photographers

did I ever mention how much I despise photographers at weddings?

at my most recent wedding, the photographer asked if it was ok to stand right by me (the organ is in the center of the choir loft-an ideal place to take pictures from.) and I said ok if she didnt flash (a parish policy which the bride was supposed to have told her.) she seemed surprised, took one picture without flash, didnt seem pleased with it, then flashed away... *flash* *flash* click *flash* ugh so obnoxious to ANYone trying to enjoy the ceremony. Not only did she scoot as close to me as possible (definitely inside my personal space bubble on the organ bench,) but then by leaning over she accidentally bumped down some paper that I had sitting on the loft railing! (oops... good thing it just landed on the co-photographer below...) in the middle of the wedding!

I also just don't understand the amount of money that people find necessary to spend on a photographer at their wedding. like, what, are you really going to forget that you got married? And after the first year of marriage, who EVER actually pulls out their book of wedding photos? Can't you just get some friend with a steady hand and a decent camera to take a bunch of pictures? (Better yet, the friend will *know* all of the important relatives/friends whose pictures ought to be taken!)

Once I had agreed to play for a friends wedding (on piano) for my standard fee, (and I understand, piano players are a dime a dozen...but still, I charge the same for my time doesn't matter what instrument!) then she later apologetically told me that she had had a misunderstanding with her fiance about the bugdet and couldnt afford me. Well, fine, I totally understand...
HOWEVER... let me guess that they were spending a couple thousand dollars on a photographer! Which is really more lasting? The photos which only a few people will see, then they will be shoved in a closet for the next 50 years? (really, when we look at old photographs, of, say, our grandparents weddings, who really cares about anything except the picture of the bride and groom?!) Or is the music more lasting, that *every*one will hear and enjoy or not!
(don't misread me, in this particular situation, they did get a very fine but not professional piano player who did an excellent job, and so I am glad they saved money and certainly do not hold it against them, I am just pointing out the irony, that I suspect is regularly repeated at weddings.)

Also, I think that photographers are the absolute worst culprit of dis-respect at Mass, as in they have NO idea of what is sacred. Guess what? You don't need to snap 20 million pictures of the priest reading the Gospel! He's just STANDING THERE! Let us enjoy the moment!

conducting congregational chant responses

golly, it's been a while since I've written here...

I know I wrote something, I can't remember what for, where I kind of criticized another choir director for attempting to "direct/cut-off" the chant responses (think: "A-me-n" or "and also with you.")

But now I realize my error. I am not sure, but I think that my congregation/choir might be getting slower and slower.
"A-me-n." is gradually becoming "A-mehhhhhhh-nnnnnnnnn..."
you get the point.

Fr. G mentioned this to the congregation once a few months ago, but I don't think most of my choir member culprits were paying attention, or really knew what he was referring to in musical terms.

And whenever I am rehearsing with them I forget to mention this small point: Don't "drag out" any of your responses! If the choir is quick and to the point, the congregation will follow. I think.

So, perhaps I should try conducting. A quick, "A-" then" meh" then a clear cut-off on "n."

we shall see.

three years...

I'm planning music through the summer right now, and I'm coming across the readings for August, how the whole month is the "Bread of Life" discourse that we Catholics love so much. We even get three weeks in a row of "Taste and See..."!
And with the three year cycle of readings that we have, I'm reminded that it was exactly three years ago August 3 that I started working at St. P.
How back then, Fr. and I were like accomplices discussing the music together and trying to sneak in the right amount of traditional and reverent music, but still needing to appease some people by incorporating a few (non-heretical) "contemporary" pieces so there wouldn't be too much of a hub-bub about the new music director and all of the "changes..."
And I remember how excited we (well, Father, really,) were about the Eucharistic readings and planning music for August...
wow, three years ago already...

ugh copyrights

someone at church gave me a old booklet, containing the Missa Orbis Factor (copied from the vatican edition-I know cuz I recognize the accompaniment,) as well as two other Mass settings by not-famous composers. These other two Masses are of particular interest because they are accompanied Latin for two voices, and not terrible. Not really common, but extremely useful in a church of limited resources as mine. The first of the two I did search around online and was listed in a couple places, but not actually available. The second, I could find nothing about the composer or availability. I'm sure they're both photocopies of something, I don't know what, but the booklet contains no other references.
My question comes up in that I would like to make these available for others, which is becoming easier and easier to do with resources such as cpdl.org. But as it is, having no information about the composers or when they were written or public domain (I think the first died in 1973,) I can't exactly do that.
And so, they will have to remain in my own personal archives, for my own secretive distribution at a to-be-determined necessary time in the future, when I only have two singers and need a nice Latin Mass setting!

