Why No Liturgical Chant?

[stavros388]

Greetings. I apologize if I am asking something redundant or tiresome to readers of this forum. But why do we not hear traditional chant in our parishes? I was Orthodox for some seven years and I found great peace in the music of the liturgies in English, Greek, and Slavonic. I am not here to compare traditions or to criticize our own. I am listening to some beautiful Gregorian chant on my headphones right now and I cannot understand why such music isn’t sung in our parishes now? Seems a bit tragic to me to forego such glorious and worshipful music in favour of some of the more modern songs we sing in parishes nowadays. Is this the norm? Or is chant still used in some parishes? Why do we not experience more of it in our services?

Thanks in advance.

 

[saellis]

We did some chant in my parish for Advent. I think there will be a push for more in the future as well as Ad Orientem

 

[otjm]

Gregorian chant was waning in popularity before Vatican 2. Part of the change in music is most likely due to a change in emphasis brought about by Vatican 2 and its directives.

One of the directives was that the laity - that is, those in the pews - were to be directed to a more active participation. That came about in part in their increase in responses (much of which had previously been done by the altar servers), and in part in a move to participation in the music (along the lines of “he who sings, prays twice”).

In 1964 I entered college seminary. I was there 2 years, and while there, I was part of a large schola which recorded Gregorian chant. The Benedictine music director was very demanding, and had an ear for anyone off-key that was just short of unbelievable. We did well recording the record.

I too love Gregorian chant, but I cannot abide it being done sloppily, and IMHO it is not something the folks in the pews can sing, let along sing well and properly. For that matter, I have heard my share of monks sing it in a way one would not want to record.

I am not saying that what gets sung by the folks in the pews is anything I would want to record either; but whether it is a hymn which was popular before Vatican 2, or one popular today, that is pretty much what they will be singing.

And there are choirs which will sing well; whether it be music in parts written before or after Vatican 2; and some will sing Gregorian chant (properly) and Palestrina (properly).

Over time, music has changed; according to at least one music historian, there was a time where the organ was seriously frowned upon. One can debate whether it (church music) has improved or not, but the bottom line is pretty much congregational singing for about the last 50 years. And that has not included Gregorian chant.

 

[Usige]

You’ll get a couple thousand opinions to your question (and I’m sure a number of arguments as well).

For some it comes from a rejection of anything related to the “bad old days” that sees Vatican II as a rebirth of a dead or dying Church. Others will have various preferences on musical styles, singability, et cetera.

Personally I think much of it comes down to a loss of a sense of tradition and many Latin Catholics do not have the same personal connectivity with liturgical tradition as our Eastern brethren do. The spirit of Vatican II was used to experiment with the liturgy as a reflection of culture and I think that is part of the reason we lost a common liturgical expression vis-à-vis use of Latin and liturgical chant.

 

[twf]

I see that you live in BC. You’ll definite be able to find chant in the Vancouver area if you ever make it down there. There are a number of parishes that regularly employ English plain chant for parts of the Mass (including the Cathedral itself). You’ll also find Latin Gregorian chant…Holy Family Parish on Victoria Drive, for example, offers the Mass in the Extaordinary Form seven days a week including a fully sung High Mass every Sunday.
The Benedictine Monastery in Mission also comes to mind.
You’ll also find chant in the rural dioceses, though perhaps not as widespread. Bishop Joseph’s consecration / installation Mass in Kamloops, last summer, was mostly chanted - though in English, not Latin.

 

[pianistclare]

Gregorian chant was waning in popularity before Vatican 2. Part of the change in music is most likely due to a change in emphasis brought about by Vatican 2 and its directives.

One of the directives was that the laity - that is, those in the pews - were to be directed to a more active participation. That came about in part in their increase in responses (much of which had previously been done by the altar servers), and in part in a move to participation in the music (along the lines of “he who sings, prays twice”).

In 1964 I entered college seminary. I was there 2 years, and while there, I was part of a large schola which recorded Gregorian chant. The Benedictine music director was very demanding, and had an ear for anyone off-key that was just short of unbelievable. We did well recording the record.

