Fall 2010 Issue of Sacred Music

SACRED MUSIC
Fall 2010
Volume 137, Number 3
EDITORIAL
The Place of Hymns | William Mahrt 3
ARTICLES
Towards the Future—Singing the Mass | Andrew R. Wadsworth 6
A Blessing in Disguise | Amy Danielle Waddle 11
COMMENTARY
Homily for the Feast of St. Pius X | Andrew Wadsworth 32
An Experiment in Sacred Music Resource Production | Adam Bartlett 34
Expressive Singing in Sacred Music | Mary Jane Ballou 38
Serious about the Ordinary Form | Jeffrey Tucker 41
Converts and their Role in Sacred Music | Jeffrey Tucker 44
REVIEW
The Christian West and Its Singers: The First Thousand Years, by Christopher Page | Jeffrey Tucker 47
REPERTORY
Can Kyrie Lux et Origo and Kyrie Te Christe Rex Supplices Be Sung by the Congregation? | William Mahrt 50
NEWS
Sacred Music Colloquium XX 54
LAST WORD
The Vernacular Mass as Catholic Liturgy | Kurt Poterack 56
SACRED MUSIC Formed as a continuation of Caecilia, published by the Society of St. Caecilia since 1874,
and The Catholic Choirmaster, published by the Society of St. Gregory of America since
1915. Published quarterly by the Church Music Association of America. Office of
Publication: 12421 New Point Drive, Harbour Cove, Richmond, VA 23233. E-mail:
[email protected]; Website: www.musicasacra.com
Editor: William Mahrt

Managing Editor: Jeffrey Tucker
Associate Editor: David Sullivan
Editor-at-Large: Kurt Poterack
Typesetting: Judy Thommesen
Membership and Circulation: 12421 New Point Drive, Harbour Cove, Richmond, VA 23233
CHURCH MUSIC
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Officers and Board of Directors
President: William Mahrt
Vice-President: Horst Buchholz
Secretary: Janet Gorbitz
Treasurer: William Stoops
Chaplain: Rev. Father Robert Pasley
Director of Publications: Jeffrey Tucker
Director of Programs: Arlene Oost-Zinner
Directors: David Hughes, Susan Treacy, Scott Turkington
Directors Emeriti: Rev. Father Ralph S. March, S.O.Cist; Kurt Poterack; Paul F. Salamunovich; Rev. Father
Robert A. Skeris; Calvert Shenk †; Very Rev. Monsignor Richard J. Schuler †
Membership in the Church Music Association of America includes a subscription to the

quarterly journal Sacred Music. Membership is $48.00 annually. Parish membership is $200
for six copies of each issue. Single copies are $10.00. Send requests and changes of
address to Sacred Music, 12421 New Point Drive, Harbour Cove, Richmond, VA 23233.
Make checks payable to the Church Music Association of America. Online membership:
www.musicasacra.com. Sacred Music archives for the years 1974 to the present are available
online as www.musicasacra.com/archives.
LC Control Number: sf 86092056

Sacred Music is indexed in the Catholic Periodical and Literature Index, Music Index, Music
Article Guide, and Arts and Humanities Index.
Copyright © Church Music Association of America, 2010, under Creative Commons

attribution license 3.0.
ISSN: 0036-2255
Periodicals postage paid at Montgomery, Alabama.
SACRED MUSIC is published quarterly for $48.00 per year by the Church Music Association of America
12421 New Point Drive, Harbour Cove, Richmond, VA 23233.
Periodicals postage paid at Richmond, VA and at additional mailing offices. USPS number 474-960.
Postmaster: Send address changes to SACRED MUSIC, 12421 New Point Drive, Harbour Cove, Richmond, VA 23233.
EDITORIAL
The Place of Hymns

By William Mahrt
T
his issue of Sacred Music addresses at several points the singing of the Propers of
the Mass. Particularly heartening is the statement of Msgr. Wadsworth, Executive
Director of the International Commision on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). He
questions the principle by which the Mass Propers are replaced by freely chosen
hymns or songs, and suggests rather the notion that we should sing the Mass,
rather than sing at Mass; he says the Propers of the Mass that are provided in the
missal and gradual are a part of the “given” of the liturgy and should not lightly be replaced with
music that does not set these proper texts.
This would go against the prevailing practice of at least the last forty years, where introit, offer-
tory, and communion have been replaced by hymns, and a concluding hymn added as well. This was
justified by Musicam Sacram and the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, which specified what
was to be sung at these proper places: proper texts from the Graduale Romanum or Graduale Simplex,
or any other suitable song (alius cantus aptus). The replacement of the propers with hymns was
allowed in Musicam Sacram as the extension of an existing practice in certain places from before the
council where this had been permitted by indult. But this practice was then effectively extended to
practically the whole church; now the four-hymn sandwich became the norm, in spite of the fact that
first choice should have been the Roman Gradual and the second the Simple Gradual, texts pre-
scribed by the liturgy. Mem-
bers of choirs accustomed to
singing the Mass were placed
strategically about the congre- We now have the opportunity to reconsider
gation to support the singing
of the hymns. This, of course, the function of these hymns as substitutes
effectively disbanded the choir for the Propers of the Mass.
in a short time.
We now have the oppor-
tunity to reconsider the func-
tion of these hymns as substitutes for the Propers of the Mass, with an eye to eventual inclusion of
more of the propers. What should the place of hymns be? What is their value and what are their lim-
itations?
The tradition of metric hymns goes back to the early days of the singing of the Divine Office,
where the hymn properly belonged. Characteristically, in Vespers it came after the chanting of four
William Mahrt is editor of Sacred Music and president of the CMAA. [email protected]
1
Laszo Dobszay, “The Chants of the Proprium Missae versus Alius Cantus Aptus,” Sacred Music, 130, no. 3 (Fall
2003), 5–25.
3
Sacred Music Volume 137, Number 3 Fall 2010
or five psalms and formed a contrasting poetic complement to the psalms. It was there to be sung
for its own sake, and it was always sung with all of its verses. Vernacular hymns followed the pat-
tern of the Latin hymns, keeping the poetic meter and stanzaic structure. Some of Luther’s hymns
were simply translations of office hymns into German. The Latin office hymns had been sung in
plainsong and had a supple and flowing rhythm, but tempos slowed, and by the sixteenth century,
each note of the hymn received a whole beat, and the performance was somewhat ponderous. In
the seventeenth century, harmonic accompaniment was given, a change of chord for each note of
the hymn, which forced an even less than flowing rhythm. In the Catholic tradition, vernacular
hymns belonged principally in devotions, witness the fact that many Catholic congregations still best
sing “Tantum Ergo” and “Holy God We Praise Thy Name,” from their use in Benediction.
Several things can be said in favor of hymns. There are some excellent hymn tunes, particularly
from the German and English traditions. When sung well by a congregation, they can be quite
inspiring. Still, most of the hymns sung in church today often do not quite rise to that level of musi-
cal excellence. But even hymns have been eclipsed: “songs” based upon pop or Broadway models
often replace traditional
hymns, without even disturb-
ing the model of the four-
hymn sandwich. The wholesale
incorporation of pop idioms When sung well by a congregation, hymns
has meant a decided desacral-
ization of the liturgy. With lit-
can be quite inspiring.
tle effort, however, this can be
reversed by chosing good
hymns in place of these songs.
And this is because, in comparison with the “pop” repertoire, genuine hymns have a decided advan-
tage: their music is unambiguously sacred. Musically speaking, the style of the hymn, with its full
four-part harmonization—especially when accompanied by the organ—and the regular syllabic
declamation of its metric structure, forms a conventional and familiar sacred topos that belongs
nowhere else than in church.
If this is the case, why should hymns not hold first place in the music for Mass? First of all, the
hymn is not a very good fit. The hymn is an integral text which should be sung completely, and it is
sung for its own sake. The introit is a liturgical action which is accompanied by music which lasts
for the duration of the rite. If you sing a hymn in place of an introit, you must either truncate the
hymn, singing just a couple of verses, or delay the ceremonies of the entrance rite; in practice, it has
become customary to truncate the hymn. Likewise, if the hymn is sung for its own sake, it does not
quite fulfill its role as accompaniment of another rite. Moreover, in comparison with a Gregorian
introit, its rhythm does not convey the same sense of motion, which makes the Gregorian introit
such a suitable accompaniment to the rhythmic motion of the procession and incensation of the
altar. Further, why should the congregation provide the music which accompanies the procession?
Their proper participation in the introit is to witness the order of the church in the procession, the
beauty of the vestments, and the sacredness of the goal of the procession—the altar—as it is
expressed in the incensation. Once that has been accomplished, the congregation then sings some-
thing that is there for its own sake and constitutes their proper participation—the Kyrie and the Glo-
ria. They can sing these well, since their texts do not change, allowing the people to master each
piece over its recurrent use.
4
Fall 2010 Volume 137, Number 3 Sacred Music
Secondly, the hymn has no status as proper, as given by the liturgy. The Propers of the Mass
prescribe a new text for each day in the year, contributing to the uniqueness of each day. Indeed, in
many traditions, each Sunday was named by the first word of the Latin introit. On the other hand,
the choice of a hymn is voluntary, and in practice hymns are often repeated from Sunday to Sun-
day; there is no identification of most hymns with any particular Sunday. Thus they do not quite
achieve that quality expected of propers of differentiating each day from the others. In fact, the
repertory of excellent hymns known by our congregations would have to be much more extensive
than it is to permit such differentiation.
So the first preference for the propers of the Roman Gradual makes sense when the function
of the proper is taken into account. The ideal should be Gregorian propers sung by a capable choir,
with the ordinary normally sung by the congregation. If the congregation sings the ordinary regu-
larly and well, they have a lot to sing, and they need not sing the parts better sung by a choir.
It is not easy to achieve such an ideal, and in most cases, it must be done gradually. Where there
is a well established practice of hymn-singing, a transition to singing Mass Propers can be achieved
only gradually. If the choir can only sing an introit on a psalm tone, then the hymn can be retained,
after which the choir sings the
introit. From Sunday to Sunday the
pattern can be varied, so that the
gradual incorporation of propers
The hymn has no status as proper, as will be more easily accepted. The
given by the liturgy. ultimate replacement of most or all
of the hymns will depend upon the
degree to which the congregation
is able to sing the ordinary. The
degree to which the priest is willing
to sing his part will be an important influence in the incorporation of the congregation in the
singing of the ordinary, since the chanted priest’s parts are so much more congruent with the
chanted parts of the Mass.
Likewise, in churches where there are several Masses on a Sunday, there cannot be a choir at
each one, though it is sometimes the case that the main Mass has a full choir, but an earlier Mass
has a small schola. A good cantor can carry the burden of singing propers at yet another Mass. The
degree to which a cantor can handle most of the propers may be a matter of some experimenta-
tion. In the end, hymns may still be part of a practical solution for some Masses for the immediate
future.
5
ARTICLES
Towards the Future—Singing the Mass

By Monsignor Andrew Wadsworth
A keynote-address to the Southeastern Liturgical Music Symposium Executive Director of the

Secretariat of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), Atlanta, Geor-
gia, August 21, 2010
I
would like to begin by saying how very pleased I am to be with you today and as
someone whose own journey has been associated with music-making, I find
myself very much at home with musicians and welcome the time that we have
together.
Like many speakers, I feel that I need to begin with something of a disclaimer—one
website advertising this symposium recently described ICEL as being “responsible
for the new translation.” With the best will in the world, I don’t think we can claim that to be true. ICEL
is a joint commission of eleven episcopal conferences and is therefore essentially a group of eleven bish-
ops who undertake to present draft translations of liturgical texts to their respective conferences for
comment, amendment, and approval. As such, it becomes the work of many hands, as conferences are
free to consult as widely as they wish in considering texts in the various stages of their evolution.
As you well know, the final stage of the process lies with the Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacraments, who retain the right to make radical amendments to the text
as they see fit, even at the final stage of the process. I suppose we can say that in this way, it is very
much a work of the church.
In speaking to you today, I would like to briefly explore with you some of the implications of
receiving the new translation of the missal, with particular consideration of its possible impact on
liturgical music. Obviously, I don’t have to explain to you that music is integral to the liturgy, but per-
haps we find ourselves at a good moment to be able to reassess how this principle has been applied
in the liturgy we have experienced thus far and how it could be applied to our liturgy in the future.
We are currently in the season of summer schools and symposia which seek to deepen knowl-
edge and understanding of what we are doing when we celebrate the liturgy. It is always interesting
to identify the different models or concepts of the liturgy that are expressed in a series of intense
seminars and workshops held all around the country. In one place, renowned for the excellence of
its scholarship and the significance of its influence on all who celebrate the liturgy in English, a key-
note speaker offered the following definition by way of an introduction to a course:
The readings from scripture and the prayers of Mass make up the given, largely un-
changing liturgy of the church. The homily, hymns, and songs are the creative,
Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth, a student of Mary Berry in London and a former singer in the Schola Gregori-
ana, is executive secretary of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy.
6
changing elements by which we interpret the liturgy, suggesting some possible

meanings of faith for twenty-first century believers. We will look at hymns and
songs that may help contemporary worshipers integrate the Sunday prayers and
readings into their weekday lives.
I think this definition would be considered as largely uncontroversial, as it reflects an approach to

the liturgy that has been relatively widespread in the years since Vatican II. I want to use it, however,
as a spring-board to ask some rather big questions. For instance, is it helpful? Is it accurate as an assess-
ment of the way we should
approach the complex and intimate
relationship between music and the
other elements which make up the
We stand now at the threshold of the
liturgy of the Mass? Is music really introduction of a new translation of the
exclusively a creative response to
the “un-changing liturgy of the
Roman Missal, an event of unparalleled
church” or does it in some way significance in forty years.
form part of the “given” aspect of
liturgy which we receive from the
church? I would suggest that these
are questions which come more naturally into focus as we prepare to receive the new translation.
We stand now at the threshold of the introduction of a new translation of the Roman Missal,
an event of unparalleled significance in the forty years since the introduction of the first English
translation1 of the Missale Romanum in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. While the transition
from one translation to another is qualitatively less dramatic than the introduction of a new Rite of
Mass, I think it is fair to deduce that the current translation has not only shaped our liturgical expe-
rience over the past forty years, it has also generated a common culture of liturgical music. For this
reason, we are well placed to consider seriously what has been achieved and how things could be
improved for the future.
I am sure that many of you here today were among the first to recognize that a change of trans-
lation, a change which implies a difference of style, register, and content would have considerable
implications for our liturgical music. I am sure it will have occurred to you that it would not just be
a matter of adapting our current settings and songs to the new texts, rather in the way that one might
alter an old and well-loved garment to meet the demands of an increasing or decreasing waist-line!
But rather, the new texts would quite naturally inspire new music which responds more directly to
the character of the texts themselves, reflecting in an original way their patterns of accentuation,
their cadence, and their phrasing. Is it too much to hope that this might be a wonderful opportunity
for reassessing the current repertoire of liturgical music in the light of our rich musical patrimony,
like the good housekeeper being able to bring out of the store treasures both new and old?2
Maybe the greatest challenge that lies before us is the invitation once again to sing the Mass rather
than merely to sing at Mass. This echoes the injunctions of the council fathers in the Constitution on
the Sacred Liturgy and reflects our deeply held instinct that the majority of the texts contained in the
missal can and in many cases should be sung. This means not only the congregational acclamations of
1
1973.
2
Cf. Matt.13:52.
7
the Order of Mass, but also the orations, the chants in response to the readings, the Eucharistic prayer,
and the antiphons which accompany the entrance, the offertory, and the communion processions. These
proper texts are usually replaced by hymns or songs that have little relationship to the texts proposed by
the missal or the Graduale Romanum and as such a whole element of the liturgy of the day is lost or con-
signed to oblivion. For the most part, they exist only as spoken texts. We are much the poorer for this,
as these texts (which are often either scriptural or a gloss on the biblical text) represent the church’s own
reading and meditation on the scriptures. As chants, they are a sort of musical lectio divina pointing us
towards the riches expressed in that day’s liturgy. For this reason, I believe that it is seriously deficient to
consider that planning music for the liturgy ever begins with a blank sheet: there are texts given for every
Mass in the missal and these texts are intended for singing.
Initially, even if you agree with this assertion, you may feel there is a dearth of suitable material
available. This is something of a “chicken and egg” situation. Praxis has governed the development
of our resources of liturgical music and for the most part, composers and publishers have neglected
the provision or adaptation of musical settings of these proper texts. Despite this, a brief trawl of
the internet produces a surprisingly
wide variety of styles of settings of
the proper texts which range from
simple chants that can be sung with- Chant is proper to the Roman liturgy,
out accompaniment to choral set-
tings for mixed voices. Some are whether it is celebrated in Latin or in
obviously adaptations of Gregorian vernacular languages.
chant or are indebted to that musical
language, others are more contem-
porary in feel. In addition, I know of
a number of initiatives which seek to provide simple chants in English for the texts of the Proper
of the Mass, chants which are specifically destined for parish use. Of course, there is nothing to stop
us singing Latin chants in a predominantly English liturgical celebration. The presence in the missal
of Latin and English versions of some chants, embodies this principle. I think it is reasonable to
expect that the quality and quantity of material available will continue to increase as we grow in our
knowledge and experience of using the new texts.
Chant is proper to the Roman liturgy, whether it is celebrated in Latin or in vernacular languages.
This is a fact established in all of the major documents which treat music in the liturgy from the
time of the council onwards. Why has there been such a universal loss of experience of the chant?
I am personally convinced that part of the reason why we lost our chant tradition so easily was that
so few people understood the intrinsic link between the chant and the liturgical text. Chant is not
merely words set to music; in its simplest forms it is essentially cantillation—it arises from the text as
a heightened manner of proclaiming the text. In this, the church continues the Jewish tradition of a
sung proclamation of the scriptures. For that reason, it preserves the primacy of the text as distinct
from other forms of music that have a tendency to impose a structure and a form rather than receiv-
ing one. The most obvious example of this would be the singing of the psalms—a simple tone is
sufficiently flexible to allow for natural expression prompted by speech rhythms, whereas metrical
settings can have a tendency to dragoon the text into pre-determined shapes.
The present situation of neglect of these proper chants is due both to the liturgical culture which
prevailed before the council and the practices which were universally accepted upon the introduction
of the revised liturgy. Contrary to the suggestion of some who currently champion the extraordinary
8
form of the Roman Rite, the musical repertoire of the Catholic community at the time of the revi-
sion of the liturgy, was not predominantly Gregorian chant or the jewels of sixteenth century
polyphony. Low Mass with vernacular hymns was standard fare for most parishes with High Mass
or Sung Mass reserved for only the greatest occasions and for most Catholics was something of a
rarity outside of cathedrals or religious communities.
I mention this in order to emphasize that the practice of singing the Mass was lost to us a long
time ago. It is true that the most commonly sung setting of the Ordinary of the Mass prior to Vat-
ican II was the Missa de Angelis with Credo III, but this soon gave way to a multiplicity of mass set-
tings which may have been
locally composed and
remained largely unknown
Ours has essentially become a predominantly beyond a particular parish.
Low-Mass culture with music increasingly Publishers extend this phe-
nomenon by creating a
seen as incidental rather than integral to our national repertoire by
default. I am personally
liturgical celebration. very aware of this as I
travel in my present work
and I often find myself at a
celebration of Mass in English at which none of the music used is remotely familiar to me. This is
a strangely alienating experience that does little to engender a sense of the universality of the church,
but rather limits its parameters to that which is national or parochial. Does this necessarily need to
be the pattern for the future, or can we and should we look to see a change? I think it is worth con-
sidering that discussions which focus ideas about a common repertoire on a national or international
level may be more appropriate now than at any stage during the past forty years.
I would suggest that ours has essentially become a predominantly Low-Mass culture with music
increasingly seen as incidental rather than integral to our liturgical celebration. In all honesty, I would
also have to acknowledge that we clergy have often not helped in this regard when we have refused
to sing those parts of the Mass which of their nature should be sung, at least in celebrations of
greater solemnity. We cannot claim to have a sung liturgy if the priest doesn’t sing any element of
the orations and the antiphons of the proper are not sung. This is true no matter how many tim-
pani and trumpets are employed. Regardless of the quantity of musical overlay, the underlying
impression remains basically that of a said Mass with music added. In this respect, it is not only our
lay people who face the challenge of a changing liturgical culture. As those responsible for liturgical
music in your communities, you will all have to work hard with your priests to build their confidence
in this respect. In conversation with one diocesan bishop recently, he admitted to me that he had
never sung anything on his own in public, not even “Happy Birthday!” In addressing such cases, psy-
chology is just as important as musical knowledge. When I worked as a répétiteur in an opera com-
pany in London many years ago, it was just as important to communicate to singers a sense of self-
confidence in what they had to sing as it was to teach them the notes!
Apart from an encouragement to sing the orations, the preface, and on occasion the Eucharis-
tic Prayer, the new edition of the missal will also evidence the church’s invitation to proclaim the
readings of the Liturgy of the Word in song. This can be particularly effective if used sparingly at
solemn celebrations. It also extends the ministry of lector or reader to those who can sing in addi-
tion to those who read well. I recently took part in a study day on the new texts for a group of men
9
in formation for the permanent

