Can't bear another Hurd / Haas / etc hymn

[27lw]

If people here want more Gregorian chant, I encourage them to start or join a schola, or support one, as we all operate on shoestring budgets. Much more productive than complaining about it.

I think it’s helpful for people to know that they are not alone in their unhappiness with the music at the average American catholic parish. If the music director and priest are not amenable to the idea of chant, and you have to attend that parish because one’s children go to the parish school, then it’s not easy to start a schola.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Hmm. That’s an interesting thought. The council fathers wrote that chant and the organ should have pride of place, and you think that that means we should put them away in a cupboard, and not use them? They’re not like china or crystal, they won’t get broken if you use them.

As Ora Labora has already well said it, they are used in the universal Church. It is not a matter of putting them in a cupboard but it is a matter of acknowledging that they are a very expensive resource. They are used in the Congregation of Solesmes, where I enjoy making retreats.

They are also used in our great cathedrals in Europe, where I am. I hasten to add that our cathedrals possess resources and possibilities that the smaller churches could never begin to aspire to. For example, with the Regensburger Dom. The music is indeed beautiful and a splendid aspect of the liturgy – but it cannot simply be replicated anywhere and everywhere.

Moreover, we also make sure that more inclusive music is used…in terms of what instruments are played as well as that what is sung by the liturgical assembly accords with full, conscious and active participation.

Outside of the cathedral and our very largest parishes in my diocese, we are cognizant of other uses for the available limited resources and our programmes reflect that.

 

[27lw]

As Ora Labora has already well said it, they are used in the universal Church. It is not a matter of putting them in a cupboard but it is a matter of acknowledging that they are a very expensive resource. They are used in the Congregation of Solesmes, where I enjoy making retreats.

They are also used in our great cathedrals in Europe, where I am. I hasten to add that our cathedrals possess resources and possibilities that the smaller churches could never begin to aspire to. For example, with the Regensburger Dom. The music is indeed beautiful and a splendid aspect of the liturgy – but it cannot simply be replicated anywhere and everywhere.

Moreover, we also make sure that more inclusive music is used…in terms of what instruments are played as well as that what is sung by the liturgical assembly accords with full, conscious and active participation.

Outside of the cathedral and our very largest parishes in my diocese, we are cognizant of other uses for the available limited resources and our programmes reflect that.

Well, somehow monastic communities in medieval times managed to learn and sing chant.
Well, in this day, there are many many FREE quality Internet sites that can help parishes use chant. I dare say it would be more expensive to bring in the mixers, amps, microphones etc. that the pop-style “liturgical music” requires.

If the Council fathers wrote that chant and organ should have pride of place, then why not try to use them? I’m sorry but I disagree with your arguments.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Well, somehow monastic communities in medieval times managed to learn and sing chant.
Well, in this day, there are many many FREE quality Internet sites that can help parishes use chant. I dare say it would be more expensive to bring in the mixers, amps, microphones etc. that the pop-style “liturgical music” requires.

If the Council fathers wrote that chant and organ should have pride of place, then why not try to use them? I’m sorry but I disagree with your arguments.

Monastic communities today still do – although many use other forms of chant which are less demanding since their lives have other aspects

As for disagreeing with my arguments, since I was the parish priest making the decision, I really was not that moved by those who disagreed with my decisions…unless of course they were interesting in totally underwriting the endeavour. Very few times did that happen…and never related to music but rather to art. Art is a one time expenditure. Music expenditures are continuous and they can mount up quickly as well as often.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Exactly, and Gregorian chant is alive and well around the world, in daily active use in monasteries, among other places. As many here know I chant in a schola that uses it for the Ordinary Form liturgy. On Thursday I will be attending the Gregorian Institute of Canada’s annual 3 day colloquium, hosted this year at the Benedictine abbey of St-Benoit-du-Lac abbey in Quebec, where Gregorian chant is a daily part of the Ordinary Form Mass and Divine Office.

If people here want more Gregorian chant, I encourage them to start or join a schola, or support one, as we all operate on shoestring budgets. Much more productive than complaining about it.

I have such fond memories of St-Benoit-du-Lac.

 

[27lw]

Monastic communities today still do – although many use other forms of chant which are less demanding since their lives have other aspects

.

Are you implying that the music portions of Vatican II documents apply to monastic communities, but not parishes?

