In English, I should add. Again, for starters.

Ok, here is what I consider proof over the whole Graduale/Missale issue

Even though the text of the Roman Gradual, at least that which concerns the singing, has not been changed, still, for a better understanding, the responsorial psalm, which St. Augustine and St. Leo the Great often mention, has been restored, and the Introit and Communion antiphons have been adapted for read Masses.

It is interesting since there is so much work going on to re-translate the Missale propers. Not a soul has bothered to provide an official translation of the Graduale propers, thank goodness!

"So my question is should a parish really attempt propers for the sake of propers if they can't do them in an engaging and high-quality way? Particularly when they're going to be viewed as "we HAVE to do this, so let's get it out of the way"?"

Any music at Mass that is not engaging and high-quality, or that is done to "get it out of the way", is an offense against the dignity of the liturgy and against the art of liturgical music, in my opinion. The liturgical musician must safeguard the integrity of the liturgy, which combines various art forms into its own particular artistic expression. He or she must also accommodate the realities of the given situation: the ability of the choir, the receptivity of congregation, and (most importantly) the mandate of the clergy.

Certainly, if your choir or schola as currently constituted is incapable of giving more than a desperate reading of the authentic chant, a reasonable substitute should be found. Several collections, both plainsong and choral, have been mentioned in these forums, many of which can be found on the resources page of the CMAA website. If even that proves burdensome, then yes, you should be making use of legitimate options for other suitable songs.

Of course, you needn't impose the full Graduale Romanum in one go. Instead you can take a gradualist approach, by adding Propers incrementally to the Mass over time. The Communion chant is probably the most accessible and effective, followed by the Introit (even if it must be relegated to prelude music). The point is to reintegrate the Propers into regular worship in an organic and musical way. Ultra-simple chanting of the texts (Latin or English, recto tono or even simple psalm tone, I would say), just for the sake of inserting the texts into Mass, is not the way to go. This is only slightly better than congregational recitation of the texts, as many do at daily Mass (a practice nevertheless much to be encouraged, as it lays essential groundwork for the reintegration of the Propers). There are several collections of chant adaptations (both Latin and English) that are easier than the authentic melodies, while still providing some musical integrity.

If you have a mixed choir at your disposal (and if four-part singing is what your congregation has come to expect), I would be more apt to recommend harmonized settings of the Propers, over simplified monody. For settings of the Latin, Tozer is the most famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view), but others can be found. For English, various Anglican sources can be consulted, and a working knowledge of Anglican psalm tones should be part of any respectable church musician's education. More and more publishers are addressing the need; CanticaNOVA Publications, for instance, has a wide variety of settings.

More advanced choirs can tackle the polyphonic settings of Proper texts from the Renaissance, notably Palestrina's complete setting of Offertories or Isaac's full Proper cycle. Finding settings of texts for the modern rite takes a little doing, but the cycle of Offertories at least seems to have survived more or less intact. English anthems often set Proper texts verbatim, or nearly so (and I wouldn't be too fussy about texts that are not officially exact).

Furthermore, as the issue of Propers becomes more widely discussed (as it seems to be, more and more), composers will begin turning their attention to these texts. True, the cost-benefit is not as obvious as with more generic, multi-purpose texts (my setting of the Communion for the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, for instance, may never be heard again, at least in its Proper place). But as a composer who has the luxury of writing choral settings of moderate difficulty on a regular basis, I can tell you that the exercise of a Proper every week or so is stimulating indeed. If you are interested, I have collected a few of my settings on my modest website: http://mysite.verizon.net/res1177m8/id1.html

The point (which merely echoes Jeffrey's never-ending saw) is that Propers require a special commitment on the part of singers and their director. If they are approached as somehow supplemental to the regular choral program, they will sound just about that convincing. The reintegration of Propers demands an approach that makes of these liturgical moments something much more integral. To be effective, they must become the meat and potatoes of a choir's weekly routine. If accessory, quasi-liturgical anthems and motets must suffer to accommodate them, then you must be willing to make that sacrifice. Sung Propers, whether authentically chanted or not, require a complete reorientation of musical priorities and a real commitment from those charged with singing them. Anything less will never sound better than "we HAVE to do this".

If I may say one thing, though: one of the real dangers of Sacred Music is the thought that unless a 'performance' (for lack of a better word) of Sacred Music meets the high standards of people like Richard Rice or Arlene Oost-Zinner, that it ought not be sung.

