As a general principle, polyphony is licit, and accompaniment is licit, but inventing or hybridizing a chant form is not. So the question of what category this falls into is one of interpretation, and also of motive.

I'm sure you can realize how the assumption, so often expressed by Easterners, that Byzantine practice is superior to all others, can be offensive to those trying to keep the Western traditions as they've been handed down. But many types of simple polyphony (like taking the fifth or taking the fourth) are found in the Western chant tradition.

The operative legislation is De Musica Sacra (1958), and the major texts which precede it (Musicam Sacram (1955), Tra Le Sollecitudini (1903)). A compilation of many Congregation of Sacred Rites decrees concerning music translated into English (but without indexes) was published in the 1970's by Hayburn under the title "Papal Legislation".

ison is a byzantine term. in the west it is called "oblique organum" and is as old as any chant manuscript we have. it has a perfectly legitimate tradition, but using it is a matter of preference.

Better be careful. Do anything that isn't licit, and the chant police will be parked outside your house tonight. Look for Italian guys in dark suits and black cars. They are wicked. LOL.

Hehehe! I am delighted with the chant revival. However, I don't think the Church ever intended for us to turn into hair-splitting, mini Scholastics - God forbid! To my knowledge, no one has lost their soul over how they did chant. I have thought all along that we are supposed to enjoy breathing life into that music and should be rather joyous about it.

Here's a thought experiment to conduct: would the "Ecclesia Dei" commission give permission for this if asked? The answer, of course, is yes. They'd roll their eyes at another letter from the fussy, legalistic Americans.

It's astonishing that this is a matter of serious debate! The brother in question obviously does not know history and is expressing a pitifully subjective opinion. One might observe that all music, including chant, is hybrid. What we do not need is more legislation telling us how to sing what. I would suggest adding a neume here and there just to see if the brother notices. Something tells me he wouldn't.

At our parish we use organum during the Gradual and Alleluia verses. This gives the women a chance to sing during the propers, so that we do not have a mixed schola. The director chooses whether we use the oblique or parallel organum.

For some reason, mode 2 hymns and chants have worked best for me teaching at the school. Organum on "re" pretty much the whole time. One example I can think of is the Iste Confessor.

As a general principle, polyphony is licit, and accompaniment is licit, but inventing or hybridizing a chant form is not. So the question of what category this falls into is one of interpretation, and also of motive.

Does this, then, render illicit something like Adam Bartlett's Simple English Propers (which just possibly might seem to be an inventing or hybridizing of a chant form)? In this case, I hardly think so. Yet ...

It makes me wonder, seriously, just where is this line drawn? What constitutes "inventing or hybridizing a chant form?" Moreover, in what sense is this a question "of interpretation, and also of motive." (italics mine)? Is there an "illicitness litmus test" that yields a positive result when a work fails to be licit? I hope my response and ruminations that follow do not open a contentious can of worms, but here goes:

For the serious Catholic composer – trying to be faithful to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, offering up to the Father music that reflects his/her personal, inner and direct encounter with the Crucified Lamb, Risen and Ascended Son of God – this bears weightily on the soul and on how to go about creating music that does justice to God and the Church.

Personally, I'm now more than a little worried about the status of some of my own work. Possibly my "chant" setting (score attached) of the Antiphon for the Short Responsory at Compline ("Salva nos") could be viewed as licit, on the grounds that it is used as the melody in a 4-part harmonization of the same text (one would be used before and the other after the "Nunc dimittis"). Also presumably licit would be the musical lines of various parts of my "Non vos relinquam" – written in octatonic mode – for the simple reason that (so far) they only appear in the 4-part setting, even though some of these lines were conceived as a new kind of chant. Perhaps more offensive, but fortunately (I hope) also only appearing in the context of the motet "O magnum mysterium" for 12 voices in three choirs, is the twelve-tone row and its inversion through a diminished fifth, which is the basis for most of the melodic material of the motet and was, in fact, originally used (but never published) as a chanted Entrance Antiphon at Pentecost.

