Ship of Fools: Singing the gospel

Thread: Singing the gospel Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025802

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Does your parish sing the gospel? If so, what is the reference used to instruct the priest or deacon how to do it?

Are there festal tones and ferial tones? Ancient tones and modern ones?

In the back of The Episcopal Church's Altar Book containing Holy Eucharist Rites One and Two is a Musical Appendex giving instructions on singing parts of the Eucharist.

In these instructions for singing the gospel there are two different tones, I and II.

The second tone is described as coming from the 16th century, while the first tone has no historical information at all. The second tone is much plainer than the first.

What can be told an inquirer seeking to learn how to sing the gospel?

Is Mockingbird anywhere to be found?

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

I sang the Gospel for the first time at this years Easter Vigil. I used this book for the music, though for the actual service I simply pointed the text in the Gospel book, since I found having the notes there led me to focus more on the music than the text. The tones are pretty similar to what is in the Missal.

It's really pretty simple, only three different notes.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I do it all the time.

I prefer the simpler tone; it calls less attention to itself, and is of greater antiquity.

As far as I'm aware, there's no festal/ferial difference. I taught myself how to do it using the Liber. Once you know the rules, it's pretty easy.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Fr. Weber, are we talking about the same simpler tone? The Altar Book tells that it dates from the 16th century.

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

Without delving into a pile of liturgical books I can remember (in the sense of being aware of, not able to sing from memory!) three Gospel tones. One labelled 'Sarum' used in the parish of my youth, and two labelled 'Latin', one 'festal' (including Sundays) and one simpler labelled 'ferial', which I can't recall ever hearing.

Both of these traditions were set out in instructional manuals published by the 'Plainchant Publications Committee', a 'non Sarum' outfit now (I suspect?) long forgotten....

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

It's a rarity I'd say! Outside of a few grand London and US AC shrines and the grander sort of RC occasion. I believe there is usually only said to be one Tone for it - the one with three notes FCB mentions - making it rather simpler than the Epistle tone, ironically enough.

I suppose the Eastern Rites always sing their Gospels, just like everything else? Further irony...

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

On Good Friday the entire choir sang the Passion Gospel with individuals taking different "characters," in an original composition by the music director. Not my kind of thing.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

OK, this is beginning to get interesting. The Missale Romanum gives three sets of tones for the Gospel: Tone A is pretty simple, lacking any mediant inflection.Tone B is the one I am familiar with and is (with a slight variation on the conclusion of the reading) the one used in the book I linked to above. Tone C, which has the note id est tonus B secundum modum antiquiorem (that is, tone B according to the older manner/mode/fashion), is pretty similar to B.

The English translation of the Roman Missal gives only two tones: B, which you can find here, and C (which it calls "the Solemn Tone"), which you can find here .

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

My pastor chants the Gospel at Mass on Sundays and "High Holy Days" when the Mass is sung. We also chant all the readings at the Easter Vigil. I chanted two this year. Amazingly, no one was injured.

I wish more parishes would intone the Gospel.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

It's sung as a matter of course at our shack.

Thurible

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It used to be a matter of course in loads of churches from MOTR upwards.

Gone out of fashion, more's the pity.

I've sung the epistle on some occasions. More interesting tone that the ones for the gospel.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Our parish priest prefers to say things well, rather than sing things (possibly) badly, which is sensible IMNSHO!

OTOH, our Visiting Priest does occasionally sing the Gospel, though I couldn't say off-hand which tone or whatever he uses. Just sounds fine, which I guess is the important thing.

Ian J.

Posted by Swick (# 8773) on :

The Gospel was formerly sung at my church, but our present priest dosen't sing very well, so now it's spoken.

It can be beautiful, but I must admit that I often had trouble understanding the words when sung by most women-sorry!--but since after hearing the texts my entire life I pretty much know what's coming next.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Fr. Weber, are we talking about the same simpler tone? The Altar Book tells that it dates from the 16th century.

