Simple English Propers

[musicus]

In answer to Nick's question about the Processional, I'm not sure about its status, but it is certainly endorsed:

"The Society of St Gregory with the endorsement of the Department for Christian Life and Worship has produced The Processional, a compilation of antiphon texts for use on Sundays and major feasts drawn from various sources including the Missal and the Simple Gradual. The purpose of the volume is to provide composers with a resource and to encourage setting of these texts.

An updated edition is now available (May 2012) which incorporates information about suitable psalm verses from the ICEL Antiphonary."

(from http://www.romanmissal.org.uk)

[Nick Baty]

Direct link: http://www.romanmissal.org.uk/Home/Musi ... %29/eng-GB

[Nick Baty]

Have taken discussion of music for The Processional onto a new thread for anyone who might be interested.

[alan29]

Had a quick glance at the Antiphonary for Advent.
What kind of English begins a sentence with "Nor?"

[Southern Comfort]

Is it then the case that a hymn taken from an approved hymnal is the preferred option over a psalm text which has not been approved for use in E&W even though this may be closer to the actual text of the Entrance Antiphon?

I think the point is that using a different psalm translation (NAB) from the one universally used in these islands (Grail) would lead to considerable confusion.

No, I really can't see how this can be true. We sing all kinds of texts at the points where the propers might be sung, ranging from verbatim renditions of the text, right the way to freely composed hymns, which might show little or no connection with the Missal/Gradual text at all. Making use of alternative Psalm translations is very close indeed to the 'verbatim' end of this scale, and I can't see that there's any basis at all for arguing against them from a textual point of view.

I think we're going to agree to differ on this one.

I'm not exactly arguing from a textual point of view, but certainly from a canonical point of view, and an aesthetic one, and a pastoral one. And I'm not talking just about the Propers but about use of the psalms in toto.

As far as the confusion that I previously mentioned is concerned, the USA is the only country where the psalter used in the Lectionary (NAB) is different from that used in the Divine Office (Grail). This has had a lasting and deleterious impact on the spirituality of US clergy, as talking to them would soon show. They have never been able to get the psalms under their skin in the same way that other English-speaking clergy and and religious have, because the wording is constantly shifting, every day.

My point is that, if you're going to use psalms rather than hymns for the Propers (and I think you should), at least use the translation of the psalms that is "in possession" and not something else. If you're going to use a hymn paraphrase, then it really doesn't matter what text you sing. It's going to be very different.

[John Ainslie]

I take Southern Comfort's point about the desirability of having a single version of the psalms that everyone can become familiar with. We have been very fortunate with Grail 1 – which is why I view with discomfort the possibility of being compelled by Vox Clara or whoever to change to Grail 4, but that's another story.

However, the way the Church has traditionally used the Latin texts of psalms for Missal antiphons, short responsories and the like shows considerable latitude. This has been to make them more directly applicable for Christian use, to mould them into required phrases or, in the case of some antiphons and responsories, adapted by the musicians who wrote the original chant settings of them. So there are substantial precedents for making use of psalm texts without being restricted to strict word-for-word conformity.

Of course, I exclude from these comments any such latitude for the responsorial psalm, or the psalms or canticles (but not the antiphons) of the Divine Office, which are proclaimed or used precisely as psalms/canticles.

[mcb]

I see no point in simply rendering an Entrance Antiphon to a plain psalm-tone week in, week out, just to satisfy a rubric. That is what I remember doing in the 1950s: it was deadly dull. Music should inspire.

Hear hear.

Being subjected to an unrelieved hymn-sandwich is to lose sight of liturgical balance and even propriety, but at least it gives the opportunity for the congregation to praise God in song.

A "hymn sandwich" , in my understanding, is a Mass with nothing but (usually irrelevant) hymns in the interstices; it's a different matter when hymns are a part of the mix along with the Mass ordinary, Psalm and Gospel Acclamation, etc.

While (IMHO) a refrain with psalm verses is ideal for Communion, even if the people are reluctant to join in the refrain while they process, I am less convinced about the suitability of that musical form to engage the congregation at the beginning of Mass.

This too I agree with, and ditto for the Preparation of the Gifts. The act of processing takes up a certain amount of, er, processing power, which makes the responsorial format inherently well-suited. The assembly's role in the entrance procession and the procession of the gifts is more passive, and being more fully engaged in song can enhance their involvement in the liturgical action.

However, when I hear the priest begin the Mass with a chanted 'In the name of the Father...' I do ask myself what kind of music should precede it and prepare for it...

