"This is a small matter, let's all agree that there is a certain lattitude here (true liberalism), and move on."

Sounds good to me.

Here is some more info from the RM-3ed about the Ambo that I didn't know.
From the ambo only the readings, the Responsorial Psalm, and the Easter Proclamation (Exsultet) are to be proclaimed; likewise it may be used for giving the Homily and for announcing the intentions of the Universal Prayer. The dignity of the ambo requires that only a minister of the word should stand at it

thank you adam for the clarification... i was also confused on that one.

Another common notation for "is not equal to" is "<>" although "=/=" is probably a little more common.

However, Francis, even with SttL quotes "Music in Catholic Worship", MCW does not have the force of law, either, as this was something that a three-member committee put forth and never sent to Rome for its recognitio.

benedictgal

Yes. I totally concur. The other documents before SttL were even less faithful to official teaching than SttL.

I read all this about singing the Exsultet from the ambo. What happened to singing it facing north?

Here are the English rubrics from my 1966 altar Sacramentary:

13. ----- "All rise and remain standing as at the Gospel, while the deacon chants the Easter Preconium. He stands with the Easter candle before him, with the altar at his right and the body of the church at his left. -----

If it is more convenient, the Easter Preconium may also be proclaimed from the ambo."


It sounds as though facing north is the standard and from the ambo is exceptional. And yes, in this editon of the Sacramentary, the Exsultet was in English and in modern notation.

WGS: Anything from 1966 could only have applied to the interim versions of the Tridentine missal that were in use during that epoch. It was all superseded when the reformed missal was promulgated in 1969. Nothing is done facing the left-hand wall anymore.

Richard Mix: proferuntur really means "are proffered, are given" so it cannot be taken as implying any distinction between reading or singing. And while you are right that "only ... but likewise" is illogical, unice has a somewhat flabbier meaning than "only." The Oxford Latin Dictionary defines it, "To a singular degree, especially, particularly."

If it happens that the organ is in some manner accompanying the cantor, then it makes every sense for the cantor to be near the organ, whether this be in ambo, in choir, or in west gallery. The cantor is not required to be visible.

That's one way of looking at it if there is an organ and cantor liaison. Howeve, there is utterly no reason why the organ is needed for what is chanted by a Cantor; in which (preferred case) the obvious place for the cantor is the ambo where the word (the psalm is a contemplative part of the liturgy of the word word) is proclaimed. It should be chanted with allowance for the people's chanted Respond. No organ is necessary, or even necessarily desired... certainly not needed by a real cantor who knows what he or she is doing... and who, by the merest inflexion of the voice cues the people to sing without any of those funny gestures

And, while I'm at it: Real Cantors, and Real Singers do not at all need (as someone said above) microphonisation: if they REALLY know how to chant and to sing, project, and utilise fine diction, amplification is the last thing they need.

Singers and cantors who rely on microphonisation are doing something they really are not equipped to do... or, they are trying to sing in a very poorly designed church.

CharlesW: I dont think that"chaos and goofines" could be any kind of imperative even though they seem to be everywhere.The words themselves describe aberrant conditions and though it somtimes cannot be avoided in practice, they cannot br accepted as guiding precepts.

The words themselves describe aberrant conditions and though it somtimes cannot be avoided in practice, they cannot br accepted as guiding precepts.

Accepted or not, the conditions exist in far too many places, sad to say. There is nothing wrong with holding forth an "ideal," but it is far too easy to pontificate when one is removed from the chaos and goofiness. Perhaps one should feel blessed if fortunate enough to not have to deal with it.

And someone who doesn't read carefully often misinterprets. Who is upholding chaos and goofiness? I merely pointed out that it is easy to be snippy and arrogant when one is far removed from difficult situations. It is not what it is where I work. My pastor does things by the book. But I can find chaos without going too far afield. Keep in mind that in some places, there are good musicians committed to changing things for the better. In other places, not so. The last thing a musician with good intent working in a bad situation needs to hear, is condescension from someone working in one of the "plum" jobs.

JennyH, to whom is your plea addressed? There's never been a soul who's breathed earth's air endowed with such power.
Your request is aptly analogous to the ridiculous cliche "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out."
if you aren't already doing so, roll up your sleeves, put your best mind and face forward, and take care of business in your parish.
If you're more offended by songleaders' naive gestures than the number of folks who've forsworn any belief in God hanging around begging for spare change, then I believe your priorities are skewed. Yes, "Save the liturgy, save the world." But castigating ignorant and propagandized (and egotistical) songleaders is small cosmoslogical potatos.

Once again ...

Making a concise gesture to help give the congregation the confidence to sing is not ignorant, egotistical, horrible, in violation of liturgical norms, or anything else.

I'm not sure how this one issue ever became so important to the reform of the reform crowd. Take half the energy you have towards railing against an arm gesture and use it to try to convince people to stop using bad music. Use great music that is worthy of the liturgy and you can make whatever gestures you want, as long as they're not obscene.

Let's keep our priorities straight. And yes, my cantors do the gesture. I'm agnostic on it, and I tell them to do it or not, I don't care either way. Most do it. And I think the people sing better when they do.

I would put "Silent Disapproval" into the "Tolerable" category, as it is still preferable to applause.

It seems that for decades (centuries?), in many places, rather than a cantor gesturing, organists and other music leaders have led well through musical cues like the end of a playover and then a pause, or a cadence and change in registration, or simply the choir starting to sing. Those should be sufficient cues without a distracting arm-waving up front.

Writing as a fan of lofts, how do they square with this instruction?

312. The schola cantorum (choir) should be so positioned with respect to the arrangement of each church that its nature may be clearly evident, namely as part of the assembled community of the faithful undertaking a specific function. The positioning should also help the choir to exercise this function more easily and allow each choir member full sacramental participation in the Mass in a convenient manner.[122]

Yeah, they just don't build churches like they used to. I like lofts and have one for choir and organ. Most of the modern buildings I have seen don't even have lofts. That off-to-the-side arrangement seems really common in new buildings.

Church musicians should be heard and not seen.

I think lofts DO fulfill 312. The choir is facing the same direction as the congregation, they're inside the building, the seating is roughly the same. And the loft can (though does not always) allow for full participation in the liturgy by the choir.