deaconate. I was pleasantly sur-
prised to discover that in the said The missal will be an opportunity for a
diocese, formation included reappraisal of many of the elements of
instruction in singing the gospel
and the orations. Our study day our liturgical experience.
ended with sung Evening Prayer in
which the group of about forty
men seemed quite at home singing the psalms and other elements of the office. Patterns of forma-
tion will need to change to encompass a different musical expectation.
On a practical level, there is already a considerable number of resources aimed at preparation
of the musical elements of the missal which are almost ready for publication. Although I appreci-
ate the enthusiasm and sometimes the impatience of musicians eager to have this material freely
available at the earliest possible stage, the continuing evolution of these texts, even into the final
stages of their preparation, makes it very unwise to release musical settings before the definitive ver-
sion of the text has been established by the Holy See and communicated to our bishops’ confer-
ences. Such texts as have been released to date are always designated as draft texts which still may
be subject to amendment. I realize what a difficulty this represents for composers and liturgical
musicians. It is a situation brought about by the collaborative manner in which these texts are pro-
duced in a complex process of many stages which is ultimately controlled by the Holy See.
Consideration of liturgical music resources brings me to a more controversial point: musical
repertoire has for practical purposes largely been controlled by the publishers of liturgical music, and
while this is unavoidable, for a whole variety of pragmatic reasons, it has rather reinforced the per-
ception that I cited at the outset of this address: that music is exclusively part of the creative ele-
ment in liturgy rather than part of that which is “given.” Perhaps this is a good moment for reassess-
ing some of the criteria that govern the selection of music for publication. While I would person-
ally advocate and endorse a rediscovery of our chant tradition, I would want to stress that the recov-
ery of the singing of the proper texts of the missal is not necessarily to be equated solely with this
one musical genre but would also potentially admit a variety of different styles. In the same way, the
church permits a variety of legitimate interpretations of the liturgical norms which result in celebra-
tions of diverse character. The unity of the Roman Rite today is essentially a textual unity rather than
a ritual uniformity—we use the same proper texts when we celebrate the liturgy.
It is my sincere hope that the occasion of a new translation of the missal will be an opportu-
nity for a reappraisal of many of the elements of our liturgical experience. The liturgy is the point
of contact for the greatest number of our Catholic people, it is not only a window to heaven, but
also the church’s shop-window in a largely unbelieving world. If we are to draw many more to the
hope that we hold, I believe that our experience of the mystery which is “ever ancient, ever new”
must effectively convey the spiritual realities that we celebrate in all their richness and depth, both
to the Catholics of our own time and those yet to come.
I want to thank you for all you do in the service of your communities. Your work is an essen-
tial aspect of the way the church in every generation announces the mystery of Christ. In the words
of Psalm 46, my encouragement to you is Psallite sapienter—”Sing wisely,” immersing yourselves in a
tradition that is older than Christianity itself, a tradition by which the song of the church arises in
every place as a thing of beauty and truth. We need both beauty and truth and our liturgical song
can be a vehicle for them both. Thank you for honoring me with your attention.
10
A Blessing in Disguise: Stepping Back to Make

Informed Decisions in the Modern Liturgical
Performance of Gregorian Chant
by Amy Danielle Waddle
INTRODUCTION
B By studying the history and current studies of Gregorian chant practice, modern
Catholic-Church musicians can reach an informed decision regarding the choices
facing them as schola directors in the use of Gregorian chant. Here in Lincoln,
Nebraska in 2005, the Cor Immaculatae (Immaculate Heart) Schola Cantorum
was founded by Jennifer Donelson, a masters student at the University of
Nebraska at Lincoln. This schola relied heavily on the abundant Vatican editions
prepared by the monks of Solesmes. In 2008, Jennifer Donelson handed over the leadership of the
schola to me. At the hands of its new and inexperienced director, the schola focused on learning
basic chants from Solesmes editions. Thanks to the readily available resources of the Church Music
Association of America and Mary Berry’s Plainchant for Everyone, I learned to place the ictus in chant
(to count in groups of twos and threes), to determine what parts of the music were arsic or thetic,
and to move my hand in the gentle gestures of chironomy. By trial and error, I have learned to direct
in the Solesmes method. The schola has become an ensemble capable of working together, and it
is time for us to explore the wealth of interpretations available so that with the freedom hoped for
by Mary Berry in the 1970s, the Cor Immaculatae Schola Cantorum can make informed decisions
in the performance practice of chant. The Solesmes methods are still highly useful and effective and
allow our ensemble to sing beautiful music that draws people to hear it.
The recent stormy past of Gregorian chant in respect to its use in the Catholic liturgy is noth-
ing new in view of the development of chant in all its history. From the origins of Gregorian chant
through the Carolingians to the present, there has never ceased to be an undulation of growth,
decay, and new developments. One great surge occurred in the latter half of the nineteenth century
into the twentieth century with the publications based on the work of the monks of Solesmes. Their
goal was one of restoration; where, as Katherine Bergeron puts it, “to restore . . . meant to make
that sense of the past somehow more real through analyzing, cataloguing, and finally fixing every
one of its imagined layers in the present.”1 In Solesmes’ restoration, we find not only the rediscov-
ery of ancient chants and melodies, but also a stage of new development and creation of new meth-
ods for performing chant. Too often, for laymen, chant is thought of as something dead and only
revived as an antiquity; however, it is clear that even today, in 2010, it continues its waves of devel-
opment alternating with decay.
Amy Danielle Waddle is a graduate of University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Hixson-Lied College of Fine and
Performing Arts. This piece was submitted as her senior thesis.
1
Katherine Bergeron, Decadent Enchantments: The Revival of Gregorian Chant at Solesmes (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1998), p. 8.
11
The work of Solesmes spurred wider interest in the practice of Gregorian chant, and the
encouragement of chant performance was taken up by such great musicians and pedagogues as Jus-
tine Ward2 in the United States and Mary Berry3 in England until the disruption caused by the Sec-
ond Vatican Council. With the changes effected in the 1960s and 1970s after the Second Vatican
Council (1962–65), dictating a sudden shift in Catholic liturgical practices throughout the world,
chant was abruptly dropped from the practice of many liturgical musicians. In the midst of this
change, Mary Berry found “a blessing in disguise.” She found that it allowed people to “forget the
details of a style that might have perpetuated itself for a long time to come,” and it gave musicians
the chance, instead, to make choices reflect-
ing different interpretations and ideas about
performance practice.4
The work of Solesmes spurred Right now, some thirty to forty years
wider interest in the practice of after the Council, musicians are developing
new ideas in the field of Gregorian chant
Gregorian chant. practice. These musicians can draw from the
study of the origins and historical develop-
ments of chant, through the light shed on
them from Solesmes and subsequent scholarly research. The aspiring schola conductor, like myself,
should take a close look at the important figures of chant practice in the recent past: the monks of
Solesmes, Mary Berry, Justine Ward, and many other scholars and musicians and should take the
time to explore the wealth of academic debate that can inform the everyday, practical decisions of
directing chant.
DOM GUÉRANGER: BEGINNING RESTORATION
Solesmes’ restoration of Gregorian chant began with the work of Dom Guéranger
(1805–1875).5 As a young monk, Dom Guéranger realized the wealth of the tradition of chant grad-
ually lost through the years and the severe disruption of religious practices on account of the French
Revolution. He longed for a renewal of the medieval liturgy that he imagined to be intermingled
with the very culture of his native France. Katherine Bergeron draws a connection between Dom
Guéranger’s restoration of chant and the restoration of the great architectural monument, the
Cathedral de Notre Dame in Paris, by Viollet-le-Duc. The architect’s idea of restoration was, in fact,
to “reestablish it in a finished state, which may in fact never have actually existed at any given time.”6
2
Justine Ward (1879–1975) was born into a wealthy New York family and chose to explore Gregorian chant
and music pedagogy, developing a method of school music with Gregorian chant at its heart. (See p. 20 below.)
3
Mary Berry (1917–2008), entered religious life where she dedicated herself to Gregorian chant; after Vati-
can II, she was allowed to live outside the community of religious life, and she went on to write extensively
on early music (particularly Gregorian chant) and founded the Schola Gregoriana of Cambridge. (See below.)
4
Mary Berry, “The Restoration of the Chant and Seventy-Five Years of Recording,” Early Music, 7, no. 2
(April 1979), 207.
5
Dom Prosper Guéranger was Abbot of Solesmes from 1837 to his death.
6
Eugene-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, The Foundations of Architecture: Selections from Dictionnaire Raisonné, tr. Ken-
neth D. Whitehead (New York: George Braziller, 1990), p. 195.
12
This statement of the architect’s, as Bergeron points out, could be

