Since some parishes in my area have already begun discussions about the best manner to introduce the new missal, I wonder why the USCCB hasn't already prepared for distribution the type of Mass card you propose. If the new missal chants are to be learned, a user-friendly pew resource is the only way to go. And may I add, getting accompaniments to these chants into the hands of parish musicians is equally important. This needs to happen soon if the chants are to have any chance of being embraced by the typical parish.

I should have added that I would love to see examples of current congregation aids if anyone has them -- I'm not referring to the worship aids that have already been shared in this forum (folded sheets with hymns, acclamations, parish news, etc.), but strictly the format of a front-and-back card with the Mass Ordinary on it.

Does anyone have good connections over at ICEL? I agree that it would be splendid if they could prepare such a resource.

this is a great idea. Our parish has been teaching the Missa Jubilate Deo (the one that every Catholic should know,) and it is a couple pages in a booklet that we put together (with other songs), and I am *always* finding those pages torn out, b/c obviously they get sooo much more use than the rest of the book! I wish we had just gone with a card.

Peter

Someone started a similar thread a number of weeks ago. I remember them posting their card as a pdf. You might look it up and see if it will work for your situation.

I offered to make one up on the other thread but they came up with their own. I am still willing to do this as I want to put one in our pews here. Before I do, give me the hit list of exactly which elements to include. Off the top of my head I think the dialogues and the Ordinary would be key. I have mixed feelings about including the
Credo because I think that is the hardest sell to get people to sing, and because it would eat half the space. Thoughts?

BTW... I would use the ICEL pdfs as it is simple to import them into my layout app, so this would be a fast turnaround.

Francis,

I would be delighted to see a card from you. I think there should be (at least eventually) two versions of any set of music: one with the Creed and one without. Starting with the Creed would be overwhelming for a lot of pastors, musicians, and people in the pews, but after successfully introducing the rest of the Ordinary, the Creed would be a logical and obvious step.

The ICEL chants are the place to begin. They are the most basic and will probably be the most commonly in use. It will be an easier sell to say: "Here are the official chants that come along with the Missal, so shouldn't we at least start here? We can always branch out later..."

As for what to include: the Ordinary parts (minus the Creed for now); all the sung responses, including Memorial Acclamation(s); and if possible, the texts for the people that have changed, e.g., the Confiteor and the Lord, I am not worthy. That way, all that the people would need access to would be in one place. Not sure if this is even possible with a double-sided letter-sized card, but one could make the attempt!

Here are my questions:

In the music to be provided to the Conferences of Bishops, ICEL seriously considered employing the venerable four‐line square note notation of the Latin chant books. Once one learns the medieval notation, which does not take long, it is in some ways easier to read than modern five‐line notation.

If it is venerabe and easier to read, then why was it not employed? The lingo is patronizing.

But pastoral considerations argued against this approach.

Who made and What were the "pastoral considerations?" Are we (the body of musicians of the church) not part of making that assessment or at least providing input?

There is danger that the traditional four‐line notation would pose a practical hindrance and psychological barrier for some singers.

Wow. Since when (1960?) has there been "danger" in the very things of longstanding tradition? Isn't the danger always in those who question them? Is this the sole criterion of the "pastoral considerations?"- "some singers?" Is this not the tail wagging the dog?

The uppermost goal must be to enable sung liturgy.

So this summing statement then assumes that GN does not enable sung liturgy? If it doesn't enable sung liturgy, why has it been used for hundreds and hundreds of years?

Just questions.

Adam

I totally agree with you on everything you have said. However, Non-Christians, many non-Catholic denominations and Pagans are hostile towards things of the Church. What is the difference between them and those who profess to be Catholic but are hostile to it?

I hope you don't do it in square notes. Despite all the arguments in favor of neumes, it will provide chant opponents another weapon for keeping it from ever being used in many parishes. What's the objective here? Is it to get the chants adopted and used, or stake out ideological ground and maybe lose this golden opportunity?

Charles... I can make you a special edition in clunky MN. However, you will have less real estate so you would have to decide which parts you want to leave out.

I can see why ICEL made the decision it did. I think that the #1 goal has to be getting the chant idiom back into the parish. After some years of this, the square notes can also be reintroduced, because there will be something of a living awareness of how the familiar melodies match the square notes, and then it can go in reverse: people reading the square notes of a chant they have never seen. For now, I think the modified modern notation (stemless notes) works better for our situation, which is admittedly a dire cultural situation.

BTW... what happened to the Mea Culpa!? I thought it was going to be in the penitential rite?

Francis, would there be enough space for English in MN and Latin in CN (chant notation) at least for Ordinaries? It would be really good to have Latin Ordinaries side by side with English ones. Thanks.

Here's a little secret about square vrs. round note heads. Look again at the example I have posted above.

