I agree Jeffry
Ive tried using "by flowing waters" and found it very confusing and ultimately not worth it. The auther/composer does a very good job of wedding music and text and does make that horrible text work, nevertheless, when we have the excellent english graduale.
One thing ive noticed lately is simply how much fun it is to sing latin, particularly the ordinary. Theres a real connection with singing the exact words my ancestors used in their praise of God.
What parish, may I ask?
"By Living Waters" did not receive an Imprimatur because of its use of the NRSV. I listened to the official recording and was majorly turned off by the non-musicality of the settings.
If this is a youth choir, then you can make the propers the end rather than the start of a chant education that begins with the basics; ordinaries, hymns (especially Marian antiphons), and maybe learning to sing vespers for either Sundays or feastdays. That's how they would get chant into their bones.
This would also be the best way to introduce the congregation to chant. The pastor would also get comfortable enough with the music and its sound to want to do propers, I think.
English propers doesn't feel like chant, really. To me it is just an attempt to avoid singing chant in latin, and thus always sounded like a solution for a made-up problem.
Keep us posted on the success of this parish. I would love to do the same thing with the youth of my parish.
For those who are new to this resource, know that the vast majority of the Proper chants are set to the following psalm tones:
Introit: VII
Gradual: V
Alleluia: VI
Tract: VIII
Offertory: II
Communion: I
There are a few Englished Gregorian melodies; Laetare Sunday (Lent IV), Holy Week, Easter Vigil, Ascension, and a few others.
Any word on Fr. Samuel Weber OSB's project?
Re the "fa sharp": FWIW, Ford's adaptation sticks pretty closely to the original "Ad te, Domine" antiphon in the Graduale Simplex. I'm looking at the neumes: "do" corresponds to the note G in Ford's adaptation, so the F# is a ti, not a "fa sharp" and the "natural" in the next phrase is the ti flat we're all familiar with.
This may indeed be something "not quite Roman" but the antiphon in the G.S. in undoubtedly authentic chant, Mozarbic maybe? Whatever one thinks of the merits of the Graduale Simplex, authenticity was a non-negotiable criterion for the editors when selecting the antiphons.
Fa sharp mystery solved. I didn't have my simplex accessible when I was looking at it.
Ok, so that aside, I am musically unpersuaded that this reduction succeeds.
On the CD, Flowing Waters isn't my favorite but that CD makes it out to be far, far, far worse than it really is. That CD is from some other planet - some of the most bizarre renderings of any music for any occasion I've ever heard. I have no idea what that was all about.
another problem with "By flowing waters is that the melodies are, for the most part freely composed in a chant-like style or so freely based on existing chant as to render it practically as a new composition.
True to character, I have to chime in with a contrary position. I looked at the title and thought right away "why would anyone want to dump hymns?" Antiphons are all well and good, but let's keep in mind the pastoral value of hymnody. Hymns stay with you in a way that propers can't. I've gotten through many tight times with the words of "How Firm a Foundation". During this Advent season I'll probably be walking about humming "Hark! A Thrilling Voice is Sounding". Now this priest wants to deny youth the opportunity to learn "Veni, Emmanuel", "Salve Regina", and other universally memorable hymns? The eminent suitability and worth of chant aside, the liturgical use of antiphons has an almost fleeting quality to it. Not that the music loses its value (far from it!) but at least for me a good chant proper stays with me a week or two tops. I was thinking of the upcoming Advent III and I thought "what is that introit? Laudate? Laetare? Isn't it in mode 6?" And anyway chant isn't devotional music, it's ritual music. Yet it seems to me the children don't just need their liturgical sensibilities formed (although that is paramount for a youth Mass) but also their devotional sensibilities. Again I posit that antiphons bring one closer to God during the liturgy, but hymnody will keep one close to God throughout life. That's why I myself would favor a mix during these liturgies: alternate Introit with Entrance hymn weekly, Offertory hymn with a motet, and always sing a Communion antiphon and closing hymn. That gets 1-3 hymns per Mass without neglecting what's proper to the rite. Maybe a youth Mass would even be a good place to introduce a sung Graduale. It would help teach active receptivity.