applied to the work of Dom Guéranger as well.7 They both had a gen-
eralized notion of a return to the past, but not a specific year or century.
The work of Solesmes focuses on developing the practice of chant.
The current Solesmes website reiterates the spirit of building up and
beyond the past: “[Dom Guéranger] took inspiration from solid monas-
tic traditions pursuing above all the true spirit of St. Benedict while
accepting several very necessary material adaptations to modern times.”8
This adaptation is demonstrated in many aspects of the monastery. For
instance, in the past, the monastery at Solesmes had housed a small
number of monks and had been under the Abbaye of Saint Peter de la
Couture in Le Mans; yet, in the restoration by Dom Guéranger, the Vat- Dom Prosper Louis Pascal
ican raised Solesmes to the status of an abbey. Beyond that, the Holy Guéranger (1805–1876)
Father, Gregory XVI, “formally erect[ed] at the same time the new
‘Congregation of France’ with Solesmes as the mother-house and its abbot as superior-general.”9
Early in their work, circa 1850, the monks of Solesmes were primarily focused on texts of the
chants, but they also began research into the versions of surviving melodies. Dom Guéranger sought
to discover “the pure Gregorian phrase when manuscripts from several remotely separate Churches
agree on the same reading.”10 Dom Combe, in his book The Restoration of Gregorian Chant, demon-
strates what was unique about Solesmes’ research by pointing out that when Fetis, a musicologist,
published a chant edition, Dom Guéranger criticized the book because it was based on the study of
one single manuscript, whereas the work of Solesmes focused on many manuscripts. Dom
Guéranger was moved by a desire for thorough renewal of the Catholic liturgy, and thus, liturgical
chant. To this end, his aim was to compare manuscripts to discover the earliest versions of chants.
For Dom Guéranger, the work of restoring Gregorian chant was in the first place to restore its
place as prayer, the sung prayer of the liturgy.”11 Dom Guéranger put Solesmes at the head of the
restoration of Gregorian chant with his desire to renew not only ancient melodies and manuscripts,
but also the “beauty of the liturgy, especially its chants, and the power of such beauty to elevate the
soul.”12 His interest was in the practice of the liturgy, which meant not only a proper interpretation of
the chant, but also a beautiful one; “he stated that one gained nothing from better editions if one did
not change the faulty way of singing.”13 This pioneering abbot went on to arrive “at the recognition
that the archeological investigation of chant manuscripts by itself was not sufficient to bring about a
7
Bergeron, Decadent Enchantments, 13.
8
Abbaye of Solesmes, History: Dom Guéranger’s Restoration (accessed November 2, 2009) <http://
www.solesmes.com/>.
9
George Cyprian Alston, “Abbey of St. Solesmes,” The Catholic Encyclopedia (accessed November 2, 2009)
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14133b.htm>.
10
Dom Pierre Combe, The Restoration of Gregorian Chant: Solesmes and the Vatican Edition, tr. Theodore Marier
and William Skinner (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), p. 12.
11
Johannes Berchmans Goschl, “One Hundred Years of the Graduale Romanum,” Sacred Music, 135, no. 2
(Summer 2008), 11.
12
Anthony Ruff, O.S.B., Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform (Chicago, IL: Hillenbrand Books, Liturgy Training
Publications, 2007), p. 109.
13
Ruff, Sacred Music, p. 111.
13
manner of singing which is convincing [or] appropriate for the liturgy. Just as Viollet-le-Duc was
restoring Notre Dame Cathedral to a finished state beyond what had existed in the past, so that it
could be used as a better place of worship, Dom Guéranger wanted chant to be more than a recon-
struction of the ancient melodies: he wanted them to be performed as a beautifully inspiring prayer.
Fr. Anthony Ruff explains the influence of
Dom Guéranger as a practical musician by
saying that his “manner of singing the
chant became the inspiration for a particu-
lar way of singing unique to Solesmes. He
Dom Guéranger wanted chant to
sang lightly and with suppleness, with a
14
be performed as a beautifully
sort of speech-based free rhythm.” His
manner of singing was not a part of his inspiring prayer.
research, but rather part of his primary
interest in chant as prayer. His desire was
the restoration of the unity of practice and
quality in the Catholic liturgy, a unity that was impossible in earlier centuries.
As Dom Guéranger’s abbey grew, he attracted more priests, including Paul Jausions
(1834–1870),15 who was placed in charge of the study and revival of chant. It was Dom Jausions
who opened the scriptorium at Solesmes where he copied ancient manuscripts. Dom Jausions was
sought out by other monasteries for his advice and thoughts on their chanting and their editions.
Canon Gontier wrote to Dom Jausions imploring him to become “responsible for a new edition”
because it was “only at Solesmes that such a work [could] be accomplished.”16 Gontier firmly advo-
cated, that if a choice was necessary, singing in the correct style (determined by the monks’ own
choice of aesthetically pleasing singing) should be retained over having the best editions, which may
have to be sacrificed. In comparison, whether modern notation or square neumes were used was,
then, not of the utmost importance.17
DOM POTHIER
Another chant scholar drawn to Solesmes was Dom Pothier (1835–1923)18 who joined Dom
Guéranger in his restoration of music. Dom Pothier was responsible for the publication of such
works as a Liber gradualis (“Book of Mass Chants”) and Melodies Gregoriennes (“The Gregorian
Melodies”).19 As a performer, Dom Pothier’s philosophy was to give priority to the text. “It is always
the words that inspire the chant. And the chant, which is the height of accentuation, breathes life
into the words, imparting to the rhythm its characteristic ease and freedom, which is comparable to
the rhythm of speech. For the rhythm always flows from the words as from its original and natural
14
Ruff, Sacred Music, p. 111.
15
Paul Jausions was a priest of the Diocese of Rennes who joined Solesmes in 1854.
16
Quoted in Combe, The Restoration, p. 30.
17
Combe, The Restoration, p. 25–32.
18
Dom Joseph Pothier joined Solesmes in 1860 and worked with Dom Jausions and Dom Mocquereau in
chant editions and reform of liturgical chant.
19
“Dom Joseph Pothier,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (accessed November 17, 2009) <http://www.britannica.com/
EBchecked/topic/472715/Dom-Joseph-Pothier#>.
14
source.”20 Thus, Dom Pothier spoke of his own belief in the roles of text
and rhythm.
Focused as he was on the importance of the texts, it is not a surprise
to learn that Dom Pothier’s theory of rhythm for the performance Grego-
rian chant (laid out in Mélodies Grégoriennes) relied upon the texts. He and his
followers were known as “the accentualists.” They believed that the chant
followed the accents of the text and based their theory on Latin syllables
which “were measured quantitatively [and] became equal in time value, and
an accent or stress . . . became the rhythmical element . . . they place the
stress on the tonic accent of the word in syllabic and neumatic chant, and
on the first note of each neume in melismatic chant. The result is a free,
non-metered rhythm based on notes of equal value.”21 Controversy sur-
rounded Dom Pothier’s work and the later, shifting theories of Dom Moc-
quereau and Dom Cardine regarding rhythmic interpretations. Although
other schools of thought would follow at Solesmes, they all stemmed from Dom Joseph Pothier
Dom Pothier’s, especially as it pertained to notes of equal duration. (1835–1923)
Solesmes’ use of paleography (the study of ancient manuscripts)
introduced an aspect of studying chant melodies using the earliest and most original sources avail-
able. This was because from the publication in 1614–15 of the Medici edition of chant following
the Council of Trent,22 there had been a strong emphasis in chant on performing the melodies with
clarity of the text, rather than on the accuracy or authenticity of the melodies themselves. Unfortu-
nately, the Medici edition, still widely in use when Solesmes began its work,
is shocking for its mutilation of the traditional melodies. Melismas were mercilessly
shortened, and the remaining melismas were transferred to accented syllables. This
was due to Renaissance and nascent Baroque understandings of the subordination
of melody to text. It was no longer understood that the ancient melodies, with long
melismas and ingenious placement of melismas on weak syllables, were to be sung
lightly and quickly, and with a rhythmic interpretation which brought out the text.23
This mutilation, as David Hiley points out, creates an opening for “further rewriting of the
ancient melodies . . . for anyone with the will and ability to follow it.”24 In the later decades of the
nineteenth century, the Regensburg edition was simply the reprinting of a Medicean Gradual with
rewriting for new feasts; it was only opposed by the monks of Solesmes and the work of Dom Poth-
ier. As official church approval was consistently weighing in on the side of the Regensburg edition
of chant during the papacies of Pius IX and Leo XIII, Solesmes continued publishing its editions
20
“Doms Pothier and Mocquereau Speak,” Musica Sacra (accessed November 06, 2009) <http://www.musi-
casacra.com/doms-speak/>.
21
John Rayburn, Gregorian Chant: A History of the Controversy Concerning Its Rhythm (New York, 1964), p. 2.
22
“Council of Trent,” Catholic Encyclopedia (accessed January 2, 2010) <http://www.newadvent.org/
cathen/15030c.htm.>.
23
Anthony Ruff, O.S.B., “Beyond Medici: The Struggle for Progress in Chant,” Sacred Music, 135, no. 2 (Sum-
mer 2008), 26–27.
24
David Hiley, Western Plainchant: A Handbook (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 616.
15
based on the comparison of chant melodies and eventually won recognition simply by exposure.
When seminarians in Rome began to use Dom Pothier’s Liber gradualis, people and priests were
drawn to the style because of its purity and beauty.25 Although striving for authenticity, Solesmes’
influence was growing by virtue of its aesthetic appeal.
Solesmes’ false notion of authenticity was really founded in the belief that the methods the
monks developed did not need to be
proved or explained to other scholars.
The work of the monks had four distinct
parts: editing chant melodies, publishing Dom Pothier “attempted to sketch
modern editions with special typefaces, Gregorian history through the very
advancing rhythmic theories, and pro-
moting performance-practice methods notational signs—the neumes.”
based on their rhythmic theories. Dom
Pothier “attempted to sketch Gregorian
history through the very notational signs—the neumes—in whose collective features he believed
that history resided,”26 and then to publish a typeface of neumes representing the history that he
claimed he had discovered. He spent a great deal of time focused on reproducing and publishing
books of chant with clear, antique neumes and ornamentations. These “antique” neumes were really
a nineteenth century, modern invented typeface based on twelfth century models. By presenting
these neumes, the monks of Solesmes hoped to prevail over other publishers of liturgical music and
that musicians and scholas would select Solesmes editions based on the beautiful neumes, printing,
material, and binding. However, the monks wanted their particular style of singing to spread along
with their books because they felt that the more beautiful the edition, the more beautiful must be
the singing.27
DOM MOCQUEREAU
The focus on a text-oriented manner of singing at Solesmes was passed on from Dom
Guéranger to Dom Joseph Pothier and Dom André Mocquereau (d. 1930) in the latter half of the
nineteenth century. Dom Mocquereau was to develop a great interest in the “most comprehensive
documentation and intensive investigation” of historical manuscripts rather than limiting himself to
the text as the deciding point of interpretation of melodies.28 Dom Mocquereau’s work falls into
two broad categories, the scientific, historical, and paleographical work and the presentation of his
ideas regarding movement and rhythm. Both sides of his work carried great influence through the
following, tumultuous century.
Dom Mocquereau’s work moved beyond the development of a single beautiful printed edition
to study all the manuscripts that he could find. To this research, Dom Mocquereau brought the
technology of photography. Through this and the edition of photo-facsimiles of chant called Paléo-
graphie Musicale, he “exposed Gregorian tradition not as a single, idealized creation but as a stagger-
ing diversity of representations.” Dom Mocquereau’s work presented a threat to the work of Dom
25
Ruff, Sacred Music, pp. 117–120.
26
Bergeron, Decadent Enchantments, p. 35.
27
Bergeron, Decadent Enchantments, pp. 35–58.
28
Goschl, “One Hundred Years,” 12.
16
Pothier. The threat was in the very number and availability of the photographs; “by its willful pro-
liferation of images, the Paléographie Musicale functioned . . . as a kind of silent critique” of the con-
cept of authenticity and “original” melodies. Dom Pothier feared not only that his colleague’s work
would force the revision of his own work, but also that because the sources were “no longer the pri-
vate property of monk-scholars,” other scholars were armed with “the source” and could study
Dom Pothier’s work against more sources than he had been able to consult.29
Separate from the paleographical work of Dom Mocquereau was his work on performance
practice for modern choirs. The idea of the arsic and thetic movements of the chant melodies and
the practice of chironomy (hand signals for directing chant)30 to interpret them proved to be the
most influential of his methods of
performance practice. Dom Moc-
quereau saw movement in the ancient
The practice of chironomy proved to be neumes he copied, “the natural undu-
lations of hand and voice . . . ‘it was
the most influential of Mocquereau the hand of the orator himself leav-
ing on the parchment or wax tablets
methods of performance practice. the trace of his ascending and
descending movements.’”31
In response to what he imagined
was the movement that inspired the direction of the neumes on the manuscripts, he developed mod-
ern chironomic gestures (i.e., conducting hand gestures), particularly a delicate rise and fall, what he
called arsis and thesis.
Now the Latin accent has not the same force as is usually attributed by modern
musicians to the first beat of the measures, not as the accent in the Romance lan-
guages. In Latin, the accent is indicated by a short, sharp, delicate sound which—
inasmuch as it is the soul of the word—might almost be called spiritual. It is best
represented by an upward movement of the hand which is raised only to be lowered
immediately. In modern music this swift flash is placed on a ponderous material
beat, crushing and exhausting the movement. This surely is a misconception. For the
Latin accent is an impulse or beginning which requires a complement: this, as a mat-
ter of fact, is found in the succeeding beat. It is therefore most aptly compared to
the upward movement of the hand in beating time, no sooner raised than lowered.32
29
Bergeron, Decadent Enchantments, pp. 87–89.
30
Chironomy is “the practice of indicating the changing pitches of a melody by regulated movements of the
hand, or (less commonly) by pointing to various positions on the hand, and the practice seems to have been
known throughout the ancient and medieval worlds. Since the hand signals gave only a general idea of the
shape of the melody rather than exact pitches, they were probably used as a memory aid. Chironomy is still
used in teaching and in conducting Gregorian chant.” Anthony Pryer, “Chironomy,” Oxford Music Online, ed.
Alison Latham (accessed February 16, 2010) <http://oxfordmusiconline.com>.
31
32
Dom André Mocquereau, “Musica Sacra: The Art of Gregorian Chant,” Musica Sacra, 1896.
17
Dom Mocquereau believed that having accent and rhythm conveyed by arsic and thetic gestures
would preserve chant for future generations. The reason that gestures would help preserve chant for
the future is that no rhythmic system had survived the centuries before, and he believed that his sys-
tem of chironomy would help to spread and preserve his rhythmic method. He wrote extensively
explaining the rhythm and corresponding chironomy and claimed that it was indeed at the very heart
of Gregorian chant.33
The spiritual dimension of chant was a real, if ethereal, source of motivation in the develop-
ment of Dom Mocquereau’s practice. In his writings, talks, and descriptions of chant and chiron-
omy, there is a Romantic34 sensibility towards the beauty of chant, just as he described the accent as
the “soul of the word” and the “ponderous material” and modern beat as “crushing and exhaust-
ing.” The chant itself he describes as “a great, still-flowing river,” lauding its simplicity, clarity, and
luminous qualities that all could understand from “the most fastidious artist” to the “man in the
street.”35
To convey the flowing quality of the chant
as he imagined it and taking a step beyond
consideration of Latin accent, Dom Moc-
quereau developed his own rhythmic method. Mocquereau described the accent
This complex system was summarized by John as the “soul of the word.”
Rayburn: “a single, indivisible pulse is the basic
time unit . . . a punctum . . . . The pulses are
grouped into twos and threes, and the groups
are freely mixed into larger rhythmic divisions
. . . . The ictus may be arsic or thetic, but in any case, it is independent of the Latin tonic accent.”36
Mocquereau summarized his rhythmic system by saying that “the chant does not altogether disdain
measure and successions of regular rhythms: but these are never cultivated to the extent of accus-
toming the ear to them and making it expect the recurrence of regular groups . . . . All the accented
pulses . . . are invariably found in their regular place at the beginning of the measure. This solid foun-
dation of regular rhythm gives the Roman chant that calm, dignity, and evenness of movement.”37
He was motivated by an imagined sound of chant and developed this system to preserve his unsub-
stantiated idea of the sound and rhythm of chant. Dom Mocquereau’s system of rhythm and ictus
placement was called mesure libre, “a modern invention and a purely abstract system of rhythm . . . in
clear contradiction to the data of the very Gregorian paleography which he worked so hard to estab-
lish and disseminate.”38
As the monks of Solesmes worked on developing transcriptions of neumes with the use of for-
mulas, tables, and many medieval manuscripts, Dom Mocquereau was also developing new neumes,
rhythmic indications, and expressive signs. Although he received criticism immediately from some
33
See discussion of Le Nombre Musical Grégorien, below.
34
Romantic in the sense of the movement in the arts and literature that originated in the late eighteenth cen-
tury, emphasizing inspiration, subjectivity, and the primacy of the individual and suggestive of an idealized
view of reality. (See “Romanticism” and “Romantic” in the New Oxford American Dictionary.)
35
Mocquereau, “The Art of Gregorian Chant.”
36
Rayburn, Rhythm, p. 3.
37
Mocquereau, “The Art of Gregorian Chant.”
38
Goschl, “One Hundred Years,” 13.
18
priests who thought that he risked having his work ignored by the church because of those nota-
tional changes, Dom Mocquereau defended his rhythmic notation because it would make the per-
formance of chant easier. He even showed that “far from leading us astray from the ancient tradi-
tion, we are taking steps that draw us ever closer to it . . . . Nothing is easier to prove than the fact
that the main reason for the decadence and ruin of the chant of Holy Mother Church was the inad-
equacy of ecclesiastical notation to express rhythm.”39 He was not claiming to have deciphered
ancient rhythm; rather, he knew that as he restored and transmitted the ancient melodies, this new
development of rhythmic notation would allow wider and longer practice of chant.
The basic rhythmic interpretation of the notation of the monks of Solesmes is easy to under-
stand. As a rule, each note gets one pulse or beat. Some of the moments of expressiveness found
in Dom Mocquereau’s system are notated with episemas, vertical episemas, and dots. Besides the
basic pulse, when a punctum is followed by a dot, it is equal to two beats. Expressive singing in the
Solesmes method means to lengthen the note slightly beyond the basic pulse. It is implied by the
horizontal episema, which appears above or beneath a neume.40 The salicus has an ictus (vertical
episema) placed below the middle note of
a scandicus (ascending three note neume)
and specifies that the ictic note be sung
Mocquereau defended his rhythmic expressively.
notation because it would make the In his work Le Nombre Musical Gré-
gorien, Dom Mocquereau defends his the-
performance of chant easier. ory that binary and ternary groupings are
the basis of rhythm as well as his theory
of repose, that is, that “all movement . . .
is the cessation of repose; all movement supposes a repose immediately preceding it,”41 and that this
all can be shown through chironomy. Dom Mocquereau spends the first half of his book describ-
ing the basic rise and fall of movement. He described the arsis and thesis that he advocated for chant
as applying to much of life. Using diagrams and pictures, he drew a correlation between arsis and
thesis for chant and a golf ball hit into the air and describing a curve, dropping, and at “the very
point at which it touches the ground, this ‘ictus’ that marks its fall, is also a point of departure for a
new upward spring . . . until at last the ball comes to its final point of repose.”42 Dom Mocquereau’s
rhythmic practice is still easily accessible and usable throughout the world.
MOTU PROPRIO OF PIUS X
Solesmes’ methods had been growing in popularity throughout European monasteries already
in the later nineteenth century, but the strongest advancement for the monks’ methods into cathe-
drals and parish churches was a result of Pope Pius X’s motu proprio of 1903. With his motu pro-
prio, Pope St. Pius X (1834–1914) stated that music of the Catholic liturgy should “consequently
39
Dom Mocquereau, quoted in Combe, The Restoration, p. 209.
40
Cf. “Rules for Interpretation,” in Liber Usualis (Tournai: Desclée, 1961), p. xx <http://musicasacra.com/
pdf/liber-intro.pdf>.
41
Dom Andre Mocquereau, Le Nombre Musical Grégorien, trans. Aileen Tone, Vol. I (Richmond, Va.: Church
Music Association of America, 2007), p. 120.
42
Mocquereau, Le Nombre Musical, p. 120.
19
possess, in the highest degree, the qualities proper to the liturgy, and in particular sanctity and good-
ness of form, which will spontaneously produce the final quality of universality.” He goes on to
explain that “these qualities are to be found, in the highest degree, in Gregorian Chant, which is,
consequently the Chant proper to
the Roman Church, the only chant
she has inherited from the ancient
fathers . . . which the most recent
Gregorian chant exists as a liturgical
studies have so happily restored to form of music, and over the centuries, it
their integrity and purity.”43
Gregorian chant exists as a
has maintained its existence primarily
liturgical form of music, and over in the liturgy.
the centuries, it has maintained its
existence primarily in the liturgy.
The motu proprio was issued to reaffirm chant’s position in the liturgy and promote what the Pope
called (referring to the work of the monks of Solesmes) “the accurate and prolonged study that has
. . . changed the face of things.”44 However, Pius X had a broader vision; he took the opportunity
to evaluate “the issues and antitheses of the XIXth century with strong emphasis upon the princi-
ple of artistic freedom as applied to composers and executants of church music. In contrast to most
earlier papal pronouncements which aimed chiefly at the prohibition of secular trends, the 1903
Motu proprio also issued positive commands for the vital cultivation of Musica sacra.”45 The most
immediate effects of the promulgation of “the motu proprio for the entire Latin Church” were that it
“mark[ed] the end of the incorrect, altered, or truncated editions.”46 For Solesmes, this created the
need and demand for further editions and extensions of the monks’ work.
JUSTINE WARD: CHANT REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES
In the United States, a movement began in the early decades of the twentieth century with the
purpose to educate Catholic liturgical musicians about the reform of Gregorian chant through the
work of Justine Ward (1879–1975). Inspired by the call of the Holy Father, Justine Ward, a young,
ardent, well-to-do American convert to Catholicism, quickly turned her energies and finances to
promote and teach Gregorian chant. She truly felt a call from the Holy Father; “A Response to the
Call of Pius X” was the title of a brochure that she published in 1922.47 Born into a wealthy New
York family, Justine Bayard Ward joined the Catholic Church in 1904, a year after the promulgation
of Pope Pius X’s motu proprio, and she wrote that “this papal document made a profound impres-
sion” on her, and that she “had already promised that [she] . . . would work for this good cause.”48
43
Pope Pius X, Tra le Sollecitudini: Motu Proprio of Pius X, November 22, 1903, Adoremus (accessed December
19, 2009) <http://www.adoremus.org/>.
44
Pius X, Motu Proprio.
45
Robert A. Skeris, “Sarto, The ‘Conservative Reformer’—100 Years of the Motu Proprio of Pope St. Pius
X,” Sacred Music, 130, no. 4 (Winter 2003), 6.
46
Combe, The Restoration, p. 226.
47
Dom Pierre Combe, Justine Ward and Solesmes, tr. Philipe, and Guillemine de Lacoste (Washington, D.C.:
Catholic University of America, 1987), p. 3.
48
Combe, Justine Ward, 1.
20
In 1910, having spent some years publishing articles on

