Composing for the Liturgy

Benevenio · Post by **Benevenio** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:56 pm

Has anyone read the Liturgy Office document yet?

I sent my comments back ages ago, before the CG decided to send a joint submission. It seems to me that the document, in giving musical examples, is erring on the side of caution in using only chant. The implication is that this is the norm, whereas the reality is that most parishes never use it. I accept that the priest, if ever they sing, might cope setter with chant than with anything else, but doesn't that come down to training and to what we expect of them? I'm not advocating loosing sight of the meaning of the text by drowning it in notes and harmonies, nor am I saying that we should ditch the chant - what I am thinking is that the chant is not the be all and end all; it is not where the people are, but belongs to the convents and monasteries where the tradition of chanting the office is still alive and well (good!). Where I am, we're more likely to sing actively with Jazz harmonies than we are to with plainsong.

:wink:

presbyter · Post by **presbyter** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 8:54 pm

Have I missed the start of a thread here? Which document is being discussed?

Benevenio · Post by **Benevenio** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 9:24 pm

The Roman Missal - A Guide for Composers of course! How many other documents have the Liturgy Office produced to do with music for the liturgy?
One - Singing the Mass.

You didn't miss the start of the thread... I just picked up somewhere in the middle. :oops:

presbyter · Post by **presbyter** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 9:45 pm

There was Music in the Parish Mass and even The Parish Mass but then that's showing my age I guess :roll:

Now if you had been talking about the USA Bishops' Conference...... well, go browse The Liturgy Documents

Benevenio · Post by **Benevenio** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:03 pm

Music in the Parish Mass I do remember, and have (somewhere), but The Parish Mass?

that's showing my age...

which is reflected in your avatar, perhaps? :lol:

presbyter · Post by **presbyter** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:24 pm

Music in the Parish Mass

has a red cover

The Parish Mass

has a blue cover - both CTS publications

The Avatar? Just some long deceased musical presbyter.......

Peter O. · Post by **Peter O.** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:09 pm

Greetings. If anyone is confused about the above conversation but would like to take a look at the document it started with, you can pick it up as a .pdf file from: http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/PDF/RMcomposers.pdf. It's 19 pages long so allow yourself a bit of time to digest its contents.

presbyter · Post by **presbyter** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 7:08 pm

Thank you Peter

Dot · Post by **Dot** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:06 pm

Thanks Moderator for giving the link to the document we're talking about.

I read it a while ago and found it fairly encouraging, going to some lengths to be inclusive of various musical styles. I had a brief exchange about it with Martin Foster. The limited number of musical examples within the text are to be published within the Altar Missal. Then there will be limited musical examples in the appendices (not yet compiled, nor envisaged until there is a Missal text). Appendix 3 - Music for the Presider - will be "standard" repertoire, the core of music that we might expect any presider to sing. Appendix 2 - Assembly Music for the Order of Mass - he describes as more of a "base" setting, using the bare minimum of musical resources and not needing accompaniment, which parishes with very restricted musical resources might choose to use.
I do not feel that the document is trying to rein in composers despite the limitations of its illustrative examples.

The Liturgy Office tells us that there is still plenty of time for further comments. I look forward to reading other people's views.

Tsume Tsuyu · Post by **Tsume Tsuyu** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:29 pm

I have now finally managed to have a proper read of the Guide for Composers. Among other things, it talks of the changes in church music and suggests that:

The Roman Missal - A Guide for Composers wrote:Through the experience of and reflection on both successes and mistakes we can both let go of the more ephemeral and continue to uncover how music can serve the rite and enable the assembly participation in the Paschal Mystery".

It also quotes Sacrosanctum Concilium:

Sacrosanctum Concilium 121 wrote:The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic teaching; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from holy Scripture and from liturgical sources.

With these in mind, how then are we going to offload those popular songs that don't conform. Surely they should no longer be reproduced in new hymnals and yet the mid-nineties edition of CHfE included many of them. How are we to 'lose' them as long as they are being printed?

TT

Dot · Post by **Dot** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:24 pm

The Roman Missal - A Guide for Composers wrote:
Through the experience of and reflection on both successes and mistakes we can both let go of the more ephemeral and continue to uncover how music can serve the rite and enable the assembly participation in the Paschal Mystery".

It also quotes Sacrosanctum Concilium:

Sacrosanctum Concilium 121 wrote:
The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic teaching; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from holy Scripture and from liturgical sources.

I read the Composers' Guide document with future composing in mind. It's not called Hymnal Editor's Guide, and I don't think it's as applicable in a retrospective way.

For one thing, the old favourites that people cling on to are not ephemeral - far from it, they have persisted, in some cases, for many years.

