It must be the weather.
And, perhaps, a cute little encounter I just had in the sacristy after Mass...
I was putting things away, and overheard two young men (high schoolers; I didn't notice if they had been serving at Mass,) talking to the priest (not the pastor.) They said something about the Latin Mass, and of course my ears perked up. Then I realized that they were talking about pattens, and someone said something about people receiving with their hands. I jumped in, and said, "Are you talking about patens? I know a parish that still uses them even when people receive on the hand." Then the sacristan, who was also there, mentioned that the communion rail was somewhere on the premises, and we joked about putting that back up. But we all admitted to not having any authority to do that. Ha. Then the priest was like, "oh...now we're dreaming..." and we all laughed and went our separate ways. But I couldn't stop grinning as I walked out of there!
"I'm one of you! Yay!" :-)
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Friday, March 02, 2012
Really, the Penitential Rite is not that hard...
But I am beginning to find myself more and more amused/annoyed by priests who can't seem to get the Penitential Rite correct. Some of them never even got it before the new translation, but now it seems to me that many priests are even more confused by it than before, for a variety of reasons, (one of which I think is the major re-translation of the rarely-used option "B.")
Anyhow, I have now had not just one, but two priests whom I have had to mention the correct way to use the "Kyrie's," and my dear husband has also told me of another parish in which he knew the priests were not doing it correctly.
Dear Fathers... it's really not that hard...
Basically, we always do some form of "Lord/Christ have mercy."
So, either that would be option A (the Confiteor,) or option B ("Have mercy on us Lord,") either of which would then be followed by the Kyrie/Lord have mercy, OR we would do the option C (the tropes,) which already has "Lord have mercy" as a part of it.
I mean, I know that priests have a TON else that they need to be doing, but really, it takes like 2 minutes to sit down and just read straight through the rubrics of the penitential rite. I suppose it also makes me a bit worried when I think about all the other liturgical things that I'm probably not even aware of, and it makes me doubt even more the amount of time that most priests would spend even reading the basic rubrics. :-(
Anyhow, I have now had not just one, but two priests whom I have had to mention the correct way to use the "Kyrie's," and my dear husband has also told me of another parish in which he knew the priests were not doing it correctly.
Dear Fathers... it's really not that hard...
Basically, we always do some form of "Lord/Christ have mercy."
So, either that would be option A (the Confiteor,) or option B ("Have mercy on us Lord,") either of which would then be followed by the Kyrie/Lord have mercy, OR we would do the option C (the tropes,) which already has "Lord have mercy" as a part of it.
I mean, I know that priests have a TON else that they need to be doing, but really, it takes like 2 minutes to sit down and just read straight through the rubrics of the penitential rite. I suppose it also makes me a bit worried when I think about all the other liturgical things that I'm probably not even aware of, and it makes me doubt even more the amount of time that most priests would spend even reading the basic rubrics. :-(
Monday, February 27, 2012
Finally available!
For free! Legal! For the entire world!
Until now, a mostly unknown, and unavailable choral work by César Franck.
Alleluia!
Until now, a mostly unknown, and unavailable choral work by César Franck.
Alleluia!
Can chant be sung without a director?
I certainly think so.
For example, if a group of singers were to learn a chant from the same recording, and each individually attempt to follow the nuances precisely (speed up here; barely lengthen this note,) and/or if the group spends time rehearsing together and agreeing upon rhythms and flow, then is a director really necessary?
I have found myself in the position of being "director," and yet, once I feel like I've "taught" the group, either by example or explanation of specific phrases, I can't help but wondering if all of my arm-waving is superfluous. Perhaps even moreso with some very amateur groups: if they have learned the chant more by ear than reading the notes-- wouldn't they be less affected by small nuances in conducting?
On the other hand, I have found myself in a situation of singing chant in a group with advanced singers and a superb conductor, and after extensive rehearsing, I feel as though I am so familiar with the director's every move, that we are already doing what he is directing, and if he stopped conducting, we would sound the exact same.
Perhaps I am not such a good chant singer or director, that I am not aware of the extent of the affect that conducting can have?
For example, if a group of singers were to learn a chant from the same recording, and each individually attempt to follow the nuances precisely (speed up here; barely lengthen this note,) and/or if the group spends time rehearsing together and agreeing upon rhythms and flow, then is a director really necessary?