sacred music, Justine Ward began developing her own prac-
tical pedagogical method of music to teach chant. That
method gained great recognition in the United States and in
Europe. As she developed the method, Justine Ward opened
a school to teach it, and she eventually was given the oppor-
tunity to organize an International Congress of Gregorian
Chant in 1920. This Congress was to change Justine Ward’s
direction in the interpretation of chant because there she
met Dom Mocquereau, whose influence on her would be
life-long. As is fondly related by Nancy Fazio, a teacher of
the Ward Method at the Catholic University of America and
at Stone Ridge Country Day School of the Sacred Heart, the
highlight of the story of Justine Ward’s meeting with Dom
Mocquereau was his telling her that she really knew and
understood nothing of Gregorian chant; thus, Justine Ward
begged him to teach her.49 Dom Mocquereau agreed to Justine Ward (1879–1979)
instruct her, and she lived in a house near the monastery of
Solesmes while he taught her his own rhythmic method.
Surely, Dom Mocquereau knew that by instructing her, Justine Ward would help to disseminate
Solesmes’ method throughout the United States. In fact, it was his methods that would spread
through Justine Ward’s influence, not only in the United States but also throughout much of Europe.
Dom Mocquereau spent a great deal of time helping her to revise her method books. Visiting
Solesmes, Justine Ward was enamored with the “rhythmic doctrine which animated Gregorian chant
so well and bestowed upon it . . . the choir of Solesmes’ mark.”50 She remarked that the rhythmic
theory was “marvelous in its clarity and logic, so simple, indeed, that little children could grasp it and
sing the praises of God devoutly.”51
In Justine Ward’s mind, chant was a moving
In 1910 Justine Ward began and aesthetically pleasing form of music, that
helped to better praise God in the Catholic liturgy;
developing her own practical her idea of the performance of chant spread
pedagogical method of music quickly throughout the schools that used her
method books in the United States and in Europe.
to teach chant. Not only was Justine Ward enthusiastic about the
arsic and thetic gestures of Dom Mocquereau’s
chironomy, she passed it on so well that her students became as enraptured with it as she. The teach-
ers of the Ward Method pedagogy classes at the Catholic University of America still relate with
excitement Justine Ward’s wonderment at the rise and fall of rhythm as taught by Dom Mocquereau.
Justine Ward developed a pedagogical method of teaching chant that was remarkable, because
it incorporated chironomy and rhythmic expression at the earliest level of instruction to young
49
Quote from class at Catholic University of America, July 2, 2009.
50
Combe, Justine Ward, p. 10.
51
Quoted in Combe, Justine Ward, p. 10.
21
school children. She did so by taking “the principles of rhythm and, through movement of the body,
express[ing] them in such a way that a child of six can begin to grasp them.”52 Dom Mocquereau
stated his admiration of this in a letter to Justine Ward that:
From a pedagogical standpoint, you have made an unexpected use of the plastic expres-
sion of the rhythmic movement. Until now, I had always looked upon this study . . . as
the culmination, the summit of all rhythmic training, as a branch of the subject which
should be reserved almost exclusively for directors of music and choir masters. You,
Madame, have made it basic, the foundation of all your training. You treat it as an edu-
cational element of primary importance—and in this you are absolutely right.53
Thus, while Dom Mocquereau and the monks of Solesmes were debating and working on the
finer details of chant melodies and their performance, Justine Ward took their teachings and applied
them in her method books.
Each lesson using the Ward
Method (designed to be the first
twenty minutes of a rehearsal or A student of the Ward Method who
music class with children) covers
an integrated and smooth-flowing completes the Fourth Year would
exercise in vocal training, intona-
tion, dictations (eye tests and ear
understand arsis and thesis, chironomy,
tests), rhythm, notation, creative and rhythm as Dom Mocquereau
activity, and songs. With specially
designed charts showing numbers,
taught it.
children are taught solfege a little
each day and by using a “Ward stick,” (wooden stick painted green on one half and red on the other),
they learn to use “thinking tones” when the teacher points with the red end of the stick. In this way,
they effectively and visually learn steps and skips. In the very first week of Book One, Justine Ward
incorporates “Rhythmic Gestures” which involve standing and moving the arms and body in an up
and down motion related to the arsis and thesis motions used in chironomy. In the fourth year, stu-
dents continue using the rhythmic gestures that they learned in Book One, but at this time, they
learn actual Gregorian chant notation and the terms that apply to it. A student of the Ward Method
who completes the Fourth Year would understand arsis and thesis, chironomy, and rhythm as Dom
Mocquereau taught it.
By 1927, Justine Ward’s method was spreading in schools outside the United States. In the
Netherlands, the Ward method quickly spread to hundreds of schools, including Protestant schools.
“The method was next introduced in Belgium and France and then extended to England, Ireland,
New Zealand, China, and Italy . . . its use spread throughout Central and South America . . . it was
used in Canada, Africa and the Far East. In 1972 the state of Israel introduced the Ward Method,
offering a course for the top classes of the State College for Music Teachers in Tel-Aviv.”54 At the
52
Amy Zuberbueler, “Ward Method Instruction: What is the Ward Method?,” Musica Sacra, (accessed Decem-
ber 22, 2010) <http://www.musicasacra.com/ward-method-instruction/>.
53
Quoted in: Combe, Justine Ward, p. 11.
54
Zuberbueler, “What is the Ward Method?”
22
same time, her work continued to grow in the United States with the founding of institutes, schools,
and foundations.
Justine Ward spread Solesmes’ method not only around the world, but also into the hearts and
minds of the next generation. Her method is still taught in some schools today, and pedagogy classes
are taught to music educators and choir directors every summer at the Ward Institute at the Catholic
University of America. This remarkable woman played a vital role in advancing the spread of
Solesmes’ method, the sound of Solesmes, and its aesthetic appeal. Anyone from child to chant new-
comer can learn from the Ward Method. No other style of chant interpretation has a pedagogical
method that can instruct and prepare a singer so quickly and thoroughly in its style.
MARY BERRY: CAREER BEFORE VATICAN II
An excellent example of someone who both practiced and studied chant is Mary Berry
(1917–2008), who was born in Cambridge, where her father taught, and was later sent to study in
France. Singled out by her teachers to study music, she visited the Abbey of Solesmes because of an
interest in Gregorian chant. In 1938, she chose to join the Catholic Church as a result of her friend-
ship with Nadia Boulanger (1887–1979).55 Mary Berry entered religious life in Belgium as Sr.
Thomas More only two years after her
conversion but was forced to flee in
advance of the invading German army.
Eventually, she and the other novices
Justine Ward’s method is still taught were given refuge in Lisbon, where she
made her religious profession.
in some schools today.
After the Second World War, Mary
Berry’s career in chant and her religious
life gave her many important opportuni-
ties. She studied with Dom Cardine
(1905–1988)56 in Rome, becoming an adherent of his philosophies regarding chant, and at the Insti-
tut Grégorien in Paris. She also served as a nurse for twenty years. Roughly from the late 1950s into
the 1970s, Mary Berry had a position as “director of Ward Method Studies for Great Britain and
Ireland,” setting up centers that taught following the Justine Ward method.57 It is interesting to note
this connection between Justine Ward and Mary Berry. The world of chant, while widespread was
also very interconnected. Solesmes’ influence had spread to Justine Ward, and Justine Ward’s influ-
ence spread around the Western world, reaching Mary Berry.
55
Nadia Boulanger was a conductor and composition teacher of great influence in Europe and in America.
Boulanger America (accessed January 30, 2010) <http://www.nadiaboulanger.org/>.
56
Dom Cardine was a monk of Solesmes and Professor at the Pontifical Institute who taught in the tradition
of Dom Mocquereau. Dom Cardine was author of Sémiologie Grégorienne which explained his study of neumes.
His most significant difference from Dom Mocquereau was in the study of the salicus (see above), because he
disagreed with the placement of the ictus on the middle note of the neume, because the ictus misleads singers
to think that the middle note is a resting place, whereas there is no reason to suppose that from the earliest
manuscripts. See Dom Laurence Bevenot, “Plainsong with Dom Cardine: The Salicus,” Sacred Music, 115, no.
4 (Winter 1988), 15–21.
57
Jeffrey Morse, “A Tribute to Mary Berry, C.B.E., 1917–2008,” Sacred Music, 135, no. 3 (Fall 2008), 48–50.
23
VATICAN II: BRIEFLY

The Second Vatican Council was called in 1962 to address the problem that many members of
the church across the first half of the twentieth century were at a loss to understand their faith. In
order to instruct and direct the church in the face of this problem, Pope John XXIII (1881–1963)
called Vatican II to instruct the church in faith, morals, and liturgy. The council agreed that some
changes would be made to the Order of the Mass that had been in use since the Council of Trent
in the middle of the sixteenth century. The Tridentine Mass was entirely in Latin, and Vatican II, in
a revolutionary step, provided that “since the use of the mother tongue . . . in the Mass . . . frequently
may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.”58 While
the council did not condemn the use of Latin, indeed, expressly upheld it saying: “use of the Latin
language is to be preserved in the Latin rites,”59 liturgists and priests interpreted the council to mean
that Latin was, essentially, banned, in favor of exclusively using the local vernacular.
If we look at the history of chant as an undulating wave of ups and downs, Vatican II was a
devastating downturn. Turning away from Latin meant turning away from chant. The reaction of
most parishes was to outlaw Latin and chant; many Catholics believed that the council condemned
chant. However, what the council officially declared was that the church “acknowledges Gregorian
chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given
pride of place in liturgical services.”60 Multilingual services would have allowed both for a Mass in
the vernacular plus traditional music, but this was not the direction taken.
Thus, the council’s actions had an effect opposite to the
1903 motu proprio of Pius X. Rather than encouraging the
development of chant as it intended, Vatican II nearly
caused the end of chant. In the liturgy, chant would not see Vatican II nearly
a wide revival until 2007 with another motu proprio, that of
Pope Benedict XVI, that strongly encouraged the use of caused the end of chant.
Latin and chant once again in both the “old” Mass (given
the name, extraordinary form) and the “new” Mass (the
ordinary form).
MARY BERRY: CAREER AFTER VATICAN II
After the council, the Catholic liturgy was in flux. Mary Berry described the experience of “the
burning of chant books and the wholesale persecution of Latin” as a “horrific experience,”61 and
slowly she “moved beyond the confines of that enclosed life” in her order (the Augustinian
Canonesses Regular) and “obtained the agreement of her order to be ‘exclaustrated,’ allowing her to
live outside the order’s houses, but without rescinding her vows.”62 Before Vatican II, “the world of
Gregorian chant sail’d on, serene and glorious, like some great ocean liner, rising and falling on an
58
Second Vatican Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, ¶36, 2.
59
Sacrosanctum Concilium, ¶36, 1.
60
Sacrosanctum Concilium, ¶116.
61
Quoted in Morse, “A Tribute to Mary Berry,” 49.
62
Susan Rankin, “Mary Berry (1917–2008): Memoir and Bibliography,” Plainsong and Medieval Music, 18 (April
2009), 1–6.
24
untroubled sea of rhythmic waves.”63 Afterwards, the world of chant was in danger of being perma-
nently submerged in a troubled sea of liturgical change. Mary Berry’s religious order had lost some
of its identity, habits worn by the nuns were changing, their lifestyle was changing, and the liturgy
was changing; thus, her life took on a new direction.
Mary Berry went to Cambridge to work on her doctorate in 1964 when she was forty-seven
years old. The thesis that she presented five years later in 1969 was titled The Performance of Plainsong
in the Later Middle Ages and the Sixteenth Century, and she gave a lecture with the same title in 1965 for
the Royal Musical Association. In it, she poses the questions that are often asked about the authen-
tic performance of early chant, “did they measure parts of the chant? At what tempo was it per-
formed? Were there variations of tempo?”64 Mary Berry responded:
“on registering the answers, we might discover that it was not so
easy as we had hoped to get a single, clear, overall picture.”65 That
is, there is no one picture. Providing many examples of ancient
records and manuscripts, she showed the diversity of chants and
chant practice goes back to the time of even our earliest sources.
Speaking as a scholar who was once merely a practicing musician,
she acknowledged, “Perhaps we are too inclined to generalize when
we think even of medieval plainsong. We may forget that the reper-
toire contains different types of pieces, different styles, sung in
many different countries over a huge period of time.”66 She con-
cluded by saying that “there seems no reason why all these styles,
however divergent, should not form, together, part of a complex
whole.”67
Eventually, from her new perspective as an academic scholar
and still practicing musician, Mary Berry saw Vatican II as some-
thing other than a disaster to the practice of chant. In 1979, she Mary Berry (1917–2008)
wrote of Vatican II as a “blessing in disguise,” and she already had
a head start on making use of the freedom “to incorporate new discoveries about authentic perform-
ance.”68 Mary Berry knew that change in “rhythmic idioms”69 would come about over time through
continued scholarship. She was excited that Solesmes was working on a “Triplex” which would pres-
ent side-by-side chants from three of the earliest styles of notation. The Graduale Triplex has since
come out, and just as Mary Berry foresaw, musicians are turning to it to learn and sing chants. Her
research of the chants of the Middle Ages uncovered evidence of practice contrary to the Solesmes
method that she practiced, but Mary Berry was not afraid to incorporate new developments in
63
Quoted in Morse, “A Tribute to Mary Berry,” 49.
64
Mary Berry, “The Performance of Plainsong in the Later Middle Ages and the Sixteenth Century,” Proceed-
ings of the Royal Musical Association, 92nd Session (1965–1966), 121–134: here, 121.
65
Berry, “The Performance of Plainsong,” 121.
66
67
68
Mary Berry, “The Restoration of the Chant and Seventy-Five Years of Recording,” Early Music, 7, no. 2
(April 1979), 207.
69
25
research and was excited at the possibilities that paleography continued to open up. Using her new-
found scholarship, she went on to found the Schola Gregoriana of Cambridge, which spread her
practice of chant all over the world with recordings.
HISTORICAL AND SCHOLARLY PURSUITS
Both before and following Vatican II, chant was studied,

not just by the monks of Solesmes, but by many chant schol-
ars and people drawn to it for aesthetic reasons. Most of these
people, however, did not study the performance practice of
chant. One example of a chant scholar who does is Lance
Brunner.70 He wrote, in 1982, an “answer (or plea) to . . . an
acquaintance . . . who was ideologically bound to a proposed
interpretation of rhythm.”71 Dr. Brunner gave his “observa-
tions of the new era” and his concern about the “common
misconception . . . that the Solesmes method is the one
‘authentic’ way to sing chant.”72 He points out that Mary
Berry was still highly influenced by the developments from
Solesmes, but that no one should lightly dismiss research
going on outside Solesmes. Dr. Brunner’s philosophy for the Lance Brunner
practice of chant focuses on the consideration of three areas:
“rhythm, ornamental neumes, and voice production.”73 He recognizes that a choir director “who is
not steeped in the literature on chant rhythm” is faced with a dilemma in choosing from “the tan-
gled web of approaches advanced by scholars.”74 This is perhaps too optimistic on behalf of the
scholarly community. In fact, Catholic choir directors first encountering chant even today encounter
a world dominated by Solesmes. The monks’ work still deserves a great deal of respect because it
opened up research and a method that could be used and taught around the world by people such
as Justine Ward and Mary Berry. Solesmes has a hallmark sound that remains aesthetically appealing
to many in the Western world because of the recordings that spread the soothing Solesmes sound.
Dr. Brunner, too, recognizes the utility of Solesmes. He recently said, “I think the Solesmes
method for singing chant met a very practical need, and thus was very useful when chant was sung
widely within the Catholic Church. The interpretations based on Solesmes practice produced per-
formances of dignity and beauty, and fulfilled the proper function within the liturgy.”75 He refers to
70
Lance Brunner is the Associate Professor of Musicology and Director of Graduate Studies at the Univer-
sity of Kentucky School of Music; his areas of research include medieval music (chant, sequences, and tropes)
and contemporary music. His complete biography and curriculum vitae can be found at University of Ken-
tucky (accessed February 22, 2010) <http://www.uky.edu/FineArts/Music/faculty/lance_brunner/>.
71
Lance Brunner, interview by Amy Waddle, February 21, 2010.
72
Lance Brunner, “The Performance of Plainchant: Some Preliminary Oberservations of the New Era,” Early
Music, 10 (July 1982), 317–328, here, 317.
73
Brunner, “The Performance of Plainchant,” 318.
74
Brunner, “The Performance of Plainchant,” 321.
75
Brunner, interview.
26
that time, and its “obsession” to find the “original” chant as giving rise to the “rhythm wars.”76
Clearly, however, for Dr. Brunner, the Solesmes method is simply one alternative.
One organization that continued to support chant scholarship and practice through the treach-
erous times following Vatican II is the Gregorian Association in London, which was founded in 1870
“to promote the study and practice of plainsong.”77 Currently, the association maintains its goal of
promoting Gregorian chant by means
of a detailed website with commen-
tary and recommendations. The web-
The Gregorian Association maintains site gives an informative and concise
overview of the major forms of cur-
its goal of promoting Gregorian chant rent interpretation used around the
by a detailed website with commentary world and discusses different
recorded practices of chant, from the
and recommendations. solo chant performances of Iegor
Reznikoff 78 to the lighter melismatic
practice of Schola Hungarica. These
groups, the Gregorian Association
explains, have a “percussive” style “as opposed to the smooth ‘liquidity’ of the Ensembles Gilles
Binchois and Organum.”79
While the Gregorian Association of London does present a balanced look at history and differ-
ent practices of chant, it guides directors of chant in the direction of Solesmes. Under the heading
“Help with the Notation and Performance of the Chant,”80 the association’s website recommends
the books of Mary Berry, particularly, Plainchant for Everyone. This book covers the basics of
Solesmes’ method, with details of each neume and how it should be sung, similar to Dom Moc-
quereau’s Le Nombre Musicale with only slight changes.
Someone practicing an innovative interpretation of solo chant after Vatican II is Iegor
Reznikoff, who has developed his own unique style. His approach is to sing from “the manuscripts
with neumatic notation (ninth to eleventh centuries). Some of them are contained in the Triplex
published by Solesmes. What is important also is to work in just intonation of ancient scales.”81
Thus, intonation becomes a major contributor to the unique sound of his performances. This comes
out of his interest in the study of music antiquity and “sound anthropology.”82 Unfortunately, Iegor
Reznikoff ’s method, that of a solo singer, is not easily applicable to ensemble practice, and, while
76
Brunner, interview.
77
Gregorian Association, The Gregorian Association, Peter Wilton, February 14, 2008, (accessed February 8,
2010) <http://www.beaufort.demon.co.uk/chant.htm#Latin>.
78
Iegor Reznikoff, “Concerto di canto gregoriano antico,” YouTube, June 18, 2008, (accessed February 9, 2010)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1-5w3WYT5Y.
79
Gregorian Association, “Selective Chant Discography” (accessed February 9, 2010) <http://www.beau-
fort.demon.co.uk/disco.htm>.
80
Gregorian Association.
81
Reznikoff, Iegor interview by Amy Waddle, (February 17, 2010).
82
Ecole de Louange, Iegor Reznikoff (accessed February 18, 2010) <http://ecoledelouange.free.fr/
Iegorangl.html>.
27
appealing to some because of its Eastern sound, is not as aesthetically pleasing to Western ears as
some other styles. Since Iegor Reznikoff claims that his performance style developed out of the
Western tradition, he has to be clear that he is in a sense exploring a hypothesized approach to the
antique sacred music of the church.
Selecting the very earliest sources of chant and performing it with, as best as can be determined,
an ancient sound, is also the goal and aesthetic choice of Ensemble Organum. They use a style sim-
ilar to Iegor Reznikoff ’s, based on what they can find of “original notation” because their philoso-
phy is that “the musical concepts of the past are only accessible by means of the original notations.
For the musical interpretation to be suc-
cessful, the work under study must be
explored in the light of the original nota-
tion.”83 Gregorian chant’s importance still
For William Mahrt, associate profes- hinges on its place in the liturgy
sor of musicology and early music at
Stanford University and President of the rather than solely as a field of
Church Music Association of America, scholarly research.
Gregorian chant’s importance still hinges
on its place in the liturgy rather than
solely as a field of scholarly research. In
an interview in 2007 with the Stanford University News, Dr. Mahrt “said he knew his decision to
dedicate his life to chant’s preservation would meet conflict, struggles, and disappointments. ‘It’s
worth it. Somebody’s got to keep it. It has to be kept alive in various places throughout the world.
So we’ve got to do it.’”84 In keeping Gregorian chant alive in his small parish unaffected by the chaos
that followed Vatican II, and also in the community of the CMAA, Dr. Mahrt not only practices
chant, but also teaches and promotes it.
Although Dr. Mahrt may be an advocate of chant to such an extent that he might sometimes
be lightly dismissed as a Catholic “dogmatically” attached to Solesmes, those who have opportunity
to sing under his direction as I did at the Sacred Music Colloquium, discover that his scholarship
pervades every decision.85 The Solesmes method, while influential, is not the first choice for Dr.
Mahrt. In an interview, he explained that in his own schola, he uses only “some of the more rudi-
mentary things about [the Solesmes method].”86 Thus, while he chooses to teach the Solesmes
method to chant novices, and the more advanced singers are taught to count in groups of twos and
threes as well, he finds that “there are times when this kind of counting breaks up a neume, at which
time [he] point[s] out that you can also count that neume 1-2-3-4-5 to get a sense of the continuity
83
Ensemble Organum, “Scriptorium Publishing Programme,” Organum Cirma, (accessed February 20, 2010)
<http://www.organum-cirma.fr/organum-
cirma/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=37>.
84
Cynthia Haven, “Champion of Chant: Musicologist Makes an Ancient Tradition a Local Institution,” Stan-
ford University News, October 10, 2007 (accessed November 11, 2009) <http://news-
service.stanford.edu/news/2007/october10/mahrtsr-101007.html>.
85
Aristotle A. Esguerra, Gregorian Chant—Offertory: Sicut in holocausto, July 5, 2009 (accessed December 30, 2009)
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkgZB02X1cw>.
86
William Mahrt, interview by Amy Waddle (February 19, 2010).
28
of the notes, and within such a neume, the notes

