IMO the first problem is the vernacular texts themselves. Anglicans have been chanting, with both Gregorian and Anglican chants, but using a much more "traditional" style of English. I'm sure we can come up with work-arounds for our ICEL texts, but it will sound quite tortured compared to the Latin/Gregorian combination. If only we could have the option of using another translation when we chant!

I should have added that there are modern-English pointed psalters that work just as well as the traditional language in the example; just not in the Grail version, that I know of. One is the Episcopal Church's Plainsong Psalter, published here

Very good, Pes… thanks so much for taking the time to explain that. I'll be printing it out.

Since this thread is categorized under "for newcomers," I hope you won't mind yet another small set of questions from a novice. (I really don't want to wear out my welcome here….)

(1) Again, considering your previous response on the other thread, and with regard to your first point above, is there really no assigned mode for a Psalm on a given Mass? Would it be appropriate at all to consult the Gradual from the Graduale Romanum and use the mode indicated there to compose an English Responsorial Psalm? (For example, the Gradual for the third Sunday of Advent is in Mode 7, though as far as I can tell, it seems the text is different than the Responsorial Psalm.) Or is it really just "pick a mode"?

(2) Back to the Office Psalm Tones sheet… I think I can figure it out, especially given your previous explanations. What, though, does the "per." mean, right underneath Mode VIII?

Thanks again.

One more thing. I was chided by a professor once for beginning every psalm verse after the first with an incipit formula. That is, every verse I sang had the incipit formula. He said that was just not done. Only the first verse gets the incipit. Every succeeding verse starts right on the reciting tone. I don't have time to check the Liber at the moment. Was the professor right about this? It seems a little over-scrupulous to me. After many verses, the voice gets tired on one pitch. Incipits allow your muscles a momentary shake, which is refreshing.

Pes, my understanding is that this is a Solesmes innovation and that traditional practice is as you described, repeating the intonation. I usually use either one, preferring the intonation on particularly long groups of verses.

Pes - I think it is a good idea to consult the Gradual in choosing a tone for the RP. The more continuity there is over time, the better. Basing the RP on the Gradual is a lovely nod to tradition -after all, there is no precedent for the vernacular, RP as it is done today.

BUT -The short, English texts the Lectionary gives us for the antiphon are the problem. The intent is that the people sing. This is the one thing that most pastors are alert to, whether right or wrong. So I think it wise not to make the antiphon too melismatic. I know, I know - this runs contrary to the intent of the Gradual as it comes between the readings in the EF. And maybe it is boring. But there it is. People need to sing, and if they don't, your pastor will have words with you.

I've found that basing an antiphon's melody on the Psalm tones directly works well (more about which Psalm tone in a minute). Depending on the length of the antiphon text, what you end up will be sometimes strictly, but mostly loosely based on a Psalm tone, with a little variation for interest and color, depending on the meaning and choice of words in the text itself. Your own good sense and musical imagination will be your guide. Sometimes they will be simple but serviceable. Other times they will be downright beautiful. There is beauty, after all, in simplicity, and the occasional clever turn of a phrase, musically speaking.


One nice thing about approaching the RP this way is that once a verse is sung by the cantor or choir and the people return to the antiphon, one hears a direct connection between the different parts. Our congregation has been able to sing these antiphons effortlessly since we began doing them this way.

Choice of Psalm tone for antiphons: a sticky problem! Yes, the different tones have different moods. That is a good place to start. But more often than not, what I have to pay close attention to is the rhythm and meaning of the English text we're required to use for the RP. It could just be my own lack of imagination, but I might sometimes pick a tone I think would be nice, but I cannot make it work for a particular text. Then I just run through other tones and ending cadences, etc., until I hit on something that fits nicely with the rhythm of the words (and their masculine endings!!!) and that lends itself to play between melody line and meaning.

I have found this discussion very interesting with solid guidance for pointing the psalms and choosing psalm tones, esp. the comments by Pes and AOZ. Having set many English RPs to the traditional Gregorian psalm tones (GSTs) for responsorial psalms, I find that one of the major problems, of not the major problem is the fact that so often the sense lines in the English psalms end on an accented syllable, whereas the GPTs were intended for Latin, where, as a rule, the lines end with an unaccented syllable. You can see this with the example Pes supplies above: in the second stanza almost every line ends with an accented syllable ("hosts", "see", "vine" "strong"). Sometimes the last word can be combined with previous word(s), which mitigates this problem (e.g. "LORD of hosts") but sometimes not. This is where I find that the English settings using Gregorian psalm tones can falter a bit.

This issue is brought up in the new USCCB document, "Sing to the Lord" - already discussed on this Forum on the thread devoted to it. In fact, it discourages using the GPTs with English.

