Hymnals Revisited

[Sarabande]

continued…

The other thing that I have constantly seen in all of these Church documents is the importance of keeping the dignity and solemnity of the liturgy with all sacred art, but most importantly sacred music. It has nothing to do with what we like and find aesthetically pleasing to us or how much more technically brilliant a composition is to another. We all know that there are some really beautiful, inspiring (and appropriate) hymns that may be less brilliant in technical composition, but as spiritually-inspiring as virtual masterpieces equally as appropriate to mass.

What is more important is how the depth of understanding a composer and the musician has in the “sensus ecclesiae”. (And, yes, some people do find this term ambiguous and overwhelming if it is not understood, which should be research and understood in order to not feel intimidated by it before attempting to compose a piece of sacred music or to perform it). We, as musicians and composers, need to be truly honest with ourselves when reviewing any piece of music for the liturgy. We have to ask ourselves if the composition or the rendering of the musical composition truly elevates the liturgy and the minds and souls of the people towards spiritual enlightenment. Or if it just make us and the people feel good.

continue…

 

[Sarabande]

continue…

Does a secular style of composition or performance in a secular style without any kind of refinement to make it grow organically from Her traditions, truly add to the dignity of the liturgy? How do we determine if it is truly secular? That is an important question, as it seems so many people today want to say that it is up to the individual person. But the Church has continually made distinctions and has wisely/unwisely not make clear cut bans in recent history so as not to stymie new compositions. When looking throughout the history of sacred music, though, secular styles of music and secular rendering of any kind music have constantly been considered “undignified” for liturgy and have consistantly been required to be refined for mass.

The performance of a secular polyphonic piece (which was popular music at one time and is performed differently from sacred polyphonic works that are currently allowed in mass) made the people of that time feel good. Thus one of the reasons why they wanted to bring it into the liturgy. Same human emotions to music back then as we have today to our popular music. But it didn’t make the rendering of it appropriate as it wasn’t “organically” grown out of the way chant was rendered. It had to be refined. The same can be said of other styles - especially during the age of bel canto in the 19th century and operatic singing was heard often in mass. It isn’t a coincidence that the Church had to reiterate the importance and dignity of sacred music and remind the people about the dignity of the liturgy in the early 20th century.

It’s happening again today. All of us who were very comfy in the nests we created with the music that we preferred now are faced with re-examining it and potentially having to be rid of it for mass, at least, if we are truly honest with ourselves. That’s not an easy thing to do when for many of us music is part of our lives and souls or if you’re a composer or songwriter who makes her/his living off of a certain style/genre of music. It’s also not easy for publishers who could would need to change their whole outlook on the music. Change can be painful for musicians and especially for the “lay” people (non-musicians). And because of that, stopping it cold turkey without a proper weaning process can be more detrimental than helpful.

I hope I’m making sense. I’ve been through a natural evolution in my thoughts and beliefs of sacred music as I grow and mature as a musician as well as a Catholic Christian and these are how I see things.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

IMHO- it’s a lot easier to learn new chants than it is to learn new songs.

 

[mercygate]

Since most Churches only sing the same 50 songs over and over again… it seems like 200 is a good number.

I hear ya. But I used to be an Episcopalian. We sang at least half of the 600-item hymnal. Usually 5 at each Mass.

 

[brigid12]

I love the Adoramus hymnal.

 

[GabrielPenfield]

Hi Loweezi,

We have used World Library Publications (JS Paluch) Seasonal Missalette at my church for many years. For a long time, the Glory & Praise hardbound hymnals (v.1-3 complete) sat in the pew racks as well. Over my years as music director, I found that the best of the G&P songs made their way gradually into the Missalette, and we were singing a small fraction of the 275 songs in the G&P hymnal. However, our pastor was very conservative about spending money, and I felt he might not want to purchase new hymnals. In addition, I was concerned that the congegation might think they were losing something. So I sat on it too long. Even with a new pastor, I hesitated.

Finally, I discussed the situation with the new pastor and staff, and what I ultimately recommended was the *We Celebrate Hymnal *from WLP. It included all of the Missalette songs, including ones we used to sing that were no longer included in the Missalette, and most of the G&P songs we sang. While We Celebrate has its own missal, we kept our Missalettes because of the option of more traditional texts on the older songs. We Celebrate has over 600 hymns/songs, many settings of Psalms, and music for rites of the church, for a total of about 800 items. It is not hardbound, but durable plastic covers can be used over it. In my opinion, the printed music is much nicer to look at than OCP. It is a subscription and is updated every three years. (Seasonal Missalette and the *We Celebrate Missal *include new songs whenever appropriate). There is a higher percentage of traditional music than in OCP. It does include some chants, as well as Latin hymns. There are some Spanish hymns as well. This hymnal also includes many songs set to familiar tunes, so teaching new music is easy. The cost is similar to OCP’s Music Issue. I find that the new hymns are very liturgical and usually singable. As with OCP, there are some highly contemporary items as well. But I find WLP really suits everyone, young and old. We blessed the hymnals and sang a dedication song (“Let All Things Now Living”–a tune they already knew (THE ASH GROVE). The hymnals were warmly received by the congregation, making me annoyed that I waited so long.

