I don't know about the Simple Propers, but the average child I work with can learn a Gregorian introit and Communio in less than an hour.

It has been my unwavering conclusion from years of observation that 'children can't sing that', 'the people can't learn that', 'our choir could never sing that', etc., etc., may nearly always be translated as 'I don't know that', 'I can't sing that', '...and, therefore, you are not going to teach it on my turf'. One must say that Mr Haas was generous in his remarks; but he seems oddly unaware of the results which will ensue from a smiling, determined and confident approach which is accompanied by a priest who is genuinely happy about what is being taught. One must never for a moment believe that the naysayers are the measure of any group's ability.

The keyboard accompaniments for most of David Haas's compositions are too hard for the average parish musician.

I have been unsuccessful at training a choir to sing the verses to "Blest are They" in unison or according to the written rhythm...to say nothing of the congregation.

I realize that this is a bit of a "tu quoque" response that doesn't address the substance of his remarks. He does make a fair point, I think: the Bartlett simple propers are going to appeal mainly to choirs with experience in chant who do not have time to rehearse the Gregorian propers, or are under pressure not to sing in Latin. At the very least they are going to require a director familiar with the chant idiom who can teach them. It would be difficult to get a congregation to participate, and I'm not sure that this is contemplated by the composer.

The keyboard accompaniments for most of David Haas's compositions are too hard for the average parish musician.

I second this, especially left-hand parts with big jumps.

The propers don't need to be sung by the congregation. They are for the choir or cantor. The ordinary are the parts for the people.

Weren't the ordinaries made easier than the propers for this very reason? Or maybe the ordinaries seem easier because they would be done almost every Sunday? In other words, repeating the same thing week by week could make it seem easier.

I am personally looking forward to leveraging the audio/video support materials for the Simple Propers which will almost certainly appear once the melodies stabilize and the book is published.

For a choir conversant in chant (either in Latin or vernacular), this music is either dead easy or a little bit of a step up from Mundelein tones and the like. The men's schola I have directed for a year learned the Introit and Communion antiphons for Epiphany in two minutes, and the next eight minutes or so were dedicated to interpretation and nuance.

Did D.H. really say "our" church? I thought I had heard that he was no longer Catholic. Can someone fill me in? In any case, I echo the sentiments above. If the directors he encounters are so miserably unschooled in music, then this is the first thing that needs to be addressed. I'm sorry, though. I think he is being a bit disingenuous. If a person cannot get through HGWPTN, then how on earth are they singing his music? Anyway, I don't consider myself a superb choral director, but I was able to get a pretty average choir to within days of singing the Thompson Alleluia. We only demurred when it became apparent that the tenors were not going to get that middle section. People can learn. They just need teachers.

I think that the only thing that would stop people from singing these is a refusal to learn.

B U S T E D !

Let's say it a bit more poignantly...


I think that the only thing that would stop people from singing these is a refusal of the heirarchy and their music people to teach them.

I personally am glad to see this discussion progress. Mr. Haas' commentary strikes at the heart of the questions as I have seen it and heard it discussed in workshops and meetings. The "good" musicians are at the cathedral and can do that music there. But the parishes outside of the cathedral are incapable. I realize that is an overstatement, but the mentality at play is exactly that. It is a kind of "lowest common denominator" mode of thinking that has been espoused and that I constantly battle. It is good hearted in many instances, but still does not strive to go beyond the status quo set in (insert your favorite year here). And the publishers have made a mint off of this mentality. So I think this discussion sets the tone for the next phase of the question.

And BTW Adam, having looked at the antiphons, I think they are quite memorable and very beautiful. Perhaps they dont have the Broadway flavor that is espoused in the current "popular" mode of music in the church. But I find them easy to sing and truthfully I love the aesthetic. I improvised on the introit for the 4th Sunday of Advent in the style of Tournemire and found it lovely. And the choir sang it beautifully. And chant and "Serious" music (their word, not mine) is still new to them after three years of work. But patience, a good spirit and a joyful character go a long way toward conversion.

Bonne annee a tous,
Kevin

I do a pretty wide variety of styles with my choir. Here are the genres I have done at least piece from, listed in order of EASIEST to HARDEST to teach and perform.

