Ep 8 - ChantHacks: De profundis (Let the Music Speak) with Mark Emerson Donnelly

This is the Grand Launch of ChantHacks, and is the first installment of "Let the Music Speak" series.

In the this episode, Mark demonstrates how we can look at the music as a means of commenting on the text or lyrics.

Please support these podcasts and other projects. Go to https://LifeFunder.com/mdonnellymusic

Transcript

For the “Grand Launch” we’re coming “out of the depths!”

Hi folks! This first “Grand Launch” episode of ChantHacks is not too much different than the previous episodes. It’s more the first installment of a series we’re calling “Let the Music Speak.” In this series I’m going to focus on the particular application of some of the things that I ALWAYS (or almost always) consider or think about, no matter what chant I’m singing. Keeping with the name of this podcast, they’ll kind of be “how I hack into the text through the music, and the music through the text.”

Now, I don’t want to take too long preparing each of these “Let the Music Speak” podcasts. Yes, I have (and do) put what I consider to be a good amount of thought (and time) into the singing of each chant, and I encourage you to do the same. That’s the whole point of this series, “Let the Music Speak”. But if the process takes so much time no one can practically execute it, what’s the point?!

Let’s face it: There never seems to be enough time to spend on interpretation. If you haven’t yet acquired the habit of sight singing (that is, if you haven’t developed the skill to sing music without having heard it before, or having someone who knows the piece singing beside you), most of rehearsal time is spent simply learning the notes. And timing, maybe. (Usually nobody gives much thought to timing or rhythm in Gregorian Chant.) Why? Because we’re just doing our best to learn the pitches or notes! (I guess we’ll have to do a future ChantHacks on sight singing.)

Anyway, let’s assume you either can sight sing or you already know the chant.

Some of what I say or point out in these episodes may not seem obvious to you, but, hopefully, as we get further along in the series of “Let the music Speak”, you’ll build up your “interpretive” or “intentional” chops. (Chops is originally a jazz term meaning the endurance of your lips to hold out for a whole evening playing on the bandstand. The better your practice, the better your chops!) So here, I want to help you build up your “mental chops” for singing (and appreciating) Gregorian Chant.

The goal is to get you thinking about the musical part of Gregorian Chant (that is, the melody & rhythm) in a way that enhances the meaning and spirit of the text; which in turn, effect the way you sing the melody. To put it another way: the music informs the text, and text informs the music.

So I’m going to point out what seems obvious or possible in the music vis-a-vis the text, try to bring it out in the way I sing it, and then move on. I don’t want this to be mentally exhausting. Because, in the end, you’re supposed to be praying; and the way you sing is supposed to support and enhance your prayer. When it comes to church music, if your performance doesn’t enhance prayer, it’s not musical; it’s not fulfilling its function. It’s like in a Broadway musical: the “Showstopper” is supposed to stop the show; that is, the audience goes wild, and you have to repeat part of the number. If the showstopper doesn’t stop the show, it failed.

By the way, even though I’ll be using mostly Gregorian Chant in “Let the Music Speak” you can apply to any piece of music. If fact, you should. I’m simply drawing upon what I’ve learned from great opera coaches, teachers, colleagues, AND, Dom Mocquereau and especially, Dom Gajard. Music is music, and singing is singing. It all works the same way. I had an East Indian voice student, Hardeep, who wanted to sing Pujabi pop music. He still had to learn classical Italian songs; because the Italian songs provide the paradigm of good, lyrical, vocal production. There is a Carmelite nun who I took through the same system. I’d say all the good stuff I’ve learned in music school, from private teachers, colleagues, AND the Solesmes Method have made me a better singer & teacher. So this way of looking at Gregorian Chant is kind of universal to music. Though maybe not as formal, I think “Let the Music Speak” fits in with the last three lessons of Laus in Ecclesia, Level One. So, on with today’s episode!

This is part of a talk I gave last month at the Benedictine abbey of Clear Creek in Oklahoma, for their Oblate Day. The talk was titled “Gregorian Chant as Commentary”. To demonstrate how The Chant can comment on the text, I made an examination of the offertory for the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost, “De profundis”.

To begin, we have this short text, Psalm 129 vs. 1-2

De profundis clamavi ad te, Domine; Domine, exaudi vocem meam.

Out of the depths I have cried to thee, O Lord: Lord, hear my voice.

So what I’m looking for, first, is where the melody can be considered a kind of analogue of the words. In musical terms, I’m looking for the “word painting” (also sometimes called “tone painting” or “text painting”).

[on screen: De profundis chant]

- the melody begins low (out of the depths) and rises up, [sing: De profundis] falls and rises again (I have cried or called, kind of both; like our spiritual & prayer lives), [sing: clamavi] only to settle in the middle on "to Thee O Lord" [sing: ad te, Domine]. So, just the mere act of crying out has lifted the soul a little from her original depths, and settled her down, not too low, not too high.

- but the soul is not simply stating the fact: I am crying. This is not enough. Therefore, the next cry of "O Lord" is stronger but still reverent [sing: Domine], followed by a rise to the apex of the melody on exaudi, Hear! [sing: exaudi]

Hear what though?! A prayer, orationem; and this part of the chant moves through what we might call the particulars of the prayer, rising, falling, moving, static, then moving again. [sing: orationem]

- but, as we continue, we see (and hear) this is no general "prayers of the faithful"; this is a personal prayer; the penitent's salvation, or at least state of mind, is at stake, depending on where he is in his spiritual journey. HENCE the prolonged melisma (that is, many notes on one syllable) on “meam”, my, MY, MY! This is MY prayer; it’s about me, in the sense that I”M making this prayer because, MY soul is hanging in the balance, it could rise to God, or descend to the depths. [sing: meam]

(Notice this melisma on “meam” ends on the same peaceful note as “Domine”, the Prince of Peace.)

