Youtubes of the Entire New Missal (insofar as it exists now) are here for you
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Canonical posting at MusicaSacra

    Reposting at the Cafe

    So far as I know, these are the first audios and videos of the new Missal. Please share them on email or blogs or wherever.

    If you had any doubts about the new Missal, given all the confusion that has been sewn out there, they will go away once you hear the chants sung as they should be sung.

    Again, this is a project of the CMAA. Thank you for your help in supporting this work.
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,022
    I have minor quibbles about many of these. Which note is the different note within many of the V and R, and ESPECIALLY the one phrase in Gloria XV that does NOT start on the lowest note, but rather on the next higher note. Come on! If we're going to mimic the Latin version of the chant, let's stick to at least the basic melodies!

    This exercise does NOTHING to convince me that the new translation is anything more than a futile exercise in making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and ending up with a cheap Gucci knock-off made of nylon!

    I will, of course, use whatever my liturgical bosses put in front of me to perform in the vernacular Mass. But I can certainly live the rest of my life without ever again attending one. My prayers continue for the members of the Anglican community hoping to enter into communion with Rome. AFAIC, the (basically centuries old) Anglican Rite I is the only reasonable translation available of the Mass. Maybe, some day, I can be involved with one of those new parishes.

    I do have the utmost respect for all clergy/bishops when they are vested, etc. But bishops exercising the authority merely as CEOs of a huge corporation do not speak 'ex cathedra' AFAIC. This absolute control over the language we use just doesn't work for me. The American bishops especially have created a modern Tower of Babel!
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Steve, doesn't like non-Elizabethan English. Got it.

    Anyone else, remembering that the relevant comparison is what 98% of Catholic parishes have been using for forty years?
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,022
    Yes, that certainly came through in my longish post. We're no longer talking about "English" here. That is a dead language. We're really talking about "American", and at it's worst. And we have not only public education to thank for that, but also the last 50 years of parochial education as well.

    But I didn't like the musical settings, in their most basic melodic structure, in the '74 Sacramentary. And these 'adjusted' melodies are not much better. They are similar to their Latin predecessors, but just altered enough to make adding the original Latin to a congregation's repertoire is much more labored and confusing musically than it need be. Take the Gregorian chant melodies, and make the English fit - or just move on and create new melodies to go with this 'new' translation!

    It's not my fault that most of my generation either cannot or will not remember what we had pre-Vat. II. Many are still, 50 years later, in a simple reactionary mode against whatever less-than-perfect Latin Mass they grew up with. Some of us DID have quite nice, and rubricly correct Liturgies where we were. And we've been lumped into the modern 'cookie cutter' Mass with everyone else. Again, this is forced unity of outward speech and actions. I doubt that it has done, or will do anything towards a common understanding of what really happens at Mass. The Bishops will be quite satisfied that all of us lemmings simply do what we're told. And in return, they will consider us their sheep.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Steve, it's not obvious to me that you have been in a regular parish recently. This is another relevant comparison. What went on in the 1950s just isn't an issue here.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    I'm a fan of the chants.

    (I'm not a huge fan of all the translation changes, but that's another story.)

    My comment at the Cafe about the chants:
    I really hope these become the default choice for regular parishes on Sunday mornings. Listening to these after years of the customary settings is like going to bed with a messy kitchen and waking up to find that someone did all the dishes, organized my cabinets, bought new flatware, scrubbed the floor, installed a granite countertop, redid the backsplash, replaced the appliances, and is currently half-way through making me dinner.
    Yeah- it's the same kitchen. But, no... it's not really the same kitchen at all.


    My blog post from many months ago (when I was blogging regularly) when the Chants were first previewed:
    http://musicforsunday.com/2010/new-icel-chants-for-the-english-ordinary-of-the-roman-missal
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,022
    Just for the record, yes, I am in a regular parish. I even play the organ occasionally in other regular parishes. I don't attend Mass at 'irregular' parishes, which I consider to be any parish that does not use the organ, always uses a piano/guitar, or never sings any 'hymns'. I do understand that this is a giant leap for any of those parishes that might decide to use this. But it's not enough for me. If I end up at one of those latter parishes, I must constantly remind myself that this IS the Mass, and that IS Jesus Christ present in our midst. When I an at one of the former parishes, I will remind myself that this IS better than what we were FORCED to do for the last 40 years. I would rather pray and meditate on that FACT than waste my breath spouting this vernacular stuff. I know that I am fulfilling my duty, and NOT committing any sin in NOT participating with my tongue and hand gestures, even if my neighbor gives me the most horrible look when I refuse to hold hands with them at the Lord's Prayer.

    As to the entire concept of Elizabethan English, the "thee's and thou's", remember that these pronouns are DIRECTLY related to their original Latin "te's and tuo's". Our continued rejection of this tradition style of English is a token of our continued rejection of Latin. Yes, it's been almost three generations of modern English, with no relenting to the traditional. The further away we get in time, the more permanent that most radical post Vat. II change will be. Also remember - THEY DIDN'T DARE TO CHANGE THE LORD'S PRAYER! And, to my knowledge, no one has complained about the thee's and thou's contained therein!
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    I guess it is all a matter of perception. Is this glass 3/4 full or 1/4 empty? What one emphasizes is a matter of temperament. I'm glad you recognize that this is a "giant leap" forward.
  • Heath
    Posts: 966
    This is great . . . just listening to half of the Gloria XV, however, it seems that the singer decided to do some interpretative nuances (e.g. emphasizing and holding some notes) not given in the notation. It seems to me, that for these to be the most helpful, the recordings should stick to the notation, and let the interpretation be done on the parish level.

    I don't want to be a sourpuss, as these really are a great resource!
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    The method here is studied, essentially applying the manner which unmarked manuscripts (no dots) are usually sung. This is how one would sing the Vatican Gradual, e.g. Whether the composers intended that is another question.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    O Heath, don't go THERE.
  • Heath
    Posts: 966
    Did I commit a faux pas, Charles? : )

    I think that I'm trying to make is that I don't think hardly any music director/priest on the parish level would see that notation and think, "Hmm, clearly they meant for some emphasis/length on "HIGH-est." If we want these to be "universal", it seems important (to me, at least) to have the major resources be pretty plain and uncomplicated, and allow the idiosyncrasies to be moved down to the parish level. Just my two cents.
Add a Comment