Herman G Stuempfle hymn texts
-
ooh- that's good poetry.
It doesn't strike me as particularly workable hymn to sing, though.
I find Humbly I Adore Thee to strike just the perfect balance of being an actual translation, preserving the text itself along with the meter and poetry. I haven't seen another one that does it so well. -
The canons of the Episcopal Church specifically state that the priest selects the music, and may seek out assistance by people skilled in music.
CANONS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
TITLE II, CANON 5: Of the Music of the Church
It shall be the duty of every Member of the Clergy to see that music
is used as an offering for the glory of God and as a help to the
people in their worship in accordance with the Book of Common
Prayer and as authorized by the rubrics or by the General
Convention of this Church. To this end the Member of the Clergy
shall have final authority in the administration of matters pertaining
to music. In fulfilling this responsibility the Member of the Clergy
shall seek assistance from persons skilled in music. Together they
shall see that music is appropriate to the context in which it is used.Thanked by 1Adam Wood -
"I don't think anyone REALLY knows what's going on." Adam Wood.
As some suggest 'twere me,
Tho' I'd advance Kath-y,
And none would daresay Bart(h)
That leaveth surely......
Mahrt.
Stay churchy, my friends. -
)Many of my Anglican music friends choose the hymnody. To say the priests do it is VERY inaccurate. I teach a local Anglican priest singing and she would bewail your statement.
Happy her training is in such good hands! It's interesting to hear about other parts, but from a Mittelcalifornien perspective (Northern CA makes me think of Humbolt County) Adam's observation is accurate enough. If an O/C is allowed to pick without attending planning meetings (not unheard of, I admit) it is a somewhat rare token of the Pastor's confidence in them; as Scott points out, the priest has the ultimate responsibility under canon law. The kind of hands-off (don't-bother-me?) autonomy that Catholic musicians enjoy as a matter of course is unknown in other denominations. -
Perhaps a clarification: many of my Anglican friends do meet with their clerics, but they are charged with the choice of music. Yes, the Episcopal canons make the priest in charge, but in many places in the South ( of whence I am familiar with) the musician makes the call and the priests sign off. I have friends in three rather large cathedrals of the Episcopal variety and this is their model and in cities north and south of me, several of the parishes are of the same.
Would not RC priests also be charged with final responsibility of the music as a result of their office also?The kind of hands-off (don't-bother-me?) autonomy that Catholic musicians enjoy as a matter of course is unknown in other denominations
I heartily agree. -
My (limited) experience has been that it is not expected or required that the musicians hired know enough about liturgy to make programming decisions. If they do, great- but the assumption in many places I have seen is that the clerics are driving, and the musicians are hired to play, not to make decisions.
That is emphatically NOT the case at my current job, and I am very grateful for that. I'm just reporting what I have heard and seen from places since I started trying to make a habit to visit other Episcopal parishes when given the chance.
Perhaps part of the issue is the difference between larger churches/cathedrals, which can afford to hire someone based on qualifications, and smaller provinicial parishes that tend to hire whatever old lady happens to be around who knows how to work a Hammond. (We seem to always forget that these small parishes are the bulk of parishes in both the Anglican and Catholic world.) -
"...in the denominations."
-
Back to Herman, if that’s OK.
Forty-four hymns of Herman Stuempfle are in Worship IV, as Kathy has already noted. Twenty-seven of them were selected as “Hymns for the Church Year,” or, as perhaps more commonly known, “hymns of the day” or “hymns for the gospels.” About 150 of the roughly 625 hymns in Worship IV comprise that hymnal’s “hymns for the Church year” feature.
There have been a number of hymn writers who have written lectionary-based hymns over the past forty years or so. Some have even published whole collections containing one hymn for each Sunday of the lectionary’s three annual cycles: Thomas Troeger, Gracia Grindal, Michael Forster, and Michael Hudson are some of these prolific hymn writers. I understand that OCP will be publishing a similar collection from Fr. Michael Joncas sometime in the not too distant future.
In my opinion the better hymns for the gospels produced over these past 40 years or so are usually those that do not try to include too much paraphrasing of a particular gospel pericope in the hymn text. Contrary to the declaration of the little girl in the AT&T commercial, “More is better” often is not the case. A hymn too closely paraphrasing in verse a particular gospel pericope is probably more likely not to be used except once every three years. Worship IV’s core committee consciously attempted to avoid selecting such “HOD’s” with limited usefulness.
