The Practicality of Chant in Modern Liturgy - Part 2

The purists will argue for an unharmonized, a cappella performance style, and their argument that Gregorian chant in particular requires "no additives" is a sound one. On the other hand, the harmonic tradition in western culture is very strong, and has certain practical benefits in the endeavor known as congregational singing. It gives the organist something to do, which in turn provides a kind of musical security blanket of sound for parishioners struggling to learn something new. Gregorian chant, including even the simpler hymns that have regular phrasing, is difficult for modern congregations, so that, while an unaccompanied singing would be preferable for the experienced, a harmonization by the organ can be very helpful.

It is the second part of the question - "what kind?" - that is more important in the case of more recent chants, composed with harmony in mind. The kinds of harmony are many, but those most commonly used for liturgical music might be broadly grouped into two: the functional and the modal. They are not equally suited to chant singing.

Functional harmony is the most familiar to western listeners. It is the harmony of Bach, Mozart, Ellington, the Beatles, and for the most part, the popular styles of modern liturgical music. "Functional" refers to the qualities that the various chords have in relation to one another, qualities which produce certain expected progressions, like a musical grammar. In the key of C Major, for example, a G7 chord seems to lead naturally to a C Major chord to finish a phrase or a piece. Modal harmony is missing these functions, or at least they are greatly attenuated. There is little expectation about what chord will follow what, and progressions of modal harmony can be surprising. This is to say nothing about the amount of dissonance, which is an independent factor in either system.

Functional harmony, the familiar kind, does not suit chant well. The functions of the chords have strong metric associations; some chords are "weak beat" chords, others are "strong beat" chords, which means that the consistent use of harmonic functions will create a sense of meter where none was intended, and will also make breaks, or cadences, in the music when the flow should continue uninterrupted. All this technical description is just an objective way of explaining the "sing-song" effect. It is the enemy of the seamless continuity which is the hallmark of chant. We see (and hear, unfortunately) fine examples of the "sing-song" effect every week in the responsorial psalms found in "missalette" periodicals. These little responses are supposed to be some kind of chant, but they are sung in a weak meter which is then amplified by a harmonic accompaniment that always sounds trite, because it is a functional accompaniment contrary to the intentions of its melody.

As a counter-example, look at the superb psalter contained in Hymns, Psalms, and Spiritual Canticles (BACS Publishing). Here the compilers have chosen antiphons with non-metric melodies whose flow is never interrupted by its harmonization. On the contrary, the modal progressions, often spiced by tasteful dissonances, recall an old tradition while seeming ever fresh. The psalms themselves combine the efficient recitation tone with modal harmonization that puts the English text across clearly, quickly, and beautifully.

The recall of the old, it must be admitted, is one of the less practical but most salient benefits of chant in the liturgy. There is no doubt that chant has certain disadvantages: it is less familiar, it can have unfortunate associations, and it is not as easy to learn quickly because its lack of meter means that important memory cues are missing. But its aesthetic compensations are inestimable. Its style can be as modern as one would wish, and yet chant will always have the weight of tradition behind it. It will never be confused with the secular; it always sounds sacred. It is no accident that chant is the musical foundation of every major religion in the world. Why is it so underused in ours?

Copyright © 1992, The Diapason. Used by permission.

Joseph P. Swain is associate professor of music at Colgate University, where he is head of the music theory instruction. He holds a Ph.D and A.M. from Harvard University, and an A.B. from Dartmouth College. Dr. Swain has served as music director of Saint Mary's Church, Hamilton NY, and as consultant for The Collegeville Hymnal.

See Booklets of Chant [CNP Catalog #2001-2004]

See also Music based on chant [from the CanticaNOVA Publications' Catalog]