(oh, and I'm not being terribly specific about exactly which pieces they are cuz I certainly wouldn't want the copyright police to come after me for having illegally copied music in my possession!) :-P

The beauty of no electricity

As seems to happen about once a year out in the sticks, there was a series of storms and last Sunday morning St. P was without power.
After my initial freak-out, I realized that this would be a good opportunity to make the best of. I know from experience that Mass without electricity is...beautiful. We are...going back to our roots. The way people lived for thousands of years. (Minus the manually pumped organ bellows :-P )
I knew that the 10:30 Mass with the full choir was particularly an opportunity to make the most of.
Here's the basic program as done:

Entrance Antiphon as usual (English simple Psalm tone) It only would have been more perfect with incense...
Psalm: from Respond and Acclaim, a decent but short arrangement. I sang from the ambo the verses alone, and the choir sang 4-part harmony in the choir loft on the refrain
Alleluia
The Head that Was Once Crowned With Thorns (to the tune Morning Song, I used two handbells, on the tonic and the 7th [flat cuz it's a minor key] where appropriate.)
Sanctus: chanted English
Mem accl: chanted English (psalm tone)
Agnus Dei: chanted Latin
Communion: Communion chant as usual
At the Lamb's High Feast (melody only)
Regina Caeli (this is an awesome 3-part SSA arrangement in the St. Pius X hymnal, my ladies learned it last year, and I had run over it with them last week and taught some of the new members...not knowing how much we would NEED an a capella piece this week!) It was particularly beautiful and received many encouraging and positive comments
Closing: Jesus Christ is Risen Today (melody only, first two verses HA)

all a capella unless noted. It works quite well, especially having the men in the choir. As a matter of fact, I'm sure it makes the congregation sing more; they're like, "oh yeah, we're supposed to be singing here..."

Even though it wasn't really dark, everything down to the candles on the altar were just even more beautiful than usual. No humming of the organ or the fans...every noise is even more noticeable. Silence is beautiful. It reminds you of the sacred. Where else is there silence?

the historical development of recent Catholic liturgical and musical documents

In addition to my usual interest in all things liturgical and musical, I have recently decided that I am going to back to grad school, to the University of Michigan for a Master of Music in Church Music.
I was originally reluctant to do so because one of the things I wanted to study in particular is the general topic of liturgy and music and practical application to Catholic parishes, and I would not really get to do that as much as I want at a public university.
However, it seems that I will have the option to do some independent study to fulfill some elective credits in this area, so I have already begun to note books and articles which could serve as scholarly resources on this topic.

An interesting one that I noted recently appears in the most recent issue of the GIA Quarterly (Spring 2009,) an article by Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, on the recent liturgical document, "Sing to the Lord."
In it, he summarizes several official documents from the past century, including their successful (or not) implementation, and the general history of the "liturgical renewal" and active participation.

(He also references a couple times his most recent book from 2007-which I would love to read particularly in my graduate studies, "Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform," rather pricey and long [at least 500 pages,] but it is all online on googlebooks.)

I find Fr. Ruff particularly interesting, since he was instrumental in my initial introduction to Gregorian Chant.

Several years ago, I started singing in a small schola (that only lasted in that form for a school year,) at St. T, and since our director had taken an intensive course in semiology from Fr. Ruff, she directed us from the Graduale Triplex and the ancient neumes. She spoke highly of him, and I learned a bit about that method of interpreting chant, long before I ever knew anything about the Old Solemnes style!

I had the opportunity to very briefly introduce myself to him at a conference a few summers ago, and after I told him my connection to him, he laughed and said, "So you're kind of like my granddaughter?!"

