Wednesday, July 25th, 2012


I was reading the review of Worship 4 at PrayTell. James Frazier gives the tome high marks. Because I haven’t seen it yet, I’ll confine my comments to his review, and some thoughts about publishing.

Perhaps the time was “right” for Worship 4 from a sales perspective. I heard of a lot of parishes dumping their permanent hymnals because the Mass setting section was out-of-date. Few enough parishioners sing from the Mass section of a hymnal anyway. And given those ubiquitous MR3 cards, I’m not sure hymnal pages are put to good use in that way. I’d rather have an extra piece of good music than the new Confiteor.

One issue: hymns. Mr Frazier is most definitely pro-hymn:

One of today’s most well-regarded composers of “contemporary” music once said that four-square hymns are not appropriate for Catholic worship. I still wonder at the myopia of this statement. It implies that authentic reform in the West must follow a set of rules different from inculturation everywhere else in the world. Hymns, he would have us believe, are for Protestants, not for Catholics, even though sixteenth-century Anglicans and Lutherans were working with essentially the same Roman liturgy in their day that we are today. Why was hymnody OK for them but not for us?

I’m not sure “hymns-inappropriate” is necessarily myopic. Hymns include very good music, and I would miss some very good music if I wasn’t singing hymns. But hymns aren’t absolutely necessary. I do think GIA has gone overboard with its focus on hymns, polluting good considerations from the original Gather edition and trying to shoe-horn psalm settings and other song forms into a hymn-box. My sense is that Catholic music is diverse enough and unsettled enough that we can tolerate “intros” and other forms of musical intonation that aren’t hymn-tune introductions.

My own sense is that the antiphon-plus-verse format of both the St Louis Jesuits and the traditional propers are more familiar (today) and likely more fitting for many congregational singing moments, especially when people are in processions. Hymns have their own place, even at the Eucharist. My own sense is that 25-40% of a parish’s repertoire could be hymns. But I also believe that it’s possible to have an excellent liturgical music effort without a single strophic hymn.

Now, before I have organists jumping down my throat on this one, I will say that repertoire should always be driven by the pastoral judgment. If I were serving a community with a strong organ tradition, and that sang, say, 200 hymns and 40 songs, it would not be my mission to wean them off “Protestant” music. And possibly to the shock of my alienated friends in CMAA, I will gladly concede that songs in the “proper” form, even the propers themselves, are a quite fine way to sing the Mass, so long as everybody’s singing.

Mr Frazier doesn’t like the eight Mass settings. I don’t either, but for a wholly different reason.

But the greatest fault of the Mass settings lies in the predominance of sing-song, facilitated in many cases by the slavish use of 6/8 and 3/4 meters, often with cloying sixths and thirds.

I’m familiar with three or four of the W4 selections. None of them grabbed me.

If the time was right from a marketing perspective to sell a whole bunch of hymnals, it is totally wrong from a ministry perspective to include Mass settings in them. As I said at PrayTell, even the St Louis Jesuits in the 70′s knew better. Published congregational music must be assembly-tested–at the very least in the composer’s parish. Ideally in a few other places, too.

Printing eight mostly-untested Mass settings in a hymnal projected to last ten-plus years is a disservice. Wiser would have been a slightly less expensive and thinner hymnal, and/or an option to include two or three sets of Mass setting cards to supplement W4. That’s not to say that the W4 Mass setting composers haven’t done fine work. I would like to see these Mass settings tweaked a bit here and there to reflect a more “natural” voice of the assembly. I recently sang the revised Mass of Creation. It’s an improvement, as I would expect.

I don’t agree with Mr Frazier that a preponderance of “sing-song” is a composer’s problem. I think the fault lies with musicians–even excellent ones–who decline to put the same musicianship into the weekly congregational repertoire as they might with special music.

I say this as a person who has often played the Mass of Creation or a setting of Psalm 27 or 103 or 23 mostly on auto-pilot. I find that when I’ve had time to think about how I might play a chestnut–maybe I’m adapting to a young cantor, or a new instrumental arrangement, or even a new parish, I can often be open to new ways of presenting music.

I think many of my colleagues at the piano or organ could use a little verve and imagination when we’re playing the same old piece of pew music for the 100th or 500th time.

Anybody else get a peek at Worship 4? What are you seeing?

As always, I note the kind contribution of Richard Chonak who translated the Latin original of the second edition (1988). Let’s look at the Ordinary music of the Introductory Rites:

2. The acclamations Kyrie, eleison can be distributed among two or three cantors or choirs, if
appropriate. Each acclamation is to be sung in a two-fold manner, yet a greater number is not excluded, especially considering reasons of musical art, as indicated below, n. 491.1

When the Kyrie is sung as part of the penitential act, brief tropes are placed before the
individual acclamations.

You might expect my criticism of this section lies along the principle that the assembly should be singing a good portion of a penitential act. After all, it is for the benefit of confessing one’s own need for mercy, not allowing the choir to serve a quasi-priestly function.

The relevant section cited above is reproduced here:

1. For chants in the Order of Mass the Kyriale Romanum and Kyriale simplex are to be It is permitted for the selection of chants to depend first of all on the ability or capacity of the singers; more ornate melodies are preferred in more solemn celebrations.

This music is at the service of a sense of progressive solemnity. Still, I would be hesitant about removing the people’s voices from this part of the Ordinary on those solemn celebrations, where the options for ritual are many and varied.

Note that the three-plus-three-plus-three format should be retained to respect the composition of a piece:

2. Pertaining to the chant of the Kyrie, when nine invocations are notated fully, the musical form requires that they be sung in their entirety. In contrast, when one melody is to be repeated for the first invocations of Kyrie, this invocation is only sung twice. Similarly for the following invocations Christe and Kyrie (for example, Kyrie V). When the final Kyrie is written with a distinct melody (e.g., Kyrie I), the Kyrie preceding it is only sung once. In this way the general rule of repeating each invocation once is preserved.

3. When the Kyrie is employed as a response to some invocation in the penitential act, the melody of this response should be chosen either from Kyrie XVI or XVIII of the Kyriale Romanum, or a melody from the Kyriale Simplex.

An important liturgical reminder, namely that the Kyrie Eleison is not an automatic part of the Sunday Eucharist:

4. When the rite of blessing and sprinkling holy water is done in place of the penitential act in Sunday Masses, the antiphon Asperges me is sung, or in Paschaltide, Vidi aquam.

If anyone has comments on the particular repertoire of the Kyriale, happy to hear it. You can link in the comboxes, if you’re careful. Other thoughts?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 97 other followers