I know a certain number of music programs run by a primary vocalist with the organist a paid assistant. Many of them work quite well. My involvement in them also provided opportunities for me to grow as an organist, since I was truly a necessary component, rather than tolerated by a more competent organist for the sake of giving me experience.

I think the missed point is this: a competent organist should be a sensitive singer and conductor, with an intimate knowledge of the choral repertoire. Otherwise, he's just a recitalist. If he or she then can also understand the accompaniment and the voluntaries, as well as lead the congregational hymnody, then in that sense the organist will enjoy a more full and comprehensive perspective over the whole process of parish music-making, and be able to intervene personally at all stages of the music-making to correct or improve, and be generally speaking better situated to direct the whole program.

Welcome to the forum! I am also a vocalist and choir member for many years in the same parish. You are right- generally speaking, the pastor hires the music director who is usually the organist for Masses. It sounds as though you are frustrated and feeling that your skills have been disrespected in the past. It is important to be willing to participate as a choir member if you have the kind of voice for solo pieces! Choirs are often in need of more skilled voices. Lucky choirs have several members capable of being soloists and opportunities to solo are shared among those able to carry that role. Many choir directors are also trying to develop the skills of all the singers and may give opportunities to sing psalm verses to those who are developing their skills leaving those more capable singing only the response. Tastes of the pastor and music director do come in to play and if you have been in the same parish for many years and seen music directors and pastors come and go, you have probably observed this and may even have felt abused at times by the caprices of one of these individuals. I have other options for performing so it is easy to take a back seat when necessary at church. It is not my only performing outlet though I feel I do my best singing in church where the music comes from my belief in God. A good music program can enhance worship so much that it is sad there are so many places where sacred music is not what it could and should be.

Where this whole soloing is inappropriate for Mass came from I'd be interested to know.

A better question might be - where is solo singing part of the tradition of the Church music? No one is going to excommunicate you for singing solos at mass - but then it's pretty hard for anyone to get corrected - let alone excommunicated - for anything done at mass. It's more a matter of understanding what the liturgy is and having the music conform to that.

Looking at Church documents on the liturgy, while the roles of the choir, psalmist, and organist are mentioned, the soloist is not. And with a few possible exceptions, liturgical music (i.e. settings of proper liturgical texts) are written for choir or schola (though they may include solo sections).

Pope Pius X in his motu proprio on sacred music allowed for solo music, but thought of it as part of a larger choral piece: "it is not to be understood that solos are entirely excluded. Solo singing, however, should never predominate to such an extent as to have the greater part of liturgical song executed in that manner. The solo phrase should . . . be strictly bound up with the rest of the choral composition."

More to the point, the style of most solo music, what the pope called "theatrical," "is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony and therefore to the most important standard of all good sacred music. The intrinsic structure, the rhythm, and the 'conventionalism' of this style are poorly adapted to the requirements of true liturgical music."

So Pius X is saying that most music strictly for solo voice is contrary to what liturgical music ought to be. Whereas the liturgy is meant to be the action of the community of the Church, solos - by the fact they are sung by an individual voice an in a style which is meant to highlight that voice - draw attention to the individual singer. Pius X considers this "theatrical" and "conventional" - i.e. too much like music written for secular use. Church music, he says, should "be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces."

As for applause at church, I'll let Cdl. Ratzinger have the last word: "Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment."

LOL. That sounds like "Susan from the Parish Council", a fictional character on Facebook who overflows with enthusiasm for crazy '60s and '70s liturgical practices.

>> the Mass that became more "social and inclusive" allowed for a less stringent adherence to a particular cookie-cutter format

why do I have a feeling this thread is at risk of making a 90 degree turn like a ship on the ocean...

It's interesting to note that Vatican II mostly reworded (in a more loosy-goosy way) what Pius X said. Even that which was stated differently has to be interpreted in light of tradition. People seem to forget that the Church existed prior to Vatican II.

Oh, and the Roman Missal still indicates that the default is "back to the people." I prefer the much more "progressive" LEADING THE PEOPLE. You want your commander up front leading you. He's your leader, not your stand-up comedian looking for laughs.

Also, I cringe anytime something says, "take the wine." What wine? What happened to the Real Presence? Did you know that you receive our Lord in his entirety when you receive from one species only?

At some point, people took a side road that's leading to a cliff and they don't want to "go back" to get back on the right road (which, incidentally, leads forward).

CharlesW why does it say zero for your posts number? I know you are far ahead of most here!