I have found myself in the position of being "director," and yet, once I feel like I've "taught" the group, either by example or explanation of specific phrases, I can't help but wondering if all of my arm-waving is superfluous. Perhaps even moreso with some very amateur groups: if they have learned the chant more by ear than reading the notes-- wouldn't they be less affected by small nuances in conducting?
On the other hand, I have found myself in a situation of singing chant in a group with advanced singers and a superb conductor, and after extensive rehearsing, I feel as though I am so familiar with the director's every move, that we are already doing what he is directing, and if he stopped conducting, we would sound the exact same.
Perhaps I am not such a good chant singer or director, that I am not aware of the extent of the affect that conducting can have?
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
article
FABULOUS article-
http://www.amywelborn.com/whymass/article.html
Why go to Mass?
Yes, it comes down to - "Flannery O’Connor wrote of a man she knew who had converted to Catholicism because, he came to believe, Jesus must really be present in the Eucharist - otherwise, since the Catholic liturgy was regularly so dreadfully and mechanically done - no one would keep coming."
And unfortunately, most Catholics haven't been taught that, so, yeah...they're kind of struggling to find a reason to keep coming. (hint: this also isn't necessarily about pre-Vatican II or post.)
http://www.amywelborn.com/whymass/article.html
Why go to Mass?
Yes, it comes down to - "Flannery O’Connor wrote of a man she knew who had converted to Catholicism because, he came to believe, Jesus must really be present in the Eucharist - otherwise, since the Catholic liturgy was regularly so dreadfully and mechanically done - no one would keep coming."
And unfortunately, most Catholics haven't been taught that, so, yeah...they're kind of struggling to find a reason to keep coming. (hint: this also isn't necessarily about pre-Vatican II or post.)
Sunday, January 22, 2012
How to judge a church
I recently found myself in the position of describing (or rather, comparing) two different Catholic churches, to help someone who is traditionally minded decide which to attend. As I thought about it later, the kinds of things that I chose to mention were interesting, and certainly say something about a church. But most people wouldn't consider most of these things significant at all! I hardly even had to mention the devotion to orthodox Catholicism, since the interesting thing is that these things all point to that!
-Of course, the quality of the music. How much chant? Anything in latin? The quality of the choirs and of course what styles of music they sing in.
-The demeanor of the priest while celebrating Mass; including, how much he "ad libs," or brings his personality into the ritual.
-The content of the homilies.
-Whether there are female altar servers.
-Whether the church "looks" like a church inside.
-The demeanor (lack or presence of chatter or respectfulness) before and after Mass from the congregation.
-What kind of vestments the priest wears, and what the altar servers wear.
-Of course, the quality of the music. How much chant? Anything in latin? The quality of the choirs and of course what styles of music they sing in.
-The demeanor of the priest while celebrating Mass; including, how much he "ad libs," or brings his personality into the ritual.
-The content of the homilies.
-Whether there are female altar servers.
-Whether the church "looks" like a church inside.
-The demeanor (lack or presence of chatter or respectfulness) before and after Mass from the congregation.
-What kind of vestments the priest wears, and what the altar servers wear.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
"Nobody has ever taught us this before!"
I had a lovely little choir rehearsal tonight.
Looking at the schedule, I realized that we really don't have much to learn between now and Lent, and, (if I wanted to,) I could surely run the rehearsal in 35 minutes each week. That not really being an option (since my pay isn't based on hours,) I have been thinking I need something more to do with the choir. So, I decided to have them work on a little polyphonic 4-part piece. At the very least, even if they never sing it at Mass, I could use it to teach some notes and how to read rhythms.
I decided I would do a lot of "everyone singing the same part" thing, so that people wouldn't get bored, and teach them to "count-sing." (Eg, 1+2+3+4+ for every measure.)
We had started that last week on a mostly quarter note song, and it was going well, so I figured that jumping into the eighth note song would be perfect. I quickly realized that they had less of a grasp on the actual note values than I was thinking, so I set about explaining how "1+2" or whatever fits into which notes exactly, and writing it on the white board. They were very interested, with only mild complaining about the difficulty. So, we had a great rehearsal, got through a bit of the piece, and I'm looking forward to helping them to really learn it solidly, with a complete understanding of the notes over the next few weeks.
