A further thought, Adam: some Anglicans use a responsorial psalm in the communion service. If your clergy are so inclined, you might consider setting the responsorial psalm to a psalm-tone.

They only have Sunday Morning communion service (which they call "Mass," I don't know if traditional minded RCs object to it being called that, but anyway...)
They don't have a building, but one day they will and we'll start doing choral evensong and that sort of thing, but for now- the only thing they do is a communion service that looks all the world to be a poorly conceived Pauline Mass with Protestant Music and sloppy rubrics. Considering what I know of the Anglican tradition, I've been surprised because they seem to pay even less attention to the BCP than a 10:30 Family Mass with Children's Homily pays attention to the Roman Missal. I'm a rubrics guy anyway, but I push that agenda by feigning ignorance: "Well... I don't really know much about that, but this is what your prayer book says we ought to do..."

They currently speak the psalm in unison after the OT reading. (Following the Revised Common Lectionary).
I'd like to replace congregational speaking with congregational chanting.
My goal is to make that change in Advent.
(I'm considering doing chant only for the seasons and a responsorial during the time they don't call Ordinary Time- but I don't know if that makes any sense at all)


Odd note re: "the Gradual"

They were doing a random hymn during the Gospel procession, after the Epistle, and calling it a Gradual. I couldn't find any precedent for this usage in either the Roman or Anglican rites.
I replaced it with a Gregorian Alleluia w/versical (mode VI, because it's easy and somewhat well-known), which we sing unaccompanied. Now that the congregation knows it, I'm going to replace the modern-chant notation of it in the program with square notes... just to get people moving in that direction.
As we move into Advent and then the other seasons, my plan is to do a mode/tune that is appropriate to the season, following the Roman usage.


re: clergy/vestry support
They friggin' love me.
I could come in tomorrow and say we're only doing Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck for the next year, or I could propose a clown-mass U2charist- they'd support it regardless.
My big problems are time, talent, and treasure. (None of any.)

I'm in TX, the Diocese of Ft. Worth, (on the liberal/loyalist/ECUSA side of the Diocesan schizm- for those of you who know about that sort of thing).

Rite II

A Catholic teaching Anglicans how to be high church!

Crazy, huh? And who would have thought it'd be the hippie, feminist folk-Mass Catholic doing it?
"Yes, yes- I like Be Not Afraid, too... no, we're not doing it."

They are, unfortunately, hard to find online for some reason. Some churches over there (UK) publish their own sets. Pretty cool

I will dig a bit!

I think there would be interest in a class in anglican chant AND using BFW and the Gradual Simplex on the local levels.

But then I realize that I am merely a dreamer.

You guys are awesome, by the way. I love that How quickly I get answers to questions around here.

I have said for 40+ years, that when the Church adopted vernacular liturgies, it should have looked to the Anglicans for models. Instead, the U.S. Church had to reinvent the wheel, and it was reinvented incompetently. The new Catholic wheel has 4 sides. The material in those books is excellent and can be used. Of course, the evil trio of "Catholic" publishers can't make much money from it.

Ian, it's really not that difficult. The entire congregation at Our Lady of Walsingham (at least when I was there - MJO what's happening now?) sang it quite easily. They were given the chant, printed above the text to be sung, with markings (pointing) in the text. We used singe and double regularly - and they even really enjoyed the quadruple chant by Oakley!

How many favorite hymns are in 10,10,10,10 meter? There are quite a few. A "single chant", with reciting note + 3 note cadence, plus reciting note + 5 note cadence = one, single phrase of one of those hymns. The beauty of the "system" is that you can sing as many notes as you like on each and every note of the chant, or even stretch a syllable over 2 or 3 notes for an occasional effect, or to make a very short verse work.

Yes. It takes some getting used to for the singers. It also takes practice to accompany and/or conduct. Part of the challenge is to be consistent in your style of pointing the texts. If some one has the bright idea of publishing a book of Psalms with all the pointing included, it will not work equally well in every parish.

Yes. A course at Colloquium would be great. I would be willing to help.

Yes, Jeffrey. And it wasn't just the congregation singing the melody - many picked harmony parts instead. And they could even sing it without any pointing! I often didn't get the worship completed till late Saturday night, and occasionally forgot to insert the pointing marks into the '28 Prayerbook Psalter text. I would notice the omission during the Lesson, and quickly mark up my copy. Between my style of accompanying, and my consistency in pointing, it didn't sound any different from a Sunday when the whole congregation had the pointing included! I'm sure others who have been using Gregorian Psalm tones all their lives have had similar experiences.

I've just sent off A Beginner's Guide to Singing Gregorian Chant Notation, Rhythm and Solfeggio to the printer. [My earlier book on notation is the first chapter in this one]

So I will begin a beginner's guide to AC now! Cool!

Anglican Chant is difficult to do well; even by a well rehearsed and trained choir. Why re-invent the wheel Noel, there are articles, directions and guidelines already out there on "HOW TO" concerning Anglican Chant. Check out 1) Dr. John Scott's publication of the St. Paul's Cathedral Psalter of Anglican Chant, 2) RSCM - Royal School of Church Music publications, 3) Google Books has a lot of Anglican Service and Chant books for download and they have a ton of directions in them. Ultimately, its a "hands on" - listening and "passed on" artform.