Anyhow, the more immersed I become in these Catholic cultural/liturgical/musical/opinionated style wars, especially after reading his article I think that he has got something right. He brings up some of my unanswerable questions, but mostly I love that he admits and discusses the difficulties of implementing this idealistic liturgy that the "ultra-traddies" push for--and even whether or not their interpretation of what "the Church says" is actually what the church asks! (In one of the footnotes-which I almost missed, but that was probably partly his intention ;-) he mentions "Msgr. Schuler's misinterpretation of Musicam Sacram regarding the polyphonic Mass ordinary," discussed in his book on p. 533-535. tee hee.)

He brings up several other issues, which are just fascinating to me. He begins to provide an explanation for why Vatican II seems to have been so badly interpreted and implemented (regarding Sacrosanctum Concilium,) by saying, "As revolutionary as the liturgical constitution was, it is marked throughout by a certain balance between tradition and innovation. Some consider this uneasy balance to be a political compromise between the many competing positions of the bishops, or even an incoherent bringing together of contradictory positions. Perhaps this feature of the constitution explains the existence of such divergent positions in the years since Vatican II..."

Another favorite issue of mine that he plainly discusses, is just "HOW pastorally feasible is it to give primacy to traditional repertoires?" Perhaps another should-be-obvious reason why SC did not receive faithful implementation.

He also states earlier, "It is rather difficult to stimulate congregational singing in Latin." This sentence is so key, but the traditionalists simply will not admit that this is a problem, but I have found from my own personal experience that IT'S TRUE! Even people who consider themselves "liturgically-conservative Catholics," while the don't mind and even enjoy listening to someone else sing in Latin, they simply do not want to sing it themselves! WHY? and then why does the Church tell us they should? I think Fr. Ruff might have some of the answers, but I'm beginning to be skeptical about other camps which will remain nameless. (like, places and people who don't seem to live in the real world, with real Catholics sitting in the pews...)

hmmm hmm so much to learn and study, so little time...

what's wrong with doing only 2 verses of a hymn?

there's this big stink that I read about in the Catholic blogosphere about how terrible it is to only do 2 verses of a hymn. (like, the first and last verses for the closing, or just the first two at the entrance cuz the priest is at the altar and glaring at you.)

Of course, most of us (Catholics) agree that hymns are problamatic to begin with: they only cover the action that is occurring, as opposed to the Propers, which would actually have texts that are integral to the Mass. (think of it like poetry...)

this is a serious differentiation from most Protestants, where the action stops and then we sing a hymn...that's just what we DO.

But what's wrong with stopping a hymn before it's done? Or singing the first verse then the final doxology verse? I've heard accusations that this makes the text incomplete...but so what? Not seriously. Hymns are almost never direct quotes from scripture; the verses usually seem to me to be *independent* texts of general praise to God.

Examples:
This is the one that really occurred to me during Mass this past weekend-- "I know that my Redeemer lives."
So we sing,
"I know that my redeemer lives, what joy the blest assurance gives, he lives who once was dead, I know that my redeemer lives."
then so WHAT if we skip,
"He lives to bless me with his love, he lives to plead for me above, he lives my hungry soul to feed, he lives to help in time of need."
and,
"He lives and grants me daily breath, he lives and I shall conquer death, he lives my mansion to prepare, He lives to bring me safely there."
and go directly to,
"He lives all glory to his name, he lives my saviour still the same, what joy the blest assurance gives, I know that my redeemer lives."

Or here's just the next short hymn in my book:
"The strife is o'er, the battle done, now is the victors triumph won, now be the song of praise begun..."
then there is NOTHING wrong with skipping:
"Death's mightiest pow'rs have done their worst, and Jesus has his foes dispersed, let shouts of praise and joy out burst.... He closed the yawning gates of hell, the bars from heav'n's high portals fell, let hymns of praise his triumph tell."
and go right to:
"On the third morn he rose again, glorious in majesty to reign, o let us swell the joyful strain."

The only thing that is diminished is due to the amount of time...but if we were singing the Proper, there would only be the theology of one sentence! But there is no incomplete thought. I would argue that each of the verses are a successfull stanza in and of themself.