However, my day was made (and my heart aches,) when, at the end of rehearsal, I was erasing the white board, and someone said, "Oh, you're erasing that! I was going to use it!" And then they started asking me to re-write it and hand it out! They said, "No one has ever taught us this before!... I failed music when I was in school... I've been singing in choirs for years!"
Wow. So, this will be an interesting experiment at the worst, or, way to change their lives (musically at least,) at the best. I will definitely write out a sheet for them, and even include some rhythm exercises that they can practice counting on their own! This should be fun.
And...this is why I love my job. :-)
Looking at the schedule, I realized that we really don't have much to learn between now and Lent, and, (if I wanted to,) I could surely run the rehearsal in 35 minutes each week. That not really being an option (since my pay isn't based on hours,) I have been thinking I need something more to do with the choir. So, I decided to have them work on a little polyphonic 4-part piece. At the very least, even if they never sing it at Mass, I could use it to teach some notes and how to read rhythms.
I decided I would do a lot of "everyone singing the same part" thing, so that people wouldn't get bored, and teach them to "count-sing." (Eg, 1+2+3+4+ for every measure.)
We had started that last week on a mostly quarter note song, and it was going well, so I figured that jumping into the eighth note song would be perfect. I quickly realized that they had less of a grasp on the actual note values than I was thinking, so I set about explaining how "1+2" or whatever fits into which notes exactly, and writing it on the white board. They were very interested, with only mild complaining about the difficulty. So, we had a great rehearsal, got through a bit of the piece, and I'm looking forward to helping them to really learn it solidly, with a complete understanding of the notes over the next few weeks.
However, my day was made (and my heart aches,) when, at the end of rehearsal, I was erasing the white board, and someone said, "Oh, you're erasing that! I was going to use it!" And then they started asking me to re-write it and hand it out! They said, "No one has ever taught us this before!... I failed music when I was in school... I've been singing in choirs for years!"
Wow. So, this will be an interesting experiment at the worst, or, way to change their lives (musically at least,) at the best. I will definitely write out a sheet for them, and even include some rhythm exercises that they can practice counting on their own! This should be fun.
And...this is why I love my job. :-)
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Copyrights...
I'm super excited... I'm currently working on typesetting a new edition of THIS gorgeous piece, which is certainly in public domain. I can hardly wait to be finished so I can put it on CPDL and make it available, accessible, and FREE to the whole world!
I'm particularly excited, because this, as a project, has been in the back of my mind as something that I would like to do... but I just received confirmation today that this is entirely legal, and rightly so! {why deny the world something that was written by someone who has been dead for more than 100 years, just so some publisher can line his pockets?}
I'm particularly excited, because this, as a project, has been in the back of my mind as something that I would like to do... but I just received confirmation today that this is entirely legal, and rightly so! {why deny the world something that was written by someone who has been dead for more than 100 years, just so some publisher can line his pockets?}
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Amen and an Unintended Consequence
I find the new tone to the doxology before the "Great Amen" to be extremely frustrating.
I don't have the exact notes in front of me, but the previous tone ended something like, "doh-re-re-mi-re-do-do" on the words, "forever and ever," indicating a clear "do-do-re" for the congregation to sing "A-me-en." In fact, after singing that for a few months in a particular church, it's almost impossible to not sing it whenever I heard that tone at another church, but found myself being interrupted by the instruments proclaiming the beginning of a completely musically unrelated "Amen."
Now, it is quite interesting (and wonderful!) how the priests are being encouraged to sing so many of the newly translated parts of the Mass, and they are! And, many churches, at least among those I'm familiar with, are taking a stab at singing the corresponding parts, including the "Great Amen." But unfortunately, whatever musical genius decided to CHANGE the final ending tone of the doxology, along with the words, has provided a disappointing level of confusion for anyone trying to sing a simple "Amen" here.
The new doxology ends something like, "mi-mi-re-do-re-mi-re," on the words "forever and ever," (sorry if that's not exactly right, I've only heard it a few times,) but I've even checked the Roman Missal, and yes, the congregation is expected to start their "Amen" on DOH when the priest has just finished on "RE!!!!" ARRRRRRGHGHGHHGGHGHGHG!!!!!!!!!!