I was somewhat a devil’s advocate on the Worship IV core committee when it came to these “HOD’s.” I was constantly bringing to the committee new “discoveries” that just might possibly be better than a HOD we had already selected for a particular Sunday. I was concerned that we had 27 “HOD’s” by Herman Stuempfle. Even up to the penultimate meeting of the committee I was still bringing possible texts to replace some we had previously chosen.
I estimate that the full committee examined at least 2,000 texts in the process of choosing 625. Individual members of the core committee studied entire collections of some hymn writers and made their recommendations of how many or how few texts should be considered by the full committee.
Herman Stuempfle’s 27 “HOD’s” and his other 17 hymns are in Worship IV because they are fine texts, every one of them. Herman’s stature as a great hymn writer is growing and, I believe, will continue to grow. Lutheran Service Book (2006) contains 15 Stuempfle hymns, Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006) contains eight, and the forthcoming hymnal of the PCUSA, Glory to God, will include seven.
And, no, the owners of GIA never once interfered in the process of determining what is and what is not included in Worship IV.
To follow up on statements by Kathy and Adam, I would be most interested in serious discussion of hymns by Herman, or any other writer for that matter. I feel that blogs are usually not good places to discuss new hymns submitted by contributors to those same blogs; there’s too much back-patting and not enough serious critiquing. But discussing the work of someone deceased may produce better results.
I also would love to see some statistics for how many office hymns have been included in general Catholic (and Anglican/Episcopalian?) hymnals during, say, the past century or so.
-
hcmusicguy,
Since you stated on May 14not to mention the constant politicizing and dumming-down of existing texts (Faith of our Fathers, All Creatures, I Received, etc.)
here's the background on my translation of "I Receive the Living God" in Worship IV.
In 2006 I translated the four-verse “I Received the Living God” (no. 735 in Worship III) into Spanish. I also added a fifth verse, a translation of Alan Hommerding’s 1994 verse 2, “Jesus said: I am the Vine…”
A few years after that GIA Publications sent me the original French text by Bernard Geoffroy, “J’ai reçu le Dieu vivant,” consisting of a refrain and eight verses. For those interested in seeing and/or studying that French text, see:
http://www.saintpierredeniveadour.fr/index.php/liturgie/des-chants-en-francais/46-d-communion/1603-d-29-jai-recu-le-dieu-vivant
(The last I heard Bernard Geoffroy was teaching at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem.)
GIA Publications asked me to re-do my Spanish translation and base it on the French original, not the anonymous English text. And, while I was at it, I should try my hand at a new English translation as well, which would correspond to the Spanish. If GIA was satisfied with that new English text, they would use it in their upcoming hymnals; if not, they would look for another translator.
I was happy to do this. I have thought the opening words of the refrain in English were somehow “wrong” from the first time I encountered the anonymous English translation in the late 1970’s. I remember discussing the matter with Dr. Leo Nestor back in the mid-1980’s. I believe that whenever he printed the text in an order of worship at the National Shrine, he always changed the opening words to “I Receive…”
And, indeed, seeing the French original and knowing that I would never use a contraction (I’ve received) in a formal text such as this, it was easy to conclude that the English present tense (I receive) was preferable to the simple past tense (I received) in translating the French perfect tense “J’ai reçu.”
I discovered that whoever was the anonymous English translator, he or she was not following closely the texts of the three French verses (Pain, Vie, Voie) corresponding to the English verses (Bread, Life, Way). And there is no French verse corresponding to “I am the Truth,” an English verse which appears to borrow images from several verses of the French.
I very much liked the “Way-Truth-Life” sequence in the anonymous English text, even though the French only has “Life” and “Way,” in that order. So I retained the three verses in my translation, using the anonymous English verse for “Truth” unchanged, and translating everything else afresh from the French original.
The French text begins each verse with “Il m’a dit/ He has said to me.” I decided to keep the English translation of these 3 syllables in the present tense (“Jesus says”), similar to the opening words of the refrain. My reasoning was that using the present tense may help to guard against the mistaken notion that all these things that “He has said” are actual sayings from the gospels.
-
Thank you for the explanation! I must admit I was always (and still am) partial to the "He has said...Bread...Way...Truth...Life" as in Worship III. Upon a closer look, I think your new translation will serve us well!
-
Kathy,
At this moment I'm on jury duty at the Orange County, FL, courthouse.
Since I think all 44 Stuempfle texts in Worship IV are good ones, I leave it to you to suggest one that you would like to discuss.Thanked by 1kevinf -
I very much liked the “Way-Truth-Life” sequence in the anonymous English text, even though the French only has “Life” and “Way,” in that order. So I retained the three verses in my translation, using the anonymous English verse for “Truth” unchanged, and translating everything else afresh from the French original.