I think this is going a bit far. However, Theodore Marier did go so far as to obtain special permission to use modified translations of the psalms in his "Hymns, Psalms and Spiritual Canticles" so that this would not be a problem. He also used modified versions of some of this terminations when accented syllables were unavoidable.

Some of my work and that of others using the GPTs can be found here at the Chabanel Psalm Project under year A here: http://chabanelpsalms.org/responsorial_psalms.htm
I'd appreciate any feedback on these anyone can offer.

ScottKChicago wrote: "Chanting the intonation only on the first psalm verse seems to be a universal practice, practically a given. Chanting the intonation on every verse is reserved for the Gospel canticles: Benedictus, Magnificat, Nunc dimittis."

That's true to the extent that you're referring to chanting Psalms and canticles in the office. Can you see chanting psalms at Mass as being different? I could suggest that the additional solemnity given to the Gospel canticles in the office might also be applied to Mass, being a more solemn liturgy than the office. Traditionally, Psalms aren't chanted straight through at Mass much, so the responsorial Psalm is somewhat new territory in this respect.

Also recall the tone for the Psalm verses and Gloria Patri in the Introit of the Mass, which are more elaborate than the solemn office tones. As another example, the Communio book that R Rice prepared for use of Psalm verses with the Communion antiphons adapted the Introit model of Psalm tones.

Using English with Gregorian psalm tones does require a few adjustments. One of those addresses the problem of more English phrases ending on a stressed syllable. Many psalters solve this by not having the chant go back to the reciting note. For instance, the phrase "I will give thanks to the LORD" in tone VIII would be chanted all on doh (the reciting note) and go up to re (whole step higher) on LORD, with no return to the reciting note (until you continue with the second half of the verse, of course). A few psalters insist on forcing a return to the reciting note, resulting in unnatural syllabic stresses like "I will give thanks to THE Lord."

I guess I'm used to the adjusted way and think it helps the tones work well with English.

The English-language adjustment I described is done only on the first half of a verse where necessary. I'm thinking of Tone VIII here:

Blessed be the Lord my / rock! * [as opposed to: Blessed be the / Lord my rock! *]
who trains my hands to fight and my fing- / ers to battle.

The second half-verse's ending is taken care of by the longer formula used:

I will ponder the glorious splendor of your / majesty *
and all your / marvelous works.

This adjustment is well illustrated in the sound file I linked to early in this thread. The first verse uses this adjustment: ...with my whole / heart; *

There's probably a technical term for this that I should learn!

For myself, I do prefer the latter rule specified by David in the immediately preceding comment.

A possible way to sing the example "I will give thanks TO the Lord" (and other examples like it) so that it makes sense is to lengthen "thanks" or even sing it like a disyllabic word, like "I will give tha-nks TO the Lord".

The dispensation mentioned by ScottK is cited in the Liber reprints if I remember correctly.

Just thought this might put some perspective. Westminster Vespers and Mass...though the Vespers is in English (usually in Latin) for the Psalmody..Hear the organ.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/pip/zqqvf/

tell me if it doesn't work. By the way. Merry Christmas!

Isaac.

In the psalmody of By Flowing Waters I disaggregated neumes and abbreviated intonations, when setting some psalm verses using processional psalm tones I, III, IV, VI, and VII, as well as the responsorial psalm tones C 2, C 3, D *, E 1, E 2, E 5, E 5 * and E *. (It was easier to keep the rules in processional psalm tones II, V, and VIII and in responsorial tones C 1, C 4, C *, D 1, E 3, and E 4). This is because the psalm tone needs to convey the sense of the psalm easily to the assembly, in natural sounding English.

My sense about singing English to Gregorian modes is that lengthening of any syllables (singing them longer or on two or more notes) and any syllables sung on the first note which moves above or below the tenor or dominant of the mode stresses these syllables and that these syllables need to be naturally stressed English syllables. English also prefers strong endings (to use Hiley’s terminology, English prefers accentual cadences rather than cursive cadences), so I paid special attention to the use of the tones in their mediant and final cadences.

I have applied a similar method to the intonations of the processional psalm tones I, III, IV, VI and VII. I added an extra preliminary punctum to tones I, III, IV, and VI so that I could accommodate anapestic words and phrases in these ones; I also removed the standard preliminary punctum when the verse began with trochaic or dactylic words or phrases. In tone VII I disaggregated the podatus and clivis in intonations which begin with anapestic words or phrases.

On July 8 and December 12, 1912 the Sacred Congregation for Rites gave permission, in the case of verses which terminate on monosyllables, for abrupt mediations in psalm tones with mediants of one accent (tones II, IV, VI, and VIII). Psalms in English have many more such verses than psalms in Latin, so I used this permission extensively.

