A contrarian review of By Flowing Waters
In the Spring 2004 issue of the journal Sacred Music, Calvert Shenk gives a mixed-to-negative review of By Flowing Waters and, by extension, the Graduale Simplex on which it is based.
Below is the full text of the review. Discussion welcomed.
On the copyright and credits page of this handsomely produced volume, one is disquieted to read that “By Flowing Waters is in no sense an official liturgical book. It is designed as a collection of chants, chiefly from biblical and liturgical sources, for use during the liturgy when alternatives to official liturgical texts may be chosen.” This would suggest the notorious rubrical authorization of “another suitable song” as the rationale for this book. But an examination of the contents does not really bear this out. Chants are provided for all the proper parts of the Massas well as several Ordinary settings and some miscellaneous hymns and responsories. The point of the caveat on the copyright page may well be that throughout the book the Psalm texts and other scriptural portions are from the New Revised Standard Version, which, as is well known; has been refused recognition for use in the liturgy in the United States.
This textual problem would appear to make the collection inadmissible for liturgical use in this country. In any case, one would be surprised to see it making much headway in the pews of very many parishes, although it certainly would be a significant improvement, musically speaking, over the “songbooks” full of jaunty sacro-pop tunes and melancholy ballads which currently infest the Ecclesia orans.
By Flowing Waters is, in fact, an English version of the Graduale Simplex. Whatever one’s feelings about that publication (mine are not very positive), this attempt to adapt Gregorian melodies to English words is, one may well feel, doomed to the same kind of failure with which its many predecessors have met. There is simply no way to do the trick without distorting somethingeither the rhythm of the music or the rhythm of the words.
Without adverting for the moment to the musical problems of an almost exclusively responsive format, or to the question of the appropriateness of taking chant “snippets” from the Divine Office and other sources and Shanghai-ing them into service at Holy Mass, it seems clear that people who would like to sing or hear chant at Mass probably would just as soon sing or hear the authentic melodies from the Graduale Romanum, and sing or hear them in Latin. The well-enunciated (by Msgr. Schuler and others) principle of “vernacular texts need music specifically composed for vernacular texts” holds good today.
Now, to advert to some musical considerations, is there not a certain monotony and consequent discontent almost built in to the idea of singing practically everything with short, quite unchallenging refrains for the people and longer, but still pretty unchallenging verses for the cantor (useful as this practice certainly is, if not overdone)? The proponents of the “ritual-music” theory of functionalism as the main principle of musical liturgy have tended to advocate this sort of thing, and practically everyone involved in making music in church has used it for some purposes, but the treasury which the Council commanded to be preserved “summa cura” surely affords greater riches to be explored.
But one’s primary objection to By Flowing Waters, carefully crafted and musically tasteful as Professor Ford’s work undeniably is, remains one of emphasis. Where the Graduale Simplex becomes the standard book of chant, the richer repertoire of the Graduale Romanum is almost inevitably lost (vide St. Peter’s in Rome.)
Leave a Reply
15 Comments
Even though I do use BFW from time to time, I have to agree with this guy… One of the most annoying things are the way the psalm tones were adapted to the English text: from time to time (especially in the incipits) it’s more stilted than it need be.
Secondly, the NRSV comment is also true to form. But the ridiculous inclusive language is annoying as well. Look at the selection given for the introit of the Ascension where the famous “Viri Galilaei” text begins “Galilean men and women…”??!? That’s going a bit too far. Viri refers to men, not the generic “men”/”humankind” of homines. The “viri” here are the apostles!!!
I don’t agree completely, however, with the comment that the vernacular cannot be adapted to Gregorian chant melodies without a massive “slash and burn” job. I’ve had some reasonable success with the antiphons for the Divine Office with even the impoverished ICEL texts, which gives me hope that it can be done…
Excellent comments, Tim. I see BFW as a resource to be used when it works, not as an everyday book in the pews, like a hymnal.