 

[pnewton]

If the Council fathers wrote that chant and organ should have pride of place, then why not try to use them? I’m sorry but I disagree with your arguments.

The problem with proof-texting is that it extends beyond using isolated Bible verses. In this case the Second Vatican Council produced considerable more than this one sentence fragment. In my own parish, we do not use an organ (no rich donor, or money for a professional organist), but we did contribute to the new co-Cathedral and one of most beautiful organs ever. It truly has a “place of pride in the Church,” even though we do not use it in the parish.

 

[pnewton]

Are you implying that the music portions of Vatican II documents apply to monastic communities, but not parishes?

What you wrote applies, as it says, to the Church, not to individual parishes.

Might I as you why you care what another parish does whose doors you will never darken?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Are you implying that the music portions of Vatican II documents apply to monastic communities, but not parishes?

I don’t imply anything.

Rather, I taught the documents of Vatican II for many many years. I did not teach by implication.

I was, in this instance, replying to your post in which you said that medieval monastic communities executed chant. So do contemporary monastic communities…often enough choosing something other than Gregorian chant.

Parishes, however, are not monastic communities. Those who sing in parish choirs are also not monastics who are blessed with the possibilities that a monastic vocation affords.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The problem with proof-texting is that it extends beyond using isolated Bible verses. In this case the Second Vatican Council produced considerable more than this one sentence fragment. In my own parish, we do not use an organ (no rich donor, or money for a professional organist), but we did contribute to the new co-Cathedral and one of most beautiful organs ever. It truly has a “place of pride in the Church,” even though we do not use it in the parish.

Indeed.

Your post about proof-texting reminds me of another reality that is a complete mystery to me.

People will speak of Vatican II as if it happened in a vacuum and detached from our daily reality and as if there were a disconnect between those who brought the documents into being and those who implemented them.

The Fathers of the Council were the Bishops of the world. After each of the sessions, they came home to us who were waiting for them and, together, what was enacted at the Council was implemented at home.

I remember it as a quite wonderful time, actually. And I remember the Council Fathers and the periti with such great esteem.

I have a quite vivid memory of how readily the vernacular was embraced. The Bishops were pleased, as were the people.

Beyond that, for so many years, I had only to turn to my bishop to ask “What did you all intend when you decreed…” and the answer would be invariably accompanied by a wonderful story of some episode from the relevant session that then became part of my own treasure trove when I eventually had teaching as part of my assignment.

 

[OraLabora]

I think it’s helpful for people to know that they are not alone in their unhappiness with the music at the average American catholic parish. If the music director and priest are not amenable to the idea of chant, and you have to attend that parish because one’s children go to the parish school, then it’s not easy to start a schola.

Our schola is not attached to a specific parish, though one parish does allow us to use their church for rehearsing. We rotate each month to different parishes in the archdiocese to bring chant to folks who couldn’t otherwise hear it. Doing this does not appear to offend any music director sensibilities; we’re seen as a “special occasion”, and often we are most welcome as we give the regular choir a break. So there are ways of approaching this if you “think outside the (parish) box”. We also do occasional concerts/recitals, and we chant in senior’s residences and hospitals. Other than the concerts, always in the context of the liturgy (either Mass or solemn Vespers). The concerts have their own dynamic as they bring people into the church building who wouldn’t otherwise go, or expose them to chant when we chant in other venues.

We even have a few groupies who will always turn up at whatever parish we’re singing at that month.

If people are unhappy, grumbling won’t help. One needs to step up to the plate!

Hmm. That’s an interesting thought. The council fathers wrote that chant and the organ should have pride of place, and you think that that means we should put them away in a cupboard, and not use them? They’re not like china or crystal, they won’t get broken if you use them.

Mangled Gregorian chant certainly sounds “broken”. It takes a considerable amount of skill to sing Gregorian chant, especially the propers and more complex settings of the Ordinary. Doing it right means putting together a schola, and working hard at it! Ours has been in existence for 20 years; I’ve been a member for 15. We started with simpler Mass settings and used the same propers often until we had them down pat and could move on to more complex settings. We started with organ accompaniment, and as our skills improved we graduated to a cappella.

So get moving, do something! It. Won’t. Happen. All. By. Itself.

