settings of the new translation of the ordinary
  • I serve on the Diocesan Liturgical commission for the Diocese of Portland (Maine). We plan to introduce 2 settings of the new english translation of the ordinary to all of the parishes in the diocese, the first being the new chant setting that will be in the sacramentary and a metric setting. The metric setting needs to be fairly simple yet lovely enough to bear frequent use. Any suggestions?
  • The ones on the ICEL website, which will be inserted into the revised Roman Missal, are fairly easy.

    You may find them here:

    http://icelweb.org/musicfolder/openmusic.php

    The Chant Cafe has video tutorials. You may find these here:

    http://www.chantcafe.com/2010/09/tutorial-videos-on-new-missal-chants.html

    These tutorials are courtesy of the CMAA, which hosts this forum! :)

    I hope this information helps you.
  • Many thanks.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,039
    You might find this discussion helpful.
  • I serve on the Diocesan Liturgical commission for the Diocese of Portland (Maine). We plan to introduce 2 settings of the new english translation of the ordinary to all of the parishes in the diocese, the first being the new chant setting that will be in the sacramentary and a metric setting. The metric setting needs to be fairly simple yet lovely enough to bear frequent use. Any suggestions?


    @svaillan
    I was wondering how the Diocesan Liturgical Commission will introduce two settings of the new English translation of the Ordinary to all of the parishes in the diocese.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Here is a GLORIA with the new translation (EXPERIMENT), but I'm not happy with it. (not kidding)
  • Jeff, thank you for sharing your new Gloria. My ONLY humble suggestion is to remove most of the bar lines. Visually, the bar lines impede the flow of the music, which I think is very, very nice. Just sayin'... How blessed we are to have someone with your vision in our church!
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    Joseph (& Jeff):

    Regarding the barlines, while I agree that there are a lot of them (and maybe it could be worthwhile to consider notation in 6/4, 9/4, or 12/4 - althought that might be confusing for amateurs), I think they are necessary in modern notation (which is the part I assume Joseph was talking about). If they get in your way, feel free to look at the Gregorian version instead.

    JMHO -
    Rich
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,777
    Hi Jeff,

    Looking at the square notes, I was taking issue with the episema on "YOUR Great glory" and thinking I might have saved the leap as well as the episema for "great". But looking at the organ score, I also see the accompaniment is written in a very metrical way, and that it would take some rehearsal time for me to figure out how long to hold "earth", and some explanation time to get the rule for turning episemas to dotted notes (which would more conventionally be notated as duplets). In such a case, would the purpose of Gregorian notation be to allow the organist to accompany according to their own rhythmic notions? It's quite a nice melody, btw.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    (which would more conventionally be notated as duplets)


    As an aside, in concert music, my understanding is that modern compositional conventions (say the last 40 years or so) have favored dotted notes as opposed to duplets. Both are accurate, but duplets are a bit dated.
  • A difficulty we all face is that new settings that are very well written may vary so far from the sound and style of music people are accustomed to at Mass right not may be deemed unacceptable.

    Mr. O's setting of the Glory To God takes on that battle and succeeds very, very well. This is great!
  • We sang Jeff's new Gloria at choir rehearsal. It flowed beautifully. The music received a favorable reaction from the singers. One person commented, "It fits the voice perfectly. The melody goes where I think it should go."

    By the third time through, I noticed that we naturally changed many of the dotted half notes to just half notes. Also, the measures with the two dotted quarter notes easily morphed into quarter notes. This rhythmic evolution was influenced by the cadence of the text. We sang without the accompaniment.

    This setting is vastly superior to anything I've seen/heard from the "Publishers".

    Also, I believe that the new translation deserves a new "chant"--not a reworking of the Latin chants. Jeff is paving the way.
  • Thank you once again to all. Are plan in Maine is to introduce the two settings of the ordinary at the next priest institute this spring when we begin talking about implementing the new translation in their respective parishes. We have also set aside time to teach the presidential chants. Wish us luck. This should probably be a new string, but we would also like to give them some resources for singing the propers. These would have to be very easy, perhaps in a responsorial format. We have looked at "psalitte" but thought the quality of the music not very consistant. Another thought was to stick some chords on Rice's simle choral gradual (there are many music ministers in our mostly rural diocese that have a very limited musical and liturgical background). I've been using a combination of Weber's settings and Ford's (American Gradual) but most of the parishes in the state are not really ready for that sort of thing (someday perhaps). They may accept something as simple to program and sing in a format similar to "respond and acclaim". Suggestions?
  • ... we would also like to give them some resources for singing the propers.

    They may accept something as simple to program and sing in a format similar to "respond and acclaim".


    The Simple English Propers Project is a great resource for every English speaking parish.

    More Simple Propers here.

    There are, however, some "music ministers" in parishes of our Portland diocese that reject, resist, and mock Gregorian chant and the like. I know this because I've worked with them. I pray that someday they will have a change of heart.
  • I doubt very much we will be able to convince every parish to adopt the propers. Resistance will come not only from "music ministers" but from many priests as well. If I have something simple that an assembly may participate in, is at least somewhat metric, and free of cost to present to them, some of the priests may pick it up and bring it back with them to their parishes. Baby steps, but in the right direction. The english propers as they are in the sacramentary seem to resist metric settings. The Tietze translations of the intoits are an interesting effort, but I find them often unlovely or awkward. A responsorial format is probably our best bet, the introit used as the refrain and the psalm verses sung by the psalmist.
  • I would encourage you to persist, for people visit parishes and go back and put pressure upon their pastor and music people to pay attention to what you are doing. Priests get an amazing amount of pressure from other priests NOT to adopt change in fear that they too, will have to change. I recall a pastor saying. "I get Adoramus, I read it thoroughly and I agree with everything, but I don't have the energy to fight the pressure from other priests if I make changes here."

