CHANT - Easy or Hard?

[EmmaSowl]

Again, it is probably too late - this thread has been around for awhile and has become highly technical -

• but I was attempting to reach out to my fellow sheep in the pews, not musicians with a vested interest.

 

[Peeps]

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?

My assumption is that if the choir director/music director already knows all about chant and how to best teach it, then he/she would be doing this. Certainly if your choir director/organist/music and liturgy director knows all about chant, then he/she shouldn’t expect payment for teaching it to those in the congregation who are interested.

But…and remember, I know a lot of church musicians in my city, and I’m fairly certain that most of them know little to nothing about chant, and certainly aren’t capable of teaching others. My music teacher knows all about chant and could teach it, but since he makes his living with his music, he cannot afford to donate time and talent (and remember, there would be preparation time in advance of the session) to help people that he doesn’t even know! He has to make sure that he takes on enough paying work to meet his financial obligations (rent, food, transportation, etc.) He doesn’t exactly live like a caliph. Most musicians are one or two gigs away from eviction and hunger.

I’m in a good position because I work full-time at the hospital, and I’m married to a man who works full-time. So if I occasionally volunteer to play for a good cause, it’s OK, especially since many of the gigs I accept consist of poor congregations who barely collect enough offerings to pay a visiting pastor every week and keep their building warm.

And believe me, when I play at parishes and churches that are well-off, I accept with joy my payment! I do a really good job, and parishes are usually very happy to see me step into the music loft and hear my well-prepared music and accompaniment (especially when I play organ).

EmmaSowl, Catholic churches will get the music that they pay for. Maybe that’s why so few Catholic parishes ever hear chant.

 

[EmmaSowl]

EmmaSowl, Catholic churches will get the music that they pay for.

You have just depressed me beyond telling.

And yet I agree. Catholic churches are paying for disobedient music. Well, we’ve got it.

 

[OraLabora]

I thought I did answer your questions. But let’s clarify a couple of definitions first.

The “Ordinary” chants of the Mass are those chants in which the texts are invariable from Mass to Mass. The chants are, in the order they appear in Latin, the Kyrie (unless the rite of aspersion with holy water is used), the Gloria (Sundays, feasts and solemnities), the Credo, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei. The texts of these chants never change. There are different melodies for these chants, with the same texts. They are more or less ornate as befits the occasion. There are 18 standard Mass settings to use according to occasion, that is these same texts but with melodies of varying complexity.

The simpler versions, are well within the reach of the laity (I posted above which those are). The most complex ones, are not.

The “Propers” of the Mass are variable texts. In Gregorian chant, a series of antiphons which are almost always psalm or Bible verses related to the theme of the day’s Mass (feast, season, Gospel of the day can all set the theme). These texts thus vary depending on the season, day, feast, etc. They are in order: the Introit (entrance antiphon), the Gradual (a psalm verse or two set to a very ornate melody), the Alleluia and its psalm verse, the Offertory, and the Communion antiphon. In general, except for a very few simpler introits and communion verses, these are too complex for the laity to master. If they attend only Sunday Mass using these texts, they’ll hear the same Propers only once or twice a year (a few of the chants are repeated in the year, not many). Dirty little secret: the monks have chant class at least once a week; that’s how they can manage a chant they only sing once a year. The laity would have to do the same.

The Simple English Propers are the proper texts of the Mass, but set to simple settings. They should be as easy to learn as the simple settings of the ordinary. Thus the laity could be induced to sing the propers, simplified and in the vernacular, instead of the usual three-hymn-sandwich. Theoretically at least.

To answer your question about the laity, they don’t have to do anything. They could be encouraged to sing the simple settings of the ordinary, but would never sing the full Gregorian propers. They did in the past. That’s the choir’s job, and for the really technical pieces, a small subset of the choir called the Schola.

Note I’m putting this in a monastic context, as that’s the most usual place one hears the full Gregorian propers in the Ordinary Form, on a regular basis.

So, in a nutshell, your questions:

1. See above
2. No, Gregorian chant means the propers and the ordinary.
3. Some substitutions are permitted for the propers but it’s not customary.

