CHANT - Easy or Hard?

[dochawk]

It’s commonly shorter

I don’t think we’ve finished in 45, but . . .

 

[DeniseNY]

45 would be a stretch but around here 60 is the norm

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Gregorian chant is a subset of plainsong, or plainchant.

 

[PeterT]

Agreed. The vast majority of the faithful do not sing to contemporary music.

The vast majority of the faithful today do not sing, period.

(And in all honesty, that’s okay with me. Yes, I would rather have more of the faithful sing at Mass, but if they don’t, I’m fine with that too.)

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

No real conductor. I and one other fellow have some training in music, the rest have absolutely none.

 

[otjm]

Chant is extremely easy to do poorly, and hard to do well. Exceeding;y few people know enough about chant to be able to teach it to a choir, and teaching a congregation how to sing it properly is an impossible task.

 

[PetraG]

For all of his amazing intellect, I do not believe that Albert Einstein ever chanted.

Since he actually went through a period in his pre-adolescence when he was very devout, the chances are he chanted at synagogue at some point. (Not to mention the likelihood that he had to do it at some point when he attended his Catholic elementary school in Munich in the late 1800s.)

You’re right that “intellect” has little to do with it. Chant is an extremely old form of congregational singing. It got to be old because it can be learned without books and taught just by exposure to the form and competent leadership. We are not talking about some musical fad that has only ever worked in highly-educated populations.

Like active listening that allows learning without taking notes, however, learning chant does take willing practice.

 

[GordonP]

Chant is an extremely old form of congregational singing.

Chant was designed exclusively for singing by choir monks and canons of cathedrals and collegiate churches, and was never intended for congregational singing. Besides, there was no congregational singing in the Roman Catholic Church until the seventeenth century, and even then, chant was mostly off limits until the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

So yes, it was designed specifically for an extremely highly-educated population. Practically no one in Europe when Gregorian Chant was developed could read except for choir monks and canons. And they alone had the eight or more hours a day to practice chanting.

Chant is quite sophisticated and not something that anyone can just “pick up” by mere exposure without formal training.

You vastly underestimate the complexity and difficulty of Gregorian Chant. Like several of the posters above rightly said, it’s easy to sing poorly, by very difficult to sing well. While I love well-performed chant, I would rather listen to some teenager plonking on a guitar and singing Kumbaya then listen to a bunch of clueless amateurs murder Gregorian Chant. Chant is a genre that does not tolerate imperfection. Tiny mistakes sound like fingernails on a blackboard.

 

[PetraG]

Chant was designed exclusively for singing by choir monks and canons of cathedrals and collegiate churches, and was never intended for congregational singing. Besides, there was no congregational singing in the Roman Catholic Church until the seventeenth century, and even then, chant was mostly off limits until the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

So yes, it was designed specifically for an extremely highly-educated population. Practically no one in Europe when Gregorian Chant was developed could read except for choir monks and canons. And they alone had the eight or more hours a day to practice chanting.

Chant is quite sophisticated and not something that anyone can just “pick up” by mere exposure without formal training…

The Church Fathers of the 2nd Vatican Council obviously felt singing Gregorian chant was appropriately to be considered attainable for congregational singing and in fact set it up as deserving pride of place in the liturgies of the Roman rite. Plainchant is still Gregorian chant, and it can be learned by gradeschool children. Yes, there are difficult kinds of Gregorian chant but there are difficult examples of essentially every one of the fine arts.

41. The main place should be given, all things being equal, to Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other kinds of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful. ( Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 116; cf. also no. 30.)
Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is desirable that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer, according to the simpler settings. (Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 54; Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction, Inter Oecumenici, September 26, 1964, no. 59: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964), p. 891; Instruction, Musicam sacram, March 5, 1967, no. 47: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 59 (1967), p. 314)
–General Instruction of the Roman Missal

As for Gregorian chant being specifically for an “extremely highly-educated” population, in spite of cries against our educational system most of us can read. How many people in Europe could do algebra when Gregorian chant was developed? We expect every 14 year old to achieve rudimentary mastery of it. Nobody just “picks up” algebra, either. Let’s not even get started with the advantage of being able to play recorded examples of the music our people are trying to learn.

