Limits of licit performance of Gregorian Chant in liturgy?
  • Aga
    Posts: 38
    I do not consider different schools of interpretation (old Solesmes, semiology, mensuralism) in this topic. I rather think about using different vocal techniques in the singing of chant during the mass and divine office. Are all kinds of vocal registration equally well suited in the mass? Do you think that "head voice" or "chest voice" of cantors are indifferent in this case? Do you accept using some kinds of vibrato in antiphons? Especially, what is your opinion of throat (harsh) singing of Gregorian chant in liturgy?

    I can imagine that many different options may be used in the concert of Gregorian Chant. But I am convinced that not all vocal techniques are appropriate in the liturgical singing and that the natural and moderate voice is the best one.

    What kind of pro and cons arguments can be used for or against this position?
    Do you know relevant remarks of medieval authors?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,516
    It might be helpful to distinguish among the uses of Gregorian chant. A soloist singing a tract in a cathedral might use different technique than a monk in a choir. The soloist would be projecting, other-centered. The monk would be meditating, and focused on singing within a group. Cantors in a monastery would take a leadership role. Etc.
  • OlbashOlbash
    Posts: 314
    Interesting question. I would say that much depends on the cultural context. If you're talking about some Catholic church in the Middle East that has preserved a centuries-old practice of more guttoral and "throaty" interpretation of chant, for example, this to me sounds genuine and authentic and proper to the liturgy. If you're talking about some untrained singers in some far-flung parish with no good resources at their disposal, then this also sounds genuine and authentic and proper to the liturgy.

    On the other hand, if you've got some early music professor in the middle of a big city imposing his own kooky interpretations of chant on an unsuspecting congregation, then this smells arrogrant and artificial, though I would hesitate to call it illicit. Or if the Life Teen band decides to accompany the Kyrie VIII with electric guitars and croon with their best Christina Aguilera voices into their individual microphones, then this is certainly in poor taste -- but, again, I would hesitate to call it illicit.
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,101
    It's an aesthetic question rather than a question of Church legislation. Chant should be performed so it sounds its best. Under normal circumstances, for me, that means in a medium register, with restrained vibrato and blended voices, with a modicum of technique. For example, if you have some guy who drags his chest register up to the the breaking point and then slips into falsetto, you're going to have to work with him (or else not work with him). I know somebody who pitches chant quite high, because he's short of men, and the women can sing in unison. This means the women are singing in an ineffective lower register while the men are screaming, but by golly, they aren't singing octaves! Which would really be preferable?

    As far as early sources, most of the musical ones I know about are more concerned about diction; one (Conrad v. Zabern? I forget) complains that "Oremus" sounds like "Aremus". Ornithoparchus talks about national schools of singing, Finck about the idea sound for different voices of polyphony. I'm sure there's stuff out there on chant; I've just never studied it. Then, too, you may be imposing a performance aesthetic on chant and expecting that earlier periods had the same values. Through history, most people who sang chant did so for themselves, their fellow singers, and God. Nowadays we have situations where we sing for people who aren't singing, which creates a different dynamic, and older sources may not apply.
  • Ruth Lapeyre
    Posts: 341
    As for how Chant was sung in the Middle Ages one of the few references I have ever heard describing the sound of singing chant is in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales where it is described as nasal. Some have suggested that because art from the time shows singers with strained faces suggests they were singing in a harsh unnatural fashion. Well...maybe. I know what I like to hear when I listen to liturgical music, specifically chant, and it is clear, smooth and voices that blend. Syllabic chants (generally those sung by the congregation) can be sung in octaves but for the more melismatic chants such as the Propers at Mass, unison is best.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,233
    ONe would think that the example provided by Paul Salamunovich, KCSG and Chant practitioner for ~60 years would be useful as a reference.

    To that end, the L A Master Chorale's album "Christmas" contains his work on the Introit for Midnight Mass (and a lot of other good stuff.)

    Natural voice, some little vibrato, never loud.
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    if you've got some early music professor in the middle of a big city imposing his own kooky interpretations of chant on an unsuspecting congregation


    Ahem, just what are you getting at here, Olbash? Some people would say that by singing the Our Father in something other than a mechanical eighth-note rhythm I am doing just that! Although, I do reserve my kookier interpretations for the choir.

    To answer the original poster's question, the important thing is that the chant is being sung. If it is sung with humility and reverence, whether it is sung by an opera singer or a non-voiced priest celebrant does not matter in terms of liceity. Having said that, I think singing with the best possible technique is always appropriate. If 10th c. monks had had the experience of 19th c. vocal pedagogy and 21st century vocology I'm sure they would have chosen to sing differently. As Olbash has pointed out, the aesthetic of what makes "good" singing is in a large part cultural, and those norms can be respected without doing harm to the chant. On the other hand, to imitate what would otherwise generally be considered vocal faults heard on recordings of untrained monks or nuns in the interest of "authenticity" seems to me to be rather inauthentic.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Ya-hooooo-ooooooo and amen, Incan-tu-uuuuuuu!

    I just started holding 2 hour office hours for my volunteer cantors/directors for our cluster parishes. First victim "client" was a gentle man who has held forth one of our vigils for a couple of decades who self-fashioned his image as a chant proponent. His M.O. was that plodding eighth note, equal syllabic emphasis, grind to a halt at every comma, oft mispronounced vowels/consonants and a mystery method of determining "tonal" center, both of the modes and each note! Well, me and the missus worked with him from two fronts: listening, listening, listening was first (as if you outta tune, nothing else matters); and secondly keep the phrases moving according to the natural demands of the text. I recorded him on m' Zoom and lo and behold, he showed immediate remediation of most of those faults. Now we'll see how well that works this Saturday in real time.
    And, I still defer to the walking happy paradox that is JMO: namely- make sure the schola director knows what s/he wants and seems informed and deliberate, and then follow, follow, follow. "I will follow him, wherever he may go..."
    Haven't even had coffee this AM, Wendy's up in Oregon. Can't find the "on" button.
Add a Comment