1. Monophonic chant in English
2. chorale style hymns in English (from their Hymnal)
3. Early American hymnody, with simple harmonizations (Shaker songs, Sacred Harp)
4. monophonic chant in Latin
5. Protestant Praise and Worship ("Devo" songs form the late 1980s, not the pop-Christian radio stuff)
6. High-church composed-through choral music
7. Folk Catholic (David's music, among others)
8. Renaissance Polyphony

Now, this is only my own experience. But I assure you the order is correct.

As to David Haas' comments: a director and choir who lack experience with chant will certainly find things difficult. However, given a director with some experience, one or two experienced musicians amongst the singers and a willingness to leave the comfort zone behind, chant of the limited complexity of the simple propers will be quite achievable. For what it's worth, our non-chant choir sang the Graduale Romanum Dominus dixit very respectably this Christmas, sustaining tempo and phrasing in a way that brought out the beauty of this lovely introit. It is a little more complex than the Simple Propers (on the other hand, I transcribed it into modern notation, as we were short of rehearsal time).

Paul Inwood's feedback and Adam's reflections on it further illustrate the point. As Adam points out, the problem with the torculus doesn't arise if it is sung in the way he describes. This is obvious to those who sing chant regularly. I believe Mr. Inwood doesn't fall into that category. More fundamentaly, his belief that actuosa participatio demands everyone sing everything (see his wider comments on the referenced thread) means that chant more complicated that psalm tones just isn't on his agenda.

I guess the point is that the Simple Propers will need to be combined with catachesis and training for directors and singers if they are to take root beyond those choirs already committed to chant. And who knows - the process may also benefit from the help of those many Catholic musicians who have hitherto avoided parish music for the insult to mind and spirit it all too often has been.

As a former clarinet player, in high school, who learned to sing as adult by doing it the pews first, then in a choir, then with one voice class at a community college, I agree that Adam's SEP compositions are easier to learn than David's repertoire.

However, much of David's repertoire is now familiar & comfortable to parishioners; even the return to more traditional hymnody is not welcomed by some. I look forward to using Adam's work.

Adam et al

Don't let the chant badger's comments change one iota of what you are accomplishing. Any dumbing down will detract from their beauty in the name of 'accessibility'. The Church's goal isn't to make everything common, but to RAISE and ELEVATE the mind and spirit to God. Don't turn these colorful chants into anything less than what first emerges from your hearts. Let your punctum be punctum and let your Torculus trail off into melismatic bliss!

Whatever else may be said of Mr. Haas' comments, they're decidedly not a "red herring." Based on my experience, they represent the reality -- at least as to the training and experience, if not the aspirations -- of many (most?) parishes within my diocese.

There are few, if any, paid or trained musicians (except, perhaps, an organist and at least one I know is shared by several parishes throughout the weekend and feasts). The majority are well-intended amateurs who do what they have learned to do, without any agenda apart from serving their Lord and His people. They are neither performing Mr. Haas' music to his ideal nor the Church's to Hers.

But without them, there would no be music at Mass at all, as evidenced by the summers when most of these volunteers take a break.
It seems to me a glimpse of what the average parish may have been like with only "low" Masses available to express its participation in our Lord's holy and eternal sacrifice. On average, the hymns they sing not much better or worst than the hymns sung in those times.

That said, the simple (english) propers with online rehearsal files -- and other projects like it -- will go further in advancing the interests of liturgical music than any amount of debate here. Pool and collectivize the the limited resources we have available in these times and you will go far in securing your ends.

Mary Ann....

You really have no business speaking about Paul Inwood, myself, or anyone else in such terms.

For myself, I champion chant at every workshop I present, as a key and foundational part of any integrity-filled music ministry program. My working knowledge is not necessarily at a level of "expert" - but I am classically trained, know how to read chant, and have led it in many scenarios.

Your comment about financial conflict of interest is a cheap shot, and to make an accusation of mixed motives as to why I or others in my situation do what we do, is uncalled for and unnecessary. I do not compose or publish music for the purpose of financial gain, nor is any financial benefit received as a motive to diminish efforts or work of other genres and approaches. I have never promoted or hoped to benefit from any "neglect of the propers."

