Glory to Jesus Christ!

In the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church, our last official musical settings for the Divine Liturgy were promulgated in 1970. At the time, Matins was dead and Vespers hardly celebrated except on feast days, and the Divine Liturgy was IT.

In the 1990's, there was renewed interest from a variety of quarters in re-establishing Matins and Vespers in our parishes. Furthermore, the awareness of problems with our existing materials (bad English accents, inconsistencies in the tones, and so on) was growing. At least one set of corrected melodies for the entire Liturgy was circulated by the Intereparchial Music Commission (or possibly the combined Liturgy/Music Commission; I'm not sure of the date) to some 50+ cantors for comment; I was not involved in that, as my work at the time was on Vespers and Matins exclusively, but I did hear about it.

In 1999, Metropolitan Judson promulgated the new particular law for the Pittsburgh Archeparchy, which mandated that a new translation of the Divine Liturgy be prepared. From this point on, the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission was working on music for the Divine Liturgy and Vespers, as well as the eight tones; much of this was already being discussed in 1998 at the re-started Cantor School in Pittsburgh.

John, our administrator, has asked me to answer several questions, which I will attempt to summarize here, then answer.

Here's my reply. Glory to God in all things!

John,

In your questions above you have made several assumptions.

1. Your first assumption is that the Music Commission believes in "literal settings" of prostopinije melodies. By this you have indicated you mean that they use old melodies to the DETRIMENT of the sense, flow and use of the English texts of the liturgy. In fact, at one point you said:

I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate this exact claim - that ANYWHERE in the Music Commission settings (let alone the "many places" you refer to elsewhere) the music "accents the wrong syllables." So far you have pointed to one thing you would have set differently - where the accented sylable is sung over four notes, in the middle of a longer melody. I don't buy it. (And apropos your suggestion that I don't understand English well enough - I've been a professional writer for 25 years, editing other people's text for clarity and style, AND am happy to discuss English prose style and rhythm from Caedmon to the present, if you like. Your claim about four notes making "Now" the most important word in a hymn is quite weak.)

The Commission's settings have reset the original prostopinije melodies not JUST from Boksaj, or Sokol, or other sources, but also in some cases from the oral tradition, or the way the priests and cantors working on the chant agreed they should be sung. In the process, they eliminated MANY places where "bad accents" did exist in our current chant settings - especially in the samohlasen tones used mostly at Vespers.

So two of your assumptions do not hold:

(a) that the music strictly adhered to written sources, or to ANY one source; the melodies were drawn from an existing BODY of chant, prostopinije, and were frequently adjusted to fit the text.
(b) that the Commission ignored or was indifferent to English accent or phrasing.

2. Your next assumption seems to be that people cannot learn a different setting of music, or benefit from change.

The fact is that every Byzantine Catholic who goes to a different parish will likely have to learn some new or different music. Every parish has its own "spin" on the chant. Further, MANY (perhaps most) parishes do not have any kind of complete service music in front of the people. You seem to underestimate the extent to which our parishioners and inquirers are ALWAYS picking things up "by ear."

You cited the example of St. George's and their recordings, which are lovely. The problem with your argument is that you assume that devotion, joy and 'raising the roof' ONLY come with certain music, or music which has been sung the same way for years, and that it surely is lost if change occurs - and that any such change is completely unacceptable.

But doesn't this apply to the parishes that joyfully celebrated First Communions - sometimes bringing lapsed family members back who stayed?

What about people who CRIED when told they could not attend daily Liturgies during Lent, which had been so spiritually fruitful for them - and became sour, unhappy participants at a Presanctified Liturgy, or left entirely?

What about my own dear head cantor, whose body relaxes noticeably and whose singing becomes magnificent whenever he sings English "the old way" - where we count syllables to find THE end of the meLODy. The people follow him and the singing can be of extraordinary power - just not as accessible to someone walking in the door.

I am not here meaning to discuss the change itself (for more below); but change in and of itself may sometimes be appropriate IF the cause is proportional. Furthermore, the new music is NOT as hard or as different as you seem to believe.

3. You assume the Music Commission intends to make changes either without considering the impact of the changes, or their scope, all for some "literal adherence" to an old chant.