I too love Gregorian chant, but I cannot abide it being done sloppily, and IMHO it is not something the folks in the pews can sing, let along sing well and properly. For that matter, I have heard my share of monks sing it in a way one would not want to record.

I am not saying that what gets sung by the folks in the pews is anything I would want to record either; but whether it is a hymn which was popular before Vatican 2, or one popular today, that is pretty much what they will be singing.

And there are choirs which will sing well; whether it be music in parts written before or after Vatican 2; and some will sing Gregorian chant (properly) and Palestrina (properly).

Over time, music has changed; according to at least one music historian, there was a time where the organ was seriously frowned upon. One can debate whether it (church music) has improved or not, but the bottom line is pretty much congregational singing for about the last 50 years. And that has not included Gregorian chant.

This^^^. And I have to say, as a Professional Musician who gone through interviews in all kinds of parishes…the priests dimply do not favor it anymore. I have the qualifications for a schola, and to teach a congregation basic chant. The last interview I said that at, they were visibly horrified. NO way, no thanks. The wanted to know if I could lead Traditional Mexican hymns, modern Catholic music from the praise and worship genre as well as traditional hymns for the hymnal, But no chant. The’d have to invest in the hymnals and parishes just don’t want to go there. That’s why you are stuck with whatever hymnal someone picked out eons ago until they literally fall apart. It’s quite the expense. And no one believes that you shoudl have a select few singing and the rest of the congregation staring.
And as otjm says…bad chant is REALLY bad.

There are places that do it well. You have to look around.

 

[stavros388]

Thank you for the very informative responses.

 

[stavros388]

I see that you live in BC. You’ll definite be able to find chant in the Vancouver area if you ever make it down there. There are a number of parishes that regularly employ English plain chant for parts of the Mass (including the Cathedral itself). You’ll also find Latin Gregorian chant…Holy Family Parish on Victoria Drive, for example, offers the Mass in the Extaordinary Form seven days a week including a fully sung High Mass every Sunday.
The Benedictine Monastery in Mission also comes to mind.
You’ll also find chant in the rural dioceses, though perhaps not as widespread. Bishop Joseph’s consecration / installation Mass in Kamloops, last summer, was mostly chanted - though in English, not Latin.

Thanks for this, but I live on the very easternmost edge of BC, a good day of driving from Vancouver. Calgary is the closest major city. I attended a very nice mass while there once at a parish that was noted for being more traditional. However it wasn’t much different from what we have out here.

I will look into the monastery in Mission for a possible visit in the future! Thank you.

 

[stavros388]

And as otjm says…bad chant is REALLY bad.

I suppose this makes sense. I do enjoy being able sing along at services. I also recall how traditional eastern chant, when sung poorly, was at times rather distracting (even occasionally painful, I must confess… not that the musical abilities of congregants is all that important, of course).

 

[Bonnie]

…IMHO it is not something the folks in the pews can sing, let along sing well and properly.

We had a priest who taught us the Sanctus, Mysterium fidei, and the Agnus Dei. He was going to teach us the Our Father in Latin when he got transferred.

We still sing (chant?) them at most masses, but I can’t say we do it well. We don’t do well with the majority of the songs in the hymnal, either. But we soldier on!

 

[MrsAngelala]

In the United States, the option indicated in the Vatican II documents to use hymns in the place of chant was radically overplayed. We’re Americans; we’re going to take any opportunity to exercise our “independence.” It’s just what we do. The Roman Missal still contains chant settings for almost all of the priest’s prayers. (Maybe all of them?) Priests are given the option to speak, but encouraged to sing as much as possible. When this is done, chanting the other parts of the Mass begins to make more and more sense.

If you read the VatII docs carefully, you’ll see that “active participation” is defined in some places, particularly during the Eucharistic Prayer, as attentive silence. Proponents of the four-hymn-sandwich choose to interpret the phrase solely as vocal participation, except in those cases where it is explicitly defined otherwise. This is problematic for many reasons. One of the less-mentioned ones is that the Mass is divided into Ordinary parts, which are the same from week to week and therefore intended for vocal congregational participation; and the Propers, which vary from week to week and are therefore more suited for a group (or in the case of absolute necessity, a single person, i.e. cantor) with sufficient training to learn the changes quickly enough.