As another critique, I'm shocked to see Jeff promote the English Gradual. Isn't that basically the Rossini propers in English? Every Introit to tone VII, every Communion to tone I. If you want to shoot yourself in the foot, the English Gradual is a good choice. And BFW isn't really a relevant comparison: it consists of seasonal antiphons rather than proper. Some of the music in there borders on trite, but is it much worse than recycling psalm tones every 2 weeks? At any rate, I don't think you're really giving it a fair shake. The NRSV leaves something to be desired, but it's not the worst possible nor would I say it's below the liturgy (at least in the current translation). Besides, there's the risk of scandal at using the KJV, as I believe the English Gradual does, and I sometimes find the switch from KJV English to ICEL jarring. I think NRSV avoids this without sinking to the level of ICEL.
And this strikes me as an area where pastoral judgment would be helpful. What are the goals here? Are you just going in and giving the youth the same liturgy as you would anyone else or are you considering the spiritual and catechetical goals for your specialized congregation? It seems to me that some goals could be
So, where can one find the English Gradual?
People who think 'Liturgical' English chants aren't "real" chant because it isn't in Latin, are liturgical snobs-get over it.
Mathew t curmudgeon
(I LOVE that name!)
I dont think anyone is saying that you cant chant in english. The "authentic" chant melodies are so deeply wedded to the latin text as to make translation and adaptation to english extreamly difficult (but not impossible-check out an episcopalian hymnal.)
Im also with Gaven a bit on this one. Sure hymns are the least desirable 3rd option but honestly, do you really think chants from the graduale can cover the time used in an average offertory or communion. No, I find that I usually have the time to sing a hymn, the offertory or communion chant and still have time for organ doodeling. The O.F. doesnt really have that seemless flow of action that the EF does and therefore its harder to make the propers fit as well in the liturgical action.
Besides, if we could just get rid of the crap, there is some vital beautiful hymnody that is really suited to the OF. (Again just peruse an episcopalian hymnal....and weep.)
No, I think with the OF, hymnody must remain a big part. There is however, no excuse for not doing the propers IN ADDITION to a hymn or anthem.
I hate to see By Flowing Waters getting a bad rap. Of course, its an English version of the Simple Gradual; two reasons for purists to frown upon it. But I don't see why it's a bad thing for a small church with a volunteer choir. I've been using By Flowing Waters at my church for over a year now, and it's been an invaluable resource. In a choir where reading modern notation is an issue, let alone neumes, BFW provides simple, singable antiphons that a choir, and even a congregation can master. At my parish, I use it frequently for communion antiphons, which sometimes correspond to the GR's antiphon and sometimes not. Either way, I think it's a better choice than doing the same communion hymns week after week. Next Sunday, and throughout the season of Advent, I will use BFW for entrance and communion chants, and once for offertory, and fill in the gaps with a psalm tone setting and of course, a selection of some wonderful Advent hymnody. I'm excited about it, and I don't think it's second rate music, especially for our parish.
I'd like to make one comment about the English gradual. The language is certainly beautiful and it is easy to sing. It would work very well in Anglican Use parishes, or in churches that want to do/can do full English propers every Sunday. For me, the AU gradual is a real possibility to fill in BFW's gaps. I urge church musicians to see both for what they are: excellent resources for when one wants to introduce sung propers. I'd argue that these are an even better starting point than Latin chant ordinaries. I've had much more success singing these than with teaching just one Latin ordinary. But every church is different.
Thanks for the support Don, although I'll temper my comments to say that I don't think hymns should ALWAYS be used, but that it's a must for youth, since they have to learn the hymnody. I'd advocate for most adults who have a firm knowledge of the good hymn repertory that hymns should be used outside the Mass with overwhelming preference in Mass given to the propers. It's a matter of what provides for the needs of the people best.
