Cold Facts on the Congregational Singing of Gregorian Chant (1956)

[11] An article which proposes to set forth "cold" facts on anything should maintain some flavor of objectivity and impersonal evaluation. This is not always easy for a musician. In an art which lies so completely outside the descriptive and analytical power of words, those few basic concepts which are conveyable in everyday language are adhered to by their partisan upholders with what amounts to sheer fanaticism. We are all subject to such attachments, whether or not we wish to be. When we hear two other persons arguing over the respective merits of two opposing points of view, we may not wish to make a black-and-white decision ourselves, but the very awareness of the opposition starts our mental machinery in motion, whether we wish it or not. We may try to defer a decision or opinion, but out intellectual curiosity and that inner compulsion to grapple with indecision drives us to select at least a temporary position.

Thus it is that composers are still fighting the battle over the admission of consecutive fifths to contemporary harmonic progressions, the discarding of the concept of traditional tonality in favor of other means of achieving large-form unity, the selection of keys in compositions which admit the notion of key-sense, and countless other ideas. Church musicians fight about the admission of solo singing, the use of the organ to accompany chant, the role of contemporary music in liturgical services, and . . . congregational singing.

It is very hard not to be swept into one camp or another by the ardor of the partisans. At times the dust of rhetoric is so thick that the music is almost lost sight of. It is, therefore, with a perfect realization of the consequences that we approach the point of this writing.

[12] I. Congregational Participation

At the outset we are obliged to discuss a question which has been settled quite clearly for all reasonable musicians who have studied the matter, but for which the tenacity of die-hards requires a brief and pointed comment.

Rome, following traditional patterns and the historical verity of all liturgical worship in all rites, eastern and western, has stated clearly in many cases and from general principle that congregational participation in the singing of the liturgy is a desirable and functionally correct goal. Logic and history assign to the people the singing of the Ordinary parts of the services, leaving the Propers to the musicians of the choir. It is obvious that the simple responses at Mass and in the Office can be handled by a devout congregation with a minimum of training. The stumbling block seems to be the singing of the more extended parts of the Ordinary, particularly at Mass.

A short time ago, this writer published an article on this question in the official organ of the Vernacular Society of America, Amen (November, 1955). The response to this article demonstrated with unquestionable directness that there is a minority of our first-rank church musicians which refuses to accept the notion that congregational singing of the Ordinary is more in accord with the basic plan of the liturgy than the use of rich polyphonic settings which give the entire role to the choir. The attitude in this minority group is, in general, that the polyphonic ordinary, although it removes the possibility of congregational singing, provides music which is just as fine and liturgically suitable as any which another arrangement could conceivable [sic] supply.

We cannot question the fact that the great settings of Palestrina, Lassus, Vittoria, and their contemporaries are among the finest music ever written by man, bar none. This is augmented by the undeniable acceptance of these settings as spiritually, textually and proportionally in accord with the nature of the liturgy they enhance.

[13] It is also true, however, that certain parts of the Ordinary were delegated to the congregation from the earliest days of the church. This is proved by references in the early Ordos and writings of the Fathers. Not all the Ordinary was usually sung by the congregation, however. Local variants in liturgical practice, as well as the late introduction of items such as the Credo require us to admit that different customs held forth in different lands and times. The principle of congregational participation is, however, clearly established. It is doubtful that anyone today could deny the general principle from a historical point of view.

From the contemporary point of view, the matter is even less doubtful. We are not bound to observe all the events of history as models for our blind imitation. The general principles are valid, but the working out must be achieved in terms which bear on our own times and which utilize our present-day means. The principle of congregational participation is valid. Its application may be different today, however, from its application in the middle ages.

In some churches in medieval times the congregation sang very little. Certain parts, such as the Kyrie, were intended to be variable in length to adapt to the action of the Mass. The schola sang these parts, therefore, since no congregation could be depended on to achieve the timing which was called for. The action could be interrupted after five Kyries, ten, or even twenty. The schola, alert and adaptable, handled the matter in most instances. The Gloria was usually sung by all present, but it was not always sung in all churches. The Credo was not used in any consistent fashion until a fairly late day . . . a time, moreover, when congregational participation was on the decline and the use of early polyphony on the rise. The Agnus Dei was not originally part of all Latin rites and only became established with the enforced application of the Roman rite to the entire western Church.

