www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Can we as cantors improve the status quo post RDL?

Perhaps by recalling the "basics" ...

Glory to Jesus Christ!

By way of background and introduction, I'm a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic by birth and sacrament, and an experienced cantor. While I have been monitoring this forum and other similar sources with great interest over the past several years, I have not responded or posted in the past, primarily because I suffered through a terrible period of separation (just over three years) from my beloved Church and did not feel I was well enough informed or sufficiently engaged to add to the discussion in an intelligent way. My temporary separation from the Church was unfortunate in many respects, but happened to coincide with the introduction and promulgation of the RDL. The timing thus provided me the unique opportunity to reflect on the final development of the RDL and to study its impact on our congregations, albeit from a distance, somewhat academically without being in a position to have to adapt to the RDL in real time.

I'm pleased to share that I am back amongst our faithful and privileged to be once again at the Kliros, with a growing group of enthusiastic chanters that would like to blossom into a decent choir. It just so happens that I am doing so at a church that was recently almost wiped out of existence (hence, my temporary separation from the Church, as I happened to have attempted to join this parish after a work-related relocation, just as the events leading to the near collapse were unfolding). That said, the love of our Church and tradition had sustained those faithful that remained, and it is that love and devotion that will hopefully enable us to grow as a parish family once again. However, upon returning and assuming cantor’s duties, the impact of both the turmoil in this parish and the RDL introduction on congregational participation and singing was clearly evident.

As is evident by engagement in this forum, we all want to see our beloved Church and traditions not only survive (yes, many of us still wonder and worry), but hopefully thrive. Though I’m still relatively young, I do pray often that someone will be around to chant "Eternal Memory" when I’m on my way home (assuming I’m worthy). I know these statements strike a chord, and same and similar sentiments are surely at the heart of many of the passionate comments that I have read in this forum recently and over the years. It is for this reason I offer these thoughts with all of you (and apologize in advance for the length of this posting).

That said, I certainly cannot add significantly to the volume or quality of discourse already made in this forum on the RDL as a work itself. The themes and issues are well defined – manner of development / promulgation; future changes / additions to the body of work; translation; music settings; etc. Yet, I strive (with limited success, at times) to be a practical person and a faithful son of our Church. The RDL is reality for now, so I can only endeavor to adapt while still contributing, through my service and vocation as a cantor, to support the development of our chant tradition that is certainly at risk in several respects in this current environment.

I use the word “adapt” very intentionally. Did we not “adapt” as a people, for related example, to the use of vernacular language in our Liturgy (although it took many years for my grandmother to come around)? We have all said on many occasions, both before and after RDL, that chant usually “just works better” in the original language. Yet, we adapted. Surely some of our predecessors and teachers, the recognized masters of our generation and past generations in this country, earned their reputations by helping us do just that, in their careful, thoughtful way. How did these masters help us successfully adapt? By offering faithful translations of base reference works that were scripturally sound yet worked in the English language. Surely this is, at the core, one of the big disappointments with the status quo body of work, as I have read in this and other forums and now observe in practice.

Much has been said about the translation of scripture we now see, hear and use, as well. Again, I cannot competently comment on that subject, given my lack of academic background in that area, but speculate from observation and practice that we seemingly set this new text rigidly to notation from a legacy OCS source, and the impact on what we consequently hear in Church at times, otherwise unguided, is quite palpable. The effect of this would of course be identical against any version of text.

A story related to this last point ... I was indeed fortunate some years ago to be the last student of one of the regarded cantors / choir directors of our age. In my early thirties and shortly after we met, he took me aside and decided he would impart to and in me as much as he could before his time was up. I had previous chant experience and musical training, and knowing he was a prolific composer regarded for his meticulous settings for everything from festal propers to full choral liturgical arrangements, I asked him to start giving me copies of his written work from which to study and learn. He refused, and insisted I be trained at first as he was, and I quote, “from the ear to the soul”. My first drill? To figure out how to chant our National Anthem to each of the resurrection tone troparia melodies, faithfully to the patterns for each. And my reward for success once mastered? “Now let’s try that again, using the common tone melodies.” Unique approach indeed, but I’m sure you all know what (why and how) my dear Professor was trying to teach! We seemingly prepared the RDL music settings with disregard to the basic underlying premise of my dear, departed Professor’s first lesson.