are not pounded out equally, but moved through
lightly to comprise a complete gesture.”87
Dr. Mahrt respects Solesmes’ work studying
the earliest manuscripts, but points out that
rhythmic signs in the earliest manuscripts “dis-
appeared from the notation a generation or so
after their currency, and were not seen by the
William Mahrt preponderance of the Middle Ages . . . [if we
follow them] the results may not represent what
most of the Middle Ages heard at all, and may not be the most desirable version of the melodies to
use for liturgical performance.”88 Because Dr. Mahrt’s idea of chant focuses on the chants found in
the Middle Ages, the result is a distinctly different sound than heard by most choirs, and it greatly
varies from Ensemble Organum or Iegor Reznikoff. There is a similarity to the Solesmes method,
but with a subtle difference in accents and rhythm.
For Catholic church musicians new to chant, the CMAA takes a different approach than Dr.
Mahrt does with his own schola. The CMAA recognizes that those who desire to use chant for its
original purpose as part of the Roman Catholic liturgy, are often faced with a whole different prob-
lem than that of the musicologists: simply, lack of knowledge of the basic chant notation. Coming
from a contemporary background, “some people look at square notes and think they are something
little more than a pious affectation. Surely modern notes are more ‘advanced’ in the same way mod-
ern English is over Middle English or the iPod is over the eight-track tape. This is not true. The
square notes are precisely appropriate for the purpose for which they are used.”89 The CMAA pub-
lishes guides to chant to solve the problem of ignorance of basic chant notation. In explaining
square notes and the clefs that accompany chant, they proceed to detail the rhythms applied by
Solesmes, namely, the ictus, episema, and all else that Solesmes applies to the rhythm of chant. The
CMAA guides present the Solesmes rhythmic method in their introductory guides without reference
to current scholarly debates. To them and those who want to learn chant today, it is the most read-
ily understandable and easily applicable way to learn.
SCHOLAS TAKING A STEP BACK
The Schola of the Seminary of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Denton, Nebraska takes advantage
of the “blessing in disguise” following Vatican II to take a step back from strict adherence to the
Solesmes method. The Seminary Schola released a CD in 2003 which was reviewed in Sacred Music,
“Adventus: Gregorian Chants for the Four Sundays of Advent.” It is the first of a projected series
of recordings of the Mass Propers for the Sundays of the year. The reviewer, Calvert Shenk, praises
the group’s choral blend, balance, accuracy, precision, and musicianship, but comments on the con-
troversy concerning the recording of the offertories, “which differs quite noticeably from the
approach to the other proper chants on this disc. Here Professor Holbrook seems to be using some
87
Mahrt, interview.
88
Mahrt, interview.
89
Arlene Oost-Zinner and Jeffrey Tucker, “Musica Sacra: Teaching Aids; An Idiot’s Guide to Square Notes,”
Musica Sacra (accessed December 30, 2009) <http://www.musicasacra.com/>.
29
of the results of recent semiological research; whether for better or for worse depends upon indi-
vidual taste. Mysterious prolongations, a fairly subtle hastening of some groups of neumes, and an
apparent disregard for the basic rhythmic flow of conventional (Dom Mocquereau) Gregorian style
are immediately apparent.”90 While the reviewer, Shenk, clearly prefers the Solesmes style, the direc-
tor, Holbrook, evidently chose to incorpo-
rate further research and decisions differ-
ent from Solesmes’ style.
It is vital to the life of Gregorian chant
It is vital to the life of Gregorian
that we have this freedom to explore other chant that we have freedom to
styles besides Solesmes or to mix and
match with Solesmes. This freedom has
explore other styles besides
sparked controversy with those firmly Solesmes or to mix and match
attached to Solesmes, but also spurs on fur-
ther exploration and further branching out
with Solesmes.
in individual scholas. Scholas that are just
beginning, directed by members of a gen-
eration that missed all the tumult of Vatican II and the glory days of Solesmes, still find themselves
beginning with the Solesmes method. For example, the Schola Cantorum of the Pittsburgh Oratory
was founded in November of 2009, under the direction of Ryan Murphy, recently out of college.
Murphy learned chant through the CMAA, which teaches the Solesmes method, and thus he is
implementing Solesmes’ methods in his schola. Currently, he chooses to use Solesmes because it is
works well for his group since they are mostly non-musicians. Over time, such young scholas as
these can, and should, learn to incorporate other methods.
SUMMARY
At the onset of my education in chant, I only heard of the Solesmes method. Solesmes has
dominated the study and practice of Gregorian chant by Catholic Church musicians since the late
nineteenth century, even including the years following Vatican II, with the disruption of the tradi-
tion of singing Latin chant in most Catholic churches. Prior to Vatican II, the monks of Solesmes
saw their method spread from France to Rome, the United States to England, the Netherlands, and
beyond. The work done by Solesmes using scholarly methodologies produced editions and a style
of chant that flooded the world. Dom Guéranger spurred interest and encouraged his monks’
research. Dom Pothier studied and examined manuscripts, and Dom Mocquereau not only made
research and manuscripts more readily available, but went further to develop a rhythmic method to
pass on to future generations.
With the motu proprio of Pope Pius X, Solesmes’ influence continued to grow throughout the
Catholic Church. At times, the monks of Solesmes encountered camps of scholars who defended
other editions (such as the Medici edition). However, Solesmes’ aesthetic beauty won over musicians
in Rome and in monasteries throughout Europe. Because of the motu proprio, there was a demand
for publications of Solesmes’ chant, and editions of the gradual and Gregorian chant missals
90
Calvert Shenk, Review: Adventus, compact disc, Sacred Music, 130, no. 3 (Fall 2003), 28.
91
Berry, “The Restoration of the Chant,” 207.
92
30
became available with Solesmes’ rhythmic markings. The spreading influence of Solesmes’ methods
led to Justine Ward’s meeting with Dom Mocquereau, and she, in turn, developed a method of
instruction that aided the growth of Solesmes.
Everyone interested in the relatively small world of the liturgical performance of chant was
interconnected; for example, Mary Berry, an important figure in twentieth century practice of chant,
directed Justine Ward’s method in Great Britain. Solesmes’ influence continued growing through the
work of the monks, Mary Berry, Justine Ward, and others. However, when Vatican II declared a
“new order” (Novus Ordo) to the Mass, the liturgical practice of chant was shaken.
Mary Berry’s career spanned the middle of the century and the changes in the church following
Vatican II. After Vatican II, she declared that the liturgical changes could be “a blessing in dis-
guise,”91 and she declared that a freedom from Solesmes’ influence could lead to further research
and new methods of practice. Despite that, Solesmes’ influence is still at work among many musi-
cians who desire to sing chant on a regular basis. A church musician new to chant will still encounter
Solesmes at the forefront, but blind adherence to Solesmes’ method of performance should be
avoided. Even Dom Mocquereau’s work, as Katherine Bergeron pointed out, “exposed Gregorian
tradition not as a single, idealized cre-
ation.”92 Mary Berry’s pre-Vatican II
thesis declared that the historic chant’s
The riches of the Gregorian tradition melodic variants, notational idioms, and
performance styles are “part of a com-
continue into the new millennium. plex whole.”93
I find that my policy of practicing a
style of chant based largely on aesthetic
sensibilities is not novel, but that my
research has been to connect the dots, showing that many different groups with varied interests are
indeed stepping back to make informed decisions. Through groups such as the Gregorian Associa-
tion in England and the Church Music Association of America, Solesmes is still held up as the
model; however, in delving deeper, I have found that the number of other methods and interpreta-
tions is growing as, indeed, it must. There is no single answer to how to perform Gregorian chant:
it has a rich and diverse tradition and always has had. Scholas such as the Cor Immaculatae Schola
Cantorum and the Schola of the Pittsburgh Oratory may choose to practice the Solesmes method
because of aesthetic choice or availability of its editions, but all those who practice chant should be
made aware of the range of performance styles being explored today.
Final decisions regarding rhythm, melody, stress, vocal technique, and pronunciation lie with the
individual schola director. Advocates and followers of Solesmes must not ignore the “blessing in dis-
guise” of the post-Vatican II re-exploration of chant. Solesmes does present a practical and appli-
cable rhythmic method for chant that is aesthetically pleasing today. When one steps back to look at
chant throughout the ups and downs of its history, one finds that it never died. Chant is still a liv-
ing form of music, growing and changing with great diversity just as it did over a thousand years
ago. The practice of Gregorian chant gives musicians the freedom to choose a style or mixture of
performance styles most appealing to their taste from the numerous methods that have been devel-
oped. The riches of the Gregorian tradition continue into the new millennium.
93
31
COMMENTARY
Homily for the Feast of St. Pius X

by Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth
Opening Mass of the Southeastern Liturgical Music Symposium, August 21, 2010,
Preached by Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth, Executive Director of ICEL.
O
n August 4, 1903, when Cardinal Giuseppe Sarto, Patriarch of Venice, was
elected pope, nobody could have known that among his most significant lega-
cies would be the reform of liturgical music. Within three months of his elec-
tion, Pope Pius X published his motu proprio “Tra le sollecitudini” (Among our
concerns), which laid down principles for a return to the sources of the
church’s liturgical music and a reform that would in many ways introduce ideas
that would bear fruit sixty years later when another Patriarch of Venice, Angelo Roncalli, would be
pope and as Pope John XXIII would convene the Second Vatican Council.
It has been suggested that the motivating force and guiding hand behind this early concern for
liturgical music was Sarto’s friend, the musician Msgr. Lorenzo Perosi. Since 1898, Perosi had been
Director of the Sistine Chapel Choir and in his own work he had tried to reverse the trend of the
day which favored classical and baroque music over Gregorian chant. Pope Pius X announced a
return to earlier musical styles, as evidenced by
the approach championed by Perosi.
He also ushered in a period of renewed
scholarly interest in Gregorian chant resulting Pope Pius X ushered in a period
in the publication of new authoritative edi-
tions. Pius X’s choice of Dom Joseph Pothier of renewed scholarly interest in
to supervise the production of new editions of Gregorian chant.
the chant led to the official adoption of the
Solesmes edition by the Holy See and estab-
lished the basis for scholarship which contin-
ued there throughout the twentieth century and is still authoritative in our own time.
Usually when an account of the life of St. Pius X is being given, these details are passed over in
preference for his reforms lowering of the age of First Communion, encouraging the frequent
reception of Holy Communion, or the revision of the breviary. While these things are obviously
very important, the occasion of our symposium suggests to me that the significance of today’s saint
for our own work is something that we could easily miss and that would be a great shame.
Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth, a student of Mary Berry in London and a former singer in the Schola Gregori-
ana, is executive secretary of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy.
32
As those who serve the church with our gifts of music, I think
we are in continual need of both encouragement and inspiration.
Fortunately there is plenty to be had, ready for the taking, in the
church’s rich tradition, but often we need someone to help us iden-
tify or uncover the most relevant aspects of that tradition for our
present tasks and our current needs.
The saints do that for us, for in the extraordinariness of their
individual heroic witness and in the unworldliness of their holiness
there are also clear indications of those many things which we share
with them: not only their concerns but their particular likes and dis-
likes, their interests, their passions. As an Englishman, I often think
of Cardinal (soon to be Blessed) John Henry Newman, who in
between writing some of the most sublime theology ever com-
posed in the English language, found recreation playing the viola
Pope Pius X (1835–1914) either alone or in a string quartet.
Music is so very often transparent of the spiritual and nowhere
more so than when we celebrate the liturgy. St. Pius X understood that and greatly desired to bring
about a renewal of the music of the liturgy that would enable it to be a more effective vehicle of the
truths it expresses. In that first motu proprio, he wrote:
Since [its] Sacred Music’s chief function is to clothe with suitable melody the liturgical
text presented for the understanding of the faithful, its own proper end is to make the
text more meaningful for them.1
I think that is as true today as when St. Pius X wrote it, over a hundred years ago. In many ways
it defines our task and implies an itinerary for our deliberations together. I pray that this great saint
will be with us to share in our work and help us to find good paths for the renewal of our liturgy. St.
Pius X: pray for us!
1
Pius X, Motu Proprio, Tra le sollecitudine, November 22, 1903, ¶1.
33
An Experiment in Sacred Music Resource

