caeci la - An Introduction to Three Masses of Josquin •••• Roger Wagner Apostles and Martyrs in Paschal Time •• Dom Ermin Vitry, O.S.B. <JJ~'( VOLUME 85, NO. 1 FEBRUARY, 1958 .... ' Sixth Annual Liturgical Music Workshop "THE CHOIRMASTER'S WORKSHOP" BOYS TOWN, NEBRASKA AUGUST 17th THROUGH THE 30th Flor Peeters Dom Ermin Vitry Roger Wagner Louise Cuyler James Welch THREE HOURS CREDIT, Creighton University Apply: Mus;c Department, Boys To,..n, Nebraska CAECILIA Published four times a year, February, May, August and December. Second·Oass Mail Privileges authorized at Omaha, Nebraska. SublCription price--43.00 per year; $'.00 for two years. All articles for publication IDUIt be in the banda of the editor, P. O. Box 1012, Omaha 1, Nebraska, 30 cia,. before month of publication. B1Uin.. Managers Norbert Letter ' Owlge of .ddreu abould be 8eIlt to the circulation manager: Paul Sing, P. O. Box 1012, Omaha 1, Nebraska p..r.n.eter~ Form 3''79 to Caecilia, P. O. 8aE 1012, Omaha 1, Nebr. caeci la TABLE OF CONTENTS Letters to the Editor . ... .. ... .. 3 Editorials 6 Apostles and Martyrs in Paschal Time--Dom Ennin Vitry ....................... 12 Report From ~nver-Rev. Francis Schmi~ ............. .. /4"')... 13 An Introduction to Three Masses of Josqum-Roger Wagner.(!!;).... 15 Accentual Cadences in Gregorian Chant-Dom Gregory Murray . 40 Introduction to the Gregorian Melodies-@agner............... 51 Of Note ............. ....................................... .. 103 Towards an Aesthetics of Sacred Music-Fidelis Smith, O.F.M.............. 107 Articles of Incorporation of the American Society of Saint Caecilia...... 118 Organ Music For Church-Francis Guentner, S.J. .. ...................... 121 Review (Masses) . .............................. 126 Other Music ... 129 Books ..... 131 Records .......... 139 Polyphonic Settings of Liturgical Texts-Rev. Richard Schuler ........... 143 Three Liturgical Dramas-F. H. Davis ..... .............................. 146 News-Litter .... ..................... ... 148 Announcements ..... ................ 151 Index, Caecilia, Volume 84 Musical Supplement VOLUME 85, NO. 1 FEBRUARY, 1958 RONCKA ~ BROS CAECILIA A Quarterly Review devoted to the liturgical music apostolate. Published with ecclesiastical approval by the Society of Saint Caecilia in February, May, August, and November. Established in 1874 by John B. Singenberger, K.C.S.G., K.C.S.S. (1849-1924). Editor Emeritus_ ___ __ ___ _ ______________ _ _Dom Ermin Vitry, O.S.B. Editor ___________________________________________________________ Rev. Francis Schmitt Contributing Editors _ Rev. Elmer Pfeil Rev. Richard Schuler James WeIch Rev. Francis Brunner, C.Ss.R. Paul Koch Rev. Francis Guentner, S. J. CaeciIia Associates Honorary Dr. Caspar Koch Mr. Arthur Reilly Rev. Russell Woollen, Washington, Dom Gregory Murray, Downside D.C. Abbey, England Roger Wagner, Hollywood, Cal. Flor Peeters, Mechlin, Belgium Eugene Selhorst, Rochester, N. Y. Alexander Peloquin, Providence, Terrence Gahagan, London, England R.I. Winifred T. Flanagan, Omaha, Orner Westendorf, Cincinnati, Ohio Nebr. Rev. Irvin Udulutch, Mt. Cal., Wis. Ralph Jusko, Cincinnati, Ohio Rev. Laurence Feininger, Trento, Paul Hume, Washington, D. C. Italy Rev. Walter Rees, Worthington, O. Rev. Fred Reece, Des Moines, Iowa Rev. William Saelman, Bolivia, S.A. Rene Dosogne, Chicago, III. Rev. Charles Dreisoerner, San Louis Pisciotta, Boys Town, Nebr. Antonio, Texas John Yonkman, Fort Wayne, Ind. Frank Szynskie, Boys Town, Nebr. Rev. Fidelis Smith, Chicago, III. Managing Editor _ ________ Norbert Letter Library _________________________________________________________________ _ _____ Ferenc Denes Circulation ___ _ Paul Sing Subscription Price: ~3.00; Two Years, ~5.00; Additional Single Copy 75c. Editorial and Business Address: Box 1012, Omaha 1, Nebraska LETTERS TO THE EDITOR February 3, 1958 To the Editor: I wholeheartedly endorse the ideas Father Guentner expressed to you in a letter you published in your December issue. He has said what I have been thinking but could not couch in such effective words. You have seemed too blunt, even ungentlemanly, by your lack of finesse in getting across your point. It made one wonder who these men could ,be who had "taken over" Caecilia. Father Guentner fails to point out what I personally think is another failure you might be interested in: the writers become somewhat puerile in their approach (e. g., Father Schuler's closing words on page 363). I think, too, that there is a legitimate distinction between writing in a puerile fashion and writing in a light vein. The latter is never corny! Again, Father Brunner in his "Classical Polyphony in Catholic Worship" is trying to say something, but, apparently because of his lack of writing clarity, doesn't quite come around with the instruction he tries to give us. It is regrettable that Catholic musicians cannot bring themselves to acquire a better facility in expressing their