Again, my level of scholarship precludes me from commenting intelligently on the rationale for the seemingly strict reference and sole adherence to musical patterns as documented in the turn-of-the-last century Bokshai work. Yes, I agree with many of you that chant does and should be permitted to evolve. Yet, any good scholarly work has to start with reference points. I cannot see how we seemingly relied upon one alone. I’ll speculate that perhaps there were some valid scholarly reasons, despite the existence of other more contemporary works. I can only add from observation and practice that prior to RDL, some settings I have seen and heard in use for various purposes and services from sundry sources, although always well intended and prayerfully prepared, did in many cases introduce simplifications to legacy chant patterns and ultimately precipitated variance in tradition from parish to parish, eparchy to eparchy, etc. that we have all noticed and experienced. Being well traveled and having been a member of one of our Cathedral parishes in the past, I can certainly remember many a time when we had guests with us (or I was said guest) from throughout the eparchy and metropolia, and those variances in practice were evident as we prayed and chanted together as a larger community.

Without true knowledge of fact, I would pray that a noble objective of the RDL was to at least provide a common frame of musical reference for all of us to share. After all, we have and continue to live to some degree through the “treasure hunt” approach to getting service books, scripted music, etc. Indeed, a lot of interchange in this forum still supports both the need and desire to continue to accumulate and share a sound body of reference work (for which we are all grateful), including very healthy, positive exchange with our fellow Eastern Catholic and Orthodox brethren.

Let’s not also forget that it wasn’t long ago that many of our Byzantine services were not even known and appreciated, even amongst the most faithful and passionate of our people of any age. We have made some progress, haven’t we?

I’d also submit, as I’ve emphasized with increasing success with our burgeoning choir (who often share frustration with the current material), that the RDL is true to the formal presentation and passage of our musical tradition in one basic respect. Our annotated chant, while using Western notation, is still a free form of musical expression (absent time signatures, with measures often of unequal length in a single work). It cannot be rendered properly without first appreciating that (as it goes to the very essence of our form of chant). We’ve all likely heard “professional” renderings of the RDL settings done “literally” and know well the result.

To chant reverently, we still must do so passionately, from heart and soul. We simply must remember what our Divine Liturgy is in essence and what our role is in bringing it alive. While a good number of the current settings make it challenging, it’s not impossible. Our young choir is starting to learn that lesson well, keeping the above in mind, and it’s spreading to the congregation the same way it used to in our tradition, “from the ear to the soul”. I can honestly say that I have enjoyed nothing but the full support of clergy in my reborn ministry and specifically regarding this point.

My brothers and sisters, we all know and should be ever mindful of how profoundly the success of our ministry as cantors directly impacts the health and well-being of our parish families. With that in mind, I do hope we can continue a learned debate on the current body of work while still being faithful servants of our Church and congregation, helping them “adapt” as best we can until we can perhaps pray for RDL 2.0 to come! The level of talent and scholarship behind the passionate and thoughtful comments in this forum is astounding. Surely together we can effect change in a positive way over time, leveraging the many recommendations that have been learnedly asserted here and elsewhere. The "native sons" of our faith tradition surely know from our history as a people how passions coupled with devisiveness can have devastating results, so we must find the most Christ like way to prompt this change.

In the meantime, let’s not also forget the positive side of this passion and the steadfast service of some of our brothers, including the moderator of this forum and the faithful caretaker of the MCI site and materials. We could not serve as well as we strive to under current circumstances without their efforts.

I look forward to engaging with all of you more frequently (and with greater brevity) in the future, and welcome all your comments and insights (as I'm still catching up to all of you)!

P.S. This is a perfect season to try to encourage greater congregational chant participation! Carols always cheer the heart!

P.P.S. Again, sorry for the dreadfully long posting (but now I've jumped in)!

Nobody wants to bite, so I will give it a shot.

First, there's nothing you can do about the text. Bad as it is, it is what it is, and you, as a cantor, have to live with it.

But the music is your responsibility. I would say, do not feel bound by the notes in the Teal Terror. Consider them, at best, a guide or a point of departure. As a cantor, you know your congregation and its musical capabilities better than the boys at the MCA. Figure out what they can and cannot do, and alter the music to fit.

This may mean simplifying the tones (especially the less used and the more awkward ones), or changing the setting of the words to the music (in many cases, it's apparent that someone had the bright idea of trying for one-to-one equivalence of the words in the Slavonic setting to the words in the English setting). Remember the guiding principle of chant: the cadences of chant should follow the normal cadences of speech. If the people find fitting the words to the notes as given, either changes the allocation of the words, or change the allocation of the notes.