Carol, if you have the thread open when someone posts, it may show them as zero at that moment until you leave and reenter the thread. :) It was something that threw me the first time I saw it as well!

Heartfeltsong,

There are people who take positions you have taken and use arguments you have advanced, but who do so as parody. Assuming that you're quite serious, I shall try to address the main thrust of what you say.

1) Mass is the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary made present before us. Therefore, any music which draws attention to the performer and, in so doing, away from God, is inappropriate. Full stop. This music can be played or sung, synthesized or produced live, presented by the untrained or the degreed -- it's still wrong.

2) For precisely the same reason, the priest's common practice of turning to face us all the time (common in the vernacular Mass) and address us with eye contact or handshakes or by strolling up and down the aisles of the church during Mass makes us focus on each other and on him, but not on God, to whom all our prayers should be addressed. "Anthropocentric worship of God" is an oxymoron, even if many people don't see it as such.

3) Could a skilled singer lead the music in a parish? Sure. I'm much more a singer than I am an instrumentalist. I frequently lead a small number of singers in the choirs I have occasion to direct, and our goal is to use our skill to worship God and lead others to do so as well. To the extent we succeed, we do our assigned task well.

4) When an organist accompanies singing, should he think like a singer? Absolutely! Singers need to breathe, pause, and so on, but the organist's finger don't need to pause to catch their breath.

5) Pianos and guitars are utterly unsuited to be used in the church building for the august ceremonies of the Church for the public worship of God. Pianos don't make sound the same way the voices they're trying to accompany do, and guitars (without amplification) can't support choral singing. On your grounds, these instruments fail. As it turns out, His Holiness Pope Pius X insists that anything which has secular connections shouldn't be used at Mass, so pianos and guitars were ruled out long before I came on the scene.

Not only is the Gregorian treasury of music monophonic, but is intended for UNaccompanied singing. And more recently prime place in singing is assigned by the Church to dialogue between priest and people, necessarily solo lead, and according to the rubrics UNaccompanied. Similarly VII required, and got, the Graduale Simplex - designed for cantor and people.

Just a few selections from what Vatican II actually said:

The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared of those books already published since the restoration by Saint Pius X. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 117)

The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (SC 36.1)

In sung liturgical services celebrated in Latin: Gregorian chant, as proper to the Roman liturgy, should be given pride of place . . . . (Musicam Sacram 50)

Steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. (SC 54)

I'm not even going to address women servers or "taking the wine." You'd better check with Susan on those.

TBH, this thread reminds me of the dramatic exit of someone in my choir who was bent out of shape because I as DM was taking more time to build and build-up the choir rather than constantly feed her solos from Messiah, Christmas Oratorio, etc., and "treating her like everyone else" and not "as a professional" on "equal terms" with myself--she concluded by giving me a lengthy list of "demands" that needed to be met in order for her to remain (I refused, she left). If I didn't know that it was an impossibility based on her age and the presumed age of the OP (based on remembrance of the Church prior to Vat2) I'd say they were the same person. The N.O., quite frankly, with the loose (or, rather, non-existent) rubrics and the miraculous multiplication of options, is as much a breeding ground for egos as stagnant water is for mosquitoes; Why can't people just be servants of the liturgy, and shut up and say/sing what the books tell them to? This goes for soloists, celebrants, and organists, all.

I apologize to the O.P. if this critique seems overly harsh, but having been on the receiving end of things, and having witnessed similar displays in other choirs, community, and college choruses that I've directed, accompanied, and sung in, I don't have much patience.

I've been singing for 40+ years, solo, cantor, and choir. I have no degree in music or voice, only my tenure. I never go to church thinking I'm there to perform. Singing solos or solo part in a choral piece, even as a cantor, all was done at the direction of the parish organist or music director, they are the ones in charge. I've earned the respect of organist's and music directors over the years and become good friends with them. If I make any suggestions for hymns or whatever it might be musically, it's always for thier consideration. I don't know if any of what I said helps you but as my mom would say, "You get more with honey than you do with vinegar".

Heartfeltsong,

I don't know if these are news to you, so I will apologize in advance if you already know them:

singing a solo with an accompanist is NOT the same thing as singing as part of an ensemble.

Soloists often make dreadful members of an ensemble

Chant, sung by a properly-trained schola, is a beautiful thing.

Hymns sung by musical parishioners can be beautiful.