* NB - The organ accompaniment should be extremely subdued and soft, giving the impression of it being unaccompanied.

Listen to YouTube and CD's of King College and St. John's Cambridge Choirs as well as St. Thomas Men and Boy Choir in NYC (you can hear them singing online thru their website).

Probably the ultimate in singing Anglican Chants

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z2jwDcb9wI

The British weather forecast sung to Anglican Chants by the Master Singers.

Abbot,

I believe that "Anglican Chant is difficult to do well; even by a well rehearsed and trained choir." is incorrect. Gregorian chant is much, much more difficult, especially in non-Latin speaking countries. ;<) (it's over 100 degrees and spending more than an hour giving a tour of a horse farm this afternoon may have fried my brain, but the owner's are happy because I may have sold a couple of horses for them - yes, I am still out of musica; work!)<br />

"Why re-invent the wheel Noel, there are articles, directions and guidelines already out there on "HOW TO" concerning Anglican Chant. Check out 1) Dr. John Scott's publication of the St. Paul's Cathedral Psalter of Anglican Chant, 2) RSCM - Royal School of Church Music publications, 3) Google Books has a lot of Anglican Service and Chant books for download and they have a ton of directions in them. Ultimately, its a "hands on" - listening and "passed on" artform"

I have many of these, and think that Dr. John Scott's Psalter is a masterpiece of work and that all of these sources are excellent. But none of them start out and explain why the wheel is...round.

Dr. Scott's book is 352 pages.

He spends a grand total of 1.25 pages explaining how to sing anglican chant.

0.003551136363636 percent of the book spent in explainning how to sing from the book seems to be bit lopsided.

Like Jeffrey [buckaroo banzai's] Ostrowski's exposure of white space notes in Vatican chant, I think that there are things that are not written about merely to keep others from being able to do them....

I agree that organ accompaniment can be very effective with Anglican Chant, but also feel that it should be played to emphasize teh text through artful stop changes and use of expression...and we all agree that is should never cover up the sung voices!

I believe I said that Anglican Chant was very difficult to do well in and of itself! I would never compare Anglican Chant to Gregorian Chant - the two are VERY different. Unison singing, like Gregorian Chant, is of course generally more difficult than singing in four parts for obvious reasons. Since I have taught and written both for many decades, I speak from not only experience but from comments and concensus made by many great church musicians, musical directors, scholars and choral experts. Each kind of chant has its own and unique set of difficulties.

I look forward with eagerness, to read any great scholarly work on this subject!

- Rev. Dr. Jonathan Coel

BTW:
Does anyone know any good Anglican / Anglo-Catholic / Anglican Use Catholic / High Church Episcopalian churches with excellent music programs in or near Ft. Worth, TX.

Especially anyone doing choral evensong or who has a high-church Mass sometime other than Sunday morning.

By the way, Rev. Dr. Jonathan Coel, welcome to the forum!

Ken's been quiet and this explains why!

Thanks! It all has been a vision and calling of Ken. He sincerely believes that God has called him to this mission and we here wholeheartedly concurred. He is and has been often misunderstood and ill treated by so many but isn't that the way of so many of God's special children. Once you meet him, it is so very obvious that the Holy Spirit is upon him and working through him. In my very long life, I have never known anyone as kind, thoughtful and caring in the best of the Christian sense.

He is disabled, often in great pain and confined most of his time to his room, and yet we all in residence here, hear him every morning at 4am praying the rosary, at 12 noon and prayer throughout the day in addition to composing hymns and music. He wanted and loved so much to be a blessing to this Forum and always spoke so well of the work of the CMAA. When we ask why he doesn't continue reading the Forum and seeing if he can help others here, he just smiles and nods. His day ends every midnight with the rosary again! Even though he has been poorly mistreated much in his life, he almost never mentions it to anyone. I had to find out though others.

We are truly so tremendously blessed to know him and be a part of this vision God has given him.

A comment on another thread:

However, did you hear us rehearsing it before Mass? It took the choir 15 minutes to get the rhythms in the verses right. We had it right at rehearsal earlier in the week, but they couldn't get it this morning. Regrettably, I simply don't have the time to teach jazz rhythm to my rhythmically challenged choir right before Mass. We are working on improving in that area."

This reminds me of something I've been meaning to share.

Along with my High Church agenda at the Episcopal parish where I serve, I have been specifically asked (by Vestry, clergy, and congregation) to incorporate contemporary music. (They say, "Praise Music," but they mostly mean 1970s folk mass). Most of you know I have no problem with having some of this at Liturgy, and especially no problem with it in a non-RC setting (free of Roman liturgical law).
So I've done a few things which I thought would work well.
And yeah, people like 'em alright.

