CHANT - Easy or Hard?

[EmmaSowl]

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

^^^
This.

This, this, this.

I apologize that, as the OP, I have treated this thread like a red-headed stepchild. It’s just that, when I would peek in, the conversation was way over my head. Interesting, but beyond my knowledge and experience. If I were a broad with leisure time, I’d study it because I think I’d find the history and debate fascinating - but it is not the topic I had in mind when I first posted.

I should have been more clear: when I said chant, I was referring to what I’ve heard at Mass since I converted in 1993. It hasn’t held the main place at any church I’ve attended, but settings of the Kyrie, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei are printed in the misalettes (which, as I understand it, are aids that have undergone much more episcopal scrutiny than any hymnal has). All of those chants are sung easily and loudly and create a unity (especially among those who have different first languages) which I find joyfully holy.

Naturally, my feelings on what is joyfully holy aren’t worth two flying shakes of a lamb’s tail, but according to the above GIRM quote, that kind of sung participation of prayer by the faithful is an actual musical goal of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I do not know if the chants in the misalette are Gregorian - but they are the only things in the pews which have (as I understand it) USCCB approval for what U.S. Catholics are supposed to be doing TODAY, not 1200 years ago, not before V2, not before the newest GIRM, not in the future of someone’s imagination, but today, now, in America.

Also, as the quote expresses, today, now, in America, the Church desires the faithful to sing.

Oops, too long - more coming:

 

[EmmaSowl]

The rest:

Here is one of my pet peeves about current music in my area (can’t speak to other areas): not only is chant being ignored, but the music which is given is far too complicated for the faithful to sing.

I had ignorantly assumed that the two things were connected. My assumption came from my meager personal experience in which Americans, Mexicans, Filipinos, Nigerians, Vietnamese, and probably other nationalities, were all able to sing these misalette chants, along with what I thought were chants (“Tantum Ergo”; “O Sanctissimo”), which are also in the misalettes.

But now I’m skimming through posts about how chant itself is too intricate for the masses and how it only sounds good when performed by people with years of training.

Performed.

Mass is not a performance. The Broadway Bound crowd should not be performing and nor should the Dusty Scroll crowd.

I now think that a better way to poll the faithful is by asking this: do you find the chant-looking music in the misalettes (whether in Latin or the vernacular) too difficult to sing?

For those who do find it too difficult, it would help my understanding if you described why it is more difficult for you than that of standard hymns and/or contemporary songs.

Thank you in advance.

 

[OraLabora]

But now I’m skimming through posts about how chant itself is too intricate for the masses and how it only sounds good when performed by people with years of training.

Those of us who refer to “chant” being too intricate are referring to the Gregorian propers being too intricate, as are some of the more ornate settings of the ordinary. There are simpler settings: Kyrie XVI, Sanctus/Angus XVIII, Gloria XV, are all simple enough for a congregation to learn. Moving up a bit, Kyrie XI (Orbis Factor) is probably doable, and Mass VIII is at least well enough known.

But today’s propers (2nd Sunday of Advent)? Forget it. I’m just back from the Mass at the abbey. The introit was tough but doable for me but I’m trained in Gregorian chant; same with the Gradual and Alleluia, and communion antiphon. But the offertory? I didn’t even attempt it; it was in Mode III, long and complex. I was happy to follow along with the monks in my Gradual.

It’s not a “performance” but propers like today’s (and most days) would sound awful if sung by untrained singers. If untrained singers were to attempt it, you’d turn people off of chant for life.

This was today’s Offertory antiphon. You’ll see/hear what I mean at a glance:

 

[PetraG]

Those of us who refer to “chant” being too intricate are referring to the Gregorian propers being too intricate, as are some of the more ornate settings of the ordinary. There are simpler settings: Kyrie XVI, Sanctus/Angus XVIII, Gloria XV, are all simple enough for a congregation to learn. Moving up a bit, Kyrie XI (Orbis Factor) is probably doable, and Mass VIII is at least well enough known.

OK, but the OP has clarified that the original question applied to music composed for the laity in the genre of chant. Not the most etheral kind. Not the kind meant for singers who prepare from within the confines of a cloister. Of course there are also hymns that are too difficult for an average singer, too. The question is whether chant meant for the laity is easy compared to hymns meant for the laity.

I don’t think I would call it “easy,” but I definitely don’t think it is tremendously hard for people exposed to this kind of singing to learn it.

 

[OraLabora]

Check out the Simple English Propers. Though I only rarely go to an English Mass as I live in Quebec, I think that might be what you are looking for. It is modal, based on Gregorian modes, but in English. I’m not all that familiar with them but I think they are quite doable.

