Bad music is destroying the Church

[AquinaSavio]

Yet another thread where people express their taste in certain types of music, and their dislikes in other styles, but can not show where their’s is more prayerful and revrent than the styles they dislike.

I’m sure folks like this would want parishes in China and Africa to use gregorian chant, rather than music from their own native tongues.

These threads are getting tired.

Jim,

I encourage you to read the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, issused by the Congregation for Divine Worship and The Discipline of the Sacrament. In section [57.], it states:

[57.] It is the right of the community of Christ’s faithful that especially in the Sunday celebration there should customarily be true and suitable sacred music, and that there should always be an altar, vestments and sacred linens that are dignified, proper, and clean, in accordance with the norms.

(Emphasis added)

The Church is not bound by time. Therefore, there should be no need to “update” our liturgical music to contemporary songs. The purpose of this is too often to merely make the youth feel better and participate in the Mass. They should be participating anyways. Excuse the expression, but the warm’n’fuzzy music shouldn’t have to be used to “lure them in.”

 

[Elzee]

The baby was thrown out with the bathwater when centuries of sacred musical were shelved. I have heard many talented guitarists and in my mind they all fail because the** “Parish Band” **does not invoke a sense of sacred. On the contrary, a cappella chant succeeds every time.

Now, now, get it right…it’s the *‘Faith Community *Band’

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim,

I encourage you to read the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, issused by the Congregation for Divine Worship and The Discipline of the Sacrament. In section [57.], it states:

The Church is not bound by time. Therefore, there should be no need to “update” our liturgical music to contemporary songs. The purpose of this is too often to merely make the youth feel better and participate in the Mass. They should be participating anyways. Excuse the expression, but the warm’n’fuzzy music shouldn’t have to be used to “lure them in.”

Because I don’t agree with you, you assume I have not read this?

I have and my interpretation is different than yours.

The Church may not be bound by time, but the Church is made up of people, who are. Music is expression. We express love, adoration, protest whatever, through music.

If the music being played at Mass does not express what the people are feeling, then it’s dead, dry and meaningless. It doesn’t serve the purpose of what music is to be for.

Music at Mass isn’t to lure people young or old, to Mass. It’s for the expression of our faith in God. It is our worship, our adoration and love for God. Does one style of music do this better than the other? It depends on the people who are part of the music.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

If the music being played at Mass does not express what the people are feeling, then it’s dead, dry and meaningless. It doesn’t serve the purpose of what music is to be for.

Music at Mass isn’t to lure people young or old, to Mass. It’s for the expression of our faith in God. It is our worship, our adoration and love for God. Does one style of music do this better than the other? It depends on the people who are part of the music.

Just who is the “voice of the proletariat” in this matter?

1. It is the right of the community of Christ’s faithful that especially in the Sunday celebration there should customarily be true and suitable sacred music, and that there should always be an altar, vestments and sacred linens that are dignified, proper, and clean, in accordance with the norms.

The Church doesn’t consider “sacred music” just any ditty that talks about Jesus, peace, love, and bunnies in it.

The Church thinks that Gregorian Chant (and other music like this) is most suitable for Mass and the model of Sacred Music and quite frankly, it is irrelevant if people think that techno or whatever is a “better expression” because that isn’t the case.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Just who is the “voice of the proletariat” in this matter?

The Church thinks that Gregorian Chant (and other music like this) is most suitable for Mass and quite frankly, it is irrelevant if people think that techno or whatever is a “better expression” because that isn’t the case.

The Church statment that Gregorian Chant is suitable doesn’t mean that other music is excluded. World Youth Day, Pope John Paul II never excluded the music played and I don’t recall only hearing Gregorian Chant.

I like Gregorian Chant, but I know others who it would be akin to taking a sleeping pill.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

The Church statment that Gregorian Chant is suitable doesn’t mean that other music is excluded.

I’m not saying “Sola Gregorian Chant”, rather Sacred Music. Sacred Music is best represented by Gregorian Chant, but other forms of music such as polyphony can also be considered Sacred Music in the Latin Rite. The closer the similarity to Gregorian Chant, the more likely something is Sacred Music.

