'Fictitious' is the word. A non-completely-chanted mass is an abberation from the norm envisioned by the recent council fathers, a deparature from what was everywhere the norm until the mediaeval chantry 'low masses' became an widely imitated abuse. As I have said elsewhere, spoken liturgy or worship is, in the human history of almost any religion, unique to western Christendom, both Catholic and Protestant. It would have been strange to Jesus, it is strange to our Orthodox cousins, and it would have been strange in the west until well into the late mediaeval era in the west where the private masses of monk-priests set an unfortunately example followed by others.

Add to that the strange notion of 'progressive solemnity' which seems to be a concept invented by many contemporary chic 'liturgists' and adopted by many liturgically lazy clerics.

Sometimes, the Mass is recited not because it can't be chanted, but because the priest doesn't want to do it that way. Not saying that is good practice, but it happens. The best part is that there's absolutely no excuse to not chant the Mass. Think "the people" can't follow chant? WRONG! We had a guest priest (a GUEST PRIEST) who chanted for our 7:30AM Mass this last Sunday, and EVERYONE FOLLOWED AND RESPONDED PERFECTLY. Our regular Pastor won't chant anything to save his life, except "Through Him and with Him and in Him..." and the Exsultet at Easter Vigil, but I imagine that's because he has to. So you could say we "aren't used to" chanting the Mass, but it happened this Sunday, and worked very well. People can pick up on stuff, it's not like chant is some strange thing that only medieval scholars, trained musicians, and old people can do. You want a short critique? Here: We don't need any more "progressive solemnity," in regards to music, as chanting the Mass is easy to do, and easy to learn. What we need is priests actually chanting the Mass: it doesn't take long to learn and can even be done all recto tono if the priest can't (I mean, really, truly can't) change pitches to sing the chant. As DMs, it's our job to be available to help our priests learn this, especially if they aren't learning it in seminary (which might not be happening) and I also fear that in recent years (the last 50 or so), the guitar-toting hippy DMs and "cantors" haven't been up to the job, nor have they wanted to teach it.

