Yeah I agree with all your points! Very true.
I think the chant is easier for congregation thought I do feel that challenging the congregation sometimes isn't a bad thing! :-). Nothing overly tricky but a little different variety!

The problem was solved for me, when the pastor said last year to not use the Becker again. I am still looking for a good accompanied chant setting. Without organ, my choir would end up in unheard of keys.

Everything Paul_D said, especially about the liturgical priority of words over music, and especially over some random chord progression.

Also, instead of "Holy Mary, Mother of God," we get "Mary."

Also, to reiterate what Paul_D said, it's cheesy.

One more vote for the authentic litany. The Becker has a samba feel about it, which is a Bad Thing.

I think if something is in the Missal, we should use it as it is in the Missal.

Instead, someone chose a groovy chord progression, randomly choosing from other possible groovy chord progressions, and fit something similar to the litany of saints into it.

Now one could argue that the Missal litany is a I-V-I chord progression. But no one would. The chant is not about the chords. The Becker is. That's the way it's written, rather than the way it's done.

Further, SC has the text-music hierarchy in that order. Sacred music, the Council says, derives its dignity from its union with the sacred text.

How are you doing, anyways, Chaz? Shoot me an email when you can.

@Mel O’Fluent (surely a good Irish name),

Thanks for your soothing words, and I have calmed down, though I still say “the Becker is Bad.” (No reflection on Mr. Becker himself.) You are correct in that my comments are not really pastoral advice to the poster in his parish situation, but rather an opportunity to vent about my Becker beef.

I too have re-written Becker (in the distant past) to accommodate added saints, and you really have to re-write it to keep the traditional rankings and order(s). Unfortunately most people will just stick in extra saints at the end, oblivious to the heavenly array that is manifest to us through the sacramental character of the Litany of Saints. The form has been subjugated to the chord progression. (If I had to do the Becker again, I’d do it without accompaniment!)

While the omission of the title “saint” occurs occasionally in other contexts, omitting it in the Litany of the Saints is without precedent in the liturgical tradition. The Old Testament patriarchs are especially honored with the title “saint” in the litany. The litany is rife with liturgical and theological significance, therefore I would not leave its adaptation in the hands of an individual.

My beef with Becker is unabated. The tradition beckons us to something better than Becker. But if bidden to abide with it, better Becker than bitter, I reckon.

New wine in old wineskins.

(I love how it was only the introduction of the "new translation" that made everyone consider perhaps they ought to follow it. As if there wasn't an official translation prior to that...)

I recall in my first year at my last Catholic parish, I asked whether thy did the chant setting or the Becker setting of the Litany. One cantor said "As long as it's not the boring one!" (No doubt referring to the chant) I responded, "yes, the Becker is terribly boring. The chant has great drama to it."

Anyone agree about the Becker being REALLY boring? The chant has a kind of meditative quality to it, but the Becker... one note, one note, one note.... yawn.

Musical judgment aside, it's just boring.

The Litany of Saints, chant, has to move along at a consistent pace. The chant, though simplistic, if handled effectively it can be powerful, inspire prayer, and even hypnotic. The setting may be contemporary or the traditional as long as it is rendered with adequate musical forces and of course, talent!

Why is no one looking at alternative contemporary settings that are faithful to the text?

I've always been partial to the somewhat over-wrought setting by David Haas, from the "Who Calls You By Name" series.

Musicam Sacram (50), as we here and we pray one day all will acknowledge, deemed "first place" to chant as the musical medium of liturgy. It cannot enjoy a higher advocacy. But as creatures "meddling" with creation we are prone to persuasion (ie. "The Fall") and advocacy and negotiation probably was instituted soon after Cain inhabited Nod. Sometimes curse, sometimes blessing. The film "Lincoln" is a great portrayal of how advocacy is used and abused to gain poitical advantage. HMC (Holy Mother Church) isn't the Senate House deliberating the moral or other merits of the 13th amendment, but advocacy is part and parcel of our free will.
Sam's advocacy should be embedded in all RCC hearts without need to mention. But that moment of consensus has yet to arrive in philosophy, legislation and practice. This post doesn't at this pointe advocate, neither did my former post. But if argument is to be had, all POV's that are deemed relevant should be given their say in advocacy. And if, by now, we can't advocate here persuasively for chant despite challenges that are not illicit or immoral, then close up shop now, and let go, let God.
A variation on the cliche demands eventually, "choose your vintage (poison)!" I second Sam and the Church.

Wikipedia, of course.

I found this site through googling, and while obviously far too late, I'd like to place my objections to Paul's objections to the Becker setting on record.

First, some disclaimers: Although I love music, I have had no musical training. I was raised a fundamentalist Protestant, slowly liberalized, and became a liberal Roman Catholic through my local RCIA while a graduate student in Toronto. (I lived at the time in Wycliffe College, the evangelical Anglican member of the Toronto School of Theology consortium). My BA was in biblical studies, and my M.A. in biblical Hebrew. (My MA was from the Univ. of Toronto proper.) Now, I'm very much an atheist on the subject of the gods of any organized religions, and I include Roman Catholicism in that grouping.

