ATHER VALENTINE YOUNG had a phrase he often repeated: Take ’em or leave ’em. Whenever he said that, it basically meant: “Sharing these ideas in case they’re useful; no hard feelings if not.” I ask readers to put my statements on vernacular plainsong into the same bucket. What follows will likely strike some readers as wrong—and I welcome the pushback. Write to me, and I’ll read what you send. But I ask one thing in return: hear me out first. You may find these ideas useful, or you may not. Either way, take what’s useful and leave the rest.
Organ Harmonization • I have been creating accompaniments for the Graduale Romanum vernacular adaptations by the CHAUMONOT COMPOSERS GROUP. I’m really pleased with how my harmonization came out for this coming Sunday, which is the 6th Sunday of Easter. It’s the closest I’ve come to putting down on paper exactly what I heard in my head. At the flourishing feasts website you can download—free of charge—the singers’ musical score and its corresponding keyboard accompaniment. [Sadly, many readers won’t take the time to download either of those PDF files.] A few days ago, I attempted to sing it while simultaneously accompanying myself on the organ:
Controversial Considerations:
What makes a ‘good’ or ‘successful’ adaptation into the vernacular when it comes to the GRADUALE ROMANUM? Years ago, I would have answered: “How closely the adaptation matches the authentic melody determines whether it’s a poor adaptation.” Brace yourselves—this is the controversial part. Over the decades, I’ve changed my mind.
Some considerations which I support:
(1) Is the adaptation pleasing? More importantly, does it convey the words in a memorable and agreeable way?
(2) Does the adaptation sing well? Does it flow? Or does it sound like it came from someone sitting in front of a keyboard?
(3) Is it well married to the words? Or does the adaptation ‘force’ the words in an awkward way?
(4) When one takes a step back—viewing the melody as a whole—does it sound like it was created in a mindless way? Or is there a shape?
(5) In terms of how the words fit the melody, is this done in a sophisticated way? Or is it done in a way that’s painfully predictable? In other words, were the words married to the melody by an artist or a toddler learning to speak English for the first time?
Modality • Someone might object: “But surely any adaptation from the GRADUALE ROMANUM should maintain the mode of the authentic chant, correct?” As a matter of fact, this is not true. First of all, the authentic Gregorian repertoire frequently sets the self-same text in various modes. Moreover, sometimes practical considerations (or peculiarities of the English language) result in a change of mode—and rightly so. Finally, those who carefully examine the GRADUALE ROMANUM know that more recent feasts often have multiple settings of the same text in different modes … even radically different ones, such as MODE 4 vs. MODE 8.
Concluding Thoughts • I’d rather not unload all my emotional baggage on an uninterested audience. That being said, I can’t refrain from admitting I find many vernacular adaptations severely deficient, uninspired, and amateurish. The results are often so boring and monotonous that the only appropriate adjective would be soul-destroying. Often, it would appear that a “paint by numbers” approach was adopted. My friends, this is not a game! Gregorian Chant is our precious heritage. We should never abuse it. Moreover, plain-chant has its own highly sophisticated ‘logic’—developed over several millennia. As a closing example, consider the interesting and beautiful opening phrase of the feast of Corpus Christi:
Notice in particular the
treatment of the tonic
accent of the word ádipe.
Gregorian Chant has its own ‘logic’—and it isn’t left to the likes of us to force our own views upon it. Our job is to sing it, decade after decade. Only then does it begin to reveal its secrets.
