I wouldn't say there is any specific musical parameter that makes chant more suitable for liturgy than other styles. Chant is some of the oldest the music used to set liturgical texts (i.e., the Ordinary, Propers, etc.) and developed alongside the liturgy write large. One could therefore argue that is has a liturgical dimension in itself, irrespective of its style. You might ask why this chant has a G here, instead of an F, or this neume over that neume, but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme.

Your last question is much more difficult, and I often ask it to myself. The amount of new music that begins to approach the spirit of chant is practically negligible in my opinion, but this is primarily because the restoration of chant is a relatively recent phenomenon. Charles Tournemire, for example, would not have been able to compose his L'orgue mystique (based on chant) if it weren't for the publication of Gregorian chants prepared by the monks at Solesmes. Tournemire's collection was written roughly 75-85 years ago, which is practically yesterday in the long view of musical history. If you scroll back a page or two in the forum, you will find links to the new composition reading at the CMAA Colloquium last month. Clearly several composers there were inspired by chant--some are writing new Gregorian-esque chants, and others are going in different directions. Only time will tell what music and what styles will have breathed the spirit of chant. I'm sure we all have our own differing opinions.

I think flexibility is a key to chant's suitability. The melody has the freedom to follow and express the words. (This is a meme of Dr. Mahrt's, iirc.)

Thank you all! Especially to noel for articulating at least what might be going through a person's head when they say "the musical 'form' of chant is better suited for the liturgy"

I believe with all my heart that chant holds pride of place for the liturgy. However, I believe the Church, in all her wisdom, has allowed for "room" or "space" in the liturgy where modern music may be introduced so as to lead to the glorification of God and the sanctification of the faithful. I believe this idea of introducing "modern" styles of music (and in this I include contemporary christian music the likes of Chris Tomlin, Matt Maher, etc with its "predictable" use of scales and easy "beats"/rhythm") needs better attention so that those FEW pieces/songs that are suitable for the liturgy can be used.

That's where I'm coming from in trying to understand this idea of the "form" of Gregorian Chant, thanks a lot all and more input is welcome!

" I believe the Church, in all her wisdom, has allowed for "room" or "space" in the liturgy where modern music may be introduced so as to lead to the glorification of God and the sanctification of the faithful. I believe this idea of introducing "modern" styles of music (and in this I include contemporary christian music the likes of Chris Tomlin, Matt Maher, etc with its "predictable" use of scales and easy "beats"/rhythm") needs better attention so that those FEW pieces/songs that are suitable for the liturgy can be used."

Great comment! I totally disagree because the Church, in all her wisdom, failed to maintain standards for what church music is, standards that have been in place for centuries.

The Church once full on Sundays, is empty. There are few priests. Few sisters. Catholics challenge the teachings of the church.

Name one thing about the church that is much, much better than it was prior to Vatican II and the total havoc that was released upon the church?

There has always been a clear distinction between the sacred and the profane. Until now.

What are the odds that any of us will hear anything modal today on TV, on the radio or at church?

But there ARE churches where that can be heard.

A blind person, stumbling in out of the rain into a church that is singing Gregorian chant, this person even if not Catholic, will now that they are in church and, probably know that it is a Catholic church.

Modern music is homogenized, much as our tuning schemes for keyboards. People hear an unequal temperament and say, "Oh, it's out of tune." when they shoudl be recognizing instead that much of it finally is in tune.

Modern music can be solemn and religions, chant always is.

I would argue that the elements of chant that make it suitable for liturgy are specifically the criteria by which other compositions should be measured. This is the way that we can "begin to approach" new music in the way the council affirms. The more criteria a new piece conforms to or emulates, the more suited it is for worship. As Noel stated, "Modern music can be solemn and religious, chant always is."

These are my opinion, by the way. They are by no means authoritative. In no particular order:

1. Proper Text. Gregorian Chant is singing the Mass, not singing at the Mass. The chants use the prescribed texts for every moment of singing. In this way, they are natural handmaidens of the rest of worship. As Jam indicates above, the music also rose directly from the texts, not vice versa. I argue that new composition worthy of the liturgy MUST consider the texts of the Mass, proper and ordinary.

2. Language. Latin is the universal language of the Church. The use of this language connects us to a tradition that extends beyond our local worship into the worship of the universal Church, which includes the Communion of Saints. It is important to sing precisely the same words that our ancestors in faith did.

3. The music itself. Not just the modality or theoretical aspects, but the actual tunes are important for a similar reason to above. Singing precisely the same tunes as our ancestors in faith makes the music part of the universal liturgy. Granted, the liturgical use of these tunes (and Latin, for that matter) are largely historical accident, but we live in history anyway. However, there is no doubt that the melodies are unique in themselves. When faced with just the notes of Gregorian Chant, no words, it is self-evident that this is spiritual music.

4. Exclusivity of worship. There's probably a better way to title it, but what I mean is that Gregorian Chant is unique to Christian worship. There are hundreds of other musical styles, and each one calls to mind a different region, time period, dance style, etc. When you play the latest ditty on the guitar, you might be singing the Sanctus, but the music sounds like John Denver's greatest hits. There is no chance of this connection with Gregorian Chant. It is not used in any format other than worship.

