I agree with Adam (except the bit about organ music!) on the NOH. No need to look any further :)

Earl Grey,

(What a great moniker, by the way).

It seems to me that the best way to support chanted propers is to give the scola members such a grounding that they feel confident singing them on one reading.


That way, the music supports the singers.

So does anyone simply double the melody to help the schola stay on pitch as opposed to harmonizing? It would seem, at least theoretically, the better option if some sort of support was required.

The propers were not designed to be accompanied, and many excellent directors do find accompanied propers to be aesthetically distasteful for that reason. Accompanied propers are a new composition, an added and often anachronistic element.

While the NOH has advantages to other attempts, I have not experienced accompanied propers that are musically convincing. The notes may be correct (or not) but the melodic line is sacrificed as the chant is halting because the singers constantly check for support.

Singers are not trained to be secure and self-sufficient using this method.

If you are new to the propers, I advocate dedicating the time to slowly build a competent schola. This may mean focusing on one thing at a time (Introits and Communions are usually less intricate) and using simplified propers. I've done this with two different choirs and its worked for us. It has worked with my children's groups as well.

Invest in singing the propers by investing in skilled acapella singing.

In response to Mary Ann Carr Wilson---- the question of accompanied (harmonic) chant vs unaccompanied chant has been contested over the centuries in the Church.

In the encyclical Annus qui hunc by Pope Pius (oops!) Benedict XIV (1749), there is a fascinating back-and-forth discussion weighing the pros and cons of accompanied chant, and while it was not the practice in many places, the Pope points out that even at the Council of Trent (1545) at the intervention of Emperor Ferdinand, the Council Fathers had allowed the use of organ in the Church's liturgy.

Other ecclesiastical writers confirm the same opinion, and actually the practice of using the organ to accompany chant had become so widespread by the eighteenth century, that Pope Benedict XIV points out that "the use of harmonic . . . chant and of musical instruments at Masses, Vespers and other Church functions is now so largely spread that it has also reached Paraguay."

While accompanied chant may not be everyone's liturgical cup of tea, it is a perfectly legitimate option, and might be a good choice for a beginning schola in a typical parish setting. Speaking for myself, I'd rather hear the full propers with a quiet Bragers or Solesmes accompaniment than the Rossini propers any day, but that's just my own preference.

I liked the videos expeditus1. Not a big Kenny G fan, but that's basically what I was thinking. Perhaps a flute or an oboe or a serpent would work better. ;)

I guess given the opportunity, I would rather sing the proper melodies rather than a simplified psalm tone even if some sort of support was required. Certainly vocal only is a worthy ideal to strive for.

To answer Earl's last question, I'm not sure what's typical, but when singing for the EF, I follow the LU and an ordo.

MaryAnn. The key to accompanied chant is just that - precisely - it's an accompaniment. It is intended to help the singers stay on pitch and feel the flow, not for them to use as a rhythmic crutch. The basics of feeling the duple/triple aspects of the melody line are essential. The organ cannot make up for that. As to the Rossini, they are utilitarian, yes. But sometimes that is what is needed. I don't actually use the original book - I have all the tones in my computer, with accompaniment. I do have tricks. First, when chanting the Alleluia verse, we always use the melismatic Alleluia, then the Psalm tone verse. This doesn't really take that much more time, and sounds much better. Second, we alternate Gregorian tones with Anglican chant. This works especially well on the Introit: Antiphon to the Gregorian Introit tone; Psalm verse to Anglican chant; Doxology to the extended, 3-part Gregorian tone; and the repeat of the Antiphon to Anglican chant. This also gives us the advantage of picking an Anglican chant that segues perfectly into whatever polyphonic Kyrie were are singing.

I think chant accompaniment may be more helpful less distasteful when the person providing it is not directing, i.e. someone leading the chant only with gesture, which the singers and organist follow.

When the "director" is playing the "accompaniment" exactly how much is the choir really following with their ears (slightly delayed) than with their eyes?

Not to sidetrack the conversation too much, as a choral conductor who has (thankfully) managed to find full-time employment in academic settings, I wish it was easier for me to share my expertise in the parish setting on a part time basis. In other words, I wish it were more common to find music directorships shared between an organist and a choir director as more-or-less equals.

I find that a significant number (but certainly not all) organists believe they are better conductors than they are - if for no other reason than they don't have enough opportunity to practice that skill because they are frequently at the organ out of necessity.

The ideal is a capella chant.
-------------------------------------------------------
I. Propers
A. The accompaniment that is used by the Schola Bellarmina is exquisite; and, if I had a copy of that accompaniment OR the talent to compose its likeness, it would be my first choice.