I will add, however, that going to We Celebrate did not completely serve us. I got reprint permission from a few sources to include a supplement with about 20 items, along with some public domain hymns, so that we did not lose anything we were singing. You may need to do this as well. Fortunately, my supplement fit nicely at the back of the hymnal, tucked into the clear plastic cover.

If you think you need to stay with OCP, by all means look at Journeysongs, which has a much better balance of traditional to contemporary, and includes some chant. OCP’s hymnals are very strong in Spanish-language hymns as well, if that’s important to your congregation. (WLP has Spanish and bilingual hymnals as well, but only in paperback.)

A final caveat: If you are looking for a hardbound hymnal, you will find GIA songs only in GIA hymnals. They are not currently allowing their songs to be printed in other publishers’ *hardbound *hymnals. If you want to see GIA songs, you must purchase a soft-bound hymnal. It is my hope that this will be changed in the future.

 

[benedictgal]

Hi Loweezi,

We have used World Library Publications (JS Paluch) Seasonal Missalette at my church for many years. For a long time, the Glory & Praise hardbound hymnals (v.1-3 complete) sat in the pew racks as well. Over my years as music director, I found that the best of the G&P songs made their way gradually into the Missalette, and we were singing a small fraction of the 275 songs in the G&P hymnal. However, our pastor was very conservative about spending money, and I felt he might not want to purchase new hymnals. In addition, I was concerned that the congegation might think they were losing something. So I sat on it too long. Even with a new pastor, I hesitated.

Finally, I discussed the situation with the new pastor and staff, and what I ultimately recommended was the *We Celebrate Hymnal *from WLP. It included all of the Missalette songs, including ones we used to sing that were no longer included in the Missalette, and most of the G&P songs we sang. While We Celebrate has its own missal, we kept our Missalettes because of the option of more traditional texts on the older songs. We Celebrate has over 600 hymns/songs, many settings of Psalms, and music for rites of the church, for a total of about 800 items. It is not hardbound, but durable plastic covers can be used over it. In my opinion, the printed music is much nicer to look at than OCP. It is a subscription and is updated every three years. (Seasonal Missalette and the *We Celebrate Missal *include new songs whenever appropriate). There is a higher percentage of traditional music than in OCP. It does include some chants, as well as Latin hymns. There are some Spanish hymns as well. This hymnal also includes many songs set to familiar tunes, so teaching new music is easy. The cost is similar to OCP’s Music Issue. I find that the new hymns are very liturgical and usually singable. As with OCP, there are some highly contemporary items as well. But I find WLP really suits everyone, young and old. We blessed the hymnals and sang a dedication song (“Let All Things Now Living”–a tune they already knew (THE ASH GROVE). The hymnals were warmly received by the congregation, making me annoyed that I waited so long.

I will add, however, that going to We Celebrate did not completely serve us. I got reprint permission from a few sources to include a supplement with about 20 items, along with some public domain hymns, so that we did not lose anything we were singing. You may need to do this as well. Fortunately, my supplement fit nicely at the back of the hymnal, tucked into the clear plastic cover.

If you think you need to stay with OCP, by all means look at Journeysongs, which has a much better balance of traditional to contemporary, and includes some chant. OCP’s hymnals are very strong in Spanish-language hymns as well, if that’s important to your congregation. (WLP has Spanish and bilingual hymnals as well, but only in paperback.)

A final caveat: If you are looking for a hardbound hymnal, you will find GIA songs only in GIA hymnals. They are not currently allowing their songs to be printed in other publishers’ *hardbound *hymnals. If you want to see GIA songs, you must purchase a soft-bound hymnal. It is my hope that this will be changed in the future.

A priest friend of mine recommended JourneySong, but, having leafed through it, I did not like it at all. It seems that the inclusive language bug has hit everyone of the books in the OCP arsenal. We used to use We Celebrate at the Cathedral, but, we had gotten a great deal on used Worship III hymnals (older ones without the tinge of inclusive language) and these worked well. However, when the new administrator came, he hid the Worship III books and stuck the Cathedral with OCP.