I believe the Church in America has been greatly impoverished by its compromise in the musical realm. And frankly, Protestants do both hymns and the modern-music thing much, much better. Many Protestants churches have full-on rock bands, and stage actual 30-45 minutes rock concerts before their services. They are very effective at emotional manipulation. I would personally prefer it if we’d stick to what we’re good at, and honor our heritage and its efficacy. The reason music was introduced into the Mass was to lift the heart and mind to God. Chant well-performed does that.

That said, and seriously, I could go on about this from many different angles for a very long time… music in the Mass is a pastoral decision. If you don’t like the music at your church, you can have a respectful conversation with your pastor, in which case I urge you to first research your position and come at it from something other than an emotional perspective. This, of course, is the primary reason the music of Mass is such a mess. Music strongly accesses emotions. Therefore, it occurs to very few people to think about music: its power, its subtleties, its challenges, its purpose, its limits, or its responsible use. They just know how they *feel *about it. Feelings aren’t usually terribly discerning.

You may well find that having a respectful, thoughtful, and educated conversation with your pastor could start some changes. Even if it does, expect those changes to be extremely slow – the education and formation of the musicians and congregation will take a long time.

Especially since arts education is in such dire straits in many schools and in our culture… but that’s another topic…

 

[pianistclare]

In the United States, the option indicated in the Vatican II documents to use hymns in the place of chant was radically overplayed. We’re Americans; we’re going to take any opportunity to exercise our “independence.” It’s just what we do. The Roman Missal still contains chant settings for almost all of the priest’s prayers. (Maybe all of them?) Priests are given the option to speak, but encouraged to sing as much as possible. When this is done, chanting the other parts of the Mass begins to make more and more sense.

If you read the VatII docs carefully, you’ll see that “active participation” is defined in some places, particularly during the Eucharistic Prayer, as attentive silence. Proponents of the four-hymn-sandwich choose to interpret the phrase solely as vocal participation, except in those cases where it is explicitly defined otherwise. This is problematic for many reasons. One of the less-mentioned ones is that the Mass is divided into Ordinary parts, which are the same from week to week and therefore intended for vocal congregational participation; and the Propers, which vary from week to week and are therefore more suited for a group (or in the case of absolute necessity, a single person, i.e. cantor) with sufficient training to learn the changes quickly enough.

I believe the Church in America has been greatly impoverished by its compromise in the musical realm. And frankly, Protestants do both hymns and the modern-music thing much, much better. Many Protestants churches have full-on rock bands, and stage actual 30-45 minutes rock concerts before their services. They are very effective at emotional manipulation. I would personally prefer it if we’d stick to what we’re good at, and honor our heritage and its efficacy. The reason music was introduced into the Mass was to lift the heart and mind to God. Chant well-performed does that.

That said, and seriously, I could go on about this from many different angles for a very long time… music in the Mass is a pastoral decision. If you don’t like the music at your church, you can have a respectful conversation with your pastor, in which case I urge you to first research your position and come at it from something other than an emotional perspective. This, of course, is the primary reason the music of Mass is such a mess. Music strongly accesses emotions. Therefore, it occurs to very few people to think about music: its power, its subtleties, its challenges, its purpose, its limits, or its responsible use. They just know how they *feel *about it. Feelings aren’t usually terribly discerning.

You may well find that having a respectful, thoughtful, and educated conversation with your pastor could start some changes. Even if it does, expect those changes to be extremely slow – the education and formation of the musicians and congregation will take a long time.

Especially since arts education is in such dire straits in many schools and in our culture… but that’s another topic…

It’s a money issue.
The other denominations put a priority on their music
Catholics churches want it from volunteers. And most of them simply don’t know how to pull it off and have no budget to get going.
Plain and simple.

 

[Pulvis]

In the United States, the option indicated in the Vatican II documents to use hymns in the place of chant was radically overplayed. We’re Americans; we’re going to take any opportunity to exercise our “independence.” It’s just what we do. The Roman Missal still contains chant settings for almost all of the priest’s prayers. (Maybe all of them?) Priests are given the option to speak, but encouraged to sing as much as possible. When this is done, chanting the other parts of the Mass begins to make more and more sense.