To add my two cents to the above argument over modality, I'd have to fall in with Noel. First, to be pedantic, you may call Major and Minor modes (Ionian and Aeolian), but they are not any of the eight modes of Gregorian Chant. What (I think) Noel is getting at is that Major and Minor imply harmonic progression. The Church modes do not imply this nearly as strongly. In this way, major and minor are much more predictable. Sure, there are great compositions that break form with these progressions, but they are in spite of the modality, not because of it. The modal nature of Chant makes it much more flexible, allowing it to highlight the text and raise thought to the mysteries of liturgical celebration.

I talk too much and say too little. I'll shut up now.

Andrew, THANK YOU! This is a great explanation of what I'm looking for. Everyone has added a lot to my understanding of the "Gregorian Form" that the Church wishes new compositions to conform to. Thank you!

"ison, a aural representation of the light of Christ."

Jam, in my ignorance, I thought this was simply a musical technique, like pedal point. (I'm slow, MJBallou kindly explained it to me to no avail.)

Can you explain the theology of this?

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Well, there's plenty of jazz and rock music out there that doesn't rely on on Major=Ionian and Minor=Aeolian dichotomy. While many of us complain about the Mass of Creation's ersatz use of modality, there is music out there of a more sophisticated nature that is modal in the non-ecclesiastical sense.

"Name one thing about the church that is much, much better than it was prior to Vatican II and the total havoc that was released upon the church?"

My, I didn't think to encounter the hermeneutic of discontinuity here. If you think Vatican II unleashed total havoc, you've gotta live some more. Pius X's sacramental revolution probably undid more than anything Vatican II tried to pull off. But here we are, a century later, taking it for granted, as if in 1800 what he did would have been readily foreseen and digested.

The liturgical changes as implemented and experienced in most place were not "havoc". In fact, they needed more "havoc." The basic praxis problem that endured was the survival of the Low Mass model as the dominant experience of Eucharistic liturgy. Liturgical movement folks wanted to sink that model, but the pragmatists ensured it survived in dominant form. Everything else is commentary by comparison.

The reform of the Sacrament of the Sick so that is no longer as strictly reserved to those in extremis. The audible canon, and the forbidding of the music as a soundtrack to cover sotto voce prayers. The freedom to sing the propers when it would have been prohibited at the Low Mass. The freedom to use the vernacular. The expansion of the lections for Sundays, solemnities and feasts. Permanent deacons. The general effort to more closely tie sacraments to liturgy rather than individual transactions. The elevation of focus on the trinitarian Real Action (something that Pius XII started moving towards) at the altar of sacrifice, in addition to the Real Presence, and the explicit recovery of the understanding of the different ways Christ is truly present in the liturgy (without prejudice to the Presence par excellence in the Blessed Sacrament).The revival of a more robust order of catechumenate in the RCIA and otherwise. It's not an exhaustive list.

I don't do double dare.

I'm in the process of writing up an explanation of the 'musical form' of chant and what it means as prayer. I'v not finished yet [only 2 parts more on the way] but I think its sort of what your looking for. You can see what I have so far here http://www.newcatacombs.blogspot.com/

And, I should say, the Church Herself has applauded these things, in case that matters.

We have one Church, and its head has the authority to make changes to the liturgy. That doesn't mean we have to like those changes. We do have to accept them as lawful and legitimate. We can work to modify or repeal them, but we don't have the authority to disregard or disobey them.

I bow to the bigger words. And take my twaddle with me, whatever the heck twaddle is.

My twaddle is now also properly flattened. And I, and it, have been put in our places. As the last bit of air is driven from my flattened lungs, I can only utter those immortal words: "Flat-earthers unite...the edges are near."

Also, as another comment I think I'm going to need a better understanding of the nature of the Novus Ordo to see where certain "hymnity" and "song" can be introduced. A big part of Gregorian chant seems to be its connection to the "words" of the liturgy, and I would agree that the call and responses, prayers, etc need to be kept in tact and Chant does this like nothing else. However, it seems to me there is still "space" where there aren't "words" of the liturgy where "songs of praise" can be appropriate i.e. the entrance and recessional, song during the preparation of the gifts, and perhaps a communion meditation, although the closer we get to the eucharist the more solemn any song would have to be. just some more thoughts!

I read both BGP and Adam's articles, and I have to say, both really stress the idea of the word forming the music not the other way around. I'm struggling with this. It seems like when you read the word and then you sing it, you are singing it in some sort of musical context of your choosing. Whether that's chant or contemporary I'm struggling to see how there's a difference.

Put differently, I can sit with Scripture and my guitar and sing the Scriptures, obviously one would say whatever chords I'm playing will therefore determine how the words sung. However, doesn't chant do the same when a mode is selected to use to chant a phrase? Again, I'm trying to understand this idea of: “The text is not something that just happens to be attached to a particular melody but rather the text is a sounded word that has flowered into a musical work. The line does not run from the melody to the text that has been set, but on the contrary the exact opposite. The direction is from the word to its realization in musical sound. The source, from which the Gregorian melodies originate and are nourished, is the word." as it was quoted from BGP's article. What is this "realization in musical sound"?

