+1

+1

@frogman--we often use the Vade Mecum Paroissial as prelude, or other pieces that we want to introduce to the congregation. I call it 'sneaky learning'. It's lovely when people say to the priest, "Wasn't the X new? I thought we'd sung it before. It's really pretty-or-whatever adjective..." He just smiles, thanks them, and tells them he will tell me (and he does.)

my favorite piece EVER (note the organ!)

taken from here

Holding back chanting with accompaniment is possible, and a common problem. Any time untrained singers think they are supposed to follow, they will drag behind to hear first and react by singing behind. The average organist accommodates this, and the tempo is wound down.
Organists influence a tempo also by starting too slow. Especially when they don't sing along, they are disconnected from how it feels to sing the chant. If they try to play along with every note, it is very hard to keep up with the rate of sung speech, which is what chant is.

You mention meter, Noel. Depending on how chords are played, a vertical structure (foreign to the chant) is also introduced. People begin listening to the harmonies instead of just singing their prayers.

All this being said, I am not rigid about using accompaniment when it's really needed. But I wouldn't advise using it just to make an organist feel needed. That's out of balance. You are confirming my hunch that when organists claim "the congregation can't sing this acapella" it can sometimes mean the organist doesn't have the resources to build up acapella singing and/or the organist is looking for a way to accompany the chant because they like it or feel if they don't they will be out of a job.

Organists (long may they live!!) have nothing to fear in allowing chant to be acapella. They have a noble function in ornamenting the sung liturgy in a way no one else can. Preludes and postludes are a magnificent and valuable addition to the sung liturgy.

I agree that your goal is better than what exists in most parishes. And it's a worthy goal, CharlesW. But it's just not as appealing to me as the goal of sung liturgy, as laid out in Musicam Sacram. That's more my goal.

Your oft-repeated sentiment of not wanting chant alone will have a lot more relevance when the average parish regularly sings chant at all.

As far as singers listening to their own voices, that's also true. But as long as the SUNG mass is normative, that will be an issue. Organists who like to listen to their instrument is also a reality, and that approach can become a further obstacle to the SUNG mass.
Everyone knowing their part (priests, deacons, servers, choir, organists, and congregation) and striving to contribute as a servant in the sacred liturgy seems the best way to achieve the goal of the sung mass.

JMO, that setting of Credo IV is magnificent!

@ MaryAnn Carr Wilson

Also, most organists accompany too slow, at a rate where speech phrases are ground down.

Any time untrained singers think they are supposed to follow, they will drag behind to hear first and react by singing behind. The average organist accommodates this, and the tempo is wound down.

So, you're really referring to untrained organists who work with untrained singers, since this wouldn't otherwise be the case. Either way, you're also insinuating that the average organist is untrained. Personally, I don't have any evidence to say it's either way.

Organists influence a tempo also by starting too slow.

If we're talking about chant here … then there is no elaborate intro needed to start a chant. Just the first chord is suitable to get it going - which means it's not possible to start it too slow.

You are confirming my hunch that when organists claim "the congregation can't sing this acapella" it can sometimes mean the organist doesn't have the resources to build up acapella singing

Sometimes, a congregation can't sing accompanied. So, the problem isn't with the organist. GIRM 104:
"104. It is fitting that there be a cantor or a choir director to direct and support the people’s singing. Indeed, when there is no choir, it is up to the cantor to direct the different chants, with the people taking the part proper to them."

So, by "organist", I hope you mean "music-director-who-also-has-to-play-organ".

Also, there needs to be a distinction made between an organist who perhaps mainly plays "traditional music" and one who mainly plays the "contemporary stuff". These are two different kinds of breeds.

@Jeffery

So, you're really referring to untrained organists who work with untrained singers, since this wouldn't otherwise be the case. Either way, you're also insinuating that the average organist is untrained. Personally, I don't have any evidence to say it's either way.

I'm not sure that this is completely true, at least in every case. The organist at my parish is highly trained, and most in the choir are also trained, I believe. But still, when we pull out the chant (some of the Jubilate Deo ordinary, and sometimes the introit as prelude) every lent, unfortunately it is always accompanied, and always dragging. Anything else they do is always amazing, including polyphony and other choral works, but when they start singing chant, it's really frustrating... [/vent]

And then there's the organ, its origins in the Church.

I don't believe that the Church brought a pagan, Roman carnival instrument into sacred space just to provide Roman carnival music before and after Mass. It was introduced to aid the singing, and Gregorian chant was the only game in town at the time. I consider much of organ repertoire, through each and every period of music history, to be versions of loud carnival music, and that it has no place in the Liturgy, even before and after.

JMO

Love it! That demonstrates an organist who knows HOW to ACCOMPANY a schola. Too few can do it.

I think chant is good both ways, people... the NOH is a wonderful collection of truly well composed organ accomps.

Noel

yes... for political reasons, I can see what you say, but education about what the chant is at its purest form (unacompanied) needs to be understood and promoted.

I am an organist and a chanter... I like both. They should not be at odds with each other, but respectful of each domain. The organ sometimes sings alone, so should the chant.

Interesting discussion.

When an organist seems to be holding a chant back, the director is not leading the singers.

The organist is not there to lead or hold back, but to stay under the singers wherever they go.

Accompanying Chant Is A Bad Thing.