But here's the (practical) problem:
1. They're damned hard.
I did very a famous and very popular Dan Schutte piece few weeks ago. (I won't tell you which one, because I don't want this to degenerate into that conversation).
But I bet you all know what happened: They couldn't friggin' sing the not-really-syncopation dotted rhythms. It took the bulk of our rehearsal time, and it never turned out very well. The verses (each with slightly different syllabification) were so impossible to get right and/or together that we had to sing them as solos.
2. No one sang it
Now, I know, in an average RC parish in the US, this song would likely be known already. But it wasn't it's newness that caused a problem. I've introduced several hymns (FINLANDIA; a D. Haas text set to LOCH LOMOND; "O God you search me and you know me.") I've also introduced some early American stuff (Wondrous Love) and some 19th cent. Gospel (Hear, O Israel... 4part chorale plus 2-part counterpoint) with NO PROBLEM, and all with very decent congregational response. The only thing that hasn't worked: the "Pop/Folk Catholic" stuff.
3. Older-Middle-aged people (who are the ones who primarily ask for this style) look funny singing it, and their voices are completely unsuited for it. It sounds good (I think), and looks reasonable, when my brother (30) and I (28) sing it. It's inappropriately comic coming from a group of 65 year old women.

Verdict (and big lesson for me, who really likes a lot of that music):
It is very, very difficult to sing. Harder than hymns. Harder than chant. Harder than High Church choral music. Harder than Kevin Allen- and he formats to avoid page turns, for goodness sakes.
Ergo: There needs to be a really, really good reason for me to program that music.
I still like it. It will remain on iPod rotation. But it's getting to be a tinier and tinier part of my 6-month spreadsheet.

Adam, exactly!
And I as well "like" some of the music you're talking about, though considerably less of it than you, I think.
And, very rarely, I think some is even suitable for liturgy.

But it was never a good use of my time, my voice, my patience with the choir, my budget for octavos....

Resources are limited.
That stuff wastes our resources.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

...and if you think the G&P is hard to sing- you should check out OCP's Spirit and Song. That is, perhaps, the least useful hymnal I have ever encountered.


And this goes back to my constant refrain about useful vs. non-useful ways to "advance the CMAA agenda." The "it's so trite, it's so stupid, it's to ugly, it's so inappropriate" refrain isn't the argument that is going to win over anyone who likes/loves/enjoys/uses this music. I'm sympathetic to CMAA goals, and that kind of talk makes me want to unsubscribe and never talk to any of you again.

But- just on the criteria of:
1) Congregational singing (% participating, volume, enthusiasm)
2) Ease of preparation (how long did it take to rehearse)
3) Authentic performance practice (how faithful to the intended style of the piece itself is this performance)

Compare, say:
http://vimeo.com/12436232 (CCWatershed; Christus Vincit)
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9iZcSOujcA (St. Slapyhapy Catholic Community; Blest Be the Lord)


Putting aside whether "Blest Be" is appropriate for Mass (or for, OMG, Ash Wednesday!)- they AREN'T FREAKING SINGING IT CORRECTLY! And they don't even look that happy about it. And I bet it took them A LONG TIME to rehearse it, just to get it to that level. And I bet there were arguments during rehearsal, as the retired music teacher in the Soprano section (there's always one) tried to correct another section's rhythm on the verses- except she was just as wrong about it as the other section. Then I bet the young guy in the tenor section, the only one who actually knows how to read the syncopation correctly (that's usually me, BTW) spend most of the rehearsal muttering under his breath because the choir director won't take the time to teach anyone how to count or subdivide. Then (I bet) in a sudden, over whelming surge of the Holy Spirit, the entire congregation started clapping on beats 1 and 3.

CMAA argument against Pop Church Music: It isn't good church music.
Adam Wood argument: It isn't good pop music, either.

"And this goes back to my constant refrain about useful vs. non-useful ways to "advance the CMAA agenda." The "it's so trite, it's so stupid, it's to ugly, it's so inappropriate" refrain isn't the argument that is going to win over anyone who likes/loves/enjoys/uses this music. I'm sympathetic to CMAA goals, and that kind of talk makes me want to unsubscribe and never talk to any of you again."

Adam, I hope I'm not mis-reading your intent again.
You might benefit by knowing thay many CMAA folk still have to labor in greener, younger vineyards complete w/ guitars (myself among them), and I've never heard them utter any derision over the last 3 colloquia. Because I'm restricted to one finger typing, I've not posted the 2nd article which will detail my methods for judging worthiness of newly minted tunes that still and yet push towards the Mahrt paradigm. You, Jessica in Lincoln NB, and the kids
I see in the coolloquia (I'm leaving that typo in!) are our bright future. Malcontents will be with us always. Stay churchy.

"Cooloquia" - I love it!

I would not consider the vast majority of Messiaen's music suitable for the liturgy. He didn't even perform most of his published music at his own parish. To my knowledge, he believed chant should have pride of place and wrote mostly throwaway service music (or improvisations and what have you).

Doug,

Let me say three words: O Sacrum Convivium. That he didn't write more of the kind was because French churches, for some odd socio-cultural reason, didn't do much in the way of choral liturgical music for quite a long time (though they did start to pipe it through their PA systems in the second half of the 20th century). Perhaps their organists compensate.