Today the Roman rite enjoys unprecedented uniformity in both application and practice. The intercommunication of the remotest corners of the world and the administrational [14] center at Rome make it possible to extend knowledge and techniques almost at will. Phonograph records and other pedagogical devices make available to persons in the most inaccessible areas the knowledge which is the fruit of the best minds of many generations. This means that we have at hand the knowledge and techniques which will enable the principle of congregational singing to be extended to a fuller application than would have been possible a few centuries ago. We have no right, then, to point at history with all its inconsistencies as the reason for adopting an indifferent attitude toward congregational singing.

The recent encyclical Sacrae Musicae Disciplina was seized upon by both proponents and opponents of the advancement of congregational singing as being an official sanction of their respective points of view. This merely proves once more that enthusiasm can interpret even the clearest statement with a coloration of personal viewpoints. Rome recognizes the propriety of both polyphonic settings of the Ordinary and congregationally designed ones. There is no reason to assume that this is equivalent to taking a dim view of the idea of congregational singing. Recognizing the value of polyphony is a practical attitude in the light of present unpreparedness for widespread congregational singing.

We wish to make a point of stating here that we are not discussing vernacular singing during Low Mass or similar functions. We are concerned with congregational singing of the High Mass, restricted by law to Latin.

II. The Nature of Participation

Some of those who do not wish to sacrifice their elaborate polyphonic masses to congregational participation hold that the word participation can have a broader meaning than is commonly accepted. They maintain that intelligent listening can be considered as participation of a sort.

This is true. It is, nevertheless, begging the question, for we are concerned with whether or not the congregation should participate in the singing, not merely the listening. To say that a congregation that habitually listens to the fine singing of a good choir is participating in the liturgy in the commonly accepted sense is simply not true. There are parts, such as the Gradual, the Alleluia, the Offertory, which are extended, meditative compositions, calling for attentive listening by congregation and those clergy on the altar who are permitted by their functions to listen. These are the very parts, however, which the average polyphonic choir will sing to some abridged formula in order to get to a more elaborate motet. This is an unfortunate commentary on the attitude of our "liturgical" choirmasters.

Many choirmasters insist that the congregation which has been given the short responses to sing is fulfilling its assigned role. This meager sop to the conscience will not do. This would reduce the role of the congregation to less than what would have been the norm in most medieval churches, according to our best information. In the light of what is possible today, we cannot admit that the silent congregations of recent years come anywhere near the humblest efforts of the middle ages. We have not only the means to do better; we have the obligation.

III. Congregational Music

Much verbiage has been expended on the nature of the music which is to be given to the congregation. A large segment of our professional musicians and liturgists are in favor of passing by the Gregorian repertoire in favor of something less "strange" to the layman's ear. Chant, with its free rhythm, its modality and its characteristic neume-groups seems, to these people, to be too much for the average man-on-the-street to grasp.

It is true that one cannot begin immediately on a program of full and varied chant Ordinaries, but the difficulties involved are largely illusions in the mind of the musician. This may seem to be paradoxical, for at first reflection, we would think that the professional musician would find the chant easiest, and the completely inexperienced and untrained layman find it most difficult. This does not happen to be true.

[16] Most of the difficulties which appear to the musician are involved with preparation for learning and singing the chant. The approach to some of the chants of the Ordinary will require serious study, reflection and familiarization, all of which takes time and effort. This leaves an impression of general difficulty on the average choirmaster which will color his approach to teaching chant to a congregation. What he does not see at first is that the chant is taught the congregation by rote, not by note, and that his own careful rendition of the chant as a model for imitation will be the best guarantee of sound congregational singing. The most important elements of the performance: style, tempo, articulation, phrasing — these are not matters of deciphering notation, because they surpass the power of notation to express them. They must be soundly prepared by the group which is to exemplify the chant for the congregational imitation. Then they will be transmitted as integral elements of the music the congregation will learn.

