Do solos belong in the Liturgy? // Some are against solos because of the temptation for singers to make it all about themselves, rather than for the sake of the Liturgy. Regular solos may cause congregants to look to the Liturgy as a concert, rather than a public prayer in which they themselves participate. Last week’s post highlighted congregational singing in the Liturgy as the visible manifestation of the Mystical Body of Christ here on earth. One may ask how there can be any greater purpose for singing during the Liturgy than this?

OK... There are two types of (Roman) liturgy... NO and VO...

In the NO, the liturgy is a linear event. One thing leads into the next and in general, no two things are occurring at the same time. However, music sometimes accompanies action. However, music tends to be the more "observable element" when an action is taking place.

In the VO, the liturgy is a layered event. Music, action and congregational participation are somewhat independent of each other. There is more of a sense of time(less)ness in the VO. If a Credo or Gloria is significantly longer, it is expected that the ordinary will be seated and move his Beretta as appropriate. You might say that music and action give defference one to the other depending on the length of a particular rubric.

This is a HUGE difference. Why? Well, when approaching the subject of 'singing a solo', the NO is almost exclusively focused on the present moment. If the vocalist is singing a solo, everyone is usually focused on the soloist (if in the sanctuary) or his/her voice (if in the gallery).

Soloists that I have accompanied (for 40 years) in the NO, have always sung in an operatic style, and with an operatic attitude (if you get my drift).

Soloists that I have accompanied in the VO have only sung chant, or in a chant (pure tone) style.

Nevertheless, we do find an ancient precedent for solos in the Liturgy. In the Early Church, music was sung primarily by a solo cantor, sometimes with simple congregational responses. Later, more challenging chants were written for soloists (e.g. verses for the offertory chants). Even today the Liturgy will at times call for a liturgical solo: just think of the Exsultet and the Christmas Proclamation.

Again, attitude is key... one can sing these chants with an 'operatic attitude' or a simple pure tone style that would work with two or three or more singers, mostly sounding the same.

One may well argue that solos are appropriate for the Liturgy, since the Liturgy is an occasion at which we offer our best to God. For example, the presentation of the gifts at the altar did not always include simply monetary offerings, but also the best fruit, bread, wine, flowers, and works made by human hand. The offertory chant, likewise, developed as a sumptuous musical offering to accompany the presentation of the gifts. The offertory, thus, was a moment at which the musicians would offer their very best work to God.

I am not sure where this attitude or understanding originates, but a 'sumptuous musical offering' seems novel to me. We do not offer our 'very best' work to God at only the offertory... we offer our very best throughout. There is no 'highlight' of music at an offertory. I think this is a novel idea.

On a practical level, some kinds of liturgies attract congregants who are largely not familiar with the proper songs and dialogues. These moments tend to be well suited to the singing of a solo, since such congregants are unlikely to participate more than as observers. (This is perhaps one of many reasons why “Ave Maria” has become the quintessential wedding and funeral solo.)

The Ave Maria (Shubert I suppose?) is not a quintessential wedding solo. It is a misplaced, popular piece of romantic music which is subpar in my estimation.

Some solo works are sacred, but still not meant for the Liturgy. I’ll never forget learning this lesson in my early years as a cantor. I chose a solo to sing at Mass which was the text of the Magnificat verbatim. The organist that day was a sub, and not Catholic; the solo was six minutes long. Halfway through the piece, I looked up and felt my heart drop to the floor. The priest was already done and waiting at the altar. There was no way to signal to the organist to truncate the piece, so the priest, not knowing how long the piece was, ended up standing there for three of the longest minutes I have ever experienced in my life. The issue? The liturgical hierarchy had essentially flipped, with the music taking precedence over the liturgical action. Lesson learned.

If the musicians involved knew anything about liturgy, this piece would never have been programmed from the getgo.

To include a solo during the liturgy, then, requires a delicacy of attention:
• The solo piece must be a sacred (i.e. set apart for God) composition, with sacred lyrics (e.g. not a secular, top 10 hit).