(I'll start it strongly on the proper note, doh, and the congregation cautiously joins in, as it is slightly intuitive, especially if the congregation is able to follow someone who knows what they are doing.) But... I am extremely sad as I suspect that this hesitancy of non-naturalness of being expected to start on a different note than what has just been heard, will not contribute to any congregations ever finding this tone "natural," which is what I found when I sang it previously.
It seems that hardly anybody is truly satisfied with the new translation, or at least the baggage that it brings with it (I heard a good priest recently complaining over the word "prevenient" in one of the prayers for the Immaculate Conception. And while I can't really argue against his complaint that he had no idea what it meant, I do wish that at that moment I had said, "Well, even if we don't know what it means, it does make me want to go and look it up!" le sigh.)
Anyhow, an interesting unintended consequence of how the priests have not been encouraged at all to sing their parts for the past 40 years, is that now, once they are, I have heard more than one person comment on how it helps the congregation with the new translation. By this I mean, in many churches, the automatic response to a spoken "The Lord be with you," is, of course, "And also with you." BUT... if "The Lord be with you" is sung, then it suddenly requires a moment of thought for the congregation, and they are more likely to sing "And with your spirit," especially if they are in a church which hasn't been singing the dialogues for the past 40 years.
So...for once, we can thank them for trying to (indirectly?) eliminate certain degrees of solemnity from the liturgy! It has helped at least one thing about this new translation to be easier!
I don't have the exact notes in front of me, but the previous tone ended something like, "doh-re-re-mi-re-do-do" on the words, "forever and ever," indicating a clear "do-do-re" for the congregation to sing "A-me-en." In fact, after singing that for a few months in a particular church, it's almost impossible to not sing it whenever I heard that tone at another church, but found myself being interrupted by the instruments proclaiming the beginning of a completely musically unrelated "Amen."
Now, it is quite interesting (and wonderful!) how the priests are being encouraged to sing so many of the newly translated parts of the Mass, and they are! And, many churches, at least among those I'm familiar with, are taking a stab at singing the corresponding parts, including the "Great Amen." But unfortunately, whatever musical genius decided to CHANGE the final ending tone of the doxology, along with the words, has provided a disappointing level of confusion for anyone trying to sing a simple "Amen" here.
The new doxology ends something like, "mi-mi-re-do-re-mi-re," on the words "forever and ever," (sorry if that's not exactly right, I've only heard it a few times,) but I've even checked the Roman Missal, and yes, the congregation is expected to start their "Amen" on DOH when the priest has just finished on "RE!!!!" ARRRRRRGHGHGHHGGHGHGHG!!!!!!!!!!
(I'll start it strongly on the proper note, doh, and the congregation cautiously joins in, as it is slightly intuitive, especially if the congregation is able to follow someone who knows what they are doing.) But... I am extremely sad as I suspect that this hesitancy of non-naturalness of being expected to start on a different note than what has just been heard, will not contribute to any congregations ever finding this tone "natural," which is what I found when I sang it previously.
It seems that hardly anybody is truly satisfied with the new translation, or at least the baggage that it brings with it (I heard a good priest recently complaining over the word "prevenient" in one of the prayers for the Immaculate Conception. And while I can't really argue against his complaint that he had no idea what it meant, I do wish that at that moment I had said, "Well, even if we don't know what it means, it does make me want to go and look it up!" le sigh.)
Anyhow, an interesting unintended consequence of how the priests have not been encouraged at all to sing their parts for the past 40 years, is that now, once they are, I have heard more than one person comment on how it helps the congregation with the new translation. By this I mean, in many churches, the automatic response to a spoken "The Lord be with you," is, of course, "And also with you." BUT... if "The Lord be with you" is sung, then it suddenly requires a moment of thought for the congregation, and they are more likely to sing "And with your spirit," especially if they are in a church which hasn't been singing the dialogues for the past 40 years.
So...for once, we can thank them for trying to (indirectly?) eliminate certain degrees of solemnity from the liturgy! It has helped at least one thing about this new translation to be easier!
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Random thoughts
My life has been rather interesting... I had a great post to write about my new (temporary) job, but then things changed and I decided to not write it.
Organists, don't forget this fabulous postlude for this weekend! Sorry I can't find a link online... Franck's Sortie "Venez, divin Messie" from L'Organiste!
How come in the Mass, the priest says at the doxology, "All glory and honor IS yours," but then a moment later, after the Our Father, we say, "For the kingdom, the power, and the glory ARE yours..." Which is grammatically correct? And is there a difference that I am not seeing?