I am familiar with the argument made in the review that Gregorian melodies simply do not work for English text, which may be true for note-for-note adaptations (although the Anglicans have been doing these for a long time). But I have found some newly composed chant-style melodies to be very effective, like those found in Theodore Marier’s hymnal “Hymns Psalms and Spiritual Canticles” - so I would not throw the baby out with the bath water. (I can’t tell whether the reviewer’s objections would cover the type of chant antiphons in this book, which are not adaptations of existing chant, but newly composed melodies often incorporating chant motifs.)
At any rate, I see a “best can be the enemy of the good” problem here - the best being authentic chant from the GR, the good being neo-chant - and so am hesitant to agree with the review whole heartedly. Almost anything would be an improvement over the ubiquitous pop stuff we have to put up with now, as the reviewer himself admits!
Dear readers:
Not having access as yet to a copy of By Flowing Waters, I am not in a position to speak well as regards its adequacies or inadequacies. I generally like the work of Dr. Ford, however, and I wonder to what extent the reviewer’s negative view relates to what appears to be a preference for chant in Latin, and an apparent assumption that plainchant cannot be adapted to English.
I agree with Tim, in that I have found in my own experience as well that one can adapt the psalm tones very easily to English. The more melismatic texts are more difficult, but I suspect the problem is less with the texts (both musical and verbal) and more with the relative skills and discernment which the adapter brings to them. I certainly agree with Sam, that the Anglicans have done a wonderful job, even with the more melismatic chants and sequences.
My work these days has more been with slavic and byzantine chant, and I have been in communication with a large number of Orthodox and Eastern Catholics who have been rather effective in adapting chant in Slavonic and Greek into English. Roman Catholics might profitably learn from their example.
I am a Roman Catholic who has been serving in Episcopal churches for the past ten years (more on my sad story at another time) but I have effectively employed BFW in two different places of worship: one being quasi Anglo-Catholic and the other a more mixed-bag, socially radical, all are welcome kind of place.
The above responses are correct. Anglicans have succesfully adapted chant to English for over a century. The adapted tones from the The Plainsong Psalter from Church Publishing are excellent. The entire premise of a psalm tone is fitting many or not so many syllables into a few notes, whether it is Latin, English, or Swahili. I must admit that I dont think Paul Fords work is exemplar in the area of psalm pointing. The text does not need to be tweaked to fit the psalm tones. As a result, many psalms sound inorganic and fussy. I often ignore his work and rewrite what needs help. It is a good homework assignment for anyone to take a psalm and try pointing it.
I have used BFW as a springboard and resource. I would never dream of putting it in the pews. I mainly use it as a source of inspiration to choose seasonal music for the Communion Procession, adapting or writing a new antiphon and having the cantor or choir chant verses from whatever appropriate psalm. This has been very successful in parish use.
Has anyone investigated the work of Bruce Ford in his American Gradual? It has most of the Propers from the Liber translated into English and set into modern notation. This is a great way to introduce chant to amateur choirs and the churches I have served have come to love and expect any solemnity to open with the Proper Introit from this resource. I also enjoy his rhythmic interpretation of chant.
Yes, none of this is ideal, but it is a start toward better things. We would not be wise to wage our liturgical battles with Latin purism, however much sense it makes in an ever-growing pluralistic society. It could be the accessible (I hate that word) experience that would lead a congregation to direct themselves toward purer forms of chant.
I have found BFW useful.
Not perfect, but very useful; and, considering the alternatives out there, and the inertia besetting those who ought to have provided a similar resource long since, a great debt of thanks is owed Dr. Ford, in my estimation.
I have found BFW useful. I always compare with the latin text and sometimes use the latin from the Graduale Simplex. We also regularly use the Graduale Romanum. When I use BFW I always change the text in the verses to the Grail or the NAB from the Lectionary.
Peace, all.