With all due respect, I would run away from OCP because of the inclusive language problems and the fact that they push their own arsenal as opposed to solid, doctrinally rich songs. What is in there has been ruined by inclusive language and bad editing.

The Spanish songs are not any better. Hurd’s compositions for the Mass, especially the Agnus Dei, take excessive liberties with the words. In fact, on some of the service music, if you were to match the words of the Gloria to the official text in the Roman Missal, you will find that the settings have chopped up the prayer deleting all references to God the Father and Jesus Christ by name. That is bad. In fact, it goes against the provisions set forth by Liturgiam Authenticam that prohibit paraphrasing of the official liturgical texts of the Church. As I have stated in previous posts, there are some Spanish songs that have tinges of liberation theology (Pueblos Nuevos–Danos Un Corazon).

GIA’s biggest problem comes with its two composers: Haugen and Haas. Haugen takes excessive liberties with his Mass compositions. The best ones come from Proulix (A Community Mass) because he is faithful to the words as they appear in the Roman Missal and does not paraphrase. Songs written by Haugen and Haas are too horizontally-focused (much like OCP’s Hurd, Manolo, et al). It is as though these folks have not read any of the authoritative documents of the Holy See on Sacred Music.

 

[MusicMan]

Benedictgal, I agree with every critique and point you make in post #47. As far as criticisms of sacred music are concerned, your post is ULTIMATE WIN!

 

[zab]

One of my favorite hymns that we have always sung in our parish is “Beautiful Savior”. Last year’s MUSIC ISSUE had the word “thee” changed to “You”
Beautiful Savior, King of Creation, Son of God and Son of Man! Truly I’d love you, Truly I’d serve you, Light of my soul, my joy, my crown."

I wouldn’t say it ruined the song, but it did lessen the beauty of it somewhat, in my opinion. However, the hymn was also in the back of TODAY’S MISSAL and it stil had the original words. I just don’t see the need for removeing “thee, thy and thou” and replacing them with “you” and “your”.

However, I know that there are some devout people who prefer to use "you’ and “your” when reciting prayers like the Our Father and the Hail Mary.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

One of my favorite hymns that we have always sung in our parish is “Beautiful Savior”. Last year’s MUSIC ISSUE had the word “thee” changed to “You”
Beautiful Savior, King of Creation, Son of God and Son of Man! Truly I’d love you, Truly I’d serve you, Light of my soul, my joy, my crown."

I wouldn’t say it ruined the song, but it did lessen the beauty of it somewhat, in my opinion. However, the hymn was also in the back of TODAY’S MISSAL and it stil had the original words. I just don’t see the need for removeing “thee, thy and thou” and replacing them with “you” and “your”.

However, I know that there are some devout people who prefer to use "you’ and “your” when reciting prayers like the Our Father and the Hail Mary.

My objection to the removal of the older terms is that they represent the informal “you” which most languages still retain. One would say “you” to a superior or to an acquaintance, much as one would use “Sie” in German or “Usted” in Spanish. To an intimate friend, family member, child, or to God our Father, one would say "thou/thee, " corresponding to the German “du” or the Spanish “tu.” To use the informal term toward God or Our Lady, even though it is archaic, is to me a more intimate and loving way to pray.

 

[GabrielPenfield]

BenedictGal,
I also totally agree with your post, especially with regard to OCP. I’m not sure how you truly feel about WLP; nobody’s perfect, but they’re working for my parish. (If you look hard enough, you can even find a few wrong texts in the Adoremus Hymnal, though not because of any agenda.) In almost every case, if I find a hymn text that’s theologically dubious, it is from some other publisher. I only suggested OCP if the poster felt a need to stick with them–which should not be the case because the other major publishers include many of the popular OCP songs.

With regard to inclusive language, it seems we can only hope that a large portion of poor choices might be struck down with regards to the newly restated rules on horizontal vs. vertical texts, and the importance of relationship within the Holy Trinity. This of course, will not fix the alteration of changed words regarding us “merry gentlefolk” such as man, mankind, brotherhood, fellowship, etc., which are generally replaced by something awkward or misleading. Ultimately, if we are forced to have updated/inclusive language, it would be helpful if the major publishers could get together and agree on one set of texts for each hymn in question, so that you don’t sing the same Christmas song in three different Catholic Churches with three different sets of words (and maybe a few more from your Protestant friends).

I will agree with others: write lovely new inclusive language hymns and leave our treasures as they are.

Cavaille-Coll,
Thanks for your clarification on the use of the “archaic” words thee, thou, etc. I grew up thinking that those were strictly formal terms. It wasn’t until a few years back that I realized that the familiar form, such as the Spanish “tú,” was the way God was addressed. It sure turns things around. It makes sense that it would have been the case in English also.