George Herbert said it so well in "The Call":
Come, my Way, my Truth, my Life:
Such a Way, as gives us breath:
Such a Truth, as ends all strife:
Such a Life, as killeth death.
Come, My Light, my Feast, my Strength:
Such a Light, as shows a feast:
Such a Feast, as mends in length:
Such a Strength, as makes his guest.
Come, my Joy, my Love, my Heart:
Such a Joy, as none can move:
Such a Love, as none can part:
Such a Heart, as joys in love.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6mIKOv377Y
-
Adam, I see in your comment above that you spent a week at King's College. Sounds like heaven to me. (We listen to the King's College Christmas carols all year round.)
Different King's.
http://www.kingscollegecourse.com/
It really was a wonderful musical experience, but the literature choices in relationship to their use in liturgy was pretty disturbing. To think that this was the idealized model being presented to 200+ of the best and brightest young choristers and organ scholars made me sad.
I've started to write about it in a post called "Beautiful Music Is Not Enough" - but the essay keeps being co-opted by other ideas. Look for it, someday, at the Cafe.Thanked by 1JulieColl -
I was very interested in the discussion on herman Stuemple and Crashaw's version of Adoro te devote WH 73.I first came across the latter in one of Erik Routley's books.The last verse I find particularly moving.I corresponded with Stuemple in the late 1980s and early 1990s He wrote hymns for me on the 3rd and 4th Words from the Cross and on the Baptism of Christ (as did several other writers,including Pratt Green,BishopTinothy Dudley Smith,Bland Tucker,Fr Brian Foley,Fr James Quinn,and Albert Bayly.Only the texts by the first three subsequently appeared in hymnbooks.We used to submit texts to each other for criticism (prayers and litanies in my case) and benefitted from mutual comments and often incorporated suggestions in our reved texts.I met him at Hymn Society Conference at Grand Rapids in 1989.One who has been unjustly neglected is the late Canon Joseph Weston Poole,Precentor Of Coventry Cathedral in the 1960s and 1970s.He had a tremendous influence on me.He did a remarkable trans of Personent hodie OBC 78.How I do go on.FR Dirk
-
It is not Stuempfle, but could someone explain the changes in text to Moore's Taste and See, removing any reference to the term "he" or "him" referring to the Lord?
OCP seems to be the only one with the original text. -
It is not Stuempfle, but could someone explain the changes in text to Moore's Taste and See, removing any reference to the term "he" or "him" referring to the Lord?
Maybe you should contact the publishers of the variously altered texts and take it up with them, instead of opening up a can of conjecture worms. -
Without conjecture worms this place would close. They cause some of our more interesting discussions. Without them, all that would be left would be three musty old ladies debating fonts and line weights created by turkey quills as opposed to goose quills in St. Gall notation. Spare us, O Lord we pray!
-
Here's why I objected to the question being posed here...
The question about the alteration of texts to remove male-specific pronouns isn't really a question. It is obvious why this was done.
If you want to start a discussion about whether that's a good idea or not, that's worth a thread (possibly). But a non-sequiter "Does any one know why?!" is usually not about having that discussion, but is just a not-very-passive aggressive way of stating one's disapproval for the practice- an invitation for others to chime in about neutering of texts and the de-masculinization of the liturgy.
But, you know, if you want to have a B&M-fest about mainstream hymnal publishers, be my guest. -
I figured this would be pretty good place to ask since one of the editors of the hymnals that changed the texts has been taking time to answer similar questions right here.
Do I like it? No. Am I trying to show my disapproval? No. The goal is to find out the rationale behind the decision.
I apologize for not having an extensive background in liturgy or theology. Isn't the point of having an internet forum to ask questions and find answers? -
It is obvious why this was done.
Not really.
Is there some EXTREMELY PC person on the board of directors for whom this is a hobby horse? Do the editors, because of their advanced theology studies really believe that because God is Spirit, it's no longer approrpriate to use male pronouns? Are they bowing to pressure from the masses who have voiced that they don't want male pronouns anymore?
It's not obvious at all - in fact, I've never gotten good answers as to precisely why this is done from anyone at the publishing houses. -
I thought it was obvious that if a publisher was systematically removing male pronouns it was due to a desire toward some notion of inclusivity.
