Oh, I'm thinking very garage band, in a way. I would really like to put practice vocal recordings of the Chabanel psalms up (PBoP, Royce Nickel, etc), but it seems the preference is for males, as all the other practice mp3s are of males.

It could be simply that the recordings on the site you're going to are of men because their singing friends and colleagues are mostly men. Maybe a woman or group of women simply aren't in the area for them to record. If you feel you are qualified to make a contribution, you can always contact people who run the site. As far as I know, they have no rule against women singing. And I agree that examples in the upper octave would be of great help to parish choirs.

In general, its true that there is an impression that our field of work and study has far more men than women. Still, there are lots of dedicated and faithful women working at the local level- and beyond- to restore sacred music. Every once in a while you'll find someone who objects to women singing in church, and especially the propers. I'm sad to say that still exists, though such attitudes need not stop you. Do not be discouraged. Keep singing and studying with diligence and joy. There are several women on this forum who can chime in with stories of their experiences in our field, should they read this post.

Blessings, Philothea!

Frankly, I much prefer the sound of female voices chanting to those of men.

This thread seems to be the appropriate one in which to pose a question that has been the source of conversation amongst some of my choir members for the past week. About 18 months ago, I was approached at the organ bench by a gentleman bearing a book, and was shown excerpts which exhorted that MEN ONLY are to sing the Propers. I wish now that I had copied the name of the book, at that time, or at least committed some of that communication within the choirloft to memory, but I didn't. I only recall snippets about "the male choir of the Levites" and "liturgical function reserved to the males." That same book was presented to the pastor, and as a result, the Propers are now sung only by the males. The question that I had wanted to find the answer to is: "What reference book clearly spells this whole business out?" It would be very helpful.

I will admit that I had to deal with some personal feelings that were crawling up through my chest, and trying to get out through my mouth: namely, "So, it's OK for a woman to research the chant, copy the music, cut-and-paste the music, transpose the music, write her own accompaniments, learn the music, teach the music to the males, accompany the chant on the organ.....but she can not sing it?" Thud.

My way around all of THAT is to make sure that I find plenty of other gorgeous chants that the women can sing either as preludes, or at Offertory or Communion times, either alone, or alternating with the men.

chonak, in scanning some of the comments in the traditionalist forum that you mentioned above, I think that "the book" which was shown to me, regarding why only men are allowed to sing the EF Mass Propers, had to do with Pius X's 1903 "Tra le Sollecitudini" (Instruction on Sacred Music) http://www.adoremus.org/MotuProprio.html
I see that Section V, Numbers 12 & 13, of this document contain the same wording that I remember from my choirloft conversation.

Big, Dumb question coming here: Is Pius X's document still binding upon us as musicians? I just want to know what the mind of the Church is, and then I'll be happy to do what is asked of me. Well, I'll be happy, as long as the men put the PRACTICE time into learning the Propers sufficiently.

It's binding only in the EF for vested scholas fulfilling that office within the sanctuary confines. Must make that distinction.

That same book was presented to the pastor, and as a result, the Propers are now sung only by the males.

That outcome drives me crazy. Dagnabit, we DMs should know our own business well enough not to put up with nabobs with old books and ignorant complaints, and also to fraternally and collegially correct errant clergy, even if they sign your paycheck.

A useful reference book for questions like this is Hayburn's "Papal Legislation on Sacred Music". It includes the various developments from decisions of the Congregation of Sacred Rites through the 20th century. In any case, the instructions in the 1958 document (quoted above) are the last, so their more generous permission for women and girls applies.

It's binding, but the male-only provision only applies to a choir singing in the sanctuary, . . . .

It's binding only in the EF for vested scholas fulfilling that office within the sanctuary confines.

I realize that this is the modern take on Tra le Sollecitudini. I really think it's quite wrong, though. Let's look at what Pius really said:

12. With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung in Gregorian Chant, and without accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of levites, and, therefore, singers in the church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir. Hence the music rendered by them must, at least for the greater part, retain the character of choral music.
. . .

