Contemporary Praise Music - Too sensual?

[jc-servant]

You will not find anything that I wrote that speaks of sex or romance. That is your projection. What I did (and do) question is the suitability of such sentiments in liturgical music. As I said before, show me equivalent sentiments in one or more of the Propers of the Mass, which are the most perfect model of liturgical music for the Mass. If you can do so, I will re-evaluate my judgement as to their suitability.

No need to jump angry at me. I didn’t say that was your thought. If you had said it I would have put it in quotes. I just said it was a shame that many people seem to go there in their thoughts, so please calm yourself.

You have made your thoughts on every type of music you disapprove of clear on numerous occasions, so I will not be engaging in musical argument with you. Feel free to keep right on thinking whatever you like about the suitability of music. I will keep on being thankful that there is diversity in the church in thought and music.

 

[DaughterSorrow]

I think our Holy Father addressed this the most succinctly:

Not every kind of music can have a place in Christian worship. It has its standards, and that standard is the Logos. If we want to know whom we are dealing with, the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit, we have to remember that it is the Holy Spirit who moves us to say, “Jesus is Lord” (~Cor 12:3). The Holy Spirit leads us to the Logos, and he leads us to a music that serves the Logos as a sign of the sursum corda, the lifting up of the human heart. Does it integrate man by drawing him to what is above, or does it cause his disintegration into formless intoxication or mere sensuality? That is the criterion for a music in harmony with logos, a form of that logike latreia (reasonable, logos-worthy worship)… [The Spirit of the Liturgy, (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), p. 151] *

In another interview I read (can’t find it at the moment), he said you must always ask whether the music in mass lifts your heart to the Lord or whether it becomes religious entertainment. This is the line that I think many of these P&W music/teen life masses are crossing.

It’s sad, but I don’t see it changing any time soon. The Church changes, but slowly.

In Peace,
DS

 

[VociMike]

No need to jump angry at me. I didn’t say that was your thought. If you had said it I would have put it in quotes. I just said it was a shame that many people seem to go there in their thoughts, so please calm yourself.

You have made your thoughts on every type of music you disapprove of clear on numerous occasions, so I will not be engaging in musical argument with you. Feel free to keep right on thinking whatever you like about the suitability of music. I will keep on being thankful that there is diversity in the church in thought and music.

Who’s angry?

And I’m still waiting for somebody to show me similar sentiments in the Propers.

 

[DrumminFool91]

I think our music is one of the greatest things about Catholicism (outside of the obvious like Eucharist, the Magisterium, etc…). We have such a rich history of chant, classical/traditional hymns, folk music, and now we are starting to adopt this new “praise and worship” stuff. As the Catholic Church, our music should reflect our love for the Lord and our “universality”.

As a music director, an adage that I tend to live by is “good music leads to good worship”. Unlike many Protestant groups, the music is for us as Catholics is a means to an end, which is ultimately “good worship”.

The style of music is not the real issue. If the music is is poorly performed, whether it is “Pange Lingua” or “Shout to the Lord”, then it is a distraction from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Inversely, if the music is the focal point of the Mass, then really we are committing idolatry because we are worshiping music and emotionalism rather than our Lord.

Obviously everyone has their own subjective opinions on what constitutes good music, and the Church, in its wisdom, has in fact allowed for that. For instance, some larger parishes may have a “traditional” mass, a “folk” mass, and a “Life Teen” mass with contemporary tunes. Available to us as Catholics are even the Tridentine Mass in Latin as well as the charismatic Mass.

My point is this: a mass with traditional tunes is no more or less valid than the contemporary mass. They are both still “The Mass”. To really have issue with different music styles in the Mass is like having issue with having a Mass done in a foreign language. If your congregation has a significant Spanish speaking population, and your priest is capable, then it would be right to offer a mass in Spanish to better meet the needs of that population. It would be ludicrous to suggest that we shouldn’t allow such a thing based on the fact that you may not care for Spanish. The responsible thing here would be to attend the Mass that is done in the language that you are most comfortable using, and be happy for those other Spanish speaking members that are now able to attend a mass that better meets their needs.

We as Catholics shouldn’t be divisive over issues like music. As important as the use of music in our liturgy is, we really should be spending our energy addressing more pressing issues like abortion, euthanasia, apologetic outreach to our Non-Catholic friends, etc…

Peace!

 

[VociMike]

My point is this: a mass with traditional tunes is no more or less valid than the contemporary mass. They are both still “The Mass”. To really have issue with different music styles in the Mass is like having issue with having a Mass done in a foreign language.

Hello and welcome.