Follow-up:

1. No the laity never have, and never would do, something as complicated as that offertory.
2. Gregorian chant is the patrimony of the Church, so one doesn’t typically “mess” with it, but the Simple English Propers do what you suggest; it is new music, but with Gregorian modality.
3. No.
4. Not sure I understand the question.

 

[OraLabora]

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

His statement is simply a plain fact; it has nothing to do with the GIRM. As I mentioned earlier, plainchant is not Gregorian chant, but Gregorian chant is plainchant. Many forms of plainchant exist or have existed, Gregorian is but one of them.

His statement about SC is correct, SC encourages the laity to learn some simple settings of the ordinary, but there’s nothing to suggest that SC intends for the laity to learn the Propers. There is a less complex version of the propers in the Graduale Simplex, but it is intended for less experienced choirs, not the laity other than the usual responses and simple parts of the ordinary,

EmmaSowl, Catholic churches will get the music that they pay for. Maybe that’s why so few Catholic parishes ever hear chant.

Our schola does it on a volunteer basis though we do charge a small stipend for funerals.

 

[EmmaSowl]

I thought I did answer your questions.

I will read your post later and respond.

But you still have not directly quoted me when you’ve given answers, so it takes a detective to know if you’ve actually responded to the actual questions.

Good night, and God bless.

 

[otjm]

Most musicians are one or two gigs away from eviction and hunger.

To add to your comment, I saw this yesterday: “Musician: an individual with $5,000 worth of equipment in his car, traveling down the road to a $50 gig.”

 

[OraLabora]

Please tell me more about the Ordinary.

OK one last try. I explained it above, 2nd paragraph.

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

The laity’s part would be the simpler settings of the Ordinary. The schola, would do the Propers and the more complex settings of the Ordinary. If there is a choir the schola would alternate with the choir, and would do the most complex verses of the Propers, but the laity would be left out of that equation. The laity’s role would be have to be limited to the simple settings of the ordinary, unless they were willing to show up during the week for rehearsals!

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

The Simple Propers would not “fulfill” the laity’s role, they would replace the “three-hymn sandwich” and allow the laity to participate in simple chant because they could not really sing the propers in Gregorian chant.

I think part of your problem (and others here) is a misconception about what Gregorian chant is. As you can see it’s a fairly involved subject. Suffices to say that the laity never have, and never likely will, participate in singing the entire Gregorian repertoire. The nature of it is such that they can only ever hope to participate in the simplest possible chants.

 

[OraLabora]

To add to your comment, I saw this yesterday: “Musician: an individual with $5,000 worth of equipment in his car, traveling down the road to a $50 gig.”

It’s kind of like wannabe professional cyclists; the bike on the roof rack is usually worth twice as much as the car under it.

 

[Peeps]

Our schola does it on a volunteer basis though we do charge a small stipend for funerals.

I think that if churches (Catholic and other) were to hire someone who truly knows and is capable of teaching chant to non-musicians, eventually a group of those people would go further in their understanding and ability to chant, and would become a “schola” that could provide chant to more parishes and churches at no cost or for a small stipend.

But in the beginning, when NO ONE in the area or parish knows diddly squat about chant other than what they think they know–SOMEONE has to really know what they are doing! Someone HAS to have the knowledge to teach chant to those who do not have the knowledge but want to learn.

It’s certainly possible that a person who has that knowledge and skill doesn’t need to charge money to impart it to others.

But most people who are have that kind of special knowledge of chant and how to teach it are musicians, many of whom make their main living wage from their music, and therefore, they have every right to expect wages for hard work. Even religious (brothers, sisters, etc.) at least receive a place to stay, a bed, and their daily bread, even if they don’t receive money/salary.

It’'s truly no wonder that most churches in the U.S. don’t ever hear chant other than the very simple chants that even many Protestant churches still use. They aren’t willing to pay anything for it. They somehow think it should just “appear”, if only those liberal priests and musicians would allow it. Hmmph. Same thing for organ music–somehow, some Catholics seem to think that all the musicians who are hiding their lights under bushel baskets should just step up and start playing the pipe organ.