Let's say (God forbid) I enter a church where chant has not been done, although there is no antipathy towards it and the priest is supportive. So I pass out Roman Graduals to the choir, instruct them to sing the whole Mass next Sunday, and plop a NOH on the music rack and everything will go great.

...NOT!

More likely, I would ask the priest to chant "The Lord be with you", the prayers, and the "amen". The congregation will do this without accompaniment. I challenge anyone to publicly state that they would accompany a single-pitch "amen". Then I would approach my choir: "We have this lovely hymn in the Parish Book of Chant, Ave Verum. Will you join me in singing it for communion in a few weeks? This is how the notes work..." I will do this without accompaniment. I repeat my challenge: what choirmaster will say to their choir "I do not trust you to sing these four notes without an organ"?

Perhaps a few weeks later I will give them the "Anima Christi" chant to sing without accompaniment. In a few months, Father will sing the dismissal to a simple tone. At Advent we will sing a simple, familiar chant (O Come, O Come Emmanuel) without accompaniment. Maybe, for Easter, Father will rehearse with the congregation to chant the Preface Dialogue - I will not accompany it.

I will not predict an uprising, or mass hysteria and confusion, or sounds of cacophony. There are those on this thread who say that neither a congregation nor a choir can sing a capella. I believe I have just demonstrated their error.

I will accept that there ARE situations where accompaniment may be helpful in bridging that gap. In situations where one wishes to disguise chant as something else, by all means accompany. For very early Masses, I prefer no singing whatsoever, but accompany if there is to be complex chanting. Where one wishes to go ahead of where the congregation or choir's competency lies, by all means I'll accompany an Offertory chant if the choir still struggles with "Ave Verum" - though I find that a poor choice of repertoire. If there is a strong, well-supported tradition of accompanied chant, certainly continue!

But don't use inauthentic performance as a crutch. TEACH THEM to chant, and that means GO SLOWLY! Then you'll have a solid and expanding foundation for bringing chant into the liturgy, whether for the choir or the congregation.

Again I think Noel has a pretty good bead on the subject. The schola director's job is clear, whether accompaniment is desired or not, namely to affect the chanters' ability to render the text in an ideal and natural manner, and beautifully. The organist's role in that is incidental to the situational factors in each scholas' practice.
One thing missing from the discussion (made obvious by Adam's comment) is the absolute need for all concerned to listen acutely as well as being visually aware of the chironomy. And that listening activity must also be anticipatory and somewhat intuitive. Those skills have to be acquired by each singer and an organist/accompanist.
I would imagine if all involved in chanting were in "in this zone" the issue of horizontal being affected by vertical would vanish.
Celestial objects in the sky can be imagined into very beautiful cerebral organizations/structures, whether or not they're envisaged alone or in relation to the tabula that "hosts" their presence.

Does "I like it better unaccompanied," count as a good argument?
Because I do.

+1 Steve

actually, +2

I am an organist and a chanter... I like both. They should not be at odds with each other, but respectful of each domain.

Wow. I've never heard it said in a more eloquent way. I'm going to have to reuse that.

FNJ
You just described my (otherwise very competent) organist.
Any suggestions?

A suggestion: Have your organist sing and/or conduct (seated at the organ) a matching phrase to their intro, then have them play their intro at that tempo. Then, conduct a full measure before their intro so they get used to taking your tempo.

I'm sure this takes some time to fix.

Here's another aid that might help: Have the schola record the chant, unaccompanied. Then let the organist practice with that recording as many times as necessary until they can match the tempo. Since they can't change the speed of the recording, they'll be frustrated at first, but will adapt because the recording is so consistent.

I found a similar thing with the practice recordings I did for my schola ... it was important to record them at tempo, not slower than normal. But then I can't change the tempo when I'm directing, unless I tell people exactly why I'm doing that.

also if the acoustic is live, it can support a slower tempo with more rubato or longer fermatas... no two settings will ever be the same

And to those who gave practical ideas about how to work with the organist who doesn't keep tempo, these are good.

And thanks to you, Noel, for constantly providing us with posts that give us a chance to wag our respective flags and reevaluate things. We differ, we all wrestle, we all do our best in the situation we have... because hopefully we care. And...

Caring About Chant Performance (Acapella or Accompanied) Is Not A Bad Thing.

Accompanying because you like playing along is not a strong enough reason.

Tell that to the folk group guitar players.

Well, apparently, I own the trademark title to "Nova Guitar Harmonia ad Graduale".

When developing The Catholic Choirbook Anthology I made the decision to include accompaniments for every motet to be used for rehearsal purposes. But also for directors who are keyboard players and rely upon playing the music on the keyboard to learn it.

Of course, there are those that will say that anyone who is going to direct a four-part motet should be able to play it at sight from the full choral score. And these are people who strive to keep their art from others lesser than they who attempt to do what they do.

Having accompaniments available for chant opens doors that otherwise might be closed.

I truly believe that a capella chant was rarely the norm throughout history. Organists were paid well at most cathedrals and I'm sure it wasn't just to fill in between choir chants and polyphonic works. I'm also pretty certain the accompaniment style changed over the years to reflect the changes in musical styles.

Today? I like both ways. There's a special sound to a capella chant that I love, but sometimes I really like that supposedly anachronistic accompaniment. It brings chant into our time very effectively, I think. It keeps it a living music.

"a capella ... norm throughout history..." Presumably yes - at least in some sense - since a cappella is "as the church" does it. Maybe safer to say, monophonic a cappella was not a norm, or ideal, until modern times.