I think we are, and you're correct--it's actually more recent. Don't know where I read or heard that it was older, but clearly I was confused!

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Our deacon-in-residence sings the Gospel from time to time, usually on 'big days.' When he sings, he projects, and everyone can hear him; when he speaks the text he usually drops his voice so much that all one hears is a mumble. (I'm encouraging him to sing more!)

On another, but sorta related point: In the Pre-Vat2 rite, which the English Missal IIRC copied in this, the 'Glory be to thee, O Lord' response at the beginning of the Gospel was sung, but the 'Praise be to Thee, O Christ' at the end was SAID. Is this in fact correct, and does anyone know why?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I haven't encountered this for years, and couldn't follow what was being said. It puzzles me why with decent sound systems these days anyone would want to do this. [Two face]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
On another, but sorta related point: In the Pre-Vat2 rite, which the English Missal IIRC copied in this, the 'Glory be to thee, O Lord' response at the beginning of the Gospel was sung, but the 'Praise be to Thee, O Christ' at the end was SAID. Is this in fact correct, and does anyone know why?

This is correct. Jungmann says that this is because Laus tibi, Christe was a late medieval addition, with only the Mass server, and not the choir, responding. This was changed in the 1970 missal.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

What FCB said.

I intone the Gospel in the Ordinary a form of the Roman Rite regularly, last having done so on Monday for the Annunciation. I usually use tone A but occasionally - as at the Easter Vigil - the more ancient form of tone B. in the Extraordinary Form it has to be intoned (as does the Epistle) in any Solemn Mass.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Reverend Misters: do you save your gospel chanting for special occasions, or do it whenever you serve as deacon of a Mass? If the former, how do you decide how special an occasion it is?

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

Can I further ask, what is the significance of singing the Gospel? What are we trying to express by doing so?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Not trying to 'impress' anyone.

But - nearly all religions sing their scriptures. By so doing, it stops the reader putting their own interpretation into it by their tone of voice, emphasis etc.

Probably the original reason was acoustics - before microphones.

Also, it marks out the gospel, as does our standing for it, from other readings.

NOT singing the gospel is a very, very recent innovation - circa 1967.

[ 13. April 2013, 18:38: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
NOT singing the gospel is a very, very recent innovation - circa 1967.

No it isn't. In 1966 or earlier it would have marked out an incumbent who self-identified as Anglo-Catholic.

Before the mid fifties, except among the very Anglo-Catholic, almost all Communion Services were at 8am or straight after Morning Prayer for those that stayed.

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

I'm aware its an ancient practice. My theory was that it was an aid to memory when written texts/ability to read/sufficient light were less common than now.

Have we really always done it? Trollope seems quite disparaging of the archdeacon's curate who starts 'intoning'. (End of Barchester Towers)

Please understand, I am not against the practice. If I were to start sing the Gospel myself, I would do so for a reason the congregation would understand - otherwise it does become "look what I can do".

Re: 'emotion' in reading. Can certainly be over done. Some expression, used sparingly, can aid the listener. Isn't 'openning' scripture to the congregation part of the diaconal calling?

(Edit to correct missing apostrophe. Mea culpa, mea culpa...)

[ 13. April 2013, 19:35: Message edited by: 3rdFooter ]

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

Bits of the gospel are sung in our church by the choir, in Latin and German, and other hymns in the Bible.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Before the mid fifties, except among the very Anglo-Catholic, almost all Communion Services were at 8am or straight after Morning Prayer for those that stayed.

Not quite true. The Parish Communion movement was well established in parts of the country (notably the north-east) long before that. And it was the 'very Anglo-Catholic' parishes that tended to resist it (albeit in favour of non-communicating High Mass). So did, I suppose, for different reasons, the very Evangelical.

But singing the Gospel was not common anywhere.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
it marks out the gospel, as does our standing for it, from other readings.