Production: Let’s Lay an Egg!
by Adam Bartlett
I
f you haven’t yet read Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth’s recent address on sacred music
entitled “Towards the Future: Singing the Mass,” published in this issue of Sacred
Music, you must. The statements made by the Executive Director of ICEL are full
of potential that could change the world of Catholic liturgical music. In this essay
I would like to shine a light on some of that potential and to invite you to help
make it a reality; perhaps our combined efforts can help change the landscape of
Catholic liturgical music publishing.
Msgr. Wadsworth’s talk included a call to church musicians to sing the liturgical texts that are
proper to the Mass, namely the processional antiphons which contain a portion of the substantial
unity of the Roman Rite, a “textual unity,” as he puts it. In assessing our current situation, where
there is virtually no singing of these proper antiphons, he reveals the existence of a very interesting
and starkly contrasting state of affairs:
On the one hand, we have the familiar commercial publishers, about whom Msgr. Wadsworth
states that, “musical repertoire has for practical purposes largely been controlled by the publishers
of liturgical music . . . this is unavoidable, for a whole variety of pragmatic reasons.” He says further
that “This is something of a ‘chicken and egg’ situation. Praxis has governed the development of
our resources of liturgical music and for the most part, composers and publishers have neglected
the provision or adaptation of musical
settings of these proper texts.”
In sharp contrast, Msgr. Wadsworth
notes that “a brief trawl of the internet
produces a surprisingly wide variety of
Perphaps our combined efforts can
styles of settings of the proper texts help change the landscape of
which range from simple chants that can
be sung without accompaniment to
Catholic liturgical music pubishing.
choral settings for mixed voices.”
How interesting is this dichotomy?
Did you catch it?
On the one hand we have the major commercial liturgical music publishers who have “neglected
the provision or adaptation of musical settings of [the] proper texts” because of a “chicken and
egg” situation, and who control the music repertoire in Catholic parishes for “unavoidable” and
“practical reasons.” In other words, parish musicians sing what the publishers publish, and in turn
publishers print and distribute what seems to be wanted in parishes.
Adam Bartlett is Director of Music and Liturgy, St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church, Phoenix, Arizona, and
founder of sacredmusicproject.com. He is working on a MA in Liturgy at the Liturgical Institute of St. Mary
of the Lake University, Mundelein, Illinois. [email protected]
34
And on the other hand, we have “a surprisingly wide variety of styles of settings of the proper
texts” that are made available by “a brief trawl of the internet.”
To put it more directly: We have an “unavoidable” situation where the distribution of liturgical
music resources necessarily depends on the vision of large corporations and the whims of the com-
mercial market, regulated by purchase and sale and other external factors. In contrast, we have a
twenty-first century technology in the internet that has enabled the wide distribution and promo-
tion of old and new musical settings of the propers, and that has completely sidestepped—has not
been subject to—these seemingly “unavoidable” forces that shackle the commercial publishing
industry.
This dichotomy between two different means of creation and distribution of liturgical music
resources represents a paradigm-shifting phenomenon that is happening now in the church and in
the world. At one time the distribution of music resources depended solely on the resources of the
old information economy: the production and processing of paper, the speed and volume of the
printing press, and the post office. These are all technologies that are generally between two- and
five-hundred years old.
Our systems of copyright, intellectual property, licensing, commercial distribution, etc. evolved
around this model. Large quantities of paper and high-volume printing presses are scarce, special-
ized goods that can be acquired, operated, and maintained only at a considerable cost. Publishers
must buy paper, hire production staff, buy printing presses and paper cutters, pay shipment costs,
pay electric bills, and on and on. The cost for the production of printed sheet music is quite high.
This paper must be sold to consumers for
publishers to cover their production costs and
to build and sustain a business. Then there’s
the effort that is required to expand and pro-
The best place to find settings of tect markets; the commercial publisher’s
the proper antiphons of the Mass existence depends on this activity.
But we are seeing a new phenomenon
is the open, free, common-source today. One person with a laptop can produce
marketplace of the internet. musical scores in his spare time using free
software, from his sofa in his living room,
and post it freely on a website that he
accesses or even owns and manages for free.
This person can assess the needs of the church without influencing factors such as commercial con-
siderations, the whims of the financial market, client base, or anything. This person, in his spare time,
can produce musical resources, without the bias of imposing influences, and instantly “publish” it
freely on the internet and make it available and accessible to a virtually global market, with no cost
or risk.
There was perhaps a time when such do-it-yourself activity didn’t hold much stock in the “real
world” of liturgical music distribution, but, the real world is sitting up and taking notice now. In fact,
the Executive Director of ICEL has taken notice and has called prominent public attention to the
fact that the best place to find settings of the proper antiphons of the Mass—musical settings of
texts that form a part of the substantial unity of the Roman Rite—is the open, free, common-source
marketplace of the internet, in the forum of the self-publisher who can produce resources that the
church is asking for without having to play any “chicken and egg” games, or without having to be
subject to the demands of the commercial market.
35
How extraordinary is this? The CMAA should be proud, and people like Jeffrey Tucker, and
many others who have contributed to this work should be thanked profusely for their tireless efforts
in making musical settings of the texts of the Roman Rite freely available to the world. Who knows,
if these resources had not been developed and had not been made available online in the past few
years would we be eternally resigned to the cycle of destruction that is found in the world of
Catholic music publishing? Would we be suppressed by the “unavoidable” and “practical reasons”
that have kept Catholics from having a variety of musical settings of the texts of the Mass? Would
there be no hope that things could improve and that we could some day finally arrive at Vatican II’s
vision of a sung liturgy?
The good news is that the
pioneers have charted a new and I would like to invite you, any and all of
exciting path in these past few
years and because of this the you, to participate in an experiment in
world of Catholic liturgical
music will never be the same.
the production of Catholic liturgical
I think that it is time to raise music resources.
the stakes. I would like to invite
you, any and all of you, to par-
ticipate in an experiment in the production of Catholic liturgical music resources.
As Catholics we have long understood the axiom “the whole is greater than the sum of its
parts.” We hear this from St. Paul: “Now the body is not a single part, but many. If a foot should
say, ‘Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,’ it does not for this reason belong any
less to the body. Or if an ear should say, ‘Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,’ it
does not for this reason belong any less to the body” (1 Cor. 12:14–16). What good is a foot alone?
Or a hand? Or an ear? Alone these parts of the body can do very little, but when acting as a part of
the whole body, the potential is infinite.
Many of us musicians have made small contributions to the world of online liturgical music
resources, while many of our efforts have remained locked within the walls of our isolated commu-
nity, or left sitting on our hard drives. Largely, the online publishing effort has been the enterprise of
a handful of driven individuals who have assembled very nice projects according to their individual
gifts of time and talent. Many of these projects have been limited in scope, perhaps because they
needed skills, knowledge, and, of course, time. Many of these projects have still found great success,
but they would be more successful if more skills or manpower were available. I believe that if the
many gifts found in the sacred music community were shared more widely, working together as one
body, the result would be as good, if not better, than that which the commercial publishers offer.
I would like to invite you, even if you don’t feel that you have much to give, even if your con-
tribution is small, to participate in this experiment. This will be an organized effort, the author of
this essay is the acting organizer, and the source for community collaboration is the worldwide web.
(For more information, or to join in the effort, please go to www.sacredmusicproject.com/propers.)
The project is called “Toward the Singing of Propers” and an immediate result might be a book
of simple English antiphons and psalms for use in average parish settings by average parish musi-
cians. Another result will be an open database of liturgical texts and source material for the devel-
opment of future as well as various projects that deal with the propers. The fruits of everyone’s labor
will remain in the Creative Commons and in the open forum so that others can benefit from your
work as they take on similar projects of their own.
36
What help do we need? The first task is to organize a database of all of the liturgical texts. This
involves the data input of a complete set of antiphon translations, and also of the Latin antiphons
for proper and simple textual comparison. All of the metadata for these texts need to be entered and
organized: biblical text source, incipit name, mode, psalm verse designations. Psalm verses for the
antiphons have to be assembled and notated in the database. The psalm verses themselves need to
be extracted and arranged in the database. Various editions of the psalms need to be compiled and
prepared for liturgical singing. We need people to help typeset musical antiphons. We need proof
readers, both textual and musical. There are many things to be done and surely many further needs
that will arise as the project progresses and develops.
The great thing about “open source” projects is that anyone can contribute to them with what-
ever time they have to give. I find it absolutely amazing that a computer operating system like Linux
(a community developed and
completely open source soft-
ware) can rival the best com-
We have been commissioned to return the mercial operating systems. I
antiphonal propers to their rightful place in have no doubt that an organ-
ized effort around sacred
Catholic liturgy and to work outside the music resources can produce
conventional confines to do so. the same result.
I believe that in Msgr.
Wadsworth’s address we have
been commissioned to return the antiphonal propers to their rightful place in Catholic liturgy and
to work outside the conventional confines to do so.
We are able to give freely of ourselves, of our gifts, of our time, to the church because Christ
first gave of himself to us, and he continues to pour out the gift of himself freely to us in every sin-
gle Eucharistic liturgy. Everything that happens in the liturgy is a response to Christ’s sacrifice of
himself to the Father in the Holy Spirit. Our only response as Catholics after receiving this gift is to
make a gift of ourselves back to God in our worship and in the making of our own lives a sacrifice.
It is because of this eternal gift that we receive in the liturgy that we “live and move and have
our being” (Acts 17:28). It is in response to this gift that we are able to give freely of our time and
our gifts for the glory of God, the sanctification of the faithful, and for the good of the church.
I hope that you will participate in this experiment in liturgical music resource production. Your
contribution may seem small, but when united with others working toward a common goal your
impact will be great. Future generations of Catholics may thank you.
You are invited to help launch the project:
Toward the Singing of Propers

The fruits of everyone’s labor will remain in the Creative Commons and in the open forum so
that others can benefit from your work as they take on similar projects of their own.
37
Expressive Singing in Sacred Music

by Mary Jane Ballou
F
or many singers and directors, words lose their meaning. Instead, they become vex-
ing combinations of letters with vowels to be kept pure, consonants to be enunci-
ated or cut off properly, and diphthongs to be avoided.
When combined with fears of interval leaps and anxious anticipation of acciden-
tals, the result is the musical equivalent of an obstacle course. If you doubt me, lis-
ten for the sigh of relief after the final note. The choir’s goal is to make it from
beginning to end of a chant or motet without falling off the ropes.
This is not singing. When we sing, we seek to communicate in a very special way, enhancing
words with melody, harmony (perhaps), rhythm, and dynamics. Ask yourself if communication is
part of your schola or choir’s understanding of its role. If you and your singers are desperately wad-
ing through words and notes week after week, stop for a moment and think about understanding
and expressing the text.
I. UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT
No one should sing words they do not understand. This is not only a problem with non-vernac-
ular texts. Sacred music has a special vocabulary. Do your singers know cherubim from seraphim?
What about the Immaculate Conception? Who precisely is the Lamb of God and whence the refer-
ence? While directors are not catechists, sixty
seconds spent introducing or enriching some
aspect of the text is not unreasonable.
With Latin, the temptation to sing with- No one should sing words they
out understanding is great. There are moun-
tains of propers to learn in Latin-only edi- do not understand.
tions. The time is short and the singers need
to get those notes down by Sunday. Since
everyone has sung Panis Angelicus since fifth grade, of course they know what it means. Do they?
The odds are very good that they do not.
No text should be rehearsed without a walk through the words, whether it is in English, Latin,
or any other liturgical language. If the language is English (or whatever vernacular you use), read
through the words with your ensemble and make sure everyone knows the meaning. If the language
is Latin and the translation is not in your edition, it is the director’s responsibility to find it and pass
it on to the choir.
At the 2010 Solesmes Advanced Gregorian Chant workshop, participants were scolded by Dom
Daniel Saulnier for their failure to define correctly the word “psallite.” Our approximations of “sing”
and “sing a psalm” left him unimpressed and were met with Gallic sighs. His precise definition of
“psallere” was to sing a psalm accompanied by stringed instruments. While Dom Saulnier is unlikely
Mary Jane Ballou is a schola director in Florida. [email protected]
38
to appear at your Wednesday night rehearsal, it is still possible to bring what rigor you can to your
translations.
As a director, one needs to know the meaning of each word, not just a general sense drawn
from a paraphrase. This can be serious challenge for the non-Latinist (that is, ninety-eight percent of
us). However, there are resources online. For example, the 1953 Chants of the Church is available
online at www.musicasacra.com and has literal interlinear translations of many common chants. For
the more ambitious, quality time could be spent with A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin by John F. Collins
(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1985) or the host of resources available
online.
Know the meaning of each word and write it into your music, if necessary. Then you have the
textual ammunition to take your singers’ understanding to a new level: expressive singing.
II. EXPRESSIVE SINGING
Singing is more than the physical exercise of the vocal apparatus and the tracking of words and
notes. When we sing, we say something. The meaning behind the sounds needs to come forward
from the singers.
“Oh no, you don’t,” you say, “You’re not getting me into that. I’m a serious director of the
church’s great music and this ‘expressive stuff ’ sounds like pop music.” This is not so. All sacred
music exists to express our love and gratitude to the God who created us, saved us, and holds our
very existence in his hand at every moment. It does not involve manufacturing emotional states of
ecstasy or pathos. It is unimportant how the singers feel—happy, sad, tired, annoyed with the singer
next to them. Expressive singing combines the will and the intelligence of the singers to lift the
music off the page.
Expressive singing is not emotional singing. It is not wailing, sliding, pop-style catches in the
voice, or tidbits of vocal fry. Expressive singing is not waving one’s arms or assuming the face of a
Greek-tragedy mask. There is no need for star-
tling dynamic shifts or wild rubato. Expression
Expression is not exaggeration. is not exaggeration.
It is singing with meaning—something
that can easily be lost in the choral process
where there are so many words, so many notes,
and so little time. When meaning is addressed
in high school and college ensembles, there is
often little more than a summary of the text
(“this is a song about a girl whose true love has
died” or “this is part of the Requiem Mass”).
That is not enough. When singers mentally
digest the specific meaning of the words they
sing, beyond the mechanics of vowels and
notes, you have taken the first step towards finding the expressive core of a chant, a hymn, a psalm.
You are moving from execution to creativity.
39
All music tells a story.

For sacred music, particularly
ritual music, that story is All music tells a story. For sacred music that
some aspect of our salvation
history embodied in the spe- story is some aspect of our salvation history
cific chant or motet. Does
this mean that every singer
embodied in the specific chant or motet.
has to be thinking the same
thing as the director while
singing? No, but they do
have to be thinking of something beyond the notes and the words. The director also needs to be so
familiar with the music as to be able to carry that undercurrent of meaning along with all the tasks
of entrances, breathing, pitch, rhythm, and cut-offs.
III. MAKING IT HAPPEN
Professional ensemble singers have the training and concentration to master the mechanics of
vocal music quickly and move on to interpretation. Amateur schola and choir singers generally do
not. Faced with that reality, how does a director take the “expressive singing” challenge?
Start with something one’s singers already know quite well, perhaps something that they’re
tempted to sing almost glibly. An example would be an often-sung Agnus Dei. Review the words and
take a few minutes to see if anyone has questions about the origins of the text, when it was written,
puzzling ecclesiastical language, etc. Then ask your singers to sit with the music for a couple of min-
utes and think about what it means to them. No one has to share their thoughts; this is a choir, not
an encounter group. Then ask them to sing with that meaning in mind.
Will there be a miraculous transformation? Probably not, but keep that approach going, espe-
cially in reviewing works your singers have already mastered. Then you can layer the entire process
of comprehension and expression into the teaching of new works. And if you’re the director, you
should be doing that same process yourself even more intensely. This is hard work.
Every honest musician will tell you that it is easy to sing or play while considering grocery lists,
past intellectual enemies, or upcoming vacations. You will have to drag yourself, psychologically
speaking, back to the music and its meaning repeatedly. However, concentration is a habit and can
be cultivated. Perhaps your struggle can inspire your singers to develop the habit as well. Eventually,
the focus on meaning, built on the technique and skills that you bring to the music, will deepen the
quality of your singing for both singers and listeners.
If you are working on music for the Divine
Office or the Mass, you are preparing to sing in the
presence of God. If you are rehearsing sacred
music for a non-liturgical event, you have the
opportunity to reach people who never set foot
inside a church. Both of these circumstances are
too important for absent-minded singing.
We know that beauty is often the way to her sis-
ters, truth and goodness. Expressive singing by your
choir can open that door.
40
Serious about the Ordinary Form

by Jeffrey Tucker
O
ne year from now, the language of the liturgy in the parish down the street is going
to be very different. I fully expect that everyone will notice the difference. It will
not be shocking or alarming. Quite the reverse. We will have a sense that the lan-
guage used in the sanctuary accords with what we have all come to believe having
read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It will reinforce our belief and
heighten the dignity of the Mass. In this sense, the long-term effects on our parish
cultures could be enormous.
It is true that the language of the Mass will be a bit more remote than it is now, using words that
are less familiar in our regular everyday speech. This is precisely as it should be. The methodology
that seized a generation in the late 1960s left us with a liturgy with a text that was just over-anxious
to “reach us” and be “relevant.” It was too direct and ended up introducing a chattiness that is
unknown in the history of Christian liturgy. One is not entirely surprised that it gave rise to a per-
vasive use of pop music, for this is the music that has been vaguely suggested by the culture of the
translation.
Let me provide an example from the Roman Canon itself. The current translation says: “You
know how firmly we believe in you.” Something is odd about it, almost infantilized in its expression,
and also introducing an affirmation of some vague belief in God that one does not even expect to
be up in the air at all at this point in the Mass. I can’t entirely put my finger on it but there’s some-
thing about it that seems peculiar. In any case, starting next year, this line is gone and replaced with
a phrase that is much more dignified: “and all gathered here, whose faith and devotion are known to
you.” Just hearing that phrase aloud produces a feeling of settlement and maturity.
And that’s just the beginning
of the changes. What we will hear
from the sanctuary, starting next The methodology that seized a generation
year, is more dignified, more the-
ologically robust, more mature, in the late 1960s left us with a liturgy
more elegant. The effects of this with a text that was just over-anxious to
will not be immediate but it could
be very profound over the long “reach us” and be “relevant.”
term. Instead of the near-flip-
pancy of “And also with you,” we
will say “And with your spirit.” The term consubstantial will reappear in the Creed. We will say “Have
mercy on us” one extra time in the Gloria. For the Confiteor, we will say “through my most griev-
ous fault.”
These are all small changes and a large overall effect. It means that from the point of view of
aesthetics, the ordinary form of the Mass in English will again become a serious and weighty mat-
ter. This in turn suggests certain changes in comportment and music. It means that we can print the
Latin and English side by side without embarrassment or discomfort.
Jeffrey Tucker is managing editor of Sacred Music. [email protected]
41
Looking for a metaphor, I would compare the difference between the current and future trans-
lation as similar to a window that is frosted and one that is clear, or a pair of glasses once smudgy
but now clean. It allows us to see the same reality but more vividly. With new translation, there can
be no question about why we are there and what is happening about Mass—and it is tragic to say
that has not always been true.
The new translation will be an instrument of peace in our parishes. It will help the faith cohere
in our public worship.
This is a comparison between the current (old) and future (new) translation of the first part of
the Roman Canon. You will note too that the phrase “pro multis” is translated as “for many.”
OLD TRANSLATION NEW TRANSLATION
We come to you, Father, with praise To you, therefore, most merciful

and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ Father, we make humble prayer and peti-
your Son. tion through Jesus Christ, your Son, our
Through him we ask you to accept Lord: that you accept and bless these gifts,
and bless these gifts we offer you in sacri- these offerings, these holy and unblem-
fice. We offer them for your holy catholic ished sacrifices, which we offer you firstly
Church, watch over it, Lord, and guide it; for your holy catholic Church. Be pleased
grant it peace and unity throughout the to grant her peace, to guard, unite and gov-
world. We offer them for N. our Pope, for ern her throughout the whole world,
N. our bishop, and for all who hold and together with your servant N. our Pope
teach the catholic faith that comes to us and N. our Bishop, and all those who,
from the apostles. holding to the truth, hand on the catholic
and apostolic faith.
Remember, Lord, your people, espe- Remember, Lord, your servants N.