If there is any generation of Roman Catholics in history that has no excuse for failing to learn at least plainchant, it is ours.

 

[OraLabora]

The Church Fathers of the 2nd Vatican Council obviously felt singing Gregorian chant was appropriately to be considered attainable for congregational singing and in fact set it up as deserving pride of place in the liturgies of the Roman rite. Plainchant is still Gregorian chant, and it can be learned by gradeschool children. Yes, there are difficult kinds of Gregorian chant but there are difficult examples of essentially every one of the fine arts.

No, Gregorian chant was never designed for congregational singing. Pride of place does not mean everyone singing it, all the time. Some simple settings of the Ordinary are quite amenable to it, but even then it takes considerable practice for the entire congregation to sing with one voice. Few things are harder than having a choir or schola sing with “one voice”, with everyone, with un-metered music, arriving on the same note, at the same time, with the same intensity. It takes years for a schola to find its voice.

The Vatican implicitly recognized this when it released the Graduale Simplex with simpler chant settings for less experienced choirs, following the same style of antiphons and psalmody as the Divine Office. Note, that they did say choirs, not congregations. And note that the statement you quoted says “it is desirable that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer”. Pride of place did not mean that the congregation was expected to sing complex propers like a Mode V Gradual with a change of key between the antiphon and the verse, or complex Introits, Offertories and Communions antiphons,

Simple plainchant Latin responses are certainly feasible, and the simplest settings of the Kyriale as well: Kyrie XVI, Sanctus and Angus XVIII, Gloria XV, Credo II are probably the easiest, but even then I’ve been in situations where the congregation was encouraged to participate and you’d always have one or two voices that were off-key or arriving too late or too early at the next note. And it sounds off.

There’s more to Gregorian chant than simply being able to read the music. Getting everyone singing with the same intensity and at the same pace so everyone is at the same place at the same time and it sounds like one voice (“Una Voce”), takes skill which only comes from practice. I’ve been doing it for 17 years and believe me on this.

I have to ask: do you sing Gregorian chant? By that I don’t mean just the simpler ordinaries, but the full propers from the Graduale Romanum?

 

[PetraG]

I have to ask: do you sing Gregorian chant? By that I don’t mean just the simpler ordinaries, but the full propers from the Graduale Romanum?

I cannot think of a single type of liturgical music–any music!–that cannot be done better by a trained choir than by a congegration. None. There is no music that sounds good when you have people coming in late or starting early or singing off-key. That’s the reality of congregational singing. There is mercy involved, that is the long and short of it, because usuallly someone is off.

Simple plainchant IS Gregorian chant, just as the Minuet in G Major really is music by Bach. Does the congregation have to sing all plainchant and nothing but plainchant? Who said that? I didn’t say that. I said that a typical congregation can sing some Gregorian chant, because they can. It isn’t asking them to do ballet.

It is a mistake to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. That is why we had churches with the choir and only the choir doing all of the singing. That may be a musical ideal; it is not the liturgical ideal.

 

[OraLabora]

I’m all for having the congregation sing the simple chant settings of the ordinary, but for the propers, which are beyond the reach someone without the proper skills and practice, won’t happen with the congregation. If it does, it won’t be perfect, and it won’t even be good.

I myself did start from almost nothing, but training a small men’s schola, vs an entire congregation, is much different.

Do you honestly think the congregation is going to tackle this and make it sound passable?

By all means the simpler settings of the Kyriale, or even the Missa Angelis (Mass VIII) which isn’t really “Gregorian” chant but at least has the benefit of being well known!

I sing Gregorian chant every Sunday at the abbey I’m associated with. Both the Ordinary and the Propers, but even then there are offertories that are beyond my skill level.