First, this neglects the sorry state our chant is in now - with many problems you have admitted. You say that the bad notation can be fixed - but how can you do that when many cantors have "fixed" it by interpreting the chant each in his own way? What about the existing bad accents, even in the music which you insist MUST be kept (like the Lamplighting Psalms introductions at Vespers)?

Second, it neglects the very real pastoral care the Music Commission has taken in their settings, to make them consistent, singable, and not TOO far from what we sing already.

The following table:

http://metropolitancantorinstitute.org/NewMusicComparisonDL

shows the differences between the 1964 settings, which so many of our people learned, and the proposed music - and again, between the 1964, 1970 and proposed music.

You will notice that MANY of the melodies were either unchanged, or changed by one or note.

Most of the items that WERE changed were changed for the following reasons. (This, if you will, is my "justification" for the changes I see.)

1. Where melodies were used over and over in an inconsistent fashion, the Commission regularized them. The best example is the Antiphons. In Slavonic, every phrase ends "re-fa-mi" - down, up a third, down a step. In the 1964 English setting, EVERY phrase in each first verse was set differently: down-same-up, up-same-down, down-up-down, up-down-up. But you know what? In the REMAINING verses (the ones which people are so upset about having taken out of the service books), we sing every phrase as in Slavonic - "re-fa-mi", sometime making a half note into two quarters for the accent. Your own 1997 service book, John, points all these verses the same way - which would NEVER be possible if each phrase had its own different ending.

So the Commission's proposed text has us sing the FIRST VERSE the same we we sing verses 2 and 3 - and always put the accent on the re for consistency, rather than letting it "move around". Is this such a great problem? Learned ONCE, it means that all antiphons for all services throughout the year follow a pattern that we ALREADY know - and which you use in your own festal settings.

2. Second type of change: in some cases, music is set to specific melodies - for example, to a samohlasen melody. In many of these cases, the Commission made sure the melodies matched. If we expect people to sing samohlasen tones at Vespers and Matins - and this music IS meant to be sung by the whole congregation, not the cantor! - it makes little sense to have them sing a DIFFERENT version at the Divine Liturgy - we are training them to be confused.

The Commission did this for ALL melodies, not just for the Divine Liturgy. You yourself have noted that the festal troparia are "all over the place." That was perhaps not so bad when we never took the troparia in the Typikon, and used the Liturgy "for the departed" on every single weekday. But if we want to celebrate the liturgical cycle more fully, cantors and singers need all the help they can get. The Commission decided to start being consistent in the Divine Liturgy.

But as I said, the changes are NOT LARGE. Most of the adjustments are no larger than individual parish-to-parish changes; the difference is that the hierarchs have agreed to provide written out music, recordings, and instructional materials. And in all likelihood, if the music IS promulgated, there will be 6-12 months for cantors to look over the music before there is any obligation to even begin using it.

On top of which, every parish will maintain its own traditions, as it always has. A few REALLY good melodies will crop up and spread - being more easily noticed if our music is otherwise consistent. And for the services we OUGHT to be celebrating - particularly Vespers and Matins - the faithful will be used to having music to sing from, and to hearing melodies set consistently, so they can pay attention to the services instead of to seeing how the music changes verse by verse. Some parishes will keep the "dumbed down" melodies for years - though it may in the long run be to their detriment.

So, back to your questions:

I agree. And since our English settings are SO varied, it makes sense to START with the settings that vary MUCH less - the Slavonic ones - add additional melodies we like, adjust all of them sensibly and consistently to fit our English texts and their liturgical use, and where necessary or appropriate, keep whatever we CAN'T change for pastoral reasons. This appears to be the way the Commission did their work.

In fact, in two cases I pointed out places where the old chant melodies were completely replaced - and was told that in those places, the Commission had decided NOT to alter the existing setting.

The Commission DID adapt the prostopinije settings to serve the English text and liturgy. But they adapted it CONSISTENTLY, found reasonable ways to match melody to text, and used those smaller number of consistent settings throughout. This does not mean we can't add new music; it simply means that every occurence of samohlasen tone 2 will BE samohlasen tone 2, and not just "sorta sound like it."