If you coupled that with the simpler Latin/Greek settings of the ordinary, you’d be onto something.

I know in French, a lot of French hymns are in-singable with convoluted and not very harmonious melodies. I wish we had simple French propers. Actually they exist at a local Cistercian monastery but have not found general favour and are not in the official French-Canadian hymnal. Probably because they sound too…umm…Catholic.

 

[EmmaSowl]

Those of us who refer to “chant” being too intricate are referring to the Gregorian propers being too intricate, as are some of the more ornate settings of the ordinary. There are simpler settings: Kyrie XVI, Sanctus/Angus XVIII, Gloria XV, are all simple enough for a congregation to learn. Moving up a bit, Kyrie XI (Orbis Factor) is probably doable, and Mass VIII is at least well enough known.

I thank you for all of that. I have follow-up questions:

1. What are propers?
2. When the GIRM says “Gregorian chant” is it only referring to propers?
3. Is there no other kind of Gregorian chant allowed on any given Mass day other than the proper for that day?

This was today’s Offertory antiphon. You’ll see/hear what I mean at a glance:

Saw/heard.

My follow up questions:

1. Does the laity’s part need to do all that?
2. Does anything prevent the laity’s part from being written as one syllable, one note?
3. Can the choir sing this with extra force on the laity’s part so that the fancy schmancy stuff is a non-confusing but lovely background whisper?
4. If not, can’t the choir just sing the same part as the laity - melody in unison?

Again, thank you.

 

[EmmaSowl]

The question is whether chant meant for the laity is easy compared to hymns meant for the laity.

Bingo.

Also, a little bit of “why can’t we follow the instructions”?

 

[PetraG]

Also, a little bit of “why can’t we follow the instructions”?

I will play the devil’s advocate. People are used to the music they are used to. If other music is introduced abruptly or at all forcibly, they are more likely to resent it than embrace it. It is a terrible thing when that happens between people and what is really their musical heritage, whether it is religious or even just secular culture.

 

[OraLabora]

To answer your questions:

1. The propers are the antiphons proper to the day/feast. The equivalent in hymn terms would be:

Introit = Entrance hymn
Gradual = replaces the responsorial psalm
Alleluia = self explanatory!
Offertory = Offertory hymn
Communion antiphon: communion hymn.

There is no official “recessional” in Gregorian chant. At our abbey, except in Advent and Lent, the recessional is an organ piece.

1. Gregorian chant, which the GIRM refers to, includes both the Propers and the Ordinary, usually according to the Graduale Romanum of 1974 (in the OF); for parish use, it also means according to Sacrosanctum Concilium, those parts of the Ordinary within reach of lay assemblies (simpler settings)
2. There is another major chant tradition in the Roman Church that pre-dates Gregorian and that’s Ambrosian chant, but its use is limited to the archdiocese of Milan. Also Mozarabic chant but its use is very restricted, only in Toledo, Spain (and I believe by indult). However the Vatican also published the Graduale Simplex which as its name suggests provides simpler Gregorian settings, for the use of less-experienced choirs. It can also licitly be used. The antiphons are simpler and in the same style as the Gregorian antiphons for the Liturgy of the Hours, with the psalmody using the simple tones for each given mode. The Simple English Propers more or less follow the same notion.

Follow-up questions:

1. No; in monasteries, complex pieces like that would usually be sung by the schola (a small subset of monks who are students of Gregorian chant), and those monks in choir who already master it. Most choir monks would sing the introit, the first part (up to the verse) of the Gradual, the Alleluias (with the schola doing the verse in between) and the communion antiphon. Plus the ordinary; and perhaps simpler or better-known offertories.
2. That’s more or less what the Simple English Propers do, or maybe a couple of notes at most on a syllable, but no complex melismas.
3. I think the laity wouldn’t even tackle a piece like the example. They certainly never did (or any other chants for that matter) in the Tridentine Mass, which might explain the lack of musical culture among lay Catholics and why the “three-hymn sandwich” caught fire as Mass music.
4. I think the above explanations answer that.

 

[EmmaSowl]

I actually agree with your DA. All changes should be made gradually and with respect for the parish culture and with full explanations.

This was done well in my parishes in regard to the new responses. But the new body postures were not emphasized and, in fact, continue to be openly discouraged/defied.

And the music, well…

 

[otjm]

There i nothing in Sacrosanctum Concilium which indicates that there was even one single bishop who thought that congregations should sing Gregorian Chant, anymore than a congregation could sing Palestrina.

And plain chant is not Gregorian chant. Wrong direction.