You are correct, no Mass is invalidated because of the style of the music. But you are incorrect that musical styles and selections are like different languages. Aside from declaring that Latin is the language of the Roman rite, the Church makes absolutely no judgements on languages. But she does make judgements on musical styles and compositions, as have been cited here many times. Here are just a few:

“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy” --Vatican Council II

“Not all the expressions of music are able to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.” --John Paul II

"With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the “general rule” that St Pius X formulated in these words: “The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.” --John Paul II

“Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided.” --Benedict XVI

“Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the song proper to the Roman liturgy” --Benedict XVI
So the Church does offer clear guidelines, and not every style or composition is equally in accord with those guidelines. The problem occurs when people pretend otherwise.

 

[Cat]

I honestly think that if chant were the only music in Mass, you would clear out the Mass.

I’m not being derisive of chant. I just think that’s the way it is in 2007, and I don’t see any change coming.

Gregorian chant got popular for a while (back in the 1990s?) in the secular realm, but it sure didn’t stick around very long.

Not only do people not want to hear it, they don’t want to sing it. I know so few people who are interested in learning it. It’s a struggle to get young people to sing in any “traditional” choir," let alone a chant choir.

I think that the Pope would have to require all children to spend at least two years in a chant choir if he wants to see chant take over the Mass.

Again, I’m not being derisive. I’m just being realistic.

 

[VociMike]

I honestly think that if chant were the only music in Mass, you would clear out the Mass.

I have never, ever suggested (or believed) that chant should be the only music at Mass. And, much more importantly, neither has the Church.

But all music at Mass should be of an appropriate style and quality, setting appropriate texts. The Church has said this over and over, and has given us (and composers) guidelines to make those judgements. And those guidelines have been roundly ignored for the past 40 years, to the great detriment of the faithful.

Nobody wants to see suitable, beautiful, worthy new compositions more than I do.

 

[Sarabande]

I honestly think that if chant were the only music in Mass, you would clear out the Mass.

I’m not being derisive of chant. I just think that’s the way it is in 2007, and I don’t see any change coming.

Gregorian chant got popular for a while (back in the 1990s?) in the secular realm, but it sure didn’t stick around very long.

Not only do people not want to hear it, they don’t want to sing it. I know so few people who are interested in learning it. It’s a struggle to get young people to sing in any “traditional” choir," let alone a chant choir.

I think that the Pope would have to require all children to spend at least two years in a chant choir if he wants to see chant take over the Mass.

Again, I’m not being derisive. I’m just being realistic.

I don’t know where you are from, but in my city it’s continuing to grow and more and more churches are incorporating it into their masses. I’d have to disagree that people don’t want to hear it or sing it. I’m not negating your experience, because I’m certain that this might be the case in the town that you are in, but in my city and other metropolitan cities I’ve visitied in this country and in Europe, I’ve found that not to be the case. Also, early music and chant is still pretty popular in the secular realms as well. It’s height was in the 90s, but we have a rich culture of many different early music groups in New York and Philadelphia whose concerts are usually always packed.

BUT, I also don’t believe it is necessary to have chant for every single piece of sacred music during the mass just because we have such a rich collection of music from all of the centuries.

I also agree with you that in order for chant to even be more prevalent, since it is something encouraged, we do need to educate the next generation. That’s what I did when I was teaching and directing our children’s choir. They knew their chants better than the adults and loved doing it. The ones who came to my wedding also were the ones who chanted their hearts out, in Latin, during the Ordinary along with the choir and those who knew the melodies as we placed it in our program.

It does take time, but it is a slow change as others have noted. I feel it is a little faster, though, in more metropolitan cities.

P.S. Don’t worry, I don’t believe you were being derisive.

 

[Wolseley]

VociMike:

Nobody wants to see suitable, beautiful, worthy new compositions more than I do.

I’d just be satisfied to get rid of Glory and Praise and Gather.

Replace them with something less dated. Sure, you can say that chant and polyphony are even older than the St. Louis Jesuit’s TV theme jingles, but chant and polyphony have stood the test of time and are still around. The rest of the world has moved well beyond the 1970’s, but not OCP----they keep right on churning out Haugen, Haas, and Hurd, even though all of that stuff is so utterly dated now it’s like listening to one of those oldies rock stations where they have the same 40 songs that they play over, and over, and over, and over…

The “new music” isn’t new any more. It’s high time we ditched it and got something that is. After 40 years of “guitar” Masses, at this point even something old (or at least older than Dan Schutte) would be new.

This parody says it quite eloquently:

“Gather Us In”, the choir is droning;
“Gather Us In” is our entrance song.
“Gather Us In” sounds just like groaning;
I notice no one is singing along.