Why can't, or perhaps a better question would be, how CAN a prayerful, spirit inspired, guitar player/piano player/singer, worship God starting from the text first as chant does? It seems like chant has musical form that must be imposed on the words as much as contemporary musical forms do. So, what's the difference? Or is it merely that there's more "danger" when you open the Word up to "blues" "rock" "hip hop" etc musical forms. (To this I would say obviously blues and hip hop cannot resonate the word like chant, however I believe the young church is finding ways to resonate the word of God via contemporary christian worship music. But as I keep pointing out, we must explore this more to ensure its done well. Thoughts?

hi, tlelyo. I read your posts and was very impressed that you are very sincere with what you are doing and trying to find the best music you can offer to our Lord in our Liturgy. (Please forgive my poor English).
At the sacred music Collquium this year, I met an amazing priest, Father Kirby, and was very impressed with his lecture on Gregorian chant and Catholic Liturgy. He is so much in love with the Church, Liturgy and Gregorian chant. I thought his lecture might help you in understanding this Church's sacred music.
Here is the link to his blog,

http://vultus.stblogs.org/

and if you scroll down until you see the screen of Colloquium XX post, you will be directed to the recordings of his entire lecture. It's really worth your while to listen to the whole thing. Also I recommend reading Pope Benedict XVI's "The Spirit of the Liturgy.' This book truly helped me to understand the deeper meaning of the Liturgy and the music that is the integral part of the Mass.
Best wishes.

this person even if not Catholic, will now that they are in church and, probably know that it is a Catholic church.

That's why Hollywood always used Chant in its "church" scenes.

I'm responding very late to Andrew's post above, but I have a couple of quibbles with it.

1) "The music itself. Not just the modality or theoretical aspects, but the actual tunes are important for a similar reason to above. Singing precisely the same tunes as our ancestors in faith makes the music part of the universal liturgy."

There is no way of knowing whether or not we are singing "precisely" the same tunes. Personally I don't think it really matters, but as a historian I am always bothered by this. There is no direct lineage of tunes down the centuries--it's close, but we can't say for sure.

2) "There is no chance of this connection with Gregorian Chant. It is not used in any format other than worship."

This is not true, either. Over the last decade or so (and really beginning with the re-release of "Chant" on CD), chant has been co-opted by popular culture so that it has accumulated different cultural connotations for a different generation. Not that this really means anything either, just that we can't assume that chant exists outside culture. It's like all the arguments I see in favor of the organ vs. the piano. "Oh the piano is only secular, and the organ is purely sacred." Well, I hate to break it to some people, but many people's only exposure to the organ is the Hammond at home or the organ at the ballpark. For others still, I can't help but think that a piece like Messiaen's Vingt Regards imbues the piano with some degree of "sacredness," thus shaking off its purely secular character. But going back to chant, the multimedia age has allowed chant to be released from its sacred boundaries. Maybe that's sad, but it's reality. Try a YouTube search for a Kyrie-hip hop mashup or listen to the soundtrack from the video game "Halo."

Sacred objects and people can be used in secular world. People do whatever they want to do with them. That doesn't change their status in the church. They still reamin as sacred. (one extreme example is profane movies on Virgin Mary. But she is still mother of God.) Plus organ and chants are not the most common and popular use in secular contexts. Compared to other instruments and other types of music, they take up only small percentage in the entertainment world. (they are used mostly for some sort of special effects.) They are still associated with church, and organ and chant still have the highest places in the Roman Catholic liturgy.

I have no argument with that. I didn't choose my words carefully and ended up overstating the case. I think the points still stand, though. When you say that chant provides nice ambiance, you must ask why. The music inherently lifts us to the mysterious.

When I stated that chant is not used in any format other than worship, it was clumsy phrasing. What I mean is that the musical style is intrinsically wedded to worship. When you hear a musical piece in the form of a dance, or a folk song, or even a symphony, you are reminded of those things even when the music is used in the liturgy. When you hear chant, you think formal worship. There's a reason why Hollywood portrayals of Catholic churches frequently include chanting. The music and the setting go hand in hand.

I hate the acoustical effects (the same way I detest big domes over altars

Interesting you mention that.

Was at a concert (professional symphony plus pro/semi-pro chorus) in a local church with a BIG dome over the altar. Musicians were arrayed in front of the altar. Seating was available in the transept directly left and right of the musicians, so I took a spot about 50' to the musicians' left (right side of the church.)

I SWEAR that there was a pitch differential from one side of the musicians to the other. IOW, the 1st violins were not in tune with the sopranos, who were located under the opposite side of the dome.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I think differently about those domes ever since.

A ciborio over an altar helps to capture some of the sound before it gets lost in the acoustic of the dome, but generally domes stink acoustically unless one is satisfied by a nimbus of sound, but that is no longer a desideratum of the ordinary form (nor was it for much of the first millennium in the western church).

http://thecatholicworshipblog.com/?p=67