First, the 1964 and 1970 settings are NOT used everywhere; many cantors use music which differs from it greatly (Jerry Jumba's, or other music). I don't see any sign that they intended to "abandon" anything; rather, they used a consistent setting of the chant melodies should be used wherever possible.

Second, the Commission DID adapt the melodies SLIGHTLY across the board to fit the English text. But they did this in a way that made sense musically and liturgically.

"Literal faithfulness" is not what was used. Faithfulness was. As Father Sokol said in his Divine Liturgy book, which many cantors STILL sing from (and by which some parishes raise the roof!):

We do no one a service by changing our melodies each time we set a different text, whether in 1964 or 2006. (By changing melody, I mean changing the melodic LINE - adding or deleting notes on a reciting tone, or changing a half note to two quarters, does not change the melody.) Certainly, the text must be respected! All your arguments against being open to new, consistent settings seem to boil down to 4 points:

(a) What we have is just fine. (But as you have said, it has bad accents - and as I am happy to show, it has massive inconsistencies which make our singing unnecessarily difficult.)
(b) It will be too hard to change. (But many of the melodies are the same or only differ by a tiny amount - which will be offset by easy availability of music.)
(c) The music is bad.

And so we're back to Java Joe's
and your own
So here's my final answer, using your format but not your assumptions:

I, Jeff, understand that the people have sung many different settings based on the initial simplified, inconsistent English settings for the Divine Liturgy for 40 years. I acknowledge that most parishes are reasonably happy with their own music, though many have no trained cantor and may lack proper music for newcomers, or to celebrate services like Matins and Vespers. I believe, however, that the people should be askedto learn common melodies which are beautiful and serviceable, respect the English accent, and contribute to the establishment of a full liturgical cycle in every parish. I understand that this will stretch some parishes, and stretch some parishioners. I ask them to pray, to support their bishops "in all things but sin", to be willing to contribute their voices to the Divine Services as they have done in the past, and to "come to the singing" when new services such as Vespers and Matins are offered. Further, I ask that cantors re-commit themselves to professionalism and excellence in their craft, and to a life of prayer; and I invite young people in particular to learn about the liturgy and chant, and consider using the opportunity of the new materials and programs to learn to become cantors themselves."

Now, John, I've answered your questions (quoted above) to the best of my ability, and explained my own presuppositions, which I will support with evidence if asked.

Knowing what I know about the real needs of many of our parishes, there is one argument you could make that might cause me to re-evaluate my support for the proposals of the Music Commission. You said:
This is the nub of your argument that the Music Commission kept a "literal adherence" to old chant melodies which negatively impacts our singing.

I ask you to either support this statement with serious examples, or withdraw the claim.

If in any way I have offended, I apologize. Like you, I am VERY happy to see liturgical chant discussed. But it is important if we are going to oppose the bishops' work, or complain about it (as several list members have advocated we do) that we do it based on facts rather than vague claims. As I said, I am willing to support with examples, all the statements I have made.

I am also happy to provide additional information about the music taught and distributed as part of the Cantor's School in Pittsburgh, for those who were unable to attend, and I invite any cantor who CAN attend on November 11 to come to Pittsburgh, come to the singing, and discuss the proposed "new" music.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. By the way, please note that in saying "if we are going to oppose the bishops' work, or complain about it", I am not in ANY way saying that anyone here already has opposed our bishops. However, several posters have CALLED for such opposition - which, while it might be justified in extreme circumstances, has the potential to damage the Church and to give scandal to others.

"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles" (St. Ignatius of Antioch). If is it necessary to adjust the way we sing so that we can restore our full cycle of liturgical observance, and welcome newcomers by giving them access to the music we are singing, then this might simply be a cross that we are asked to bear, in obedience to the bishops, and thus to God. I do not discount the pain that might be involved; but the musical changes ARE small, they DO restore a tradition, and the Music Commission HAS exercised a great deal of care in their charge.

Yours fraternally in Christ,
Jeff

Jeff,

Thanks for your post.

Your summary of my position is almost totally incorrect.

I started to write a long refutation but it is clear that you are so emotionally involved in supporting these new settings that you cannot see the forest for all the trees. You keep making a lot of points that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This suggests to me that you are not willing to respond to my questions about the premise under which the proposed new settings have been prepared or are unwilling to admit that it is unjust to force the faithful to abandon the English settings for the fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy even though they are very good and work very well and people can and do ‘raise the roof’ with them.