 

[otjm]

Well, somehow monastic communities in medieval times managed to learn and sing chant.

Perhaps you might be considering a vocation to the professed life. Our Lady of Guadalupe Trappist Abbey certainly would gladly have some new blood. But given the age of the majority of the monks - 75 and older - you may not be impressed with their chanting; they do the best they can, but it is certainly not like 40 years ago. oh, and a hint: they sang chant because that is how they did the Office, with from one to three segments done in the night. The chant rolled over to Mass parts; not the other way around.

Well, in this day, there are many many FREE quality Internet sites that can help parishes use chant. I dare say it would be more expensive to bring in the mixers, amps, microphones etc. that the pop-style “liturgical music” requires.

I am old enough to remember the syrupy hymns we had when I was a kid - back to the early 1950’s, and I can most definitely assure you that the music we have now is far better musically than back then. And if you might bother yourself, you might find that the majority, if not the greater majority of the texts are from Scripture. I do not consider that “pop” music, and I take umbrage with what I perceive to be a very egalitarian remark.

There is the old, old phrase “he who sings, prays twice.”… Gregorian chant is not meant for the people in the pews, as it takes a bit more than watching a YouTube demonstration. I know - I sang in a schola in 1965 when we cut a record (yeah, ancient history) of Gregorian Chant at Mt. Angel Seminary.

If the Council fathers wrote that chant and organ should have pride of place, then why not try to use them? I’m sorry but I disagree with your arguments.

For several reasons, the first being that GC is not meant for the congregation to sing. The second being that even though participation seems low, people in the pews generally do not object to singing by the congregation and modern Christian music is something which can be sung without slaughtering it.

As to organs, there are fewer and fewer people studying organ. The net result is that you can get someone to hack on it, but it is much harder to find someone who can actually play it as it is intended. If organ and/or chant is poorly done, it no longer has pride of place; it has become pedestrian or worse.

It is hard enough to get people to turn out for a choir - no matter what music they are to sing. It is even harder to get people who actually can sing without the aid of a tub with a lid on it, in which to carry their notes. and then there is the matter of a music director and accompanist, and costs, and time commitments, and showing up for almost all the Masses that year in that time slot.

And that does not begin to mention that parishes have their likes and dislikes; you may find that you particularly like GC. and maybe you might find a handful of others; but if the parish does not like it, that dog ain’t gonna to hunt. On the other hand, there may be a parish somewhere near you that might like GC; and if you can actually sing on key, you might want to turn out for their choir, or if they have one, a schola.

The reality is that the Church retains both organ and chant, but it is far more selective than it was, say, in 1962, or 1955. it is available, and generally very very well done, in select locations (such as our archdiocesan cathedral) and in select other parishes. And it is select for the primary reason that most people don’t want that; and the secondary reasons that are enumerated above.

I don’t have a problem with chant. I most definitely am not in favor of chant poorly done (and I will except the monks, having just finished a 4 day retreat at the Abbey). and even at the cathedral, what we often have is plain chant, not Gregorian. As to the Abbey, it is plain chant. In fact, if there is anything particular I miss from my time in the seminary, it is chanting Lauds and Vespers in community. In English.

My suggestion is that you do something - or at least try to do something, rather than going on forums and complaining. You might accomplish more than you expect. Or you may find, as I have noted, that few if any are interested, particularly if it means they have to commit to time and effort with you. In either event, it will have more value to you than sharing electrons of lament with others, and changing nothing.

 

[OraLabora]

Are you implying that the music portions of Vatican II documents apply to monastic communities, but not parishes?

The documents of Vatican II apply to the Church as a whole. The Church is made up of many elements with varying degrees of skill. Gregorian chant, sung well, is a beauty to behold. Sung poorly, with voices out of sync, is pure misery. It’s not for nothing that we basically tell newbies to “lip sync” when they start with us, or to sing very softly until they master the ability to blend their voice into the entire schola’s, to breathe at the right places, and, and this most important to read the music in square note notation.

Then there’s the money issue. Chant books aren’t cheap. I know, I have a collection that would basically allow me to chant, in Latin, any Benedictine Monastic Office or Mass since the great reform of Chant at the end of the 19th Century (and quite a bit of the Roman Office as well). I built it up over time, some bought, some given, some scoured off second-hand book shelves. But you will need those resources to put together the music for any given Mass. And that means $ which is why I said to support a schola, if you don’t feel you can sing in one. Beyond the books, they have to print out score sheets for the choir and faithful, buy binders, etc. Of course many choirs have those expenses as well, but at around $90 a pop, Solesmes books (the main source for chant), ain’t cheap.

