English Gregorian Chant

[bpbasilphx]

I really don’t care as to whether or not Latin chants were adapted to Slavonic texts. I am not Slavonic so it is irrelevant to me. My ancestry is Italian. I grew up with Gregorian Chant in Latin. I prefer Latin. It’s a personal preference, and I’m a purist in that regard. PERIOD.

To summarize, you’re a purist in liking your personal preferences.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Yes, but that’s the key. It hasn’t CHANGED. No one can tell me that an opera (a three-hour Madame Butterfly, for example) would be the same if it’s translated from Italian to English. It would lose most of its art and beauty. If it’s all about vernacular, something will be gained maybe, but much of it will be lost. We want to preserve as much as we can.

As a matter of fact, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has been tinkered with by ALL Churches and people who have adopted it, just like the Roman Use was before Trent.

And I’ve been an operatic stage manager as well as a concert accompanist, pit musician, and conductor, so I have some definite opinions about having operas in the langauge of the audience.

I agree. ICEL is a disgrace. The priest at my former Maronite parish spent half of a liturgy class talking about how ICEL botched translations not only for the Latins, but the Byzantines and Maronites. Every so often I read Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s blog and wonder why someone like him is not used to translation Latin prayers into English.

To my knowledge, no ICEL text has been adopted by any Byzantine Church, Catholic or Orthodox. If I’m mistaken, can you set me right?

 

[Harpazo]

As a matter of fact, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has been tinkered with by ALL Churches and people who have adopted it, just like the Roman Use was before Trent.

And I’ve been an operatic stage manager as well as a concert accompanist, pit musician, and conductor, so I have some definite opinions about having operas in the langauge of the audience.

To my knowledge, no ICEL text has been adopted by any Byzantine Church, Catholic or Orthodox. If I’m mistaken, can you set me right?

I don’t see why the Orthodox would use any translations from ICEL, they are a Catholic organization. As for the Byzantine Catholics, I will have to get back to you on that. Their website only lists Latin liturgical books, but I am not sure if they had anything to do with the Ruthenian Revised Divine Liturgy. I do know that they are responsible for the the translation of Novus Ordo Missae into English and according to the priest at my former Maronite parish, they had some role in the translation of the Maronite Liturgy into English.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Renko]

I went to mass on Christmas eve where the entire mass was chanted in english and incense offered five different times. Awesome! I would rather hear a chanted mass any day than the dull masses we have now.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I went to mass on Christmas eve where the entire mass was chanted in english and incense offered five different times. Awesome! I would rather hear a chanted mass any day than the dull masses we have now.

**Again, this is what I want to see more of in the Latin Church, with BOTH forms of the Roman Rite.

This is what I’m suggesting as a healthy and traditional alternative to offbeat attempts at ceremonial enrichments we’ve seen mourned elsewhere.**

 

[malphono]

I do know that they are responsible for the the translation of Novus Ordo Missae into English and according to the priest at my former Maronite parish, they had some role in the translation of the Maronite Liturgy into English.

The ICEL has never been directly involved translating any part of Maronite liturgical texts. At the same time, though, whenever there is a common text, (e.g. the Creed, the infamous “and also with you” etc) it plays an indirect role in that the Maronite bishops have elected to use the ICEL version of those common texts. This has been the case since 1971.

The weak defense for this practice offered by the US Maronite bishops is to the effect of “we don’t want people “confused” when they attend both Roman Rite and Maronite churches.” (And, BTW, they use the exact same flimsy excuse for their insistence on versus populum celebration.) Consequently, they will only adopt the revised (perhaps “restored” is more accurate) versions of these texts when the entire new English translation of the OF has been formally released. (I’m told that Australia has “jumped the gun” so-to-speak, meaning that “and also with you” etc is no longer used there.

 

[ProVobis]

LOL - What’s funny about that is Italian opera is sung in German in Germany, or in French in France; however, it is sung in Italian in America. Go figure…

I’ve heard something to that effect. But if I were German, it would bother me to have Bach’s cantatas sung in English. English just doesn’t have the “umf” to it or something.

As for French, isn’t it considered the language of love? I could easily hear some operas in French.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I’ve heard something to that effect. But if I were German, it would bother me to have Bach’s cantatas sung in English. English just doesn’t have the “umf” to it or something.

As for French, isn’t it considered the language of love? I could easily hear some operas in French.

FWIW, The Met’s first production was Faust–in Italian, not French.