If you read the VatII docs carefully, you’ll see that “active participation” is defined in some places, particularly during the Eucharistic Prayer, as attentive silence. Proponents of the four-hymn-sandwich choose to interpret the phrase solely as vocal participation, except in those cases where it is explicitly defined otherwise. This is problematic for many reasons. One of the less-mentioned ones is that the Mass is divided into Ordinary parts, which are the same from week to week and therefore intended for vocal congregational participation; and the Propers, which vary from week to week and are therefore more suited for a group (or in the case of absolute necessity, a single person, i.e. cantor) with sufficient training to learn the changes quickly enough.

I believe the Church in America has been greatly impoverished by its compromise in the musical realm. And frankly, Protestants do both hymns and the modern-music thing much, much better. Many Protestants churches have full-on rock bands, and stage actual 30-45 minutes rock concerts before their services. They are very effective at emotional manipulation. I would personally prefer it if we’d stick to what we’re good at, and honor our heritage and its efficacy. The reason music was introduced into the Mass was to lift the heart and mind to God. Chant well-performed does that.

That said, and seriously, I could go on about this from many different angles for a very long time… music in the Mass is a pastoral decision. If you don’t like the music at your church, you can have a respectful conversation with your pastor, in which case I urge you to first research your position and come at it from something other than an emotional perspective. This, of course, is the primary reason the music of Mass is such a mess. Music strongly accesses emotions. Therefore, it occurs to very few people to think about music: its power, its subtleties, its challenges, its purpose, its limits, or its responsible use. They just know how they *feel *about it. Feelings aren’t usually terribly discerning.

You may well find that having a respectful, thoughtful, and educated conversation with your pastor could start some changes. Even if it does, expect those changes to be extremely slow – the education and formation of the musicians and congregation will take a long time.

Especially since arts education is in such dire straits in many schools and in our culture… but that’s another topic…

 

[twf]

Thanks for this, but I live on the very easternmost edge of BC, a good day of driving from Vancouver. Calgary is the closest major city. I attended a very nice mass while there once at a parish that was noted for being more traditional. However it wasn’t much different from what we have out here.

I will look into the monastery in Mission for a possible visit in the future! Thank you.

Calgary has a great Anglican Ordinariate parish (in full communion with Rome) with a lovely fully sung English high mass on Sundays - St. John’s the Evangelist.

 

[stavros388]

Calgary has a great Anglican Ordinariate parish (in full communion with Rome) with a lovely fully sung English high mass on Sundays - St. John’s the Evangelist.

Wonderful! Thanks!

 

[exnihilo]

In the United States, the option indicated in the Vatican II documents to use hymns in the place of chant was radically overplayed. We’re Americans; we’re going to take any opportunity to exercise our “independence.” It’s just what we do. The Roman Missal still contains chant settings for almost all of the priest’s prayers. (Maybe all of them?) Priests are given the option to speak, but encouraged to sing as much as possible. When this is done, chanting the other parts of the Mass begins to make more and more sense.

If you read the VatII docs carefully, you’ll see that “active participation” is defined in some places, particularly during the Eucharistic Prayer, as attentive silence. Proponents of the four-hymn-sandwich choose to interpret the phrase solely as vocal participation, except in those cases where it is explicitly defined otherwise. This is problematic for many reasons. One of the less-mentioned ones is that the Mass is divided into Ordinary parts, which are the same from week to week and therefore intended for vocal congregational participation; and the Propers, which vary from week to week and are therefore more suited for a group (or in the case of absolute necessity, a single person, i.e. cantor) with sufficient training to learn the changes quickly enough.

I believe the Church in America has been greatly impoverished by its compromise in the musical realm. And frankly, Protestants do both hymns and the modern-music thing much, much better. Many Protestants churches have full-on rock bands, and stage actual 30-45 minutes rock concerts before their services. They are very effective at emotional manipulation. I would personally prefer it if we’d stick to what we’re good at, and honor our heritage and its efficacy. The reason music was introduced into the Mass was to lift the heart and mind to God. Chant well-performed does that.

