Chantosphere! nice.

Accompaniment completely changes the character of chant. The chords just shouldn't be heard. There are probably some acoustic environments that seem to create a demand--and the fewer chords, the better--but there really can't be any dispute about the ideal of of a capella chant.

I prefer chant unaccompanied as well, but I can understand its use for practical reasons (e.g. chronically unreliable, out-of-tune singing). I would however like to speak up for the high quality of accompaniments from the Nova Organi Harmonia. One hopes for an electronic version of that monumental piece of work sometime soon.

If I may riff a bit, it seems to me that chant accompaniments are a bit like castings. They fix things. Gavin is right that unaccompanied chants imply a lot of harmony, and it's a wonderful thing to let them do that. A musician can muse on these implications, but I think they're only heard by musicians. Non-musicians just hear pleasant sounds and sense melodic arches. If they're attentive, they pay attention to the text. Thus, their engagement is more superficial, and that's by no means a criticism or insult -- they have better things to do in church than reflect on musical form. But to return: inferior accompaniments can make the chant sound predictable and ordinary.

That's a disservice. Recently I've been listening to a lot of Olivier Messiaen's music for organ. There are no catchy melodies. The harmonies are totally unpredictable. And yet, however "complicated" it sounds, it never intrudes and disrupts my prayer. It's a bit like working while someone is singing in a foreign language: if you don't know the language, your own interior thinking isn't impinged upon nearly as much. Someone singing in your own language is much more invasive. It is even more invasive if the song has a melodic hook and a catchy refrain. These things are designed, by their predictability and force of repetition, to prevent any interior working of your own. You find yourself humming the things, the words continue to reverberate, etc. I'm sure there is some good physiological explanation for how this works: surely our brains have short-term networks that are easily exploited by hearing simple repetitive patterns.

I can hear someone saying, "Yeah, and that's good! We want people walking out of church singing 'I am the Bread of Life' to himself!" Do we really? I don't think so. It is absurdly, and I would say offensively, reductive. What happens at the Mass is much more complex and compelling than a few verses of a religious song. Instead, what I've found is that listening to Messiaen's music, as does listening to the chant, puts me in a peculiar state where I know I'm somewhere set apart, and my brain is free to range over the full spectrum of what's going on at the Mass. I can observe my brothers and sisters in Christ in, well, a spirit of some wonder. In short, I find my thoughts and spirits liberated. When I am forced into singing con music, on the other hand, the experience is intensely restrictive. I feel manipulated. I feel my attention driven down and made to conform to something infinitely more trivial than the Mass.

All this has to do with melody and harmony. Some of it is suggestive and liberating and consorts well with chant. Some of it is manipulative, even coercive, and prevents a rich participation at the Mass.

Hey, they chant the Our Father just fine without accompaniment.

"screaming organ with all the subtlety of a circular saw"

Have you ever heard (observed) a circular saw, especially a table saw, as the blade slows down when turned off? It is truly "celestial" - e.g. two notes coming into tune with each other but still out of tune, like the organ "Celeste" stop. This is the Doppler Effect - the saw teeth vibrating at there physical pitch, but always both going away from you (making them flatter) and coming towards you (making them sharper). When the blade stops, there is but one tone from the saw teeth.

I love accompanied chant. It's what I grew up with, and it IS a tradition of the Church. What we had forcibly taken from us (the vast majority of us) in 1964 was accompanied chant. And we had experienced it just like our grand-parents and even great-grand-parents. The best of the RC organist work set to working out the best ways of accompanying chant with the original Liturgical Reform of St. Pope Pius X. Whether any of the got it "right" is a somewhat subjective question, but I believe there is a 'better' way to accompany chant. Certainly, simply fitting major/minor chords underneath the melody falls far short of the mark. It might not clash with the melody, but it does not clarify the implied harmonies, indeed, it doesn't even move with those implied harmonies! Unfortunately, there are many published chant accompaniment books that do just that! The only thing that can make that a worse situation is for the organist to treat said accompaniment as a hymn-style "leading" accompaniment. The only way to lead with the organ is the Principal chorus, even up to the mixtures! Just listen to the chant as performed on the most popular Catholic radio stations here in the USA - it is an argument for unaccompanied chant!

