www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy In favor of chant

Anytime one asks leading questions, they are making far more of a statement than they are an inquiry. The very construction of your "questions" are in the manner of conclusions already drawn.

One of those "laws of language use"

This styly of discussion is useless you know.

You and the folks in Pittsburgh have an entire Church that is suffering poor translation and poor music choices and adaptation and you are going to pick at things that are only asides, when the very foundation of the Church crumbles?

I don't get it. I don't get the indifference to the cries of an aging Church, and the insistance that this way is the only way. Best I can say is that this liturgy is in print, but it is hardly the best or only way.

M.

OK, trying to steer this back to the original poster's topic and title:

"Poor music choices and adaptation." Could you provide some specific examples, please? That way it's easier to tell whether you have issues with the translations, the musical settings, what you've heard on the cantor training recordings, or how you've heard a particular cantor sing them.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

John has done so. Father Serge has done so. And in some detail.

The liturgy is ugly, ungainly, and ungrammatical, Jeff.

The liturgy is theologically weakened.

It is not all bad. It is not all useless.

But the parts that are awful, are very and terribly awful. And you my dear have indicated that there were many other choices that could have been made for the music. Many settings were examined in the process of selection...Isn't that what you said?

And there is no indication from you, Father David, Professor Thompson, or any one of our bishops that there is any relief in sight.

Egos are on the line now. Authority is the rudder that guides the hearts of the architects of this liturgy now.

And you waste time with aimless argumentation, and inquiry as though there's never been any examples offered.

If any one of us here had one inkling that anything we had to say mattered you would get more than what you are getting now.

Mary

Mary,

Jeff has asked for specific musical examples which would be to my mind something like: Setting B for the Trisagion is bad musically because of X and Y. I don't recall a single exmaple of such being given.

Fr. Deacon Lance

If any one of us here had one inkling that anything we had to say mattered you would get more than what you are getting now.

Mary

I hope that Mr. Thompson is not suggesting that the late Professor Kavka was a supporter of the new music. I know that he was not. At the beginning of the effort to set the new Fixed Texts of the Revised Divine Liturgy Professor Kavka approached this task with great respect for the musical settings that have been used for the past 40 years. He (like many of us who have been successful cantors for 30 years and longer) respected that they had been accepted and even memorized by almost everyone. To that end he presented the Commission with draft musical settings of the Fixed Texts which were almost identical to the ones in use, altered only where necessary to serve the new Fixed Texts. In the end Professor Kavaka�s approach was not accepted, but I think his influence did manage to make the now mandated settings slightly less awful then they would have been had he not been involved. If anyone would like to verify the accuracy of what I have written I would be happy to provide contact information for specific individuals via PM or e-mail. I know his family prefers privacy in this matter.

This is mind-boggling.

You say the music stinks.
They ask how it stinks.
You say you just told them that it stinks.
They say you didn't tell them how it stinks.
You say other people say it stinks.
They say the other people haven't told them how it stinks.
You say it stinks.
They ask how it stinks.
You say if they don't know by now how it stinks, you aren't going to tell them.

Father Deacon,

You might consider reading the archives. There were several discussions last fall in which the new settings for both the antiphons and Trisagion were involved.

To recap, the issues with the new setting of the First Antiphon was the movement of the accent for word �glorious� in the phrase �sing praise to His name, give to Him glorious praise.� In the existing setting the accent was �GLO-ri-ous� (on the first syllable as one would accent it in spoken English). In the new setting the accent is now �glo-RI-ous� (on the second syllable, which of course sounds silly).

In the �Holy God� (formerly �#1� now �A� in the new pew book), the discussion focused mainly on the bad accent on the word �now� in the phrase �now and ever�. The word has been assigned four notes and six beats and when sung sounds like �now-ow-ow-ow�. This is the very reason why it was not set that way in the 1965 setting.

In the �Holy God� (formerly �#3� now �C� in the new pew book) those who prepared the 1965 setting chose again to simplify the entire �Glory be� to avoid a setting in which in the phrase �have mercy on us� the word �on� became the most important word (four beats in a run - "have mercy on-on-on-on us").

