It really is thrilling to hear a congregation break loose and sing such music as though they are hard-wired to do so. Just give them the chance and they'll fill the high vaults with "O Salutaris," "Tantum Ergo," "Pange Lingua," and even "Panis Angelicus" and "O Sanctissima." This happens again and again, even in the most liberal places; and it is amazing that the clergy and lay ministers of music, etc., don't tap into it. "Grandma, I didn't know you could speak Latin!"
QUIA PER SANCTAM CRUCHEM TUAM REDEMISTI MUNDUM
This happens in every service I have attended almost regardless of the bias of the Pastor or presider (I dislike that phrase). Even at Christmas when the usual English of O Come all ye Faithful becomes Adeste Fidelis either for the opening verse or the last verse almost impercetiibbly the volume and enthusiasm rises on the part of the congregation. This goes to the fact we are a traditional and Traditional Church( we are THE CHURCH but that is off topic). meaning that most people in the congregation whether they love or loathe or are indifferent to the changes will on high Solemnities wish to hear and sing music in Latin. In my current parish I was dissappointed this year that the Pange Lingua was sung in English save for the last two verses. Again the volume and enthusiasm increased with the last two verse especially since the English translation used was not the customary one. I believe that people if taught the Credo and the Gloria in Latin would happily sing this every week. Most people complain and roll their eyes with innovation not tradition particularly during Christmas or the Triduum.
JPG
Michael,
That's really wonderful to see (and hear). Here's what was happening across the River at Our Lady of Lourdes in Philadelphia
http://jdtreat.com/holyweek08.htm
Something just dawned on me about this. The people sang this hymn as with one mind, and they sang it together. No organ, no conductor. Long live liberty!
No organist trying to keep the congregation from "dragging."
Giovanni,
It's interesting you should say that, because I was just about to hop on here to make a comment about that very thing. While in general it's good not to let a congregation drag, it's interesting to point out a couple of things about this instance:
1. They maintained the tempo.
2. But before they did that, they sort of established it themselves. They slowed down the tempo which the Magister musicorum at begun with.
This is interesting to note, especially to those organists who think that people want to sing "fast" because it's more "joyful" and "uplifting." It's not that this is never true, just that it isn't always true, in my opinion.
Incidentally, this congregation can tear the roof off with O Salutaris, and at quite a brisk tempo.
...and no over-amplified warbly-voiced cantor either....THANK GOD!!!!!
I was at a midnight Mass at the Newman Centre Toront some 20 years ago and remember the choir spontaneously switching from O Come All Ye Faithful to Adeste Fidelis and the swell of enthusiasm from people singing it.
I'm sorry to say I didn't get it then (being a Gen Xer) but I do now.
Patience
I am really glad that at Mater Ecclesiae they are doing well especially in Music and Liturgy. I always remember the wonderful experience I had at Mater Ecclesiae when I was in America.
Wish you a Happy Easter
Michael, I am a bit confused. I have seen numerous posts from you where you bemoan the music of the Caecilians.
Yet you seem to be excited about this excerpt.
This was not written by a Cecilian.
Besides, even if it were, this chorale has the artistic honesty that is missing from the Cecilians' cheap imitations of Renaissance polyphony.
Hmm. Personally, not a fan of this melody. Has always struck me as formulaic. No, I won't back up that assertion. : )
We have Benediction every day at my place of employment, and all but one of the priests use this melody. The other uses the chant melody; I almost wept tears of joy when he did it!
Michael,
I suggest you examine the harmonies of this schmaltzy little tune, compare it to the harmonies favored by the Caecilians, and you will be amazed at the similarities.
That wasn't my point. My point was that at least it doesn't masquerade as polyphony in the tradition of Palestrina when it really is not, such as the music of F.X. Witt.
I think "authentic" would be a good way to describe this chorale. It is what it is. That's not true for a lot of other stuff.
My suggestion would be to not worry about what you believe the musicians call their music.
Look at the music ITSELF.
If the music is dignified and in the correct style for the Mass, then it should be admitted. If not, it should not.
There are many similarities between music of the Renaissance and music of the Caecilians. There are also differences.
You evidently believe that Caecilians claimed that their music was exactly the same as Palestrina's. I have never seen a claim like that. You have noticed that there are some differences and I congratulate you. Many others have claimed to understand the Renaissance style of composition, and have completely missed the ball. Examples of folks who misunderstood Renaissance counterpoint include Fux and Jeppeson, but there are others.
But again, I promise you that the mere idea of "authenticity" does not make a piece suitable for Mass.
You can have very authentic "mariachi" music, but it is not suitable for Mass.
On the other hand, you can have someone who claims that their music is similar to Palestrina's. You may argue to what extent it is, and what extent it is not.
But I challenge you to look beyond that and look at the music ITSELF.
Actually, there are loads of "Caecilian" scores that are better music and more worthy of Mass than that "Tantum Ergo" melody.
It is better than "Bring Flowers of the Rarest," but I am not sure how much further I am willing to take it.
Comparisons with Palestrina are misplaced. Congregational singing has a history in the Catholic Church--at processions and such, and this is a fine example of it. Hymns like this can never replace chant or polyphony, but they have their place.
Giovanni,
You're exactly right. This is an example of where hymns properly belong. Instead of stripping the Mass of its proper chants and of the beauty of sacred polyphony in order to replace them with hymns, we need to restore those liturgical and devotional functions in which hymns are the proper, or at least the appropriate music.
I am a bit saddened that I didn't get to any of the Holy Week liturgies at Mater Ecclesiae this year. Is there any video of the other events, maybe one of the Tenebrae services?
A blessed and holy Pascha to all.
"You evidently believe that Caecilians claimed that their music was exactly the same as Palestrina's."
That's not what I said.
Nor did I say that authenticity should
be the only criterion.
Giovanni,
"Comparisons with Palestrina are misplaced."
I think you misunderstood me. I'm comparing the music of the Cecilians with Palestrina; I am not comparing this hymn to Palestrina.
"I think you misunderstood me. I'm comparing the music of the Cecilians with Palestrina"
I wasn't addressing any one comment in particular but such comparisons in general. One hears that sort of comparison from time to time.
Could it be that the difference that you have in mind between the music of the Cecilians and this hymn is that much of the former was choral whereas this is sung by a congregation? I suspect that this piece would sound as schmaltzy as many Cecilian compositions if it were sung by a choir (especially one packed with would-be divas in the soprano section, if you know what I mean). Just a thought.
"Bring Flowers of the Rarest" sounds bad because it's trying to disguise the real tune for the song -- that very old bagpipe tune "The Flowers of the Forest". It's just like when Animaniacs used to write song parodies but didn't buy a mechanical license for the song being parodied.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