Second, we don't want to be constrained by the notion of "Hymnus Authenticus" (pardon my Latin). Trying to apply the above criteria to a collection of songs would probably lead to your having to leave out things you might wish to include.
e.g. I don't think that either Amazing Grace or Colours of Day are drawn from holy Scripture or liturgical sources. What if you wanted to include one, and exclude the other? I'm not saying which I would include/exclude :oops:

I think that progress is made as new compilations of hymns are published. I would use my limited experience of changing from Hymns Old and New to Celebration for Everyone as an example of progress. I daresay that further progress was made with the arrival of Laudate. Did it manage to exclude all the "popular songs that don't conform" though? (I don't have a copy to hand)

These are only my opinions, and they will probably be blown away by a more heavyweight contributor. However, I think we could have a useful discussion on the "authentic" song, quoting examples, in tandem with Musicus' "top ten hymns" thread on the general discussion forum. I bet there's a big gap between the authentic and the popular....

Sorry I can't create a link to "top ten hymns" from here, but I don't know how. (I do! Just click here. Admin.)

I remain,

D O Technophobe

Tsume Tsuyu · Post by **Tsume Tsuyu** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:43 am

I'm sure you are right, Dot - the Composers' Guide is designed to be forward thinking. It's interesting though, that Sacrosanctum Concilium is now some 40 years old and what that said about drawing chiefly from holy Scripture and from liturgical sources has not always been applied.

You are right too, that progress does seem to be made as new publications appear. And I am aware of the dangers of pulling the rug from under folk who have grown up with certain hymns and songs, but I do feel that new publications are the opportunity to shed some of the less suitable hymns/songs. There is so much good stuff about and publishers should be brave and include far more of this.

As for your opinions being blown away by a more heavyweight contributor, I'm sure that won't happen! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and yours (and mine) is a valid as anyone else's. Folk may not always agree; good job, else there'd be no discussion and no point in having a forum!!

TT

Benevenio · Post by **Benevenio** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:02 pm

. wrote:I don't think that either Amazing Graceor Colours of Dayare drawn from holy Scripture or liturgical sources.

True. Neither are direct settings of scripture. Yet, Amazing Grace would be in my collection to keep, whereas Colours of Day would never be.

Why? Well, John Newton's poem, Faith's Review and Expectation is a very deep and personal response to what he believed was the saving hand of God. He was inspired to write it by reading 1Chronicles 17 and it was for directly helping his congregation to understand what he was preaching on that particular Sunday. (You can read about it here.) So there is a fairly 'sound' basis for the words - inspired by a scripture passage, written for a real pastoral need - even if you want to take issue with whether the tune we traditionally sing with it brings those to life or not.

On the other hand, the words by Sue McClellan, John Paculabo and Keith Rycroft for Colours of Day have little to redeem them IMH(BC)O. I think that they were intended for children - certainly they appear in a lot of children's music-collections. The poetry is trite, though the message - that we need to carry on the work of Christ on earth and take the message to all - is important. But I don't know what inspired them to write it! (saving that they might have been working in a crematorium... :wink:

)

CoD goes into Room101... and it would be followed very closely by many Christmas carols (Bah! Humbug!) which also miss the mark... but that can be a different thread - during Advent perhaps!

You are very correct in worrying about "thought police" removing certain texts from the hymnody. We are exhorted to strive for "beauty" in sacred music... and we all know that is in the eye (or ear!) of the beholder...

BTW, a cracking statement on weddingguide.co.uk (about CoD, but that's not relelvant) "This hymn is about going forth in life and is in praise of Jesus, making it suitable as the first hymn sung at the beginning of the service..." Going forth at the beginning? :roll:

sidvicius · Post by **sidvicius** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:28 pm

Thanks to the Link provided above, I've now read the document also, and agree that it is not trying to rein in composers, but perhaps suggests that some compositions are creeping into the mass which should not be there, so we should be more careful about what we allow to be used. Secondly, aim for more commonality between sacred scripture and the verse of your composition. This enables a new piece to relate better to the themes of each mass, and hopefully clues the congregation into the theme also, broadening their understanding at the same time.

In a way I would say we can use the document retrospectively. True, there is not a lot we can do about inappropriate songs already in print, TT, but we can avoid using them, if we know they are inappropriate for the Mass. However, they may be fine for other gatherings:

Laudate has included many pieces of music which reflect this fact, and even dear old Celebration has gone some way to addressing this fact, including music for 'non-mass' methods of prayer, such as the Divine Office and daily Prayer. If requests are made for songs you know to be 'not appropriate for Mass', it may require some polite response to the effect that "Well, unfortunately it's not allowed in Mass, but I know a place where they Do sing it..." - and introduce them to the local prayer group, or whatever.

Thus, the revival of 'mislaid' forms of worship can only serve to increase the number - and style - of songs available to us. It is right however, that we take stock, and get some discipline into our music for The Mass, which is fundamental to Catholic Prayer. The Mass should be the pinnacle of a Catholic week of prayer, not the one hour on sundays that separates Catholics from non-Catholics.

Music used in the Mass should reflect its Top Priority. It should be the Best we can do, but as composers and liturgists, we should also have the grace to accept that if a composition is somehow inappropriate, we won't be hearing it at Mass.