My long-time friend, Jackson, put into words what I have felt for years (and sometimes said to fellow musicians).

When face with the comment that "the congregation cannot sing that", I would respond:

1. They can't sing it because you can't lead it.
2. You can't lead it because you can't sing it.
3. You can't sing it because you have no reason to learn it and/or you don't like it.

Certainly some one who is well trained at something can communicate it to others. But they probably won't be successful communicating something that they are not trained in. The other outside variable is the "boss", the cleric at the top of the parochial feeding chain whose preferences "must" be followed. If HE doesn't appreciate something, then he's not going to want some one under him surpassing him in that, whatever it is. IOW there is a limit to what we can do as musicians from the "grass-roots" level in a hierarchical establishment. I suspect that Mr. Haas's niche market is in parishes where the "boss" likes his music better than other types of music. Mr. Haas is also probably correct that this is a great number of parishes - we know this as well, we're just not as happy about it.

That is by the way what the Eastern Churches do.
They use both notations side by side. It can look a little funny, but it does the job !

The biggest obstacle, for our parish, to singing the propers frequently is the lack of the text in the hands of the people in the pews. It is important for people to read what they are hearing sung. I wish that we had a missal in the pews where the day's scripture readings and propers were all together for easy access. I think that GIA has such a book. And, I'm sure there are other publications. Right now, we have a missalette in the pews where the proper texts are scattered all about, and no one bothers to find them. Until we get something like this, I do not use propers unless I print a special mass booklet to hand out. With 7 weekend masses, this is a problem. I, too, would like to see modern notation along side the traditional chant neumes. In our pews we have the Missalette, Hymns Psalms and Spiritual Canticles, and Gather.

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

I hope that Mr. Haas will endeavor to bring this same attitude of civility to PT, where he posts. The PT editor and Paul Inwood have collaborated to create a truly ruthless and biased environment. The vitriol directed towards people who dare to respectfully offer a different perspective often makes one blush, so idealogical is it.
It would be wonderful if Mr. Haas could use his influence there to bring some civility to the table. He's not the only person who has decided to "switch over" to CMAA forum when interested in true dialogue. As far as I can tell, Mr. Haas actually seems to care about differing perspectives. Just the other day, when PT commentators were bashing Church hierarchy for their "ignorance of English grammar," I sheepishly pointed out that the title of their post was grammatically incorrect (it should have been "For you and whom else"). My comment was deleted.

David,

You're in the clique at Pray Tell, so you wouldn't really know about the rudeness and exclusion that take place there.

Why don't we move on. There are more important things to talk about.

David, if you are still reading this, I wanted to say thanks for apologizing for the tone and acknowledge your sincerity. I've been known to get my 'Irish up' here and there, so I understand and its in the past as far as I'm concerned.

I will have to differ with you about conflicts of interest in the financial sphere. As long as sacred music is marketed (for purchase) to the extent is is now we will have problems. And I concur with you on the specific problems of subscription missalettes, with very little new content (and very little chant, for that matter).

For the record, I assume you are of good will, David. I just feel the need to question the status quo in this field as in others. Scrutiny and reexamination is always a good thing, if you ask me. I am not a chant-only gal. But when I consider the wide gulf between the music the Church puts forward as first/having pride of place, etc., and what is sold to/purchased/sung in the average parish, I am not afraid to ask why and challenge the disparity.

I have one question. Not to press you on this, but I sincerely wonder: with all your efforts in chant, and the efforts of others, why do *you* think it is that so few know about chant, let alone embrace it and sing it? Or, are you finding that more parishes you work with are embracing chant? I don't know, that's why I'm asking someone who goes to more parishes than I.

There are so many stumbling blocks beyond publishing woes, I know. The pastor, the liturgy committee, and us, the musicians, etc., etc. But if we can examine hurdles, then we can start to clear them. At least, that's been my experience in my area.

MaryAnn.. also appreciate your response a lot. Thanks for that. I guess we will have to agree to disagree in terms of the conflict of interest issue. It just is not so for me...

Obviously publishers do respond to "demand" however that is interpreted. I just have to say, as one who has worked with GIA for almost 30 years, they see it as part of their mission to publish music that reaches to all parties and their "tastes" within a certain standard (which obviously not everyone would agree with). I do know that the chant publications that they publish and provide (which is far more than WLP and OCP has in their catalog) sells well.. but obviously not to everyone, just as folks who prefer chant and polyphony, they would not purchase music that I or other contemporary composers would create. But enough about that.