"Progressive Solemnity."
"Progressive solemnity?"
I'll choose the latter, please.
As Fritz points out, the term itself means different things to different interested people. But if become attached to a Concept that has a defined, quantifiable structure as the criteria in Musicam Sacram, and then build their scaffold of praxis upon those immutable terms, they're likely going to end up disappointed, dissatisfied. CK's spot on characterization of it all hinges upon the celebrants' proclivities is perhaps the last option I would insist upon hinging my efforts as a DM. The number of priests who've made some meager, pro forma entreaty to me to "help me chant/sing" whatever I can no longer count on all hand and foot digits. Inevitably what they seem to want is either "please validate I have a nice voice, tho' I can't match pitch to save my life," or "please help me to sing the orations, but I don't want to chant," or "You can teach me all the notes in the Missal, yes please, but I'm going to continue to sing the rote "per ipsum" I done learnt at the seminary!"
So, pray tell Charlie, what is your version of "progressive solemnity?" Anything sung that beyond any reproach clearly edifies the common notion among all therein, "Hey, we're really in a Roman Catholic Church."
(And, sorry, "Lord I lift my hands on high" don't meet that criteria.)
This forum, let's face it, is mostly about us DM's and thems tied to us as organists/accompanists and God-love-'em, PIPs who give a rip.
How can a DM, without endangering his/her gig if what they do is done well and doesn't burn down some parishioner's psychological house?
1. Stuff that Mass!
a. It don't matter what form the processional Introit/Communio/Offertorio (that order was on purpose) takes
b. Sing the Communio the moment the celebrant communicates. You can't be corrected on that, and if some cleric tries to lay you low, pull out your copy of the GIRM and look like you're prepared to tear the page out and ask him to eat that page.
c. If you can't (I still after 7 years ain't there yet, but the idea of a circumambulated Introit is not off the table.) accomodate the Introit and an option four hymn, then sing the Introit as a ersatz "Call to worship." Forget for all times "Good morning, welcome, there's a second collection for, ah Margie, I can't remember, we have 'em every frickin' week...", chant or chorally deliver the Introit. First, if it's chanted, they'll shut the h*ll up. Two, it plants the seed of all the Propers in their minds if not souls before a mumblin' word is said.
d. Insist/lobby/persuade that if all the Opening Rites cannot be cantillated, then, by God, the Kyrie and the Glory will be. Yep, every Mass, every Sunday outside of suppression seasons, feasts. And if those two for whatever reason cannot be chanted (and I don't care if it's a capella/in organum/accompanied/harmonized/isonized/martinezed) keep them alive, vital and moving every Mass. It virtually makes the church neon green CATHOLIC. If you must sing a choral version, then it darn well better be the best of the best. Jernberg's NERI is as Byzantine as it gets, but like Oecumenica (which didn't have a Glory) it virtually screams (sotto voce, of course) "We're in a real CHURCH!"
But if you're singing a metered zippedy doo dah, my little pony ditty, either go to confession and get another horse afterwards, quit yer gig for the good of the universal church, or become the nice Presbyterian singer you've longed to be. If I lost my religion that bad, I'd check into Hillsongs stat, at least they're not whimps.
e. Don't change the responsorial/Alleluia/GA format if the celebrant has a jones about FCAP there. Not worth dying on this hill.
f. Even if you have the world's greatest lectors/deacons, change the way the people respond to the Universal Prayer. Let there be a recited intention, but the invocation of the prayer must be chanted like "let us all pray-ay...." (1-1-1--2-7/ Lord, hear our prayer. (7-6-7-1) You'll be amazed how full the PIPs will take that up. Priest assembly not required. (Hidden benefit- it aids/abets the three MS judgments, most notably the chanting of the Pater Noster, which irritates so unjustifiably most American priests. Pray to get a Filipino priest!)
g. When you have the carpe diem moment, encourage your collars to always chant the entire preface. Some will demur and chant the institution instead, but there's no dialogue there. Sing the graces of the "sursum corda" to any and all who will listen.
h. Ensure the quality of the settings for the EP acclamations and the Lamb of God. Even if the setting may appear to be initially esoteric, sell the melodies to the PIPs upon introduction before Mass. And don't do that very often at all. Rehearsing the PIPs has to be a severe exception to the normative rule.
i. As stated, get the Communio started once the host is received by the mouth of the celebrant. If it's in the vernacular, make sure the elocution, emphasis and effect is superior. When this happens, all gathered including the celebrant, other clergy and "all" know "THIS MEANS SOMETHING!" Never, ever let this moment linger indefinitely without the Proper being sung. Not the piano tinkling of George Winston chord riffs, not some P&W refrain sung for Sunday after Sunday for decades (I love it, it makes me cry!)....do the Proper.
j. Tailor the FCAP portion of the Communion hymn to fit the liturgical action. If your congregations are huge and the song tiny, then let your choir seque into a really finely prepared and performed motet. Make sure that will finish when the ciborium is placed into reserve. Observe purposeful silence, even if Father and the ushers totally mess up the Communion Collect/2nd collection protocols. That's their problem. Don't cover their derrieres with sweet nothing Unda Maris stuff.
k. Got ORGANIST? Then let loose the postlude after "Thanks be to God" and maybe even as the altar is adored (kissed) at that precise moment. As soon as the Crucifix and celebrant pass by the plane of where you are, sit down reverently and quietly and listen to the postlude. Pray. We don't get those moments enough. It also is great witness to the PIPs.

None of this requires a priestly fiat.

Peter, maybe I just wrote your "article." ;-)

I have oft maintained (and taught when anyone might be of docile spirit to receive it) that "progressive solemnity" is a confused and rather tortured interpretation of the far more carefully-crafted "progressive participation" or "three degrees of participation" model (which may or may not be my term; I was such a voracious reader for a while that I picked up these terms and adopted them as my own).

The Instruction Musicam sacram we all know well, and I won't rehash it here. If you don't know it, please read it. Read the whole document, not just the few paragraphs that talk about what should be sung from column "A" before adding column "B".

I assert that if the additive process of beginning with the dialogues and some of the Ordinary then progressing (hence the term "progressive participation") to the next group of chants (more of the orations, the remainder of the Ordinary, then finally crowning the effort with a schola and properly-trained clergy chanting those bits that belong to the "third degree" were followed for at least one weekly Sunday Mass were followed, any (and I mean ANY) parish with a willing (key word, there) priest and DM could have a principal Mass that was dignified, solemn, and SUNG.

It's my considered opinion that the hang-up occurs in three places: 1) with entrenched clerics who are unwilling to do what the Church asks them to do and lead by example in singing the parts that properly belong to them (thus fulfilling not one but several mandates set forth by VC II in Sacrosanctum concilium), a horrifyingly deficient general training of DM's in the Church and 3) so-called "experts" who continually rail against the idea that Musicam sacram can in fact be, in about 20 minutes with or without a good bottle of wine, recontextualized to apply to the OF. (Recall, if you will, that several "experts of note and repute" actually said to a group of NPM breakout session attendees on the occasion of MS's 40th anniversary that, "MS is no longer relevant because it was conceived with the EF in mind, and in 1970 the whole structure of the Mass changes, so MS should be ignored."