Music is a skill that costs a lot of money to acquire and takes years to learn to do well!. To expect music for free is unrealistic. To get it for free is wonderful, but it will not be the norm for most churches or any organization. There was a time when churches had enough skilled musicians to get organists, pianists, and choirs for free, but nowadays, many people simply don’t have the skills to volunteer, and often don’t have the time (due to work and other responsibilities) to volunteer. And many parents don’t have the guts or the willingness to sacrifice to keep their children in piano/organ lessons–they want their kids to be able to earn a decent living, and the performing arts are iffy at best for earning a good salary.

 

[Peeps]

To add to your comment, I saw this yesterday: “Musician: an individual with $5,000 worth of equipment in his car, traveling down the road to a $50 gig.”

Ha ha!

Add to that…“and with $50,000 worth of schooling and lessons under his/her belt!”

 

[Peeps]

I think part of your problem (and others here) is a misconception about what Gregorian chant is. As you can see it’s a fairly involved subject. Suffices to say that the laity never have, and never likely will, participate in singing the entire Gregorian repertoire. The nature of it is such that they can only ever hope to participate in the simplest possible chants.

Maybe this would help–

Emma Sowl, if you know Handel’s “Messiah”–many regular folks can sing a few lines of the “Hallelujah Chorus”. We do it all the time when something good happens to us, like getting a raise at work, or finally finishing cleaning the basement, or the first day that ALL of your children are in school and you have a whole day to yourself!!

But only a group of musicians who are fairly skilled in reading music can sing the entire oratorio in four parts and do it well enough that people listening don’t put their hands over their ears and grimace in pain.

Chant is the same way. Anyone can intone a few lines of unaccompanied music in Latin. But to do chant beautifully and comfortably, and to be “one voice,” a congregation needs some education and practice, and they need someone who is already knowledgeable to teach them (IMO, from childhood) the correct way to chant.

Every once in a while, our parish will attempt a chanted piece (usually the Agnus Dei). I usually cringe because of the diphthongs and the wavering pitches, although I do realize that it’s not right to think badly about Christians who are trying their best to sing to glorify God.

Badly-done chant is unpleasant for humans to hear, which is one reason why I think most parishes don’t do it! Yes, I’m sure that God enjoys any music done with a pure heart and good intentions!! But…wouldn’t it be better to take the time and make the effort to actually learn to chant correctly and with skill? Why would we want to continue to offer God something that is not the best when we could actually find a teacher and spend the time and effort to learn to chant well and beautifully?

 

[EmmaSowl]

OraLabora, you probably did answer my questions, but there’s a good chance that chant jargon is above my head and I need to be talked down to.

So that you’ll know where I’m coming from, let me express that I am all about the obedience and not at all interested in musical purity (unless it’s part of the obedience).

For example: at our Mission Mass, the correct Alleluia Verse for the day is never (EVER) sung. Instead, every single Mass, the sung verse is “Speak, O Lord, Your servant is listening - You have the words of everlasting life.”

It’s a good verse, but it’s not the verse for every Mass. When I asked why we aren’t given the correct Mass verse, I was told that the chosen musical setting for the parts of the Mass is only set up to sing that one verse.

In other words, some random person’s non-authoritative vision of musical integrity is trumping the directions of our bishops every Sunday at my parish.

And I cannot help but feel the same thing is happening with chant experts.

We are in a penitential season and I have much to repent. We are in a season renewing family ties, and I have a lot to make up for. I do not know when I will get a chance to sincerely study your replies and respond with the respect they deserve. Fingers crossed that the thread will still be alive for me to do so after Christmas.

But I will attempt to provide a clue to my confusion by reposting (and commenting on) what @Peeps posted. I’ve broken the post up with my comments, but the post is fully there (in italics):

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.)

Argh - the rest is continued in the next post.