In terms of your question - well, I do not know for certain. I have a few theories that pop into mind, as to why when I present and promote chant and some more traditional styles, why more do not take to it. First of all, many do. Secondly, I guess that most people who would attend something with my name attached to it, presume a bias on my part, and so the folks who come are probably in most cases not predisposed to styles and repertoire that does not reflect their own preferences. One thing that dismays me a lot in workshop circles (and I would say this is the case for folks who present to more "traditionally leaning" audiences as well), some people do not like to be challenged beyond what they already know. I have HUGE frustrations with some guitarists, for example, who refuse to learn chords beyond what they already know. Sometimes they will say something like this: "well, I really like this new piece you are presenting, but I do not know how to play some of the chords that are here." I get very petulant in my response, and say, "well, then LEARN the new chords, for God's sake." Sometimes they take the challenge - sometimes they just ignore it - which means they really do not want to be stretched. The same is true for a "traditional organist/pianist" who can play the typical 4-square hymn, but they refuse to stretch themselves to learn something about gospel styles, or something else. My point here is that there is, in my opinion, a real problem with many of the volunteer musicians (but even so, with PAID musicians in churches) to want to stretch their skills. So this is another reason why chant does not take off, I suppose.

Other theories of mine based on my exposure to folks in the arena: Some people just don't like it. Some have bad memories of pre-Vatican II days, when their memories of chant were miserable. Some think it is a retrenchment. I try to say to them, that we are a church with a heritage, that we have a tradition. I tell them that if we are not singing "Veni Veni Emmanuel" during Advent, I really do not believe we are doing Advent. I try to talk about what I call a "sonic theology and spirituality" that comes with the venerable melodies like this, and "Pange Lingua," "Veni Creator Spiritus," "Creator Alde Siderum," and so many more. Come of them get it, and some look at me like I have 3 heads.

For others - it represents the worship wars - it is a "we" versus "they" mentality that will exist in the same parish more often then we would like to think. The so-called organ/chant people in some parishes hate the "folk/contemporary" people and the music they sing, and vice versa. The "folk/contemporary" people think the music of chant, organ, choral polyphony is boring and irrelevant, and the "organ/chant" people think that the music of contemporary styles is the Anti-Christ (some people on a separate thread here tend to agree.) This sets up an antagonistic stance, even before one can try to get them to even hear about the beauty or validity of one style over another. I CAN say, that the music of Taize' has served as an interesting bridge for the "folk/contemporary" people - as they begin to sing in latin a bit, and then they begin to have an entree into a more contemplative sense of liturgical music possibilities. I often have found that after a time being involved with the Taize' music, they begin to be a bit more open to chant and similar genres.

As a whole - to get to your question again - the answer is mixed. I do find places that are more and more open to discovering and utilizing chant in their parish. I also find a great resistance in other places. The same is true for the so-called "chant-organ" folks - more of them will choose to use a contemporary song or gospel piece, or have their choirs and liturgies be a bit more ecclectic. But the divide still exists in places where I travel - we still have the "traditional" mass and the "contemporary" mass, and the hostility in recent years, has actually increased.

I am sorry to go on for so long.. but these are some initial observations.

I think a large part of the problem currently, and I'm sure Mr. Haas knows this, is that most priests are completely satisfied with the status-quo. They love Glory and Praise to our God and sometimes Immaculate Mary. They don't want to recognize that there are these texts (propers) that will require them to educate the people in the pews, train or pay for training for their musicians (or hire more capable musicians), and develop something that in their mind "doesn't need to be fixed."

Give it 20 years. The new priests that are being ordained today and tomorrow will see the value and will want to move away from the current average music program. Though I'm thinking they'll want to quickly use the Simple Propers as a stepping stone towards the better ideal.

My choir does an Introit and Communio (arranged by me) at every Choral Mass along with four hymns, and typically an anthem/motet/choral piece every few weeks. I would say they have the skills of a typical parish choir - 14 to 16 voices. I don't use the Simple Propers because I was already arranging my propers before they came out. Had I not already started, I might have used them instead of my own. I think, though, that any average parish choir could begin using the Simple Propers in some way and work up to using them every week within a year or two. You'd need a supportive or a pastor with a "I don't care about music - just leave me out of it" sort of disposition though.

I meant to add that much of our testiness at times comes from being told again and again that we don't get it or that we are crazy. There is little more soul-crushing than offering our well-considered thoughts on sacred music and being told, "we're not going to that old """" here."

Amen to that, Kathy.

I live in a parish that is 50/50 English and Mexican. Neither of the two want anything to do with blending.