Also, not all plainchant is Gregorian chant. Gregorian chant is a form of plainchant, but currently in the Roman Church there are two other active forms, Ambrosian and Mozarabic, the latter only on a very limited basis in Toledo, Spain. Ambrosian chant, used in the archdiocese of Milan, predates Gregorian chant. Other forms such as Beneventan, Old Roman and Gallican have fallen into disuse, and Sarum chant went with the Reformation. Some Mozarabic-derived chant still exists in a few places in the Graduale Romanum.

Here is the Ambrosian Gloria

Gloria XV, 10th century Gregorian

Both modal plainchant, one Gregorian, one not.

 

[PetraG]

I think the simple settings are sufficient.

 

[GordonP]

Simple plainchant IS Gregorian chant, just as the Minuet in G Major really is music by Bach.

First of all, no. Plainchant does not mean “simple or easy chant”. All Gregorian chants, from the most banal to the most perversely complex and difficult, are Plainchant.

If there is any generation of Roman Catholics in history that has no excuse for failing to learn at least plainchant, it is ours.

Yet you seem to know very little about the topic. I think you are relying on your imagination of what Chant is rather than on any actual knowledge of the topic.

Once you do some studying and actually try your hand (or vocal cords) at Chant under a qualified instructor, you will be singing an entirely different tune. One titled “Non facile est, quod videtur”.

 

[PetraG]

Yet you seem to know very little about the topic. I think you are relying on your imagination of what Chant is rather than on any actual knowledge of the topic.

Implying to us that people who lived in monasteries in the Middle Ages were “an extremely highly-educated population” compared to the typical educational attainment of the laity now paints a highly romanticized picture of chant and the extent of a typical monastic education in the Middle Ages.

I’m not suggesting that any kind of music is learned automatically. I’m suggesting that modern Catholic laypeople can learn chant suitable for the liturgy.

 

[OraLabora]

Implying to us that people who lived in monasteries in the Middle Ages were “an extremely highly-educated population” compared to the typical educational attainment of the laity now paints a highly romanticized picture of chant and the extent of a typical monastic education in the Middle Ages.

It doesn’t, GordonP’s description is bang-on.

In medieval times, monks would have been divided into choir monks and lay brothers. The latter would be uneducated and mostly illiterate. Choir monks would all be priests, or picked to become priests.

With all due respect you are comparing apples to oranges. First of all, Plainchant is not Gregorian chant. Gregorian is a subset of plainchant, one of many chant traditions in the Roman Church. The Ordinary of the Mass is a subset of Gregorian or Ambrosian chant, and the simpler settings are a subset of that.

In monasteries, even in medieval times, the choir monks would have sung the full propers and ordinary, well beyond the reach of both the laity and the lay brothers of the community. Moreover the more complex bits, such as Gradual and Offertory verses, would have been sung by a small schola.

Moreover in pre-Conciliar times, most Masses were Low Masses, and at those popular vernacular hymns would be sung before the recited introït or after the Ita Missa Est. Gregorian would hardly be heard at most Masses.

Gregorian Propers, and many of the complex settings of the ordinary are well beyond the reach of the laity. You need to define that you are asking for a small portion of simpler Gregorian chants. And even then expect some cacaphony.

 

[PetraG]

With all due respect you are comparing apples to oranges. First of all, Plainchant is not Gregorian chant. Gregorian is a subset of plainchant, one of many chant traditions in the Roman Church. The Ordinary of the Mass is a subset of Gregorian or Ambrosian chant, and the simpler settings are a subset of that.

I think we’re totally talking apples and oranges. I am not suggesting that every parish is going to use Gregorian chant every time they sing. I’m not suggesting they ought to attempt the pieces you’ve been posting. I am saying that it is worthwhile to pursue the subset of chant that is accessible to the laity, just as it is attainable to teach the laity to understand and pronounce a limited amount of Latin. You’d think we shouldn’t attempt the Agnes Dei because people don’t want to put years into learning Latin or we should only recite or sing the Kyrie in the vernacular because of the way laypeople butcher the Greek.

