CHANT - Easy or Hard?

[PeterT]

The other thing is that the place to start with chant is to learn a Mass that the congregation will do over and over again. That also gets it in your ear.

This, one thousand times over!

Chant or songs, a main reason there’s less and less participation the congregation in singing (or chanting) is that choirs too often sing something new each and every week. Repetition is the key if one wants the congregation at large to join in.

 

[PetraG]

This, one thousand times over!

Chant or songs, a main reason there’s less and less participation the congregation in singing (or chanting) is that choirs too often sing something new each and every week. Repetition is the key if one wants the congregation at large to join in.

There is always that balance of repeating often enough so that the piece is familiar without repeating it so often that it becomes tiresome. One of the marks of really good music, however, is that it bears far more repetition without getting boring.

 

[GordonP]

Repetition is the key if one wants the congregation at large to join in.

Chant was not designed with congregational singing in mind. Congregational singing is a recent introduction to the Catholic liturgy. During the heyday of chant, there was minimal congregational participation of any kind in the liturgy. It was almost totally and strictly a clerical affair.

Chant was developed with choir monks and cathedral canons in mind. They prayed the hours for up to eight hours a day, and sometimes a lot more. Constant repetition would have driven them to suicide.

Like the text of the hours, the music of the chant had to be varied and interesting enough to prevent zombification. It didn’t persist for five hundred years because it was simple or easy. It survived because it was mentally and physically challenging. The simplicity and easiness are deceptive.

Otjm hit the nail on the head when they said “It is easy to do poorly, and it is hard to do well; even harder to do excellently.”

 

[OraLabora]

They prayed the hours for up to eight hours a day, and sometimes a lot more. Constant repetition would have driven them to suicide.

There is a LOT of repetition in the traditional Monastic Office. Compline is invariable every day, and the minor hours as well, from Tuesday to Saturday. And given the realities of the old calendar, they were in the festive psalter more often than not, which meant often the same psalms being used many times a month, if not several times in a week.

I don’t know how they did it frankly; while I like repeating the same psalms for Compline every day, the two Octaves we have drive me crazy, the same psalms and antiphons for 8 days in a row. I can’t imagine the lifetime of repetition monks had to endure!

In fact there are now alternate schemas for monks; our abbey uses one that has no repetitions during the week… except for those two octaves and those times when there’s more than one feast or solemnity in a week. So I guess the repetition did drive them to distraction!

 

[LilBiddyLeah]

Wow, I totally agree. I once heard a choir sing “0h Sanctisima” in English. And I once heard the Suspicious Cheese Lords live. How magnificent it was!! If I practice for the rest of my life I will never reach that level of excellence

 

[GordonP]

There is a LOT of repetition in the traditional Monastic Office.

I think that is the result of Trent, when the Hours where considerably shortened and simplified so that even ordinary clerics could do them on their own. I get the impression that in the heyday of Gregorian Chant, there was a lot more variety.

In a medieval monastery or college, choir monks and canons had plenty of time on their hands to develop a much more complex and intricate liturgical day, and to put it into practice. And they had the resources to do so.

 

[GordonP]

“0h Sanctisima”

O sactissima is as far from Gregorian Chant as you can possibly get. And it is a relatively recent composition. Late 1700s, I think.

 

[Phemie]

PeterT:

This, one thousand times over!

Chant or songs, a main reason there’s less and less participation the congregation in singing (or chanting) is that choirs too often sing something new each and every week. Repetition is the key if one wants the congregation at large to join in.

There is always that balance of repeating often enough so that the piece is familiar without repeating it so often that it becomes tiresome. One of the marks of really good music, however, is that it bears far more repetition without getting boring.

Imagine how tired I am of the same setting at every Sunday Mass since Advent 2011!

 

[GiftofMercy]

snarflake do this exercise

vedy vedy vedy, then very very very

repeat. a lot!

for rolling ‘r’

We do funerals , Masses and whatever else is requested. The musical monk at my community is teaching the entire community to chant. Its a process.

 

[OraLabora]

I think that is the result of Trent, when the Hours where considerably shortened and simplified so that even ordinary clerics could do them on their own.

No, it predates Trent by a long shot. The Monastic Office developed independently of the Roman. The Monastic Office in its still current form dates back to the 6th century with the exact same psalm schema as described by St. Benedict himself in his Rule.

For the minor hours it was so monks could recite the office by heart in the fields. For Compline, to recite it in the dark from memory.

 

[babochka]

EmmaSowl:

Chant has notes without stems.

You should check out Byzantine chant notation. It’s a whole other language

ZP

I recently had the opportunity to use Ukrainian chant notation. I was impressed with its simplicity and brilliance.

 

[PetraG]

Imagine how tired I am of the same setting at every Sunday Mass since Advent 2011!

Not even different settings for Lent and Easter season? Wow…

 

[PeterT]

Imagine how tired I am of the same setting at every Sunday Mass since Advent 2011!

I think it’s fine to change the Sunday Mass setting once a year at the start Advent. It probably should be changed at least every third year after a full cycle (Years A, B & C) of the Sunday Lectionary readings.

 

[LilBiddyLeah]

The legitimacy of chant is not based on age

 

[Phemie]

Phemie:

Imagine how tired I am of the same setting at every Sunday Mass since Advent 2011!

Not even different settings for Lent and Easter season? Wow…

Nope. Choir learned one setting and have no desire to learn another.

We have a new Catholic Book of Worship coming out soon in Canada. This will be the fourth edition of our national hymnal, CBW having been published in ‘72, CBW II in ‘80, CBW III in ‘94. I asked Father if we had ordered it. His reply, “Choir says they haven’t learned everything in the old one so they don’t think it’s necessary.” It’s only got the proper translation of the Psalms and several more Mass settings but who needs that, right?