“Gather Us In” is sung every Sunday;
“Gather Us In” is sung every Mass.
Give us a break and sing something different,
“Gather Us In” gets old really fast.

 

[Sarabande]

Here’s the thing… The music from past centuries that we hear today is only what stood the test of time. Remember that there are so many compositions made throughout the centuries which were very “popular” or in vogue during their time, along with what we have now. But they either went away within a couple generations or their compositions were just lost forever. We only know of this because there have been contemporary accounts of music by certain composers which are lost forever or just aren’t works which would be deemed something people would want to hear anymore.

A good example is that of early opera from the 17th and 18th centuries. Many of those operas are not performed anymore for various reasons. Some have literally been lost, others were over the top and overly-flourished, and some others aren’t performed because we don’t have the talent to perform them the way they were intended. A lot of arias written for castrati, for example, are not performed often, although some mezzos have been able to perform the pants roles originally written for castrati.

The same will occur with the music written in the latter half of the 20th century and now the 21st century. I’m sure, just in past centuries, much of what we have now will be thrown away within 100 years if not sooner. The gems will stay on. Until then, we can make predictions. Some are probably quite obvious. Others not so much.

Even in the 20th century, there are hymns which were “popular” in the early 20th century and you don’t really hear them anymore. In the secular realm, I’ve noticed that a lot of 50s doo-wop songs which I used to hear a lot in the 80s as a kid are no longer played on the airwaves. The same is happening with some of the really poorly written hymns of the 70s and 80s. Every kid in my generation in the 80s and 90s had to be subjected to them, but I have noticed that a lot have been dropped from the music liturgies (thank God!) There are some hymns that would be perfect for a broadway show - the tunes are catchy, etc. and which is probably why they have hung on. Who knows? Perhaps they will still be around in 50 years, but only time will tell.

I just notice that the music which were either composed with near-perfection or just had something special with them were the ones that stood the test of time - whether “popular” or sacred music.

 

[Michael_Welter]

I haven’t read through this thread, so I don’t know what others have said. I’m just here to present my own experience. I prefer contemporary praise and worship music at Mass, as I find that it draws me deeper into worship than other styles of music. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy Gregorian Chant, but find it more entertaining than worshipful. I enjoy traditional choral hymns, and they do lead me into worship, but near as much as contemporary P&W music. And of course, God instructed us to “Sing a new song unto the Lord.” He gives us the talent to write songs of worship to Him. Using these songs in our highest form of worship, the Mass, is truly an appropriate way to use the talents He gave us.

Just my $0.02.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<was there a time when the music we consider proper now was seen as too contemporary or sensual? like when it was written maybe?>>

Indeed, it was. EG: one desert monk said when Troparia and Kontakia became popular in Eastern hymnody, “What penitence or contrition can be invoked when people raise their voices, lowing like an ox in its stall?” And he wanted only PSALMS to be sung.

 

[Guitar]

A lot of arias written for castrati, for example, are not performed often, although some mezzos have been able to perform the pants roles originally written for castrati.

Off topic remark - I know a lot of counter-tenors! I’m glad there are now some very good ones around as the counter-tenor (once you are used to it, as most “historically-informed performance” fans are) still sounds male when you shut your eyes, whereas most mezzos do not.

On topic - you raise an good point. We have the best of the old but the good and bad of the new. This leads some to think that old=good as a matter of principle. We’ve lost the old chaff, we still have the new chaff and that can colour our perception of the wheat.

 

[Sarabande]

Off topic remark - I know a lot of counter-tenors! I’m glad there are now some very good ones around as the counter-tenor (once you are used to it, as most “historically-informed performance” fans are) still sounds male when you shut your eyes, whereas most mezzos do not.

On topic - you raise an good point. We have the best of the old but the good and bad of the new. This leads some to think that old=good as a matter of principle. We’ve lost the old chaff, we still have the new chaff and that can colour our perception of the wheat.

Ha! Ha! You’re right, we do have some pretty remarkable counter-tenors nowadays who can do those roles justice. We’ll never really know what a castrato truly sounded like, but we do have a taste of it with a good counter-tenor. It’s funny, I’m a mezzo and one time this counter-tenor and I sang the same aria for a master class. When I was finished singing, he said to me, “Hey, that’s MY aria!” That was so funny. I never had a male singer say that to me before then. A really good counter-tenor sounds like a woman with more beef in the voice and probably the closest to what a castrato may have sounded (Brian Osawa). A good c-t will sound like a man singing in falsetto and an ok c-t sounds like a hooting bird. hahahaha!