cially those for whom we now pray, N. and N. and all gathered here, whose faith
and N. Remember all of us gathered here and devotion are known to you. For them,
before you. You know how firmly we we offer you this sacrifice of praise or
believe in you and dedicate ourselves to they offer it for themselves and all who
you. We offer you this sacrifice of praise are dear to them, for the redemption of
for ourselves and those who are dear to us. their souls, in hope of health and well-
We pray to you, our living and true God, being, and paying their homage to you,
for our well-being and redemption. the eternal God, living and true.
In union with the whole Church we In communion with those whose

honor Mary, the ever-virgin mother of memory we venerate, especially the glori-
Jesus Christ our Lord and God. We honor ous ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God
Joseph, her husband, the apostles and and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed
martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles
John, Thomas, James, Philip, and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew,
Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude; James, John, Thomas, James, Philip,
we honor Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude:
Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chryso- Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius,
gonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John
42
OLD TRANSLATION NEW TRANSLATION
Damian and all the saints. May their mer- and Paul, Cosmas and Damian and all
its and prayers grain us your constant help your Saints: we ask that through their mer-
and protection. its and prayers, in all things we may be
defended by your protecting help.
Father, accept this offering from your Therefore, Lord, we pray: graciously
whole family. Grant us your peace in this accept this oblation of our service, that of
life, save us from final damnation, and your whole family; order our days in your
count us among those you have chosen. peace, and command that we be delivered
from eternal damnation and counted
among the flock of those you have chosen.
Bless and approve our offering; make Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless,
it acceptable to you, an offering in spirit acknowledge, and approve this offering in
and in truth. Let it become for us the every respect; make it spiritual and accept-
body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only able, so that it may become for us the
Son, our Lord. Body and Blood of your most beloved
Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
The day before he suffered he took On the day before he was to suffer, he
bread in his sacred hands and looking up took bread in his holy and venerable
to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to
gave you thanks and praise. He broke the you, O God, his almighty Father, giving
bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: you thanks he said the blessing, broke the
Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my bread and gave it to his disciples, saying:
body which will be given up for you. take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this
is my body, which will be given up for
you.
When supper was ended, he took the In a similar way, when supper was
cup. Again he gave the cup to his disci- ended, he took the precious chalice in his
ples and said: Take this all of you and holy and venerable hands, and once more
drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, giving you thanks, he said the blessing and
the blood of the new and everlasting gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:
covenant. It will be shed for you and for take this, all of you, and drink from it, for
all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in this is the chalice of my blood, the blood
memory of me. of the new and eternal covenant, which
will be poured out for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in
memory of me.
43
Converts and their Role in Sacred Music

by Jeffrey Tucker
A
t a chant workshop that I co-conducted, I found myself intrigued by the demo-
graphics. Most attendees were in their 30s, 40s, and early 50s. In these busy times,
it takes a special spark of something to attract a person to a two-day workshop in
which you spend your time learning to read Gregorian notation and providing an
ideal form of music for the Mass. Not many among the attendees had extensive
music education, and this is fine. Chant is sometimes taught most easily to people
who are not translating from one form of music to another but rather learning this music on its own
terms.
What draws the participants to such workshops? All the participants have that special something
that causes them to define themselves as singers—a class of people that have been essential to the
performance of the Christian ritual since the earliest years of the church. Their art grew up along-
side and integral with the ritual itself. This generation joins countless others from the past to take up
this serious and sacred vocation of daring to improve on the beauty of silence.
But why these people and why now? I spoke to a substantial number of them, perhaps more
than half of the seventy-five, who turn out to be converts to Catholicism, some of them recently
and some of them from ten or fifteen years ago.
Most have come through the Episcopal faith, but
that might have been a short stop from a more fun-
damental starting place in the Baptist or Presbyter-
ian faith. From my conversations with these people, What draws the participants
and reflecting on my own history as a convert, I
began to put together an archetype of the convert
to such workshops?
who gets involved in the Gregorian chant move-
ment.
These people did not convert because they pre-
ferred the music in the Catholic church to what they had in their own house of worship. It would
be closer to the truth that they converted despite the music that is typical in most Catholic parishes.
What attracted them to Catholicism was a different kind of beauty, one embodied in history, theol-
ogy, doctrine, and spirituality.
Their conversion was inspired by the conviction of truth. Here we find the usual personal rev-
elations taking place. Just to mention a few: The Bible was formed by the church but the church
came first; the apostolic succession is real and crucial; the Eucharist is the body of Christ; the papacy
is a legitimate historical institution that has guarded the faith; the long history of saints and martyrs
were faithful to scripture and tradition; the liturgy has grown organically from the earliest times;
Catholic theology has spawned the greatest developments in human history; grace comes from the
sacraments offered by the church.
Jeffrey Tucker is managing editor of Sacred Music. [email protected]. This column appeared in
The Wanderer, August 26, 2010.
44
To have these truths and a thousand others dawn on you is a transforming experience. And then
to follow that intellectual change with access to the confessional and to a new form of intense spir-
ituality is a glorious thing, the greatest event of a lifetime. St. John of the Cross writes that these new
Catholics are carefully cradled in the church’s bosom like children by their mothers. They feel secure
and are fed what they need.
However, there comes a time when they begin to grow and begin to develop a critical mind
toward their experience in their parishes. Here is where they begin to evaluate the practice of
Catholicism against the ideal into which they converted. What stands out here are certain problems
in the liturgy—and the music is the most conspicuous among them.
Converts tend to be historically and theologically minded, and so they notice the absence of
deep tradition and robust spirituality in the music, much of which has been written in the last sev-
eral decades. The style reflects popular culture, not theological culture. Indeed, so much of it is
rather silly and not serious. There seems to be this disjuncture between Catholic teaching on the
Eucharist and the aesthetic being cre-
ated by the music we hear at Mass.
Then they begin to wonder what
the church actually teaches about
Converts tend to be historically and music. Here is where their historical
and literary skills come into play. They
theologically minded. know to read the documents from the
Second Vatican Council. They know
that they can read the writings of the
popes, and so they do. The central
truths that stand out from even a
casual look is that the music of the Mass is organic to the Mass, that Gregorian chant is the foun-
dation, that all musical development in all times is supposed to extend outwards from the sensibility
inspired by chant.
They might stop at these revelations and try to put the subject out of their minds. After all, these
converts do not really think of themselves as singers. The musicians currently in power surely know
what they are doing. And surely if there were something fundamentally wrong, the pastor of the
parish would put a stop to it. And so the converts wait it out.
And yet, the problems are inescapable. They come back every Sunday. The new convert then
discovers that he or she actually has a more profound appreciation of the quiet, spoken daily Mass
than the Sunday Mass, and the music is really the only consideration that seems to be the defining
issue.
After some time, the nagging feeling that something is fundamentally wrong begins to take over.
The nagging sense is rooted in a great truth: the Catholic faith is the most beautiful thing this side
of heaven, and yet the music of most parishes is not beautiful. It is not even very holy. It seems time-
bound, popular, derivative of secular and not spiritual things. They begin to make inquiries only to
discover that no one on the music staff knows anything at all about Gregorian chant. They fear
Latin. Indeed, they seem to be confused about the ritual and theological demands that the church is
making of her musicians.
At this point, the convert can choose to do nothing or take the initiative to end the discord
between theory and practice. The people who come to these workshops are those who have decided
45
to make a gift of their time and their talent to making difference right in their own parishes, in what-
ever way they can. Their goal is not to recreate the musical cultures of their past faith communities
within the Catholic context. It is simply to help bring the music of Catholic parishes into compli-
ance with the beauty of the faith more generally.
At the workshop, we encour-
age people to get involved in their
parish music programs, not as agi-
tators for chant but just as ser-
To make a difference requires wisdom, vants. Get to know the musicians.
Get to know the organists and
good will, and patience. other instrumentalists. Help with
liturgy and come to rehearsal.
Then they can best apply what
they have learned about reading
the Gregorian staff and reading
chant. Under these conditions, they are less likely to be seen as interlopers but rather as helpers and
servants. It might take time, but eventually scholas can be formed out of this framework.
Every parish situation is different, and the musical scene within each parish tends to be its own
world with its own features that have to be discovered from the inside. To make a difference requires
wisdom, good will, and patience. If they follow this path, we might find that ten years from now we
can look back and see that it was the converts who were most responsible for bringing beauty and
tradition into our liturgical services.
Upcoming Events
CMAA 2010 FALL PRACTICUM: GREGORIAN CHANT AT THE HOUSTON CATHEDRAL,
Houston, Texas, October 21–23. Faculty includes Scott Turkington (Gregorian chant for
men), Arlene Oost-Zinner (Gregorian chant for women), Dr. William Mahrt, CMAA Pres-
ident, (Advanced chant for men and women), and Rev. Robert Pasley (Training for priests,
deacons, seminarians, and those who train them to sing the Mass). Talks by Dr. William
Mahrt and Jeffrey Tucker (Managing Editor, Sacred Music; Sing Like a Catholic). The program
includes Solemn Vespers on Friday evening and concludes with a Missa Cantata in the Ordi-
nary Form on Saturday evening; Dr. Crista Miller, Organist. Cost: $165 (includes instruc-
tion, materials, three meals and reception). Preliminary Schedule. This event is co-sponsored
by the CMAA Houston Chapter, Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, and St. Theresa
Catholic Church—Sugar Land, Texas
WINTER CHANT INTENSIVE, January 3–7, 2011; New Orleans, La. Details and regis-
tration information forthcoming.
SACRED MUSIC COLLOQUIUM XXI, June 13–19, 2011; Duquesne University, Pitts-
burgh, Pa. Details and registration information forthcoming.
46
REVIEW
The Christian West and Its Singers: The First Thousand Years by Christopher Page. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2010. 600 pages. ISBN 978-0300112573
C
hristopher Page’s work is nothing short of a masterpiece, a history of singing in
the first thousand years after Christ, which is to say, a history of music in the
Roman Rite. I can’t even begin to think of the thoughts below as a genuine review
because, like most people interested in this topic, I will be reading this book for
another ten years. So I offer the following thoughts on just a few chapters out of
this beautiful narrative.
We don’t often think about the generation of musicians that followed Guido d’Arezzo. I hadn’t
really considered what Guido’s life and work meant for their own tasks. They were charged with
using Guido’s fantastic innovation—the system of reading pitches on a staff—to prepare books of
chant in cathedrals and monasteries. This generation is discussed in detail in Page’s book.
While reading, I conjured mental images of zealous young monks, heads filled with wonder at
the newest thing, the newest innovation in
science, the twelfth century iPhone perhaps,
and carefully copying down chants as older
monks sang them, one note at a time. “Wait
Page’s work is nothing short of a
just a moment . . . was that a mi or a fa?” masterpiece, a history of singing
The older monks must have had serious
doubts! Of course the zealots discovered in the first thousand years after
rather large variations in the chant from Christ—a history of music in the
place to place, and this surely included
rhythm too. They sought to use the new tool Roman Rite.
to unify and universalize.
One author known only as John wrote
the following complaint in his De Musica sometime after 1100. He offers a passage that struck me as
hilarious. Three singers are comparing chant editions and here is what happens:
One says, “Master Trudo taught me this way.” Another rejoins, “But I learned it like this
from master Albinus”; and to this a third remarks, “Master Salomon certainly sings dif-
ferently.” . . . rarely, therefore, do three men agree about one chant. Since each man
prefers his own teacher, there arise as many variations in chanting as there are teachers
in this world.”
So interesting, isn’t it? This was the situation that the Guidonian innovation was supposed to
rectify, and surely it did settle many questions to some large extent. And yet the above conversation
might have happened at the latest Sacred Music Colloquium. They go on every day—and we hope
Jeffrey Tucker is managing editor of Sacred Music. [email protected].
47
we can learn from each other rather than fight with each other. However, it remains true to a large
extent, even a thousand years later: there are as many variations as there are teachers.
And, by the way, there is nothing particularly wrong with this. At the colloquium, we experienced
Mass with four different chant choirs in the same Mass, led by four different conductors. At the same
Mass, we heard: precise and pious, rich and strong, elegant and polished, stable and settling, each
with a different approach.
The reason is fairly obvious actually: despite the enthusiasm of the generation after Guido, man-
uscripts with staffs don’t actually sing themselves. As usual with every innovation, that generation
exaggerated the benefit of the new thing. Chant must come from human beings, not machines, and
thank goodness. No edition can capture every subtlety, every nuance, every interpretation. Nor do I
think we want it to. Variation and difference are lovely. This is not a matter of doctrine; it is a mat-
ter of application and art.
Does anyone doubt that the same arguments will be going on a thousand years from now?
When I read this passage to William Mahrt on the phone, and offer the above sentence, he
replied profoundly: “and how wonderful it is to know that they will still be singing these chants a
thousand years from now.”
These are the sort of conver-
sations and thoughts inspired by
a book of this power and rich- The same arguments will be going on a
ness. The section on Guido is thousand years from now?
near the end of the book. Earlier,
the reader is treated to a section
on the Council of Laodicea, a
regional synod of bishops held in
the fourth century in Asia, the first to overtly regulate the production of music. Given the times and
the emphasis on rooting out error, writes Page, “the bishops at Laodicea could not possibly regard
the canonicity and textual authority of materials used by their singers with indifference. The time
had come for decisive intervention.”
The council said that music could only be sung by “regularly appointed” singers who could also
read from parchment (not merely papyrus, which was cheaper and more likely to include fraudulent
texts). The singers, regarded as more than mere hirelings for an occasion, could not visit taverns.
Most importantly for our purposes, there could be no singing of improvised or made-up songs in
services. Only canonical books could be sung. The ban was emphatic: there could be no singing of
Gnostic gospels, hymns celebrating then-popular angel worship, much less poetry made up on the
spot by some popular mystic.
The bishops understood that what was sung was just as important, perhaps even more impor-
tant, as the printed texts, for what people came to believe about what Christianity teaches. Inevitably,
then, the music had to undergo a process similar to that which took place concerning the texts. The
matter that had to be first addressed was: what texts? And that matter of the source material was
settled in approximately the same time frame as the issue of what constituted Christian texts.
The council did not address the issue of style. That was left to later church legislation. But that
is perhaps, speculates Page, because there was no real controversy here. It had long been established
that rhythmic music drawn from the world of taverns and commerce and theater were not admis-
sible. The chant was of a musical structure free enough to accommodate the text, and that is for a
48
reason: the word is given priority over the tune. The silence of Laodicea seems to indicate the
absence of a problem in this respect.
It is Professor Page’s opinion that the strict regulation of text was a response to an immediate
problem that “there were churches were psalmody was no longer regarded as a form of reading.”
The bishops sought to reinforce the long-standing practice in which the purpose of singing in liturgy
was inseparable from the practice of praying and teaching from scripture (the term lector later came
to be used interchangeably with singer).
There was the further matter of the organization of texts within the liturgical calendar. That
would be addressed and codified in later centuries, most famously by Pope Gregory (hence Grego-
rian chant refers not only to the music itself but the liturgical organization and purpose of the
music). Rendering the exact shape of the melodic structure of the chants in the Roman Rite would
take place centuries later, and, in fact, this is still an ongoing process.
Page’s discussion underscores a truth. It makes no sense to place a high emphasis on authentic
texts, sound teaching, good doctrine, and leave all aspects of music to the whim of musicians and
commercial music publishers, as if
the church should have nothing to
say about the matter. In fact,
throughout the history of the
Roman Rite, this has been largely a
The core point that emerges is that not settled matter. This understanding
was in place from the earliest cen-
just any music is appropriate for Mass. turies up to our time.
The core point that emerges,
again and again, throughout Page’s
book needs to be emphasized: not
just any music is appropriate for
Mass any more than just anyone’s scribblings are entitled to be called the Word of God. When
Luther decided to take on the Catholic Church, he produced his own Bible that raised fundamental
questions about the canon of books. And when modern secularists seek to debunk settled Christian
teaching, they wave silly Gnostic texts around. So too, the opponents of sacred music can be found
hawking their own texts and their own musical styles that have nothing to do with the treasury that
Vatican II called on us to preserve and pass on to the next generation.
49
REPERTORY
Can Kyrie Lux et Origo and Kyrie Te Christe Rex

