Associations and Styles of Music

[John Ainslie]

...simple chant-based replacements just don't work with the stresses of English, not even when they are tweaked slightly. That presumably is why everyone from reformation on has invented their own native language chants.
There certainly is a role for chant-based music, but I fear that a mangled version of plainsong is not it.
Alan

Quite. Attempts to fit English words to existing Latin chants, note for note, are misguided, IMHO. Gregorian chant acknowledges the primacy of the words over the music that enriches them. Cardine's work on semiology confirms this.

May I refer readers to the article 'A Living Gregorian Chant' by László Dobszay (Music and Liturgy, Winter 2007), in which he says:

The Gregorian chant was not originally a repertory... but a musical language, a vocabulary and grammar of musical expression. In spite of its regularities, it could be adapted freely and creatively... If the performers know the models, they can do their own adaptations, without any previous 'fixing'.

...and he goes on to mention antiphons (from the Divine Office), many of which clearly run to a number of template melodies. Dr Dobszay has done much work in creating a repertoire of new Gregorian chant music in his native Hungarian. I have done a little work on simpler chants in English, always respecting the natural stress and rhythm of the language. It can be done!

[NorthernTenor]

John Ainslie wrote:

Dr Dobszay has done much work in creating a repertoire of new Gregorian chant music in his native Hungarian. I have done a little work on simpler chants in English, always respecting the natural stress and rhythm of the language. It can be done!

It can indeed, as Merbecke and his editors have also shown, e.g: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bc ... .htm#Kyrie

[NorthernTenor]

Nick wrote:

But Merbecke is hardly a model – the only setting that remains is the Communion Service – presumably because the other 98% of his output was even more boring.

No more remains because Marbecke and his ecclesial community headed towards Calvinism. The communion service was rediscovered in the 19th century by the heirs of the Oxford movement, who, facing a similar problem to ours though coming at it from a different direction, saw an opportunity to have the people sing the Mass in a way that connected with the Catholic Church's musical traditions.

As for the value judgement - I guess one man's noble simplicity is another's boredom. The same judgement might be made against much simple chant that allows a congregation and unsophisticated schola to sing parts of the Mass, but it it doesn't appear to be the Church's judgement, if Papal and Conciliar teaching are anything to go by. Which is not to suggest that this is the only kind of music suitable to the purpose: rather, as others have said here, that it is a particularly effective one.

[alan29]

I seem to remember that Merbecke compose stuff in parts and that his communion setting was rushed out as just an example of how English chant was possible. Two years later Mary Tudor came to the throne, and all development stopped - rather a pity, really.
Alan

[alan29]

Not justifying Merbecke - I was an organist in an Anglican Church for years, that setting is a trully uninspired bit of hackwork. I seem to remember a similar(ish) early C20th one that seemed to be modelled on it. Can't for the life of me remember the title or composer, though - they say that memory is the first thing to go. BTW it was a very smells and bells Anglican church - in the end I found it all a bit creepy, and made my apologies.........
Alan

[Southern Comfort]

Not justifying Merbecke - I was an organist in an Anglican Church for years, that setting is a trully uninspired bit of hackwork. I seem to remember a similar(ish) early C20th one that seemed to be modelled on it. Can't for the life of me remember the title or composer, though - they say that memory is the first thing to go.

Those who couldn't stand Merbecke swore blind by Martin Shaw's so-called Folk Mass, I seem to recall.

[alan29]

Not justifying Merbecke - I was an organist in an Anglican Church for years, that setting is a trully uninspired bit of hackwork. I seem to remember a similar(ish) early C20th one that seemed to be modelled on it. Can't for the life of me remember the title or composer, though - they say that memory is the first thing to go.

Those who couldn't stand Merbecke swore blind by Martin Shaw's so-called Folk Mass, I seem to recall.

That was it. Thatnks (I think.) Absolutely dire stuff, and a pain to play.
Alan

[musicus]

Those who couldn't stand Merbecke swore blind by Martin Shaw's so-called Folk Mass, I seem to recall.

Thanks for reminding me of that

[NorthernTenor]

Merbecke justified?
Graduale recommended?
Something rather frightening happening here.

Chill, Nick.