Ok… back on topic… I’m glad I’m not crazy and the only one who feels this way.

 

[DrumminFool91]

Hello and welcome.

You are correct, no Mass is invalidated because of the style of the music. But you are incorrect that musical styles and selections are like different languages. Aside from declaring that Latin is the language of the Roman rite, the Church makes absolutely no judgements on languages. But she does make judgements on musical styles and compositions, as have been cited here many times. Here are just a few:

“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy” --Vatican Council II

“Not all the expressions of music are able to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.” --John Paul II

"With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the “general rule” that St Pius X formulated in these words: “The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.” --John Paul II

“Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided.” --Benedict XVI

“Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the song proper to the Roman liturgy” --Benedict XVI
So the Church does offer clear guidelines, and not every style or composition is equally in accord with those guidelines. The problem occurs when people pretend otherwise.

You’ve really posed some great points that one can’t ignore, but I must raise a few additional thoughts in response.

I certainly do agree with the notion that not all forms of music are appropriate in the mass (darn! I guess that means no ‘Stairway to Heaven’ at Offertory ), but I think that some folks perhaps are superimposing contemporary Christian music into this ‘unacceptable’ category.

Lets look again at that quote from the 2nd Vatican Council:

*“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy” *

Does “specially suited” mean “exclusively” suited? Or are we just reading this into the quote? You have given me a moment of pause and I must acknowledge the fact that Gregorian Chant has a special place in the heart of the Church. I must ask, however, did any of the Popes or any ecumenical council ever officially state that there wasn’t room in the church for newer forms of liturgical music? Is there not enough room in the Church’s heart or the hearts of the faithful for the music of John Michael Talbot or Matt Maher?

I must disagree that the Church has given us “clear” guidelines on this matter. If they were in fact “clear” then we wouldn’t be having this debate. In fact, I would even go as far as to say that it is imprudent for the Church to come out and instruct the faithful to only use Gregorian Chant or ban Marty Hogan at Mass. I really don’t see the Pope telling the Catholics of Sudan that they’re going to have to put the drums down.

 

[VociMike]

You’ve really posed some great points that one can’t ignore, but I must raise a few additional thoughts in response.

I certainly do agree with the notion that not all forms of music are appropriate in the mass (darn! I guess that means no ‘Stairway to Heaven’ at Offertory ), but I think that some folks perhaps are superimposing contemporary Christian music into this ‘unacceptable’ category.

Depends on what you mean by “contemporary”. If you mean “something written in the past 40 years” then of course it’s not all unacceptable. If you mean “electric guitars, trap set, electronic keyboards” then it becomes much more problematic.

Lets look again at that quote from the 2nd Vatican Council:

*“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy” *

Does “specially suited” mean “exclusively” suited? Or are we just reading this into the quote?

Nobody has said chant is the only music allowed. I don’t know why this keeps coming up. But the Church has said it is the “supreme model” and “permanent standard” against which other styles and compositions must be measured.

You have given me a moment of pause and I must acknowledge the fact that Gregorian Chant has a special place in the heart of the Church. I must ask, however, did any of the Popes or any ecumenical council ever officially state that there wasn’t room in the church for newer forms of liturgical music? Is there not enough room in the Church’s heart or the hearts of the faithful for the music of John Michael Talbot or Matt Maher?

Depends on how each individual style and composition stacks up against the criteria set forth by the Church. The Church wants new music. She just wants new music of suitable form, beauty and holiness.

I must disagree that the Church has given us “clear” guidelines on this matter. If they were in fact “clear” then we wouldn’t be having this debate.

You don’t know much about the “spirit of Vatican II” vs. “the reality of Vatican II” then, do you? The Church has been having “this debate” on dozens of different issues where the Church has been quite clear, and almost universally ignored.

In fact, I would even go as far as to say that it is imprudent for the Church to come out and instruct the faithful to only use Gregorian Chant or ban Marty Hogan at Mass. I really don’t see the Pope telling the Catholics of Sudan that they’re going to have to put the drums down.

The Church has never said only this or that. But the Church has said over and over that not every style or composition is suited for the Mass. And everybody nods and thinks “that must apply to somebody else, not me”.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

This parody says it quite eloquently:

“Gather Us In”, the choir is droning;
“Gather Us In” is our entrance song.
“Gather Us In” sounds just like groaning;
I notice no one is singing along.

“Gather Us In” is sung every Sunday;
“Gather Us In” is sung every Mass.
Give us a break and sing something different,
“Gather Us In” gets old really fast.