Some choirmasters maintain that the rhythmic difficulties of the chant will cause trouble at the outset. They say that the free alternation of groups of two and three, the various long notes (pressus, oriscus, etc.) and the placing of the rests will be too difficult to learn. This is not so. The congregation does not have to learn the technical differences and distinctions in Gregorian theory in order to sing. It does not have to learn 18th century counterpoint in order to sing a Bach chorale. Natural human musicality, mimicry and mnemonics will enable any average group to learn the music of a chant Ordinary in a relatively short time.

If a choirmaster pleads that his congregation sings chant badly, we can only tell him that he must supply a better quality to be imitated.

IV. Modern Music

We cannot overlook the possibility that our contemporary composers can provide music of liturgical character and [17] congregational design. The principal problem here, of course, is quality of the music, as most of our contemporary church composers already understand the basic principles of congregational style, the populo parts of liturgical compositions, the proportional limits of the music which must be sung within the Mass schedule, etc. It would be entirely unfair and regressive to wish to exclude the better contemporary efforts from practice in our churches.

We must recognize, however, the small proportion of high-quality music to the enormous amount produced and marketed. Here, as elsewhere, all that glitters is certainly not gold. Much has been written to serve the liturgy which is not of a standard worthy of its intent.

Unfortunately, the congregation is largely at the mercy of one or two persons in regard to choice of music. Frequently our choirmasters select the somewhat neutral ground of the "people's mass", a type of composition which fills an important role in developing congregational singing of the Ordinary, as the basis for initationg [sic] work in that direction. This kind of music is useful, but it should be supplanted by something better as soon as possible. In many instances it would be possible to go to better music at the very outset.

At a recent informal session held at the McLaughlin and Reilly rehearsal hall in Boston during the 1956 NCMEA convention, the question of contemporary musical trends was made the object of discussion, inquiry and serious listening. A number of important composers were present, and the group of participants in the discussion included both conservatives and the avant-garde. The general attitude seemed to be one of respect for contemporary efforts to bring into the scope of church music those technical developments of our day which have been accepted in serious music outside the church. This respect ranged from simple efforts toward broad-mindedness to full enthusiasm. It would seem then, from the cross-section of church musicians of all types who evinced interest in this discussion, that our contemporary church music is beginning to rise above the sterility of the [18] Caecilian school to something with more positive qualities to recommend it. This is a beginning, and when enough music of this kind has been written and sung, we may legitimately hope to find a few masterpieces taking their places in the repertoire of our times.

At the present writing, however, the great corpus of congregationally suitable music is that of chant. Not enough contemporary music is known or sung to establish any works as "standard" or "classical" for liturgical use. The liturgical music program, then, in adapting to the needs of congregational participation, must consider chant to be the first source of material, and this is true in the large parish as much as in the small one.

V. Conclusions

To those who have tried the experiment, the use of chant congregationally is no doubtful matter, providing the training of the choirmaster has been sufficient to reproduce the chant style accurately and artistically. For those who remain in doubt, we may point to the example of France, where, although barren areas exist, the fruit of years of work and training is beginning to produce singing congregations who perform the chant with fervor and artistry. The author has had the happy experience of working with one such congregation which knew a number of chant settings by heart, so that once the choir had begun the Kyrie, the people followed on to the end of the mass with their own enthusiastic and full-voiced singing.

Many of the difficulties met with by the average choirmaster should be attributed to his own inadequacies, not to the inability of the congregation to handle chant. Unless such purely fundamental notions as the elementary rhythm, the compound rhythm, the articulation of consonants (a very important part of chant style in the Solesmes method), the soft attack of the word-final ictus, the thetic crescendo which often links two incises, the deliberate broadening of movement when the melody leaps, the avoidance of haste in descending passages . . . unless all these are an assimilated [19] unit in the subconscious of the choirmaster, he will not succeed in making the congregation enjoy its participation and sense its artistic role.

Only by having confidence in the work undertaken can a choirmaster reach his goal, and this applies to the development of congregational singing. No half-way measures will do . . . no "gradual" education of the people. A strong and direct program will bear fruit, whereas uncertainty and mental reservations will produce only failure. Good intentions are not enough, of course, but given everything else, their lack will make success impossible.

---

Source: J. Robert Carroll, "Cold Facts on the Congregational Singing of Gregorian Chant," The Gregorian Review 3, no. 8 (May-June 1956): 11–19.