You also have to understand the different realities of monks, and a parish’s Sunday choir. The latter get together maybe once a week or so to rehearse, and then for Mass itself. If you’re like us, we get together twice a month to rehearse, and once for Mass or whatever it is we’re singing.

For monks, the liturgy is every single day, multiple times a day. In the abbey I belong to as oblate, 7 times a day in fact. It becomes second nature, almost mechanical. As I attend offices and Mass frequently, I can usually hear when someone makes a mistake in psalmody or some other chant. It takes years to reach that point. It takes even more years for a choirmaster to not only hear the mistake, but point at the monk who made it! I can tell who it is because when I hear the mistake I look up to see who’s on his knees (monks must make satisfaction by kneeling for a moment when they make a mistake in the liturgy). The choirmaster can pin-point it even before the monk gets down on his knees.

Pride of place does not mean every place, every time. If you’re having burgers with your pick-up hockey buddies, you won’t be hauling out the fine china. But if your parish priest comes over for tea, you probably will.

 

[otjm]

I actually did express what it should be by linking to the Wesleyan criteria. You may feel free to disagree, and that’s worthy as its own discussion.

What criteria, standards, or definitions do you have for good liturgical music? Or does anything go?

My point in that last link is that everyone has some idea of what music is ideal for Mass. It’s probably time for Catholics to have a productive conversation about this.

I’m referring to self-centeredness and individualism. I’d argue that there’s a huge emphasis on that among American Christians of many stripes.
Quiet* time, not private. Obviously Mass isn’t private. But depending on the priest, it is often interspersed with moments of silent reverence. Ideally, the Eucharist would be one of them.

I’m sorry to have hit a nerve.

No nerve hit.

Self-centeredness and individualism are not exactly something new; they have been around since - oh, maybe Cain and Abel?

Our parish has a choir of maybe 15 to 20, including the director and the pianist. and they generally have two hymns during Communion, and at the end, a period of silence befor the pastor starts the ending of the Mass. So yes, it can be done. Some don’t like the second hymn; some might prefer no hymns. And what most people don’t get is that standing from the Agnus Dei through Communion and returning to the pew (as the GIRM stated last time I looked) is because we are in procession all of that time. and if anyone has paid any attention to a procession, those who have arrived at their place reamin standing until all others processing have arrived. However, (with thanks to Cardinal George) Rome has indicated that once back in the pew, kneeling or sitting is optional (which I appreciate). Not that most people have ever heard much explanation as to the whats and whys of that segment of the Mass.

as to criteria for good liturgical music, I have no education in the matter, and what little I have observed is that those with advanced degrees in liturgical music are not all of one mind. I am old enough to remember some of the sing-songy music we had as children in the 1950’s (and how my pastor really did not like some of it, a la certain evening devotions). And even with no significant background in music other than listening to music most of the day, I can vouch that the OCP music is better than what we had then; not only for the music, but also for the texts, which largely are from scripture.

 

[otjm]

For what it is worth: Schola cantorum de Venezuela was performing this year in the Oregon Bach Festival in Eugene. No clue as to what they were singing, but I would guess if they have traveled from Venezuela to sing, they probably did a professional job of it.

 

[27lw]

The documents of Vatican II apply to the Church as a whole. The Church is made up of many elements with varying degrees of skill. Gregorian chant, sung well, is a beauty to behold. Sung poorly, with voices out of sync, is pure misery. It’s not for nothing that we basically tell newbies to “lip sync” when they start with us, or to sing very softly until they master the ability to blend their voice into the entire schola’s, to breathe at the right places, and, and this most important to read the music in square note notation.

I agree that chant can be difficult. But I have heard parishes sing chant just fine, such as the chanted version of the Our Father.
Pop or rock-style “liturgical music” done badly isn’t exactly a picnic either, and can actually be so amplified that it is painful to listen to.