We could examine every page and find hundreds of problems (but there is no real reason to because the bishops clearly chose not to include the priests and cantors in the process). Those who prepared the settings included in the new pew book chose to allow the text to serve the music rather then to make slight adaptations in the music to serve the text, and the correct English accentuation of the text.

You might remember that Jeff (ByzKat) did not see any problems with the accentuations. He obviously has a very high tolerance for poorly accentuated English.

John

Dear Wondering,

In truth they have been told, by many cantors from new ones to very experienced ones. If you read the archives of the Forum you can find several discussions (but most of the discussion did not go on here).

The new music has been tried (in part) at the cathedral in Munhall. So far it is has been an absolute disaster and many people have left because of it. My friends in Pittsburgh who have visited there in recent weeks tell me that almost no one sings anymore. I understand the singing at the cathedral in Parma is also almost nonexistent, despite the presence of a talented cantor who can lead people. What has happened is that the bishops have promulgated new rubrics, texts and music despite the fact that they have been shown not to lead to a good, well sung Divine Liturgy.

This is a prime example of opportunity lost. Had there been a collaborative effort involving clergy, cantors and laymen we could have prepared settings where the chant served the text (proper accentuation), was a joy to sing, and was reasonably faithful to the English and Slavonic settings that have been memorized by the faithful.

John (Admin)

Jeff,

Specific examples have been provided. Will you please stop pretending that they have not?

As I have stated earlier, you are the one who is pushing change. Convince people that you and others who want these specific changes have been successful. Can you please provide us with examples of where the new texts, rubrics and music have been tested and shown to lead to better quality of Liturgy in our parishes? All the evidence I have seen demonstrates clearly that all aspects of the RDL have been disastrous to our parishes.

What the bishops should have done is to demand that the changes prove themselves. The way changes should have been tested is to take two equal parishes. Parish A would celebrate the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy with correct rubrics, the memorized texts and music. Parish B would celebrate the Revised Divine Liturgy (revised rubrics, new texts and new music). After ten years examine the results in both parishes and see which one grew.

For the purposes of this discussion I think it is you who should provide examples of how the new settings are more successful then the old settings. Not how they are more literal to Boksaj (because if you can do a rewrite on the Liturgy you can�t argue that you can�t rewrite the chant or even create something new). You (and those who support the changes) need to demonstrate that they are superior to the ones currently in use (defining superior as contributing better to good Liturgy then the old (easier to sing, music serves text and not text serving music, etc.)).

Of course, Jeff could correctly counter with the fact that the bishops have made clear that those of us who point out the flaws in the Revised Divine Liturgy (in scholarship, inaccurate translation, poor musical settings) are welcome to leave and worship elsewhere. Sadly, we have already seen evidence that people are indeed leaving at two cathedrals and almost everywhere the RDL is introduced. Ironically, the Divine Liturgy at the local Melkite parish is now far more faithful to the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy than is the Divine Liturgy at the local Ruthenian parish.

Admin

Wasn't Prof. Kavka on the original commision in 1964? The music was altered CONSIDERABLY form the extant Slavonic melodies at that time. Are you then suggesting that Prof. Kavka was responsible for the original English music settings proposed in the 1964 commision?

Does anyone know who was on the original 1964 commision? If so could they post the names, so we can compare the makeup of the commissions?

John,
I can understand this. For those of us here who were not privy to those previous discussions, it doesn't appear that way. Further, for those of us who aren't musically talented, "it doesn't sound right," adds no new knowledge.

Would you be willing, for the benefit of readers such as myself, to make a list of those areas you feel should not have been revised and why another setting would have been better? Even a list of the top ten would be a good start. I know that you acknowledge that some revision was necessary, but what line you draw of when and why I don't have the context to know.

If the people who support the revision of the music do not have a response, as you believe will be the case, it will be apparent to all. I'm sure it is exasperating, and you probably feel like there is no point in going through it again. Right now, it appears as if they have nothing to work from. So I offer as a point the edification of those of us who were not privy to the previous, often private, discussions.