The bottom line is, the more I do Sacred Music, the more refined my taste and ear becomes.

However, the simple truth is, people who have "less experience" with music (like some of my best friends who are tone-deaf) can have their hearts lifted to God even through 'performances' that I don't really enjoy hearing.

This is a subject about which I have thought a long time.

I do not have an answer.

As an aside, I would add that many of the pianists of old who were lauded to the skies by critics and even people like Franz Liszt (e.g. Eugene D'Albert) left recordings which are....deplorable in every way, full of memory lapses and wrong notes, and simply horrific. What does that mean?

Listen to the recordings of the chant scholar Amédée Gastoué, who recorded (among other things) the Easter Alleluia (Pascha Nostrum) with his Schola of men and women. It is....well, you will never forget it. I find it....well, I am not even sure what to say about it. It is bizarre. Never heard such imbalanced singing with so much vibrato (as an aside, he actually uses the "pure Vaticana" rhythm).

Again, some will say, "Well, they didn't really sound like that, because those were the early days of recordings, and no one understood anything about them." Except this doesn't square with what Busoni and Godowski (too of the supreme musicians of all time) wrote about recording.

Great point Jeff. The culture of recordings has put such an unrealistic burden on us all. I often wonder just what JS Bach sounded like - would anyone today have enjoyed his playing, or would it be frowned upon because it isn't as perfect as what we hear on CDs?

One of the things I love about youtube is that it is bringing back amateur performance. I've always enjoyed student recitals and local church concerts, sometimes even more than professional gigs. It hqw really hurt churches that the only music people heq4 outside of their churches are the greatest groups in the world on records and CDs. This has been true for half a century. So it is great that youtube exposes people to the rough and tumble of the real world, so people can feel some inspiration to get in there and get to singing. We have to get people past their fears if we are to develop organically grown programs.

But CharlesW, what does it mean to say something is an unrealistic burden? To strive for excellence is an unrealistic burden? I don't believe anyone reading this forum, including Richard and myself, are under the illusion that all, if any, of the music we end up performing ( in the sense that Jeff O meant it) at Mass is tip top and worthy of the liturgy. Most if not all performances have imperfections. This isn't heaven. Richard makes it quite clear in his post that the abilities of the choir and differing situations in different parishes require different choices. Moreover, he makes the point that it behooves a choir director and his singers to put forth their best effort. Whether that means on a Psalm tone or Gregorian Propers, or even a Palestrina motet.

This has nothing to do with what the pips sound like when they sing, or what we sound like singing in the shower. Or what we would sound like if we were to be recorded and then had some sound engineer fiddle with things until they were just right.

As an aside, Sergei Rachmaninoff played his last public concert in Knoxville in 1943. There is a 12-foot bronze statue of him here that commemorates that event. One of my high school teachers -yes, I am that old - heard that concert and said Rachmaninoff did not play very well. See a picture of the statue at
http://www.knoxkoupons.com/ktown_photos/photo_gallery/Historical/rachmaninoff.html

In terms of making sure that music can be beautiful, be sure to prioritize what is to be sung. Both Musicam Sacram (28-31) and Sing to the Lord (115) deal with this prioritization. Obviously, the celebrant is supposed to be the chanter in chief and few priests are willing to do that. Still, where is it written that there has to be an offertory piece sung?

Are people really running out of psalm verses at the entrance? My understanding is that it is permissible if not preferable to continue the introit with the remaining verses of the psalm, even if those verses aren't printed in the Grad. Rom., as long as is necessary. I thought Pius XII said that somewhere. Am not sure why a hymn or motet afterwards would be necessary.

De musica sacra et sacra liturgia 27.

Also note the following points with regard to the sung Mass:

a) If the priest and his ministers go in procession by a long aisle, it would be permissible for the choir, after the singing of the Introit antiphon, and its psalm verse, to continue singing additional verses of the same psalm. The antiphon itself may be repeated after each verse or after every other verse; when the celebrant has reached the altar, the psalm ceases, and the Gloria Patri is sung, and finally the antiphon is repeated to conclude the Introit procession.


Also, the GIRM never speaks about the entrance chant in the plural.

To clarify what I meant, I merely meant that Church musicians who have been highly trained have "more refined ears" than people who have never had any musical training.

Richard, why do you resent this statement? I can go delete it. The only reason I mentioned the names was because (above) you and Arlene seemed to be warning people not to attempt things that are, quite frankly, too hard for them to "pull off."