Then there’s the money issue. Chant books aren’t cheap. I know, I have a collection that would basically allow me to chant, in Latin, any Benedictine Monastic Office or Mass since the great reform of Chant at the end of the 19th Century (and quite a bit of the Roman Office as well). I built it up over time, some bought, some given, some scoured off second-hand book shelves. But you will need those resources to put together the music for any given Mass. And that means $ which is why I said to support a schola, if you don’t feel you can sing in one. Beyond the books, they have to print out score sheets for the choir and faithful, buy binders, etc. Of course many choirs have those expenses as well, but at around $90 a pop, Solesmes books (the main source for chant), ain’t cheap.

It’s amazing what can be found for free on the Internet.
musicasacra.com/resource-lists/

You also have to understand the different realities of monks, and a parish’s Sunday choir. The latter get together maybe once a week or so to rehearse, and then for Mass itself. If you’re like us, we get together twice a month to rehearse, and once for Mass or whatever it is we’re singing.
For monks, the liturgy is every single day, multiple times a day. In the abbey I belong to as oblate, 7 times a day in fact. It becomes second nature, almost mechanical. As I attend offices and Mass frequently, I can usually hear when someone makes a mistake in psalmody or some other chant. It takes years to reach that point. It takes even more years for a choirmaster to not only hear the mistake, but point at the monk who made it! I can tell who it is because when I hear the mistake I look up to see who’s on his knees (monks must make satisfaction by kneeling for a moment when they make a mistake in the liturgy). The choirmaster can pin-point it even before the monk gets down on his knees.

Right - - I’m sure that chant is expertly done and a real work of art, and prayer, when done by a community that chants together daily. That’s a wonderful and beautiful thing! But what’s the expression, “don’t let the perfect by the enemy of the good”. That’s not to say that chant can never be done by anyone else.

Pride of place does not mean every place, every time. If you’re having burgers with your pick-up hockey buddies, you won’t be hauling out the fine china. But if your parish priest comes over for tea, you probably will.

Pretty sure that parish priest is at every Mass I’ve been to. And I don’t advocate chant for the hockey team. So, I guess the question is, what does “pride of place” mean? I don’t see in the document “for those large parishes, cathedral, or monastic communities that can afford strong music programs”. For a lot of parishes, “pride of place” meant - - let’s literally NEVER use them. Lock them and up and throw away the key! Do bring in the drumkits, amps, bass guitar, and bongos. That just doesn’t seem like “pride of place” to me.

 

[27lw]

What you wrote applies, as it says, to the Church, not to individual parishes.

Might I as you why you care what another parish does whose doors you will never darken?

Because I care about quality music? Because it bothers me that more generations of kids are growing up not knowing their heritage of amazing church music? Because we’ll have to keep having these battles for decades to come in some places - - because the kids are being formed to think that bongos at Mass are normal and to be desired?

If weird things are happening at a parish whose doors you may never darken, wouldn’t you care?

 

[27lw]

Perhaps you might be considering a vocation to the professed life. Our Lady of Guadalupe Trappist Abbey certainly would gladly have some new blood. But given the age of the majority of the monks - 75 and older - you may not be impressed with their chanting; they do the best they can, but it is certainly not like 40 years ago. oh, and a hint: they sang chant because that is how they did the Office, with from one to three segments done in the night. The chant rolled over to Mass parts; not the other way around.

I a married mother of school-age kids. I don’t think the Trappists would want me to join. Thanks, though!

I am old enough to remember the syrupy hymns we had when I was a kid - back to the early 1950’s, and I can most definitely assure you that the music we have now is far better musically than back then. And if you might bother yourself, you might find that the majority, if not the greater majority of the texts are from Scripture. I do not consider that “pop” music, and I take umbrage with what I perceive to be a very egalitarian remark.

Don’t think I advocated going back to the syrupy hymns of the 1950s, did I?

 

[OraLabora]

I agree that chant can be difficult. But I have heard parishes sing chant just fine, such as the chanted version of the Our Father.

Yes but those are simple settings. Try a mode V gradual… or worse a mode III or VII gradual (those are comparatively rarer), or a complex offertory. There is a book, the Graduale Simplex with simpler chants though. I agree that simpler Mass settings of the Ordinary are within reach, for instance the Kyrie of mass XVI, and Sanctus and Agnus Dei of Mass XVIII are very simple and the Gloria of Mass XV is easy; then one could move up to Mass XI for instance (variant A of the Kyrie is quite simple); Mass VIII is also fairly well-known (enough that I’m sick of hearing it and moreover it is more neo-Gregorian than Gregorian chant as it is a late composition).

