Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Some of these settings sound rather good. I think a gentle organ accompaniment would help - no offence to the excellent cantor intended!
Part of the point, though, is to get people singing again, with the voice as the primary liturgical instrument. Unplug!
What a lot of work- thanks so much!
About accompaniment-
For two years we had been chanting the Our Father (in English) and the people's singing was strong and clear.
Recently, a previous organist has returned and is accompanying the Our Father again. Now the tempo has to accommodate the organ, and the lengthened phrasing is too awkward for the people in several areas- they can't breathe where they are used to breathing. So the singing has noticeably decreased.
I'm not sure why *some* organists won't trust the congregation and let chant go unaccompanied.. The only issue as I see it is that (without a skilled schola) the congregation might go a quarter tone- no sin in that!
Let chant be chant and let the people sing their parts.
Second to last sentence of my post should read-
The only issue as I see it is that (without a skilled schola) the congregation might go a quarter tone FLAT- no sin in that!
Why is it so prevalent in the USA to want to sing the Ordinary in English to Gregorian Chant - the Papal Mass in Washington as an example? Is it really so difficult to get these prayers sung in Latin?
Pelicanus writes "Is it really so difficult to get these prayers sung in Latin?"
ok, once again, the ideal is Latin. The English helps people move toward plainsong, and prepares the way toward the ideal. It is a big improvement over the metric stuff sung in 90% of parishes. The reason we put this material out there is there is to permit steps in the right direction.
Please, no more comments along these lines. I'm tired to typing the same thing again and again.
'The English helps people move toward plainsong, and prepares the way toward the ideal.'
So true.
Jeffrey, this has been the case in areas where I've tried it every time. Because the plainsong is stripped of metrical convention and extra noise, the people can more readily focus on the texts and pray. People who want to sing their parts suddenly find it easier. Once this confidence is gained, people are much more receptive to Latin.
Because Latin is (wrongly) the major hurdle in many people's minds, music is effectively- and prayerfully- used as a way to break this barrier and gently lead people to the ideal.
9-fold Kyrie?
Yes, I do suspect Latin is the big barrier. I have been singing Gregorian Propers, but in an English translation, this last week, and I have not told anyone that it is Gregorian Chant. The people love to hear it, but if I told them what it was, I am sure that they would freak out.
Also, the 9-fold Kyrie is permitted in the OF if the musical form requires it, which is quite common in the chant Kyries
I can't see that my question is unfair - nor am I aware of your previous replies to such a question.
Where there is an appetite for chanting, it is hardly ever found without an appetite for Latin. My concern is that if people are given a soft option, they will stick to it. I'm a firm believer that one of the main problems with liturgy at the moment is that people like what they are used to. Using English presents two steps and two hurdles of change.
If you aren't up for this kind of debate then don't feel obliged to comment, but please remember that not all of us have been here from the beginning or follow every post.
I take Thomas' point that if you don't mention the word chant, people don't complain. Latin is harder to disguise!
Yes, you are right Pelicanus. The comboxes have been oddly ill-tempered these days, and I shouldn't be contributing to that problem.
and organ accomp might make these settings more usable for parishes which do not use any other chant. Therefore, the chant settings would again become the norm for ordinaries instead of 60's tunes.
These are great! How likely do you think it is that the USCCB would approve these for use in the Masses here in the U.S.? It certainly would be a great, providential, improvement, but so many Bishops obviously hate anything that has anything to do with Latin or the ancient traditions of the Church.
In the Ordinary Form, Kyrie Simplex IIIb, Simplex Va and Simplex Vb seem most easily adaptable to Form C of the Penitential Rite.
One way to do so is to chant the trope on the same note that begins the Kyrie/Christe melody. Another, less simple way could be to sing the final cadence of the trope to the same melody of the Kyrie/Christe.
While I understand the impulse to set English texts to Gregorian melodies and, hence, to preserve these specific works of out musical heritage in the context of the vernacular liturgy, I think there is something fundamentally wrong-headed about the exercise, something that neglects the very essence of these melodies. The effectiveness of Gregorian chant, and its unique appropriateness to the liturgy, is due to the fact that the melody proceeds from the text. With the exception of the melodies of the metrical hymns, which are by their nature adaptable to any hymn with the same metre, the melodies are particular to the individual Latin texts. They are not melodies to which words have been set: they are melodies that are composed around the text.