Catholic Book of Worship to get some fine tuning

 

[OraLabora]

The legitimacy of chant is not based on age

Of course not, but there is a specific periods in Gregorian chant (and it’s predecessors and successors), and compositions in the 18th Century may be chant, they may be legitimate, but what they are not is Gregorian chant. This also applies to Mass VIII de Angelis that so many are fond of. And, stylistically, you can certainly tell.

There are very recent chant compositions too: the Solemnity of Christ the King has chant composed in the 1920s. The Liturgy of the Hour’s Antiphonale also has some new compositions. They are chant, they are legitimate, but they are not Gregorian.

There is also Ambrosian and Mozarabic chant still in use. They are, stylistically far removed from Gregorian although some Mozarabic pieces have found their way into the Graduale Roman. The Ambrosian Gloria is very beautiful and unique.

Ambrosian, 12th century:

Gloria XI (Gregorian) 10th century

Gloria VIII (de Angelis), 16th century.

 

[LilBiddyLeah]

I actually thought we were talking about chant in general, not specifically Gregorian. There are few people who can sing full Gregorian chant well

 

[Peeps]

Chant was not designed with congregational singing in mind. Congregational singing is a recent introduction to the Catholic liturgy. During the heyday of chant, there was minimal congregational participation of any kind in the liturgy. It was almost totally and strictly a clerical affair.

Chant was developed with choir monks and cathedral canons in mind. They prayed the hours for up to eight hours a day, and sometimes a lot more. Constant repetition would have driven them to suicide.

Like the text of the hours, the music of the chant had to be varied and interesting enough to prevent zombification. It didn’t persist for five hundred years because it was simple or easy. It survived because it was mentally and physically challenging. The simplicity and easiness are deceptive.

Otjm hit the nail on the head when they said “It is easy to do poorly, and it is hard to do well; even harder to do excellently.”

I agree with all of this post.

The Midwestern diphthongs are absolutely hideous for any kind of music, but especially chant. Ugh. Just makes you cringe.

And our tendency to not use a head voice, but to sing in our chest–shudder. Not good for chant, not at all.

I also think that mixing male and female voices in chant is really really ugly and totally misses the point of “one voice.”

All in all, I think chant is not very pretty at all. I love melody–a soaring melody that has a beginning, a middle, and an ending. To me, chant sounds like talking, but prolonging the vowels–really really weird and spooky, at least to me. And it doesn’t go anywhere. It meanders.

And I LOVE reading music! I love sight-reading. I will often play an oratorio (a CD) and sit with the score and sight read just for the fun of sight reading! I am good at it, and I like it. I’m sorry that so many people hate reading music, but I like it.

And I love hymns that have a “story” or message that I can think about and remember all my life. I love poetry, stories, and Bible verses, and good hymns have these in abundance. I LOVE HYMNS! And I love accompanying hymns, and I love hearing good accompaniments when I am singing in a congregation.

Chant definitely does NOT help me to worship or concentrate on the Lord Jesus at all, but instead, makes me cringe in the pew. I would not remain in a parish that did chant for the entire Mass. I would find a parish that sings hymns and sings them gloriously, or at least tries to sing them gloriously!.

You asked. I hope you’ll respect my answer, as I respect your love and appreciation of chant.

 

[snarflemike]

Of course you’re entitled to your opinion of chant, but it must be pointed out that what you disparage, the Church esteems as the “supreme model” and “permanent standard” of sacred music, that should hold first place in liturgical celebration. That might be an invitation to rethink your opinion and the factors your opinion is based upon, because right now there is a huge disconnect.

 

[Peeps]

Of course you’re entitled to your opinion of chant, but it must be pointed out that what you disparage, the Church esteems as the “supreme model” and “permanent standard” of sacred music, that should hold first place in liturgical celebration. That might be an invitation to rethink your opinion and the factors your opinion is based upon, because right now there is a huge disconnect.

I have been Catholic since 2004, and I have done plenty of “re-thinking” of my opinion of chant, including purchasing albums of chant recommended by people on CAF (the old board) and listening to them with attention. I have also been involved with playing organ in the Latin Mass parish in my city (as a substitute, not the permanent organist).

I simply cannot find the beauty in chant that so many Catholics find. I dislike the randomness of it. I prefer “order,” a well-written melody and words that I understand.

Holy Mother Church does not REQUIRE Catholics to like chant, but simply to recognize that it does hold an honored place in the Church. I respect well-done chant. I respect chant that is done by beginners who are studying the music form and attempting to become experts in chanting.
I realize that everyone has to start somewhere to learn chant, and I don’t disparage “amateurs” or beginners because I know that if they persevere, they will eventually achieve excellence.

However, I would caution Catholics (or any Christians) who say, “As long as it’s chant, it doesn’t matter if diphthongs are used, or if people sing badly in their chest voices, or if men, women, and children all chant together with a resulting cacophony.”

This is the kind of thinking that has led to Protestant churches accepting very mediocre or even badly-written, even un-singable, Praise and Worship music instead of seeking out well-written songs and hymns that the entire congregation, even little children, can sing together.

IMO, anyone who advocates more chant in the Mass must also advocate well-done chant, which means educating the cantors, choir, and CONGREGATION in how to properly sing chant so that a beautiful sound is produced.

If that sounds like musical snobbery, well, consider it my “turn about is fair play” response to all of the Catholics who disparage the St. Louis Jesuits’ hymns and label them as “banal” or worse.