musical ideas. Don't ask me for a solution to what I here consider a serious problem - I don't have one! I'm just one of those arm-chair critics who wou\d rather just watch and critici~e! Yours in the Sacred Heart, Father Leo F. Petit, M.S.C. Don't worry-we won't ask! Rochester, N. Y. To the Editor: I have recently read a copy of the CAE CILIA which I had noticed on the ,book­ shelf at the Sibley Library of the Eastman School of Music. I wish to congratulate you and your staff for this wonderful and informative magazine. Every article was well­ written and showed much research, time and effort on the part of each writer. No doubt it is a booklet which every catholic organist and choirmaster should have. Sincerely, Mary Eli~abeth Rame Ebensburg, Pa. Gentlemen: You had better fold up and let others with vision carryon the work of Caecilia. Instead of being constructive and progressive in Church Music, you are aspiring a losing cause. Nobody is going to follow the archaic and quack ideas on Chant you are trying to propagate. Yours truly, John Sandar St. Patrick's Presbytery, Panmure, Auckland, E. 2 New Zealand To the Editor: I must congratulate you on the new format and also making Caecilia a quarterly. We have been given some splendid articles. I refer in particular to those on the great chant controversy of the present day. I appreciate very much the remarks of J. Robert Carroll in the May issue. It is good for us to be critical but-sanely critical! And of course, the reproduction of Peter Wagner's Handbook is a grand idea. Wishing Caecilia God's blessings and many years of prosperity in publication, I remain, Yours sincerely in Christ, David J. Blake 3 TO THE REVEREND EDITOR OF CAECILIA Dear Reverend Father Editor, In apologizing to those of your readers to whom I may in any way have caused embarrasssment, I may perhaps be allowed to point out that· everything I write for publication has to have the approval of my Abbot. He has in fact read the writings in question, and I am certain that he would not have allowed me to publish them had he considered them "ill befitting a monk". Yours sincerely, A. Gregory Murray Downside Abbey, Bath, England London, England To the Editor: In his article in the May issue of Caecilia ]. Robert Carroll does not put the argu' ments for and against the Solesmes rhythmic system fully or clearly enough. I would like to comment on some of the paragraphs, taking them in order as though they were numbered. PARAGRAPH 3. Of course Dom Gregory Murray did not cover everything in one small booklet; he was just giving a few examples of the absurdities to which the Solesmes people are led by their "principles". He is going to write quite a lot more. PARAGRAPH 4. Is it likely that Solesmes will change its principles-for example, those arising from Dom Mocquereau's nationality (the down,beat on the final syllable wherever possible in syllabic chant) and from his dislike of trochaic accents, as "brutal"? Will the Solesmes party give up the new "ictus" that Dom Mocquereau invented? I fear they will not give up any of their home'made principles. Indeed, that pamphlet by Dom Aldhelm Dean to which Dom Gregory Murray has drawn attention seems to claim infalhbility for Solesmes! (I have sent a copy of this extraordinary piece of literature to the editor of Cae cilia ) . It seems clear that the whole Solesmes system does need drastic revision. Solesmes should start by deleting from their editions all vertical episemas (seeing that none are shown in the MSS.) and all lengthening signs which are not clearly shown as such in the majority of authentic MSS. - and that means most of the lengthening signs. Would not this necessitate a revision throughout? PARAGRAPH 5. Dom Gregory Murray knows, and has stated, that the musical text of the Vatican edition is unreliable in a number of places; that is why he himself does not recommend the adoption of the Vatican edition at present. But are not the notes (apart from the lengthening signs) the same in the Solesrnes edition? In any "Vatican versus Solesmes" controversy in England someone always bobs up to say that the musical texts in the two editions are identical, Solesmes having merely added "rhythm", "punctuation", "expression marks", "signposts", etc. (according to the fancy of the writer or speaker). PARAGRAPH 6. No doubt Dom Pothier and those who agreed with him had good reason for "choosing to ignore" the marks which Solesmes call "rhythmic signs". (Are they shown only in the better French manuscripts, by the way?) Dom Pothier may have decided: (a) That the signs did not appear in enough manuscripts from countries other than France to establish their authenticity as signs in general use throughout the Church; (b) That the comparative scarcity of the signs throughout the Chant made them of doubtful value; and in any case (c) That these signs could not justify the rhythmic system that Dom Mocquereau wished to impose on the Chant.