'Set apart for God' is not the definition of sacred music. Sacred music is music that was actually composed for the liturgy itself using the texts of the Mass.

• The singing of the people belongs to the highest degree of sung participation in the Liturgy. Any solo work should not eclipse or replace those parts of the liturgy which belong to the people to sing.

Maybe in the NO, but not true in the VO. The people singing (active participation?) is not a crucial aspect of liturgy.

Just my 2 cents.

Just curious... which popes and which councils?

And of course... "It all depends" negates everything.

Would like to see the proof of those claims and in context of where they were spoken or written. Thanks.

Charles

PX is promoting Gregorian Chant, which would be the ordinary of the Mass. The only thing I have heard coming from the people is one (simple) setting of the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei. So to promote OTHER singing and not even singing the ordinary is out of proper order of importance.

As for PVI, well he is the pope that DISSED the GC outright. There's a real dichotomy in what he says and what he did. It totally went against the motu you mention.

Our congregation knows and sings two or three settings from the Kyriale. I believe that is what is being stressed in the part you offered.

BTW... did you read number 7?

7. The language proper to the Roman Church is Latin. Hence it is forbidden to sing anything whatever in the vernacular in solemn liturgical functions — much more to sing in the vernacular the variable or common parts of the Mass and Office.

There is much more... would you like me to look it up?

I think that many of the practices that originated after Trent, for example, freezing the congregation out of participation which seems more in line with the monastic practices that infiltrated and dominated the church, is the problem here. It is now the case that even if something were prescribed in scripture, the more Trad-minded still wouldn't do it if it were different from that to which they are accustomed. It seems all that is confined to the Roman Rite. Thankfully, the rest of the church went in another direction and sings joyfully during the liturgy.

Remember, if the faithful sing they do not leave the Church. If they do not leave the Church, they keep the faith and live as Christians."

He was right on that since something has driven far too many away. Listening to a chant concert every week could be one of the things that could do it.

To bring us back to the purpose of this thread, Kenneth is absolutely correct in his assertion that things such as offertory verses, gradual verses, etc. were intended for soloists, is he not? This is, of course, a vastly different practice from Aunt Gertrude warbling the Schubert Ave over a microphone in the middle of communion. But nevertheless, there is absolutely traditional precedent for SOME solo repertoire. Singing solo is not malum in se.

Lol - I did have a crooner once, a young priest. But he wanted to do a concert of Irish music in the church, and I think he sang Danny boy and I played the piano.

And the likes of Broadway Joes and Crooners have wandered from the path, leading souls with them, and to the right path we must return.

I have had potential new singers express interest in volunteering to be a soloist or a cantor rather than say they want to join the choir. The most conceited among them write something along the lines of, "God has blessed me with a beautiful voice and I want to praise him by singing at Mass."

Although I am tempted to reply with something like, "I'm sorry, but we have no openings for divas at the moment," I tell them that they are welcome to join the choir, sing with everyone else in the choir, and after some time and experience they are welcome to express interest in being a psalmist.

Not a single one of them has ever replied back nor joined the choir.

I’ve been a cantor at my home parish for about eight years, now. I often go to my diocese’s cathedral for Sunday Mass when I’m not on the schedule at my home parish. I’ve had numerous choir members and cantors come and tell me I should join the choir, but I can’t make practice during the week (I care for two elderly family members, and an evening choir practice each week is not something I feel to which I can commit). Plus, the choir sings each week at the noon Mass, and I’m always one that prefers to go to an earlier Mass. So, while I would love singing at the cathedral, I’m always afraid to ask about becoming a cantor and denying requests to join the choir for fear of coming off conceited.

I had a talented gentleman who did not want to sing in the choir because the basses were awful. They were legacy basses whose best singing days - if they ever had any - were behind them. One bass in particular is now throwing the heavenly choir off pitch, I'm sure. However, the choir sang for one mass on Sundays. The cantors carried the other masses and I don't know what I would have done without them. There is room for both choir singers and cantors.

I was fortunate in that the pastor would not allow cantors down front.