Does musical inculturation apply to the use of pop and rock styles in American liturgies?

[Cat]

If this were a horse race, I would bet on pnewton.

pnewton does liturgical music week after week, year after year, in a real parish. pnewton is not just “thinking,” but “doing.” The “thoughts” are based on real-life experiences. pnewton works with real people, real priests, and real laypeople in real situations.

opus101, on the other hand, as far as I can see, has no practical experience in parish music. It’s all ideas, theories, and opinions. Am I wrong, opus101?

As for me, if anyone cares, I’m in-between. I play what the “pnewtons” of my parish tell me to play. I have no say in what music is done. I just obey. And I have done church music for a gazillion years (actually, for over 40 years), so I have a lot of real-life experience under my belt, too.

Anyway, I’ll always bet on the “horse” who actually walks the walk, not just talks the talk.

opus101, a suggestion–YOU know what the word “profane” means in the Catholic context. So does pnewton. And so do I.

But why are you using a hundred-dollar word when a 50 cent word will do? Just say “secular.” It’s much clearer. The word “profane” has a lot of modern baggage attached to it, and I really don’t think it’s the best word to use in a computer discussion forum because the meaning is unclear to many. Save it for a treatise.

And if you think that contemporary Christian music is “secular,” then you really don’t understand contemporary Christian music at all, and you probably should withhold your comments until you do gain a broader understanding of CCM.

 

[opus101]

What makes the compositional styles of liturgical music sacred and not others?

Primarily the fact that they are set aside for the sacred liturgy alone and exhibit the characteristics solicited by the Church for sacred music throughout the centuries, an exposition of which is way beyond the scope of this thread.

This thread is about whether or not the musical styles of contemporary secular pop and rock music (as exemplified in religious pop music) qualify as sacred music. As you can see, there are many opinions on the matter.

My aim is to get people more interested in the views of the Bishops who have written on the subject, and the guidance of the Popes. I’m well aware that not everything is “binding”, but that is not the purpose of the discussion.

 

[opus101]

If this were a horse race, I would bet on pnewton.

Well, thank goodness this isn’t a horse race or any kind of a competition whatsoever.
But if it were, I’d go with the Popes.

pnewton does liturgical music week after week, year after year, in a real parish. pnewton is not just “thinking,” but “doing.” The “thoughts” are based on real-life experiences. pnewton works with real people, real priests, and real laypeople in real situations.

Your point? I happen to think that the parishioners at p’s parish are very fortunate. He seems to be very faithful in his selections. No one is criticizing p, although he (and you in this case) often seem to think so. My discussion points have been about situations that are very much unlike his own.

And if you think that contemporary Christian music is “secular,” then you really don’t understand contemporary Christian music at all, and you probably should withhold your comments until you do gain a broader understanding of CCM.

Oh dear. “Contemporary Christian Music” again. That could mean newly composed chant and polyphony, it could mean any music at all (even heavy metal) written by a Christian living in our era, etc., etc…

IMO, a lot of what is often referred to as “Contemporary Christian Music” (and perhaps not all of it) falls more often in the category of “religious popular music” rather than music written specifically for use in the sacred liturgy alone and in accordance with the precepts of the Church for such compositions.

 

[Ruthie_again]

Well, there’s been a lot of infighting in this thread, as usual when music in the liturgy is discussed.

Way back when, someone asked for links. Here are a few.

My favorite pop Christian band is Casting Crowns. (I define “pop” as “music I hear on the radio.” Here’s “Does Anybody Hear Her.” Not suitable for liturgy, unless it was the homily.

And here’s one that might be suitable (I haven’t checked the lyrics to see if they’re too Protestant, so to speak): “Praise You In This Storm” (live)

Here’s one from our OCP Hymnal. The musical snob in me says it’s dreck. But it reaches me emotionally, and focuses my mind where it should be. Hosea – come back to me

Jazz great, Duke Ellington - Sacred Concert #1 (Praise God & Heaven)
youtube.com/watch?v=omm0yzJFPss

A grand old thunderer that I learned in the Unitarian church I was raised in: Once to Every Man and Nation

Here’s a Celtic version of a favorite Christmas carol of mine. It is ancient, from the 1500s IIRC.