I wasn't thinking about it from a more particular standpoint: WHY, THEN, does GIA have this particular desire? (or, perhaps - WHO at GIA has this desire)
Maybe I've been involved in too many conversations about the relative merits of various hymn editing policies and the intentions of the hymn editors.
-
I would like to get back to the central question:
Why does a purportedly catholic publisher publishing a catholic hymnal include so many hundreds of texts by authors who are not catholic?
It seems to me that if you want to make sure that there are doctrinal sound texts you woulf first go to catholic author, rather that taxing sl many texts that are from so many other traditions. Not that there is express heresy in these texts ect, but isnt it sort of like jumping on the cart to get to the horse?
I do know that in my community we chose another hymnal that had unaltered texts from catholic authors, and if they were from other tradions, they were time tested.
Heres my problem- I thought that worship was supposed to be a traditional catholic hymnal, but is it?
Comments? -
Yes, he is one of the greatest English poets of all time.
However, his translation of Adoro Te is not among his great verses. It's one of the best we have, but in my opinion, it has nothing of the fire and grace of either the original Latin text or of Hopkins' own wild poetry.
Ordinarily Hopkins runs, and flies, and flashes. His Godhead Here in Hiding barely walks. -
Here's what I mean by wild (a hymn to the flight of a bird):I CAUGHT this morning morning’s minion, king-
dom of daylight’s dauphin, dapple-dawn-drawn Falcon, in his riding
Of the rolling level underneath him steady air, and striding
High there, how he rung upon the rein of a wimpling wing
In his ecstasy! then off, off forth on swing,
As a skate’s heel sweeps smooth on a bow-bend: the hurl and gliding
Rebuffed the big wind. My heart in hiding
Stirred for a bird,—the achieve of; the mastery of the thing!
Brute beauty and valour and act, oh, air, pride, plume, here
Buckle! AND the fire that breaks from thee then, a billion
Times told lovelier, more dangerous, O my chevalier!
No wonder of it: shéer plód makes plough down sillion
Shine, and blue-bleak embers, ah my dear,
Fall, gall themselves, and gash gold-vermillion.Thanked by 1CHGiffen -
Kathy et al...do we have an Adoro Te thread anywhere? We use GMH, but I think I'm done with it in the liturgy...I'm going to put a new version in Finale sometime this summer. I'm not necessarily going to say the meter HAS to match, but the GMH just takes too many liberties anymore for my ear.
-
Here's mine, Bruce. http://www.chantcafe.com/2012/06/adoro-te-devote.html
-
If we were to screen hymns based on the Catholic identity of their authors, we would have to exclude "Sing of Mary, pure and lowly" and "Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty".
We are better off considering the texts on their own merits directly. Screening on the author's religious affiliation might seem like a useful shortcut, but it would knock out some orthodox texts.
Maybe it would be helpful to ask why a hymnal uses so much Stuempfle, or ask what biases Stuempfle's texts have.
-
And don't forget all the hymns of Charles Wesley, including:If we were to screen hymns based on the Catholic identity of their authors, we would have to exclude "Sing of Mary, pure and lowly" and "Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty".
"Christ the Lord Is Risen Today"
"Christ, Whose Glory Fills the Skies"
"Come Thou Long Expected Jesus"
"Hail the Day that Sees Him Rise"
"Hark! the Herald Angels Sing"
"Lo! He Comes with Clouds Descending"
"Love Divine, All Loves Excelling"
"Rejoice, the Lord is King"
Thanked by 1BruceL -
Maybe it would be helpful to ask why a hymnal [i.e. Worship IV] uses so much Stuempfle, or ask what biases Stuempfle's texts have.
Worship IV uses many hymn texts by Herman Stuempfle because so much of his opera reflects upon the Sunday Gospel pericopes from the Lectionary for Mass. I did a quick count of the 44 hymn texts by Stuempfle in Worship IV. Twenty-seven are listed (sometimes more than once) as "Hymns for the Church Year," hymns directly related to various Sunday Gospels.