I do not claim to be an expert, and the amount of "clout" that I may have, well I really don't think I do or should have much of that... and I certainly hold many human weaknesses. But you have no right to assign motives or intentions about me, since you do not know me. Despise my music all you want - I am used to that by many. Do not judge my intentions in my vocation as a liturgical musician or composer.

Haas speaks:

"I am thinking of the average choir director who comes to many workshops that I present,"

"I do not claim to be an expert, and the amount of "clout" that I may have, well I really don't think I do or should have much of that..."

These statements are taken out of context, however, they are troubling.

Would it be possible that modern hymns (I meant any new hymns in various styles) can be given out freely on the net first, like simple Propers in this site and Chabanel Psalms in the Watershed Corpus Christi before they are published in hymnals?

I would like to extend a welcome to David Haas, even as someone openly hostile to his music. Mr. Haas has consistently shown himself to be willing to dialog, firm of principle, enthusiastic about quality music programs, and a gentleman in discourse. I hope we'll have some interesting contributions on this forum.

Back to the topic, I have to say that I agree with his judgment. When Jeff announced the release of this project, he heralded it with a Chant Cafe post saying that now everything will be right in the Church, and every parish will have propers of one kind or another. I couldn't share his enthusiasm for some reason, but David really got me thinking about this. I'd say there's 2 factors preventing these from a hoped-for wide impact: 1) the desire of people to do these and 2) the ability of people to do them.

1) Most parish musicians don't want to do chant. They aren't necessarily hostile to it, but they also don't have an impulse to start doing it when inertia is so easy. This requires a MAJOR change in parish music ministry. That is something no one will make on a whim, and if they see no reason to do it, then they won't. And the idea of the propers can come as a rebuke to musicians - you mean I've been doing everything wrong for 30 years??

2) On the same line, this requires a skill set that many do not possess. Singing chant is not like singing pop songs or choral anthems. Reading it is not difficult, but we've all encountered those who don't see a treble clef and a fifth line and freak out. Many parishes, even choirs, are not accustomed to a capella music. Developing these skills is easy, but again a requirement to develop new skills is often seen as a repudiation to one's chosen path of ministry. "I've played Holy God on organ for 60 years, why should I have to learn to read chant??" And even if a director IS willing and able, he has to overcome these two factors for the whole of his choir. Which requires the director to have a strong knowledge of the letter AND SPIRIT of the relevant liturgical legislation. People will respond to the propers when presented with the beauty of a full lectionary, but their hearts will close once they're told "Rome says we should do this."

I want this project to succeed, desperately. This can make such a change in the liturgical life of the American Church. But we have to be realistic about the challenges we face and be willing to combat them.

I propose that what would be useful (if such a thing has not been introduced already) is a simple "how to chant" quick-start guide. NO fancy details or terminology. Just "this is the clef, the lines and spaces are like modern music, and sing the lower note first if there's two on top." Instructional and demonstration videos have been proposed as well, which will be good.

David Haas's comments may well be influenced by his advocacy of congregational singing against the traditional schola model (I myself reject that these are completely opposed, but that's another thread). However, I think they offer much for us to consider in how to make this project a success - it requires sober honesty.

Concur, entirely, Gavin, with points 1) and 2). These are the primary limitations in the U.S. Church of the 21st Century.

I also concur with Gavin's points 1 & 2.
Still, I would stress that if we are to overlook the role of publishers and composers (also liturgists at odds with Council directives) in getting us to this point, I daresay we are ignoring the elephant in the living room.

I'm not all that concerned in assigning blame to the past, but I think these issues are entirely relevant to allowing and encouraging
authentic reform to finally happen *now* in terms of sacred music and the primacy of chant.

As someone who has worked in several parishes, and led several workshops on chant, I wonder if anyone else shares this observation:

Where people say chant can't be sung by average directors, singers, and faithful, it doesn't happen.

Conversely, where people say chant can be sung by average directors, singers, and faithful, it (somehow!) does happen.

Now isn't that a funny thing?

CharlesW makes an excellent point. The dearth of sung propers at the parish by which I am currently employed has nothing to do with a lack of talent on the part of the choir, nor (hopefully!) in the director. Nor is there a lack of interest on my part. The simple but unfortunate truth is that the pastor is absolutely opposed to the idea of the choir singing the propers, in any form or language, due to the inability of the congregation to "participate." Even the simple antiphons like those found in the SEP would not be an option. Any, and I mean ANY new music, including the simplest responsorial psalm refrain, must be prepared for by three consecutive weeks of pre-liturgy rehearsal with the congregation. It is incredibly frustrating, but, as CharlesW stated, he is the one who signs the checks.