If I may go a bit off topic (but not much, I suppose) I don't think hymns and propers are as diametrically opposed as Jeff and many on here would say. Today's introit was "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor. To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever." I didn't have that introit but used the hymn "Crown Him with many crowns" - somewhat appropriate when you consider the theme of "the Lamb upon His throne". Even more appropriate is this English hymn by Isaac Watts I found in the New English Hymnal:
"Come, let us join our cheerful songs
with angels round the throne.
ten thousand thousand are their tongues,
but all their joys are one.
"Worthy the Lamb that died," they cry,
"to be exalted thus!"
"Worthy the Lamb," our hearts reply,
"for he was slain for us!"
Jesus is worthy to receive
honor and power divine;
and blessings more than we can give,
be, Lord, forever thine.
Let all that dwell above the sky,
and air, and earth, and seas,
conspire to lift thy glories high,
and speak thine endless praise!
The whole creation join in one,
to bless the sacred Name
of him who sits upon the throne,
and to adore the Lamb."
Why shouldn't this be considered appropriate for the Entrance? The music may not be as suitable as Gregorian chant, but the text is certainly just what the Church appointed for that part of today's liturgy! Not every part of every Mass has a hymn appropriate to it (unless you have a Scottish psalter available!) but when there is one available, why shouldn't such a hymn be considered "singing the Mass instead of singing at Mass"?
I said that English propers don't feel like chant; that's an opinion, obviously. But of course I also should clarifiy that by "chant" I mean Gregorian chant, and Gregorian chant in English doesn't feel like Gregorian chant - it feels like English plainchant, which is not the same. And one is neither a snob nor a purist in thinking that.
I always point out in lectures that there is no such thing as Gregorian chant that is not in Latin. It does not exist. So when V2 speaks of Gregorian chant, let there be no doubt that it means Latin chant.
So of course I'm sympathetic with much of what Gavin says. My "extremism" here is driven by the completely hymn-soaked liturgical culture of our times. And this business has divided our parishes in the most cruel way. No one can agree on what is a good hymn or a bad hymn. It opens up this can of worms called taste. I really see no end to it. Also I've seen how the protestants have engaged in a bloody and endless wars over what hymns to sing. We Catholics have a third option here that unites music to liturgy. We need to make this the foundational song.
Jeffrey,
A few years ago, a lady rang the porter's lodge here at Saint-Wandrille and asked if Mass was in gregorian chant. "Mais bien sūr!" (Why yes, of course) replied Brother Porter.
So she came to Mass the next day, and afterwards stormed into the lodge in high dudgeon because Mass was in Latin. It turned out that she was looking for a Mass in gregorian chant IN FRENCH.
Dear Gavin,
"Why shouldn't this be considered appropriate for the Entrance?"
Because the idea of unity in the Roman Rite is not preserved if every single Catholic chooses his own selection for every part of the Mass. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, would have been very good at choosing Scripture appropriate to each and every feast (Christmas, Easter, etc.) yet he was content to follow the Church's prescriptions. Let us follow his example.
Just a small clarification: Mark P. wrote:
"By Living Waters" did not receive an Imprimatur because of its use of the NRSV.
I assume you meant "By Flowing Waters". Second of all, I think you are confused about the imprimatur. Indeed, the NRSV has the imprimatur, as does the introductory material in By Flowing Waters (see the copyright page before the contents, unfortunately not listed in the Google online edition). Perhaps you were referring to the fact that BFW did not receive explicit endorsement by the USCCB because of its use of the NRSV, but that is much different matter from whether it has an imprimatur or not.
The "online edition" of BFW (at least the one I downloaded) is not complete, and I could not print any of the pages - just like any other book that is previewed on Google. (So it looks like you still have to buy the hard copy of the book!)
Yes, I've found that too on Google.
I think Gavin has put his finger on the essential difference between propers and hymns: the former are liturgical, the latter are devotional.
Now, I think the best way to give each music its due place would be to restore the devotional life of our parishes. Bring back regular novenas, benediction, vespers, etc., and let hymns flourish there, in devotional settings. And let propers be used at Mass.