While the English texts -- the new versions at least -- seek to represent the meaning of the Latin typical edition, they cannot reproduce the metrical structures or sonic qualities of the Latin text. This means that their adaptability to melodies composed around those structures and qualities can only be by chance, with a greater or lesser degree of awkwardness.
I suspect much can be learned from the Anglican chant tradition, particularly in understanding how and why it deviates from the Gregorian tradition, even while preserving some melodies or motifs. The point is that English texts, if they are to be used, should inspire new chant melodies, not be shoe-horned into melodies that were inspired by the Latin texts.
Perhaps because I am used to an older translation, I find the Gloria with the people on earth a bit much, but then much improved over what is being used now.
John H
Which ones offendeth thee? Bee more specifick.
The efforts to match the new texts to the Gregorian melodies are laudable but, as said by John Hudson, the music grew from the text and I simply can help but feel that the english text gives a disjointed and clunky feel and does the chant no favours.
I'm not purposefully being critical but am just wondering if this is really the best vehicule for furthering the introduction of chant.
Also, I'm not familiar with the Simplex versions of the Kyrie - they do, however, just sound like the Kyries that one encounters in Litanies which perform quite a different liturgical function to that in the Penetential Rite.
Still, for those who don't know the chant, it can only be a step in the right direction - keep up the good work. Or should I say - fight the good fight!
Hudson et al., I don't think think you are correct. The melodies proceeded from the Latin but the melodies NOW are real melodies with their own integrity and place in their lives of Catholics. There is no sense in starting the creative process as if it were the year zero. The melodies in fact do have meaning and must be preserved.
To add to jeffrey's comment. Yes, the melodies do in fact take on a life of their own. So that is something we have to contend with that wasn't an issue when the melodies were first developed around the Latin. They are now part of our tradition. But precisely for the reasons John H and others outline, it is important to be willing to be liberal with these melodies when setting the English to them - the music and the language must work together, with the language dictating melody and rhythm, final cadences, etc.
Pes, it isn't a question of specific combinations of text and music 'offending'. As I wrote, the adaptability of the new English texts to existing Gregorian melodies is one of chance: some may work better or worse than others. What I wanted to comment on is the general problem, not its specific application. At base, the problem is philosophical: if chant is music that arises from text, then the melodies of chant are not transferable to different texts. But this basic problem shows itself specific symptoms. Consider the difference in vowel quality between Latin and English. Modern English has a preponderence of mid vowels, whereas Latin, in its received ecclesiastic pronunciation, has none. Latin has relatively few short vowel sounds, which is what makes much of Gregorian melismatic composition possible; English has many short vowels.
Oh these are great. Honestly the through composed ordinaries really get opressive week after week, so it's nice to see someone heading up this great work in a different direction than one previously trod.
John, I know. My comment was good-natured teasing.
Actually, I feel a wrinkle in the setting of Gloria XI. "We glorify you" would work better, I think, with "ri" assigned to the second podatus, "fy" given to the penultimate mi, and "you" assigned to the last punctum. This would give the resonant "o" more of a jubilus feel and align the melodic arch with the open vowel a bit more. Free it up, as it were.
And that specific thing raises the general point, which is how to meld melody and text. I think it's possible to over-romanticize the seamlessness of Gregorian melodies and their texts. There are stock endings, for example, and lots of centonized parts. Moreover, the simplex Kyrie's seem to pass smoothly into English with nary a blip.
Not every assignation is going to sound "natural" at first, but as we sing these melodies with English words, we'll find what works best eventually.
And then we'll know the melody and the meaning -- so that any move to Latin would be a snap.
.02
That .02 comment was me, by the way.
Pes
Jeffrey: "The melodies in fact do have meaning and must be preserved."
Better to say that they have cultural or associative significance; melodies do not have 'meaning' in the semantic sense. I agree that they should be preserved, and the way to preserve them is to sing Latin. This is not to say that these melodies cannot be retained also, in some manner, in the vernacular liturgy -- indeed, it is in the interests of the hermeneutic of continuity that they be retained -- but I think we need to consider what that manner should be. I suspect that the wholesale fitting new English texts to Gregorian compositions is unlikely to be the best approach (although there may be happy cases where it works reasonably well for a particular text and tune).
"I think it's possible to over-romanticize the seamlessness of Gregorian melodies and their texts."
I should clarify that I'm not talking about any kind of Platonic relationship of text and melody, whereby the music expresses the meaning of the text. That's not just over-romanticised: that's hooey. When it comes to semantics, it's text all the way down.