Did I misunderstand something? If so, I am sorry.

I fell in love with Church music listening to performances that (when I listen to them now) I would want to go back and tell the people "you shouldn't be attempting this, because you are not doing it justice."

OK, "resent" was probably too strong. But the implication was that I am out to shut down all sincere choirs who don't meet my high standards. That would seem an exaggeration, both of my original post (on your part), and of your response (on my part). So we'll call it even.

But if you are asking me, if I were forced to attend a parish whose choir was hacking out Proper chants week after week, and consistently making a hash of it, then yes, I would tell them to stop. Mass should be sung beautifully, no matter how complex or simple the music might be. There is probably an upper limit, in terms of complexity (I would more than happily accept Stravinsky's Mass sung liturgically, but not everyone would). But there is also a lower limit, in terms of simplicity, especially if simplicity means psalm-tone Propers so we can get on to the "real" music at hand.

As to Arlene's original post, I think the Church has presented her mind rather mixedly on the subject of congregational singing and the Propers. I can, only on the very fringes of my imagination, picture a congregation lustily singing an Introit chant. I could certainly imagine them singing a hymn adaptation of the text. And maybe they would sing along with a psalm-tone version. But I tend to agree with Arlene that this is an inherently choral moment. The trouble with talk about hymns having "replaced" the Proper chants is that it suggests these points of the Mass are intended for congregational singing. Here, I think, earlier custom reflects a more believable reality -- congregational hymn for the procession, followed by chanted Asperges (also congregational, by dint of familiarity), followed by chanted CHORAL Introit. The scenario would have to be adjusted for the modern liturgy (because I never know WHERE they're going to put the Asperges), but it seems to me only the fundamentalists on both sides of the issue would have any real problem with that.

I find it far easier to get a group of inexperienced singers to learn chant (including propers) than to learn to sing polyphony (no matter how simple).

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't Psalm tones part of the propers themselves? Like the Introit and Communio?

I'm a little nervous about asking for feedback from such a learnéd bunch, but here goes:

I've just finished an article/page on the propers for our local CMAA chapter website. You can find it here:

http://musicamsacram.org/what-are-the-propers/

I am no expert, so please e-mail me to point out errors of fact, confusing text, and so on. marymezzo at gmail.com.

My goal was to write something that might explain briefly what the propers are, what the church says about them, why we should sing them, and what settings are available.

Thanks for your help.
Mary

I think that is very good, Mary! I'd only have two small quibbles: the Responsorial Psalm IS a proper chant. There are no proper melodies, but the text is assigned and that's what differentiates a proper text from an ordinary text. A bit more important, it should be pointed out that hymns at Mass began WELL before Vatican 2, and in America were the norm at the Low Mass. It's not worth jumping into the stupid "Well my church didn't do that!" or "Don't dare defame the Most Holy One True Tridentine Mass of All Ages!!!!1!" arguments, but the drift from the propers should be recognized as beginning before Vatican 2 so that we can point out that's what Vatican 2 sought to FIX! One of our biggest struggles in spreading a return to such things as propers is the accusation of "turning back the clock". So I believe when we have a practice which is the intended fruit of the council, we should point out as much.

Wonderful article!

Pes, thank you!

From the Music Sacra site:

White List, 1947 (the year I was born)

6. Whilst "it is forbidden to sing anything whatever in the vernacular in solemn liturgical functions" (§7), is it nevertheless allowed to chant hymns in the mother-tongue at non-liturgical devotions. in this case, however, it is necessary the the English (or other) texts contain nothing that smacks of unorthodoxy or novelty (Cod Jr.m, Can. 1361) and possess such a degree of literary merit as to make them worthy of the sacred purpose they are to serve, the melodies of these hymns must, like those of liturgical Latin hymns must, be in conformity with all the requirements above enumerated for Church Music in general.

Quotations are from the Motu Proprio of Pope Pius X.

Mary Mezzo has reminded me that I posted:

"The permission to sing vernacular hymns at Low Mass was a nod to the fact that it was often local practice, using pastoral permission, to do so, and had been for at least 200 years."

And that's all it was...a nod to local practice; not permitted but something that crept in and then was banned, crept back in, banned again...depending upon the pastor. What really seems to often have killed it was the gradual adoption of popular harmonies and then the issue of sacred vs. profane came in.