Supplices Be Sung by the Congregation?
by William Mahrt
T
he restoration of the Propers of the Mass, ideally sung to full Gregorian
melodies, requires the singing of a skilled choir. This, in turn, presumes that the
Ordinary of the Mass usually be sung by the congregation, again, ideally in Gre-
gorian chant. But what ordinaries can a congregation actually sing well? The pre-
sumption has been that it must be principally the simplest melodies. The book-
let Jubilate Deo in fact proposed such a simple set (Kyrie XVI, Gloria VIII, Credo
III, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII),1 and it is perhaps wise, in beginning to sing chant with
a congregation, to sing some of the simplest settings.
Are there other chants of the ordinary which might be sung by a congregation? It is an observ-
able fact, that Catholic congregations can sing Mass VIII (Missa de Angelis) quite well, and, with the
possible exception of the Gloria, these are not among the simplest settings; the Kyrie is the most
elaborate; in the abstract, one might judge it too difficult for a congregation, but they do it well. With
experience, congregations are able to sing the basic ordinaries that are not the simplest chants.2
These somewhat more elaborate
chants balance better the developed
style of the Gregorian propers, and
they value the congregation by giv- What ordinaries can a congregation
ing them something more substan-
tial to sing. They can be sung well by actually sing well?
the congregation because some peo-
ple learned them in school, but also
because the consistent text of the
ordinary allows them to be sung several weeks in succession, thus learning by repetition. My purpose
here is to discuss two related chants, the comparison of which suggests that one can be learned by
a congregation, and the other is more likely a choir chant. Kyrie Lux et origo,3 I would propose, is in
William Mahrt is editor of Sacred Music and president of the CMAA. [email protected]
1
For an introduction to Jubilate Deo together with links to both musical notation and perform-
ances on MP3s, see Adoremus <http://www.adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html>; for a printable ver-
sion of the booklet, see the Web Site of the St. Cecilia Schola Cantorum <http://www.cecil-
iaschola.org/notes/jubilatedeo.html>.
2
My congregation sings over the course of the year Masses I, IV, parts of VIII and IX, XI,
XVII, and XVIII.
3
Mass I, for the Easter Season, Liber Usualis (Tournai: Desclée, 1961), p. 16; Gregorian Missal
(Solesmes: Abbaye Saint-Pierre, 1990), p. 75
50
a style a congregation could master; Kyrie Te Christe rex supplices4 shows clear melodic relations to Lux
et origo, yet has a considerably more elaborate melodic style and wider range, out of the reach of
most congregations.
Kyrie Lux et origo follows the pattern of many Kyrie melodies: traditionally three Kyries on the
same melody, three Christes on another melody, and three Kyries on a third melody, the last one of
which is varied slightly, thus, AAA BBB CCC’5 It’s modal structure is, however somewhat unusual
and quite beautiful. The first Kyrie is in mode three, whose final is E and whose intonation formula
is G-a-c,6 rising to the reciting note c; it begins with the typical intonation figure but does not touch
upon the final until its last note (not an unusual occurrence in mode three), making that arrival a
pleasant surprise upon first hearing. Mode three shares the same intonation figure and reciting note
with mode eight, which, however, has G as a final. Thus the Christe centers upon the reciting note
c, touches upon the E below, but then rises to a final on G. Until the final two notes, the listener
continues to hear the Christe in mode three and then is surprised to hear the final shift to G; this
new final then suggests that in retrospect the whole Christe has been in mode eight. The final Kyrie
rises to d, the reciting note of mode seven and then cadences to G, thus a subtle shift from the pla-
gal to the authentic G-mode. There has thus been a gradual rise in pitch focus through the course
of the nine invocations, something quite suitable to the Easter Season, to which the chant is
assigned.7
Kyrie Te Christe rex supplices has a similar modal arrangement, but its scheme of repetition is more
elaborate and varied. Like Kyrie IX (Cum jubilo), the succession of invocations varies thus: A–B–A |
C–D–C | E–F–EEF’, the ninth invocation being a culminating redoubling of the previous two.
Kyrie Te Christe incorporates some parts of the melody of Kyrie Lux et origo. The first Kyrie (and the
third) of Te Christe is an elaboration of Lux et origo. The beginning intonation figure G–a–c is filled
in: G–a–b–c; thereafter the melody is an expansion and amplification of that of Lux:
4
Kyrie “ad libitum” VI, Liber, p. 83; Kyrie IA for Sundays in the Easter Season, Gregorian Missal,
pp. 75–76.
5
Alternatively, the first melody is repeated in the last three invocations: AAA BBB AAA’ or the
more complex nine-fold arrangement is used, as in such pieces as Kyrie IX (see below). Tradition-
ally the Kyrie was nine-fold; the rite of 1970 calls for a six-fold Kyrie, two invocations each, but
allows for a nine-fold performance for musical reasons. The six-fold arrangement, two invocations
each, suits the Low Mass, in which the priest says each invocation and the congregation responds; it
is thus more symmetrical than dividing a nine-fold arrangement in direct alternation of priest and
people. For congregational singing, however, I always recommend a nine-fold performance, since in
learning a new chant, I notice that upon the third invocation. the congregation sings the melody most
confidently. A nine-fold arrangement may also be sung cantor–choir–congregation for each group
of three invocations.
6
I use the Guidonian system of designating the notes of the scale: A–G entirely below middle
C, a–g surrounding middle C, and aa–ee entirely above middle C.
7
This rise in pitch focus is continued in Gloria I; on Easter Sunday it begins with the introit and
continues through the Alleluia.
51
Lux: Gac a acbG aGF G G E

Te Christe: Gabc ba abcbbG aGE FEDE | GacaGF G G E
The first and third Christe of Te Christe are almost identical with the Christe of Lux, “eleison” being
varied slightly.
There are interesting motivic interrelations between the invocations of Te Christe. The first of
the nine invocations begins with a neume including a quilisma, G–a–b–c, reaching a range of only a
seventh; this figure is repeated as the beginning of the second Kyrie, down a fifth, C–D–E–F, thus
filling out the bottom of the ambitus of mode eight.8 Its first note, C, is the note that was lacking
for the complete octave in the previous invocation. The final three Kyries begin with that same fig-
ure now transposed up a fifth: d–e–f–g, filling out the entire octave of the authentic ambitus; that
figure is a significant part of the reduplication in the final invocation. Kyrie Te Christe thus has a
much more dramatic, even flamboyant, melodic shape; each trio of invocations includes a striking
contrast of ambitus, the middle invocation being in a contrasting lower range. No single invocation
except the final one reaches the range of an octave. The final invocation forms a climax, redoubling
the initial figure and adding one that varies the middle invocation.
The use of some common material allows a clear view of the differences of the two melodies.
Kyrie Te Christe with its total range of a twelfth and its dramatic conclusion still keeps the same basic
modal structure and progressively rising ambitus. In comparison with Te Christe, Kyrie Lux et origo is
much more discreet, with melodies of modest ambitus and neumatic elaboration.
As might be expected, the dissemination of these chants in the Middle Ages differs consider-
ably. Melnicki’s index of Kyrie melodies lists 218 manuscripts for Lux et origo, and only 61 for Te
Christe.9 One might assume that the simpler melody is the earliest,10 but manuscript evidence does
not support that. The earliest source in Melnicki’s index is for Te Christe, from the tenth century,
while the earliest for Lux is the eleventh. This is far from conclusive, however; these melodies prob-
ably circulated widely in oral transmission before they were written down. The melodies of the ordi-
nary were most likely sung in oral transmission longer than those of the proper, simply because,
since they were repeated often, they were more easily retained in memory, while the propers, often
being sung only once a year needed the assistance of notation earlier. The tenth-century source is a
troper; the motivation for writing the tenth-century melody down was evidently the need to include
the trope text.
The conclusion is quite clear: Te Christe is really a choir piece, while in comparison, Lux et origo
is much more within the abilities of a congregation, certainly one which can sing the Missa de Ange-
lis.
8
The defined ambitus of mode eight is the octave D–d (with a possible additional note above),
but often this mode outlines the octave below the reciting note: C–c, as here.
9
Margareta Melnicki, Das Einstimmige Kyrie der lateinischen Mittelalters, Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-
sity of Erlangen, 1954, melodies 39 and 55.
10
This seems to be the case with Kyries IX (Cum jubilo) X (Alme Pater). The former is the more
elaborate; the latter, simpler one shows sources a century earlier.
52
53
NEWS
Sacred Music Colloquium XX

The twentieth Sacred Music Colloquium, sponsored by the Church Music Association of Amer-
ica (CMAA), lived up to its reputation as the finest training program in Catholic music in the United
States. It was held June 22–27, 2010, at Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — with coop-
eration from the Mary Pappert School of Music.
Colloquium XX was attended by two hundred fifty musicians, the largest attendance in its
twenty-year history. It also had the largest faculty, with conductors for chant and polyphonic choirs,
lecturers on history and theology, teachers on liturgical issues, instructors for vocal technique, and
professors tutoring organists, singers, and priests in the techniques required of Catholic musicians.
The purpose of the program is to train musicians for leadership roles in their parishes, so that
they can provide music as part of the Roman Rite. The high-spirited attendees of all ages and from
all parts of the country agreed that the program was a spectacular success. The participants sang in
both chant and polyphonic choirs in liturgical services during the week. Duquesne University also
offered graduate credit for attending this program and the related program on chant a week earlier.
DISTINGUISHED MUSIC FACULTY
The primary faculty for the week were CMAA president William Mahrt (Stanford University),
Wilko Brouwers (The Netherlands), Horst Buchholz (Cleveland, Ohio), Scott Turkington
(Charleston, South Carolina), Kurt Poterack (Christendom College), Arlene Oost-Zinner (Auburn,
Alabama), David Hughes (Norwalk, Connecticut), Ann Labounsky (Duquesne University), Father
Robert Pasley (Mater Ecclesia Church, New Jersey), Jeffrey Ostrowski (Corpus Christi Watershed),
MeeAe Cecilia Nam (Ann Arbor, Michigan), Father Mark Daniel Kirby (Tulsa, Oklahoma), and
Father Frank Phillips, C.R. (St. John Cantius, Chicago), Edward Schaefer (University of Florida).
They were joined by representatives from Catholic music programs at Ave Maria University (Susan
Treacy), Notre Dame University (Peter Jeffery), and the Franciscan University at Steubenville (Paul
Weber).
Each day featured chant rehearsals, polyphony rehearsals, break-out sessions with specialized
training in a variety of areas—from conducting to organ to priest training, lectures, as well as morn-
ing prayer and night prayer in both English and Latin. The highlight of each day was the Mass that
featured music being prepared in rehearsals. The Masses were both in the ordinary form (English
and Latin) and the extraordinary form. The Masses took place at the Church of the Epiphany, just
down the street from the main Duquesne campus, which once served as the cathedral for the dio-
cese.
CHORAL LITURGIES
The Mass schedule began with an English-language ordinary-form Mass, which featured all the
propers of the Mass sung in a variety of settings, rather than hymns replacing the propers, as has
become the usual practice in most parishes. Father Samuel Weber, of the St. Louis Archdiocesan
Institute of Sacred Music, adapted the introit. Liturgical composers Richard Rice and Bruce Ford
54
prepared other music: Rice composed the offertory and communion propers, as well as the sung
ordinary of the Mass, while Ford added English to the Gregorian chant melodies for the Gradual
Psalm and the Alleluia. The Mass ended with a polyphonic anthem in English sung by all.
As the week progressed, the Mass took on more elaborate forms. Wednesday’s Mass was a
Requiem Mass in the ordinary form sung entirely in Gregorian chant with the sequence, Dies irae,
sung by all. Thursday’s Mass was for the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist, celebrated in the extraor-
dinary form, featuring the Palestrina Missa Brevis along with motets by Tallis and Guerrero, with
propers sung according to the church’s chant books.
Friday offered the Mass using the propers of the previous Sunday, the Twelfth Sunday of the
Year, sung with Gregorian propers and ordinary, along with a motet by Orlando di Lasso. Saturday’s
Mass in the extraordinary form was for the Blessed Virgin Mary and featured polyphonic propers by
William Byrd, which were written for the Catholic Masses celebrated in hiding during the reign of
Elizabeth I. They remain among the most beautiful compositions for the Roman Rite. The final
Mass of the colloquium was a Viennese-style orchestral Mass featuring the music of Franz Schubert,
along with motets by Bruckner.
An elaborate celebration of Vespers in the Roman polyphonic style, as reconstructed by William
Mahrt, was the longest liturgy of the week, but was also universally regarded as one of the most spir-
itually moving services of the entire Colloquium.
Famed organist Isabelle Demers, of Montreal, Quebec, presented a recital of music from many
ages, which ended in an enthusiastic standing ovation. Many other organists played throughout the
week, including Brother Jonathan Ryan of St. John Cantius, Chicago. An academic panel explored
the current state of music on Catholic campuses and gave encouraging signs of change in the air,
away from the pop music of the past toward a more serious interest in sacred music.
William Mahrt wrapped up the event with an inspiring call to take what we had learned and apply
it in our parishes, always with an awareness that Gregorian chant represents the ideal in all forms of
the Roman Rite.
The Church Music Association of America is an association of Catholic musicians, and those
who have a special interest in music and liturgy, active in advancing Gregorian chant, Renaissance
polyphony, and other forms of sacred music, including new composition, for liturgical use, accord-
ing to the norms established by competent ecclesiastical authority. The CMAA was organized in
1964 as a continuation of the Society of St. Cecelia, founded in 1874, and the St. Gregory Society,
founded in 1912.
Videos of Colloquium XX are available from Corpus Christi Watershed: <corpuschristiwater-
shed.org/projects/cmaa>.
55
LAST WORD
The Vernacular Mass as Catholic Liturgy

by Kurt Poterack
W
ith the implementation date of the new English translation of the Roman Missal set for
Advent of 2011, it might be useful to reflect upon the first implementation of an Eng-
lish translation. After the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was approved in late
1963—allowing national bishops’ conferences to decide on the use of the vernacular in
the liturgy for the first time—the American bishops voted to allow this option begin-
ning in Advent of 1964.
According to an interview with Omer Westendorf, founder of The World Library of Sacred Music, an
official from the American Bishops’ Conference came to a meeting of Catholic music publishers in the sum-
mer of 1964. Apparently, among other things, he told them that the word from the Bishops’ Conference was
“no Latin, and four hymns.”
If this was true, it explains a lot. We have to keep reminding ourselves that 1964 was a pre-internet age.
Information was available, but not as readily. Also people, particularly in the church, tended to trust what their
immediate superiors told them. Or what someone said the authorities told them.
According to what followed in the interview, this was what allowed Omer Westendorf to get the jump on
other publishers. He simply took his People’s Hymnal and, adding an order of Mass, rushed into publication the
People’s Mass Book. Many of us, of a certain age, remember this little black (sometimes gray) book as being in
the pews of most Catholic parishes throughout the 1960s and 70s.
A “Mass with music” as experienced by most people at that time (and still in many places) was basically a
low Mass with four hymns. If it was a Sunday or a special occasion there might be a choir which sang a motet
or anthem at offertory and/or communion time.
Arguably, this is why the “hymn sandwich” approach to the liturgy has been so predominated. An acquain-
tance of mine calls it “a Methodist service with the real presence.” And that description is quite accurate musically.
But we can’t blame it all on Omer Westendorf or the Bishops’ Conference in years past. Frankly, a true sense
of the Catholic liturgy as a special form of worship—that is, a series of different prayers, ceremonies, and types
of music all meant for the glorification of God and the sanctification of man—had been lost for some time—
at least among ordinary Catholic laymen. The ubiquitous celebration of the Low Mass in pre-conciliar days gave
the impression that the Mass was simply a series of prescribed—and even undifferentiated—texts which the
priest and server needed to rush through—all for the purpose of effecting a valid consecration.
It was simply a hop, skip, and a jump from this to a series of prescribed—and undifferentiated—texts, this
time in the vernacular and involving the congregation, to be read through. Any music ended up getting layered
on top in the form of extraneous hymns and choir pieces. In other words, they were musical additions, rather
than an integral part—an actual singing of the liturgical text. And this isn’t even dealing with the fact that the music
for a Gloria is different from that for a responsorial psalm, a communio has different music from a gradual.
There are different musical genres within the liturgy of the Mass.
So, when the new English translation comes into effect, let us strive to treat it as the vernacular transla-
tion of an actual Catholic liturgy, treating the texts and the music accordingly.
Kurt Poterack is choirmaster at Christendom College and editor-at-large of Sacred Music.
56

Fall 2010 Issue of Sacred Music

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fall 2010 Issue of Sacred Music

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fall 2010 Issue of Sacred Music

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main topics discussed in the articles?

What are the main topics discussed in the articles?

What challenges does Msgr. Wadsworth mention regarding the singing of the Mass propers?

What challenges does Msgr. Wadsworth mention regarding the singing of the Mass propers?

SACRED MUSIC

Editor: William Mahrt

Membership in the Church Music Association of America includes a subscription to the

LC Control Number: sf 86092056

Copyright © Church Music Association of America, 2010, under Creative Commons

Periodicals postage paid at Montgomery, Alabama.

The Place of Hymns

Towards the Future—Singing the Mass

A keynote-address to the Southeastern Liturgical Music Symposium Executive Director of the

changing elements by which we interpret the liturgy, suggesting some possible

I think this definition would be considered as largely uncontroversial, as it reflects an approach to

in formation for the permanent

A Blessing in Disguise: Stepping Back to Make

DOM GUÉRANGER: BEGINNING RESTORATION

This statement of the architect’s, as Bergeron points out, could be

MOTU PROPRIO OF PIUS X

JUSTINE WARD: CHANT REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES

In 1910, having spent some years publishing articles on

MARY BERRY: CAREER BEFORE VATICAN II

VATICAN II: BRIEFLY

HISTORICAL AND SCHOLARLY PURSUITS

Both before and following Vatican II, chant was studied,

of the notes, and within such a neume, the notes

SCHOLAS TAKING A STEP BACK

Homily for the Feast of St. Pius X

An Experiment in Sacred Music Resource

You are invited to help launch the project:

Toward the Singing of Propers

Expressive Singing in Sacred Music

I. UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT

Mary Jane Ballou is a schola director in Florida. [email protected]

II. EXPRESSIVE SINGING

All music tells a story.

III. MAKING IT HAPPEN

Serious about the Ordinary Form

Jeffrey Tucker is managing editor of Sacred Music. [email protected]

OLD TRANSLATION NEW TRANSLATION

We come to you, Father, with praise To you, therefore, most merciful

Remember, Lord, your people, espe- Remember, Lord, your servants N.

In union with the whole Church we In communion with those whose

OLD TRANSLATION NEW TRANSLATION

Converts and their Role in Sacred Music

Jeffrey Tucker is managing editor of Sacred Music. [email protected].

Can Kyrie Lux et Origo and Kyrie Te Christe Rex

Lux: Gac a acbG aGF G G E

Sacred Music Colloquium XX

DISTINGUISHED MUSIC FACULTY

The Vernacular Mass as Catholic Liturgy

Kurt Poterack is choirmaster at Christendom College and editor-at-large of Sacred Music.

You might also like