Just in from a church singing the ICEL chant mass.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    A friend emailed me today:

    This weekend I substituted for a friend of mine in a catholic church that is using the chant mass. After the Holy Holy-Sanctus, I glanced down at the bottom of the page and there was your name and copyright. As I was playing it with the Choir singing in my right ear, the assembly singing in my left and the leader of song singing everywhere thanks to the PA system, I couldn't help concluding that maybe this should be done in the original latin that many of us had etched into our brains as kids and not the english. During the singing nobody had it right, including myself who tried to be everything for everybody. I don't think its a matter of education so much as a matter of cadence, it just sounds better in latin.

    Any opinion?


    He was playing an accompaniment I had done, it appears, off this page: http://musicasacra.com/ordinary/#icelchant
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I agree.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,092
    Well, the ICEL vernacular chants benefit from being done without accompaniment.
    Thanked by 3Gavin jpal Ralph Bednarz
  • elaine60elaine60
    Posts: 85
    Agree that the latin is better for the chant mass.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    We have been doing both for over a year with organ accompaniment. Both the Latin and ICEL chant masses work fine, and we have encountered no problems with either.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 986
    The English version seems extremely awkward to me. I much prefer just using the Latin (as does my choir). That said, if I were in a parish that had a huge aversion to Latin (pastor included) I might try the English version as a method to start doing some chant.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I think the RM3 would have been better served by using newly-composed English chant for the Ordinary. Though I don't think that would have gone very well in practice...
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    Perhaps so, but I tend to view the ICEL chants as a big improvement over MOC, etc.
    Thanked by 1jpal
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,190
    We are singing the ICEL mass and many in my choir hear the Latin from old. That being said, its okay. A good start.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    I think it's all fine aside from the Holy ... very awkward in English.
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    Maybe we are an exception, but the ICEL Mass has been extremely successful -- whether accompanied or a cappella. People sing out very well and widely agree on tempo, rhythm, etc.

    The Holy is not too awkward for those who didn't already know Sanctus XVIII...which is the vast majority of my (previously G&P) parish.
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    The Kyrie should done in the Greek. I don't like the English version of that at all.

    The Sanctus and Agnus Dei in the ICEL Chant Mass are okay. They are good for introducing chant to people who have never sung any form of chant before.

    Whilst Gregorian Chant is the standard we should all aim for, we have to admit that there are many situations where this isn't realistically possible and something like the ICEL chant mass is simple enough for your average parishioner (who has little to no interest in learning any music) to pick up after several Sundays of use.

    I use it extensively for weekday masses. I have found that once people have the English versions well-learnt then the Latin doesn't take much to pick up.
  • bgeorge77
    Posts: 190
    Kyrie should be Greek, Agnus Dei and Sanctus in Latin. I don't mind the Gloria being in English, though I wish it were Latin. I do wish ICEL had picked a different Gloria beside XV to base their melody on. After a year or so now, it still sounds quite sad to me.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Making a distinction between those who sing chant accompanied and those who don't, those who sing it in English and those who sing it in Latin, those who forget that the Kyrie is in Greek instead of Latin and those who do not, those who wear cassocks and those who would but can't and those who do and shouldn't reminds me of Emo.

    5 years ago many of us were thrilled to do the Heritage Mass instead of the something else.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2y_kI_-x1Q
    Thanked by 1Jenny
  • francis
    Posts: 10,822
    My two cents:

    Roman Catholicism is THE Radical Religion. No other leader of ANY religion said he would rise from the dead and did it. That was definitive proof that Jesus was/is GOD. And if God himself said 'You are Peter and upon you I will build MY church", what human being could argue against that fact or water it down and still hold to the truth? You either believe all of what Jesus said, or you are an imitation.

    English 'gregorian' chant is just like using imitation incense; (see thread on using imitation incense) why use the imitation when you have the real thing? Granted, it is cultural offshoot (vernacular), the Church still espouses GC as that which holds pride of place.