However, I'm especially concerned about the status of my most recent monodic and, until now, unreleased compositional effort. Elsewhere in this forum I wondered about what the Mode III plainchant melody might be for the office hymn "Nocti succedit luicer" (for Lauds at the Feast of St. Anne and St. Joachim), having only the incipit and, thanks to tomjaw, a Mode II setting (whose source I do not know). Using the Mode II setting as a model, while retaining the Mode III incipit, I crafted a Mode III setting of this hymn. Subsequently, I heard a recording of a Mode III setting and then returned to the drawing board and wrote a second Mode III setting.

Then, in correspondence with Kathy Pluth (over textual variants), I learned that the hymn, with the text on which Kathy bases her excellent translation, actually appears in the Liber Hymnarius. A week later, I was able to compare the two settings I had composed with the L.H. setting – not with a little trepidation, as you might imagine. Interestingly enough, although they are clearly different from L.H. setting, there are some striking similarities.

Attached with this post are both of my settings together with the L.H. setting for people to judge for themselves and perhaps offer some insight as to where they stand and, in particular, whether these chant compositions are in any way licit or should be expunged and destroyed as being the work of the devil. What troubles me most about the subject raised in this topic is that, from time to time I find myself, prayerfully, in a "chant mode" in which ideas for chant music present themselves to me in greater or, more often, lesser degrees, sometimes in traditional Gregorian modes, sometimes in octatonic, twelve-tone, or other modes. Is it wrong to allow myself to do this? And if a composition results from such efforts, what is to become of it?

Here endeth this discourse ... but not my confusion.

Chuck Giffen

P.S. I forgot to ask also, was it wrong to add a second part to the Psalm tone for the verses in my setting of "Psallite Domino" for Ascension?

I suspect that organum was indeed invented 'by accident' and that it was around long before it was written about. A musical culture in which music consisted only of bare and unornamented monodic melody would be unique in human history. Later mediaeval writings about organum are, it seems evident to me, descriptions of manners of singing which were not at all novel, and were attempts at establishing a theoretical understanding or basis for what had been the practice probably for centuries. They were being written about and written down because methods of notating them were finally being devised. And the developing notation was a spur to the conceptualisation of later musical accomplishments. Varieties of 'organum' occur by nature and almost universally in human musical cultures. I rather doubt that early Christian music was any different.
What is really novel and bizarre is that there should be legislation about what does and does not constitute 'licit' music making. With great respect for Chuck, I think that when one worries about whether his compositions are in some way 'licit' we are all living in a Christian version of National Socialist Germany or the Soviet Union, where even art was watched, judged and circumscribed by 'the authorities'. Should we say that the sacred music of Howells, Britten, Poulenc or Messiaen was not licit because it didn't conform to a clerical definition of 'chant-like'? May we be saved from the poverty of such tyranny!

Heck, we had accidental organum at the Madeleine. No one died.

Precisely!!!

It's all very easy to dismiss what could be a legitimate worry with heckling and mockery, but keep in mind that striving for obedience, even in little things, should be the goal. There is a very good question here, hidden in the subtext: To what extent is there flexibility in the rubrics for the music at a Tridentine Mass? If were were to scrupulously obey the rubrics, what would we have the option of doing?

Just because it has always been done does not mean that it should now be done. Maybe it was always an abuse.

The Stravinsky is allowed, or at least, I've known it to be done.

Ruth,

"What is required musically, is the singing of the Propers at a High Mass, whether the the full chants from the official Vatican Gregorian Chant books or the simplified chants from say the Rossini Propers and Chant Abreges."