If you're concerned that people will use the Gradual rather than parts of the Missal, I''d remind you that the General Introduction to the latter encourages the use of the former. As for Marbecke - yes, I know, he was a Protestant, but you know what? They thought about the vernacular issue some time ago, and we shouldn't let not-invented-here stop us learning from their experience. I didn't suggest we use Marbecke (though now you mention it, it's an interesting idea ). I merely observed that there is precedence for John's suggestion that we develop a form of chant that sits well with English.

As for something rather frightening - it seems to me that we all need to take a deep breath and heed the Pope's recent observation that the Church should neither be frozen in 1962, nor think of Vatican II in isolation from what went before.

I'm off to the fridge now for some mild.

[NorthernTenor]

Southern Comfort wrote:

Not justifying Merbecke - I was an organist in an Anglican Church for years, that setting is a trully uninspired bit of hackwork.

I have come accross a truly hack-like and stilted edition (I can't remember the editor), but there is a tradition of singing and accompanying Marbecke in a free manner that sits well with the words in a way of which I am sure Dom Cardine would have approved. I know this because I have frequently sung Anglican over the years, before rushing off to do my Sunday duty, ideally at a Mass with no music.

[organist]

Of course it so often depends on who is directing and playing. I grew up with Merbecke and the Creed is a fine setting which is alas not sung very much these days. Last time I sang it was in Salisbury cathedral! Gerald Knight did a version which has strange harmonies in the accompaniment I think. I have heard organists wrecking Credo 3 with wierd harmonies and ideas including once glissandi up to high notes! Go with the flow, think phrase not notes!

[Reginald]

And on the Graduale again - it's worth remembering that the 1974 Graduale wasn't some private project undertaken by Solesmes but rather that the Consilium handed over the task of revising the chant books to them. The post-conciliar chant books are - like the Missal, Lectionary and Office - a fruit of the Vat II liturgical reforms. Given that it is no longer politically incorrect not to wish to use the revised Missal, I guess there ought to be equal understanding for those who wish not to use the revied Graduale (desperately searches for the emoticon that signifies gentle leg-pulling with no real intention to cause offence!).

As was beautifully illustrated by John's series on worship ad orientem/versus apsidem, the desire to use something which is part of our liturgical heritage does not necessarily mean the desire to use it the way that it was formerly used - or even mis-used. My trad friends often assume that B XVI is 'on their side' when in fact it seems clear to me that he is not 'on the side' of either extreme, but trying to point the way towards a middle ground - I'd say that use of the Graduale falls into this category. It should not be discarded, but it is vastly underexploited as a discreet liturgical source in its own right.

Started writing this before the latest updates -

And does that make it liturgically correct?

Nick, it surely can't make it liturgically incorrect? Arguably the most harm to be done to the liturgy throughout the centuries has been priests and laity assuming that they are in some way 'master' of it - be that irreverent gabbling pre-1962 or improvised Eucharistic Prayers post-1970 (and, controversially, perhaps even the unprecedented decision post Vat II to 'suppress' what we now call the Extraordinary Form, with its consequent effects on the other Western rites).

There's a whole theology of obedience in scripture from Christ being obedient unto death to Peter being told by Christ that someone else may fasten his belt around him and lead him where he would rather not go. That's how I see my role in Mass - being led and shaped by it and by the Church that is tasked with safeguarding it for the next generation of the Communion of Saints.

[Reginald]

Nick Baty wrote:
It often can. Your parish priest will probably have been preparing his homily based on the Gospel and the Old Testament reading. What happens if the musicians take liturgy elsewhere?

And we know that in practice the musicians get on and do their own thing whilst the priest does his - we also know that good practice would be to talk to one another.

Nick Baty wrote:
Imagine processing up to Communion singing "said the Lord to the Samaritan woman". I'd be thinking, "Which Samaritan woman? When? Why? How?" because this is a supreme example of imposing one cycle on another. The Samaritan woman appeared on the Third Sunday of Lent last year. This year's Gospel is about destroying "this temple" and raising it up in three days.

...and I should have been clearer that the Graduale offers this as a possible chant for when that particular Gospel is read - the readings from Cycle A remain as alternatives in spite of it being Year B. In your case you would want Passer invenit - and I'm sure that you'd agree that the sparrow and turtledove finding a nest near to the altars of God... blessed are they that dwell in the house of the Lord where they will praise him for ever (dreadful paraphrasing - sorry). How much depth is there in reflecting on the Body of Christ being the temple in which I should dwell, praising God for ever? I was clumsy earlier with my use of the word obedience (a consequence of playing "I spy" with a four year old at the same time!)- I didn't mean slavishly having to follow the book, but rather that following the book in obedience could lead in a most unexpected direction as it did with that last thought.