However, lest the best be enemy of the good, I submit the example of my small congregation as a way of having one's cake and eating it too 
At each Sunday and Holy Day Mass we begin with a hymn during procession into church. Thurifer (and crucifer if we have sufficient servers), schola, other servers, deacon (if available) and priest. The priest censes the altar as the hymn finishes (all verses of course), and at the conclusion of the hymn, the precentor begins the introit (from the Anglican Use Gradual, referred to above as the English Gradual). At the conclusion of the introit, the priest begins the Mass with "Blessed be God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
(OK, yes, it's an Anglican Use congregation).
We chant a psalm using Anglican Chant after the first reading; following the second reading the schola chants the gradual and the alleluia.
After the homily, creed, intercessions, confession, and peace, the schola chants the offertory verse, and the congregation then sings a hymn.
After the schola receives communion, we chant the communion verse, and following communion, the congregation sings a hymn.
And, following the final prayers and blessing, all sing a recessional (on Sundays this is followed by the Angelus or Regina Caeli, as we finish just before noon).
And so propers and hymns are both used.
In addition, we have choral evensong about once per month, and in December will have both Advent lessons and carols on Advent Sunday and Christmas lessons and carols on Holy Family. There's no shortage of opportunity to sing well-beloved hymns, but the propers are still done.
Granted, the sameness of the melodies in the AU Gradual are not for the purist. But for a group getting started or with a small schola (or just one chanter) it is ideal. And it is also a work in progress. David Burt, who puts this out, does all the work on his own, and beyond revising to get rid of mistakes and add feast days, he is not adverse to making more melodies available, but this is time consuming, as you can imagine.
========
As for hymns being sung through completely, I first encountered this at a parish in Vermont when we moved there; the organist was a convert from the Congregational Church, and made it clear that hymns would be sung through completely. The parish had no problem falling in line 
To avoid confusion, I think we should note that the ANGLICAN USE GRADUAL is not the same book as the ENGLISH GRADUAL and its supplements:
http://www.amazon.com/English-Gr...s/dp/
0854021175
The failure of most opening hymns, particularly in Ordinary Time, is that they lack sufficient generality. They over-specify the mystery of the day. Either they are lectionary-driven, or thematically-driven in some other way.
How could such a hymn match the basic, general Christian sentiment of, say, the introit of the 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, "The Lord says: my plans for you are peace and not disaster; when you call to me, I will listen to you, and I will bring you back to the place from which I exiled you."
Beowulf, I understand your sentiment, but isn't the mentioned hymn the same as the Introit? Do you contest that because it is in metric form? Would you also have the use of psalm tones, recto tono, or polyphony banned from the propers so that everyone is singing the same thing? And while you're at it, better ban accompaniment and the Semiology method. I have a hard time seeing such an objection as other than liturgical fundamentalism: do everything according to the most over-strict interpretation of the letter, otherwise it's an aberration. If you really want everyone conforming to everyone else in such an extreme manner, I don't see why such strict requirements shouldn't be applied to the music as well as the text. I still assert that the listed hymn is a suitable replacement for the Introit since it maintains the scripture text and gives the exact same eschatalogical character to the liturgy as the proper text.
Steve, I'm always green with envy at Anglican Use parishes. Laslo Dzobzay, in a chapter of "The Bugnini-Liturgy" suggests something similar to what you describe. It's a wonderful idea, but in any parish that DOESN'T have an Anglican tradition it wouldn't work well since we all know how much RC's hate to sing a whole hymn :P
Kathy, I'd suggest the failure isn't so much with the hymns as it is with the lectionary. One of the few points with which I agree with the tear-apart-the-new-Mass-and-make-a-half-
Tridentine-or-maybe-entirely-Tridentine crowd in the Reform of the Reform is the assertion that the new lectionary is a big huge mistake. We have Introits which have nothing to do with the liturgy of the day. It's almost better to program hymns as total replacements of the propers since the propers of the new lectionary are so randomly thrown together.
Gavin,
What I'm suggesting is that very little of the Liturgy of the Day, in Ordinary Time, has to do with the Lectionary.
Introits generally sound like this: Help me, Lord, or I'm in real trouble.
Lukacs,
I thought David Burt's Anglican Use Gradual WAS the English Gradual re-est in Gregorian notation!