For more of same…

Society for a Moratorium on the Music of
Marty Haugen and David Haas

 

[Cat]

Depends on how each individual style and composition stacks up against the criteria set forth by the Church. The Church wants new music. She just wants new music of suitable form, beauty and holiness.

The Church has never said only this or that. But the Church has said over and over that not every style or composition is suited for the Mass. And everybody nods and thinks “that must apply to somebody else, not me”.

I am a pianist, classically-trained. Perhaps I am a an ignorant Phillistine, but I honestly think that the music of Marty Haugen and others IS “of suitable form, beauty, and holiness.”

In fact, I think it’s just beautiful.

I’m beginning to think that this whole debate is all about musical “snobbery.”

I’ve seen quite a bit of this; people look down their noses at “folk” forms of music such as country, western, bluegrass, rock, folk, jazz (certain forms of jazz), street, hip-hop, etc. and considerate it “low” and “common” etc.

They have a right to their opinion, but their opinion is just that–an opinion. It has no basis in fact. No one can say that country, etc. are “lower” forms of music than any other form of music. Who established the criteria for “high” music and what are the criteria? Complexity of melody and harmony? Years of training needed to perform it?

Bah. There is no criteria, and if there is, it could be argued that many of the “folk” styles of music fit the criteria for “high” music.

Is there an offical “Music Commissioner” in the Vatican who is charged with the responsibility of pronouncing music “of suitable form, beauty, and holiness?”

I haven’t heard of such a person.

However, the Bishops in the U.S. are charged with the responsibility of maintaining the Mass. And as far as I know, they approve of Haugen, et. al. for use in Mass.

And everybody nods and thinks “that must apply to somebody else, not me”. That’s TRUE. Until there is a “tribunal” charged with evaluating the suitable form, beauty, and holiness of music, none of us has the authority to pronounce that folk styles of music are NOT suitable, beautiful, or holy. We can state our opinion, but we should be careful to remember that it is merely an opinion, not dogma.

 

[Sarabande]

It’s true in terms of what people think is beautiful and not is a matter of opinion. We can’t really negate the spiritual experiences that a person receives from a hearing piece of music that some of us would cringe if we heard the same piece. So, we can’t say a piece is bad based on it not sounding beautiful. We can for our personal pleasure or displeasure, though.

In regards to whether it is “high” or “low” music in the secular or sacred realms, for centuries, at least in western art music which almost all of our music is based on that scale and the rules of composition, there has always been what was considered common music and high music. There is nothing “wrong” with either one. I do like both. But there was always a place for either one. They rarely crossed lines, unless it was the best that a community could produce. Even my friends who like or perform nothing but secular folk or rock, etc. will acknowledge that their performance may be the highest in their genre of music and are very proud of what they achieve, but still know that it is not “high art”, so to speak. There have been plenty of threads that went into detail of this, so I won’t go into it here.

It really has nothing to do with musical snobbery at all. But honestly, although sometimes certain statements or phrases come off as snobbery or reverse snobbery on both sides of the fence, I’ve come to believe that most of us on here who have these strong beliefs or opinions are not doing it out of snobbery. Some of us come off as angry, some snobby, some lacsidasical, some working very hard to be gracious because they know that others on here are very sensitive. I know that there may be some people on these forums who don’t know me and may think I come off as such, which is ok. But those who really do know me will tell you that I’m probably one of the most down-to-earth people they know. I just have a really strong love of music and of spiritual perfection in music.

I have a feeling the same goes with a lot of the others on both sides on these forums who have an equally strong love of music.

 

[VociMike]

I am a pianist, classically-trained. Perhaps I am a an ignorant Phillistine, but I honestly think that the music of Marty Haugen and others IS “of suitable form, beauty, and holiness.”

In fact, I think it’s just beautiful.

I’m beginning to think that this whole debate is all about musical “snobbery.”

Yeah, just assume the worst about those you oppose. That approach always bears fruit.

This is not about some mythical Vatican Music Commissar. What it is really about is getting qualified people to make a good-faith appraisal of the music used in the liturgy. Qualified means not only musically qualified, but with a strong understanding of the “treasure of inestimable value” that is the Church’s musical tradition, and which forms (starting with Gregorian chant) the “supreme model” and “permanent standard” for any new music. As John Paul II stated, “Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy.” (my emphasis)

Are most contemporary composers profoundly steeped in the mind of the Church regarding liturgical music? Are you, thus justifying your dismissive comments and judgements? Or will you just reject out of hand those who are so profoundly steeped as “snobs”, and thus reject the will of the Church in this matter? Have you even attempted to truly understand and absorb, to steep yourself in, the sensus Ecclesiae regarding that on which you pass judgement?