Sorry, 2 strikes.

 

[PetraG]

There i nothing in Sacrosanctum Concilium which indicates that there was even one single bishop who thought that congregations should sing Gregorian Chant, anymore than a congregation could sing Palestrina.

And plain chant is not Gregorian chant. Wrong direction.

Sorry, 2 strikes.

Please refer to the clarification by the OP that the thread is meant as a question about chant used in liturgy as refered to in Sacrosanctum Concilium and other binding liturgical documents of the Church, not a question about chant defined in some other way and especially not defined in such a way that incorporating chant into the liturgy under that definition would not be practically possible.

The Church Fathers did not specify liturgical norms that can’t be embarked upon until the coming of the New Jerusalem down from Heaven. These were intended to be norms that were attainable in the present age.

 

[Peeps]

I now think that a better way to poll the faithful is by asking this: do you find the chant-looking music in the misalettes (whether in Latin or the vernacular) too difficult to sing?

For those who do find it too difficult, it would help my understanding if you described why it is more difficult for you than that of standard hymns and/or contemporary songs.

I am a pianist/organist with around 50 years of experience accompanying choirs, soloists, theater, and CHURCH services/Masses. My piano teacher was a Lutheran organist/choir mistress, so I was taught to play for God’s glory, and not to receive applause for a “performance.”

I and my husband converted to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism in 2004.

He is also musical, mainly through public school music education, choirs, musical theater, and guitar lessons. He can read music with relative ease.

Both of us have a very difficult time with any kind of chant. The type of chant that OraLabora describes is far beyond me or my husband. We simply don’t have the quality of voice.

The biggest problem I have with chant is that it is a-melodic and a-rhythmic. The musical line (the notes) seem totally random to me, and without a regular “pattern” (melody), I have trouble following the neumes (or notes). If I could just sing on a “la” or “loo,” without words, I might do better, but trying to read neumes/notes and words, especially words in a foreign language (Latin) is extremely confusing to me.

As for the a-rhythmic aspect of chant, this is also confusing to me. I look for time signatures (4/4, 3/4, 2/2, etc.) and a regularity of rhythm-a pulse. Chant seems so random to me, and I don’t really like it. It feels very uncomfortable to me. I like schedules, organization, neatness, predictability (obviously, I don’t like surprise parties or drop-by guests or anything that jumps out at me when I don’t expect it).

It goes without saying that I am a terrible jazz musician–too much “improv” for me, and I can’t do this at all.

Perhaps if I had been raised with chant, I would be more comfortable with it. But I wasn’t. I grew up singing nursery rhymes (notice the word “rhymes”–in other words, a “regularity” in the song), lovely folk songs, hymns, and listening to the popular music that my mother loved (Nat King Cole, Leslie Uggams, Bing Crosby, Patsy Cline, etc.-- beautiful songs and singers).

I didn’t grow up with music that feels random.

So…what might be worth thinking about with my post is that if you want a congregation to “feel comfortable” with chant, the people in the parish who should be exposed to chant are the youngest members–the toddlers and school children. The parish music director should be working with the little ones to help them learn simple chants and the correct techniques, as well as how to read the “neumes.”

If we grow up with something, we will find it “comfortable.” It’s really hard to work with people like me and my husband who simply don’t find this kind of music comfortable or pretty.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

WOW!!! Are you a published composer?

 

[DaveBj]

WOW!!! Are you a published composer?

In my previous life I had 6 or 8 gospel songs published in denominational convention song books. I’ve spent MUCH more of my life playing other people’s music than writing my own.

D

 

[SMHW]

if you want a congregation to “feel comfortable” with chant, the people in the parish who should be exposed to chant are the youngest members–the toddlers and school children. The parish music director should be working with the little ones to help them learn simple chants and the correct techniques, as well as how to read the “neumes.”

I think Peeps makes a valid point.

Consider a young child reading out loud. When this child learns to read, she first reads each word separately, out of context. Eventually she learns to read multiple words together but she tends to read a line of text then stop at the end of the line, even if the sentence continues to the following line. It takes her time and practice to read an entire sentence with the emphasis, timing, and inflection that give meaning to the text as a whole. And the child has to HEAR the written spoken as it should be read.

How many adults do you know who can properly read a multi-line sentence -out loud- the first time they have ever seen it?

Chant is like the spoken word, in that each line of chant will change in length just as sentences of the spoken word change. While chant is not meant to be interpreted in the same way that someone reading an audio-book would do, it does have rules about pitch, breathing, and inflection. But they are not same rules that we have come to expect from other forms of music.

