New missal effect on existing music

[msumike55]

Does the change to the wording in the new missal mean we will have to abandon some of the songs that we currently use in Mass? For instance, the version of the Gloria sung by David Haas (I think it’s from Mass of Light but not sure) that’s been used in many churches. Does the new version of the missal mean those songs can no longer be utilized in Mass?

 

[MarkThompson]

Does the change to the wording in the new missal mean we will have to abandon some of the songs that we currently use in Mass? For instance, the version of the Gloria sung by David Haas (I think it’s from Mass of Light but not sure) that’s been used in many churches. Does the new version of the missal mean those songs can no longer be utilized in Mass?

Yes and no. It is certainly true that is will not be permitted to continue using musical settings which employ the old words. However, many of the most popular settings have been revised by the composers to reflect the corrected wording of the new translation. Mass of Light is among these, and you can hear it, including the revised Gloria, here at GIA’s site, and see what you think. It doesn’t strike me as working especially well with the new words, though at least the irrelevant “Sing!” is gone.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Unfortunately (and I can’t well express how unfortunate it truly is), much of the existing music has been redone.

 

[Cat]

The Creation Gloria is actually improved by the using the words of the new translation, IMO.

 

[FatHead]

The Creation Gloria is actually improved by the using the words of the new translation, IMO.

too bad its still responsorial. the gloria was never supposed to be responsorial.

 

[Corki]

Unfortunately (and I can’t well express how unfortunate it truly is), much of the existing music has been redone.

:sad_yes:

 

[msumike55]

Thanks for your replies and thanks for the GIA link. The new Gloria basically sounds like a new song to me. That’s such a weird thought, that a song sort of “goes away” when the missal changes. I’m a relatively new Catholic, so it’s kind of new for me for hymns to be tied to something that can change. A hymn always seemed permanent, so to speak, to me. I’m not complaining, its just going to take a little getting use to. I really love those existing hymns.

 

[FatHead]

Unfortunately (and I can’t well express how unfortunate it truly is), much of the existing music has been redone.

 

[Brendan]

Thanks for your replies and thanks for the GIA link. The new Gloria basically sounds like a new song to me. That’s such a weird thought, that a song sort of “goes away” when the missal changes. I’m a relatively new Catholic, so it’s kind of new for me for hymns to be tied to something that can change. A hymn always seemed permanent, so to speak, to me. I’m not complaining, its just going to take a little getting use to. I really love those existing hymns.

Not all music used at Mass are hymns. Some of them are Missal texts set to music ( the Gloria is a great example)

The Gloria was never a hymn, but rather a recitation of the Mass text set to music.

As such, if the text changes, so must what we recite.

In addition, the guidlines from Rome stress that the texts must be sung as written. Modifiying the texts to fit a particular musical score places the stress on the music. When setting a Mass response to music the stress, the importance should be on the text.

In other words, the composers need to change the music to fit the words, not the words to fit their music.

 

[Ohana]

Which is exactly why some of the great composer’s music, like the Shubert Ave Maria, are not sung in church. It is still a great piece of music, but the words are altered too much and should be performed in a concert hall. I am glad to see some of my favorite Mass settings rewritten. My greater fear is that we are gradually going back to a Latin Mass and Gregorian Chant exclusively. Change happens and we adapt, but really, that would be going too far!

 

[Brendan]

Which is exactly why some of the great composer’s music, like the Shubert Ave Maria, are not sung in church. It is still a great piece of music, but the words are altered too much and should be performed in a concert hall. !

The Ave Maria prayer is not a Mass text, so the requirement that any renduring of the prayer conform itself to the Mass text, by definion, does not apply.

Schubert’s Ave Maria is properly a hymn, and can be used as such.

 

[MarkThompson]

Which is exactly why some of the great composer’s music, like the Shubert Ave Maria, are not sung in church. It is still a great piece of music, but the words are altered too much and should be performed in a concert hall. I am glad to see some of my favorite Mass settings rewritten. My greater fear is that we are gradually going back to a Latin Mass and Gregorian Chant exclusively. Change happens and we adapt, but really, that would be going too far!

