were sung by people of different voice parts (men and women; adults and children)
Then they would be in different octaves.
Which means they aren't monophonic anymore- they're just very, very basic Polyphony.
Now they're allowed!

So, it's ok for anybody to change melodies of Propers of Gregorian chant and sing it in EF Mass without a persmission from the authority?( we are not talking about a couple of different notes from different manuscripts, but a siginificant changes.) Although I appreciate ossian1898's effort and music, this sounds a bit strange to me. (or is it supposed to be for OF?)
I think it's a different matter from singing it in octaves, because the original melody is still preserved, or singing in psalm tones. (Chant Abreges has a permission, correct?)

BachLover: you totally misunderstand this directive. you seem to imply, for instance, that no other option to sing the text is allowed. however, for example, polyphonic propers ARE allowed

If you review the post you are quoting, you will find that I said "The only allowed options at the EF are the chants in the book, Psalm tones, recto tono, or polyphony".

the official chant books of the church must be used, as opposed to, e.g., ratisbon

Exactly. What principle would allow the cutting of melismas, but disallow Ratisbon? Is that principle derived from the text of the applicable legislation?

if this rule truly meant what you claim, no 'imprimatur' could dispense with it

An interesting point. The Abregés claims to be Psalm-based, and claims also to be allowed under the rule. And by "Imprimatur" I mean that someone with authority has apparently approved that interpretation after reviewing the material. So the rule stands as written, and the Abregés can be sung, and we can all be happy.

Mia, really, these things tend to work themselves out without rules and coercion and stuff.

How about this solution.

We sing the offertory proper in Psalm-Tone first and then my new composition as an extra, as if we would otherwise sing a Salve Regina or some other non-liturgical chant? In my schola experience it is not uncommon to sing the proper and then motet or faux bourdon version of the same text.

So this could be a real workaround.

Considering the alterations they have authorized for the EF (e.g., vernacular readings in place of Latin), that's what I'd expect too.

BachLover2: It's in #'s 6 and 7.

Ossian: do you have your promised adaptation for this week (Precatus est)? This one is an absolute beast!

it seems obvious to me that his composition qualifies as a modern setting....and jeff tucker is right about ecclesia dei

This is an interesting question. I would suggest that Pius XII was basically reaffirming that the Editio Vaticana is still the official version of the Church, and no other editions are. I do know for a fact that many Churches (including the Sistine Chapel) have sometimes sung variants of the Chant, especially medieval variants from their own church's history. Are they to be condemned? Surely the directors of the Sistine knew very well the words of both Pius X and Pius XII. Again, I would suggest that the "rule" quoted above is merely an affirmation that the Editio Vaticana is the official version of the Western Rite, and no other edition is.

Jeffrey, I am not an expert in these matters. I do know for a fact that Pius X stuck his neck out when he IMPOSED the Editio Vaticana (by a juridical code) on the Church. No other edition had ever been imposed on the Church. The Editio Medicaea was NOT imposed on the Church. The Pustet editions were NOT imposed on the Church (although some Bishops got that impression).

I feel that St. Pius X did a very wonderful thing, imposing the Vatican Edition on the entire Church. HOWEVER, I feel some people will criticize Pius X for doing this, and I understand why they do. De Santi claims that Pius X NEVER intended to suppress local chant variants, but (as we know), for whatever reason, it did not turn out that way...