There is no necessary conflict between scholas singing beautiful chant and polyphony (on the one hand) and congregations singing Ordinaries and hymns (on the other).

I have to agree with Chris on

singing a solo with an accompanist is NOT the same thing as singing as part of an ensemble.

I have had those soloists sing with the choir. One in particular sings solos quite well but can't seem to control her volume to blend with the choir. She also puts all the ritards and dynamics in that are often found in solos, but not in conformity with what the choir is singing. This can be a problem although some soloists seem to be able to overcome it.

There is no necessary conflict between scholas singing beautiful chant and polyphony (on the one hand) and congregations singing Ordinaries and hymns (on the other).

Been doing it for years. No conflict at all.

Meanwhile we vocalists who have skill and put in the sweat are pushed aside because the [organist] really hasn't the desire to put in the extra time to learn solo repertoire accompaniments that are usually a good deal harder than the choral stuff I have been hearing at Masses where the choir does the vocals. Most choir members are untrained and often don't read music so this keeps the MD (keyboard player) in an authoritative and unchallenged position. It does not make him/her a good choice for training cantors or choirs or for picking good music to sing

This is why I never went the organ performance route for my graduate studies. Taking voice and conducting lessons while being an organist helped me to appreciate more greatly what singers do at church and in turn, help them improve with cantoring, blending, reading music, breathing, et al, to make the music ministry more appealing to those in church and bring greater beauty to the Mass.

To echo what's been said previously, musically speaking, a church music director should be a well-rounded individual in playing, choral conducting, and singing. He shouldn't be "just an organist" or "just a singer." The organist DM should learn how to sing, train cantors, and conduct, and the singer DM should learn to play, train cantors and conduct. But this only addresses the musical aspect, not the theological aspect, as has been addressed in previous posts.

Finally, the accompaniments for many choral anthems can be outrageously difficult, especially part reductions (Haydn's Creation, Beethoven's Alleluia from the Mount of Olives, anything from Brahms' Requiem). I reject your argument that sacred solo repertoire (Schubert's "The Ave Maria" and the Bach-Gounod Ave Maria are the most common in my neck of the woods) is harder to accompany than choral repertoire.

All that aside, if your DM is a keyboard player and knows nothing about singing and conducting, and you want him to improve as a well-rounded musician, you should encourage him to attend church music conferences like the CMAA Colloquium in Philly this summer to make him aware of the sweat that singers put in. I would encourage you to also attend and learn more about singing's role in the liturgy. Your church will probably even foot part of the bill as you can consider it professional development. Never stop improving!

Neither of the community choirs I am in has a professional choral conductor currently, so that may not be a good guide. And the last professional we had was fresh from training in Hungary, had superb methods of improving our voice production and blending, and somehow I could not easily follow her conducting.

Although musicians have been conducting from the keyboard for centuries, it is better for the choir to have someone that is there solely to conduct them. I am grateful for the honesty of CharlesW who is a lot closer to what is going on around my neighborhood of parishes. Many organists aren't even organists--they play keyboard and do not specialize. They took some kind of keyboard lessons and are facile but often have no knowledge of liturgical practices. Don't suppose all parishes are lucky enough to get liturgically trained organist/directors. Maybe so in metropolitan areas of big cities.
To suppose a vocalist is trained only to sing only shows your prejudice--I won't mention names--there seem to be a good many of you there. I was trained in conducting and playing instruments, along with courses in music history, sight reading etc. Many of us vocalists, I would presume, were Music Ed majors with a voice major. We aren't all Pavarotti's who can only sing and can't read. And I'd venture to guess the level of singing
you get as an organ major would match the level of playing we got as singers...or did you all double major in voice as well? People who are trained as you characterize voice majors mostly are ooking for a job at the met and not as an unpaid member of a local parish.
As for the poster who notes piano shouldn't be used but organ is okay because it produces sound which more closely resembles human voice I beg to differ. Many are not wind driven any more and a voice can't sing more than one line of melody at a time. If you want an instrument closer to voice I found the trumpet to be close.
You posters who wish to characterize me as some sort of ignorant cartoon person are not showing a Christian attitude I would venture to say. My husband would call that argumentum ad hominum.
There are many frustrations with being a DM and trying to minimize them is something I can appreciate. Dealing with people who want to solo but really lack the ability is a tricky thing and it's easy to offend whole families who want Johnny or Susie to shine but the dears have a range too limited for the piece or some other drawback.
On the other hand there's a good lot of vocal music for soloists that adds to liturgy and does not detract no matter the ego of the vocalist.
The drive toward everybody sing or keep silent dummies the music down to the level of the least musical. Please there's room for everyone who wants to use their talents a bit. Why suppose because a soloist asks to sing they expect to be up there all the time doing their thing? I suggested once every two months--that would fit in with how many feasts might call for a little extra. If an organist can play the Bach-Gounod as a meditation after communion and enhance the liturgy so can a good vocalist.

