Music Selection for New Missal

[Barbkw]

At Mass this weekend we started learning the music for the new Missal. Do all parishes sing to the same musical notes while singing the prayers?

The music selection for the prayers (in my opinion) has gone from singable to insane.

High notes that 7/8 ths of women in the pews can’t reach, staggered beats that make the prayer a bit odd to sing, (people only joining in on the refrains).

Although I’m not a good singer I like to try, but the new music selection is making me think twice about participating.

I can imagine what most men in the pews are thinking of this music.

 

[TheMc]

At Mass this weekend we started learning the music for the new Missal. Do all parishes sing to the same musical notes while singing the prayers?

The music selection for the prayers (in my opinion) has gone from singable to insane.

High notes that 7/8 ths of women in the pews can’t reach, staggered beats that make the prayer a bit odd to sing, (people only joining in on the refrains).

Although I’m not a good singer I like to try, but the new music selection is making me think twice about participating.

I can imagine what most men in the pews are thinking of this music.

Actually, the music in the missal is quite simple. It’s the new music that composers are writing to go with the new text that’s the problem. I feared this would happen. Why can we just sing good, solid music? Chant polyphony and hymns was perfectly fine. Let’s continue with it, as the church wants.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

No, all parishes are not singing the same Mass settings.

In the Minneapolis-St. Paul diocese someone did a survey of parishes and fund that 57 parishes were reporting that they would use 24 different settings of the new translation. More info is available at Pray Tell Blog: praytellblog.com/index.php/2011/10/11/each-parish-unto-itself/

I think it will take time for a few settings to rise to the top as the most popular and widely known. Mass of Creation probably filled that role with the old setting and the Minneapolis survey shows that its revision is the most popular of the new settings as well.

 

[countertenor]

I hear about music in the Latin Church being too high, all the time. In general most of the publishers of “Catholic Music” in the US score the music for medium-low voices. Almost non of it goes to high for even a bass voice to sing. The real problem is that much of the music is written in a soloistic style, that is not really conducive to congregational singing, which strange rests which as you have stated make breathing irregular, and the fact that in general many people simply don’t know how to use their voices properly, which makes them feel like the music is high, when it’s really only getting into the upper-middle part of the vocal range.

 

[JButky]

At Mass this weekend we started learning the music for the new Missal. Do all parishes sing to the same musical notes while singing the prayers?

There are bunches of different settings. We also introduced the new setting that our parish will be using and it was VERY well received.

Just like anything, there will be the good and the bad of settings to the new text.

If I might add a personal observation also. The settings should support the new text. As such, they should be newly composed to achieve that end. I no more support rehashing chant to fit English language as rehashing an old setting to accommodate a new translation. It’s just not right.

If we are going to use chant, why no just do it in the original Latin (or Greek)? English and chant often are a bad pairing when the translation is merely applied to the original Latin. The flow and accents are usually at odds with the melody. Besides, then you don’t even need to change the setting if you use the Latin.

So I support changing the music completely to fit new English text translations. How else can you make a worthy musical contribution that does justice to the revised texts? There was a modified setting available of the current one we use, but it is just not “right”. So we decided to scrap it. A new translation requires new settings composed to be beautiful for it.

Joe B

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

At Mass this weekend we started learning the music for the new Missal. Do all parishes sing to the same musical notes while singing the prayers?

The music selection for the prayers (in my opinion) has gone from singable to insane.

High notes that 7/8 ths of women in the pews can’t reach, staggered beats that make the prayer a bit odd to sing, (people only joining in on the refrains).

Although I’m not a good singer I like to try, but the new music selection is making me think twice about participating.

I can imagine what most men in the pews are thinking of this music.

Unless its the responsorial psalm, none of the sung prayers should have “refrains.”

 

[TheMc]

Unless its the responsorial psalm, none of the sung prayers should have “refrains.”

Don’t get me started.

 

[pnewton]

I think it will take time for a few settings to rise to the top as the most popular and widely known. Mass of Creation probably filled that role with the old setting and the Minneapolis survey shows that its revision is the most popular of the new settings as well.

I think this one will still have popularity. We have three parishes in the area that are using the new revision of this setting. I was at my son’s school and they too had started using the Mass of Creation in its revised form. It is the one that I am introducing in my parish. We did a collaborative effort in sifting through the various options and came back to this as being the simpliest to implement. I noticed that this revision corrected all the errors that were previously made on the words and it follows the new translation faithfully.

For the OP, we will be playing it down a step and a half.