Again, I will mention the work of the Lemmens Institute in Belgium - "Nova Organi Harmonia". It is still POP. But if you are fortunate enough to have access to an old copy, I think you have a real epiphany about accompanied chant. Not only is the organ part strictly "modal", there is at least one note changing at every arsis and thesis. There is a certain amount of harmonic tension through each arsis which is at least partially resolved in the following thesis. I.e. not every thesis is resolved to the same extent, nor is every arsis completely without some feeling of 'at rest'. I feel like this accompaniment, especially on a couple of soft stops (maybe even the Celeste stops) sounds like the chorus of angels supporting my/our chanting. This is also due, in part, to our modern ears! Listen to the jazz of Kenny G, especially to the accompanying instrumentals. Jazz chords, built on more than a simple triad, each have a combination of dissonance and consonance - they are tensioned and yet at rest all through the piece. This is also the standard of Gregorian chant, that it overall provide a sense of peace. As I am growing used to the NOH, I find that both major and minor seconds in the harmonies are the ONLY possible harmonies that my ear wants to hear! When I am finished chanting a 2-3 page Introit, I feel totally at peace!

So, I remain confident that there is room for both accompanied and a capella chant today.

So, thoughts on these examples (the "Ecce Virgo" Communio in particular… recorded live from St. Benedict's Monastery in São Paulo, Brazil)…?

Our whole experience is that people sing without instruments but do not sing with them -- exactly the reverse of the usual claim about how instruments "support" singing.

Well, I don't have access to an organist with the requisite skill, so we chant everything a capella. Works reasonably well, even when the pitch wanders on occasion.

Hmm. I don't really see this as an either-or. And I really don't see (or don't hear for that matter) why organ should necessarily be a detriment to chant. Especially in a Cathedral atmosphere, singing the Credo accompanied lends a very grand feel (not that Chant can't do so by itself) as is done in London Oratory, Westminster Cathedral, St, Pat's in Melbourne and many other places.

Also, Westminster Cathedral has a very fine choir and they too chant the psalms with the organ. It doesn't mean that it should always be done, but in 'some' ways it may give the idea of progressive solemnity a boost. Of course it's more than fine if it's unaccompanied but even if it is, a suitable organ accompaniment that doesn't distract cannot but edify the unison voices of Gregorian Chant.

While we certainly can't put it in the same league, it would be very hard to imagine Langlais' mass settings without an organ. The idea of unison voices in 'chant' like fashion and accompanied music as diametric opposites is a very frustrating and antagonizing split that we like to impose just to make our theories neater, don't you think?

Isaac.

I was an organist at a Seminary in the early 60's when chant was a living tradition. In our chapel, chant was almost always accompanied. Good Friday was an exception. Singing by the entire community was the norm, and I still miss the sound of a couple of hundred vigorous male voices singing one of our favorite Ordinaries.

Often the priest/choirmaster would just plop the Liber on the music stand of the organ and say "play this." So I developed the ability to improvise an accompaniment right from the square notes, based on the outlines of the melodies.

I still prefer to improvise my own accompaniments (when I get a chance to play chant, which in my parish isn't very often.) The way I look at it is this: chant is monody; it's just melody with words. Accompaniment is not part of the music but something ephemeral which reinforces the melody. Chant melodies constantly outline tonal structures, after all. In a reverberant room, the notes ringing in the air create harmonies, different for each mode.

When I studied music history, I learned that an important clue for the performance of early vocal music is contained in the manuscript illustrations and paintings which show instrumentalists playing along with the singers.

I think the important thing is to bring chant back to parishes, especially while we older folks are still around who literally grew up singing in Latin. Who is going to be the referee, anyway?

A famous quote from the Cistercian abbot St. Aelred of Rievaulx (1166): "Why, I ask you, do we see in church so many organs and bells? What use, pray, is this terrifying blast from the bellows, which sounds more like thunder than the sweet human voice? During all this, the people stand trembling and speechless, amazed by the throb of the bellows, the clashing of bells and the music of the organ pipes... It is as though a crowd had assembled not in a place of worship but in a theatre; not to pray, but to witness a spectacle." See http://www.ondamar.demon.co.uk/literat/med-wes.htm.

moconnor, I suppose two ranks (for the real rich churches) must have been huge in those days. As I recall, the oldest extant organ dates from the 13th century. Any clue how large that one is? I smile to think good ol' JS Bach must have made the abbot roll in his grave!

