I would take more simple music sung well over Palestrina butchered any day.

We often speak of the "hermeneutic of continuity" yet this seldom includes music of the more recent past--especially of the period immediately before the Second Vatican Council. The Anglicans sing music of all periods--including the 19th century. Trained Roman Catholic musicians seem to favor classical polyphony (wonderful), Gregorian chant (also wonderful) and modern compositions.

Now does this mean that the music from the 19th century through the 1950s is all worthy? No. But there are some gems among this repertoire:
Missa Rosa Mystica of Vito Carnevali
Mass in D Minor of Charles Herbert Kitson
Missa Festiva of Alexander Gretchaninov
Mass in Honor of St. Wilfrid of T. Frederick H. Candlyn
Motets of Saint-Saens (Ave verum, Panis angelicus, Laudate Dominum, Tollite Hostias)

I'm sure others have examples that expand upon this topic.

I, too, have heard such "choirs" sing chant badly at every available spot during the mass. The inevitable statement from them is always, "I don't understand why the congregation doesn't like chant." I do.

About underrehearsed music: some scholas pay their members in repertoire (since there's no money to pay for anything else). And as a model, that can work, if not taken to an extreme. What I think is risky, for the sort of forces one generally has, is doing polyphony with only once voice to a part. One brain fart, one fifth sung as a fourth (sopranos are good at that), and you're adrift on the high seas. But if somebody else is on your part, they won't make the same mistake, and can pull you back on. There may be wrong notes, but the fabric won't unravel.

Another big problem: music preparation. I've been in situations where music has been so small as to be almost illegible, or badly xeroxed, or a ton of loose pages printed on one side. When I can, I bind them in liturgical order. But the last EF mass I did, I didn't have time to do so, and I suddenly ran out of pages for the Sanctus, having mislaid one...and I was the only bass singer. Not my most glorious moment. Somebody waved a part in my face in time for a solid finish though.

@Jeffrey Quick,
Interesting citation of RoSewig, as I'm preparing an Advent/Christmas Concert which will include two or three of his works. As I understand it, RoSewig and a whole bunch of folks from the mid 19th century were essentially relegated to a national "black list" by none other than one of his fellow Philadelphians, Nicholas Montani. I believe, again with the help of EFT, that another well known composer, James Cummings Peters (J.C. Peters Publishers, Cincinnati) was also on Montani's hit list, though it might be that his "Mass in D Major" could have been the Victorian era "Mass of Creation" in the states. More things change, more they.....

Still and all --- I would rather be in the position of being critical of something worthy that was not up to snuff than of suffering through something unworthy, no matter how well it was done. At least they have the Right Idea!

I confess to being a member of said 8-man schola. We are a group of amateurs that sang together for the first time publicly at this Mass. We did not sing for the local music critics from neighboring (or cross-town) parishes. We sang to: 1) give praise and thanks to God; and 2) to promote the use of Gregorian chant and traditional polyphonic music in the Mass. In that, we generally succeeded; and we plan to continue to work at becoming better. As a singer, I usually seek candid feedback from people I trust, in the interest of improving the next time. Those people indeed, pointed out some of our faults and shortcomings, but overall found the Mass to be reverent, beautiful and prayerful and did not consider the music a distraction. Perhaps they were focused on the purpose of being at Mass in the first place.

Chin up, John B! I'm fairly sure the original poster had no animus toward you. He was just pointing out an example of a tendency that all choirs struggle with, not attacking you and yours. And anyway, next time, you'll do better. This is one of the charms of there always being a "next time". :) There's nothing wrong with us reminding each other occasionally that not every choir is the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, nor needs to be. I'm sorry that your group apparently provided the occasion; but it's clear that the original poster had no idea of publically pointing out your group, or he would have named names.

(And actually, there's no proof that he meant your group and your Mass, unless you know the poster personally and saw him there. He might have been visiting Uruguay or the Mongolian Men's Schola, for all we know.)

Congregations as a whole tend to have a benevolent attitude toward anybody who's trying, and enjoy whatever you give them. (Which is a darned good thing, considering the last time I was assigned to singing the Ave Maria. I was having a nightmare, but the congregation mostly didn't notice anything wrong. I counted my blessings and went on.) However, often this is the product of them not actually paying much attention, or not remembering how the song actually goes. Talk about good news, bad news, right?