Worship III (1986) also listed "Hymns for the Church Year" (see no. 1205 in its Index), but quite a number of the hymns on that list are not specifically related to the Gospel readings on particular Sundays. They are more general in nature. Compare, for example, the hymns selected for the 12 Gospel readings for the four Sundays of Advent:(Worship III)
Advent I (A) (Nicolai/Idle) Wake, O Wake, and Sleep No Longer
Advent I (B) (Nicolai/Idle) Wake, O Wake, and Sleep No Longer
Advent I (C) (Kingsley/Proulx) Now the Day of the Lord Is at Hand
Advent II (A) (Coffin/Chandler) On Jordan’s Bank - or - Lo, How a Rose E'er Blooming
Advent II (B) (Olearius/Winkworth) Comfort, Comfort, O My People - or - (Omer Westendorf) Take Comfort, God's People - or - (Coffin/Chandler) On Jordan’s Bank
Advent II (C) (Christopher Idle) City of God, Jerusalem - or - (Coffin/Chandler) On Jordan’s Bank
Advent III (A) (Idle) When the King Shall Come again
Advent III (B) (Coffin/Chandler) On Jordan’s Bank - or - (Luke Connaughton) The Voice of God Goes Out through All the World
Advent III (C) (Coffin/Chandler) On Jordan’s Bank
Advent IV (A) O Come, O Come, Emmanuel - or - (Weissel/Winkworth) Lift Up Your Heads, O Mighty Gates
Advent IV (B) (Baring-Gould) The Angel Gabriel from Heaven Came
Advent IV (C) (St. Ambrose) Savior of the Nations, Come(Worship IV)
Advent I (A) (Michael Forster) Awaken, Sleepers - or - The King Shall Come When Morning Dawns
Advent I (B) (Thomas Troeger) As Servants Working an Estate
Advent I (C) (Timothy Dudley-Smith) When the Lord in Glory Comes - or -(Dudley-Smith) From the Father’s Throne on High
Advent II (A) (Carl Daw) Wild and Lone the Prophet’s Voice -or - (Coffin/Chandler) On Jordan’s Bank
Advent II (B) (Olearius/Winkworth) Comfort, Comfort, O My People - or - (Bringle) A Morning Star Draws Near the Earth
Advent II (C) (Daw) Wild and Lone the Prophet’s Voice - or - (Bringle) A Morning Star Draws Near the Earth
Advent III (A) (Stuempfle) Are You the Coming One - or - (Idle) When the King Shall Come Again
Advent III (B) (Troeger) The Moon with Borrowed Light - or - (Coffin/Chandler) On Jordan’s Bank
Advent III (C) (Daw) Wild and Lone the Prophet’s Voice - or - (Coffin/Chandler) On Jordan’s Bank
Advent IV (A) (Daw) Though Famed in Israel’s Royal History - or - (St. Ambrose) Savior of the Nations, Come
Advent IV (B) (Jeannette Lindholm) Unexpected and Mysterious -or - (Anon.) Praise We the Lord This Day - or - (Baring-Gould) The Angel Gabriel from Heaven Came
Advent IV (C) (Patricia Clark) When, to Mary, the Word - or - (St. Ambrose) Savior of the Nations, Come
Other than Thomas Troeger, hymn writers had not begun to create large numbers of "hymns for the Gospels" when Worship III was published. But several have done so since that time. The Worship IV committee reviewed all the Lectionary-based hymns of Troeger, Michael Forster, Gracia Grindal, Michael Hudson, Rae Whitney, Herman Stuempfle, and others. Several hundred texts in all. And surely the Lectionary-based hymns which Fr. Michael Joncas is presently writing for OCP will certainly be examined when it comes time to prepare Worship V.
In addition, some fine Gospel-based hymns in Worship III which had unusual meters (thereby necessitating new tunes) were not included in Worship IV if those tunes were seldom used during the twenty-five years that Worship III enjoyed its greatest use.
Lastly, none of these hymns are narrowly sectarian or denominational. They are closely based upon the Gospels themselves and are fully in accord with Catholic doctrine and the shared beliefs of most Christians as well.Thanked by 1CHGiffen -
@ghmus7: If one's desire is to sing the Latin propers (a most laudable practice), one uses the GR or LU, the contents of which have never been included in a hymnal for the assembly.
If one's desire is to substitute something in the vernacular for the Latin propers (a practice fully in accord with present liturgical norms), Worship IV contains: 98 (usually complete) psalms in its psalter section, all set to two types of tones (Gelineau and Conception Abbey) and most with several antiphons, including several from the Simple Gradual; 614 hymns, several of which are metrical psalm settings, and all of them extensively indexed, including the very important index of "Scripture passages related to hymns."
If one's desire is to consistently substitute a metrical psalm setting for the Latin propers, my recommendation would be that Psalms for All Seasons be purchased as a second pew resource for the liturgical assembly. (I wrote about this resource on some other thread.) The Reformed churches have a nearly 500-year-old tradition of singing such metrical psalms.