 

[ErrolXavierLobo]

It is definitely disappointing to know that the congregation, for whom the choir is present to serve, is feeling detached from the singing. You should definitely let the choir director know (charitably).

Coming to your question: No, the number of settings available for the revised texts are increasing by the day! The ICEL has itself provided music for the texts. You will also find several publishers such as OCP providing both ‘New’ and ‘Revised’ Settings, CCWatershed too has provided multiple settings that I reckon you may prefer. All these have been composed keeping the congregation in mind.

 

[JButky]

It is definitely disappointing to know that the congregation, for whom the choir is present to serve, is feeling detached from the singing. You should definitely let the choir director know (charitably).
.

I would disagree that the choir is there to serve the congregation. The choir primarily serves the liturgy. The congregation actively participates by joining in or listening. Both ways are acceptable.

But I would agree that the congregation being detached from singing the Mass is problematic.

Joe B

 

[pnewton]

I would disagree that the choir is there to serve the congregation. The choir primarily serves the liturgy.

Assisting the congregation in their participation of the liturgy is my primary service to the liturgy. Man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for Man. Man is not created for Mass, but the Sacrifice of the Mass (and Calvary) is for Man. I have alway assumed the responsibility of making the act of congregational worship as seamless as possible for the congregation, within the limits given by the Church. If people are not singing, I am not doing my job right.

To the OP, I will add that there is nothing in the GIRM that suggests the music should be suitable only to the most extreme sopranos.

 

[SaintLalemant]

Simple settings of the New Translation can be found here:

ccwatershed.org/vatican/harmonizations/1/

Practice videos are also there.

 

[ErrolXavierLobo]

I would disagree that the choir is there to serve the congregation. The choir primarily serves the liturgy. The congregation actively participates by joining in or listening. Both ways are acceptable.

Joe B

Take a cue from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy that calls for a “full, conscious and active participation by the congregation” which is their “right by Baptism” (SC 14) and goes further to say “Choirs must be diligently promoted, especially in cathedral churches; but bishops and other pastors of souls must be at pains to ensure that, whenever the sacred action is to be celebrated with song, the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightly theirs” (SC 114).

I believe that this practice of reducing the congregation to be ‘mere spectators’ with choirs giving ‘performances’ is to be deplored. Like pnewton rightly pointed out, “if the congregation is not singing, the choirs are not doing their job”

 

[YoungTradCath]

Take a cue from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy that calls for a “full, conscious and active participation by the congregation” which is their “right by Baptism” (SC 14) and goes further to say “Choirs must be diligently promoted, especially in cathedral churches; but bishops and other pastors of souls must be at pains to ensure that, whenever the sacred action is to be celebrated with song, the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightly theirs” (SC 114).

I believe that this practice of reducing the congregation to be ‘mere spectators’ with choirs giving ‘performances’ is to be deplored. Like pnewton rightly pointed out, “if the congregation is not singing, the choirs are not doing their job”

I love spectating. Full, active, conscious participation doesn’t mean that mass should be like a field day where the coach (priest) is trying desperately to “get everyone involved.” Full, active, conscious participation is firstly internal, and secondarily external.

I find that when I go to masses, many people just drone out subconsciously the responses. I catch myself many times doing this, especially with the Creed.

I’d rather have quiet, contemplative masses the majority of the time, with singing, music, etc., reserved for major solemnities and whatnot.

 

[Elizium23]

Assisting the congregation in their participation of the liturgy is my primary service to the liturgy. Man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for Man. Man is not created for Mass, but the Sacrifice of the Mass (and Calvary) is for Man. I have always assumed the responsibility of making the act of congregational worship as seamless as possible for the congregation, within the limits given by the Church. If people are not singing, I am not doing my job right.

To the OP, I will add that there is nothing in the GIRM that suggests the music should be suitable only to the most extreme sopranos.

This.

 

[TheMc]

Take a cue from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy that calls for a “full, conscious and active participation by the congregation” which is their “right by Baptism” (SC 14) and goes further to say “Choirs must be diligently promoted, especially in cathedral churches; but bishops and other pastors of souls must be at pains to ensure that, whenever the sacred action is to be celebrated with song, the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightly theirs” (SC 114).

I believe that this practice of reducing the congregation to be ‘mere spectators’ with choirs giving ‘performances’ is to be deplored. Like pnewton rightly pointed out, “if the congregation is not singing, the choirs are not doing their job”

Active participation (AP, for short) does NOT mean that you are necessarily even doing anything externally. Kneeling praying during a polyphonic agnus dei at an EF Mass is AP. Standing during the procession at midnight Mass listening to the choir sing Dominus Dixit is AP. Praying silently during the canon is AP. None of these involve singing, and none of these even involve any sort of movement and physical action.