OTOH, it's unfair to criticize people for noticing vocal flaws. I mean, sheesh, we practice an audible art, naked to the ear of all comers. (Indeed, everybody else hears a singer better than the singer himself, because the singer doesn't have the best listening point.) Anybody who's minded to listen with both ears will hear and will notice this stuff. We don't want people not to listen to us, or we'd keep our big mouths shut! So sure, there's always going to be imperfection; and sometimes that's our little secret, but sometimes people do point it out. That's life for singers. It keeps us humble. (And easily depressed....)

The important thing is not to be discouraged. You are doing a big thing, so of course it won't all come at once. Do better next time, and all the annoyance and worry will melt away.

Remember, anything worth doing is worth doing badly. And that all of us do it badly, in comparison to the heavenly choirs, and it's all a matter of degree... which may have been exaggerated in this case.

Heck, I even invented a word for one such instance I was involved in: wreckquiem.

Talented organists can really add to a Mass with chant...improvising on the themes alone beats the heck out of meaningless doodling.

French organists do it as part of their tradition, most of the chant-based organ works on paper started out as improvs.

Mark Winchester's Elevations were written (and posted here under compositions) to show one way to take a chant melody and play it on the organ.

The most important thing is to conceive of the playing as standing alone, being a part of the music of the Mass, not just something played to fill time. An introduction to unaccompanied chant by the organ can be very effective and the organ playing after the as well.

As a "chant should always be unaccompanied" kinda guy, I have to say: Chant w/organ is better than no chant at all. And good chant w/organ is better than bad chant without.

Hmm... I guess that makes me less of a purist than just someone with a strong preference.

Arrgh! -- my good friend Steve had to lob that boulder 'purist' into the fray. Could not one logically conclude that if one who does not advocate 'accompanied' chant is a 'purist', then to 'accompany' chant is impure?? Well, not to engage here in academic (or otherwise) argumentation pro or con about this horse. I will only state (as one of those 'purists') that there is nothing in all of chant history to be pure about unless one wishes to hold any five minute event in any given century as the quickly passing exemplar of a would-be golden age. In other words, purity in chant does not exist. There is no doubt on my part that partisans of the 'Solesmes Method" (which is no longer taught at Solesmes) would consider that the Romans who thought the Franks' chanting was 'inelegant' were themselves impure. None of us here would (likely) perform chant on a Sunday morning using the Marcel Peres 'method', even though this method May well be more 'pure' than our current refined and stylised ideal. My objections to 'accompanied' chant have nothing to do with any deluded sense of 'purity'. They, rather, stem from the conviction that chant is a purely vocal art which inevitably suffers adulteration of character, form and substance with the addition of non-vocal elements. Some of my colleagues do not share this view. But, they should not dismiss those of us who do as 'purists' - as though this term in and of itself were a disqualifier of legitimacy. Far from it! The burden of proof lies always elsewhere.

The growth of Gregorian chant choirs has brought wonderful results in many places, and, as Mark P. is right to point out, there are also some less-than-wonderful results.

There are good people volunteering to bring this music back into use, but some aren't always able or ready to produce a decent-sounding performance.

I've met soloists trying to learn the music from books alone, without having ever been taught by anyone in person. Some choir directors are so happy to have anybody volunteer, they don't want to discourage anyone by correcting problems, or admitting that a piece is not ready for performance. Some of them take on too much work without enough rehearsal time, and the performance suffers as a result.

For now, all I can do is shrug and say, "It's a process."

Angela - you have the Right Idea. When our very best is the least we should offer, it is astonishing that there are those who would make excuses for their poorest efforts. The mass is not a forum for them to sing for their entertainment and 'just' for the 'glory of God'. What preposterous arrogance! It rather calls to mind the parable of the talents, doesn't it? (And don't be discouraged if your students fall short. It will take them a while to become 'seasoned troopers'.)

This was the Introit from our EF Mass on 9/14: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roSt6Y1FdIE&sns=em

To the extent that you want to "critique" it, I'll leave that to you and your conscience. But, this was not a concert. It was a Mass, and I think the 8-men who sang together for the first time, under a new Music Director, did a commendable job. The Byrd Mass was a bit of a stretch for us, but when we get a clip up, I will be glad to share that, too. It wasn't as bad as the original poster suggests; in fact, most people thought it was quite good. This is St. Theresa Catholic Church in Sugar Land, TX. Our new MD is Dr. Kevin Clarke, and anyone who thinks they can help us get better is welcome to come join us. Just, please don't post artistic criticisms on the Internet; if we were all subjected to that after every sung Mass, there would be no more sung Masses, and we would never have the opportunity to improve. Encourage each other daily . . . Peace to all.