You may also have to settle for a slightly smaller repertoire, not using all the tones as directed by the Typicon, but settling first on those closest to what the people already know. When they have mastered those with the new words, add another tone, wait for them to master that, and then move on to the next, until they are comfortable with all of them. Your ideal ought to be a Liturgy in which nobody looks at a book at all.

Finally, don't neglect Slavonic. Keep it in the repertoire for fixed parts of the Liturgy, varying from week to week. It reminds us of who we are, it's easier on the ears by far, and the people like it. A Byzantine congregation should be comfortable in all of its liturgical languages, not just English.

Thank you very much Stuart for your kind advice. My main concern is indeed the music, and your points are well taken and appreciated. I am fortunate to be working in a parish with a very supportive priest and congregation, which certainly makes things easier, but it has taken me some time to adjust to the new settings.

God bless you and your family, especially this joyous season!

Joe,

Thank you for your post from the heart. I'm joyful that your journey has brought you back with wisdom. We are all sinners and we don't look for perfection in this life.

I'm appreciative of the MCI for making available the other services which we didn't celebrate in the past. At this time of Philip's Fast we have the Philip's Fast Moleben which I don't recall being celebrated (in my parish) up until two years ago. By working with your pastor you can bring the full tradition of worship back to the parish. Good results require hard work, the patience of Job, and prayer.

Again, welcome back!

Christ is amongst us!
Fr Deacon Paul

Curious Joe,

Please be careful in asking questions. The Teal Terror clearly states: "this text and its attendant music will be the sole liturgical text for the celebration of the Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great." There are cantors who were labeled disobedient and told to leave for asking the questions you are asking. Bishop Skurla has made clear that no changes are contemplated to the RDL and those who don't like it should leave.

Jason

Yeah, if you ask too many questions, they'll dock your pay.

Yes, thank God: you can. Have at it.

Jason:

Thanks for your input and the cautionary note. I certainly do not want to be defiant or disrespectful in any way, in fact or appearance. I do hope to draw on the wealth of experience and information possessed by the many active, knowledgeable contributors to this forum to help me better understand the history of the work and what is expected of us in sustaining the tradition at present. I am "curious" by nature, but also deeply committed to sustaining our chant tradition and our Rite.

My only struggle (criticism if you will) is that I have found reconciling some of the new settings in my own mind to that which could be rendered from memory with benefit of respected training and to other commonly used pre-RDL reference sources (including settings in the original language) to be challenging. I still find myself at times focusing on the "notes" as opposed to the "conversation", which is unnatural and unnerving when leading. My main concern, however, is that congregational participation seems to have suffered, and "not knowing the 'new' music" has been the oft cited reason. As a faithful son of our Church, I'm disheartened to a degree that this is the case, but would like to do everything I can to help reverse that course. I'm now also in a position where fellow parishioners are starting to direct questions to me about the RDL settings (yes, even now), and I'd like to be able to address them as professionally and constructively as possible, using every such instance as an opportunity to encourage greater congregational participation.

To do so effectively, I feel as if I'm lacking some perspective on the history of the work itself and knowledge of the "ground rules" that were likely imparted on the clergy and active cantors in the Metropolia when the RDL was introduced, given my unfortunate absence from our Church coinciding with the RDL introduction. I have and do make frequent use of and reference to the MCI materials to compensate in part for my shorter "run time" experience with the new material (thanks Mr. M for all the updates, on the site and via the Yahoo! group), and it is always nice to see the thoughtfully prepared resources published for the less appreciated services and devotions (e.g. Emmanuel Moleben; this year's Christmas Eve Vespers), which help spur enthusiastic interest in our parish when used.

I will confess that I instinctively had felt that we were not to stray from the material at hand, and that is now solidly confirmed (... but to think of the many beautiful Cherubic Hymn variations, for example, that are at risk of being forgotten).

FYI - along these lines, I had posted a specific question earlier today regarding hymn variants included in and excluded from the RDL (e.g. the old, familiar melody used for the Hymn of the Incarnation - can't tell you how often I've been asked ...). The kind and rather prompt responses received pointed me to some older (ca. Spring 2007) posts that were directly on point, and also had information in the threads that spoke directly to your cautionary point. I will keep reading in an attempt to better educate myself and to catch up to the rest of the group.

My thanks and best wishes to you and yours this joyous season!

Joe

The RDL Pew BookYes, but...??? link and passim.