The Best MD Decision I Ever Made
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    Removing the cantor from the microphone at choir Masses, except for things that absolutely have to be intoned (Psalms and Alleluia).
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    I did the same thing.
  • ContraBombarde
    Posts: 471
    Have you guys had more congregational singing as a result?? What have been your experiences, now that you have done that?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    In my parish we don't have a problem with congregational singing. Historically, they just sing.

    The overall sound quality is improved immensely. I'm watching the (so far exemplary) installation Mass in Denver, and they have a cantor singing somewhat awkwardly, somewhat delayed, over the excellent choir. That's what made me realize today how happy I am about this decision.

    The only other exceptions I've made to this policy have come up this year, with the new translations of the Gloria. For the first few weeks of each setting, I've cantored the Gloria, just because in this particular case exactitude seemed to trump sound.
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    Kathy, what about in the cases where parishes have no choir, as in my case at my dad's parish? What I have tried to do is step back from the microphone so that I can hear the faithful sing.

    In the case of my parish, no one really sings especially at Masses where the choirs use Spirit and Song exclusively. Somehow, I do not think that Spirit and Song was ever meant for congregational singing. By the way, there is no "cantor", per se, at these Masses (except for the Psalm and the Gospel Acclamation).
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    Although I haven't made a policy of this, when I personally cantor, I intone the Lord Have Mercy, then let the congregation respond, without me singing. So at the very beginning of the Mass, they hear their own collective voice. Other than that, when there's no choir, we use a cantor for the whole Mass. It's a big church, with a brick wall inexplicably placed in front of the loft, so microphones = good.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 988
    One day the batteries went dead on the mic and I noticed a lot more congregational singing for that particular Mass. After we put new batteries in, the singing died down once more. Since the pastor (and others) was always badgering me about getting the congregation to sing, I made the suggestion of forgetting the microphone, but that didn't really go over too well.

    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,115
    Excellent!

    And, if the cantor/psalmist has a clear and very well-supported voice (with nearly perfect diction), and the acoustic is right, one can even experiment with minimal or no amplification, too.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    One of the dogs I have in this fight is that I am a huge fan of ad orientem posture, specifically because I feel that excessive eye contact is distracting. There are other reasons of course, but this is my personal soapbox on the subject: If Mass is for praying, then having someone "in yo face" all the time is the exact opposite of what is helpful. This goes for cantors even more so than presiders, imho.
    Thanked by 3Ben CHGiffen E_A_Fulhorst
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Kathy,

    My thoughts exactly.
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,985
    My cantors are always in the loft. Most can carry singing without the use of microphones. I have two cantors who need them. I turn them just high enough to compensate for the weaker, older voices.
  • Cantate
    Posts: 33
    An excellent choice. The cantors chant the psalm from the ambo, which obviously has a mic, but other than that, no mics are used. When there's a choir, I just think it's silly.

    If your parish is small and does not have a choir, I tend to put the cantor either in the loft or in the pews in the midst of the congregation. All they're doing is helping the congregation sing as a member of the congregation. They aren't really a "cantor", per se, because they aren't intoning anything, really.

    As a side note regarding the installation Mass in Denver, frankly I was incredibly disappointed. Few if any propers, Respond and Acclaim Gospel Acclamation, setting most of the ordinaries by Dan Schutte. Other than some good choral stuff, and that choral stuff being performed very well, I was quite disappointed overall...Maybe I just expect more from Denver.
  • E_A_FulhorstE_A_Fulhorst
    Posts: 381
    Side note: Is there any use in cantors intoning, as they do in the EF for the first two or three words of propers and hymns? Does this distract, instead?
  • Cantate
    Posts: 33
    I always have the cantor intone (sing the incipit) the propers....It sets not only the mode/tonality for the less experienced singers, but also the tempo. So, to answer your question, I think it's not only a good idea, but quite vital to proper and historical plainsong performance.
  • E_A_FulhorstE_A_Fulhorst
    Posts: 381
    My original question was unfortunately unclear:

    Does this EF use of the cantor apply well in the OF?
  • Cantate
    Posts: 33
    Yes. I believe so. With that said, though, this is based on historical practice, and particularly the methods of Solesmes. I do not believe there are any rubrical requirements on intonations in the EF or OF....it's quite honestly just practical.
  • E_A_FulhorstE_A_Fulhorst
    Posts: 381
    What about OF hymnody? Can the organ take the place of the cantor and his incipit?
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    I haven't seen anything either in any of the modern books reguarding intoning the chants, other than the note about the priest having the option of intoning the gloria, and also I believe the credo. However, I can also attest to its usefulness. Much easier than trying to give all the singers the pitch, then start together from a dead stop. When it's intoned, the rest of the schola just fluidly joins in.
Add a Comment