  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Before anyone gets the idea that there are "perfect" churches that sing everything at the NO Mass in Latin, as it might appear, I believe that Francis is stating what it should be rather than what actually goes on at his church and others. Correct me if am not stating the case, Francis.

    How many here are at churches where hymns are gone and everything is sung to chant in English - and then how many sing everything in Latin?

    Not half or some of the Mass - the entire Sung Mass and Propers. This may give encouragement out there to some who need it when they see that they are not far behind but probably in the same state as many others.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • francis
    Posts: 10,822
    FN

    Yes. Often I am promoting the ideal, not the reality. Sadly.
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    There is no such thing as "English Gregorian Chant". There is "English Plainchant". The ICEL chant mass and the SEP and FEP fall into this category. Chant does not have to be in Latin.

    As much as gregorian chant is the gold-standard to aim for, many if not most churches do not have the resources to perform this. This is why we have seen a proliferation of things like psalm tone propers or the use of recto-tono chanting historically in the old rite.

    Vatican II called for simpler typical editions for use in smaller churches. Even in 1958 Pius XII issued the composite chant mass "Miss Primativa" so to give typical parishes a simpler
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Yes, I was extremely imprecise. Gregorian Chant with English text. Australians and Canadians are more sensitive about this than us in the USA...in the USA it has something to do with Olbash and Chonak's neighbors and tea.

  • Ralph BednarzRalph Bednarz
    Posts: 493
    We sing the ICEL and even sing the Creed- And at a good clip. Organ accompaniment is not the issue with these chants, but a pencil, a few dots and episemas are needed. Make a plan, memorize it and stick to it.
    Latin or English? Look at the first two syllables of the "Holy" and the "Sanctus" Both begin with that same awkward structure: the melodic accent falling on the unaccented syllable. Why did ICEl retain this in the 3rd edition? Was this an attempt to be more true to the original melody and less true to the rhetorical function of chant? "My Gregorian chant right or wrong" Remember the previous Missal's "Holy"- there were 2 notes on "Ho-." That was a loving moment.
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    Ralph, according to this document from ICEL (p 11):
    There would have been good reasons, based on natural English accentuation, for placing a single note A on the second syllable of “Holy,” as in the current setting.
    But it was decided to imitate the Latin with its displaced accent more closely here, in part because the Latin setting is likely to be sung with great frequency by congregations in the future, which argues for similarity between the Latin and English settings.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Ralph Bednarz
  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    Somewhere on the ICEL website there is a document that explains the choices made with regard to the music. Unfortunately, whoever wrote the document was unqualified and thought the Latin of the 7th century was accented in the same way we do in the 21st century. I heard somewhere that person was eventually fired, but ICEL was more or less "stuck with what they had" for want of time. All things considered, I think they came out OK, but definitely room for improvement.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Unfortunately, whoever wrote the document was unqualified and thought the Latin of the 7th century was accented in the same way we do in the 21st century. I heard somewhere that person was eventually fired, but ICEL was more or less "stuck with what they had" for want of time.


    I don't believe that is true at all.

    I've read the document in question, and it doesn't seem to me to make the assumption that "Latin of the 7th century was accented in the same way we do in the 21st century." It actually presents an incredibly detailed explanation of various understandings of both musical and linguistic accent, presents the different options that were available, and explains why the choices were made.

    As for the person who wrote it being unqualified, I don't think that is true either. I believe (though I am not sure) that the primary author of that text (and the music) was Anthony Ruff, the (former) head of the Music sub-committee. Whatever you think of his theology and politics, there is no question that he is highly qualified in Gregorian and English plainchant. As I understand, his "firing" from ICEL had nothing to do with his academic qualifications and everything to do with his outspoken criticism of the new translation's content and production-process.
    Thanked by 5CHGiffen Spriggo melofluent Ralph Bednarz Andrew_Malton
Add a Comment