Square note heads are wonderfully natural for singing chant, because the sides of the notes, in a sense, 'point' to the word you are singing. Because their sides are vertical, they direct your eye to the textual matter which is vertical to it. This is more psychological than visual. Round note heads give you the feeling they are 'grabbing' at the space around them, and do not necessarily assign themselves the textual matter directly below them. Why?

This phenomenon is called 'leading the eye'. The way content is placed on the page is how a designer leads the eye from place to place. In reading modern notation, you sort of feel a much greater tension in trying to "connect note head to word or syllable." This is actually a little known secret by only those who understand design and more specifically, chant engraving.

A little story: My choir never saw square notes when I got here three years ago. They all had that initial "o my gosh, I can't do this" response to me at first. I simply assured them that they will see how easy this is and in the long run how much easier it will be than reading MN for chant. We have been doing the AUG propers. Now they ALL prefer GN because they now understand the difference and the ease in reading GN when it comes to chant. When new members come to the choir and we practice the chant, the new member vocalizes the "omgicdt" sentiment, and the choir sells them on the spot! That is one of the more rewarding moments in choir rehearsal for me.

As for my philosophy on 'waiting', there is no waiting any more. To take back the territory, you have to push a little on the boundary line, or else you will never find the right time to re-present GN. I know I stirred up the hive on this subject above, but I want to see where people are with regards to pushing a little on the boundary. From what I am reading, it all comes down to the particular situation which is largely influenced by the pastor, committees and general stance about Latin or the EF. Do you agree?

AE:

Yes. Good idea. If you find that example, let us know where it is.

Bruce

Im going to look at that for sure.

Don't know Mark... I call it Gregorian or Square Note, and other Modern or 5 line. Why?

Depends on what you're emphasizing, I imagine.
"Square notes" are easier to sing, line up properly with the text (vowels), and use less horizontal space. "Four-line" notation takes up less vertical space, spans the correct pitch range, and correctly demonstrates the relative (rather than fixed) pitch relationships of the music. "Gregorian notation" has a certain official gravitas to it, although it might be the slightest bit misleading, as Gregorian chant exists apart from the notation, and the notation can be used for non-Gregorian chants."Neumes" seems an odd choice, as you don't describe modern sheet music as simply "notes."
"Five line notation" wastes vertical space, and usually suggests a fixed pitch. Also, "five-line" is easier for organists to read. "Round notes" are less scary than "square notes," and (even when used stemless or on a four line staff) people seem to flip out less if the notes are round rather than square.
"Modern notation" (in reference to chant) might mean that awful, awful thing where they put a quarter note on every syllable. Much preferable to that is "modern chant notation" (stemless round notes on a five line staff). Another problem with "modern notation" is that in the world of academic (non-liturgical, non-early) music, "modern notation" might mean all the weird 20th century things like box-notation or pages of squiggly lines with cryptic instructions about when to turn on and off the vacuum cleaner. So, while "modern notation" might be an okay shorthand for a generic conversation ("chant notation is better than modern notation"), it seems that in reference to a particular edition of a piece of music, it is best to be specific ("The ICEL chants are presented in stemless round notes on a five-line staff").

AE:

I looked up the example you mentioned. They are using two lines with a TE as the demarcation for the top line (probably because they could'nt use the DO clef as it would be off the staff (next space up). Effectively, this is kind of a substitute for the DO clef in that it puts one in the frame of mind as singing in the Mixolydian mode using the top line as the lowered 7th. Actually, now that I think about it, they are really using the FA clef without the clef which would be the space below the bottom line and including a fixed TE on the top line.

I do not care for the round notes... they look sandwiched tightly between the lines. It is better if it doesn't touch the line if it has nothing to do with that pitch if you know what I mean.

It is a great idea for the Mass card as it will save TONS of room for the dialogues.

Bruce:

I am not seeing a Service Music section for Morning Prayer... what page is that on? I found an example at #153, The Liturgy of the Palms.

Adam:

I suspect I am the only man for the job... unless you are an illustrator/graphic designer/music engraver all in one.

OK... then you can easily do this too! How about some help! I love the NOH accomps, but I barely get my work done for the parish much less doing something as ornate as a Hybrid NOH.

It's interesting that we are calling "modern" a system of notation that is how many centuries old?

Peter

Lets start with your preferred version. I will crank it out in the few days at best. After all, I have organ music to practice. ;-}

It may be of historical interest (and perhaps some practical value) to see three Mass cards that came out, one in Latin in 1959, and two in English in 1964 and 1965. I have these due to the generosity of a deceased organist who bequeathed a large collection of music to me, including such rarities as congregational aids from the "old days."

For the sake of people who are thinking of creating congregational Mass cards, I should like to mention to dimensions of the original documents. All were made with card stock.

1. Chant Mass for the People (1959): a folding 11x17, to give four letter-sized pages.
2. Simple Hymn-Tune Mass (1964): front and back, a bit short of 12x9.
3. English Mass in Honor of Pope John XXIII (1965): front and back, 10.5x7.

Here you go: missal-chants-letter.pdf