• +
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 714
    To me, a Mass setting consists of only the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei. There's really no need for special settings of the Memorial Acclamations, Doxology and Amen that fit to the Ordinary. These are simple acclamations, and should preferably be sung from the Roman Missal.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    What (s)he said.
    Thanked by 1Thomas_Mary
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,304
    On the other hand, you CAN include them if you wish, and it is very common to do so.
    It is also common to include a Gospel Alleluia and Lenten Gospel Acclamation. These are technically part of the Proper, but in common Novus Ordo practice have become a de facto part of the Ordinary.

    If your Mass setting would fit well with the simple chants for those parts given in the Roman Missal, then there isn't much need. If it would sound or feel weird to jump from your composition to the chant given for the Memorial Acclamation, then you probably ought to include your own setting (and, of course, think hard about why you are writing a Mass setting that doesn't work within the context of the Roman Missal's official music...).
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 752
    I agree with Adam, mostly. For the NO I would think anything you sing, which is longer that 'And with your spirit' should be composed as an integral part.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,113
    Timing is - or isn't - everything. For better or for worse, this comes thread comes rather soon after I have released my own setting, "Missa Ascensionis Domini" (Ascension Mass). The four principal parts of the Mass Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei) have been set both in English and also in Latin (Greek for the Kyrie) providing options for Novus Ordo Masses in either English or Latin, as well as for Vetus Ordo usage. The 9-fold Kyrie in Greek would always be my preference (each of the three sections for Cantor/Choir-All-Cantor/Choir), even in Novus Ordo masses otherwise sung in English, but I have supplied a 6-fold vernacular setting for those that want a simpler setting.

    As with many other composers, I have not (yet) composed a Credo, even though I feel it should be sung and not spoken. For the vernacular, the tinkering with the text (especially the "we" versus "I") has made this a difficult part of the Mass Ordinary for composers to deal with - and clergy and laity to accept.

    Although not originally planned as a part of my setting, the Gospel Alleluia and Lenten Gospel Acclamations (with music that is thematically and hence organically related to the principal movements) have been included, along with the three Memorial Acclamations and the Amen. This is in line with what several (but, by no means, all) present day composers have done with their Mass settings. During Advent or Lent, when the Gloria is not sung, the inclusion of the Alleuia or Gospel Acclamation in this setting seems, at least to me, to preserve some of the balance and integrity of the setting as a whole. Could they be replaced by Missal or other chants? Yes, of course, but this setting provides a dignified option in lieu of what might be worse alternatives.

    Each composer's approach to a Mass setting is surely different from that of others. But this is as it should be, at least if the composer is seeking to honor, worship, and glorify God in the effort.
    Thanked by 1Thomas_Mary
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,597
    There are several different types of music sung at the Mass:
    Propers (Introit, Psalm, Alleluia, Offertory, Communion)
    Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei)
    Dialogues (And with your spirit, the Memorial Acclamation, the "great" Amen)
    And miscellaneous things (preludes, motets, hymns, postludes)

    The Alleluia should, in my opinion, not be a part of the Ordinary. I think what Bartlett has done in the LCM by including 8 alleluias (of the 8 Gregorian modes) from the Graduale Simplex as refrains for chanted proper verses is a very good idea. All 8 of these Alleluias are very easy to sing and can be taught to a congregation just as easily as the R&A settings. Bartlett then put the alleluia that is of the same mode as the actual Gregorian Alleluia for that day and assigned it to each Sunday. So, while you might not yet be able to do a Gregorian Alleluia, you still chant the Alleluia to the same mode.

    The memorial acclamation is a dialogue. The priest chants his part, the congregation responds. Just use one of the three settings in the Missal. Singing another setting here would be like singing a themed setting of "and with your spirit." Hopefully your priest is chanting his part and you're responding by finding his note and singing the response.

    At the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, you chant the amen just as you would at the end of any other prayer that is sung.

    And so... you should probably head to http://www.illuminarepublications.com and buy a copy, or 1000 copies, of the Lumen Christi Simple Gradual.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 714
    If it would sound or feel weird to jump from your composition to the chant given for the Memorial Acclamation, then you probably ought to include your own setting...

    But the moment where this weird jump would be felt first, is from a sung Preface to the Sanctus. Would that mean that a composer should create his own Preface tone to accommodate a smooth transition for the ear? Of course not.

    ...and, of course, think hard about why you are writing a Mass setting that doesn't work within the context of the Roman Missal's official music...

