• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

Report from St. Louis Chant Workshop with Marcel Pérès

Patrick Williams · August 30, 2023

HAD THE OPPORTUNITY to attend a week-long workshop with Marcel Pérès hosted by the Cantores Sancti Ludovici last week at the Oratory of Ss. Gregory & Augustine in St. Louis. According to whom you ask, Pérès is regarded either a genius or a madman. Although his approach is considerably different from mine, I went with an open and respectful mind. We had approximately twenty hours of instruction time with him over the course of the week plus the services and meals together. Friday we sang not only Mass but the entire Divine Office except Compline for the feast of St. Louis, King of France, including first and second Vespers and a two-and-a-half-mile procession. Louis IX died in 1270 and was canonized in 1297. We sang first Vespers from copies of a 1682 manuscript, but the chants were presumably composed several centuries earlier. Regardless, they are certainly from a much later period than the first-millennial sources I specialize in.

Pérès’s approach is for all the singers to sing “from the manuscript”—ideally, a single large choirbook—without extra editorial markings, which is almost the opposite of how I typically approach score preparation. We spent a great deal of time working on fauxbourdon (harmonized chant with the melody in the tenor) for first Vespers. The fauxbourdon alternated between full choir and quartet, but I wonder if a more historically accurate result might not have been achieved by alternating fauxbourdon and unison cantus planus, use of serpent (the wind instrument, not the reptile!) or a modern instrument as its substitute, or, for the hymn and Magnificat, organ versets. We used our customary Italianate Church Latin pronunciation instead of trying to reproduce the seventeenth-century French Latin pronunciation, so at least that element of historical “period performance” was compromised in favor of current liturgical use.

Luca Ricossa, who has been something of an online mentor to me, wrote seventeen years ago that Pérès was the only one incorporating ornaments into the performance of Gregorian chant. In 2023, Pérès along with his students and collaborators might still outnumber all of the other singers doing so apart from native Corsicans. Many find such ornamentation, especially when involving quarter tones, to sound “eastern,” “Arabic,” or “Muslim.” I myself have used the terms “exotic” and “foreign-sounding” to describe such things applied to otherwise Solesmes-style chant, but it is much more convincing—and less distracting—at the very deliberate tempo Pérès takes, which is approximately twice as slow as what Jan van Biezen recommends for the Mass Propers (84 to 100 beats per minute for the long; he recommends 120 to 144 for the Office antiphons), and at least four times as slow as what one would expect for psalm recitation at any of the traditional Latin rite seminaries. (I have been to services where the psalmody must have exceeded 300 syllables per minute and can’t say whether that was really and truly the community’s notion of “free speech rhythm” or a perfunctory, mechanical means of discharging a canonical obligation as efficiently as possible.)

Pérès uses a pitch based on the late eighteenth-century tuning fork from Versailles, A=390 Hz, which is about a whole step lower than modern concert pitch. I was pretty much a baritone for the week! On the basis of evidence from as early as the tenth century (possibly the ninth) and as late as the twentieth, I think the slow tempo and low pitch are both correct for the period in question. I would characterize the sound as heavy and visceral in contrast to the soaring and ethereal aesthetic of the Solesmes style of chant. I also want to note the lack of “rounded” phrasing typical for the Solesmes method and most classical music, with a somewhat rough and raw sound—without vibrato, of course—not unlike Sacred Harp singing, many renditions of Byzantine chant, or an enthusiastic Dutch Reformed congregation singing metrical psalms with robust organ accompaniment.

To my surprise, there were no vocal warm-ups as a group, hardly any comments on tone production or blend, and no use of solfege, letter names, numbers, or neutral syllables to learn notes. I reflected throughout the week, without reaching any conclusions worth sharing, on the difference between “arbitrary” and “intuitive” in terms of musical interpretation, and on whether an ensemble can actually “intuit” anything as a group or merely imitate the strongest voices among them. My favorite quote from Pérès (which must be heard mentally with a French accent) was, “This Johann Sebastian Bach was a strange man. He was writing in the style of the fifteenth century in the eighteenth, even though he was a Protestant, with counterpoint and canon by augmentation. No one else was writing that way.” He went on to explain that Bach’s ornamentation of the melody (cantus firmus) in the organ chorale preludes was essentially the same thing we were doing with the chant.

There is no one-size-fits-all chant interpretation to encompass everything from the ninth century through the twentieth. Remarkably, we even heard a frank admission from Peter Kwasniewski that much of the Solesmes method was fabricated. There can be no doubt that the monks of Solesmes added rhythmic indications where they didn’t exist (late medieval chant), removed them where they did (Renaissance cantus fractus), and ignored many of them from the best and most reliable sources (ninth- and tenth-century adiastematic neumes), which they claimed to follow. Echoing what Pérès’s student Bruno de Labriolle said in a recent interview, to expect the chant to be sung exactly the same way every time in every church throughout the world is treating Gregorian chant like McDonald’s, and it’s hardly an artistic approach to sacred music.

Getting just a bit more technical for a moment, I and others have been somewhat perplexed by the short notes at the mediant cadences of the introit psalm tones in modes I, II, V, VII, and VIII according to the adiastematic neumes (which I mentioned in passing here). The 1682 manuscript we used was written for Les Invalides in Paris. Pérès discussed the acoustics there and at other great churches, where the reverberation time can exceed ten seconds. When one sings a couple of short notes followed immediately by a rest, what sounds ridiculously abrupt in a typical American parish church may have a marvelous result in a more favorable acoustic, where one hears at least two distinct echoes during the pause. That insight alone might have been worth the cost of the workshop!

Pérès said something to the effect that we ought to think of possessive pronouns (suum, noster, ejus, meis, etc.) as forming a single unit along with the nouns they modify. Not only should we not breathe between the noun and possessive pronoun, but there should be no lengthening of the final syllable of the first word of the pair. Elsewhere, word finals in Latin are important because they indicate the grammatical conjugation or declension, which expresses the word’s case, gender, and number. Although I probably came across these very points in some Solesmes method sourcebook since learning Latin more than a quarter-century ago, the reminder was helpful. Finally, not having sung under another director with any regularity since early 2020, and not having prepared any of the music ahead of time, I was reminded that, as long as one has an unobstructed view, it is really not difficult to watch the director at all times! I will have to be uncompromising with my choirs on this point from now on—which reminds me . . . I wore my “mean choir director” T-shirt under my cassock Friday night (thanks Eugene and choir!) and it was a hit, even with Marcel Pérès himself!

Here are links for a non-professional recording from first Vespers, courtesy of Angela Rocchio, with pauses and pre-intonations removed and converted to mp3 format:

Part 1 (Pss. 109–111)
Part 2 (Pss. 112–113, hymn)
Part 3 (Magnificat, commemoration of St. Bartholomew, Benedicamus, Salve Regina)

Angela Rocchio has published a report at the International Chant Academy website. Expect a post about the St. Louis patronal feast from one of the contributors at New Liturgical Movement in the coming days.

Photo by Matthew Galicia (yours truly, exhausted, front row with gray cap)

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: chant, Divine Office, Gregorian Chant, Harmonized Gregorian Chant Last Updated: August 30, 2023

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

“Place the missal in the hand of the faithful so that they may take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass; and that they faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church.”

— Ven. Pope Pius XII

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up