There is no way to control a DM who does not have a clue.

There's no church document because no one could foresee such idiocy occurring from the pulpit of a Catholic church.

Well, there are song leaders, and there are song leaders. Once again, our SSPX friends in France are leading by example in the limited and specific area of the liturgy and are giving us an exemplary model of what the word "participation" can mean as regards the Mass and how this can become the model for liturgical renewal in the Church.

Believe it or not, they too have song leaders up on the altar leading the people in the singing of chant--- in this case, the Missa de Angelis as shown in the video below.

It is truly stunning to see a leader of song in the Lourdes basilica directing with great decorum and skill the entire congregation in the antiphonal singing of the Kyrie and Gloria. The congregation is not just singing the Gloria, but rather, they are so well-trained and educated that the PIP's are singing the Gloria antiphonally with the priests and seminarians in the schola.

As an added touch, the video shows toward the end the song leader leading the congregation in a moving rendition of a French hymn during the distribution of Communion----yes, a vernacular hymn during a Solemn High Mass!

What can one say except "Bravo!" and "Well done for showing the whole Church that we can fulfill the wishes of the Second Vatican Council by teaching the faithful to 'sing in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them.'"

http://gloria.tv/?media=45150&language=KiaLEJq2fBR

There aren't any church documents or anything like that, but there is artistic common sense. It sounds like what we would call "over conducting" which is the state in which the conductor is doing too much and getting in the way. She should also be aware that her tempo is not that of the music director, and therefore, her conducting is confusing. As for blasting the mic, she should be reminded that she doesn't have to yell into it. However, this should not come from you. You could politely mention something to the DM, but that's about it unless you want to open the can of worms and go over his head to the Pastor.

Lagunaredbob,

At the risk of being tiresome, I'm going to assume you mean this as an entirely serious situation and would therefore like concrete help.

There are no documents which give guidance as to how such a thing should happen because, as you point out, this cantrix is doing her own thing, which shouldn't be happening. Cantrices who make up their own mind about being on "center stage" should be sacked. Plain, simple, difficult to accomplish sometimes, but utterly necessary.

What else, concretely? Follow the choir director if he differs from the cantrix, or the celebrating priest if - for some freakish reason - he differs from the choir director.
After Mass, make sure that you clear up whatever went wrong with your direct superior.

There is a general liturgical principle that nothing should distract from the action of the Mass. According to this principle, choirs, if they must stand to sing, should do so in a manner which makes as little noise as possible and in a manner such that they are ready to sing when the proper time arrives. According to this principle, anything during the Eucharistic prayer which distracts or detracts from the sacrifice of the Mass must be avoided: organ introductions (for the sake of pitch) might not be avoided, but arm-waving cantrices could be replaced by simple auditory clues. In a school where I used to teach, Father and I worked it out so that he sang mysterium fidei and the assembled school students, on the right pitch, sang mortem tuam...... It took explaining beforehand, but not during the Mass.

According to this principle, by the way, notices on "hymn boards" or pieces of paper are infinitely preferable to "Our Offertory hymn can be found in the red, Worship hymnal, number ###, 'Let there be peace on earth', number ####.", and "Our Gathering Song is __________. Please stand to greet our presider for today's celebration, Fr. Francis Flapdoodle."

I have seen/heard of this sort of thing in traditional Baptist and some Methodist churches.

It's done regularly at St. Mary Major.

It's done regularly at St. Mary Major.

What's done regularly? Babushka ladies sporting tapirs?

Pews are a Protestant invention. Was it pews in 19th-century Russia? It was not - it still is not. Is outrage!

We easterners do have seats around the walls for the elderly and infirm. If you look healthy and sit in those seats, the babushkas will give you the evil eye for not standing to worship the risen Lord.

Back on topic:

The psalmist conducting a liturgical assembly during its psalm response? No, the organist (or choir) leads.

A cantor conducting a liturgical assembly during its refrain to a liturgical song, such as the Taizé Eat This Bread? No, the organist (or choir) leads.

A song leader conducting a liturgical assembly during a strophic hymn, such as O God Our Help in Ages Past? No, the organist leads, and there is no need at all for a song leader (or microphone hugger).