Speaking of translations... We should just say, "And also with your spirit." And get over it. (haha, not really.... but that's about what it comes out to be!)
Children's choirs simply do not work during the liturgy. By the very nature of them being there, you have all their parents there, who are going to be turning around and waving at them, and being distracted by them, and so there is no way that the congregation is "paying attention" to Mass itself. And then, there is the applause. Even if it's not until after the final song, it just goes to show what people were *really* there for...
Organists, don't forget this fabulous postlude for this weekend! Sorry I can't find a link online... Franck's Sortie "Venez, divin Messie" from L'Organiste!
How come in the Mass, the priest says at the doxology, "All glory and honor IS yours," but then a moment later, after the Our Father, we say, "For the kingdom, the power, and the glory ARE yours..." Which is grammatically correct? And is there a difference that I am not seeing?
Speaking of translations... We should just say, "And also with your spirit." And get over it. (haha, not really.... but that's about what it comes out to be!)
Children's choirs simply do not work during the liturgy. By the very nature of them being there, you have all their parents there, who are going to be turning around and waving at them, and being distracted by them, and so there is no way that the congregation is "paying attention" to Mass itself. And then, there is the applause. Even if it's not until after the final song, it just goes to show what people were *really* there for...
Monday, November 14, 2011
I'm not in love with the latest music trend among traditionalists...
"Contemporary Sacred Music."
Specifically, Kevin Allen. The CMAA (or at least related people) has totally taken him under their wing and is promoting him loudly.
http://musicfortheliturgy.org/Kevin_Allen_Motecta_WTRMrk_2011.pdf
But honestly, I'm not all that impressed. While of course I greatly appreciate his attempt at writing 3-part, latin choral music (easily transposed for a 3-voice mixed choir!) and I also love the idea of singing psalm-tone verses in between repetitions of the same short motet (what choir hasn't been so sad at watching all the work they put into learning a piece, quickly disappear as they sing it once...and then it's done?!) I just haven't found the several pieces that I've listened to to be all that...good.
Yes, it's a bit contemporary sounding, and I know one of the reasons that it's so lauded is that it's relatively easy for a church choir. But... I wish I knew more about music theory... (I felt like I barely passed it in undergrad...) so I can't necessarily comment on his music as regarding the rules, but I find much of what he does, (like in terms of using accidentals,) to be...cheap.
Random picardy thirds, or borrowed minor chords, that just seem to...come out of nowhere!
I think it's pretty good voice-leading, but the actual chords themselves...just irritate me sometimes. They don't seem to be going anywhere!
(This is what I'm going to be working with the choir on.)
I mean, it's not bad, and can be quite enjoyable to listen to... well, I just don't know how to describe how I feel when I'm plunking out the chords on the piano. I'd love to hear someone chime in who has more theory background...
Specifically, Kevin Allen. The CMAA (or at least related people) has totally taken him under their wing and is promoting him loudly.
http://musicfortheliturgy.org/Kevin_Allen_Motecta_WTRMrk_2011.pdf
But honestly, I'm not all that impressed. While of course I greatly appreciate his attempt at writing 3-part, latin choral music (easily transposed for a 3-voice mixed choir!) and I also love the idea of singing psalm-tone verses in between repetitions of the same short motet (what choir hasn't been so sad at watching all the work they put into learning a piece, quickly disappear as they sing it once...and then it's done?!) I just haven't found the several pieces that I've listened to to be all that...good.
Yes, it's a bit contemporary sounding, and I know one of the reasons that it's so lauded is that it's relatively easy for a church choir. But... I wish I knew more about music theory... (I felt like I barely passed it in undergrad...) so I can't necessarily comment on his music as regarding the rules, but I find much of what he does, (like in terms of using accidentals,) to be...cheap.
Random picardy thirds, or borrowed minor chords, that just seem to...come out of nowhere!
I think it's pretty good voice-leading, but the actual chords themselves...just irritate me sometimes. They don't seem to be going anywhere!
(This is what I'm going to be working with the choir on.)
I mean, it's not bad, and can be quite enjoyable to listen to... well, I just don't know how to describe how I feel when I'm plunking out the chords on the piano. I'd love to hear someone chime in who has more theory background...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)