Which I've half accepted on the rare occasions I've heard it sung - rare in OZ and I think all but non-existent in NZ - but in the one place I go where the epistle is sung this then has the unfortunate effect of grading scripture: Hebrew Scriptures? Dull, sit down and hear read. NT non-gospel? Mildly interesting, sit down and hear sung. Gospel? Whapsy do ... get into it with pyrotechnics and yeehah.

While I dislike over-accentuated reading of any sort (I have an elderly mother who believes every reading should sound like an Oxbridge Shakespearian recitation) I find singing off-putting. Where there are good sound systems it is redundant, and where they are bad it serves no better than a well read delivery.

I'm no low-churchman, and big on gospel procession (since I've rarely had a church big enogh for servers this has tended to be a minimalist procession). In NZ most anglican parishes just have a rostered reader pop up from the pews to read from the lectern (and often the other readings are dropped altogether ... or in some places the gospel reading is dropped and the Vicar's fave text is read instead, but don't get me going on NZ anglicanism). My successor at St Triangles considers her self a liturgist and "high" so she continued the gospel procession that I had introduced, but has an (unrobed of course) reader pop out from the pews to join it [Ultra confused]

... but I digress. But I stand notbecause the M,M, L & J mob are more important that Paul and his cobbers or J, E, D, P and the rest, but because there is a lovely Incarnation reenactment as word becomes Word and is broken open to become our action ...

Though I suppose "he came singing love", as NZ hymnwriter-ordinairre Colin Gibson once wrote ... in one of his worst but best known (world famous in NZ) hymns puts it. But his theology was a little obscure if that's anything to go by. I find no record of Jesus singing. No, I'll pass on the singing, thanks.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Reverend Misters: do you save your gospel chanting for special occasions, or do it whenever you serve as deacon of a Mass? If the former, how do you decide how special an occasion it is?

Hart of my own heart, I'm not sure how systematic e we are about this, but working back from last Monday, I've intoned theGospel on the Solemnity of the Assumption, Easter morning, Easter Vigil (with others), Good Friday (with others), Holy Thursday Mass of the Lord's Supper, Chrism Mass, Palm Sunday (with others), Laetare Sunday, Feast of St David, Candlemass, Epiphany, Solemnity of Mary the Mother of God, Christmas, Immaculate Conception and the Prdination of our new Bishop.

Can't think of any other occasion in the last six months. These have been "negotiated": ie someone has asked or I have offered to do it and out PP has said yes. There hasn't been an occasion when either someone has asked or I have volunteered when the answer has been "no". Next time is Ascension,

Why is it done, 3rd Footer? The Roman Rite is a sung rite and it is fitting that that is reflected particularly on more solemn occasions.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Reverend Misters: do you save your gospel chanting for special occasions, or do it whenever you serve as deacon of a Mass? If the former, how do you decide how special an occasion it is?

The Vigil this year was the first time I've ever done it, and probably the first time in our parish since, say, oh, 1965. I might suggest it for this years Xmas midnight Mass. People seemed to like it, but I suspect they wouldn't go for it as a regular thing.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
NOT singing the gospel is a very, very recent innovation - circa 1967.
No it isn't. In 1966 or earlier it would have marked out an incumbent who self-identified as Anglo-Catholic.

We were known as 'moderately high' or 'prayer book catholic and we did it.

In my home town, all the churches on one side of the town bridge were evangelical.

On the other side, all of the 6 churches sang the gospel and only one identified as 'anglo-catholic'.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
it marks out the gospel, as does our standing for it, from other readings.

Which I've half accepted on the rare occasions I've heard it sung - rare in OZ and I think all but non-existent in NZ - but in the one place I go where the epistle is sung this then has the unfortunate effect of grading scripture: Hebrew Scriptures? Dull, sit down and hear read. NT non-gospel? Mildly interesting, sit down and hear sung. Gospel? Whapsy do ... get into it with pyrotechnics and yeehah.

I agree with the sentiment of this. I think it is vitally important that we value the OK. (Then again, there is a tone for it to be sung too.)

But liturgists have always stressed the gospel.

Not sure where that takes us - contradictions.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0