I think that decrying using chant in sacred music as a “cacaphony” is applying a double standard when judging the other sacred music that a congregation might attempt. I understand that someone in love with Gregorian chant might be about as tolerant of imperfection as a native of Paris listening to a native English speaker struggling to learn French, but that doesn’t mean that the only French worth speaking is the kind spoken in Paris or the only chant worth doing is the kind that satisfies the afficianados.

There are times when the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. If chant isn’t being used in sacred liturgies that include congregational singing because it can never be perfect enough to suffice, I think that’s where we’ve arrived. After all, if we have “sacred music” that allows the singers to come in late, sing with the wrong rhythm and sing the wrong notes–because for that sacred music it doesn’t matter?!?–we have settled for cacaphony.

 

[GordonP]

After all, if we have “sacred music” that allows the singers to come in late, sing with the wrong rhythm and sing the wrong notes–because for that sacred music it doesn’t matter ?!?–we have settled for cacaphony.

That’s why there was essentially no congregational singing for about 1200 years. Or just about any lay participation whatsoever, beyond an odd “Et cum spiritu tuo” or “Amen” now and then.

The congregation could not be trusted not to spoil the liturgy. To the point where the liturgy was essentially held largely out of sight and hearing of the congregation, behind the chancel and altar screens and curtains.

 

[OraLabora]

I am saying that it is worthwhile to pursue the subset of chant that is accessible to the laity,

I don’t disagree with this. I think it would be sensible to use Kyrie XVI, Gloria XV and Sanctus/Agnus XVIII on ordinary Sundays (no Gloria during Advent and Lent), with one of the simpler Credos though I think the Credo, being a profession of faith, would best be said by heart in the vernacular on most Sundays. For more festive occasions, Mass VIII (De Angelis) is well-enough known to be appropriate, along with Credo III.

There is a cultural hurdle to overcome though; pre-Council, even the simpler chant settings were never sung by the laity; the ordinary and responses would be sung by the acolytes. It must have become encoded in the Catholic DNA. Sacrosanctum Concilium called for this to change. Clearly we’re not there yet.

I think that decrying using chant in sacred music as a “cacaphony” is applying a double standard when judging the other sacred music that a congregation might attempt.

If other music sounds cacaphonic, Gregorian won’t sound better just by being Gregorian! All I’m saying is don’t expect a quality improvement because it’s Gregorian. Even with the simpler settings, there will be some clashes. Yes the simpler settings are easy to learn and even memorize. Blending the voices, requires more effort. A good cantor can help. It requires volunteers more than it requires Internet debates about why we don’t have chant.

 

[PetraG]

I think we’re on the same page, honestly. I think it is a big mistake to select music that is beyond the singers, whether they are a choir or a congregation. People are encouraged to sing when they succeed. No, you don’t throw people into the deep end of a beautiful pool and expect that they’ll learn to swim because the pool is so lovely.

There is chant that is attainable. Not all of it, but some of it. Yes, the mistakes in a art form that is simple are more noticeable. I would agree that it may be preferable to compose modern music that borrows from Gregorian chant than to force people to learn historical music that is too difficult for them. Still, I think it is a mistake to write off the entire genre as too difficult, just as it is a mistake to write off guitars as inappropriate for sacred music. It isn’t that impossible to achieve a result that is very much worth it.

That’s why there was essentially no congregational singing for about 1200 years. Or just about any lay participation whatsoever, beyond an odd “Et cum spiritu tuo” or “Amen” now and then.

The congregation could not be trusted not to spoil the liturgy. To the point where the liturgy was essentially held largely out of sight and hearing of the congregation, behind the chancel and altar screens and curtains.

I would hope nobody is suggesting that we’re so wrapped up in a “perfect” liturgy that we can’t trust the laity to contribute to it. Honestly, that sounds like a good way to manufacture some Protestants to me.