You MAY have lost touch with prayerful forms
Consider the following:
This is the opening paragraph to "Chants from Lent through Easter" by Don Saliers of Emory University, where he is director of the Master of Sacred Music program. What is notable is the public source: Today's Liturgy as published by the Oregon Catholic Press (March 1, 2006-June 10, 2006). As long as I've followed this publication, which is distributed to perhaps sixty percent of American parishes, and which exercises a huge if inauspicious influence over US Catholic liturgical life, this is the first article I've seen that embraces and discusses chant as a living option.
Also, Alice Parker writes an article on "Hymnody: Why They Last" which says:
No, neither article mentions that chant is specifically called for in the GIRM, nor do they discuss how the chant is integral to the rite itself and not just another option, nor do they take on the topic of the propers or ordinary. But the popular chant hymns are a wonderful starting place, and it is good to note progress where it appears.
Alas, neither Dr. Parker nor Professor Saliers are not listed among the "20 musicians" who are developing a "common repertoire" (results 1 and 2) for all parishes.
"The place of chant is the Roman liturgy is being reassessed in recent years, particularly among parishes that may have lost touch with the prayerful quality of chant forms. More music collections are including some of the most venerable hymn and sequence texts set to chant modes, often with additional descants."
This is the opening paragraph to "Chants from Lent through Easter" by Don Saliers of Emory University, where he is director of the Master of Sacred Music program. What is notable is the public source: Today's Liturgy as published by the Oregon Catholic Press (March 1, 2006-June 10, 2006). As long as I've followed this publication, which is distributed to perhaps sixty percent of American parishes, and which exercises a huge if inauspicious influence over US Catholic liturgical life, this is the first article I've seen that embraces and discusses chant as a living option.
Also, Alice Parker writes an article on "Hymnody: Why They Last" which says:
"Latin chant texts and tunes are the oldest of course. They are the bedrock of Roman Catholic sung liturgy, with texts that proclaim our faith and tunes forged by constant quiet iteration of those words. When we allow ourselves to fall into their ancient rhythms, we add our voices to those of hundreds of millions of people who have sung before us. The chants are burnished by this consant use and are a royal highway to holy contemplation."
No, neither article mentions that chant is specifically called for in the GIRM, nor do they discuss how the chant is integral to the rite itself and not just another option, nor do they take on the topic of the propers or ordinary. But the popular chant hymns are a wonderful starting place, and it is good to note progress where it appears.
Alas, neither Dr. Parker nor Professor Saliers are not listed among the "20 musicians" who are developing a "common repertoire" (results 1 and 2) for all parishes.
3 Comments:
Professor Saliers is an elder in the Methodist church, and Dr. Parker is also a Protestant, I believe. Would that these 20 Catholic "music ministers" loved Gregorian chant as much as they.
The irony! The first articles printed in defense of chant in a mainstream Catholic liturgy periodical in ages--and they are written by Protestants.
These articles are an encouraging development, to be sure. OCP et alia should know that such efforts to promote chant -- for the moment, regardless of whether or not they portray chant for what it truly is, the normative music of the Roman rite -- have a groundswell of popular support.
Part of the above-quoted excerpt from Dr. Parker's article bears some elaboration. She writes that chant consists of "texts that proclaim our faith and tunes forged by constant quiet iteration of those words." The latter half of the sentence is only partially correct. It fails to account for the development of chant formulae, which are particularly noticeable in more melismatic chants (Gradual, Alleluia). It also neglects the fact of sometimes radically divergent musical settings of the same text, whose compositions depend not so much upon spoken repetition of the text (until a melodic shape emerges) as they do upon the intended liturgical context of the given chant. Dr. William Mahrt has written extensively on this point.
Of even greater fundamental importance, however, is that the texts of chants do much more than merely "proclaim our faith." The text of any given chant is not what the musician happens to feel like singing at that moment, but rather is what has been appointed by the Church to be prayed at a certain time in her divine liturgy. It is all too tempting for practitioners of sacred music, even that of an excellent theological and musical quality, to fall into the trap of supposing the music they sing to be primarily an expression of their faith. Sacred music is not my faith or your faith made explicit and reinforced through song. Rather, properly understood, it is the singing of the prayers, usually from Sacred Scripture, which the Church has placed upon our lips for the worship of almighty God. Laszló Dobszay's extensive reflections on the principles of ut mens concordet voci are well worth reading in this regard. The dangers of the anthropocentrism implied by the widely-held notion that music "expresses" belief cannot be overstated.
That said, Dr. Parker's image of chants "burnished" by their continual use by the heavenly hosts is most fortuitous.
<