I don't mean to be overly critical, but surely this is not correct, is it? If I understand him correctly, Jackson's point is that other settings of the propers, namely selections from Isaac's Choralis Constantinus, Corteccia's collections of propers, Palestrina's Offertories, or Byrd's Gradualia (among many other things) are perfectly licit, are they not? If so, then what is the actual boundary of the practice? What of Michael Haydn's settings of proper texts? Or something like Bruckner's Locus Iste at the gradual for the anniversary of a church dedication? And if we are willing to permit Haydn and Bruckner, then why not compositions from the 20th century?

Also, the point about polyphonic Ordinaries isn't exactly right, because there are large periods about which we simply know very little about the performance practice of propers. Corteccia's music (which, if you don't know, is the chant melody with quasi-improvisatory lines on top) suggests that there might have been a vital practice of improvising polyphony on the chanted propers.

It hardly seems reasonable to use historical practice as a justification for doing "X, not Y" when we barely know what that historical practice actually was!

i would like to point out that organum, whether oblique, parallel, free, or melismatic, does not modify the chant in any way, it merely accompanies them.

as far as I know, there is no prohibition on that.

I personally wouldn't do plainchant with a drone, either, but not necessarily because I thought it would be illicit!

The primary thing about music for mass is the text; the musical form used to embrace the text is at most secondary. Polyphonic propers are certainly licit, if they use the correct text. What would prohibit their use would be an exceedingly worldly style of music to which the text is set, or a setting that obscures the text so it cannot be heard by congregation and clergy (the period before Palestrina sometimes had such masses, against which the Council of Trent legislated).

It was good for a few laughs at colloquium, Doug, in both Jeffrey Morse's schola and David Hughes' composers forum, every time Ockeghem's name came up! AsI recall from a prof or two and THE GROUT, Old Johannes was the culprit that broke the cardinals' becks.

CHGiffen,

As long as On Eagles Wings is sung at Mass, you have little fear.

Back to the original query of Torquemada, the question posed in response to the criticism of a religious of isons with Gregorian Chant.

The criticism does not appear to be valid based on any study of musical rubrics. No legislation has ever been passed in this regard nor will it ever happen. There is no need to call a council as the Roman Rite, has never been so strict and the organic development of the Rite has also never been so prohibitive.
Efforts to purify the Roman Rite (e.g. Tra le sollecitudine) are only just starting to take effect after a 70 year (or so) hiatus since the efforts of Solesmes, Ward et al were undertaken.
The Roman Rite is sung. That is the fact. The Church embraced efforts to harmonize the chants and the eventual development of polyphony still holds today a place of high esteem (Most notably: Tra le sollecitudine, Musicae Sacrae, Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Bl JP2 Chiropgraph, 2003)

Personally I think we are more legalistic than ever.
Some EF communities suffer from years of marginalization and personal witness to putrid liturgy that drove them into an unhealthy rubrical scrupulocity and a certain mythology about liturgical music. At least they pray.

Some OF communities embrace GIRM after GIRM full of contradictions and bizarre liturgical decisions of the CDW. There is a strong tendency to quote the verboseness of various liturgists, Bishop's conferences, Cardinal opinions, "experts" of SC or of the concilium to no end.
Common sense be damned some will herald that isons with Gregorian Chant are illicit others will herald the brilliance of SC and the following concilium, blindly ignoring the obvious failings and weakness in scholarship. Old biddy's will tell you how it was, is and should be while others will make like the pharisees and point out all of your liturgical flaws. Some of this is the grandness of our fallen nature and will never go away. But a great deal of it is the reaction by all Roman Catholics to the spiritual malaise of our times. We clutch to rules because we need them. We search for them because somewhere we lost our sense of catholic self. Our form of worship became so destabilised that now we cannot recognize ourselves. We struggle to bear witness to the world that we are Catholic and testify to the Truth of Christ's life, death and resurrection, but in an external way we struggle to make that manifest.

So these silly questions come up. In forums, vestibules and porches all over and we look for a rule. An answer in a document. But we struggle because we busted up our external worship so badly we don't know anymore.

"So these silly questions come up. In forums, vestibules and porches all over and we look for a rule. An answer in a document."