Mike, Kathy and Francis,
I'm not playing "devil's advocate," (that's Mike's M.O.) but I don't believe we could any more agree on what "eclecticism" might actually mean in service than we could upon what is or isn't an ideal celebration of "Mass" in both forms. I remember distinctly hearing Msgr. Mannion (Paul Inwood was present) at the Pittsburgh NPM, '91, outline his four/five models of worship style in relationship to the Snowbird Statement, and though eclecticism was clearly the most baneful to him, he didn't (because I don't believe anyone could) provide thorough examples other than obviously jarring juxtapositions of one genre v. another style, ie. a concertato on "Thaxted" post-Communion followed by "Soon and very soon." That's too easy to dismiss. BTW, if I recall, Mannion was relatively put off by "Gebrauchsmusick," which in an even more narrow sense than in classical theory might be typified by Proulx's "Community Mass," or the works of Berthier, Gouzes and even our beloved Richard Rice (if we're talking the Simple Choral Propers.)
But I still tend to remain open to inspiration that might, either in a planned or by sudden necessity objective, require what many people would call eclectic ordering of musical moments.
Hardcore chanters would, by definition, have to declare the insertion of a Roman school polyphonic ordinary movement or motet within an otherwise chanted Mass "eclectic programming." I've heard some actually do adhere to that in real life. So, barring the obvious trespass, ie. singing the Durufle "Ubi caritas" at Commnion followed immediately by a full on mariachi "Alabare," eclecticism is a subjective concern.
I find what informs the success of tasteful eclecticism, as in all things musical, is the relative artistic competence of the performing ensemble/audience. The year we sang the Allegri "Miserere" during the Veneration on Good Friday was the year that we did not venture into any eclectic programming around that piece. OTOH, if we sing the Hassler "O Sacred Head" or the Hurd setting might just be complemented and effective by a chant or a strophic hymn. Another example of head to head eclecticism is the Eucharistic Exposition and Procession at the end of Holy Thursday, where "Pange lingua" is chanted inside the church, and a seemless transition to Ricky Manalo's ostinato version is taken up by the congregation as the Blessed Sacrament is transferred to repose in another building across the street.
So, I think performance practice and discretion must be considered before dismissing differing genres as complementary in one specific Mass.
Typing this at Fresno airport, waiting to board for NOLA Chant Intensive. Prayers for safe flights for all going eminating from FAT.

But, what suggestions then might you have for bi-, or tri-, or multi-lingual parishes at the solemnities or holy days of obligations? Apart from a "battle of the bands" approach, we're left clueless. Unless, it's actually resorting to Latin?

Take Holy Thursday, for example: what would you program which would meet your ideal? (Let's leave for later The Immaculate Conception and La Virgen de Guadalupe)

P.S. If there's anyone listening in the "evil/conflicted/heterodox/commercial/popular" world out theres, what the average parish in my region could use is a complete through-composed English/Spanish (Mexican) Mass which is textually true and liturgically and musically worthy.

But, what suggestions then might you have for bi-, or tri-, or multi-lingual parishes at the solemnities or holy days of obligations? Apart from a "battle of the bands" approach, we're left clueless. Unless, it's actually resorting to Latin?

Let's see... Universal Church... Roman Catholic... (diversity)
Universal Language... Latin... (obvious solution)
Universal Music... Chant and Polyphony... (ethereal and timelss)

omg(osh)... The Church solved this problem centuries ago! So why does everyone insist on expressing their own little piece of the globe! Let's BE universal!

Rob

Please don't think I am saying you or anyone is dense! I am sure you are an intelligent, involved and capable individual, whom, by the way, we need desperately, and will most likely be an asset to the cause of sacred music.

I was more reflecting on a similar situation here at our parish, and it all came back to me in your comment. I attended one of my first staff meetings in my latest post a few years back, and everyone was hashing out how to celebrate together in our liturgies. I suggested Latin and it was quickly shrugged off as though it wasn't even an option. Meanwhile they were saying the exact same thing you were saying. Sometimes I just am baffled at the state of our situation in the Church.

My appologies if I came off insensitively.

Why can't the most prestigious days in the calendar take a higher and more dignified path?

Because no one wants to sacrifice:

1. the comfort zone of their own sphere (culture) including
2. the familiarity of their own language
3. their nostalgic melodies that rouse emotion and sentiment
4. personal expressions of creativity
5. a feeling of community and family togetherness
... and the list goes on.

Btw... There is an excellent article in a recent journal that debunks the whole euro centric hogwash. Did you read it?

Latin is a great option, of course.
(If only liberals could realize that the Latin prayers are inherently less sexist than the English translations, but I digress...)

But there's really no reason a Mass in the vernacular (or a mix of vernaculars) cannot be as solemn as a Mass in Latin. For the traditionalist-leaning music director working in a parish without support for Latin, there are still plenty of options.