www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Vesperal Liturgy broadcast

I listened to the broadcast today. In short, I really liked it.

My criteria was rather limited compared to what others have examined and commented upon. For example, I forgot to listen for the h's. (The Scotish description of the "a-ha-ha-ha-meh-heh-men" gave me a good chuckle.) Neither did I get a global view of the pacing, so I leave that subject alone for now. What, then, did I hear?

I heard a great blend of text and music especially in the psalms. Chant is sung speech and in this broadcast it was well done. I could clearly hear the words of the psalms and prayers which were excellent in articulation and annunciation. I followed the Liturgy in my book and noticed that they chose the B series. (I sing bass but managed to sing along without too much trouble.) Overall, I really thought they did a good job. The text really predominates the liturgy and the melodies don't overwhelm the words. In time I hope that the chant will draw me into the psalms and prayers which are so necessary for my salvation.

Um, not to distract from the direction of the thread, but if each parish in the Eparchy of Parma pays an assesment to fund the ministry then the Eparchy of Parma IS footing the bill, or is the radio/internet ministry "outside" the Eparchy? (ie; a private venture paid for by the Eparchy)

As an organist/choirmaster in a RC church, let me make a point or two. I have 4 masses per Sunday. The choir is at one of those masses and I have cantors who cover the others. They rotate, with one responsible for the 1st Sunday of a particular time slot, and another cantor for a different time slot on another Sunday. If you heard us one week when we have a weaker, less capable cantor, we wouldn't sound so good either. On another week, the cantor might be quite gifted and sound really good. I am always a bit leery of taking a service or two in isolation and making overall judgments as to music quality, since it can often vary widely. That's especially true during summer when so many people are away on vacation. I would want to listen to those broadcasts over a longer period of time before saying they are good or bad.

I've listened to four broadcasts in a row and the quality has been pretty consistent. Sadly, it has always been as described by the majority of the posters on this thread.

Kobzar - it seems that you and I are possibly the only ones who have heard the last 4 broadcasts.

I'd love to find someone who has heard earlier ones so we could all compare notes.

I stick by my comments regarding the chant , pacing etc. None of this is a good advert for the standard of Services there.

I would not really want to go to DL there - the singing does not make me want to hear more

If you have listened for that long, it really does sound like they have a problem. Sometimes it all comes back to the person in charge and the standards they set.

I really can't help comparing what I've heard from Parma with this

Pascha

OK - I'll grant you that the services are not the same but this is not from a Cathedral.

Now my reaction is - that if they can do it - then the cathedral in Parma should be able to match them .

I know the Deacon has a 'prominent Role ' but he's too prominent. There is a fine line between putting on a theatrical type performance - and taking a prominent part in in the Liturgy.

Whoever is in charge of Liturgy in Parma really should be doing a bit of heart searching about whether they are actually achieving their intended purpose

I received this comment by e-mail earlier today. As it was a private comment to me I cannot obviously say by whom it was written.

I think that we REALLY need to be careful about cantor-bashing. There is a lot of music in this new-fangled vesperal liturgy. Consider that most of the music is new/unfamiliar, and the people are not really singing yet, so the cantor has to do it all alone. It's daunting. You have to give him credit for not only getting up there, but also for being broadcasted doing it. Not sure who he is, but I venture to guess that he's younger. He sounded unsteady or unsure in a lot of places. I know myself, the few times that I've been to the new Liturgy, I tended to go into auto pilot and wanted to sing the melodies I know and am used to. That's natural. I would say however, that he needs to familiarize himself more with it, so that he sounds more confident. If he's not confident, he can't lead and the congregation won't sing.

I agree that comments need to be made carefully. The priest, deacon, and cantor are all talented men trying to do their best. A cantor's ability is limited by the materials he is forced to work with.

Leading the singing can be great fun but is also hard work. Singing familiar texts with music written to serve the text is a joy. Singing new words and settings where the text awkwardly serves the melody is painful. This whole revision is being implemented with appeals of obedience to what the bishops have mandated. Liturgical renewal can only be successful when it based on authenticity and quality, where the clergy and faithful embrace it because they like it and want it.

While we MUST be careful not to laspe in bashing of parishioners, cantors Priests, Bishops, Popes, it does seem to be the de facto norm of many posts.

"A cantor's ability is limited by the materials he is forced to work with."

A subtle but definite bash of the RDL material. Though the same could be said of other sources of liturgical music over the years.

I have sung the material in the RDL as well as the MCI material for vespers. With proper MUSIC training, the material is NOT fundamentally anymore flawed than the handouts that had been used for the last 20 years.

"Singing new words and settings where the text awkwardly serves the melody is painful."

Even long used sources can be painfully sung with an unsure cantor. The key to good leading is to practice, practice, practice. There is NO subsitute for practice unless one is gifted with excellent sight reading skills. (A rarity in any circle).