13. On the same principle it follows that singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that therefore women, being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir. Whenever, then, it is desired to employ the acute voices of sopranos and contraltos, these parts must be taken by boys, according to the most ancient usage of the Church.

I have bolded two points. The first shows that the "singers" about whom he is speaking are the one taking the place of the "ecclesiastical choir," not the ones in the ecclesiastical choir. The second shows, quite to the contrary of what Chonak said, that these "singers in church" do "have a real liturgical office." What he says is decidedly not, "singers in church with a real liturgical office [read: clerics] must be men [go figure]," but rather "singers in church ["even when they are laymen"] do have a real liturgical office, and for that reason they must be men."

Oh, please. St. Pius X could not have foreseen the contingencies that, whether you recognize it or not, have mitigated the canonical jurisdiction of select elements of his MP, not the least of which created a whole new ballgame, otherwise known as the Missal of Paul VI and the exigenses that culminated beyond its own binding strictures.
I, to borrow Liam's mention from another thread, very much enjoy the chanting of the propers by women in my schola with preference over the men. And nobody gives a rat's derriere that we are located in transept.
BTW, how many angels are capable of dancing on the head of a pin?

I am glad that women want to be in choirs and be cantors. If I were waiting for only men to fill those roles, I might not have cantors or choir on many Sundays.

Precisely my point regarding the protracted nature and conclusions of some comments.

Mark, can you make your argument with reference to the Italian original text?

The English I quoted is a good translation of the Italian, which reads as follows (I have bolded the same portions):

12. Tranne le melodie proprie del celebrante all’altare e dei ministri, le quali devono essere sempre in solo canto gregoriano senza alcun accompagnamento d’organo, tutto il resto del canto liturgico è proprio del coro dei leviti, e però i cantori di chiesa, anche se sono secolari, fanno propriamente le veci del coro ecclesiastico. Per conseguenza le musiche che propongono devono, almeno nella loro massima parte, conservare il carattere di musica da coro.
. . .

13. Dal medesimo principio segue che i cantori hanno in chiesa vero officio liturgico e che però le donne, essendo incapaci di tale officio, non possono essere ammesse a far parte del Coro o della cappella musicale. Se dunque si vogliono adoperare le voci acute dei soprani e contralti, queste dovranno essere sostenute dai fanciulli, secondo l’uso antichissimo della Chiesa.

In paragraph 12 "però," on my understanding, does not really mean "therefore," but the sense conveyed is about the same; one might have said "yea verily" there. In paragraph 13 the ordering is slightly different than what would be indicated by the translation. Pius does not exactly say "singers in church have a real liturgical office," but "the singers have in church a real liturgical office," or perhaps better, "the singers have a real liturgical office in the church." This makes my point yet more strongly: he is not making a point restricted to singers who hold a liturgical office, but about singers -- telling us that when they sing in church they are ipso facto carrying out a liturgical office.

Who knows? I haven't noticed any difference with altar servers. Some are male, some are female. I only deal with the OF. EF folks may have a different situation on their hands since, to my knowledge, they can't use female altar servers. Wisdom? Only God is wise. Mortals spend their time arguing with fence posts and tilting at windmills.

Gavin, Chonak did a good job of summarizing the state of things in his last comment, above.

There's a major difference between girl choir singers and girl servers.
Say it with me-
A Catholic girl can grow to become a woman and sing in the choir.
A Catholic girl cannot grow up to become a woman and be validly ordained.

Why is this so difficult every time?

Philothea, I'm sorry you have to deal with this. Disregard the discouragement as much as you can.

Time for me to prepare full propers for this week, and get ready for tonight's semiology class with Dr. Ed Schaefer. Eat your heart out!

[NOTE: For those uninterested in nitpicking the text along with me and Mark, please skip this comment, and please don't be annoyed at me for writing it. Just skip it, OK? Thanks.]