    There you go.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,230
    The Ordinary of the mass has eight parts:

    1. Kyrie
    2. Gloria
    3. Credo
    4. Sanctus/Benedictus
    5. Memorial Acclamation
    6. Great Amen
    7. Pater Noster
    8. Agnus Dei

    I typically set only 1, 2, (3 with trepidation), 4, and 8
  • +
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 752
    I think singing ordinary mass parts in English to one of the latin ordinaries tune is a good idea. I teach my kids schola the ordinary parts from jubilate deo, and at the same time the equivalent in English. they act as if they hardly notice when they have switched from one language to another, except for those kids who are being schooled in irish, sometimes they have a problem with the English. (language that is, not nation)
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 752
    just a thought...what about the Domine non sum dignus? Response, or ordinary or what?
  • From the (mediaeval) time that the 'movements' of the mass came to be arranged in cycles or sets, such cycles have included Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus-Benedictus, & Agnus Dei. As most of us know, there are eighteen chant settings of this 'ordinary' in the GR and the LU. So, when someone writes a 'mass' he or she is making a musically interelated set consisting of these parts of the ordinary. Many, but far from all, add the creed to the movements of their 'mass'. These four (or five) parts of the mass are what is meant, musically, when one speaks of 'a mass' by so and so. Because the creed should be sung at all times, it is desirable that it be included in anyone's newly composed mass; although a chant version of the creed should receive primary consideration in one's parish liturgies. The memorial acclamation should, likewise be chanted as given in the Roman Missal. It should never be given the gaudy glamourous extravaganza sort of setting as found in some contemporary mass settings (and, if one uses one of these settings, he should not use the memorial acclamation part of it!). Ditto the so-called Great Amen. This should be chanted to the ancient two-note formula without organ or other distracting instruments making an un-holy noise. This is nothing more that 'sounding brass', a liturgical embarassment. (Francis lists the Our Father as a part of the Ordinary. This is correct, and the Our Father should always be sung: to its ancient chant melody. It is a rare cycle (I have never encountered one) that would include a setting of the Our Father.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 265
    But the moment where this weird jump would be felt first, is from a sung Preface to the Sanctus. Would that mean that a composer should create his own Preface tone to accommodate a smooth transition for the ear? Of course not.

    If I'm not mistaken, that is what Marty Haugen did for the Mass of Creation.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 1,841
    Indeed, the MoC preface is #102 in the Catholic Community Hymnal. There are other examples of newly composed prefaces, and strange as it may seem for a priest to want to spend time learning music they do get sung occasionally.

    There are far more ways to slice the order of service than 8 ways. I think it would be worthwhile to revive the sung Ite...Deo gratias (in fact the LU as well as Machaut treats this as a 6th part) which our congregation seems to enjoy very much at Easter.

    I'm with MJO on (literally) rousing 'great amens', isn't there an instruction somewhere that the people's posture should emphasize that the amen is part of the preceding prayer? When settings were being tested for Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006) there was great emphasis on the memorial acclamations in the questionnaires; I was working with a pastor who had no use for them. Our other finding, that cycles of fifths with suspended sevenths are too wistful to make an effective Sanctus, was not heeded in the published book. :-/
  • Not writing anything but the K,G,S,A (C optional) increases the chances of more use, since no one has to adapt to sing a new acclamation melody, a new...

    You get the idea.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Hmm... I dunno, I really like Proulx's Great Amen for his Community Mass. Granted, just about everything in Community Mass is meant to be grand and festive, except the Kyrie and Agnus Dei. I mean- dear God, his Gloria with a full mixed choir and well-tuned organ sounds like it could actually be sung by angels. Or be a Roman triumphal procession out of Ben Hur. But I digress.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,230
    Not writing anything but the K,G,S,A (C optional) increases the chances of more use, since no one has to adapt to sing a new acclamation melody, a new...
    And if you compose in Latin it will be timeless, never go out of date (because of translation) and universal (not just English speaking countries) :-)
  • Or be a Roman triumphal procession out of Ben Hur.

    Yes, this is exactly what's wrong with it...
    and with typical 'festive' Catholic mass settings.
    No taste.
    (And certainly no angels in heaven.)
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen francis
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 714
    I'm just reading Music in Catholic Liturgy by Gerarld Gill, and he has some interesting things to say about this, and it's worthwhile to quote him at some length:

    The Ordinary of the Mass includes the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei. [...] Although the U.S. Bishops do not address this in Sing to the Lord, frequently American liturgical musical composers include, along with the Ordinary of the Mass, a setting for the anamnesis and the "Amen" of the Eucharistic Prayer. Both of these parts of the Eucharistic Prayer are dialogues between the priest celebrant and the people. The priest acclaims the Mystery of Faith and the people respond in one of several ways. The priest sings the doxology and the people assent, "Amen". These two dialogues, although of a quite significant importance especially in the context of the Eucharistic Prayer, are like all the dialogues of the Eucharist. They are a liturgical exchange between the priest and the people. They are not rites or parts that stand alone like the Sanctus. Thus, their musical form, a form provided in the Roman Missal, as with all of the other dialogues, should be in accord with the nature of the anamnesis and this "Amen". They are, after all, dialogues! (pp. 56-57)