I will quote you to make only one point for you to consider.

In the discussion of “Holy God #1” you stated: “Admittedly, ‘now’ on four syllables might not be desirable if we were writing new text rather than using a liturgical one, but setting it this way brings everything else into alignment.”

You cantoral instinct under which you wrote that analysis was and is correct. The proposed setting doesn’t work.

Readers should take away this simply rule for setting chant: “If you would not set it that way in a new composition then don’t set it that way when setting new text to an existing composition.”

As you post it becomes more and more clear that you (and the IELMC / MCI) are very willing to compromise proper accentuation just so that there can be a literal adherence to Boksaj (I simply don’t believe that you cannot see the poor accentuation). All of this can be seen just from your argument that the 1970 English setting to “Holy God #1” (which is excellent) needs to be abandoned in favor of a literal Boksaj setting.

So that new readers of this thread will not think that Jeff’s presentation of my position is accurate I will again briefly summarize (and refer them to my earlier posts).

The English settings for the fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy are very good and work very well (Jeff admits this with his praise of the singing of St. George Parish – and there are other parishes where the singing is even better). People can and do ‘raise the roof’ when they sing them. There is absolutely no reason to take them away from the people and force them to learn new settings merely because they are closer to Boskaj. That would be the height of pastoral insensitivity. If these settings did not work or had really bad accentuation there would be justification for change. But they do work and there are only a few places where minor adjustments are needed. There is no need to abandon what the people know and love.

Common settings for the fixed texts of other Divine Services (Vespers, Matins, and etc.) and common settings for all of the changeable texts of all of the Divine Services are needed.

There is absolutely no need to change the settings for the fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy in order to prepare common settings for everything else. It is very possible to prepare common settings to all the texts (fixed and changeable) of our Divine Services that:

1) properly accentuate the English text,

2) are very faithful to Boksaj and other Slavonic sources and

3) sit quite nicely beside the already accepted common English settings for the fixed parts of the Divine Liturgy.

In those places where the singing is not all that it should be the answer is not to re-write the common music but to train clergy, cantors and the faithful what good Liturgy is and how to attain it and keep it. This includes (but is not limited to) the training of cantors (how to sing, and etc.).

It is not necessary to abandon the fixed settings for the English texts of the Divine Liturgy in order to provide common music for all of our Divine Services. We should continue to use common settings that can and do work, and add to them settings that are properly accent the English language and are faithful to our Prostopinije (adapting it to serve the English text where necessary).

John

Glory to Jesus Christ!

John,

Actually, I have no particular emotional involvement in the proposed settings of the Ordinary of the Divine Liturgy; I was not involved in creating it, as I have been busy for more than ten years working on Vespers and Matins. I am arguing as I am because I don't like inaccurate statements being made about it - and because I believe is is a REASONABLE way for the bishops to provide complete service music for our church.

For your position to make sense, one would have to hold that

(a) All our parishes, or the preponderant majority, sing according to the 1970 text. (This is simply not true, as can be heard by LISTENING to the singing at Uniontown. There are huge variations in parish tradition. This is in no way a bad thing, but it does mean we lack a common setting.) OR

(b) you admit that there is wide variation, but believe that the simplified, syllabic settings from the 1960's ought to be the standard. (In that case, the 1970 setting is ONE possibiliy, and should be judged on its merits.)

Now, my argument (embodied in the link above, which you do not discuss) is that the new settings ARE an atempt to remain close to the 1964 and 1970 settings, while being consistent with the traditional chant, and keeping proper English accents and phrasing. They are NOT hard to sing, though they will require SOME adjustment from almost any parish - simply because of the wide variations among parish practice.

So one can argue:

(c) that the proposed settings are BAD, and should not be used; thus we need a DIFFERENT standard.

or

(d) The 1970 settings are SO good that they are the clear winner.

You have claimed repeatedly that the new music is bad, and have so far declined to provide evidence. If you simply don't like music in which more than one note is sung to a syllable, that's fine; this is the premise for the early settings. But it's NOT prostopinije, and believing that only syllabic settings will do shows little respect for our cantors, parishioners or traditions.