There. Now, I want to say this: I love the Becker setting of the Litany of the Saints, and I think it a worthy member of the Roman Catholic tradition of beautiful sacred music. Furthermore, do not think it does any disservice to either the biblical or canonical traditions.

I remember the night a friend of mine (who was also raised in a fundamentalist Protestant tradition) converted at the Easter Vigil service at St. Michael's in Toronto. The Becker setting of the Litany of the Saints was sung, and I was in rapture. The next year, it was my turn, and after attending my RCIA group at the Cardinal Newman Centre in Toronto, I became a Roman Catholic at the Easter Vigil service with the Becker version of the Litany in my head.

Now I'd like to go on to Paul's various objections to the Becker setting. Paul objects to the fact that the Becker version makes some innovations in the context of the customary treatment of the Litany. However, given the numerous injunctions in the Psalms to "sing a new song to Yahweh," this objection of mere newness doesn't really hold water. If you believe that creativity is a human quality made possible by a creative God, then you ought not to be getting your knickers in a not over the fact that something isn't the same as it always has been.

Now, I will proceed to some of the specific objections. First, Paul is not happy with the fact that the canonical order of names has not been followed. But this is a strange objection, and one that cannot be rooted in the biblical tradition. When the ancient Hebrew authors of the Hebrew Bible and those who wrote the New Testament wrote what believers often describe as "history," their historiographic techniques did not include a slavish adherence to chronology. If one writer's purpose was better served by making event B appear in the narrative after event A despite the chronological precedence of the former, then he will do that. Furthermore, the Psalms themselves bear witness to the fact that God is outside of normal time constraints: to God, after all, a thousand years are as a day. So the objection that the order of the names has been changed in the Becker setting is not at all a valid one. The names are still present, and their order still serves a purpose, which brings me to my next point.

Paul charges that the Becker setting is characterized by arbitrary randomness. But as he himself admits, the Becker version of the Litany is chord-driven. In other words; it's not randomly arbitrary at all. As it is now, the Becker setting is rhythmic, meditative, and relieved from boredom by certain melody phrases. The piece is so carefully structured that it seems, frankly, impossible to this writer for an unbiased mind to make the accusation of arbitrariness or randomness.

Paul is on even more dangerous ground when he demands that the division of names in the Litany be according to the criteria he has given, such as separating the men from the women. But that would also be at odds with prominent voices within the biblical tradition, which affirm that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female. On what basis, then, does Paul mandate that the Litany of the Saints make such separations?

Finally, a note about the 60's. Sorry: the music of the Beatles doesn't sound cheesy to me. On the contrary, it has an enduring appeal--as pop music. The Becker may be contemporary, but it's not pop music in terms of its theme. The accusation that it sounds pop-like can be refuted by pointing out that ancient Israelite sacred music did not arise in a vaccuum, but was rather created and performed using instruments and musical techniques that originated outside the liturgical tradition. Granted, the Catholic church can take credit for some of the musical innovation from the likes of Palestrina, but that does not mean that there is a firm distinction between the sounds of sacred music and their secular counterparts.

I think one must be careful in not allowing personal antiquarian tendencies and the love of all things old to override what Catholic theology teaches, which is that humans should properly express their worship of God with songs and hymns and spiritual songs--whether through time-honoured settings like the Tridentine Mass or in new and innovative settings like the Becker Litany. The sacramental character of the Litany of the Saints does not depend on either the order of the words or the sounds made by human mouths.

In my youth, I disliked much of the "praise choruses" that some in my boyhood church sought to impose on a congregation that loved its "old" hymns (many dating from only the nineteenth century!). I still dislike much new classical music (basically since the time of Stravinsky). My preferences in music and in architecture are to the old forms. That said, every now and then I spot a contemporary church or setting of music which obviously ranks as an outstanding example of sacred art, and I very much include the Becker setting of the Litany of the Saints in that category.

NRB

Becker is Broadway and attracts newcomers like bees to honey. Rapture describes it well.

There was a Mass ordinary in the 70's that was just as attractive.

It's died out, Becker is next to go.

There is nothing antiquarian about preserving the traditions of the faith. There is everything destructive about modernizing just to make things "interesting".

The sacramental character of the Litany of the Saints does not depend on either the order of the words or the sounds made by human mouths.

You're absolutely right - so why not change it all and do it in mime? Have sign language interpreters present it all in pure, absolute silence.

The point is that it was and is not broken. Accepting being Catholic means accepting the traditions of the church as they are and not as you want them to be. You can't impress your fundamentalist background on Catholic things....which may be why you describe yourself as Liberal?

Gavin, make sure mine comes with that great Cheddar Cheese salt stuff!

Adam: "David Haas, from the "Who Calls You By Name" series." Ah, yes! The Cheers version.