 

[EmmaSowl]

The rest:

I do not know a thing about polyphony (I suspect that’s for a thread all it’s own). I do not know what is included in “other kinds of sacred music,” but I’m guessing that may include hymns. I DO know that, whatever music is used, it must correspond to the liturgical action and must foster the participation of all the faithful.

As to corresponding to the liturgical action, I know that (at all regular and mission Masses of my parish), it is standard practice for the music to go on and on and on (and on and on and on) well past any liturgical action.

(I watch the faithful squirming and talking and rolling their eyes as a hymn continues well past any reason - I, myself, tend to fall to my knees in such moments).

Plus, every parish I’ve been a part of has a FOUR hymn sandwich (Meditation Hymn is included - leaving not one iota of silence for prayerful thanks).

Very little of this fosters the full participation of the faithful.

And if absolutely pure Gregorian chant propers does not foster the full participation of the faithful, then I cannot help but conclude that 100% pure daily propers are not what our bishops had in mind. In fact, they specifically referred to “the simpler settings”:

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

In my 26 years as a Catholic, I have never heard the Profession of Faith chanted. I HAVE heard the Lord’s Prayer chanted - but only in English.

When I read the above GIRM quote, I cannot help but conclude that the music of the Mass should be solemn, should correspond to the liturgical actions, should be unifying, and should foster the participation of the faithful. I conclude that this can be done with Gregorian chant (including its simpler settings), polyphony, and other sacred music.

I do not conclude that the faithful must become experts in the propers.

Have a blessed Advent and a Merry Christmas. After the holidays, I hope we can continue - not only in chant discussion but also in the discussion of the fate of people in the arts (I have a Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude BA from UCLA in Motion Picture/Television Production - but I have not made one dime from it).

 

[Dewey83]

I am not a big fan of chanting during Mass. It does not have an easily discernible or appealing melody. It is easy in that it is typically repeated notes or walking along the scale with no interval leaps, but in most cases, I would prefer a spoken prayer/response or composed hymn/Mass part.

I grew up with hymnals like Glory & Praise and Breaking Bread. They make it easy for anyone who reads music to pick up a hymn very fast, and they can also help the younger people learn how to read music. I wish they were in wider use today because it is harder to learn a song/hymn just reading the words on a page or wall and hearing the choir sing it.

I would like all the music, speaking, and prayers at a Mass to be in the same language. Currently, the Mass I attend has a call and response Kyrie Eleison. While it is certainly easy to participate in singing it, I am willing to bet that a significant percentage of the congregation could not tell you that it translates to “Lord, have mercy.” The Latin is just not taught in the schools or churches anymore, so it does not make sense to me to use it, no matter how many pleasant associations it holds for the older members of the community.

No matter what type of music is used in a church, there has to be gradual teaching and introduction of it. They taught the new words to the Creed and other Mass responses over a long period of time, and it worked. Music also takes time to become familiar, and music directors should introduce only one new thing at a time.

One of my worst musical memories at Mass is the time that they just started us singing Sanctus and Agnus Dei chants in Latin with absolutely no instruction. It was obviously something the older members of the congregation were quite familiar with, but it was literally a foreign language to everyone else. For a long time, I was basically saying the prayers in English in my head because the Latin words and chant rhythms were so strange to me.

 

[OraLabora]

Kyrie Eleison. While it is certainly easy to participate in singing it, I am willing to bet that a significant percentage of the congregation could not tell you that it translates to “Lord, have mercy.” The Latin is just not taught in the schools or churches anymore,

Kyrie Eleison is Greek, not Latin.

 

[Dewey83]

I did not know that it was Greek, and I thank you for expanding my education. The point still stands that most parishioners are not going to know Latin, Greek, or any other language besides the one they grew up with.

 

[OraLabora]

It’s one of two places with Greek in the Liturgy, the other being the improperes on Good Friday.

Chant can also be in the vernacular. Typically in those cases the melodies are much simpler, as the complex ones really only work with Latin.

That said though, the simpler settings of the Kyrie, Gloria, etc are certainly easy to learn, and I don’t think it’s impossible to learn their meaning.

 

[EmmaSowl]

The best chant experience I had was with a monk/cantor chanting in English.