If we're trying to achieve common settings, with music IN FRONT OF our people as well as newcomers, it doesn't matter if one parish or another can sing a particular setting with great gusto, unless you're concluding that that setting, or the principles on which it is based, is the BEST, or at least good enough to be automatically accepted as the standard. But I've heard MANY different parishes over the years singing with great devotion - some singing settings which I'm sure would bother you, e.g. by ignoring English accents.

We have had 45 years and NO ONE has published a complete set of service music, let alone had it widely accepted. We have lived with huge gaps in our service, and in our cantorial practice. Metropolitan Judson insisted on remedying this lack, and the work of the Music Commission has been AT LEAST AS GOOD as any other attempt I have seen - in some places better.

If "Now" on four syllables is unacceptable, then you would have to exclude from use practically the entire body of znammeny chant, and so on. Furthermore, I did not say the setting didn't work, and you haven't demonstrated it didn't work. Quite the contrary: YOUR claim is that the new settings accent the wrong syllables. Please provide examples.

So rather than answering your questions quoted above YET again, let me take a new tack and state my OWN position:

(a) We need a common setting; for practical purposes, the side-by-side use of the 1960's, 1970's, Advanced Cantor School, and private variations of all of the above, mean that most parishes will have to change SOMEWHAT if one is adopted. (I do want to see a standard presented, which may end up causing LOTS of different versions to be "abandoned" or at leaast replaced, but I have no desire to "force" it on anyone otherwise.)

(b) We need complete service music in front of the people. Even your Vespers books, for example, do not begin to include all the music for the congregational singing of the services, and what you provide contains bad accents.

(c) There is nothing wrong with setting English texts to the original, unabbreviated prostopinije melodies, which our people still sing in Slavonic and (in many parishes) in English, as long as melodies can be set in such a way that hat the English accent and phrase are respected.

(d) Melodies should be used consistently; we do not need 10 versions of troparion tone 1.

(e) The proposed settings from the Music Commission meet the above requirements. You have completely declined to prove your statement that ANY of their materials contain "bad accents.:

(f) Furthermore, as shown in the charts I linked, the amount of change in the new settings is SMALL, EXCEPT for one borrowed Galician melody, which has been restored to the actual Galician melody, and the opening three notes and the doxology of Holy God 1. (In many cases, the Music Commission DID choose to keep a current setting intact; your claim of slavish devotion to old melodies is simply false.) With adequate instructional materials, learning the new music is NOT hard.

Furthermore, the new settings will contain complete service music for the Divine Liturgy throughout the year - INCLUDING the common services for days of the week, and for the classes of saints, all set to the prosopinije melodies, in a consistent style, and respecting English accents .

As I have said repeatedly, I would rather this work have been done 20 years ago, when the issues of a new translation were not in play as well. But perhaps we still need to settle the question of whether we permit ornate music in church, as we had in Slavonic, or whether all text should be restricted to one note per syllable, as the 1960's service books seem to have preferred.

In your post above, your entire argument hinges on an analysis of one measure, which you claim I said didn't work. I said no such thing. I really think you need to provide your own objective explanations addressing the actual defects you see in the proposed setting, rather than misrepresenting the only one of mine you could use to support your argument.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

Thanks for your post.

Unfortunately, you have once again misrepresented my position, talked about different issues then those under discussion, and ignored the questions I have asked. Because of this I do not see any reason to continue this discussion.

I very much admire and respect your dedication and hard work; even though I now believe that the IELMC / MCI and those involved with it are on the wrong track regarding the setting of chant.

Thanks again.

John

Glory to Jesus Christ!

John,

All your questions so far (there were none in your last two posts) begin with the statement that the Music Commission is willing to ignore problems with English accents, and proceed to ask me why. It is certainly relevant to discuss the issue of whether there really ARE problems with the settings; these are hardly "different issues." I have attempted to justify the Commission's use of traditional melodies, but can hardly talk about problems which you assert to exist, if you won't point them out.

If you could state your questions AS questions, rather than asking me to justify positions I do not hold, I will make a valiant effort to return the favor and answer them.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierazejewsi

I just finished reading through the back and forth posts in this thread and wish to offer the following brief observations.