I guess this has gotten off onto a tangent. As I understand it, the Greeks and Romans had organs with a hydraulic powered wind supply. Shows on the History Channel are constantly reminding us of their engineering ability. These were outdoor instruments, very loud and raucous -- I believe I heard that the Colosseum had one. After the dark ages they were revived and began to be used in churches but were still extremely loud. A friend of mine visiting Germany wrote that the baroque organ in a German church was the loudest thing she had ever heard except for a rock concert. As organ building advanced builders developed stops mellow enough to accompany singing. The 1887 organ at my church has an entire pallette of soft stops which support even the softest singing without overwhelming it. This kind of organ sound, in the hands of a sensitive accompanist, can unobtrusively support a large congregation singing a chant ordinary. A small, experienced schola would no doubt prefer to sing without accompaniment.

Music is like the wind.
Put it in a box,
it is no longer music.

I truly like steak.
Do I eat it every night?
Sometimes a simple soup and bread
Could not be better.

Chant with,
Chant without;
Organ with,
Organ without.

Listen for the wind!
You can chase after it,
But you will never catch it!

I think it may be registration issues, insofar as the playing loudly is concerned. A book I have copied the service playing section (but I can't remember now) reccommend I think things to be soft and plain: 8' flute or string, perhaps with a 4' one as well, if using the pedal, perhaps a very soft 8' and maybe a very soft 16' stop (again flute or string). David Heller, in his Manual For Hymn Playing says "...when the organ is used for support, the registration should be clear and lean --just enough to support the congregation without being too obtrusive. Try ommiting the 16' pitch in the pedal altogether. Soloing out the melody on a more promienet registration can be helpul to the congregation as they sing. Since the nature of this style is so text orientated, it would behoove the organist to sing the text several times before acc. the congregation." So I would def. tell the organists to sing it before they accompany it. Or, if you look in our chant recordings we mention recordings that use accompaniments. One I reccomend is the Soul of Chant, which is mass ordinaries.


Or if you are from around the New England Area, I would be MORE than happy to come down for a Sunday....lol

OK... I was very cryptic a couple of entries up, I admit.

Well, I LOVE the sound of voice alone, but I am also an organist and a composer. So, what I am trying to say is that there are many ways to execute chant. One is not better than the other, per se... they each have a moment when they will be right for the circumstance, the season and the setting.

eg. I can't stand electronic organs. In fact, I am hard pressed to take a position where a pipe organ is not employed. And where these is the lack of a good instrument, I much prefer a cappella to using something that grates my eardrums and my nerves. In fact, I would go so far to say that I prefer a Mass without music than to one with BAD music. Tis a sad statement, but one which we have come to in these confused and troubled times in the liturgy.

That all being said, I have even heard beautiful chant with a simple guitar as an accompaniment, playing a simple glissando, or even just a sparse bass obligato. Perhaps God likes the variety. When lovers love, it is never the same twice! So, too, when we love God. After all... no two performances of chant are the same, even when it is the exact same schola.

I'm using the organ with the Ordinary right now, but under duress. I can't wait for Septuagesima and Lent, when the organ goes bye-bye.

Why would one want to accompany chant? The only good reason is to help the people sing it. However, in my experience, the organ only introduces confusion into the singing. I have seen it happen where scholas and organists don't quite agree on how long to hold this or that horizontal episema, and in such instances you find the seeds of train wrecks. This can happen with well-qualified musicians. It is not an occurrence only with the many mediocre musicians who are out there.

Secondly, there is the issue of texture. The Pragmatists like to minimize artistic considerations when it comes to chant accompaniment, but texture is a very important aspect of all this, and generally it is destroyed by organ accompaniment. Again, the only good reason to accompany chant is to assist a faltering congregation, and the only way to do this is with a strong organ registration--and some may also argue frequent harmonic changes--that will inevitably destroy the texture of the chant.

"Oh go take your concerns about texture back to the conservatory," I could hear people saying. But let me ask you this.
If you sat down to a steak dinner that tasted like steak but had the texture of pudding, would you be pleased? Indeed, the false texture would probably affect the taste. It wouldn't taste like steak; it would taste like steak-flavored pudding. (This has never happened to me--yet.) Texture is part of an organism's constitution--even part of its proportion. When the texture is violated, the proportion--which relies on the harmony of matter and form--is destroyed. (See St. Thomas Aquinas or Umberto Eco, both of whom discuss this far better than I can.)