They also gave their first performances of the Ring cycle in Italian.

All languages have sufficient “umf” for their own purposes.

 

[jonpd]

A shower with a raincoat is better than no shower at all. But a real shower would be the best.

Before I swam back across the Tiber 9 years ago I attended a High Episcopal church where we sang minor propers and psalms using Gregorian modes but in English. It was beautiful.

However I think Latin somehow lends itself better to chant. One reason may be because the music was originally written for the Latin words and the English may not fit as well.

Jon

 

[MonFrere]

However I think Latin somehow lends itself better to chant. One reason may be because the music was originally written for the Latin words and the English may not fit as well.

I’m a purist of this one, too.

Just take the first phrase of the Gloria and compare.

gloria in excelsis deo
glory to God in the highest

When a composer writes to a hymn or any lyric the words and music are conceived of as a unit. The syntax of the words works together with the “contour” of the melody. So a melody written to the words “gloria in excelsis deo” won’t properly fit with the words “glory to God in the highest”. The rearrangement of adjectives to nouns in the various languages makes this more difficult - not only is translation for accuracy a challenge (which we are experiencing) but the added difficult of accuracy of translation is the matching of a melodic contour that was conceived in a different language makes this task virtually impossible IF one also has the goal of not destroying the “art”.

Musically, artistically and perhaps even theologically I think the best decision is to keep the ordinary of the Mass in Latin.

The next best thing is to wait until each nation gives birth to its “Palestrina” to compose music worthy of the Mass in the native tongue of each people.

I do think that some sort of “compromise” is awaiting to be made because the future of the Church and the area of greatest potential growth is outside Europe concerning the degree of Latin incorporated into the Mass. Can anyone conceive of Chinese Gregorian Chant?

MonFrere

 

[ProVobis]

Musically, artistically and perhaps even theologically I think the best decision is to keep the ordinary of the Mass in Latin.

And it’s good to know it won’t be changed in 40 years or even 10 years when someone figures that a vernacular is not the best translation.

I do think that some sort of “compromise” is awaiting to be made because the future of the Church and the area of greatest potential growth is outside Europe concerning the degree of Latin incorporated into the Mass.

If we don’t insist on the Latin, we may end up having to learn Spanish, where this vernacular is becoming more and more common.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m a purist of this one, too.

Just take the first phrase of the Gloria and compare.

gloria in excelsis deo
glory to God in the highest

Well, I will comment on this, since I sing the Gloria in English every week.

We do not say “Glory to God in the Highest” we sing “Glory to God on High”. But, one can do chant in any language, it doesn’t somehow “belong” to Latin. We could all chant the psalms in Hebrew if we wanted to be really authentic. Personally, I wouldn’t mind them in Latin but I studied it in university; but I think many congregations, since there are different psalms every week, would prefer not to chant them (pray them) in a language they are not familiar with. It’s not quite the same as the parts that don’t change, which are easy to learn if you hear them each week.

But even though the Vatican has said explicitly that they want to emphasize Latin, they have also said explicitly that Mass in the vernacular is important and should be available. And I do believe I recall that they wish to encourage traditional chant forms in the vernacular.

 

[ProVobis]

And I do believe I recall that they wish to encourage traditional chant forms in the vernacular.

And, of course, we all know all translations are accurate and will never change.

I think it’s best if you’re going to chant in English, then at least be original. I heard “O Sanctissima” the other day in English and I was ready to retch.

 

[Bluegoat]

And, of course, we all know all translations are accurate and will never change.

I think it’s best if you’re going to chant in English, then at least be original. I heard “O Sanctissima” the other day in English and I was ready to retch.

So you would suggest that the psalms be done in Hebrew?

Good translations are possible. Anglicans have had decent ones for 500 years. The more recent translation issues are really related to deeper theological problems.

 

[MonFrere]

Well, I will comment on this, since I sing the Gloria in English every week.

My basic comment wasn’t really about the exclusivity of Latin. My comment was more to the translation of musical melodies conceived in Latin to other languages. My preference here is that it’s best to sing these in the language conceived for the reasons I gave.