In explaining the responsorial psalm tones of the Graduale Simplex (pp. 440–445), the editors point out that when the psalm verse ends with a dactyl, an extra note may be inserted or the podatus or clivis may be disaggregated into its components, that is, into two notes (pp. 440, 442, 443, and 444). One can see in these directives a preference for cadences that are more accentual than cursive. I regularly used these flexibilities throughout By Flowing Waters, not just in responsorial psalmody but also in processional psalmody, whenever I could not apply the standard rules. I was particularly concerned about wedding any psalm verse which ends with a trochee or a trochaic phrase or a dactyl or a dactylic phrase with any processional psalm tones which ends with a dotted podatus (I a 2, VII c, VII d), a dotted clivis I f, III a, VII c 2, VII a), or a torculus (I g 2). I also worked painstakingly with any processional psalm tone whose final cadence consists of one accent with preparatory syllables meant to be sung on two-note neumes.

I bring to everyone's attention a rather lengthy essay on the challenges we face in setting English texts to Gregorian psalm tones, with suggestions for meeting them.

I am taking the liberty of posting it again because it takes up questions raised in the current discussion.

Bruce has also been posting wonderful examples of his art on the Chabanel website for all to see: we are so blessed to have him!

Also, Ermin de Vitry wrote an article on Psalmody in Caecilia.

He says some shocking things. One of the things he says (paraphrased) is that "the only reason we don't notice how awkward the Latin psalm tones are is that we don't speak fluent Latin anymore."

I disagree. I feel that the musical line can OVERTAKE the tonic accents and make it into a beautiful cantilena.

However, I also think that this takes a degree of musical sophistication for the listener and singer.

Furthermore, I admit that examples CAN be found in medieval chant where the composer seemed to "honor" the tonic accent. But I have also found many times where the psalm tone melody simply does not stress the tonic accent.

I am not happy with all my settings and adaptations in the Chabanel Psalms, but Bruce has been slowly helping me. Also, when folks disagree, they can always make slight adjustments. The Chabanel composers each have a different "take" on Psalm tone adaptation, and I think this is marvelous.

I agree, Ralph. By the way, I don't have the answer (no matter how hard I think about it or how much I read), except to say that the Gregorian art is so beautiful, and just because they don't hammer out the tonic accent, I don't think that is a bad thing. I think it is highly sophisticated. Simple, rhythmically-driven, rhythmically -composed music (sounds?) on the radio may have made us as a culture too used to simple beat patterns and hammered tonic accents. Actually, I'm convinced it has.

Bruce Ford:
I have just read a 10 page article which you provided on this forum titled "Setting English Texts to Gregorian Psalm Tones." Thank you for providing this.
I have always felt like a maverick splitting neumes and merging notes in order to preserve the music already present in the text. Your work has assured me that I am not corrupting this art and you have provided system for setting texts to psalm tones that has helped me organize my own ideas. I have found it necessary to set psalms because the responsorial settings provided by most of the periodicals require too much editing,
I do like the way Gelineau's psalm tones move through a text while maintaining a regular tempo with primary and secondary accents. They a magnificent with harp and I would have thought that contemporary choirs would have adapted them to guitar.
Do you have more info available on setting psalm tones?

I understand the difference to apply depending on whether a psalm is sung responsorially (as at Mass) or straight-through (as in the Liturgy of the Hours).

In the psalter for Liturgy of the Hours the antiphon is intoned only at the beginning and end of the psalm and the psalm verses are sung straight-through. In that case, the intonation of a psalm tone is used only for the first verse of the psalm sung after the antiphon; the rest of the verses and the Gloria Patri are begun on the reciting tone. I think that's what the LU is addressing. The Novus Ordo's responsorial psalm had not been introduced in 1953.

At Mass, when the psalm is typically sung in a responsorial manner, the response/antiphon is repeated several times during the course of the psalm, interrupting the flow of the psalm's verses. In that case, the intonation of a psalm tone is used for the first verse following the (repeated) response/antiphon, whereas subsequent verses begin on the reciting tone until the response/antiphon is repeated, after which the intonation would again be used on the next verse.

If you're looking for an official interpretation, that is complicated by the fact that the 1953 LU you reference didn't envision using psalm tones to sing the NO's responsorial psalm in responsorial format.

The Graduale Simplex also states that the antiphon and verse are interconnected both by the intonation and termination, and explicitly shows the antiphon and verse alternating. BUT this does not apply to the responsorial psalm, since it does not (in GS) have an antiphon but a response! The response does not neccessarily terminate on the first note of the verse. Neither the Alleluia, nor the psalmus alleluiaticus exhibit any concern for matching. Note that in GS a tract has all verses after the first begin on the reciting note.