Mary Ann.. please accept my apology. I should not have responded in the way that I did. My Italian temper got the best of me.

However - I would still challenge your logic. For Paul Inwood, the logic is really flawed, since he has been the main engine of the PSALITE project, which he and his colleagues have been working on for the past few years, and is inspired and in response to trying to discover some creative approaches to the Propers. So how can this be a conflict of interest for him? For me, I have not ever been part of a Propers project, but I have presented and promoted much of the work of PSALITE, the work of Paul Ford in By Flowing Waters, the recent resources by Paul Tate and Ken Macek in this area - so again, if I were concerned with a conflict of interest, why would I be promoting such things.

I agree that the percentage of things published has not favored the use of the Propers. But at the same time, as one who works closely with GIA for example, and have sat in meetings for hours and hours with these people, I can personally attest to the fact that "marketability" or financial interest is not always the primary driving force. GIA, for example, a few years back, produced the beautiful big red book containing the Passion Narratives in chant - they knew going in, that it would not be a huge seller, so to speak. It was an expensive project (if you have not seen it - it is gorgeous, and very elegant), and yes, as they predicted, it has not sold well. But they continue to publish it, promote it. Why? Because they believe in it. The same is true with some of the work they have done with the Liturgy of the Hours. They also have been pressured FOR YEARS to publish a yearly missalette publication, like most of the other publishers do. It would make them a lot of money to do so, yet they have resisted, because their philosophy is not in line with that kind of resource. In other words, they could make a lot of money with such a publication (as misalettes outsell hymnals by more than you could imagine), but they don't believe in it, and so they do not publish such a publication. It would be in their "interest" to do so, if the financial bottom line were the only and primary concern. So, it is just too simple to say that that is there motivation. They (as well as WLP and OCP - as I know some of those editorial folks as well) do not sit around and say "it is not in our interest to publish resources that promote the Propers."

Just for clarification - please go back and read my post. I was not being critical of SEP, in fact I applauded the effort. I only shared concerns about its implementation and success on a pastoral level. I have learned from some of what has been posted in this discussion, which is good for me to hear and reflect upon. Discussions like this are good when people can challenge and learn from each other - but we do not have to get into overt or covert insinuations about the motives of publishers and composers. When I read the post that you made to which I made my original response, and in your response to my response - that stil seems lurking. I have learned some things in this discussion, that provide food for thought. I would hope that all would desire such openness.

Again - I am sorry for the tone of my previous post.

God bless you, and everyone else here. Happy New Year!

A couple of things.

Charles said this, but it is important to note: you don't have to do the propers cold turkey. We rarely do the introit because it really is a jolt the present model. Therefore we reserve the introit for high feast days, beginning of liturgical seasons, etc. The offertory and communion antiphons don't really have to monopolize those parts of the mass. We sing the offertory Immediately after the POTF, which leaves plenty of time for a hymn or a motet. Same goes for communion. We sing the Antiphon as the priest drinks from the cup.

We have been doing the AUG for about a year (however, I usually adjust the text so that it is in modern English). The choir is to the point of sight singing them once. It is that simple. So I don't buy the fact that this would be a major shift or burden. It isn't. It is actually quite easy.

Sometimes we don't do them at all, but most of the time we do. Also, the choir doesnt have do them all the time either. Sometimes I have the cantor do them.

The best part about them is that they accentuate the theme of the day and allow people to reflect on key parts of the readings. What's not to like about the Propers! Jump in and stop bickering about them. They are our patrimony! They are a very natural part of the liturgical ambiance that wonderfully marries music to text.

I'm sorry I'm late to this. There was a bit of a dust up on the Cafe today too. Somehow I do think these exchanges are all to the good. We are all musicians, all Catholics, and in one way or another all involved in the same world of work and prayer. It's good for us to talk openly and honestly.

Happy New Year to one and all. and for those of us doing the OF Epiphany on Sunday, we have some very groovy propers awaiting us!

The "whisper" option on the forum offers one way to send a private message.