- Then, perhaps in a more reflective state, the soul, after having gotten the initial angst out of her system, the soul returns to the original word-for-word, note-for-note prayer, of the beginning of the chant this time chastened or with less self-pity; therefore not with the same anxiousness as the first time. [sing: De profundis clamvi ad te Domine]

So, putting it all together, here’s how you might sing it: [sing: the whole chant]

This textual/spiritual analysis should help render the singing of this chant. It took me between 5-10 minutes to write this down. However, when I simply think of this chant, most of these considerations come to me in an instant. Yes, I've been singing this chant for over four decades. I've thought about it a lot. In fact, it was the inspiration for the first motet I wrote back in 2009.

But I hope you’ll agree, that with a little examination of the “De profundis”, the word painting, at least some of it, is pretty obvious (like the “out of the depths” part). Other sections may not be so obvious. For instance, how you might sing the repeat of “De profundis…” differently at the end of the chant than how you sang it at the beginning. Or like why the second “Domine” is in the middle melodic rang of the chant; or even why there are so many notes on “meam”.

I’ve heard many singers say, when they’ve run across a passage like this, they say, “all these notes on such-and-such a word DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!”; they say this, instead of TRYING to MAKE SENSE out of it. I think we tend to think of these medieval monks as kind of ignorant, and musically unsophisticated. Yet they created one of the greatest musical repertoires of the western world. Do really you think the anonymous composer of the “De profundis” didn’t know what he was doing when he put so many notes on “meam”. I think that’s crazy. Or, at least, an example of how we modern musicians think we’re so far superior to our ancient counterparts. I encourage you to read Dr. Theodore Krasnicki’s 2007 article on the Introit “Exsurge”, for Sexagesima Sunday, in New Liturgical Movement. Just maybe they had a different agenda, or aesthetic; that is, maybe they were trying to achieve a deeper meaning in the melody itself?

Some of you think it’s amazing what I was able to draw out of the chant. Maybe you think you can’t notice the word painting. Well, I think you can, if you simply TRY to see what MIGHT be there in the music.

Maybe some of you think I’ve gone too far. Perhaps I have. That doesn’t mean you don’t look for SOME meaning in the music. If not, why are we singing (rather than saying) the words in the first place?! It MUST be to add SOMETHING so we can pray better. And I don’t think that SOMETHING is simply to have The Chant be a kind of holy elevator music. That reduces it to one of the most lamentable 20th century musical trends: mind-numbing background music. Donald J. Grout, in “A History of Western Music”, refers to this kind of music as a “...ceaseless lukewarm gush...”[Actual quote “...the ceaseless lukewarm gush of Muzak.” At the time, Muzak was the most prominent brand of elevator, or department store music.] Gregorian Chant MUST be more than the church equivalent of what we hear in an elevator or at the supermarket!

Before I finish, I have to add a word of caution: Since expression in music can be over done, we must guard our performance from being too materialized, in the sense of being heavy or overwrought. Using an expression of Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, we must guard against our singing of The Chant from being “...like the stone that is launched into the air, only to quickly fall to the ground!” This is an especially important admonition for an opera singer (like me!) who sings Chant!

Conclusion: My goal in this episode, and subsequent episodes in this series, is to present to you a way you can consider each chant such that, when you sing it, it reflects your own prayer and adds an artistic polish to your performance; which, in turn, will assist the hearer in his consideration of the liturgical text and, thus, his prayer.

Now, lest you think this means our individual or personal rendering of a chant, when we’re singing together, will create a chaos or cacophony, I’ll leave you with Two Thoughts:

First, when we sing The Chant in a group, unity should be one of our goals. So we should ALSO have a system, technique or METHOD that everyone is following. As I said in Episode 7, ChantHacks is “ALL Old Solesmes, ALL the time.” That is, I follow the Solesmes Method as developed, used, and promoted by Doms Moquereau & Gajard, the Schola Saint-Gregoire in le Mans, France, the International Center for Ward Method Studies at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC, and at Clear Creek Abbey in Oklahoma. The Solesmes Method is like guide rails, traffic signs & the lines on the road;it gives us rules and signs so everyone can stay in the right musical lane, and avoid any rhythmic collisions or accidents!

The second point is made by the founding abbess of the first Benedictine monastery of nuns established by Solesmes, the Abbey of Sainte-Cécile. Along with Dom Guaranger, & Dom Delatte, Abbess Cécile Bruyère is considered among the three individuals who lived, understood, and wrote well on the “Spirit of Solesmes”. She made it clear there should be no conflict between individual and liturgical prayer.

To quote Mère Cécile, “It is meaningless to set up a contrast between liturgical prayer, determined by the Church, and individual prayer, free both in its direction and in its method. The first does not exist fully without the second; and the second takes its strength from the first, and finds in it a reliable support.”

So, there you have it. Please support Allanna’s and my effort to get these podcast out. And all our other music work for the Church: either through commissioning a composition (like the ChantHacks extro music), or by hosting or sponsoring workshops at the choir, parish, or diocesan level. If you’re a choir, schola, or parish music director I am also available for mentoring. Please contact us either at mark@vocalart.org or allanna@vocalart.org

I’m Mark Emerson Donnelly. God bless!

To financially support our work go to LifeFunder.com/mdonnellymusic