You're right that the Samaritan woman text doesn't sit well. How about:

Jesus said, to the woman at the well
"Drink, drink of this water,
and you shall have, within your heart,
the spring of eternal life."

as the refrain to a hymn/song. Verses could be from psalm 18 as with this year's responsorial psalm.

For what it's worth, I don't think you need to give up on the forum for Lent - we live in a broad Church, a Church made stronger by legitimate differences. I was teaching "The Church as Body of Christ" yesterday as it happens. You go on being an arm, I'll go on being a leg and we'll work differently, but together, to the glory of God.

[Gwyn]

Anyone got a copy of "Burton in F" in a cupboard somewhere? I think his first name is(was) Peter. Rather a nice 'Kyrie' and 'Holy' in that. The 'Holy' fits the new translation perfectly too - in fact it is the new translation.

[dmu3tem]

I notice that discussion has moved a long way from what the original title of the thread suggests. Nothing wrong with this of course; however, I think there is still a lot of mileage from looking at the original concept afresh.

First, in this field, one is inevitably dealing with matters of personal taste; and what one person likes, another may find offensive. It is difficult to be neutral and dispassionate about the subject.

Second, my personal feeling, for what it is worth, is that music is an abstract form; in itself it is neutral and only acquires non musical meanings from associations imposed on it. This view, I recall, was also expressed by Saint Seans in an article I read (I cannot remember the reference) dating from just after WWI. Some might rightly though point to the 'sad' and 'happy' effects of using minor and major chords and keys. Others extend this to modes, claiming that because there are at least 8 modes, you have a wider range of expression than with the major-minor scale system. I notice though that even here different commentators have assigned different emotions to particular modes. Moreover, as a composer I have certainly on occasion written 'sad' music in major keys and vice-versa. One reason, of course, is that the triadic chords built up from each degree of any scale are a mixture of major and minor harmonies. For example, in C major, the sixth degree of the scale produces a triadic chord of A minor. Likewise in the scale of A minor the third degree of the scale produces C major.

If music is neutral and only acquires meaning from the associations imposed upon it then it follows that the power of such associations depends of the persuasiveness of those who advocate them. In the context of the liturgy this produces two scenarios.

(1) You adapt secular tunes and styles for religious purposes, confident that their secular connotations can be forgotten and religious ones substituted. When listeners hear the tune again - outside as well as inside church - they recall the religious association that has been imposed on it. In other words music in liturgy becomes a tool for conversion. People come to a service, they hear tunes and styles with which they are familiar applied to religious purposes and this attracts them to the religious ideas that are being presented in the liturgy. Whenever they hear these tunes again, they are reminded of the same ideas. This viewpoint was - much more eloquently - put by Henri Hemy in his introduction to the Crown of Jesus Music Hymnal, the first English Catholic hymnal aimed at a national market (1864). Hemy's hymnal contains a mass of melodies by composers such as Beethoven, Haydn and Mozart.

(2) The reverse viewpoint is to say that the context of a religious service cannot eradicate secular meanings associated with given melodies and styles. People therefore have to be protected from such pernicious influences by only hearing music that is religiously safe. This is the view presented by Pius X in Tra Le Sollectudini. The music that he regarded as 'safe' was first plainchant, then Renaissance Polyphony as practised by composers such as Palestrina. This is a defensive approach, not just to the use of music, but to religion in general. It is a confession that religion cannot compete on equal terms with secular society; and the tendency is to produce a closed inward-looking community of religious initiates rather than an outward-looking body reaching out to obtain converts.

A variation concerns one's attitude to God. Protagonists of (2) argue that music must be 'holy' out of respect for God (Pius X waxes lyrical on this theme). Protagonists of (1) are more apt to say that music of all sorts is a God given gift which we can use or abuse as we wish. Notice how (2) pushes you in the direction of saying that the type of music presented should be that approved by expert specialists - specialists who are not first and foremost musicians but liturgical officials informed by theological thinking. In the Catholic church this produces attempts to centralise musical direction. (1) has the opposite tendency, because there is an underlying confidence that God's gift will not be abused. This gives individuals or local groups greater scope to impose their associations on tunes and styles of music and therefore creates decentralised musical direction. Note that such individuals are more likely to be musicians rather than liturgical officials.

Thomas Muir