Everything must be read through the lense of tradition. What has the Church considered appropriate for the past 1500 odd years? What kinds of things has the Church considered inappropriate through various statements by holy pontiffs and the various Congregations?

World Youth Day, Pope John Paul II never excluded the music played and I don’t recall only hearing Gregorian Chant.

Public events like this do not dictate what is the “norm”. Pope John Paul II initiated this grand push to restore traditional norms back into the Church that we are now begining to see under Pope Benedict XVI. Pope John Paul II wasn’t exactly impressed with all the nonsense that people put on at the various local Papal Masses.

I like Gregorian Chant, but I know others who it would be akin to taking a sleeping pill.

What people “like” is irrelevant. We are all free to listen to whatever we want on our own time.

 

[VociMike]

Yet another thread where people express their taste in certain types of music, and their dislikes in other styles, but can not show where their’s is more prayerful and revrent than the styles they dislike.

Is there any such thing as music unsuitable for the Mass? If so, what and why? If not, why not?

 

[VociMike]

If the music being played at Mass does not express what the people are feeling,

The Church has spoken on the purposes of sacred music, and “express what the people are feeling” is not one of those purposes.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Is there any such thing as music unsuitable for the Mass? If so, what and why? If not, why not?

Sure, secular music.

 

[DWPC]

The Church is not bound by time. Therefore, there should be no need to “update” our liturgical music to contemporary songs. The purpose of this is too often to merely make the youth feel better and participate in the Mass. They should be participating anyways. Excuse the expression, but the warm’n’fuzzy music shouldn’t have to be used to “lure them in.”​

I agree, and I think that acceptance of popular musical tastes in liturgical music opens the door for continual friction in the Church’s liturgical future. There are always going to be strong differences in pop music tastes between generations and cultures. When the OPC sound fades, as it will, what replaces it? On what basis could Church institutions reject any proposed style of “music”?

I think its a shame that our ancient liturgical music has been relegated to the “tradition” debate. Tradition is quaint custom. Our sacred music is not a “tradition” but a very tangible link to the real emotion and spirituality of the Church and our Catholic ancestors over the centuries and it’s tragic that that so many are content to casually sever that continuem because it doesn’t sound like the music in their record collection.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Church has spoken on the purposes of sacred music, and “express what the people are feeling” is not one of those purposes.

The Church is talking about how music make’s us feel, not how our feelings are expressed in the music we make.

The creation of music is not possible without the expression of feelings.

We would not have any music if this were not permitted.

 

[VociMike]

Sure, secular music.

That’s not a helpful answer, since you provide no clue as to what “secular music” might mean to you. Is it music played on guitars? Piano? Drums? With pop stylings?

Or are you just saying that any music that mentions God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit is OK?

 

[VociMike]

The Church is talking about how music make’s us feel, not how our feelings are expressed in the music we make.

The creation of music is not possible without the expression of feelings.

We would not have any music if this were not permitted.

But you presented “express what people are feeling” as an ultimate criterion (without which it is dead, dry and meaningless), when in fact it is not, nor is it even taught as a purpose of sacred music. Suppose the people are feeling hot and bored, should the music express that?

You also contradict yourself when you say that without expression of feelings music is not possible, and then later say that it is possible, but it is dead, dry and meaningless.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That’s not a helpful answer, since you provide no clue as to what “secular music” might mean to you. Is it music played on guitars? Piano? Drums? With pop stylings?

Or are you just saying that any music that mentions God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit is OK?

Music which is an expression of worship and love for God, which fits into the context of the Mass, is acceptable. Doesn’t matter what instruments it’s played on. Africans can use kongo drums, Indians can use a sitar. The instrument really doesn’t matter.

Music which is not directed towards worship of God, is not.

 

[VociMike]

I agree, and I think that acceptance of popular musical tastes in liturgical music opens the door for continual friction in the Church’s liturgical future. There are always going to be strong differences in pop music tastes between generations and cultures. When the OPC sound fades, as it will, what replaces it? On what basis could Church institutions reject any proposed style of “music”?

That’s right, on what basis can any style be rejected?

