"The main problem with the new music is that it does not respect what the people have memorized and taken to heart."
At some point they had to learn an English setting. As a church we had not always used English translation. So at some point there was a previous learning curve. This is a relatively weak argument for maintaining status quo.
I never once suggested maintaining the status quo. In fact, I have argued for great change. In fact, I have accomplished more change in the past 25 years than probably anyone else except Msgr. Levkulic.
The issue is not whether change is necessary, change definitely was (is) necessary.
The issue is the type of change and the method of accomplishing change.
The first and foremost task of anyone seeking to effect change is not to harm souls. Forcing people to abruptly change what they have memorized over a lifetime hurts them.
Putting aside the problems with the incorrect rubrics for a moment, there were only a few words in the texts of the Divine Liturgy that were actually incorrect. The reasons the words to the Lord�s Prayer were not changed (because it was so familiar and memorized) are applicable to the other texts that have been memorized after 40 years of use. There is a hierarchy here. Those texts and music which are used at every Divine Liturgy are indeed memorized and should be changed only where they are actually wrong. Those texts and music used at Christmas, Holy Week and Pascha are almost as memorized. Texts and for Vespers and Matins, etc., which are not memorized are far easier to change. Think here of the example I used in the Roman Catholic Church, which changed the �Hail Mary� from �blessed art thou amongst women� to �blessed are you among women� in the 1970s. The original translation is so ingrained on the majority of people that the Latin Church essentially gave up and did not force the issue. Even now as they consider correcting the texts to their Mass they appear to be allowing some less then perfect translations to remain simply because they are so well memorized.
Yes, at some point the people learned an English setting. That is the whole point. They learned it and memorized it. For many it is all they have know from childhood. And to them the English setting for the fixed portions of the Divine Liturgy is as ingrained upon their souls as are the Slavonic settings (for at least the older folk). Changing what has been memorized and accepted causes great harm to people because they expect the Church to be an unchanging rock of stability in their lives. They are not being asked to learn something new. They are being told that what they memorized and prayed all their lives was wrong, that they need to abandon it, and learn something different. You just don�t force people to change the way they relate to God unless it is absolutely necessary. And even then you do it with great care.
Just the other day I spoke with a priest whose cantor recently flubbed the new �O Only-Begotten Son� and stopped dead. The cantor simply could not recover. So automatically the priest started �Glory be�" (the old �Only-Begotten Son #1). Before he got to �and to the Son� the cantor and people were with him. He said they raised the roof with both fond memory of what they had memorized and accepted (and which is now strictly forbidden). Changing the fixed texts and music for the Divine Liturgy in English now after 40 years is like attempting to change the Slavonic texts and music.
I like the Moleben that Steve linked. But would he recommend going into the Uzhorod Cathedral and telling them that the growth they have allowed in the chant is wrong and that they need force the singing to be literally faithful to Bok�aj (I�ve heard that version of Tone 8 and it is not the Bok�aj version! Horrors! Prepare for the hanging!)? Would he go to the parishes that still use Slavonic and tell them that they are singing �Dostojno Jest� incorrectly? [I�ve been to many parishes and heard it sung. I have never once heard it sung like it is notated on Bok�aj page 177 (Sokol Blue page 21). Everyone jumps up to the �D� on "bla-�i-ti T�a� rather then work their way up from the "B". Bok�aj was a snapshot of chant at one place and at one time. There are many such examples.]
Prostopinije has continued to grow and that growth should have been respected. Like it or not the English settings for the
fixed portions of the Divine Liturgy were as accepted and memorized as the Slavonic settings.
The road ahead I would map for the Ruthenian Church would be something like this:
-Rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy and ask pastors to return to the old books.
-Promulgate all of the books of the Ruthenian recension as normative (and spend 10 years slowly raising the level of Liturgy by example, education and encouragement).
-Prepare new editions of the Liturgicons (Chrysostom and Basil) and the Pew Book that respect what has been memorized (the 1964) and changes only what is absolutely necessary.
-Teach cantors how to sing the Liturgy and how to set chant.
-Grant liberty in music. Keep the Gray/Green book settings for the fixed portions of the Divine Liturgy (so the Church can sing together) and allow liberty for everything else. When cantors work together (or even independently) a lot of good work can result. [My efforts in this area are surely meager when compared to what needs to be done. But I had developed an informal network of well over a hundred priests and cantors (roughly half of all subscribers) who sent feedback that I used to make improvements. I moved about 200 parishes away from the 1970s settings for
changeable texts to something far more faithful both to the English texts (proper accentuation) and to
Prostopinije. The main exception was the prokimeny where the parishes complained and I fixed some of the accents but only made modest changes to the melodies.]
-At some point soon the Ruthenian Church is going to need settings that are even simpler than
Prostopinije. We have a large number of parishes where the cantor is someone who does not read music, can only sing what he memorized by standing next to the old cantor, and became the lead cantor only because the old cantor went home to the Lord and there was no one else. And we need to make allowances. It is far better for cantors to sing the unchanging texts of the Divine Liturgy well and take the changeable texts on a single note (or to a very simple setting) then it is for them to attempt to take everything in proper melody but then sing it in the key of flat. (Start simply and build.)
The translations used for the RDL, the words which should lead the music, are somewhat clunky. While there will be ongoing debate about the best translation, there seemed to have been little thought to the flow of the translation (words) and the tones (music) they would be accompanied with by the IELC and IEMC.
I agree. As much I can respect the hard work involved in preparing the currently mandated texts and music they don�t flow very well. The texts need to be as accurate as possible, in Standard English and grammatically correct (without political agendas). Change to texts should be made pastorally and only when the memorized text is actually an unacceptable translation. It would be great if a linguist was part of the team preparing texts (or, maybe even better, a retired English teacher who can be really nasty when adverbs are abused). Music should respect the �as sung�. It should properly accent the English texts so that the texts always lead (and never are subservient to the chant). Bok�aj is not canonical. Just like the Slavs took Greek chant and altered it to serve the Slavonic words (and later let it develop into great things like
Prostopinije) so we, too, need to adapt
Prostopinije to best serve the English texts. It�s not a matter of great simplification. It�s a matter of applying it in a way that serves the text.
The only real way to accomplish change is to demonstrate to the people that the change is good and let them embrace it freely. Mandatory change of this type hurts souls and hurting souls is wrong.