That said, and seriously, I could go on about this from many different angles for a very long time… music in the Mass is a pastoral decision. If you don’t like the music at your church, you can have a respectful conversation with your pastor, in which case I urge you to first research your position and come at it from something other than an emotional perspective. This, of course, is the primary reason the music of Mass is such a mess. Music strongly accesses emotions. Therefore, it occurs to very few people to think about music: its power, its subtleties, its challenges, its purpose, its limits, or its responsible use. They just know how they *feel *about it. Feelings aren’t usually terribly discerning.

You may well find that having a respectful, thoughtful, and educated conversation with your pastor could start some changes. Even if it does, expect those changes to be extremely slow – the education and formation of the musicians and congregation will take a long time.

Especially since arts education is in such dire straits in many schools and in our culture… but that’s another topic…

As a convert I’ve very much enjoyed the sadly few sung Masses I’ve attended. They felt very Catholic. Second to that is the relative silence of daily Mass which allows contemplation that is missing from many religious services both Catholic and Protestant.

 

[27lw]

As pianistclare said, all these decisions are up to the priest. It is he who decides whether or not to chant his parts of the Mass, and it is he who is in charge of the music style. He could change it if he wants, although he might get some flak from parishioners.

 

[MrsAngelala]

It’s a money issue.
The other denominations put a priority on their music
Catholics churches want it from volunteers. And most of them simply don’t know how to pull it off and have no budget to get going.
Plain and simple.

One thing in particular about this statement was niggling at me, and I just realized what it was. The modern music phenomenon is a significant contributor to the money issue when it comes to musicians. Older chant is public domain. Polyphony is public domain. Some newer chant is also public domain (e.g. Adam Bartlett’s Simple English Propers). When the music is free, or when you’re only paying for the written music in the form of a permanent hymnal, there’s more money to pay trained, quality musicians on an ongoing basis. When, however, you’re forking over thousands of dollars a year to rent modern feel-good hymnals – sorry, “license” them – the musicians have to be volunteers, because that line-item in the budget is already gone.

One can make an argument for the composers, of course, but sometimes the publishers are just plain avaricious. I independently sing Catholic funerals, and one time a priest of a very poor parish handed me a photocopied, single sheet of paper with melodies of Mass parts from three or four different settings. No attributions, of course. I researched them all and obtained legal copies where I could. After telling them my story, one company told me I’d have to pay them $225 for a single copy of their music, because they don’t sell music, only licenses. I told them, “Look, I’ve been handed something illegal and am trying to make it legit. I can pay you for two copies of your music. I *can’t *pay you three times my income from this funeral for the privilege of singing one line of music once.” They insisted on $225. Per year. I told them thank you anyway, and fortunately had an awesome organist who improvised an accompaniment under me – and under the priest, even though we didn’t know what words or melody he’d be singing. (I was blown away! Not many organists can do that these days.) That priest, by the way, was quite a story in himself. He habitually led some singing that was well outside the scope of his office: tunelessly, but with great gusto!, God rest his soul.

Anyway, the dismal state of music in our churches is the result of a host of contributing factors, and I don’t know of a one that is pure or simple. Even the money issue is heavily influenced by location, education, expectations, etc. It’s also influenced by the lower numbers in the seats, which is in turn influenced by the bad music, and so we spiral downward. I hope to see a change in this during my lifetime; I do what I can in my miniscule, invisible capacity as a musician in the pews.

I’ve read some of your other posts, pianistclare, and I assure you that I’ve also been through sad experiences because of the money/musician issue – even a case of outright and deliberate betrayal by a friend, which was carried out with the vociferously explicit approval and defense of a priest. It can get horrific. Please believe me when I say that I empathize. However, I disagree that money is the only reason our music is so bad, or that it is a simple one.

 

[27lw]

Please believe me when I say that I empathize. However, I disagree that money is the only reason our music is so bad, or that it is a simple one.

Yes, love your post. We have to try to encourage the good music directors and priests when we find them!

 

[Anne1964]

We chant the Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei in Latin at every Mass. Occasionally the Pater Noster as well. Our parish has done this for years and we sound pretty good.