Not quite. First of all, the Hail Mary itself is not a part of the Mass, so if it is to be sung during the Mass, such as at the Offertory or during Communion, there is no liturgical restriction on what its words can be. And even if there were, the words of the Schubert version are not “altered too much,” as you can check out here (pdf).

For some people, the problem with this Ave Maria is that it was originally written as a secular song, setting a poem from Walter Scott’s The Lady of The Lake which just happened to also begin with the words “Ave Maria.” For others, the problem is that it is too much a virtuosic solo piece to be suitable for a liturgical setting. In any event, the words are not the issue.

Edit: I see Brendan posted while I had the tab open and was doing other things. Yes, agreed.

 

[ProVobis]

In other words, the composers need to change the music to fit the words, not the words to fit their music.

Precisely. When they start singing syllables “to the tune of …” meanings and associations get distorted.

That said, the new Anglophone Gloria will be very tricky with its uneven sentences and cadence. There’s a couple of Gloria versions even sung in Latin that should be lesser used in my opinion because they sound too choppy in some spots and/or too stretched out in other spots.

 

[liturgyluver]

The Ave Maria prayer is not a Mass text, so the requirement that any renduring of the prayer conform itself to the Mass text, by definion, does not apply.

Schubert’s Ave Maria is properly a hymn, and can be used as such.

Absolutely right and it was performed as a Communion anthem at Westminster Cathedral last month.

 

[Will_S]

Mass of Light is among these, and you can hear it, including the revised Gloria, here at GIA’s site, and see what you think.

I tried this… and ouch… my ears… angelqueen.org

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Thanks for your replies and thanks for the GIA link. The new Gloria basically sounds like a new song to me. That’s such a weird thought, that a song sort of “goes away” when the missal changes. I’m a relatively new Catholic, so it’s kind of new for me for hymns to be tied to something that can change. A hymn always seemed permanent, so to speak, to me. I’m not complaining, its just going to take a little getting use to. I really love those existing hymns.

These revisions would not have been necessary if they had translated those prayers correctly in the first place back in 1973. Most translations in other languages are not changing.

 

[dugener]

http://dutasteridegeneric.com/buy_avodart_en-us_files/avodart.gif
DUTASTERIDE is used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in men. This is a condition that causes you to have an enlarged prostate. This medicine helps to control your symptoms, decrease urinary retention, and reduces your risk of needing surgery.

 

[ProVobis]

These revisions would not have been necessary if they had translated those prayers correctly in the first place back in 1973.

I’m not a defender of the ICEL but in 1973 the English translations were correct per bishops and there were reasons for having them. Forty years from now, they may have to retranslate them again because of the ever-changing meanings of the words used, not to mention that English already varies from country to country.

Most translations in other languages are not changing.

Actually some are on notice that they will be changing soon.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m not a defender of the ICEL but in 1973 the English translations were correct per bishops and there were reasons for having them. Forty years from now, they may have to retranslate them again because of the ever-changing meanings of the words used, not to mention that English already varies from country to country.

I really disagree with you. Is our language so different now than in the 1970s? Furthermore, and more to the point, why would our new translation be more cumbersome literature-wise if, arguably, our language standards are much lower now than back then? If our schools as a whole are so much worse now, and the new translation was really started as a reaction to changes in our language, then why is the new translation many times more formal than the 1973 translation in its rendition of the Latin? If the new translation was really as a result of our changing language, then wouldn’t it be even more dumbed-down and simpler than the 1973 translation? Your statements don’t make sense.

I really think Catholics are being driven apart by language.

 

[Will_S]

I’m not a defender of the ICEL but in 1973 the English translations were correct per bishops

That’s not right. They were approved by the bishops, but that doesn’t mean that they were correct. The retranslation is certainly not necessary because of change in the English language but rather because the previous translation was so poor.