Question:

I told myself that the next time you used the word "plainchant" I would seek an explanation.

Can you please tell me (1) how is 'plainchant' pronounced; (2) what IS it; (3) where might I have heard some; (4) is there any website you know of with some audio clips; (5)-(8) same questions about 'plainsong.'

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Answer:

Where might you have heard some? Why, in an Anglican church, of course...

Plainchant and plainsong, at the most generic level, can be used interchangeably. They're simple compound words so you just pronounce them like they look: "plain" + "chant". Plainsong is believed to be the earliest form of Christian music. The best known example is Gregorian chant. The ancient office hymns are another example. If you or attend Daily Office at a monastery, you might have heard these, or if you know any religious they can probably sing the chant for you. Different religious orders often have their own setting (tune) for the chants. "Sarum" refers to the usage of Salisbury Cathedral.

While "Gregorian Plainchant" is the Roman standard, "Sarum plainchant" is the Anglican standard. The distinction is similar to the distinction between "Roman" and "Anglican" catholicism. From the Roman Catholic perspective, chant is either Gregorian or WRONG, just like worshippers are either "Catholic" or NOT. We use the distinguising modifiers to claim legitimacy for our own traditions.

In true plainsong, all voices sing in unison (the basses, tenors, contraltos and sopranos all go up and down by the same amount at the same time). There is no instrumental accompaniment. The melody follows the words, while the same theme is repeated through the chant it does not follow a repetitious pattern. The melody is medeavil in style.

When Anglicans use the term "plainsong" they mean this strict sense. The best known example from the Anglican mass is the setting of the Sursum Corda ("Lift up your hearts". "We lift them up unto the Lord"). Each word flows over several notes. The rhythm flows freely from the rhythm of the sentences. Plainsong is also generally used for the Gloria, the Lord's Prayer, Kyrie, and the Creed.

When Anglicans talk about "plainchant" they mean a form of communal singing of scripture to music derived from plainchant but digressing from the strict forms. The different voices sing harmony. Long pieces of scripture may be sung to a short melody that repeats over and over in "verses". The organ carries the tune to keep the notoriously wandering laity on key. The rhythm still flows from the rhythm of the sentences, but constrained by the line of the melody: in one "verse", several notes may spread across a single word, in the next "verse" a single note is held for several words (always reminding me of Tom Lehrer's "Folksong Army" where he sings that "it doesn't really matter if you fit a few extra syllables into a line.)The repetition pattern works very well for Jewish poetry, especially the Psalms, since the words are also repetitious in a reliable two-by-two pattern. Plainchant is used for singing the Psalms at Communion service. Plainchant is also used for the "Canticles" at Morning and Evening prayer, ("Venite", "Te Deum", "Benedictus", and so on).

http://comp.uark.edu/~rlee/otherchant.html#sounds
http://www.churchmusic.org.uk/contents.shtm
http://anglicansonline.org/resources/music.html

One of the things I miss the most about our ELCIC services is the complete absence of plainsong and plainchant. Lutheranism has its own tradition of music, but our pastor is pretty casual even of that. He believes that liturgy and set forms become barriers to keep new believers away.

In some cases, that's no doubt true, but I'm one of those who was drawn to the Church by its ancient ceremony and beauty, and through the liturgy of the church came to Jesus second. The liturgy has tremendous value in passing on the doctrine of the saints who went before us, at a level beyond words. None the less, it is the supra-verbal *truth* of that doctine, more than the form of the words and music that flows from it, that really matters. I've participated in liturgy that used entirely modern music and language, that still captured the essence of anglican worship. And the BCP captures only a subset of the ancient prayers and canticles that were available to the traditional church -- I would mourn the loss of Trisagion, for example, if we never had access to the alternative services. What really matters is that our worship be beautiful, well-crafted, and sensitively rooted in the depths of our faith; regardless of the period or form we draw on for the artistic expression of worship.

That being said, I maintain that one reason we see so little glossalalia practiced in the Anglican church, is that the words of the prayerbook give us such a rich emotional vocabulary with which to express our worship, words that come fluently and easily because of their oft-repeated familiarity. And even little children pick up the language and the sense of that liturgy with ease. My girls always focussed best in BCP services, and both of them independently started using plainchant for their bedtime prayers when they were two (they both stopped when they were three-and-a-half; I wonder if it's some sort of developmental thing). But, of course, BCP services are considered an "adults only" thing, even more often than contemporary services are, so the children get very little support in developing those verbal and musical styles.