I raised the question about the Italian text because I think Pope St. Pius X's phrasing can help clarify some points.

Pius X refers to lay singers who substitute for an ecclesiastical choir, and he calls them cantori di chiesa. If I understand Mark aright, he considers this a fairly broad reference to "singers in the church", as the English translation gives the phrase, and he interprets it to include lay singers even outside the sanctuary.

I will present two arguments against this interpretation:

(1) The S.C.R. answered a December 1908 dubium from the Archbishop of New York who sent this description of the practice in this country:

Throughout almost the entire United States, the term 'choir' designates a group of a few singers, both men and women, who are chosen to sing the liturgical texts at solemn Masses. The choir, or group of men and women or girls, is located outside the sanctuary in a place designated for its use alone and, moreover, this place is usually at some distance from the altar. There is no other choir to sing the liturgical texts.

Such a situation did not reflect Pius X's liturgical ideal of an ecclesiastical choir, nor of laymen substituting as liturgical ministers; and yet the S.C.R. did not forbid this outright, but only imposed the requirement that women and men be separated, unless it were "very inconvenient" to do so. This shows that S.C.R. did not consider all singers outside the sanctuary to be liturgical ministers.

(2) A textual argument: "Singers in the church" is not the best reading of cantori di chiesa. After all, di does not mean "in". Literally, it means "of". Cantori di chiesa should be read as "church singers" or "church cantors". The words di chiesa (not "in chiesa" or "della chiesa" or "nella chiesa") indicate that he is talking about a certain category of singers, or type of singers. It's not just about their location or their membership in the church.

So the text is presenting an image of one or more lay cantors in a somewhat specialized and stable role. The cantori in the document are fulfilling the function of the ecclesiastical (clerical) choir; therefore (it goes without saying), they are in the sanctuary and they are vested as liturgical ministers; they are carrying out a true liturgical office and it is obvious that only men are permitted in this role [we are speaking, of course, of the EF context throughout].

I don't think the text is even considering the possibility of a "choir of the faithful" outside the sanctuary, and therefore it is not specifying rules for it.

I would not dream of nitpicking you, Richard. I'd rather learn from you. :)

Thanks for all the very helpful information here re: cantrices. I'm going to forward this to a dear friend who is our cantrix at our TLM. We have a mixed schola, and she intones all the propers and the Ordinary. She has a beautiful, pure, clear voice, and we are so blessed to have her. She has told me about her experiences in other EF choirs where only men are allowed to sing the propers which has been a source of great disappointment and heartbreak to her in the past.

It's incomprehensible to me how, in this day and age, any music director could turn away such a gifted singer and such a willing heart, no matter how enamored he was with all-male chanting. It seems to me the best solution is, as others have said, to alternate between men and women, or to have a mixed schola, so no one will ever be deliberately excluded from a legitimate place in the liturgy.

I'm quite partial to mixed scholas and think the two-octave effect is very pleasing when it's done well and the voices blend. We have two women and one baritone singing the propers, and that seems to create a good balance. There are a few girls who sing along, too, but you can hardly hear them. : ) They do very well coming in at the asterisks and on the repeats. I like to think of a mixed schola as a symbolic representation of the two genders at the heavenly banquet.

Ideally, I think there should be a variety of EF scholas in the diocese. Perhaps an all-male schola composed of seminarians at the cathedral with polyphonic masses and grand organ processionals, an all-female schola singing equal-voice music at another church, but at most locations in the diocese, a more "populist" model with a mixed schola, chant masses from the Kyriale sung by the congregation and vernacular hymns at the opening and closing.

We have a local Poor Clare Monastery here in Roswell (NM). I've uploaded some of the recordings of their chant to a blog. It is wonderful to hear in person -- much better than my recordings.

http://voxfeminaesacra.blogspot.com/search/label/Poor Clare Monastery

Also, didn't Pius XII clarify this in the 1940s?