At Ascension & St. Agnes in DC, we used the Palmer Propers, English set to the proper Gregorian melodies (St. Mary's Press, Wantage).
Kathy,
I'm looking at a Tridentine Missal right now and that Introit, in its original context (24 after Pentecost), fits the Mass quite well. The collect asks God to "look mercifully upon our weakness" and asks His protection. The Epistle tells us vengeance is of the Lord and the Gradual speaks of the same vengeance and deliverance. Then the Gospel is Jesus healing the lepers. "De Profundis" for Offertory and a soothing "Amen dico vobis" for the Communion. I wouldn't call any of that generic, whoever compiled those propers knew exactly what he was doing. Only in the new lectionary do we have propers that we have to say "well, it's just a generic introit." One almost has to ask if my own Entrance selection of "Come, Ye Thankful People" is in fact BETTER than that of the lectionary, given the pervasive end times character of the rest of the lectionary for the day.
Kathy and Gavin,
I am not going to put a dog into this fight, but I thought I would at least mention that there seems to be a general consensus amongst chant experts that the texts of "Ordinary" Time are not thematic in nature.
This becomes quite apparent when the musician picks a hymn that deals with one aspect of a reading, and the priest, preaching on the same reading, ends up miles away (without rambling, that is...). For whatever that's worth, it might be an argument for charging the priest with selecting the hymns.
No!! Anything but that!!!
Btw, where can I find a book of Introits in English? Not psalms, not hymns, just the introit itself?
Michael, I encourage my priest to request hymns when he wants them for his sermon, but so far he hasn't really bitten. Frankly, I find the idea that hymns ought to reflect the sermon to be extremely protestant. That's how it was in many protestant churches I worked in (and the pastor picked the hymns as well). I look at hymns as needing to harmonize with the readings (this is of course secondary to fitting them to the propers). If my boss and I have different ideas about what the readings say, well no one was ever hurt by more than one facet of readings so long as they don't flatly contradict the priest! I suppose the topic of how one wisely chooses hymns is ripe for a post...
Actually, this is one reason when I and a colleague programmed hymns (propers being forbidden where we volunteered) over several years, we deliberately *avoided* what we called "echo hymns" - hymns that repeated (or very closely paraphrased) the lectionary texts of the day.
First, we believed the lectionary texts should able to speak for themselves.
Second, we wanted to make sure cherry picking the texts to echo didn't end up being at cross purposes with the homily.
Third, we programmed with groups of Sundays in mind - the lectionary in Ordinary Time is pretty largely (if not entirely) organized in such a way. So we would choose a palette of hymn texts for those Sundays that would underscore this. That means you might hear an anticipation of next Sunday's readings in this Sunday's hymns, or vice versa (that is, an echo of last Sunday's readings in this Sunday's hymns). Et cet. Over the years, people surprisingly "got it" and appreciated not being treated as children who had to sing "Blessed Are They" on All Saints Day in order to anchor the Beatitudes....
Liam
excellent point. Its easy to program the same hymns for the same readings. not a bad thing in and of itself but your right, people really dont need to be "hit over the head" with it.
"t's a wonderful idea, but in any parish that DOESN'T have an Anglican tradition it wouldn't work well since we all know how much RC's hate to sing a whole hymn :P"
Gavin,
I'm not sure that RCs do hate to sing the whole hymn (but it does seem that many RC priests do hate the practice). As I mentioned, the parish in Vermont, Queen of Peace, where I lived for 5 years sang all the verses all the time. The people get used to it. Most practicing Catholics, I think, are willing to accept a very wide range of practice (how else to explain the last several decades?). They are not the "enemies" of the reform of the reform...it's the clergy (well, some of them, there're lots of allies there too), the professional "liturgists" and "pastoral musicians", and the music companies and others who have a vested financial interest in keeping things twirling about that stand against the re-enchantment of the liturgy.
Start with one hymn, sung through complete, and gradually add the others, and in a year's time the people will sing all with no problem. Just figure out how to catechize or bribe the pastor and a music director is all set OR, balance all those long hymns with some nice short proper verses
Commenting by HaloScan