Heartfeltsong, are saying that you want to sing more solo's or that you want to have a more active role in the music program at your parish? I can recognize that you have a passion for what you do and the role it plays in church music, liturgy and the Mass. Perhaps what I would do, if I had your qualifications, is have a sit down meeting with your DM and express your desire to have a more active role in the direction music is taking in your parish. You may find that he or she to be very receptive and would welcome any help you could give. If you have a choir, I bet they would benefit greatly by having a conductor. I know our choir does. It's much better to have someone conducting than to read head bobs and other gestures from the DM while she is playing and trying to conduct from the organ or piano. There are many possibilities for the role you could play in your parish music program, but whatever the outcome there can only be one leader, one captain of the ship. Just my two cents, hope it helps.

The organ's similarity to the voice is in its ability to render a sustained sound vs. the percussiveness of a pianoforte, not because of its monophonic quality.

Davido--I hope you will take this as a quip although I have had to put up with organists who used this quality as a club--the organ can drown out everybody else so don't bother arguing with the king of the jungle. Chris Garton-Zavesky made the post about nixing pianos and guitars. I really think his post was saying organ makes sound using wind like the voice ergo it's okay for church.
To me this entire discussion has become like saying only beeswax candles can go on the altar. Trying to tell me VII was not a game changer but just a recap of what was said before is to miss the whole spirit of what we who are old enough to have experienced pre VII and post VII liturgies were all about.
There are musical styles and works that don't blend well with liturgy. .
Sometimes listening is a better path to contemplation than a community sing. For me, communion should never be a community sing, but that's just me. For me I feel communion music should set the parishioner free to meditate on the Eucharist and not be reading and singing from a hymnal.

Trying to tell me VII was not a game changer but just a recap of what was said before is to miss the whole spirit of what we who are old enough to have experienced pre VII and post VII liturgies were all about.

VII was of course a game changer in a historical sense. Changes happened after VII. Some of those were sanctioned by the council documents, many were not. To insist that VII was a game changer in the sense of mandating discontinuity in spirit with the Church prior, as a generalised approach to all future faith and liturgy, is to insist on something that VII does not itself say and in fact explicitly rejects.

There are musical styles and works that don't blend well with liturgy.

Indeed! I think a point of disagreement is on what precisely those styles are.

Sometimes listening is a better path to contemplation than a community sing. For me, communion should never be a community sing, but that's just me. For me I feel communion music should set the parishioner free to meditate on the Eucharist and not be reading and singing from a hymnal.

Couldn't agree more!

Like Chris Garton-Zavesky, I don't consider you a cartoon character, but I have to say that your response to my post was more or less cliches, as if pointing out that Pius X lived before Vatican II and mandated the mass in Latin with the priest facing the altar was somehow self-evidently unacceptable and a refutation of my position.

And while I'm always interested in people's opinions about how the liturgy should be done, in the end the Church actually tells us what is most appropriate and fitting.

...their backs to the stage!

A good analogy, Chris. No one complains that the orchestral conductor or the choral director at a concert has his back to 'the people'. It would likely result in disaster if he did. Rather than 'back' we need to think in terms of 'front' and 'facing'. The priest 'faces' the altar, which is where God is making himself present. With the priest we all are doing the same thing, communing with God. Why should the priest face the people when its not at all about the people. The people face the same altar that the priest does. The very fact that so many people complain about not being faced by the priest illustrates that they just don't get it. This is where the so called 'spirit' of Vatican II has got us - far out on a very shaky limb.

From Apostolic times, the priest AND the people faced east, the direction from which Christ would return. Somehow, and I suspect the crazy Scholastics may have had something to do with it, the west developed the concept of "liturgical east," which seems absolute nonsense. With that, you could be facing Hawaii and never know the difference. East is east and I suspect it really wasn't about facing the altar, but all facing east.

From Apostolic times, the priest AND the people faced east, the direction from which Christ would return.

Ahh, one of my favorite Advent carols: "People look east, except the priest!"