This is the setting of it by Gustav Holst, which I love, though I learned slightly different words. That thundering scale from the organ at the beginning…

In 1980, Dave Brubeck (one of my top favorite jazz musicians) was commissioned to, and composed a Catholic Mass. He became Catholic shortly afterwards. Here’s a bit of it. As music, well, now I want to buy a recording of it. But it feels a bit too modern for Mass…

---

“Why do people feel the need to ‘jazz’ up the Liturgy and ‘modernise’ through using pop music?”

It’s been happening for, oh, two thousand years. I’m sure that there were shocked people when the first chant was sung. And then there were those hipsters, Pergolesi, Tallis, Vivaldi, etc. etc., who shook things up a few years ago.

There is good music out there. Who knows? Maybe in 500 years someone will be thinking of Brubeck’s Mass as “not appealing to our youth.”

Let me leave you with a real, rockin’, toe-tappin’ piece of truly sacred music. I dare you to keep still!

 

[pnewton]

Well, there’s been a lot of infighting in this thread, as usual when music in the liturgy is discussed.

I think there is something in us that lacks tolerance when it comes to music. We like to push our own tastes on others Yes, I know this is not just a matter of taste, but taste is one component. Just go through any large city with your windows open and see how many blast their music not only for their ears, but for all those around. They are not trying to entertain others. They are saying, “This music is the best. All bow down and listen to my excellent taste!”

 

[Cat]

Well, thank goodness this isn’t a horse race or any kind of a competition whatsoever.
But if it were, I’d go with the Popes.

YOUR interpretation of what the Popes say.

Your point? I happen to think that the parishioners at p’s parish are very fortunate. He seems to be very faithful in his selections. No one is criticizing p, although he (and you in this case) often seem to think so. My discussion points have been about situations that are very much unlike his own.

My point is that theories don’t often work in practice.

Oh dear. “Contemporary Christian Music” again. That could mean newly composed chant and polyphony, it could mean any music at all (even heavy metal) written by a Christian living in our era, etc., etc…

IMO, a lot of what is often referred to as “Contemporary Christian Music” (and perhaps not all of it) falls more often in the category of “religious popular music” rather than music written specifically for use in the sacred liturgy alone and in accordance with the precepts of the Church for such compositions.

Once again, you are mis-using words. CCM is used in popular culture to refer to a specific type of Christian music. Musicians use the initials CCM to refer more or less exclusively to the pop/rock Christian songs. These initials are never used to refer to modern religious pieces composed in a classical or some other traditional style Although you appear to want to change the meaning of CCM to refer to all kinds of modern pieces, it’s not going to happen just because you want it. I suggest that you use the term CCM like everyone else uses it, instead of trying to twist it into what you want it to mean.

Religious popular music is not always “CCM.” “How Great Thou Art” is “religious popular music.”

And a lot of CCM is not “popular” at all.

You can’t just make up definitions for words. You have to follow what the actual meaning of the words is.

Oh, BTW, I and other musicians would never use the term CCM in reference to the hymns in the OCP hymnals; e.g., the Haugen and Haas hymns, or the hymns of the various St. Louis Jesuits. These are “oldies” or “folk music.” Most of them are almost 40years old–this is not CCM.

 

[opus101]

YOUR interpretation of what the Popes say.

No. The interpretation of the Popes on what other Popes have written, and the interpretation of American bishops who are learned in that field. Not MY interpretation.I’m merely presenting theirs.

On these threads, even when someone merely presents the thoughts and directives of the above, they are swarmed by responders who are offended and insist that the OP is foisting on them his or her interpretation.

Often the statement is made “Well, that’s only YOUR opinion.” They need to be reminded that they are on a discussion board, and that is what happens in such venues.
People proffer opinions. They also proffer the opinions of others, i.e. the Pope and Bishops.

In regard to your above statement, I would not say that it is MY interpretation, but rather that the directives in the pastoral letter referenced in the OP are at odds with your own ideas on the subject. When that happens, it can set some people off, making them defensive.

My point is that theories don’t often work in practice.

I agree. But I wouldn’t equate difficulties with “not working”. Some people throw in the towel WAY too early.

Once again, you are mis-using words. CCM is used in popular culture to refer to a specific type of Christian music. Musicians use the initials CCM to refer more or less exclusively to the pop/rock Christian songs. These initials are never used to refer to modern religious pieces composed in a classical or some other traditional style Although you appear to want to change the meaning of CCM to refer to all kinds of modern pieces, it’s not going to happen just because you want it. I suggest that you use the term CCM like everyone else uses it, instead of trying to twist it into what you want it to mean.