If the Church would do what is asked, we'd not be suffering with "Missa My Little Pony" and the "stuffed Mass."

Here endeth the rant.

The confused concept often circulating under the name of progressive solemnity -- if I understand it right -- proposes that the implementation of sung liturgy and solemn ritual be proportioned to the rank of the liturgical day. But do priests who express this concept ever get around to presenting a fully sung liturgy, with sung creed and readings?

The concept expressed in Musicam sacram (progressive solemnity or graduated implementation, or whatever one wishes to call it) starts with sung dialogues as the first, most foundational step. It calls upon priests to get used to singing all the time. Maybe that's why some priests prefer a different concept of progressive solemnity.

Yes, I've been confused about this as well. Progressive solemnity as described in Musicam Sacram, or progressive solemnity as commonly understood regarding rank of celebration. The latter, though commonly used, comes from where? what document?

I wonder about those five or so masses. Is the building half empty during three of them? How well attended are the other two? I have seen multiple masses in parishes where the congregation could have filled the building at two masses. Is it possible to have fewer masses and do them well, instead of multiples done at the lowest common denominator?

I wonder about those five or so masses. Is the building half empty during three of them? How well attended are the other two? I have seen multiple masses in parishes where the congregation could have filled the building at two masses. Is it possible to have fewer masses and do them well, instead of multiples done at the lowest common denominator?

Yes, IMO there comes a point when that is prudent. However, I don't find it to be a good blanket policy that the church needs to be filled in order to have more masses.

If there is an early morning mass at 7 am, a mass at 11 am, and a 5:30 pm mass on Sunday, those are probably hitting very different constituencies. Some will argue about consumerism, etc. and say that convenience should not be a factor - but living in the year 2014, yeah, let me know how well that works for you.

So if a given time is at least WELL attended (i.e. 150 people at 7 am, 250 at 11, and 125 at 5:30) why would you try to combine all of those into one mass just because all those people would fit in the church at the same time? I guarantee you that if you try, you WON'T have all of them at the same time. Try combining all of those into ONE, 10 am mass. The 7 am and 5:30 pm people will just leave. And you will have ONE mass, with 150 people left.

I've seen exactly this happen. It wasn't pretty.

Thanks, everyone, for a vigorous conversation. Meanwhile Jeffrey Tucker pointed me in the direction of William Mahrt's The Musical Shape of the Liturgy, which contains good discussions (actually, critiques) of the "progressive solemnity" notion on pp. 166-67 and 399-404.

Yes, the problem is thinking that one should reduce the amount of singing at Mass to signify a "lesser rank." The reality is that singing can and should take place every day -- simple singing on ferias, more elaborate chant on feasts and solemnities.

Meanwhile Jeffrey Tucker pointed me in the direction...
Who? ;-)

Oh, how I can't wait! I knew that one moment of consensus with Paul would need to be obliterated for both our sakes.
Some at CMAA, speaking of obliteration, would and have dispensed with the Universal Prayer in the OF totally, and Paul wants it spoken.
IMO, it only works well when chanted well. (Forget all of the other forms, even my friend Bob Hurd's "Oyemos mi Senor.")

OT, I have read it argued that if a parish has more than one regular Sunday liturgy NONE of them should fill the church, because the building should be able to accomodate the entire parish for Holy Thursday, the Pashal vigil --liturgies of which there CAN be only one.
Make any sense?
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Degrees of Celebration – Judith M. Kubicki, CSSF is found as the third article of this NPM series from 2007: Musicam Sacram Revisited - Essays in Honor of Robert W. Hovda (where Ed Schaefer is also inclued). She gives a working definition of "progressive solemnity" that is in line with the observance of liturgical seasons, memorials, and solemnities. Not exactly what Musicam Sacram had in mind...but there are far worse things that have happened.

http://www.npm.org/assets/HovdaIV.pdf

Thank you for your insight, Fr. Vogel, it was a blessing to read them! What is your take on congregational hymn singing? Many of us here face issues in our parishes of the desire on someone's part (could be priest, PIP, 2% club, etc) for lots of congregational hymn singing: many times to the complete exclusion of other types of music. Even the Mass Ordinary is sung in a congregational hymn style. I agree that the words of the liturgy were meant to be sung! Are the words of congregational hymns (the kind you find in a GIA hymnal, or the OCP Music Issue) considered the words of the liturgy? I pose the question not to contradict anything you've said, because you're correct, but just to open the discussion on the idea. What are your thoughts?

Certainly we should be more discerning as to which hymns are used and when. Singing the Mass does not mean that everyone sings everything and at every moment, but rather that each sings at the times given to them according to their role (priest, deacon, cantor, choir, faithful).

Can this be in the next encyclical on sacred music please?