Not sure what the subtext is here (as shown by the ellipsis). If you mean you find the chanted opening out of place I don't agree at all. The entrance song serves its purpose if by it the assembly is united, focused, turned towards prayer. Breath is bated, you might say, for the opening greeting, a moment of real anticipation. A rousing hymn, best of all one modelled on the entrance antiphon, hits the spot exactly, and when it's answered by a sung greeting, the sense of liturgical drama is maintained.

[Peter Jones]

This may be of interest and will certainly inform the debate. Of course, readers may wish to challenge McFarland's approach - especially those who have an idée fixe that every hymn /chant must necessarily relate to the Lectionary material of the day. If you can afford the book, I think it's well worth a read.

[Gwyn]

[Southern Comfort]

I take Southern Comfort's point about the desirability of having a single version of the psalms that everyone can become familiar with. We have been very fortunate with Grail 1 – which is why I view with discomfort the possibility of being compelled by Vox Clara or whoever to change to Grail 4, but that's another story.

However, the way the Church has traditionally used the Latin texts of psalms for Missal antiphons, short responsories and the like shows considerable latitude. This has been to make them more directly applicable for Christian use, to mould them into required phrases or, in the case of some antiphons and responsories, adapted by the musicians who wrote the original chant settings of them. So there are substantial precedents for making use of psalm texts without being restricted to strict word-for-word conformity.

Of course, I exclude from these comments any such latitude for the responsorial psalm, or the psalms or canticles (but not the antiphons) of the Divine Office, which are proclaimed or used precisely as psalms/canticles.

I think Grail IV is what we're going to get. After all, in one sense we've already got it for the propers: every antiphon in the English translation of the Roman Missal (3rd edition) which is a direct quotation from the psalter already uses Grail IV.

The only unanswered question is whether the text of Grail IV is at all susceptible to change....

[Peter Jones]

The only unanswered question is whether the text of Grail IV is at all susceptible to change....

As in some of it might become more singable

[AntoineDaniel]

IncenseTom, I assume you mean Adam Bartlett's Simple English Propers available online, and not the book of the same name published many years ago by Kevin Mayhew.
If the former, the translation of the psalms used is the New American Bible, which is not approved for use in England and Wales. If the latter, the text of the antiphons is the 1973 Missal, not the current 2010 Missal.

This statement is incorrect. The SEP (Church Music Association of America) does not use the New American Bible texts. It uses the Revised Grail. All the translations used are approved translations. This has been treated many times.

[Southern Comfort]

IncenseTom, I assume you mean Adam Bartlett's Simple English Propers available online, and not the book of the same name published many years ago by Kevin Mayhew.
If the former, the translation of the psalms used is the New American Bible, which is not approved for use in England and Wales. If the latter, the text of the antiphons is the 1973 Missal, not the current 2010 Missal.

This statement is incorrect. The SEP (Church Music Association of America) does not use the New American Bible texts. It uses the Revised Grail. All the translations used are approved translations. This has been treated many times.

Thanks, Jeff. I have been alerted to what is being said over at Chant Café (a site I never visit) about this, and I repeat what I have said there: the samples that I looked at bore no resemblance to Grail IV. Could it be that there was an editorial blip? Are most of the psalms Grail IV, but parts of an earlier NAB version slipped through the net?

[AntoineDaniel]

Southern Comfort, I have done more than a hundred practice videos using the SEP, and I have only ever seen the Revised Grail. The copyright pages in the SEP also claim the entire thing is Revised Grail.

That being said, I suppose what you claim is not impossible: but, for myself, I have not seen this.

[John Ainslie]

The only unanswered question is whether the text of Grail IV is at all susceptible to change....

As in some of it might become more singable

Quite. If you have bought the 'Singing Version' of The Revised Grail Psalms, you will have quickly discovered that the former regular stresses marked in the text and used in Gelineau psalm-tones have now become irregular, not only in quantity per line, but even in placement. Some syllables are stressed that shouldn't be, and vice-versa.

Compare it with my trusty but now venerable Collins Fount 'Singing Version'. This has an appendix containing all the Gelineau psalm-tone melody lines, and every psalm is referred in detail to these - or in the case of exceptional psalms to other publications. Except for the latter, every psalm can be sung from the book without further assistance: where a psalm has irregular metre, clear indications are given as to how to vary the psalm-tone, and which tone to use.

Not so with the new version, not so. For [it] like winnowed chaff shall be driven away by the wind (Ps 1:4) - I digress. No music in the new Singing Version, no musical guidance of any kind. This is because - so I am told - the monks of Conception Abbey, Missouri, who have done the translation, do not use the Gelineau psalm-tones at all. Whether they were the right people to commission for the translation I leave others to judge, but having them produce a 'Singing Version' that is unsingable is ridiculous!