    Ad Orientum is practiced IN PRIVATE in parishes to avoid complaints to the pastor and bishop...is this right?

    Ideally, every Mass should have a tiny schola that sings the introit in simple chant form and then the people fully participate in singing the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei and the Mass chants with the celebrant. Return the introit, Offertory and Communion to the schola, let the people sing the repeated music - develop a repertoire for them.

    Get rid of the cantor. A tiny schola of at least 3, have just one sing the verses...choir members without a voice to cantor may welcome a chance to be part of a small schola as well as being a choir member, wresting the microphone from the dying grasp of those cantors who would not sing in a group, even a small one, robbing them of their star status in their minds.
  • I doubt very much we will be able to convince every parish to adopt the propers. Resistance will come not only from "music ministers" but from many priests as well.


    That's a shame since they are actual parts of the Liturgy. "Gather Us In" et al are not. To say that churches need to "adopt" the Propers is like saying parents need to "adopt" their own children - when they're actually already theirs.



    The english propers as they are in the sacramentary seem to resist metric settings.


    Why are so many people resistant to beautiful music which seems to suspend time? We don't have to limit ourselves to "modern" music which keeps us grounded with a consistent/predictable form and meter.
  • Erik P
    Posts: 152
    .
  • There may be a way to set the chant Glory to God in a metric manner that would make it appealing to play on the piano and guitar. I'm working on this. I invite others to think about this as well.
  • Scott.Vaillancourt@PortlandDiocese.org

    Thanks in advance
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    Noel! You go! I think this needs to be done. If I weren't writing a dissertation right now, I would be there with you.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,709
    I am still conflicted about composing music to the English ordinary. Convince me how this will further the return to the Latin and not to the promotion of multiculturalism in the Church.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    I personally see two tracks to this. I'm assuming it's all about leading people gradually to the chant.

    The first track is a setting like Jeff O.'s where newly composed music inspired by chant could lead people in that direction. Even though I don't dislike the ICEL chant settings of the new translation, there are undoubtedly some music directors who (for whatever reason or with whatever unjustified bias) would rather perform a piece "by somebody" than chant.

    The second track I see, is one where there's more of a stylistic bias - for the piano, guitar, etc. - in which case I see Noel's idea as being important - taking chant melodies and adapting them metrically for use by these ensembles, unworthy though they are. All people should come to know the melodies, and perhaps when they visit a parish that performs sacred music properly they will be disposed to come to the realization that that is how it should "really go." If piano and guitar were non-negotiable in a parish (lamentable though that is), but the choice of Gloria between a setting (maybe even surreptitiously) based on chant and some junk put out by one of the big three, I think it's clear what the choice should be. Unfortunately that surreptitious chant setting does not currently exist for that ensemble.
  • The decision one has to make is this: To bring congregations to being able to sing chant in Latin, should they best be confronted with learning Latin and Chanting simultaneously, or instead get them chanting in English then make the conversion.

    As far as metric settings of the chant melodies, I have a really simple metric setting of the Chant Glory To God with simple piano, bass and guitar. It's really, really horrible. It could be used, and there are only a couple of notes lengthened from the chant setting to make it work. And it is truly horrible. I sent it along with an organ accompaniment setting of the original chant to an august member of this group who responded that the organ accompaniment to the chant was beautiful, but failed to comment on the horrible one.

    So I am working on a third setting of the Glory for piano that may have some possibilities.

    The simple one for guitar, bass and piano is truly, truly horrible. So bad that I was thinking of pen names to use if I were to share it.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,709
    Aha... Maybe I could use the pseudoname

    Temporary English
  • GREAT ONE. I'll use it too, and then no one will really know which of us to blame it on.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,709
    I will be Temporary English the 2nd and you can be the 1st . That way I can refer to you as my predecessor and instigator of the American Roman Catholic Composition Guild for the sake of English settings of the Roman Rite.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,709
    I got a better name... The Dead Composers Society... Otherwise known as The deComposers.
  • The only way to wrest control of music in the Catholic Church from those profiting by keeping it mired in mediocrity is to produce music that people will gravitate to when they hear it and produce it in a form that will easily take over.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,709
    FNJ

    I partly agree. However, I did that for 38 years and it did not wrest anything... it only perpetuated the former... therefore, i have a new approach... revolution. Refusing to participate in innovations in the Roman Rite... English translations are the foremost innovation. Once another new translation is in place, the musicians and composers jump on the train. I finally chose to jump off that train (as a composer) when I discovered the CMAA, and climbed back on the original Roman Rite Railroad...

    As for those mired in mediocrity, let the mediocre seek it out and wallow in it. Do not contribute your excellence or goodness by giving it anything more than it deserves... expulsion from the RR. (Roman Rite or Rail Road, whichever you choose!)