B. I have been using Henri Potiron's 4 Volumes of the Graduel Paroissial for over 10 years and find it very serviceable. As the men of the Schola become more proficient with a piece, I cease playing the melody...letting the accompaniment support them. (Note: If the Schola gets into trouble, I do not hesitate to play the melody only, both in the treble and the tenor. I only do this the minimum length of time required and then return to the accompaniment.) The first three volumes are available here
http://chabanelpsalms.org/introductory_material/Public_Domain_Chant_ACC/PotironGradual_1.pdf
here
http://chabanelpsalms.org/introductory_material/Public_Domain_Chant_ACC/PotironGradual_2.pdf
and here.
http://chabanelpsalms.org/introductory_material/Public_Domain_Chant_ACC/PotironGradual_3.pdf

C. When a Mass is to be sung without time for the Schola to prepare, the Rossini psalm-tone Propers are used since they are immediately singable.

D. On occasion, I have used Bas, Mathias, Bragers, and NOH.
--------------------------------------------------------
II. Kyriale
A. My first choice is Desrocquettes & Potiron's Kyriale
http://chabanelpsalms.org/introductory_material/Public_Domain_Chant_ACC/DesrocquettesPotironKyriale1.pdf

B. My second/third choice is Rossini's Kyriale.

C. My second/third choice is Goyatton & Lemoine-Biton's Kyriale Paroissial although it is not a complete Kyriale. It is written in three voices....very minimal and delicate.
http://chabanelpsalms.org/introductory_material/Public_Domain_Chant_ACC/KyrialeParoissial.pdf

D. My fourth choice is Bragers's Kyriale (not the low voice version).
--------------------------------------------------------
Please note that these are my preferences based on the needs of a particular Schola, congregation, AND on my organ skills (or lack thereof). What will work for you may be entirely different. There are so many resources available now compared to just a decade ago!!! Try different accompaniments and use what works for your singers and for you.

Deo gratias!

OK, I'm another who loves beautifully accompanied chant. I don't mean overbearingly or romantically accompanied, but sensitively and with the purposes of maintaining pitch and moving the chant along at a good pace.

I understand all the good reasons why chant should ideally be unaccompanied: the most compelling for me is that the accompaniment resolves the harmonic possibilities and ambiguities that the chant suggests and that these should be left for the ear and mind to resolve or not. But if that can't be achieved in unaccompanied chanting, let the accompaniment add support and beauty.

And the Good Friday reproaches are quite effective with a drone:

http://www.chantcafe.com/2013/03/the-good-friday-reproaches.html

Skip R, I wholeheartedly concur with your comment.
I truly thank God that there is a division of duties in my parish, and that I have been tasked with the responsibility of training voices and conducting while my very dear organist colleague focuses mostly on organ and beautifying the sacred liturgy through musical preludes and postludes, exquisite organ improvisation and delightful organ repertoire.

purists fussbudgets

Fixed.

There is a range of feeling and opinion on this matter:

chant must be unaccompanied, anything else is outrage!!1!
chant is traditional a capella, so that is the ideal
I hate accompanied chant, but it's licit
I prefer a capella chant
I'm fine either way
Prefer accomp



There's probably finer gradations here. I suspect most people who are into this stuff are generally in the middle of that range.

Unaccompanied singing, when done excessively, gets tedious, fast.

I disagree, but that's just me.

I understand why the French had organ masses. They were probably tired of dealing with singers.

Best solution to a prima donna cantor? A prima donna organist!

Unaccompanied singing, when done excessively, gets tedious, fast.

I couldn't agree more with this. I think that's why the Church discourages the use of the organ during Lent and Advent.

Unaccompanied singing = penance, austerity, hardship, rigor, and trial.

That being said, I really prefer unaccompanied propers and acapella motets during a Missa Cantata, as long as the rest of the Mass is with the organ. The contrast between the accompanied and unaccompanied is very effective.

Also, at least to me, a Missa Cantata with only propers and ordinary and no hymns is almost unbearably monastic. I think I would slowly wilt and die if I had to live without hymns and motets. : )

unbearably monastic

-unbearable
-monastic

Pick one.

I'd make a terrible monk. I wouldn't last a day. : (

The problem I have with unaccompanied chant, is that unless the choir is very good, it eventually starts resembling eerie wailing.

Add some vibrato to that, and it gets even more interesting.

Adam, you are a hoot- prima donna organists are indeed an issue.
I'm ok with the ordinary being accompanied, though I don't prefer it. I find it distracting unless the choir is mostly in tune and the organist is excellent.

Has anyone else noticed that organists who complain about singers don't seem to know how to fix vocal issues- and aren't even aware that most of that responsibility lies with themselves if they offer themselves as directors of volunteer vocal ensembles? (If your group can't sing in tune, well, what kind of vocalizes are you doing? Can you isolate vocal issues in singers and address them in a group setting? How much do you know about vocal resonance- can you teach it?)

Could it be that our field is so dominated by organists that most of them don't know what they don't know about singing?