If none of what I have written addresses your question, please forgive me for not understanding what other repertoire you may have in mind.Thanked by 1Adam Wood -
If one's desire is to sing the Latin propers (a most laudable practice), one uses the GR or LU, the contents of which have never been included in a hymnal for the assembly.
Becuase if all those things were included, it wouldn't be a hymnal for the assembly. It would be a something else entirely for the assembly.Thanked by 1Gavin -
@chonak: The Tietze hymn-tune introits (and similar creations) are not my cup of tea, for a couple of reasons. Since they use hymn tunes, the texts need to have both an established meter which does not change from stanza to stanza as well as an expected rhyme scheme. So often Tietze's texts do not have those expected rhyme schemes (for instance, he may change a stanza's expected ABAB rhyme to ABCB, where lines 2 and 4 rhyme, but 1 and 3 do not), or imperfect rhymes are substituted for perfect ones, or the rhymes are at times too predictable. And the overall quality of the poetry is not consistently high.
An even more serious concern of mine is the form of these strophic hymn-tune introits. The Latin propers, by and large, have very different types of music for the antiphons (through-composed, often very melismatic chants) and for the psalm verses (usually a simple psalm tone). Their form is more akin to contemporary "verse and chorus" pieces than it is to metrical hymns, where the antiphon and the verses, of necessity, have the exact same music. And, as it often happens that a particular proper chant has its antiphon from one biblical source and the verses from another (for example, at yesterday's celebration the communion chant had an antiphon from John 6:57 and verses from either psalm 119 or 23), the internal coherence of the resulting text when both are set to the same meter and tune is more often lacking than not. Even when antiphon and verses are from the same psalm (as was yesterday's Cibavit eos, from psalm 81) setting them all to the same hymn tune melody (for yesterday's introit it was verses 17, 2, 17, 3, 17, 11, 17) would also produce an incoherent result.
IMO, it would be referable to sing a metrical version of the complete psalm 81 as the "introit," or sing "Gift of Finest Wheat" as an opening, not communion, song since its refrain is based on the psalm 81:17 "cibavit eos."Thanked by 1Adam Wood -
The Tietze hymn-tune introits (and similar creations) are not my cup of tea, for a couple of reasons. Since they use hymn tunes, the texts need to have both an established meter which does not change from stanza to stanza as well as an expected rhyme scheme. So often Tietze's texts do not have those expected rhyme schemes (for instance, he may change a stanza's expected ABAB rhyme to ABCB, where lines 2 and 4 rhyme, but 1 and 3 do not), or imperfect rhymes are substituted for perfect ones, or the rhymes are at times too predictable. And the overall quality of the poetry is not consistently high.
Yes. This.
I loved the idea of the Tietze collection, but I find it incredibly lacking in execution. I've never been able to bring myself to program any of its contents.
I think, if you want to mash hymns and propers together into one product, something like the Pluth/Giffen or Wood/Jones projects which used hymn tunes for the antiphon and set the Psalm verses to psalm tones, is a better way to go.
Of course, if you're going to go that far, it's only a very small jump to do something much better with congregational singing of the Propers. -
The Latin propers, by and large, have very different types of music for the antiphons (through-composed, often very melismatic chants) and for the psalm verses (usually a simple psalm tone). Their form is more akin to contemporary "verse and chorus" pieces than it is to metrical hymns, where the antiphon and the verses, of necessity, have the exact same music. And, as it often happens that a particular proper chant has its antiphon from one biblical source and the verses from another (for example, at yesterday's celebration the communion chant had an antiphon from John 6:57 and verses from either psalm 119 or 23), the internal coherence of the resulting text when both are set to the same meter and tune is more often lacking than not. Even when antiphon and verses are from the same psalm (as was yesterday's Cibavit eos, from psalm 81) setting them all to the same hymn tune melody (for yesterday's introit it was verses 17, 2, 17, 3, 17, 11, 17) would also produce an incoherent result.
Fr. Krisman explains, much better than I have been able to, why I haven't metricized the Psalm verses as part of the Hymn Tune Propers project.
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,506
- General Music Discussion7,774
- Job Openings1,365
- Management of Music Programs838
- Choral Matters523
- Church Documents and Rubrics513
- CMAA Notes293
- Events665
- For Newcomers: Read First24
- Sacred Polyphony531
- Hymnody840
- Gregorian Chant: General2,614
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis357
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology58
- Vernacular Plainsong681
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire418
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,232
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry155
- Music Education: Children207
- Music Education: General217
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism729
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,009
- Opinions115