Not necessarily. The “Ordinary” usually means: Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei. But they should always sing the acclamations: Alleluia, Holy, Memorial Acclamation and Amen.

And the only reason that all can’t join in, is the choice of texts which are not yet authorised for use in the UK – therefore, any setting will be unknown by the assembly which, regardless of whose it is, seems a strange move at such a big event. (And, please note, that is not a comment in favour of, or against, anyone’s music – just a practical thought.)

Before Coventry ’82, the music was disseminated to the dioceses in the Birmingham Province, and through them to schools and churches, and was used at several diocesan events. Therefore, on the day they sang “like Billy-o”, to quote one observer.

Some posters here write as if it were settled for all time that the people must always sing the Ordinary. I do not agree. Especially at a one-time event like this. The busy-ness of the Novus Ordo Mass is disconcerting enough on its own, let alone trying to sing a new setting instantly. Plus, it is an excercise in futility: even if it were a well-known setting, only half the people would sing, at best. Interior prayer works just fine.

I’m familiar with Mr. MacMillan’s music; it is wonderful. Thank God more far-seeing heads prevailed.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100049260/as-the-church-looks-forward-to-james-macmillans-splendid-beatification-mass-a-bitter-old-trendy-throws-a-fit/

Just to say that I agree with everything you have said here.

I wholly agree with the observations on the low Mass. Having attended several, I now understand the enthusiasm which many embraced the reformed rite.

As to the high Mass, I’m not so sure. Note my impressions were not directed towards the “coordination” of the music with the “priest’s actions”, but towards a sense that the music was integral to the overall liturgical action of the Mass itself. Some of the commenters seemed to confirm my impressions that it was impossible to have a high Mass without music.

Which, it seems to me, is entirely different than saying music in the reformed rite must be coordinated with the priest’s actions. If this is just a way of saying that no one can sing unless everyone sings at the same time, then isn’t it correct that music in the reformed rite plays a less integral role than in a high Mass in the extraordinary form?

If we can have any Mass in the reformed rite without needing any music at all, what is liturgical music now — just another incidental like the flowers, etc? Or, ideally, should it be considered something more?

It is possible to do what might be classified as “high” musical settings of the Ordinary with congregational participation. Folks like Theodore Marier (who got composers like Jean Langlais to include congregational parts in such settings) were thinking this way 40 years ago or more, and the work has stood the test of time.

There is a great deal of choral compositional talent out there in the English-speaking world. In the USA, choral singing is the #1 volunteer activity, and choral concerts are well attended (though choral music is virtually absent from the consolidated airwaves) and it’s probably the region of classical music where new music is most eagerly embraced. That said, music education in public schools is a shadow of what it used to be, due to curricular and budgetary requirements, and The People do not own music the way they once did; that reality must be engaged in these discussions.

I know that, in his parish, MacMillan has brought together a choir of ordinary parishioners who sing complicated choral pieces and he is, surely, to be praised for this – as long as the assembly is able to sing that which is “rightly theirs” (Sacrosanctum Concilium).

Sometimes it feels that, here in the UK, MacMillan’s greatest enemies are those who use him for their own ends – those who claim to be his fans.