    So, the Ordinary of the Mass doesn't consist of dialogues, but of parts that stand alone. Then, he makes an important observation:

    The musical notations given in the Roman Missal form part of the auditory translation of the texts, part of the sung sound of these texts, and thus part of their meaning for the singer and listener. This sung sound is a constitutive element of the Roman Rite as part of the way the Church prays in addition to the words. These musical notations should not be set aside too easily unles the priest celebrant cannot sing them in a suitable and dignified manner. (p. 60)


    When this principle is applied to the Memorial Acclamation the the Great Amen, this means:

    The Anamnesis, commonly called the Memorial Acclamation, and the Doxology are properly dialogues between the priest celebrant and the faithful. The responses of the faithful to the Mystery of Faith and the single Amen to the doxology are related in style and sound to the sung part of the priest celebrant. Therefore, as with all other dialogues, the musical settings already provided in the Roman Missal should be used. Once again, these chant settings, along with the texts, belong to the translation of these texts in the vernacular. (pp. 75-76)


    I never saw this stated so clearly before: that the chant settings of the Roman Missal are part of the translation, and can therefore not be set aside too easily. What do you think of this assertion?
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,597
    It is the right assertion.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,597
    It is right and just.
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,002
    I assert the Memorial Acclamation will eventually be removed!
  • I hope so.
  • It is right and just

    Indeed, or as some of us say -
    'it is meet and right so to do'. !
    Thanked by 3Salieri CHGiffen Gavin
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,418
    I'm sure that this isn't the thread for this, but talking about translations: What is just sooooo bad about Thee, thy, wast, hast, bringst, feedeth, and other archaic bits of modern English?

    I got into an intense debate with a woman about what she called 'Old English', saying that 'people don't talk like that anymore, so why should we pray like that!' I asked her not to confuse terms that Old English is actually something else - Anglo-Saxon - not Shakespeare. When she again said 'people don't talk like that', all I could say was: "I'll tell thee summat: go to Yorkshire, and thou'll find many a body that does, and they'll be shocked to hear thee say that."
  • As long as there are people who 'speak like that', whether in, out, or in and out, of liturgy, 'that' is the way people right now speak. It isn't old English, it is historic English that remains in use, spoken right now. Does this woman think that we shouldn't use the word 'stuff' (very much in vogue nowadays) because it was used in the XVth century, if not earlier? I have an idea that if I heard this woman speak I would think to myself "I don't speak like that'!

    A good retort would be: 'I and quite a few of my friends speak like that on occasion, and we are people'.
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,230
    I don't speak to those kind of people, nor play music for them, nor befriend them. I leave them to themselves and those that are like minded.
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,418
    we are people

    Sounds like something from Glory and Praise...
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,230
    We the people
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,113
    Would they understand the following any better than the original?
    Eighty-seven years ago our ancestors started a new country on this continent, using concepts of freedom, and stuck on the claim that everyone is born equally ...
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,230
    We are equal as humans, but not in our gifting, talents, and abilities to do whatever.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,113
    Yep, that's right, Francis.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,418
    Well, Chuck, at least it gets rid of that anti-wymyn word forefathers!
  • ...something from Glory and Praise...

    Egad! Let's hope that no one attributed such a connection to anyone who writes on this forum.

    (Isn't it odd that when certain persons refer to 'what people like', etc., they seem to assume that those of us whom they are addressing are 'not people'? By 'people' they always seem to mean only that certain number (usually an actual minority) of people who don't like whatever it is that we do like. And this, in and of itself, should be taken to mean that we and what we like are bizarre?)
    Thanked by 2Salieri Gavin
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,113
    forefathers
    Fixed.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,418
    Mea culpa. That's what you get with modren edumacation.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen CHGiffen
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I got into an intense debate with a woman about what she called 'Old English', saying that 'people don't talk like that anymore, so why should we pray like that!'


    Ok, so she wants people to pray how they talk? I don't know anyone who would talk to me saying, "Gavin, I just... just... want to tell you you're great. And if you could just... just.... loan me an awesome twenty dollars that would just be.... awesome. You're sooooo great. AYYYmen!!!"
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood eft94530
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,304
    "Gavin, I just... just... want to tell you you're great. And if you could just... just.... loan me an awesome twenty dollars that would just be.... awesome. You're sooooo great. AYYYmen!!!"

    Not enough "Gavin."
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,545
    Adam, I just wanted to reply, and just tell you that, Adam, its just so great to just be on this forum with you. And I just want to ask you, Adam, I just want to ask if you could just please continue to just continue posting, Adam, and just continue to grace these interwebs with your presence.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 749
    @ M. Jackson Osborn:Indeed - it is very meet, right and our bounden duty ...