Steve,

I don't remember if Professor Kavka was on the 1964 Commission. Please contact Holy Ghost parish to find a way to determine that. My position is that since the people had memorized the current settings for the Fixed Texts they should be kept as is. Those who want a very literal application to Boksaj need to realize that 1) people have memorized something else and 2) a desire to return to a literal application of Boksaj is not a good enough reason to change the way of prayer that people have memorized. One example I offered in earlier discussions is imagine anyone mandating the changing of the words and musical setting for "O Come, All Ye Faithful" and the disaster and ill will that would cause in the entire English-speaking world. Another example (focusing on the changed text) is how the Roman Catholics still pray the "Hail Mary" with "Blessed art thou amongst women" despite the fact the the texts were officially changed to "Blessed are you among women" over 40 years ago. Some people just don't seem to understand that people are very reluctant to make changes. This is true especially when the changes have not been shown to them to benefit them in any way.

I do know a cantor in New Jersey who sang with your grandfather. He says that he knew your grandfather well and that your grandfather was a big supporter of the 1965 settings. [I can provide you with his name privately in case you don't know who I am speaking about.]

As I have stated numerous times, the job of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel. For us Ruthenian Catholics in America our job is to invite all Americans to accept Jesus Christ and to follow Him, joining us in worship of Him. Liturgical chant, no mater how beautiful in its original language, serves the higher calling of worship (and the evangelization that comes from good Liturgy). Within 100 years of our Slavic ancestors accepting the Gospel from the Greeks they were already creating a new style of chant that helped present the Gospel to the Slavs. We need to do the same. This does not mean abandoning Prostopinije. But it does mean setting it in a manner where the chant serves the text and the final product is attractive to the American ear, and allowing new chant (organic to America) to grow up beside it.

John

Wondering,

To what end? Since the promulgation I have pretty much stayed out of the discussions here regarding music. [I responded today to correct claims posted here that were inaccurate.] If the bishops wanted the clergy, cantors and the laity to be included the time was during the preparation and experimentation phases. They chose not to do this.

Putting aside my problems with some of the textual changes for the moment, I will respond with a comment about the three hymns I mentioned above plus one more. The First Antiphon required no changes except the change of the text from �Mother of God� to �Theotokos� (really none of the antiphons needed to be changed, and the new settings taken as a whole are examples of more poorly accented English then the old settings.). The same goes for the �Only-Begotten Son� (#1 in the Gray/Green/1970). The two melodies for �Holy God� (#1 and #3 in the old books) required only the dropping of the word �be� in �Glory be�. Nothing else needed to be changed. One could go through almost every page of the new pew book and find similar issues.

Does that mean that if I were on the commission in 1965 I would have set everything that way? No. But it does mean that one needs to be pastorally sensitive and not force people to accept changes that are totally unnecessary. Moving a parish to celebrate according to correct rubrics is a far easier task than is forcing the mostly elderly people of our Church to change the words and music they�ve memorized after forty years of praying them. Forty years is forty years.

John

The people who support the changes will always have a response. The question is whether or not the response is substantially designed to show how the changes were necessary and of benefit to all. Thus far we haven't got that. But y'd have to go through the archives to find that out, along with the substantive things that Father Serge and John have said over the years as well.

There's a fair amount of attrition in this Church and has been for the past ten years, and it is getting worse rather than better. When our cantors and some of our best deacons in terms of breadth and depth of liturgical knowledge just walk because this liturgy is so bad at so many different levels...well...that should tell you something.

And what is the answer from our bishops and the liturgical commission....'Don't let the door bump yer butt on the way out.'

That is the Swan Song for the New Springtime of Evangelization.

Disposable priests, disposable parishes, disposable people, disposable liturgies.

Don't you ever wonder that we have drafts of a liturgical text AFTER it has been approved by Rome?

Doesn't that sort of thing make you curious?

Mary