I’ve had a reference copy of BFW in my office since its original release. I echo Geri’s comment, and find myself not bothered (naturally) by the use of the NRSV, especially considering that during Dr Ford’s work on this volume, there was no single approved translation (I wonder if the Grail is indeed approved any longer), and the NRSV was deemed superior to the NAB from both standpoints of inclusive language and translation accuracy.
If a parish is already using the Graduale Simplex or Romanum, I’m not sure why they would bother with BFW as anything other than shelf-filler. And parishes that do little enough chant and no Latin would find it to be a helpful foray.
And regarding the criticism of Viri Galilaei, hymns are meant to be more than a retelling of historical incidents; they have spiritual meaning for people in the pew today. While the gospel does indeed recount “men” gazing into the skies, the message for today’s listeners is somewhat broader than a docudrama approach to the Scriptures.
I happen to know that “By Flowing Waters” uses the NRSV because Paul Ford wanted to make a big point about its liturgical appropriateness. The “Nihil obstat” and “Imprimatur” were witheld as a consequence.
Peace, Mark.
Interesting comments. According to my sources, an imprimatur was granted to the NRSV in 1991. I don’t know how that reconciles in your worldview.
Additionally, the imprimatur deals with the basic issues of faith and morals, not politics, nor with the Main Cause of Correct Liturgy by My Personal Definition. The advantages of various biblical translations are not a matter of faith and morals, but of discipline (where they apply to liturgical use) and personal opinion.
I think one can criticize the NRSV from an emotional or intellectual soapbox, but an appeal to faith and morals is fairly groundless.
I said that “By Flowing Waters” had its “Nihil obstat” and “Imprimatur” witheld because of its use of NRSV. I’ll stick by that assertion.
My silly and myopic interpretation of Psalm history:
1000 BC: `David’ `composes’ Psalms in Hebrew, using at times spectacular accompaniment.
1500 years later: Gregory compiles relatively spartan contemporary settings in his vernacular. Impoverished provinces, lacking cymbal technology and unable to translate `timbrel’, celebrate the wonderfully accessible austerity.
1500 years more: Dr. Ford’s turn. As my secular-chorus-acquired Latin is inadequate to translate my copy of Graduale Simplex, I happily use BFW as a source book. I simplify even further as desired. (Mozarabic Alleluia tune works fine as a Psalm tone.) I freely dilute Hildegard’s wildness as she spins in her grave. A sincerely puzzled congregation does not sing refrains to communion Psalms… back to hymns we go.
2 weeks more: Kind, wise scholar Shenk chides my `unchallenging’ `monotony’ and that of my mentors and friends. Weary, worn, and sad, I seek solace in imaginary histories.
The simplest plainchant modes demand careful phrasing, diction, and dynamics, presenting enjoyable challenges for choruses and congregations at all levels of sophistication.
Can `monotony’, `discontent’, and the frowns of the wisest curmudgeon be dispelled by full attention to the inspired Word?
I agree that it is a useful resource, but not the only one that should be used (and certainly not as a hymnal in the pews). My preference is the Latin Chant from the Graduale Romanum, but when vernacular is the order of the day, this edition provides an alternative for a schola, especially one that is inexperienced and not yet ready for more complex chant. When necessary, I change the words to the approved liturgical translation. Again, it is a resource; would welcome something better that is this comprehensive as far as chant goes.
Can anyone point me to a place where I can get audio files to use in singing the psalms, canticles and ‘te deum’ as published in the Liturgy of the Hours Apostolate ‘pdf’ files?
I only just heard of this discussion and would like to publish here my response to Mr. Shenk’s review, in hope that it will answer some of the other questions raised in the comments.
May the soul of Calvert Shenk and of all the faithful departed rest in peace.
Blessings,
Paul (Ford)
===============
To: Calvert Shenk
From: Paul Ford
Dear Mr. Shenk,
I am sorry I missed seeing you at the Chicago consultation on the music of the new edition of the Roman Missal. I hope you received a copy of my comments which I had asked to be distributed at that meeting in my absence . . .