Religious popular music is not always “CCM.” “How Great Thou Art” is “religious popular music.”

And a lot of CCM is not “popular” at all.

You can’t just make up definitions for words. You have to follow what the actual meaning of the words is.

Okay. Now we’re getting ridiculous. My whole point was that using that term can be misleading, and you’re just repeating what I said: it can even refer to hymns! You misread my post. In your dither, you are flailing about, seeking things to rant over.

Most importantly, THIS POST WAS NEVER ABOUT CCM specifically! It is specifically about sacred music versus pop and rock style music with religious texts (referred to sometimes as popular religious music). I never mentioned CCM until you did, and then, only to point out pretty much what you just said.

 

[pnewton]

Once again, you are mis-using words. CCM is used in popular culture to refer to a specific type of Christian music.

This style of music, this praise and worship music, can be parodied. I have heard a few on occasion. The thing is, those that can laugh at this type of parody do so because they recognize the difference between this and pop secular music, even without a degree. It is its own genre. I never hear anything on the radio that corresponds to what I would hear in Church musically. I seldom stop and think, “Hey, that would make a good song for Mass” based on the music or the words.

I think there is a legitimacy about using that which is truly secular, and I do not doubt that this happens. I know the especially for weddings this is a temptation, but that is easily overcome by separating the music that the couple wants that one cannot do for Mass, from the Mass. Sing it before. Sing it at the reception. For my wedding, we had Sunrise, Sunset. For Mass, we had Eat This Bread, which my wife and I sang. I know; we are strange.

 

[opus101]

I think there is something in us that lacks tolerance when it comes to music. We like to push our own tastes on others Yes, I know this is not just a matter of taste, but taste is one component. Just go through any large city with your windows open and see how many blast their music not only for their ears, but for all those around. They are not trying to entertain others. They are saying, “This music is the best. All bow down and listen to my excellent taste!”

Well, here’s something that I agree with wholeheartedly.

 

[opus101]

I think there is a legitimacy about using that which is truly secular, and I do not doubt that this happens.

Thanks for the post, p. I appreciate the whole of it. You are a very blessed man, and very fortunate to not have been subject to what very many of us have.

This thread has not ever been about Haugen, Haas, etc. (That would be a separate thread).

Unfortunately, some have tried to characterize it in that way, and put words in others’ mouths.

 

[Sarabande]

Here is the opinion of Bishop Sample in his new pastoral letter on music in the liturgy:

“Also a part of the Church’s musical treasury is the vast body of popular sacred music. In the context of the sacred liturgy, THE TERM “POPULAR” DOES NOT SIGNIFY THE SO-CALLED “POP CULTURE” but comes from the Latin “populus”, people. POPULAR SACRED MUSIC INCLUDES HYMNODY, PSALMODY, VERNACULAR MASS SETTINGS, MANY OF THE LATIN CHANT SETTINGS, and other forms of sacred music suited to the musical abilities of the people.”

He later states (in reference to mission lands and the musical traditions of various cultures):
“It is important to note here that when we speak of the sacred music of a particular culture, we are indeed speaking of music that is considered truly “sacred” within a culture. This is not applicable to subcultures within a given society that have no connection with a religious or spiritual culture.”

Evidently, American “folk” music, pop music and rock-style music does NOT provide an appropriate setting for the text and hymns of the sacred liturgy.

Your thoughts?

I didn’t get to read the entire thread and was able to read parts of the letter (when you have two young children and trying to learn two opera scores for productions this April and June, you don’t have much time to do a lot of cerebral reading. lol!). While I do agree with everything I have so far read in the letter and how all of the documents on sacred liturgy have been interpreted by him, what I have read of the newer documents leaves too much open. This inevitably led to so many kinds of music coming into the liturgy. Now, as I know you are aware of from your studies, this kind of thing is nothing new in church music history. People were always pushing the envelope with liturgical music, the Church lets it happen for a while and then the Church pushes back and puts the “smack-down” on music. I have said this many times in other threads, but I think we are coming to a point where the experimentation stage is ending and the “smack-down” is beginning, such as what you see in Bishop Sample’s letter for his diocese.

That said, until the Church, herself, spells out concrete specifics of what is not permitted, you are going to continue getting music that may not be liturgically appropriate. Because of what we’ve seen in history, I don’t find the ambiguity surprising. (I’m not the only one who believes there is ambiguity in the documents. People on all various sides of the liturgical music issue have criticised the documents for that.) She may be observing what kinds of “newer” music permeating the liturgies can be rendered appropriate before she makes a decision.