The ruie was always in effect. I assume that the further the ride by horseback from the cathedral, the less training the church musician had, the more this happened.

And I will guarantee that when the Bishop came for Confirmation, the vernacular hymnbooks were put away. Like two weeks ago when the question came up if we should sing the antiphon between the verses of the Responsorial Psalm like we are "supposed to" or sing it before the psalm and then at the end of the psalm, as we have been doing the last year or so....since the Bishop was saying Mass for the first time at our church.

We did it the way we do it every Sunday. Small victories.

Vernacular singing in music of popular styles. Now it's permitted. And should be banned. Popular music...even worse, popular music styles that have been dropped by society as old fashioned.

Do you think if it were banned, it would remain and get better?

Mediator Dei 105 (1947)
They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, OR SING HYMNS SUITABLE TO THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE MASS, or do both, or finally in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant.

Musicae Sacrae 47 (1955)
Where, according to old or immemorial custom, some popular hymns are sung in the language of the people after the sacred words of the liturgy have been sung in Latin during the solemn Eucharistic sacrifice, local Ordinaries can allow this to be done "if, in the light of the circumstances of the locality and the people, they believe that (custom) cannot prudently be removed."[21] The law by which it is forbidden to sing the liturgical words themselves in the language of the people remains in force, according to what has been said.
Ibid. 64
As we have written above, such hymns cannot be used in Solemn High Masses without the express permission of the Holy See. Nevertheless at Masses that are not sung solemnly these hymns can be a powerful aid in keeping the faithful from attending the Holy Sacrifice like dumb and idle spectators. They can help to make the faithful accompany the sacred services both mentally and vocally and to join their own piety to the prayers of the priest. This happens when these hymns are properly adapted to the individual parts of the Mass, as We rejoice to know is being done in many parts of the Catholic world.

De Musica Sacara (1958) 14
a) In sung Masses only Latin is to be used. This applies not only to the celebrant, and his ministers, but also to the choir or congregation.
"However, popular vernacular hymns may be sung at the solemn Eucharistic Sacrifice (sung Masses), after the liturgical texts have been sung in Latin, in those places where such a centenary or immemorial custom has obtained. Local ordinaries may permit the continuation of this custom 'if they judge that it cannot prudently be discontinued because of the circumstances of the locality or the people' (cf. canon 5)" (Musicæ sacræ disciplina: AAS 48 [1956] 16-17).
b) At low Mass the faithful who participate directly in the liturgical ceremonies with the celebrant by reciting aloud the parts of the Mass which belong to them must, along with the priest and his server, use Latin exclusively.
But if, in addition to this direct participation in the liturgy, the faithful wish to add some prayers or popular hymns, according to local custom, these may be recited or sung in the vernacular.

My two cents:

There are Hymns and there are hymns. If you look in the index of the Graduale, there you will find THE Hymns of the church. All other hymns are "just another song" as I see it. That includes my own new comps (with unofficial texts). Is it "wrong?" Not necessarily "wrong" per say, just not the best choice which are those tried and true hymns that Mother church has deemed fit to be included in her proper liturgical books.

Look at it this way: tell me a more appropriate hymn (and I am speaking of the text) than Crux Fidelis for GF?

We use a lot of "other songs" in our liturgies. When we sang the Pange Lingua and the Crux Fidelis last week, we were singing hymns prescribed as authentic Catholic hymns. So, whenever I see the word "hymn" in an official document, I feel it is the authentic hymns to which they refer.

It is very confusing. Can you say that there's no more distinction between Low mass and High mass on Novus ordo? In many parishes Sunday mass is with 4 hymns and sung parts. Maybe one of the goal that VII tried is that it gives an option to include hymns as permitted in low mass tradition and hopefuly musicians will pull it up to the sung High mass with Gregorian chant propers?
(Or maybe I'm totally confused.)

Thanks for the clarification. I forgot about the degrees of particiation also. (nobody seems to pay attention to it around here.) It seems that the priest has to chant to start the first degree, and it also says "second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first." Our parish didn't (and can't) start even the first degree yet. How wonderful it would be to have the choir singing the propers and the priest chanting greetings instead of "good morning !'

I agree. (sigh) Maybe bishops can instruct pastors of local parishes to start to chant? (and they might need some sort of chanting class too. Although it's not so complicated, many of them are not used to it.)I don't think a lay person can point out for him. I don't know how we can start.