Anyone informally connected with the IEMC is not qualified to facilitate the process of soliciting feedback and to make comments on their behalf regarding their work.

Some might even consider that what has been offered on this Forum thus far about their work to be pure speculation save for the few remarks actually offered by Members of the Commission.

=================================================
Jeff: In my opinion, you have over-exaggerated the negative aspects of the current state of affairs regarding the Liturgical Chant in the Metropolia in an attempt to make a stronger case for the works proposed by the IEMC.

That is completely unnecessary; in fact, some of the changes proposed by the IEMC are vast improvements to the current arrangements, can easily stand on their own merits, and will be welcomed by a majority of Cantors/Faithful who are able to think critically and objectively.

Your comments, here and in other threads, have demonstrated an inability to look critically at the work that has been proposed by the IEMC. Nothing is perfect or without room for improvement; there is always an opportunity to change and grow to the next level.

Please consider taking your emotional stake (as a clerical support person for the IEMC) out of the discussion and try "listening" to the feedback presented from the different contributors to the Forum. Otherwise, I would suggest that you're not helping the "cause" that you're so passionately supporting. In fact, you may be turning people who were interested in learning more away because your defensive responses have often bordered upon "meaningless ranting" instead of "meaningful discussion."

I can recommend some good reading materials to help you develop your active listening skills if you would like.
=================================================

Based on some of the feedback that has been shared on this Forum, it is clear that:

(1.) Some have made an honest effort to see the proposed music (what little has been shared through an unofficial means) clearly and truly in order to judge it fairly; ***

(2.) Some have made an effort to resist the notion of ANY change as much as possible, without really considering any potential merits in the new material;

(3.) Some have remained ambivalent to the entire discussion. (The "I couldn't care less" crowd.)

As I have suggested, it would be ideal if there were some sort of "official" process, sponsored by the Hierarchs, where the proposed music can be shared in a printed form with every individual serving in a recognized capacity as Cantor in his/her parish, feedback requested, and suggestions taken.

Wouldn't that be a terrific way to engage the people in the first group and, potentially, move some of the people in the second and third groups toward an acceptance (over time) of any changes proposed?

Effective change takes people collaborating together to make it happen.

Footnote:
*** I would consider myself a member of the First Group. (Based on his many posts and, at the risk of speculation, I would also suggest that Admin/John is a member of that First Group as well.)

Since I am no expert on Prostopinije (and don't especially enjoy that particular form of chant), I've done my best to stay out of the discussion on it, even though I follow the discussion most of the time. This may make me a one-man Fourth Group. Others are welcome to join this Fourth Group, which has no meetings, no obligations and no functions!

Fr. Serge

This discussion about the music is very old, and really doesn't have much to do with the "Revised Liturgy" and its merits or mistakes.

There have always been arguments in favor of keeping the melodies whole and entire, and then adapting the English words to fit the melody. And there have been those who felt that the meaning of the English words and the natural stresses of the English sentence were more important, and notes or whole cadences of the old chant were expendable, if it didn't serve the English well.

When English was begun I was still a kid. But I was told that Bishop Andrew and a number of priests and cantors worked together on the "green book" for the Liturgy and the "black book" that had the tones and changing parts in it. We should ask them, "Why did you simplify the chant?" Why didn't you follow the Slavonic melody exactly?

I think they would answer, that it didn't work! You couldn't sing it in English, and if you did try to force it, suddenly the English didn't make sense. Have you ever listened to an opera, written first in Italian or German or something, translated into English? They follow that system, of keeping the music identical, and just putting English words in. It is a disaster. You can't understand anything they're singing! They might as well leave it in the original language, and pass out books in the new language so people who don't know the story can read along. But the best thing to do is not to read along, but just sit back and enjoy the opera! The music is the thing.

They didn't want to do that. Because, in the Byzantine Liturgy, the music isn't the thing. The prayer is more important, and if you support praying in English, it is because the words are important, the music is a servant to the words. The proof of this, is that the music can change. You can sing Greek chant, Arabic chant, Russian choir music, or any other chanting style you can name, and the prayer is the same! The words are important, and the chant is the vehicle that carries the words. Either the vehicle works for the language, or it doesn't.