"This whole revision is being implemented with appeals of obedience to what the bishops have mandated. Liturgical renewal can only be successful when it based on authenticity and quality, where the clergy and faithful embrace it because they like it and want it."

Unfortunately, we are not a democratic church, nor are we a church that respects the experience and knowledge of many of the laity including cantors. Cantors used to be paid, well studied, and their performance was more critical. With almost entirely volunteer cantors, our church will suffer through such offerings.

Dear, in Christ, Steve,

In my youth, I was once a 'volunteer cantor' and very happy at it too. I don't think there is anything at all wrong with volunteer cantors per se. I have also known some very dedicated, and very competent cantors, who led congregations with prayerful joy. The Church never suffered through their offerings, but on the contrary, it was greatly enriched by their generous spirit.

the unworthy,
Elias

I agree that it is not fair to bash or make fun of cantors, priests, deacons or anyone else who is simply doing their best. But think about this comment for a moment:

"A cantor's ability is limited by the materials he is forced to work with."

Maybe I'm taking this comment out of context or don't understand it. But does that means a very good cantor is going to sound bad if the material they have to work with is bad? And a person who is tone deaf is going to magically sound good if the material they have to work with is good? I don't sing that well. I can read music to a certain extent, but not that well. So if I pick up a piece of music by Mozart I'm going to sound like I should be at the Met? Obviously not. Am I exaggerating a bit? Yes. But not much.

A cantor who takes pride in their work will do whatever is necessary to make themselves sound as good as they can. For years my mom went to choir practice twice a week at our Ruthenian Church so they could sound as good as possible. Look at the thousands of amateur community theaters in the United State alone. Those people work their butts off to sound the best they can. And they are using some great material--Broadway shows that are classics in every sense of the word. Do they all sound great? No way. Material does not have that much effect on the sound of the singing. If I were asked to sing at a broadcast of the DL at a Cathedral, I would spend night and day doing everything I can to get it right. I'm singing to God! And I represent my entire Eparchy.

To suggest that a cantor or anyone affiliated with a broadcast from the Cathedral of an Eparch should not be critiqued is something I just can't agree with. I'm not saying bash them and make fun of them or call them names. But if someone is flat--they were flat! There are no grey areas in that kind of thing. Especially when we are talking about the Cathedral at the Eparch! Would you accept less than perfect singing from the Vatican? Or the Cathedral in Washington D.C.? Or Saint Patrick's Cathedral in NYC? Come on now. There is no reason to get personal and say anything nasty about anyone in the broadcast. But if the person singing sounds bad, they sound bad. And I have not read any personal comments about the cantors, deacons or priests.

If it's a technical problem--microphones not placed where they need to be, or someone not mixing the audio properly--that's still not acceptable. Especially if that person is getting paid! I do not know if they are getting paid, but I believe in this thread it was mentioned that every parish contributes a certain amount of money to have the DL broadcast on that station. Are they paying just the station and the technical end of things is done by a volunteer at the Cathedral? I don't know. That would explain a lot. But if it's NOT done by a volunteer, then there's a big problem--money is being wasted. And even if it is done by a volunteer at the Cathedral, I'm sure there is someone in the Eparch who would be happy to come by the Cathedral to offer advice on how to record it so it sounds better. Cleveland is a major city and the radio stations there are top notch. There have to be audio production houses that would also volunteer to help a church. If asked. They might want a plug in the bulletin, but what's that?

I've heard a couple of litrugies from Parma--both sounded the same--the "h's" that should not be there, notes that were not hit as they should and a general lack of enthusiasm. This is not bashing anyone, this is simply stating an observation. No one was mentioned by name, allegations were not made against anyone. Just a simple critique.

Tim

I thank Steve Petach for his post. And I agree with some of what he says.

On this point I disagree. Steve seems to be suggesting that any critique of the new music is bashing. He certainly is the poster who easily wins the award for reporting the highest number of post he considers offensive. I suggest that he consider that there is a difference being bashing someone and critiquing someone�s work. Talent, good intentions and hard work do not always combine together to produce good results.

To bash is to strike with a crushing blow. I disagree with Steve�s use of that term. The comments I have made, and from what I see the comments made by most other posters, are legitimate critique, based upon (for me) what I have learned in 30 years of chanting the Liturgy and 25 years of setting music. I believe � and have stated repeatedly � that all those involved in revising the Divine Liturgy (texts, rubrics and music) are talented individuals who mean well and have worked hard. Because I disagree with the foundational principles I disagree with the results. Principled disagreement should not be automatically interpreted as personal attack. [Look at this from the real word perspective. Most of us can mean well and work hard at our jobs but if we don�t produce quality work we are fired, and rightly so.]