The latest issue of Sacred Music just arrived at our seminary library and I found your review of my book, By Flowing Waters, that I have long been awaiting since I had The Liturgical Press send you a review copy.
I am glad you found my work well-crafted and musically tasteful and the volume handsomely produced. I agree with you that its use in the pews would be a significant improvement. And I am glad that you detected that my book is a very faithful English version of the 1988 editio typica altera of the Graduale Simplex. I will note my other points of agreement shortly.
I wish you had known that the disclaimer at the top of the copyrights/credits page was revised in light of the GIRM 2002 by Msgr. James Moroney of the USCCB Secretariat for Liturgy on July 2, 2003 (partly as a consequence of your suggestion ten months ago that I approach Bishop Vigneron and Msgr. Moroney). This removes the “textual problem” you mention. The substance of Msgr. Moroney’s letter follows (copy attached):
By Flowing Waters: Chant for the Liturgy, although not an official liturgical book, is approved for publication by the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy. The chants are translated from the Graduale Simplex and may be used as sung settings of the Responsorial Psalm, Entrance, and Communion Chants.
I wonder if you would do my work the kindness of a note to this effect in the next issue of Sacred Music?
The previous disclaimer had to be published in order for the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy to permit ICEL to release its Roman-approved English translation of the Graduale Simplex for use in my book.
May I say without offense that my friends in the Adoremus Society exaggerate the “textual problem” because they misunderstand the significance of the Roman request for the withdrawal of the NRSV as the translation for liturgical proclamation at the Eucharist in the US? Few are aware that this was done in favor of the USCCB’s proposal to Rome of one translation per conference of bishops so that their own translation, the RNAB, would be the only one used in the US, at some financial advantage to the conference—I hope this was not the only motive.
So although the NRSV may not be PROCLAIMED at the Eucharist in the US still, this does not mean that it may not be SUNG, a permission that has existed as particular law for the US since Rome confirmed it on December 17, 1968. The NRSV continues to enjoy the imprimatur; and I have agreed with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in advance of the completion of their negotiations on Roman-required changes in the translation to incorporate all the changes in the next edition and make them immediately available on the By Flowing Waters website and my website: http://www.pford.stjohnsem.edu/ with its special section on By Flowing Waters http://www.pford.stjohnsem.edu/PFordsite/ByFlowingWaters.htm and the Index of Latin
Originals http://www.pford.stjohnsem.edu/PFordsite/BFW%20site/BFW%20items/New%20Indexes/Index%20of%20Latin%20Antiphons.pdf
May I also say that I love chanting the Mass from the Graduale Romanum, that I teach chant at my seminary and conduct a schola which sings weekly there in hopes of keeping chant alive in the Church, and that I agree with Msgr. Schuler that “vernacular texts need music specifically composed for vernacular texts”? I was hoping to have a kinder reception of my efforts in the pages of Sacred Music but I am happy for the positive things you did say and I wish you very well.
Sincerely,
Paul F. Ford
To contradict Mark P’s assertions, I can assure all that I used the NRSV because it was the only new translation of the psalms approved for use at the time when I started this project (1993). As a consequence, my publisher at the time ordered me to use the NRSV.
Every word in my book has an imprimatur.
Translate My Blog
Translation Services by ALS
Social Bookmarks
Bookmark to:
New Store Items
![[Bench Pressus]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/bench-pressus-ad125x125.gif)
![[Colossians 3:16]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/colossians-316-ad125x125.gif)
Social Networking
Social Bookmarks
Bookmark to:
New Store Items
Social Networking
![[SMMMHDH]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/smmmhdh.png){kind=small}
![[Listed on blogs4God]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/blogs4god.png){kind=small}
![[Valid XHTML 1.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/xhtml10.png){kind=small}
![[Valid CSS 2.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/css.png){kind=small}
Last 5 Comments