What appears a challenge is the great metrical difference between the Latin and English texts, and the nature of many English vowels (which are a problem for a lot of choral music). Trained singers presumably know how to lighten and maintain pitch across some of the less felicitous English vowel sounds, but we're talking about compositions that congregations will sing. I look at that final 'Father' in the Gloria and I shudder and the heavy hammer fall of that second syllable. :)
Re. centonised parts. Yes, indeed. And my point is that we may get further -- in terms of producing beautiful liturgical music -- by producing new centonised settings for the English texts, using musical phrases from the Gregorian compositions, than we will by trying to adopt the compositions wholesale.
John
This is not to say that these melodies cannot be retained also, in some manner, in the vernacular liturgy ... but I think we need to consider what that manner should be.
Those who offer these neo-Gregorian English settings of the Ordinary are not considering "what that manner should be"? I should think that is precisely what they have in mind.
I suspect that the wholesale fitting new English texts to Gregorian compositions is unlikely to be the best approach
Best approach to what? Would it be better to say "sing the Graduale as printed, or be forever mired in your warmed-over contemporary pop liturgica"? Is there no middle ground? No transition that you would wave forward?
the problem is philosophical: if chant is music that arises from text, then the melodies of chant are not transferable to different texts
The problem is not, however, merely philosophical. There are plenty of people out here who want to move things, really. For us, "how" is not an academic question.
Also, on the principle you've just stated, you should admit no adaptation whatsoever of Gregorian melodies.
Yes, I'm pushing you, politely.
Mr. Hudson,
While I agree with you that the melodies do not in and of themselves carry any semantic weight, I would also contend that they can add to the meaning, much in the same way intonation adds meaning to sentences. Of course, therein lies the problem: different languages use different intonations for different situations. That beings said, I think that the gregorian melodies are very flexible and lend themselves quite well to the English texts, especially now that they actually follow the Latin to a discernable degree.
centonised ... may get further
It depends on the scale of the centonisation. You could lift an entire setting of a phrase from a Gregorian Gloria and plop it on top of the English. Success? Not automatically.
On a smaller scale, say with certain phrase-ending motifs (there are many familiar ones), it could work, but even then, it might not. See Gloria XI here with "we glorify you." The "you" gets a common ending motif -- a centonisation. But I would argue this does not work particularly well, in this case.
So centonisation in my view is but one compositional strategy among many. The point is to think like one of the old chant melodists, and that is not a matter of cutting and pasting. More is involved.
If I could make a purely speculative comment that might work to synthesize some of the apparently variant thoughts here:
I think that if we take a big-picture look at this, what is happening here makes a lot of sense. First, I think that the OF and EF are going to be side-by-side for a long time and that the vernacular will, most likely, have a place in the OF for the whole span of its life. This doesn't mean that I think it's vain to try to introduce latin: I don't. Rather, I foresee the Ordinary Form of the Liturgy using both latin and the vernacular in a regular way. This means that there IS a great need for English chant settings.
However, I do think that a significant point has been brought up with reference to the adoption of pre-existing settings and Anglican tones. As is readily acknowledged, the latin chant settings were made for the latin words, and even modifying certain musical phrases and lines to "fit" the english will not create an ideal musical setting. That is why the Anglican tones developed as they did. They were a natural and organic development of chant that flowed from the switch to the vernacular.
This, however, does not mean that the present efforts are a waste of time. I think they provide a great service. The fact of the matter is that beautiful chant settings of the mass parts in english will not come out of thin air. They have to grow and build off of both a familiarity with the english words being sung and a familiarity with the latin chant settings that came before them. To this end, I see the present efforts as laying the groundwork, in a sense, for the great works that hopefully lie ahead. The work that has been done here will, at the very least, show young church musicians and proponents of chant that English chant can be done. The hope is that they will draw on this - and on what the Anglicans have done - to create something that is truly Catholic, truly beautiful, and (dare I say) truly modern that will fit organically with the Ordinary Form while reinforcing its continuity with tradition.
So from the bottom of my heart, thanks to everyone who has worked on this!
PS - on a personal side note, I particularly like the setting of Kyrie Simplex IV.
"Also, on the principle you've just stated, you should admit no adaptation whatsoever of Gregorian melodies."