I agree with Steve that other sources of liturgical music have limited the �singing potential� in our parishes. My own work in this area is rather awful, which is why for the past 25 years I regularly asked priests and cantors to review it and suggest improvements. Incorporating their suggestions is what led 200 parishes to request my meager work for over 20 years running (which could mean it is still awful, but very usable). Others have had the same opportunity as I have had. What have they made of it?

The ultimate test of a musical setting is whether people can pick it up and sing it with gusto and, over time, if they choose to keep singing it. I know that this was possible with the 1964/1965 settings provided in the �Gray� and �Green� books. I also know that this was possible with both much of the musical settings I have offered to the Church and the musical settings offered by others. The principles I have worked with have always been along the lines of 1) the music serves the text (and not the other way around); 2) respect where the people are at (what they have memorized) and 3) make any changes slowly (unnecessary change can harm souls). Although the bishops have eclipsed this discussion in our Church by their mandate for reform, it has always been my belief that we must follow the example of the Slavs, who took Greek chant and turned it into something unique and wonderful. Adapting prostopinije to be attractive to American ears (and not just the ears of those of us who like holupki) is necessary to evangelize Americans into Byzantine Catholicism.

I disagree. But first I must ask Steve to define his operating principles. Some see it necessary for the Church to preserve Carpatho-Rusin ethnicity and lament a lost of a single note of our wonderful prostopinije. Others (like me) see a need for us to take the musical gifts of our Church (prostopinije) and adapt it in a manner that will attract Americans to become Byzantine Catholic, which means setting the chant to properly accent the English text (the texts and rubrics only need to be translated accurately and elegantly). We�ve had a few participants in these discussions on the new music who have suggested that it�s OK that the accents for the English words are wrong, because the Boksaj melody is preserved. While I can and do disagree with some of the notation in the 'Gray' and 'Green' books I can see that those that authored those settings were obviously attempting to properly accent the English text. [I also disagree with most of the settings of the troparia in the 1970 'Black' book, but they were not really done by the same group and were, in fact, �farmed out� to different individuals (which explains why there is no consistency). But that is another discussion.]

[It�s off topic, but I will note my earlier posts in which I called for converting a group of black Gospel singers to Byzantine Catholicism, teaching them the Liturgy and the system of eight tones, and then let them compose new music that could be used to convert the unchurched who live in our inner cites to Byzantine Catholicism (where I think our Byzantine Way makes much more sense to their culture than does Roman Catholicism). American ears seem to be attuned to settings in which a specific syllable usually has no more than 2 or 3 notes assigned to it.]

But, back to the quote. Steve says that �with proper MUSIC training, the [new MCI] material is NOT fundamentally anymore flawed than the handouts that had been used for the last 20 years�. If the new music is just as flawed as the old music why promulgate it? Our Church had the opportunity to utilize the talents of many individuals and garner support for true and authentic restoration here. It is very sad that this opportunity has been squandered with political agendas.

I agree. I will add that the problem is now more acute because there is a forced change from what was known and memorized into something new and awkward.

While the Church is not �democratic� (and should not be) there is the valid theological principle of the �Sense of the Faithful�. We have seen the beginning of the reforms in Parma in 1988 and in Passaic in 1995. Have these reforms led to a vibrant restoration of a single parish? I have not seen one, and from my perspective I have only seen a continuing increase in the exodus of people from our parishes that revised the Liturgy. I have seen a parish go from 30 to 140 for Sunday Divine Liturgy and stay at 140 for 10 years (while also burying another 140) simply by praying the complete Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (in its official form) and adding Vespers and Matins. [Where are the similar testimonies for parishes in Parma since 1998 or Passaic since 1995?] I am aware of a few other success stories with the official Ruthenian Liturgy. Why is the official model of the church � one shown to work whenever it is used � prohibited and replaced with a new model that has not been shown to work and, after 10-15 years of use, still has a huge number of people disliking it?

Yes, the Church is not a democracy. But people do vote with their feet and the places with the reformed rubrics have not attracted anyone. We have seen parishes who have embraced the official and complete Ruthenian liturgical life thrive. So why do our bishops mandate a reformed model that has not been shown to grow parishes? That is yet another discussion and probably has a lot to do with the fact that many of our people (clergy and laity) are still embarrassed that we exist and want to yet again try to copy the Roman Catholics. Such attempts did not work before and will not work now.

John

Thank you John. You said it better than I could have. No, the Church is not a democracy, but people do vote with their feet and their checkbooks. Does anyone think it's a coincidence that after the sex abuse scandal broke and people started leaving church and not giving money, that things were done? Bernard Law was in power and knew about abuses for years--and nothing was done until the issue was forced. It's a shame, since donations do so much good for so many people. But hitting them in the pocketbook seems to work better than just about anyting else. I'm not suggesting withholding donations. I just wish something could be done with a simple request, by e-mail, phone or letter. Instead of being ignored. Why don't the Bishops/Eparchs or others learn from past mistakes?

Tim