So true! It's everywhere. As most know, I am Byzantine Catholic and work in a Latin Rite parish. I once encountered "traditionalists" - I called them extremists - at an Eastern Divine Liturgy. They were highly critical of everything since it didn't follow the supposed directives of Trent. I am not sure they really knew as much about Trent as they thought, but that is another matter. They couldn't understand that Trent was a Western council called to deal with Protestantism. In the East, the problem was Muslims, not Protestants - and still is. The East had little, if any, connection to, knowledge of, or interest in the happenings at Trent. Some of the rigorists are insular and self-absorbed. My experience is that many know little outside of what they think they know. Sometimes I don't feel much sympathy for them.

As a general principle, polyphony is licit, and accompaniment is licit, but inventing or hybridizing a chant form is not.

This whole issue is rather difficult, because Pius X wanted every Latin Church to use the Editio Vaticana, but still permitted local variations, as well.

For instance, under Pius X, the Sistine Chapel sang its own version (local variant) of the chant, and presumably had approval for this. There is documentation that Pius X never intended to end all local variants (tradition) of the chants.

In general, I think it is best to use the Editio Vaticana, but I would have a hard time "proving" that local variants of the chant are not allowed.

As a general principle, polyphony is licit, and accompaniment is licit, but inventing or hybridizing a chant form is not.

But chant has been invented/hybridized, and recently. Looking at the Hymns we can see that melodies used in Liber Antiphonarius / Responsoralis have been changed in the Antiphonarium Monasticum. Why?
Some of the hymn Melodies found in the L.U. 1910, have differences with a modern L.U.
Taking the Melody for the All Saints Hymn "Placare Christe" the melody found in the L.U. 1910 ed. has a few minor differences. Why was the melody changed even slightly?
The Ave Maris Stella has one different note! etc.

What is clearly the same melody can be found in Dominican books / Monastic Books and Roman books with slight changes.

Would it be licit to sing a hymn to a different melody of the same meter? The "Te Lucis" is listed as being set to 12 melodies in the Global Chant database, a compline book can list 13 different melodies. There could well be more, which is authentic?

If we set a metrical Hymn to a melody we prefer how do we know that it has not been sung to this melody in the past?

Of course the Propers from the Graduale Romanum are different... but different cantors can make the same piece of chant sound very different, that is without looking at the various polyphonic settings or Ratisbonne.

I can not see a problem with what Chuck Giffen has done above. It is very important to follow the text accurately (although some hymns have many textual variants), Secular melodies have also been banned in the past for good reason. If singing from pre-modern chant notation manuscripts would not the cantor be hybridizing?

There is documentation that Pius X never intended to end all local variants (tradition) of the chants.

One of the main reasons the whole Roman Church is supposed to know, sing and honor Gregorian Chant is the Fourth Commandment. As Pius X writes, Gregorian Chant is "the Chant proper to the Roman Church, the only chant she has inherited from the ancient fathers, which she has jealously guarded for centuries in her liturgical codices, which she directly proposes to the faithful as her own". We Roman Church musicians cannot escape being sons of Rome. So it is not surprising that localities are permitted--and even sometimes encouraged--to honor their own customs and traditions, insofar as they have them.

But we are also called to purify the memory and identity we have inherited from previous generations of men...the errors of the Putstet editions were purged away and the Vatican Edition officially established after Tra le Sollecitudini, after all. Solesmes has never stopped work on chant scholarship and new editions. Local customs with no extant reason for being are frequently suppressed in favor of the common praxis.

A local custom is something done twice in a place, so these things are popping in and out of existence all the time without anyone noticing. A common reason for local customs disappearing is a change in personnel.

I don't think St. Ambrose will ever stop being an extant reason for the preservation of that rite at Milan. Millennial traditions like this are rare. Even centennial and immemorial customs are rare. The Church wisely protects older customs with the force of law, while tolerating younger ones and sometimes even discouraging them.