That depends what you mean by adaptation. Any Gregorian melody can be adapted, as is, to any text with an identical metrical structure (leaving aside the suitability of the particular mode to that text). If a Gregorian melody is to be adapted to a text with a different metre, then I think you have to be flexible in terms of admitting changes to the melody. Because, unlike many composers of recent decades, we're not going to be changing the text to fit the music.
The goal should be beautiful and appropriate liturgical music -- even in the context of the vernaculer liturgy, so long as we're stuck with it --, not the construction of a halfway house in which to preserve and teach certain melodies until people start singing Latin again.
I notice that in the adaptations made so far there is no one complete Mass setting for all the ordinaries. Do you think this is possible? It seems to me desirable, if one is to preserve the Gregorian melodies in this way, to also preserve their compilation as unified liturgy. If congregations are eventually to make the transition to singing the original Latin, then they will need to learn to sing e.g. Mass IV, not a Kyrie from one setting, a Gloria from another, a Sanctus from a third, and so on. So the problem is not only to fit one text to one piece of music, but to fit four texts to a collection of four pieces of music.
"The point is to think like one of the old chant melodists..."
We agree on this. To me, thinking like a chant melodist implies analysing the metrical structure of the text, and also acknowledging that Latin and English are very different languages. Indeed, the whole notion of what constitutes metre is considered different in Latin and English prosody: in Latin, metre is traditionally analysed in terms of vowel length, whereas in English it is typically analysed in terms of syllable stress. I suspect that, in order to make sensible application of the conventions of Gregorian composition to the English texts, they will need to be analysed in terms of vowel length -- for instance, it seems a basic rule that a lengthened neume should not be applied to a short vowel -- but syllable stress cannot be ignored because it carries articulatory semantic weight in English.
How do we get to use Latin or Gregorian Chant when so many Bishops and Clergy are against it? I hear "loathe, hate, dislike, resistant, hesitant, unfamiliar, archaic". With all these adjectives how do you change the hearts of the people who make the decisions? I follow this site almost daily and love all the wonderous things I read, but in my local parish I see or hear nothing about it. I have inquired and was told to go to a TLM in NYC which I have for the last two years. And when checking into my local parishe"s" there is nothing new to be heard about anything I see on this site. I am grateful for all the useful and encouraging things you bring to all of us, and your knowledge, and as a non-combative lay person, I am sometimes appalled at the actions and attitudes of the people in charge. Latin study and its' uses would seem a logical option in any parish as a way to foster unity and tradition and yet I can not imagine it. To start with the basics you need a place to start. I think I will CC the Holy Father on this one and in the meantime I will keep in tune to this website for my studies. I am sorry if this goes off key but the more I learn the more I want to use. Thanks to all.
Mitch, my guess it takes an average 40 years to make changes in the Church. It takes 40 years to change the presbyterate. Think about it.
Most European congregations happily use plainchant in Latin - it seems to be a stigma of the English-speaking world. Perhaps it is part of our misgiven understanding that English is the world's first language when, in fact, we know it is now Spanish.
It would be wise to avoid introducing too much English chant in the parish. In my view the use of vernacular chant leads to an awkward position of having to use it forever - no chance of moving to Latin. Too, one would want to avoid teaching the faithful the chants in the vernacular if the parish intends to use the EF of the Mass where a vernacular ordinary is not an option.
What may be a suitable interrim is to begin to chant the Agnus Dei in Latin alongside one of the congregational settings. This way the faithful can become aquainted both with the chant and the Latin - the Agnus, especially, is a simple text to get used to.
This could easily be added to with the Kyrie - usually more musically challenging but another simple text. Develop this, then, to the Sanctus and Benedictus and finally the Gloria and, possibly, the Credo. One often finds the Gloria being used in chant but other parts of the ordinary not - this is fine if using Missa de Angelis or Missa orbis factor because they are well known but limits you to those settings and not the appropriate chants for the ordinary.
As for accompanied renditions - I am a firm believer that this is an entirely satisfactory way to perform chant. The finest ensembles, religious and congregations use accompaniment for performance of plainchant and it is certainly part of the modern chant tradition. The Solesmes reforms were based around the notion that most performances of the chant would be accompanied by an organ and this often adds a great deal to the singing. Few people are confident enough to sing out unless there is an organ accompaniment and the confidence gained whilst singing with an organ or other accompanying instrument, will pay dividends if the congregation ever wants to sing the ordinary at a simple celebration when an organist is unavailable.
http://picasaweb.google.es/
pcomu...951504959015394
How's about publishing an NLM hymnal when we do the switchover?