FYI, all you wiseacres, babushka ladies are so ahead of the curve, they chose tapirs centuries before anteaters knowing that anteaters are maneaters as well. They lead them by virtue of the tapers they carry to the next candleabra.
BTW, yes that is the long suffering (41 years) Mrs. Melo, who is my human spell check and salvation, and a soprano of MACW's calibre. Present during that photo, but not seen, was Elvis Presley, btw.
And I'm smart just enough to know if she wants to conduct the congregation, she has a darn good reason. She didn't choose the tie. Old Valentine's Day conversation piece, and it worked!

I always need more information... but not necessarily about anything in this thread.

I'm not saying that I like it--just that it happens.

My preference is the same as yours.

Song leader in action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYQDWFIoHX4

I will cop to having done what I called "Excalibur" motions from the organ loft to a choir located off to the side of the sanctuary 180+ feet away where there was at least 100 feet between the loft and the back of the congregation, and the lack of vocal continuum from the loft to the front of the church made for problems that the speed-of-light cueing ameliorated. (Another reason to situate some strong singers in the back half of the congregation if the loft is the location for the music ministry, but most of your congregation sits in the front half of the church; as a general matter, it can be good to sacrifice strong singers in the choir to placement among the back half of the congregation).

OP, is there any way you could post a video? You know, for research purposes?

That they should be "heard, not seen" indicates that specific recommendations in the GIRM (its "first option," if you will) are wrong.

One might well think that specific recommendations in the GIRM are well-intentioned but misguided, and due for a critical look in the next GIRM.

It's a disciplinary document, frequently updated. It's not a doctrinal pronouncement regarding faith or morals.

Just to flesh out what I've said above, much ink has been (misguidingly) spilled over Pope Benedict's distinction between the Hermeneutics of Continuity and Discontinuity. But that is not what he said, in his programmatic address to the curia in Advent of 2005.

The contrast he made was between Rupture and Reform. He is against a hermeneutic of rupture, and for a hermeneutic of reform, which he defines as continuity and discontinuity on different levels.

Practices change by the Church's self-reform, while teachings on faith and morals perdure.

No prob.

Btw, wouldn't it be interesting if a future GIRM tossed the 4th option out, at least at the Entrance and Communion processions!

I couldn't agree more, and despite my errant comment above, my "wish list" includes your proposed revisions. Charles' analysis as a "conventional practices" document is a most unfortunate result of realpolitick in the modern era, post Vatican I. That's why Liam's prediction also rings true for me. Look at the evolution of democratic governance as it currently appears in our nations' governent: "death by committee" now has become stasis. Advice and consent isn't a stranger to monarchies though, depends upon who's advising (St. Francis of Assisi or St. Thomas More) and who's listening (Innocent III or Henry VIII.)
The one thing I don't get is the great unwashed "we" hear and accept in the gospels the graces of discipline, true freedom through adherence to God's law and Christ's commands/mandates, but the cacophony coming from our prelature has resulted in anything goes.....meh.
I'd be happy to be dispensed with if the dreams of Pius X were to become reality.

Sure. The whole doc is here, and these are the passages that point directly to the issue.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council's deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.

In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.

The nature of a Council as such is therefore basically misunderstood. In this way, it is considered as a sort of constituent that eliminates an old constitution and creates a new one. However, the Constituent Assembly needs a mandator and then confirmation by the mandator, in other words, the people the constitution must serve. The Fathers had no such mandate and no one had ever given them one; nor could anyone have given them one because the essential constitution of the Church comes from the Lord and was given to us so that we might attain eternal life and, starting from this perspective, be able to illuminate life in time and time itself.

....

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

Yes, just like Vatican II, there's what people have been led to think B16 said/taught, and what he actually said/taught....

Melo, you don't think the USCCB suffers from death by committee? It isn't just a government problem.

Be careful what you ask for. It wouldn't be THAT much harder to throw out the first option, as well as the fourth.

The communion procession is unrealistic. It is very difficult for people going to communion to keep a song going throughout the procession. Singing is generally the last distraction they need or want at that time.

Btw, wouldn't it be interesting if a future GIRM tossed the 4th option out, at least at the Entrance and Communion processions!

FWIW, no fourth option is found in the GIRM particular to England and Wales (though one could argue that their option 3 combines Options 3 and 4 in the U.S.).

Paul would not only be unfazed, but spin so fast you'd check your wallet.