What’s more, by chasing after current musical styles, the Church is forever presenting itself to the people in the pews as a day late and a dollar short. The contemporary-styled compositions are always outdated by the time they become accepted in parishes. The styles never sound as good as they do when played and sung by full-time musicians and recorded in professional studios. So the comparison is always between the “real music” of the world and the “lame imitations” heard in church (and “lame” is the very word often used by young people when presented with such faux-contemporary music). This naturally leads many to a subconscious judgement that everything that happens in church is just a lame imitation of the real world, and that the faith itself is just a lame wannabe as compared to real life.

Our liturical music makes a big difference in whether people view the Mass and the Faith as something bigger than themselves, or as something smaller than themselves. And for 40 years we’ve been whispering “small” into their ears.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I agree, and I think that acceptance of popular musical tastes in liturgical music opens the door for continual friction in the Church’s liturgical future. There are always going to be strong differences in pop music tastes between generations and cultures. When the OPC sound fades, as it will, what replaces it? On what basis could Church institutions reject any proposed style of “music”?

I think its a shame that our ancient liturgical music has been relegated to the “tradition” debate. Tradition is quaint custom. Our sacred music is not a “tradition” but a very tangible link to the real emotion and spirituality of the Church and our Catholic ancestors over the centuries and it’s tragic that that so many are content to casually sever that continuem because it doesn’t sound like the music in their record collection.

2/3rds of the Catholics in the world, come from 3rd world countries.

Will their styles of music not be allowed in Mass? Will they have no part in developing Church tradition?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What’s more, by chasing after current musical styles, the Church is forever presenting itself to the people in the pews as a day late and a dollar short. The contemporary-styled compositions are always outdated by the time they become accepted in parishes. The styles never sound as good as they do when played and sung by full-time musicians and recorded in professional studios.

Gregorian chant doesn’t sound as good as recorded Gregorian Chant either.

Heck, I often attend Mass at a Benedictine Monastery, where the monks and nuns sing in Gregorian Chant. I can assure you, it’s not good. It’s not that they’re not doing it right, but rather, they don’t have good voices.

Jim

 

[prv]

I think this thread is relevant here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=80608

 

[VociMike]

Gregorian chant doesn’t sound as good as recorded Gregorian Chant either.

Heck, I often attend Mass at a Benedictine Monastery, where the monks and nuns sing in Gregorian Chant. I can assure you, it’s not good. It’s not that they’re not doing it right, but rather, they don’t have good voices.

Jim

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the crucial point is that Gregorian chant is not written and performed with the recording studio in mind, while contemporary music is. And if not the recording studio then a mega-amplified stage extravaganza. Most contemporary music assumes and requires electronic assistance and enhancement, which puts the parish church version at a further disadvantage compared to the polished studio model with which it will inevitably be compared.

Ironically, the very speed with which popular music styles morph and change today makes the task of trying to bring contemporary-sounding music into church all the more impossible. When musical styles only changed slowly over a generation or two, then one really did have the possibility of writing church music that was the sacred equivalent of the secular contemporary styles. Now, things just move too fast (in the West, at least), and the result is always music that is “your father’s Buick.”

I have heard it said that there is nothing so out-of-date as a “modern” nun. I would apply that judgement to “modern” liturgical music as well.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the crucial point is that Gregorian chant is not written and performed with the recording studio in mind, while contemporary music is.

Gregorian chant was written before recording studios were even dreamed of.

Most contemporary music assumes and requires electronic assistance and enhancement, which puts the parish church version at a further disadvantage compared to the polished studio model with which it will inevitably be compared.

I belong to a small parish. Our church only holds about 150 people. When I played in the folk group, it was all acustic, with no amplification of any kind. I can see where our music would not have gone well in a large church.

Ironically, the very speed with which popular music styles morph and change today makes the task of trying to bring contemporary-sounding music into church all the more impossible.

I disagree. This is a matter of your preference in music.

When musical styles only changed slowly over a generation or two, then one really did have the possibility of writing church music that was the sacred equivalent of the secular contemporary styles. Now, things just move too fast (in the West, at least), and the result is always music that is “your father’s Buick.”

Things change faster now because communication is almost instant. When Gregorian Chant was first written, it took years to communitcate between Rome and the rest of the Catholic world.

I have heard it said that there is nothing so out-of-date as a “modern” nun. I would apply that judgement to “modern” liturgical music as well.

Clever cleche’s don’t necessarilly make the statement true.