Exposing young children to chant is going to be the best way for them to get a feel for it.

 

[Peeps]

Exposing young children to chant is going to be the best way for them to get a feel for it.

Yes! Excellent!

I would like to suggest to those who cherish chant and would like to see it utilized in the Mass (OF), that they speak with their pastor about starting a “Chant Club” in their parish, and invite the children.

You’ll have to do some investigating to find a musician who is skilled or at least knowledgeable about chant, and you’ll probably have to offer them some kind of payment.

Most musicians simply can’t afford to give away their skills for free. But perhaps you can find someone like me who is willing to work for very cheap because I’m not making my living from music. (Please note that I am NOT comfortable with chant–I play piano/organ and willingly play for free or cheap if I’m available.)

Meet at the church in the music room or another comfortable place, and start learning together. Children and adults can learn together if the musician is OK with that, otherwise, the kidlets will have to have their own special “chant club junior!” and practice separately from the adults. But I personally think this would be something that school-age children would enjoy, especially if they learn it faster than their parents!

Don’t just chant–do other fun things in your Chant Club, like eat, drink, and have parties and socials! Make this Club something that will catch on in your parish. So many church people are lonely and have no friends at all, and only come to church because they love God and want to honor Him.

Perhaps Chant Club would be a place where they could make some friends and have fun while at the same time, learning how to honor God through a musical style that is supposed to be done regularly in the OF Mass.

Give it a try! Spend the time that you would spend here on CAF dreaming about chant/Mass starting up a Chant Club and actually making your “dream” come true!

 

[EmmaSowl]

Yes! Excellent!

I would like to suggest to those who cherish chant and would like to see it utilized in the Mass (OF), that they speak with their pastor about starting a “Chant Club” in their parish, and invite the children.

Yes.

You’ll have to do some investigating to find a musician who is skilled or at least knowledgeable about chant, and you’ll probably have to offer them some kind of payment.

Uh…squirming…do we pay lectors? If not, why not? A good lector who can bring Holy Scripture to life is much more important than someone who can teach any form of music.

Most musicians simply can’t afford to give away their skills for free. But perhaps you can find someone like me who is willing to work for very cheap because I’m not making my living from music. (Please note that I am NOT comfortable with chant–I play piano/organ and willingly play for free or cheap if I’m available.)

Hear, hear - but let’s be honest. I, too, believe that I could help musically shape the Mass if given the chance. And I, too, could only do it if I were paid because I have bills and little energy left over after my day job.

But is all this new-semi-paid-volunteer work necessary? Choir directors are already paid to obey the GlRM. If they refuse to obey, who is to blame?

The pastor, that’s who. My pastor recently mentioned in a homily that he argues with the Director of Liturgy over allowing a time of silence after Communion. Why does he argue? Why doesn’t he just say, “Look, dude, give time for silent prayer or when your contract comes up for renewal, you’re out.”?

Don’t just chant–do other fun things in your Chant Club, like eat, drink, and have parties and socials! Make this Club something that will catch on in your parish. So many church people are lonely and have no friends at all, and only come to church because they love God and want to honor Him.

Ugh. Maybe my parishes are very different than yours, but we already have tons of clubs and gettogethers - all of which revolve around the assumption that everyone works a 9-5 job. That is simply not the case in my section of America. Also, many people who would like to experience more holy Masses are not able to participate in or are not interested in another parish glad-handling club with rules and regulations and parish clicks.

Why must everything at the parish level be so regulated? Every gettogether comes with glossy materials and homework. Why can’t we just be people who love God and are willing to listen to each other without formal instructions on how to proceed?

It is ironic that my parish gettogethers are rigidly regulated but the Mass itself has become a free for all.

 

[EmmaSowl]

Gregorian chant, which the GIRM refers to, includes both the Propers and the Ordinary,

Please tell me more about the Ordinary.

When I asked about the laity’s part, you referred me to the schola. Please explain the digression.

So, Simple English Propers fulfill the laity’s role and are not difficult. Soooo, why can’t we embrace Simple English Propers?

I gave you a “like” because of your willingness to explain (trust me, I truly, TRULY appreciate that). But you did not answer my actual questions.

If you feel that you did, please quote my questions before your answers - then every thinking Christian can decide for himself.

 

[EmmaSowl]

There i nothing in Sacrosanctum Concilium which indicates that there was even one single bishop who thought that congregations should sing Gregorian Chant, anymore than a congregation could sing Palestrina.

And plain chant is not Gregorian chant. Wrong direction.

Sorry, 2 strikes.

Do your statements cover the GIRM? If so, how?