Another example. Why didn't the Roman Church keep the Gregorian chant, and just put English words beneath the old chant melodies? Because, it doesn't work. It was tried, but it was a failure, the old Latin chant just didn't serve the English language, becuase it was created to serve the Latin language.

So the original committee had a point! Maybe they should be listened to? They felt that the melodies were flexible, could be adapted, simplified, and adjusted to serve the English language, and they were right. It worked, and we carried our chant (at least most of it) through the change to English, thanks to their work and their wisdom.

There were always objectors (J. J. and others) who said it was criminal; the chant tradition was betrayed etc. etc. But experience proved them wrong. Parishes that sang well sang the melodies that were adapted to fit the English.

Perhaps, those who adapted the chant then went too far and perhaps oversimplified some of the tones. In fact, I think they did go too far sometimes. But their mistake only made the chant "wimpy" but it didn't ruin the prayer, or make the melody unsingable, just the opposite, it was sung and prayed.

Those who argued for the preservation of the "whole integrity of the chant" were usually specialists and trained musicians, who were not actually singing with the people, leading parishes, or testing out their ideas with actual parishes. When they did (so I hear) their leadership as cantors was not well received (I have only anecdotes for this, things I have heard from people in the parishes where this stuff has been tried). They people usually accuse them of wanting to sing by themselves, making it too difficult for ordinary people to follow.

This discussion is not about the Revised Liturgy, but about this old debate. It seems to me, from Jeff's arguments, that he and the new Music Committee are followers of the "keep the whole integrity of the chant" school, who have somehow displaced the old guard who were willing to adapt the music to suit the English. How this change of approach came back, is not known to me. The new committee argues that it is possible to set English to "the whole integrity of the chant" melody.

How the old guard got set aside, and how these new people got put in charge of the chant is not exactly clear, but it is an important point to note.

The old guard (are you out there?) should come back and explain the reasoning behind their work. But my guess is that it was tried and it failed. The whole melody was not appreciated and not easily singable with English words. It is not just about the accent of words, it is about the shape and cadences of English sentences. The whole melody was too heavy on the back of the English words, and the meaning of the sentences was overshadowed.

I think they have a point. I have seen the weekly handouts sent by the new committee, I've seen the music for the new Liturgy, and their new Vespers and Matins books. To be charitable, a lot of work went into producing all these books, they are nicely produced, and are very clear.

However, it doesn't really sing, and it is difficult to manage with a congregation. Do you remember the famous "Good Friday" books, when Annunciation fell on Good Friday? It was a disaster, and the comment from the vast majority of cantors, is the music "doesn't sing". It sounded like it was produced by someone sitting at a computer, not by a cantor who had experience of singing with the people. It just didn't work, it didn't "pray", it was a flop.

The simple truth is that the words are more important, and we should take the chant heritage, and be willing to "adapt" it as needed, and simplify it as necessary to serve the English Liturgy.

The committee (following J. J. and others) will object, and say it is possible to keep the whole melody, and it is just a question of accenting it correctly. But I don’t think they’re right. It is not just a question of accents. The Liturgy is not opera, and the melodies are not sacred. In English, the melodies have to be adapted and adjusted. The old committee was right, and what they did served us well. Arguably, their work could be improved and enhanced with the benefit of 40 years experience. But unfortunately, the new committee has another idea, and does not seem to appreciate what experience teaches. They have rejected the old principles, and think they know better. When the old guard of cantors and singers object to the new styles, they call them amateurs, or say they're not schooled in the tradition. The new committee and those who are defending this new music are ideologues, and crusade for the “integrity of the chant tradition” saying it is something we should restore in its fullness. I don’t see it that way. I am much more sympathetic to the work of the old guard, whose work has stood the test of time, and shouldn't be so easily rejected by the "purists" calling for "the integrity of the chant".

The thing I really don’t understand is the “odd couple” marriage, between those who are pushing for the complete restoration of the “integrity of the chant tradition” attaching their banner to those who argue against the restoration of the Liturgical text tradition, those on the Liturgy Committee who are pleading the cause of “adaptation” and “revision” in terms of the text. Does anyone else see the irony here?

Nick