Gelineau psalms discussion
  • davido
    Posts: 1,150
    Ran across this interesting correspondence regarding the Gelineau psalms in a 1960 edition of Caecilia. Including a note from Dom Gregory Murray.
    Great statements of various positions on Gelineau psalms, abandonment of chant, and vernacularizaiton of the liturgy. So little has changed...
    https://media.musicasacra.com/publications/caecilia/caecilia_v87n01_1960_01.pdf
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 297
    The problem today is that the Gelineau psalms represent an improvement on the music in most parishes, not an impoverishment.
    Thanked by 2davido CharlesW
  • francis
    Posts: 11,175
    Gelineau…

    an experiment… mere simplification and translation.


    Was he not one of the powers who “opened the window” we have all suffered the air to breathe?

    someone’s observation on the interwebs…

    Let me refer to Fr. Joseph Gelineau, S.J. Father Gelineau was one of the most influential members of Monsignor Bugnini's Consilium, which actually composed the New Mass, and who was described by Bugnini in his book The Reform of the Liturgy as one of the "great masters of the international liturgical world." In his book, Demain la Liturgie [The Liturgy Tomorrow], Father Gelineau commented with commendable honesty, and not the least sign of regret:

    "Let those who like myself have known and sung a Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists [Le rite romain tel que nous l'avons connu n'existe plus]. It has been destroyed [il est détruit]. Some walls of the former edifice have fallen while others have changed their appearance, to the extent that it appears today either as a ruin or the partial substructure of a different building. We must not weep over the ruins or dream of an historical reconstruction.”

    (Father Joseph Gelineau S.J. [b. October 31, 1920 - d. August 8, 2008]


    Well Father G., we’re remembering it now, in all its splendor and glory and in great detail on a daily basis! Let those of us who like myself have known and sung a Gelineau Psalm remember IT if they can. All of us weep over the ruins and dreams of your hysterical reconstruction.
    Thanked by 5drforjc OMagnumMysterium davido CHGiffen ServiamScores
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,627
    In contrast to the views of an admittedly influential figure, there are the views of another Joseph - Ratzinger, who authoritatively described the NO and the VO as 'two forms of the same Roman Rite'.
    Thanked by 4Liam CHGiffen IanW Roborgelmeister
  • francis
    Posts: 11,175
    Ok… that is a blatant contradiction to Francis+…

    Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.


    So which one is true? Is one stance right? Are both stances right? Are both stances wrong?
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • Diapason84
    Posts: 140
    The new Mass is designed for the rational man and his empirical, horizontal worldview.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,180
    I’ve never understood why people feel so threatened by the idea of there being another rite. We already have over 20. (22?) why not just say it’s rite 23 written in extraordinary circumstances at the behest of a universal council and say “that’s that.”?

    The reason, I think, is because it was forced inorganically and under false pretenses, so it is shoved in as a replacement or substitution, rather than another rite. This is dishonest, of course… a thing cannot both be and not be… you cannot have the vetus and novus ordos and claim they are the same thing when their very titles belie the ruse. The reformers knew it would not gain the traction it required to truly supplant the true Roman rite, so they tried to pretend it was just plastic surgery instead of a completely novel body double. The irony in all of this is that an argument can be made fo the formulation of legitimate new rites. But they did not take that route.
    Thanked by 5francis OMagnumMysterium Earl_Grey Abbysmum CharlesW
  • francis
    Posts: 11,175
    Could it be possible it was intended to unseat the authentic Roman Catholic Church, change its doctrine, and create a one world global religion? (that by the way, made ALL vernacular languages and local religious customs and beliefs inclusive)
  • francis
    Posts: 11,175
    I am sorry… I have derailed the OP… please continue with original subject…
  • Heath
    Posts: 988
    Personally, I loved using the Gelineau psalms when I was cantoring in college and then accompanying them in my second job out of college.


    They get unfairly dismissed, IMO, since some dislike Gelineau's liturgical/musical views.
  • davido
    Posts: 1,150
    I never liked the Gelineau psalms. They struck me as a poor man’s recitative with trendy harmonies.
    I first encountered them as a cantor in grad school and found the confusing notation so off-putting that I’m sure it has colored my perception of the music.
    At the time I had no prior experience with chanting liturgical texts. I now see how the sprung rhythm makes a certain sense if one is familiar with prior theories of chanting. But I also still think that Gelineau should have notated each verse of the psalm separately. And that the harmonies are of their era while the Gregorian tones are timeless.
    Thanked by 2Diapason84 MatthewRoth
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 641
    I think Gelineau’s psalms are nice when sung in the original French settings.

    When the tones are used with the initial 60s English psalm-paraphrases with their perfectly-sprung rhythm, (“….to revive my drooping spirit”), it’s a decent little composition, but the translation often does great violence to poor David’s words, and so to me it seems rather like a solo with a text based on scripture (as opposed to a verbatim chanted psalm).

    When the tones are used with more recent editions of the Grail/Abbey Psalms, it gets awkward, because the musical accents only sometimes agree with the half-sprung texts.
    Thanked by 5a_f_hawkins IanW Paul F. Ford ServiamScores irishtenor
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,627
    In England&Wales the 1963 Grail Psalter remained in the lectionary for Mass until Advent 2024, when Abbey Psalms replaced it (and ESV the rest of the readings). Grail is still used for the Office, here and for most English speaking countries outside the Americas.
    OTOH when Ainslie produced the first (1969) translation of (selected portions of) the Graduale Simplex he thought the Gelineau tones suited only to the processional chants In/Of/Co, not the Gr/Al/Tr between the readings.
    Thanked by 1Paul F. Ford
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,464
    And, in the USA, translations of the Bible previously approved for liturgical use remain approved for the purpose of continued use of existing settings for *sung* (but not recited) responsorial psalms, unless and until those approvals are abrogated. The US adaptation is practical wisdom.
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores a_f_hawkins
Add a Comment