But to expect that all the propers or more complex Mass settings will be sung every Sunday in every parish is simply unrealistic…

It’s amazing what can be found for free on the Internet.
musicasacra.com/resource-lists/

Those resources are good to get started and print out music sheets, but it is very difficult to work with a book that is a PDF image, as it’s not searchable. Moreover I chant the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin daily (currently using a monastic version), and it is much easier from a book, but that is another issue. The choirmaster will always have the book version of the Graduale Romanum on him (as do several choristers like myself) as it is much easier to find things in it, for example we might want to look up a similar chant that we’ve done before to help with the one we’re working on when we hit a sticky point.

Right - - I’m sure that chant is expertly done and a real work of art, and prayer, when done by a community that chants together daily. That’s a wonderful and beautiful thing! But what’s the expression, “don’t let the perfect by the enemy of the good”. That’s not to say that chant can never be done by anyone else.

Not even the monks are perfect, as I noted they make mistakes. But they’re pretty darned good. At the minimum, the voices must blend, and everyone be on pitch. As chant isn’t metered, it takes practice. Bad chant is hard on the ears. In good chant, you can’t hear individual voices, it sounds like one collective voice is singing and it is the one thing our schola really works hard at. I also have a pet peeve: English accents in chant. Anglophones just can’t seem to roll their r’s. Salvay Wraygeena just doesn’t sound right to me… but that’s my problem!

Then there’s the matter of active participation, which Vatican II also wants. That limits you to the simpler settings, and singing a offertory or introit… forget it. Even pre-Vatican II the laity didn’t sing those parts (and not even the Ordinary unless it was dialogue Mass), and in monastic communities, the more complex parts (the verse of the Gradual for instance) are left to the schola cantorum and not all the monks.

Pretty sure that parish priest is at every Mass I’ve been to. And I don’t advocate chant for the hockey team. So, I guess the question is, what does “pride of place” mean? I don’t see in the document “for those large parishes, cathedral, or monastic communities that can afford strong music programs”. For a lot of parishes, “pride of place” meant - - let’s literally NEVER use them. Lock them and up and throw away the key! Do bring in the drumkits, amps, bass guitar, and bongos. That just doesn’t seem like “pride of place” to me.

Pride of place means just what it means. There is NO requirement that it be used in every parish. There IS a requirement that it be preserved and used in appropriate circumstances by choirs/scholas with appropriate experience. One needs to consider the entire context of Sacrosanctum Concilium itself, but also in the wider context of other Vatican II documents.

At the risk of sounding uncharitable, I’ll say it again DO something about it, if you’re not happy with the situation. It is what I did, and many others like myself. It is not going to “Rorate caeli de super et nubes pluant cantus” on you. Choirs that do a good job of chant, invest time and effort into it and need interested and involved people to keep it going. We joke in our schola that it is like vocations (and I sort of have the informal role of “novice master” in that the choirmaster places newbies next to me so I can help them find their way and so they can adjust their voices to mine)

 

[pnewton]

Because I care about quality music? Because it bothers me that more generations of kids are growing up not knowing their heritage of amazing church music?

I understand the second reasoning, though I would point out that it doesn’t take changing everything to teach. As one poster pointed out, the choir that travels and provides chant on a rotating and occasional basis exposes children to the heritage of the Church.

The first reason I do not get. Poorly performed chant is of lower quality than expertly performed hymns, unless you are defining “quality” in a more personal manner, in which case, it comes back to why you would care about that which you never listen to.

I have no doubt that your children are exposed to the heritage of the Church, as are mine. I really am hesitant though to raise the children of others based on the way I raise my own. I have no doubt that people like you do a lot to patronize the arts and help raise the quality of liturgy in your own home. Consider this from the perspective of musicians. They have a priest and a houseful of parishioners to consider. They cannot be concerned with whether their selections are considered quality to everyone else in the world. It simply is not reasonable and is contrary to subsidiarity.

If weird things are happening at a parish whose doors you may never darken, wouldn’t you care?

I do not consider hymn choice to be a “weird thing,” at least not the ones under discussion here.