By the way, I couldn't disagree more with the statement that being a Catholic means accepting traditions as they are and not as one wants them to be. There is doctrine, which in theory does not change (though it might be clarified), and there is practice that can, does, and in some situations should. For instance, priests could marry once upon a time. Now they can't. This was never set in stone. Nowadays, the Church is ordaining married Anglican priests, and it has always ordained married priests in certain East European sectors. (I personally think it's high time to re-visit this situation, but that's another topic for another post, if not forum.)

Similarly, Vatican II could not have happened had there not been a desire at the highest levels of the church for change. One can argue about whether that change has been a net positive or not, but one can't say that Pope John XXIII was any less of a Catholic because he wanted a vernacular mass rather than, say, a Tridentine Latin one. Less traditional in preference he was, perhaps, but hardly less Catholic.

By the way, I couldn't disagree more with the statement that being a Catholic means accepting traditions as they are and not as one wants them to be.

I also couldn't disagree more.
Because if I did disagree more, I'd be wrong.

Nathan, two comments:

Who said that Bl. John XXIII was looking for a vernacular Mass? Vatican II stipulated that Latin should remain the principal language of worship?

You see nothing wrong with rearranging the saints names. However, they are given to us in an order for a reason, and they are also given with the title "Saint" before each name, which the Becker litany curiously omits. The liturgy is not yours to tamper with, even in the smallest of areas (Luke 16:10). Those criteria alone disqualify the Becker litany from liturgical use.

"But this is a strange objection, and one that cannot be rooted in the biblical tradition."

But the Catholic liturgical tradition is not properly viewed solely through that lens. The Catholic liturgical tradition is even older the the time when the canon of the Christian Bible was fixed (mid-4th century).

The Catholic liturgical tradition of the Litany of the Saints reflects a deep sense of order. The ordering of the canonical text is not random, and has meaning. It's one thing not to accept it slavishly, but quite another to kick it to the curb; the latter treatment is not recognizably Catholic.

Most I have encountered are fans of the music of the Becker. They don't, for the most part, give a rat's a*s about the saints, if they even think about them at all.

Noel, I know that TLM family. I would call them inmates rather than wards.

Most people I know who like the Becker like it because of the harmonic progression...

Correction...

ALL people I know who like Becker like it because of the harmonic progression ALONE.

By the way... I believe the Becker falls under the category of 'anti-liturgical' which was addressed in the newest journal of Sacred Music which I just read last night cover to cover. It addresses all of this quite succinctly, particularly the article by Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth. I highly recommend everyone reads his piece.

Here are a couple of snippets to whet your appetite for truth:

"[speaking of Thomas Day's book, Why Catholics Can't Sing] ...just as much of his advice has gone unheeded in a liturgical culture which is too easily driven by the exigencies of publishers who for the most part are the architects of our liturgical repertoire, influencing choices of the liturgical music of which they are so often the slow purveyors. Let me be clear at this point, while I would want to register my appreciation for those publishers who are at the service of the church's liturgy, I would also wish to identify a serious lacuna in our direction of a liturgical culture which has latterly been shaped by a repertoire of liturgical music principally determined by publishers."

"Nowhere was this influence more keenly felt than in the realm of liturgical music, for the principle that a repertoire of liturgical chant which had been proper to the Mass, at least in its most solemn celebration, was largely and almost universally set aside in preference for music which might be most accurately described as "non-liturgical" in character, given its frequent lack of dependence on liturgical or biblical texts and its introduction into our liturgical celebrations of a voice which is in many ways alien to the spirit of the liturgy. We sing a lot of music in church which is anti-liturgical in character and then seem surprised that it has in fact destroyed any liturgical sense in our worship."

"It is absolutely vital to grasp that this is not only true of much music which is contemporary in style but it is also evident in hymnody which is so often of a devotional rather than liturgical character and which was transplanted into the Mass from non-catholic forms of worship which are constructed on entirely different principles. This is the modern-day inheritance of the "Low-Mass" culture which envisages a largely spoken liturgy punctuated at key moments by congregational singing."

(Sacred Music, Vol. 139, pg.66, par.3---and on)

Charles, I usually say what I mean, but it probably comes across better in person.

Noel and I didn't conspire on the TLM family. I realize many sane, devout families are attracted to the TLM mass - in other areas mostly, but some here, too. However, I refer to that local TLM mass as the East Tennessee Flat Earth Society, since they attract more than their share of nuts.

"Our questioner," as Chonak graciously puts it, sounds to me like a bit of a religious dabbler. One thing today, something else tomorrow, and holding fast to little over time. It is quite common, and I encounter it frequently. Some of those folks never realize religion and life in general, are not all about themselves.

No, you would have to be here to appreciate the craziness. This group really is different, but not always in the best possible way. Some are fine people, but that group does seem to have more off-the-beamers than the law of averages would predict.

Later addition: If you don't believe me, ask Noel. He will tell you the place is nuts.