The problem isn't self-obsessed singers wanting to chant without being held back by the organ (the modern concept of solo cantor singing over the whole mass is another diva problem- but groups of singers don't tend to ego in the same way). The problem is more of some organists thinking that every type of music needs a veneer of organ stylings to make it "better". That's ego- organist ego.

Adam, you are a hoot

woot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

I'm happy that my questions invite such lively discussion!

I am actually a singer not an organist (though I am the organist by default). I do quite well with fixing vocal problems with individual singers who study with me privately. Conducting a choir is another issue. Many of my volunteer singers have sang in choirs their whole life and that consisted of mostly singing by rote. I couldn't comprehend how someone could sing in a choir for 30 years or more and never learn to read music, never learn to match pitch, sing in tune, blend, balance etc. But that is the reality.

I am confident that I could do even more to help my singers if I weren't tethered to the bench where since I have to devote much of my attention to playing the organ, I'm not realizing my full potential as a director. I would love to find a volunteer accompanist or hire one, but neither possibilities have presented.

I agree with your assertion that the field is dominated by directors who are organists and not singers or at least don't' know how to teach singing. I've witnessed this many times in various choir I've sung in. There are a few exceptional directors who excel at both, but most choral directors are either keyboardists (piano or organ) or singers.

I don't necessarily agree that choirs are free from Divas. I know many diva (divo) choral singers who simply flat out refuse to take direction, blend their voice or do anything for the sake of the group. Particularly in small volunteer choirs where the musical bar is low there is always that one voice that tends to stick out, and if I were to spend the entire rehearsal on vocal technique then they wouldn't learn all the music that they need to for that coming Sunday. And if I were to require that all the singers learn their music on their own away from the rehearsal so that the choir rehearsal time could be spend on nuances, then I wouldn't have a volunteer choir. That was a big hurdle for me fresh out of college. The first year I passed out a lot of great choral music that was totally over their head. Over the years I've had to learn to let some things go for the morale of the group so that I'm not constantly cutting music that is too much for them or constantly harping on the same one or two voices who in all honestly can't sing well but love to sing.

Getting back to a cappella vs. accompanied. I would love to do more a cappella music, but it is simply too difficult for them. Nonetheless I continue to challenge them with it. Still my most successful a cappella attempts have been with Chant (communion antiphons, Gregorian hymns etc.) as opposed to polyphonic music which is another level of difficulty. Still while I may have to resort to doubling moets that were meant to be sung a cappella they are at least being exposed to a world of music that was completely foreign to them and would be otherwise unobtainable.

Charles,

You need to learn to wound with words and kill with a stare.

No lawyer can touch you that way, and you get results!

I love the NOH but I use Bragers and Potiron for the Ordinary because I follow (only for those) the Solesmes method (though slightly modified). I am director and organist and usually do not accompany the choir when it sings the propers, because I found that they don't follow the direction and follow the organ, causing them to lag behind. However, when we know a proper particularly well, but are having trouble tuning - because of time of day, reduced numbers, etc. I will accompany directly from the Graduale or SEP or whatever.

The best thing to do - using NOH, Potiron, Desroquettes, et al. as models - is to improvise accompaniments from the chant notation, simply because many accompaniment editions don't take into account certain elements of modern chant scholarship (the salicus is particularly hard to spot in modern notation), and often I find the rhythm is a bit simplified. For example I much prefer a modern notation that repeats the strophas, i.e. three eigths, beamed together, rather than grouping them into larger values, like a dotted quarter.

I learned to accompany chant by playing and listening to lots and lots of recordings, and then tried to mimic what I heard, first with simple pieces (like Adoro te), and then branching out. One of the nice things about improvising accompaniments is that when you know what parts the choir find tricky you can alter the accompaniment to help them, you can't do that so much when you are using pre composed accompaniments.

Try only to use 8' stops, maybe a 4' for extra clarity, if accoustics, or voicing requires it. I like a light 16' in the pedal (coupled to whatever manual your playing on).

Hope this is helpful

No one has mentioned Marcel Dupre's book on chant accompaniment. The French have a very long tradition of doing this. Remember the old saying about the fact that it's better to teach a person how to fish than just keep providing the fish somebody else has caught.

I never accompany the propers but I agree with Julie re: the ordinary, that you can't get the congregation to sing unless you accompany them. (I don't think it's just our parish, either.) When I do that I make very sure that the accompaniment does not get in the way of the singing, but at the same time I make sure I am always playing the melody as well as whatever minimal underlay there is. The choir also sings the ordinary of chant masses in octaves so both women and men feel comfortable singing. As for ready-made accimpaniments, I find Bragers better than the others but rarely use it as is - I usually make my own edition of whatever Kyrie, etc. If I were a better improviser I would just do that (improvise) instead, as Dupre expects one to do. As someone mentioned, the less fussy, the better - you just need a little something in the background to give the people downstairs a bit more confidence.