I think the Anglicans have a 500 year head start, liturgically and musically speaking because they have had quality composers writing liturgical music in a more religious age. In that sense, I think the Anglicans can be used as a model for what can be done with a vernacular language for liturgical composition. Even as a Catholic (and a musician) I have always enjoyed your musical tradition. You have a great vocal tradition. So, I think perhaps the Pope’s gesture to the TAC will prove to be a godsend to the whole church in this age when the vernacular is going to be a liturgical component of our Masses – even if Latin is chosen for the ordinary (which remains to be seen). You should be a leader in this with your 500 year head start.

I see no problem with the Responsorial Psalm being in the vernacular. I can see it as being a preference, actually – provided that the translation is proper. I think the ordinary, being “ordinary” (and unchanging) wouldn’t be too much a demand for any people to learn – especially if the faith is taught as it should be taught. I think the propers better fit the vernacular since they change each week.

Now – for each country to develop a “chant tradition” - a tradition that been dead for over 1000 years (meaning composers are not writing in chant) is really asking for a lot. For me, this is the difficulty for asking missionary peoples to ask the converts to memorize a great deal of chant that’s in a language for which they have no familiarity. IMO - It makes sense in those countries where there already is a strong Catholic presence – but it doesn’t make as much sense in countries where this presence is not strong.

I don’t have any idea how all these musical - liturgical - and missionary threads are going to best work out. This combined with the current liturgical difficulties the Church faces makes for a real head scratcher.

MonFrere

 

[MonFrere]

I think it’s best if you’re going to chant in English, then at least be original. I heard “O Sanctissima” the other day in English and I was ready to retch.

I think that the English language is capable of the loftiest prose and poetry one can imagine. I also totally understand your point of direct translations leaving a lot to be desired. I think the BEST solution in this case is to have an entirely new piece of poetry written that contains the ideas of “O Sanctissima” in the new native language and have it composed to that new lyric. OR just have new hymns written in the best English prose/poetry concerning the Blessed Virgin.

MonFrere

 

[Bluegoat]

My basic comment wasn’t really about the exclusivity of Latin. My comment was more to the translation of musical melodies conceived in Latin to other languages. My preference here is that it’s best to sing these in the language conceived for the reasons I gave.

I think the Anglicans have a 500 year head start, liturgically and musically speaking because they have had quality composers writing liturgical music in a more religious age. In that sense, I think the Anglicans can be used as a model for what can be done with a vernacular language for liturgical composition. Even as a Catholic (and a musician) I have always enjoyed your musical tradition. You have a great vocal tradition. So, I think perhaps the Pope’s gesture to the TAC will prove to be a godsend to the whole church in this age when the vernacular is going to be a liturgical component of our Masses – even if Latin is chosen for the ordinary (which remains to be seen). You should be a leader in this with your 500 year head start.

I see no problem with the Responsorial Psalm being in the vernacular. I can see it as being a preference, actually – provided that the translation is proper. I think the ordinary, being “ordinary” (and unchanging) wouldn’t be too much a demand for any people to learn – especially if the faith is taught as it should be taught. I think the propers better fit the vernacular since they change each week.

Now – for each country to develop a “chant tradition” - a tradition that been dead for over 1000 years (meaning composers are not writing in chant) is really asking for a lot. For me, this is the difficulty for asking missionary peoples to ask the converts to memorize a great deal of chant that’s in a language for which they have no familiarity. IMO - It makes sense in those countries where there already is a strong Catholic presence – but it doesn’t make as much sense in countries where this presence is not strong.

I don’t have any idea how all these musical - liturgical - and missionary threads are going to best work out. This combined with the current liturgical difficulties the Church faces makes for a real head scratcher.

MonFrere

Well, I think I agree with everything you have said.

Missionary work, I agree, is not really the place to try to introduce a new language to people. It can be difficult enough to figure out how to present Christianity in their language without distorting it. I wouldn’t say it could never work, but I don’t think it is the biggest priority.

I think it is important to see the musical tradition of the Church as something that not only goes back to the past, but forward into the future. Polyphony was once a new thing too. And there have always been times when corrections were made when the forms being used were somehow inappropriate - that in itself is nothing new.

 

[ProVobis]

So you would suggest that the psalms be done in Hebrew?

Good translations are possible. Anglicans have had decent ones for 500 years. The more recent translation issues are really related to deeper theological problems.

Hebrew is considered one of the worship languages. It’s okay. By the way, why haven’t we translated “Alleluia” or “Hosanna” yet, huh?

I could poke holes in all translations but actually I personally wouldn’t mind “Thees” and “Thous” in the Mass. It’s the conversational and secular English that needs to stay out of liturgical chants.