I am pleased (relieved even!) that my comment about organ accompaniment received some support. I hear much plainsong at Westminster Cathedral (almost entirely in Latin), and find it much 'warmer' when accompanied well on the organ. The professional choir tell me that it makes it no easier to sing with the organ, but I think it sounds better! I imagine that the congregation does find it easier to sing with the organ - indeed at Westminster, a few more stops are always pulled out to indicate when the congregation is expected to join in!
John H
I suspect that, in order to make sensible application of the conventions of Gregorian composition to the English texts, they will need to be analysed in terms of vowel length
Partly. I don't think chants were composed by any methodical mapping. (Psalm tones certainly were.) My sense is that chant antiphons were composed by thinking about the following, from global considerations to details:
- ferial or festal function
- liturgical function (introit, etc)
- structure of the text
- important phrases and words
- hexachord choice for different parts and words
- melodic gestures (some conventional, some referring to other chants, common endings)
- illustrative touches
- vowel sonorities
- rhythmic subtleties.
Just a theory. There's no way of knowing. I just think those Carolingians were extraordinary musicians, applied their Gallic sense of beauty to imported Old Roman (Greek) wildness, and came up with something nicely structured and fine. I'd like to think it was this spirit that eventually came down through the grand chant of the trouvères. That is, there's more at issue here than mapping things with attention to meter and assonance.
We agree that attention to detail is often critical. My suggestion is: so is a more holistic (and holy-istic) sense of musical gesture and line.
One last comment: the difficulties with English mainly lie in two things: 1) prepositional phrases, which tend to force a syllabic approach, and 2) the schwa sound, which is as ubiquitous as it is ugly. The great advantages of Latin are of course its sonorous vowels and its declensions, which make it concise and word-dense.
I am afraid that I agree with those who find these adaptations unconvincing - I have heard and accompanied many similar adaptations in "high" anglican churches in the UK and have very rarely found them satisfactory.
The shorter, more syllabic melodies seem to suit the english texts best. Maybe adaptations of the "Simplex" chants are the way forward. Or possibly, a more radical simplification of the Gregorian melodies, with a more syllabic style?
The early Anglican reformers insisted on the principle of "to every syllable a note". This was partly for didactic reasons - the text was of primary importance to the reformers, not the music. But it may also have reflected a deeper intuition about the difference between composing for Latin and for English words.
Incidentally, although some of the adaptations are note-for-note, some aren't. Lengthenings and other details have been simplified in one or two of the chants. If the idea is to make it easier to take up the latin versions when the time is right, surely the melodies have to be exactly the same?
And the adaptations make me wonder (once again) about the application of Solesmes rhythmic schemes to the chant. Some of the rhythmic alterations in these adaptations seem to imply a different scheme of "ictuses" or the abandonment of the ictus altogether. Personally I don't think this matters, but I am a little surprised to see Jeffrey endorsing these adaptations!
Pulsator, big sigh, I'm not endorsing them as a replacement for Latin. I'm suggesting that these are a great replacement for metrical English settings currently in use, as a means of transitioning to Latin.
Dear Jeffrey,
I think I understood that. I don't see where in my comments I suggested amything to the contrary.
If these versions are intended to assist a transition to the Latin settings, then it isn't helpful to change the melodies, or to introduce rhythmical variations.
If they are intended to stand alone as English settings, to be sung by congregations and to replace some of the terrible settings now in use, then greater latitude (and some simplification of the melodies to allow a more syllabic setting, better suited to the English language) might make them more singable.
I share your concern that there should be some music available for the new translation which respects the traditions of the Church. But I don't think that trying to force-fit new English words to ancient Latin chant is necessarily the right way to do it. A *slightly* freer adaptation might be the way to go. Please note the emphasis.
My comments aren't intended to be negative, but simply arise out of practical experience in the context of the high anglican tradition over in the UK. The most succesful adaptations of melismatic chants are not the strictest. There are lessons to be learnt from the Anglican experience.
But let the debate continue, and above all, let's not sigh at each other!
Best wishes,
Pulsator
Oh then I agree in general. My own preference is for a pure psalm tone setting of each of these new texts. I hope that is forthcoming.
The clef in Krie XII is in the wrong place
I hope that the links can be enabled anew. I would love to listen to them.
5 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