I don’t believe pop or rock music styles do apply as being considered “truly sacred within a culture”, and that is because I have yet to see it work within the context of a liturgy. That’s not to say that people may one day be able to render or refine the style to make it work, but as of now I don’t believe it is the case… whether or not it is well done and “speaks” to the listener, spiritually-speaking. On the other hand, I have seen folk music used successfully when it has been rendered appropriate. Many of the well-loved traditional hymn melodies have its origins as folk music from different cultures… or even as drinking songs. Of course, they are often not performed in the same way or with the same instrumentation as the original, which is probably why they don’t “sound” secular.

I personally think instrumentation and the way it is performed has a lot to do with what is most associated with secular music. So, perhaps, if you took a CCM song, for example, arranged it in such a way to sound more “traditional” with an organ, changed the singing style of how it would originally be sung, I would imagine it would sound a lot like “popular sacred music” as described by Bs. Sample, but I don’t know if many people would want to play that same music in that way for mass. One of my music directors has an uncanny way of making 70s and 80s hymns you find in many hymnals sound like “traditional” hymnody. She doesn’t even use the original compositions, just plays from the single melody line and makes them sound much less like love ballads or songs from musicals. It was disconcerting at first because I was so used to hearing the original accompaniment, but the way she plays it forces the congregation to sing the hymns like what some people would consider the “old-fashioned” way of hymnody. Conversely, I’ve worked with people or have attended masses where the musicians take more “traditional” hymns like “Holy God, We Praise Thy Name” and make them sound nothing as they were intended, arranging them to sound like a rock song… so much so, I would imagine some people would consider it completely inappropriate for mass.

Traditional, African-American spirituals and Gospel music, I think could fall in the category of musical inculturation and “popular sacred music”. The music started out as sacred music for their own worship of God.

 

[pnewton]

I personally think instrumentation and the way it is performed has a lot to do with what is most associated with secular music. So, perhaps, if you took a CCM song, for example, arranged it in such a way to sound more “traditional” with an organ, changed the singing style of how it would originally be sung, I would imagine it would sound a lot like “popular sacred music” as described by Bs. Sample, … .

And visa versa? Hail Holy Queen from* Sister Act* comes to mind.

 

[Sarabande]

And visa versa? Hail Holy Queen from* Sister Act* comes to mind.

Yes, I mentioned that in my example of “Holy God, We Praise Thy Name” further down in that same paragraph. People can change the more “traditional” hymns up so much with their own renditions and arrangements that it would sound more secular even when it was originally written in a style more appropriate for liturgy. Thus, it renders the music inappropriate for mass.

With the example of “Hail, Holy Queen”, this is where I think it could fall into that “musical inculturation” category and could possibly be appropriate if looking towards the the cultural aspects of the African-American community. The performance of the music was changed to reflect a Gospel style performance of the hymn. If I’m not mistaken, Gospel music started out as that culture’s way of worship. It did not have its origins as secular music and I don’t believe it took from secular musical influences to derive this style of music worship. Someone please correct me on this, if I’m wrong. My studies in music history didn’t really cover much on Gospel or Spirituals. When I hear Gospel music I never think of it as something secular. I always equate it with music worship of a certain culture and community… and I always have even before I had any major studies in music. Now, I know that the secular styles of some of the modern soul music comes from gospel, but, at least from my listening of it, there is a difference in how it is performed. (Little known fact about me… even thought I’m a classically trained musician and now a classical singer, I did sing in a Gospel choir at my Catholic high school for a while which was mostly made up of African-American students, but they did permit non African-American kids to join if they’d like. I was one of two who did and enjoyed the experience with the other girls who were also my track teammates and friends. So I am a little acquainted with the music and style of singing. My voice, though, just wasn’t made for that style of singing, as much as I tried. It was too classical, even then. lol!)

When I hear other musical styles and performances, I do immediately think of it being secular because the style or genre of the music, itself, has not yet or never will be initially associated with sacred music by a culture/population. Yes, anyone who knows music, knows that polyphony started out as secular music, but I would venture to guess that most people today would associate it with sacred music, because the majority of polyphonic works one hears today is sacred and for liturgy. If you hear the music in movies and such, that is always played when they are in churches or if there is a scene with religious. It’s automatically associated as something sacred.