There is one type of chant accompaniment that does not destroy its texture, and this consists in holding long chords softly in the background. This does nothing to assist the singers, so what's the point? Maintain the pitch? Train your schola better. We've got to stop using the organ as a crutch or a band-aid.

It seems to me that we would be far better off spending more time teaching our people how to sing than wasting time with Belgian accompaniment books. Far better to spend some time with some Belgian beer:)

Jeffrey - I am sad to admit that I have come to the same conclusion, much as I would love to accommodate the "active participation" of all comers and much as I dislike an upcoming confrontation. At next week's schola rehearsal I plan that each of our singers will be doing Gloria Patri solos for evalation. I will offer remedial work to those in need, but they will not sing as part of the schola until they can augment rather than detriment the group. I have to chat with our music director first to prepare for backlash, but it's just not going to work otherwise.

Must be nice to have enough people available who can maintain pitch. I'm curious as to how far off pitch your problem singers are. Are they ending up just a little flat at the end of a long chant or are they way off? Just curious.

moconnor

Michael - I find intonation problems to be almost an inverse problem. If I had lots of singers I wouldn't be as concerned. We have 7 fairly regular singers. Five can hold pitch reasonably well, of whom 3 sing out and 2 lack confidence, and the other two are ... confident but problematic. I can survive dropping a half step over an introit, but these two can't dependably sing a do-re-mi third without dropping pitch. That's too much for the rest to hold up.

Priorstf: Yes, that is exactly what I meant. At this time, the only chant that is performed with the entire congregation is the "Missa de Angelis - Gloria", and I am in 90% accompaniment mode, whether I am also the Cantor or I have a Cantor assisting me. When I perform chant at the Latin Mass, I am singing solo. And when I have a schola with me, I will be leading them with my voice and some head motions (and we would have gone over the music well beforehand) and I will be 100% accompanying on the organ.

I simply prefer accompanied chant - though not just any accompaniment, as I've said before.

And it IS a tradition of the Church. Whether it is currently politically correct, academically encouraged, or historically accurate are all parts of the controversy. Said controversy would be minimized if it were acknowledged that both performances of chant are valid, and we all spent more time perfecting our performances, accompanied or not.

I'll do this as tersely as possible. Our schola sings without accompaniment (1962 Mass):

- all Office hymns chanted at Low Mass
- Gregorian propers (when we move to the High Mass - we were singing them at the Latin Novus Ordo)
- all responses
- the Ordinary during the penitential seasons

With accompaniment:

- the Ordinary during the rest of the year
- all Seasonal Marian antiphons (including penitential seasons)

I have no preference either way - actually, one of my more subversive ideas is a Graduale Romanum Comitante Chitarra(!) I contend, however, that any and all instrumentalists chosen/assigned to accompany the chant absolutely must be familiar with its spirit to be able to underpin it well; the listener should sense that the instrument is "breathing" with the rest of the choir, as a part of the choir.

Well said Steve!

I recently received a complementary copy of a CD of chant being sung by a monastic community of Benedictines (the name escapes me) that was being circulated for several reasons, not the least of which was to solicit donations.

After having heard recordings of the schola at St. Meinrad singing chant unaccompanied, I was struck by the overly-simplistic harmonies being used by the organist on this recording. The biggest problem, I'm guessing, is that so many of the accompaniments being written apply tonal harmonies (tonic/subdominant/dominant) to modal melodies. Some of the best "harmonizations" of chant seem to come from France, and I know that there is an untranslated treatise by either Dupre or Durufle (can't remember which) on the theory of keyboard harmony for use with chant.

At this point in my work, I'm not fortunate enough to have this problem, so I can't speak from experience. I know that I like to hear unaccompanied chant, but I also know that the recording I mentioned really falls flat because of the clunky I-IV-V-I chord progressions the organist puts under the chant. In that regard, I'm with Michael O on this one.

Michael-

I will definitely join you in some Belgian Beer with my steak!

As for steak pudding... yuk!

Fr. Z is discussing this here:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/01/gregorian-chant-with-organ-accompaniment-a-new-website