Fine job!!!

@John B: I particularly enjoyed the group's unison!

I hope I'm not way off topic on this, but reading this makes me very uncomfortable. In our parish, our new pastor is making some very (painful to some) changes, by removing the OCP music program and asking for polyphony, chant, and a monthly latin mass. He then cautions us on being sure that choirs prepare well enough that the music is fitting for mass. As much as I agree with everything he is asking for because it is what the Church is asking for, he offers no support on how to accomplish it. The mean age of my choir is 9 years old. I have no formal training and, frankly, reading this site, as beautiful as it is, makes me feel incredibly "stupid" as my kids would say. Much of what is posted here is like reading my son's physics 12 textbook; it's all very fascinating, but I haven't a clue how to do it. The appeal of the OCP program and the reason so many parishes hang onto it, is that all musical decisions are spoon-fed to subscribers, and the music itself is simple enough to "do well", although one could argue that good OCP music is an oxymoron. Anyway, my point is that there are so many of us volunteers who would dearly, dearly love to do the right thing and do it well, but have no idea where to begin. Would anyone consider mentoring recovering OCPers?

I should add that I am working on creating materials that ease the transition into chant, and have been in touch others who are enthusiastic about creating materials. There are ways to do this even if you now do not read or understand anything about Gregorian chant and Latin.

Perhaps a good resource would be an OCP-like "Traditional Music Program," geared for the vernacular OF with Latin and English options throughout (the EF people and the Latin -only mostly know what they're doing I think).
CC Watershed's OF propers, Alleluias, and Chabanel Psalms are great starting places.
Combined with selections from the other various resources available from CMAA and it's friends...

The whole thing could be packaged up, along with some pedagogical material to help with the musicality, and made available for free download or as a paid for bound stuff, in a way that makes it directly compete (so to speak) with the "Liturgical Programs" from the major publishers.

All the resources (or most of them) exist already. It's just a packaging issue.
Proceeds could be split between CC watershed and CMAA (for the benefit of the Colloquium Scholarship fund).


I would help:
-music typesetting
-print design / packaging
-web design / ecommerce stuff
-cheerleading


The resources that exist are amazing- but they're in twenty places, spread across multiple PDFs on several websites. The explosion of work in this field has also opened up a maddening array of choices- which is good for the experienced or those with extra time. But if it was all bound up so that on a Sunday you got:
Propers: Easy, Med, Hard options (or 1, 2, 3-part options, or something like that)
Ordinary: ICEL chants (after new trans), the small handful of Vatican suggested Gregorian Ordinaries, and one or two additional options (like Bartlett's stuff, for example)
Hymns, Motets, and Etc.: Suggestions, options, along with specific information about how they could/should be used (that is, as a supplement to, not a replacement for, the Propers)
Easy Organ pieces, for preludes, interludes, postludes, and any other ludes you might need

The effect would be like an experienced choir director showing up at your side and saying:
"Yes- so many wonderful choices! Where to begin?
Here- you really ought to do this setting and this setting because they're easy and good. Do this piece because it'll be a stretch but you ought to be able to pull it off easily. Don't forget to do a sequence on Pentecost- here's a setting so you don't have to look one up. By the way, It's Advent now, don't forget to omit the Gloria and by the way here's a lovely Kyrie to do for the season."

Choir director could download the PDF each week 10 minutes before choir practice, print it 10 times, punch holes, hand it out, and start rehearsal on page 1. Hours of work sorting through Gather Comprehensive would vanish.


I'm getting excited just thinking about it....

If someone more qualified than me takes the lead- I'll help.
If no one else does, I'll start it myself... I think there's both goodness and money to be made on this, and I think a printed edition could give OCP some serious competition. (I'll split proceeds with CMMA and CCW if it takes off).

Adam,

I agree that a program for people to follow is needed, badly. And in a format that they can buy or download or free.

I would be interested. The scholarship fund is a very, very worthy cause.