If the church truly thought that AP meant you had to “do stuff,” why would she hold up gregorian chant as the ideal? Or even polyphony!?

Gradual and alleluia chants (note I didn’t say all chants) are out of reach for even the most inept congregations, yet the church still holds chant as the ideal.

Polyphony is out of reach for 99.999% of congregations, and that is how it is designed. It’s not designed for congregational singing, and that’s okay. Yet the church still holds up polyphony as ideal music for the holy sacrifice of the Mass.

Congregational singing is NOT needed for AP. This should be clear. This line of thinking about AP is what got us in the awful mess in the first place after the council.

 

[Elizium23]

I haven’t seen that conclusively proven. I have found in Church documents many instances to support my position that singing is mandatory, just as making the spoken responses is mandatory.

 

[JButky]

I love spectating. Full, active, conscious participation doesn’t mean that mass should be like a field day where the coach (priest) is trying desperately to “get everyone involved.” Full, active, conscious participation is firstly internal, and secondarily external.

I find that when I go to masses, many people just drone out subconsciously the responses. I catch myself many times doing this, especially with the Creed.

I’d rather have quiet, contemplative masses the majority of the time, with singing, music, etc., reserved for major solemnities and whatnot.

I would somewhat agree with you but also continue my disagreement with pnewton. Our service is to the liturgy itself and we each serve our part. As previous Church documents have taught, full, active, conscious participation does not mean everyone has to be doing everything.

That being said, it should strongly be encouraged that the Mass be sung. If that is out of the scope of any individual’s ability, it does not necessarily relegate them to something less than full, active, conscious, participation.

You can pick any new Mass setting you like, It doesn’t mean that everyone will be able to sing it. I don’t believe that you should select a Mass settings based on the lowest common denominator in terms of congregational vocal talent. Selecting an appropriate setting first must meet the threshold of inherent beauty and worth for its service to the liturgy.

I will agree that there is, however, a balance line that needs to be met (albeit without sacrificing the threshold described), but that is at the discretion of the pastor and his discussion with the music director.

Joe B

 

[liturgyluver]

I haven’t seen that conclusively proven. I have found in Church documents many instances to support my position that singing is mandatory, just as making the spoken responses is mandatory.

As you will see from my answers on other threads, I am a strong advocate of participation in hymn singing during a mass with hymns. Having said that I do think that the Church should be able to offer a balance of quiet contemplative said masses, those with Gregorian chant (too rare IMO), choral masses with musical settings of the Ordinary (more common but often badly executed) and masses with congregational settings and hymns.

I think I would stop short of saying that singing is mandatory, but say instead that if the mass is celebrated with a congregational setting and with hymns, the expectation is that we are expected to participate in the singing. Although I much prefer traditional hymns and music, I don’t accept the theory that people don’t sing because they don’t like modern music: Sweet Sacrament Divine or Praise to the Holiest in the height can receive as poor a congregational response as Lord of the Dance.

There are other threads dealing with the lack of singing in Catholic churches so I won’t go over old ground except to say that when it’s made clear that the congregational response is expected this seems to elicits more active participation. For example at Westminster Cathedral this week I was at a special mass and before mass started the priest welcomed everyone, and then said this is a congregational setting and we ask you to join in the Kyrie, Gloria, etc, and by singing the hymns. It seemed to make a difference.

 

[pnewton]

This.

Active participation (AP, for short) does NOT mean that you are necessarily even doing anything externally. Kneeling praying during a polyphonic agnus dei at an EF Mass is AP. …Congregational singing is NOT needed for AP. This should be clear.

And this too. Just as when I lead congregational singing I take it as my responsibility to make things singable, I also remember what this poster is saying. Never think that because the Mass has no music, or the majority is done by a choir, that active participation is any less. We participate with our prayers and with our will. The purpose of a chant being sung by a chorus is to aid the prayers of the faithful, which is the same reason I make music that is sung more singable.

I make no bones about the fact that I like singing hymns in Mass. To me there is nothing better that having everyone who can sing (75-90%) singing out. However, we must not turn our back on the great musical tradition we have. I am only starting out with Mass of Creation because it is an easy transition to help learn the words. For Lent, I am going to try and increase the use of Jubilate Dei. After Easter, I will be looking for a second selection. I am considering a chant version in English as a second Mass setting.