If the music doesn't matter

[benedictgal]

A big part of the problem is that publishing houses like OCP and GIA (although, to a certain extent, GIA is the lesser of two evils), in my opinion, either do not read the authoritative documents of the Holy See or they outright ignore them. Both houses have a stable of writers. But, what is the point of having about 100 new songs a year if they are not doctrinally, theologically nor liturgically correct and are written like the bad pop songs and TV themes of the 70s and 80s?

Furthermore, OCP sends out a “liturgical planning guide” for parishes to use. Are any Traditional hymns included? Are chant and Latin part of the mix? No. What OCP pushes is the stuff that Bob Hurd, et al, compose with very little in the way of solid, theologically and liturgially rich sacred music. Our music director slavishly follows this guide. In fact, our pianist told me that this guide comes from the Vatican. I quickly corrected him and told him that this was not so, not by a longshot. OCP does not have any authoritative role whatsoever. Just because they have something in their little guide, that doesn’t mean that you are bound to use it. I never bothered using any of their guides (Spanish nor English). These guides only serve to promote their composers’ agendas and not what the Church asks us to do as far as sacred music is concerned.

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t know about that. They come to church seeking God. If they want to hear current musical styles, they know they can hear a lot of it - probably better performed, in clubs and concert halls. Trying to do this music in a lame way at the local parish just seems lame. It causes an entertainment faction (with all of it’s attendant egos) to grow where worshipful music ought to be.

Don’t get me wrong…music isn’t the sole reason methinks that anyone comes to mass, but there is an element that gets “bored” with traditional and “ultra”-traditional music. I’m not saying we should cater to them, but I don’t see anything wrong with providing a folk-music type mass for those who prefer that type of music, with appropriate guidelines, of course.

The question remains as to what those guidelines are and which hymms/songs cross the line.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Dampen the caplock and take a chill. Did you now read what I said? I have no choir or schola. The congregation is the choir. Perhaps we could go with canned music, but why do that when those of your opinion do not exist that I have found in my parish.

I wasn’t addressing you or your particular situation (sorry if it sounded that way), but a general overall observation of current American praxis (or lack thereof).

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

I figure that any parish, no matter how small, that can learn songs as irregular as “Gift of Finest Wheat” or “Sing of the Lord’s Goodness” can also master basic chant melodies in less time it took to learn the former tunes.

 

[RosaMystica]

I agree that a lot of the songs (I can’t call them hymns) that we sing on Sunday are much harder to learn than some simple chant melodies.

The Psalm, for instance, in our parish, is always one of four or five “songs” that the choir has learned. When I was Episcopalian, we just used a few chant melodies, and we could apply them to the words of ANY Psalm. That way you can actually use the one in the lectionary. I think that is much easier than what we currently do.

I’m pretty proficient at reading music, but I’ve had a challenge learning some of the weirder songs in our hymnal (GIA).

 

[japhy]

I’m pretty proficient at reading music, but I’ve had a challenge learning some of the weirder songs in our hymnal (GIA).

Some “hymns” have difficult syncopation. And ones like “Be not afraid” has eighth notes with double-dots (I don’t even know the name for the notation) which no one in the pews (let alone the choir) can sing, let alone pay attention to.

 

[Sarabande]

Some “hymns” have difficult syncopation. And ones like “Be not afraid” has eighth notes with double-dots (I don’t even know the name for the notation) which no one in the pews (let alone the choir) can sing, let alone pay attention to.

Funny you brought that up. I did a funeral once where the family chose “Be Not Afraid”. I’m a stickler for singing the music exactly as it is written, but it is well known that hardly any congregation, let alone most cantors ever sing it correctly. Since at this parish they do not have missalettes which have “Be Not Afraid” or most of the other hymns this family chose (family was not from the parish), I basically was singing it on my own. So, I did it exactly as written. The organist afterwards said to me, “That is the first time I ever heard it done exactly as written.” He was actually taken by surprise, and then just followed along when he realized that I was actually using my musician skills. haha!

This is the case for a few of the newer hymns - difficult syncopation and rhythms or melodies that do not stay within the average vocal range of a non-trained singer. One that comes to my mind is “I Am the Bread of Life”. I have hardly heard anyone in congregations that can actually sing the whole thing as written. They are always jumping an octave up or down depending on where they are in the hymn. Or they’ll squeal out the last “And I will Raise you up on the last day.”

Many of the older hymns do stay within a doable range and most come in at least two different keys so as to accomodate the kind of congregation or choir that sing them. Even a well-trained organist or pianist can transpose them at will. There are a few newer hymns that sit in a comfortable range, though too.

P.S. It’s just a double-dotted eighth note, which is basically 1 3/4 times the note value. Why that person even thought to do that when he knew that the majority of people singing it and many of the well-meaning people who don’t have much training in music would have no idea what those double-dotted eighth notes mean, is beyond me.

 

[Sarabande]

The reason we do not have Gregorian chant is lack of any musicians capable of leading and teaching the congregation. We only use a handful of traditional chants.

I think this is partly true. Those who were able to teach it are either out of church music all together or have gone to high church Protestant congregations. The other reason is that there were many pastors or people in charge of parishes who made sure that it wouldn’t be taught or encouraged in their churches, so we lost a couple generations. My older colleagues who actually do know this kind of music were actually pushed out of their parishes during the 70s and 80s because they wanted to keep up chant and other music which was suddenly thrown out the door. A few have stayed on and have worked very hard with their volunteer choirs and such. My parish, for example, does do chant. Even when I teaching and directing, I taught my children’s choir to do some of the basic simple Latin chants, and still was not permitted to use them during their mass. But I think that is changing.

 

[Sarabande]

Several times on these threads, those who support and favor contemporary styles of music – be it rock, country, folk, broadway – as all good for liturgical music have made the argument that as long as the lyrics aren’t expressly heretical (and some think that this is optional), then it makes no difference what style of music is used.

If that be the case, then why not just stick with traditional Sacred Music? For the sake of being pastoral to those who do think that it matters what style of music is employed in a liturgical setting, wouldn’t it be prudent to stay with the traditional Sacred Music (i.e., Palestrina, Gregorian Chant)?

I think the Church has been wise, for the most part, on how she has permitted music within the liturgy throughout the centuries. Of course, chant has always and should always be part of the liturgy, as that as is really the only true “traditional” form from the very beginning.

Although I believe it is very important to keep the traditional sacred music for all masses, I also think that there have been sacred music throughout time (now considered traditional) which have been tried and tested and accepted. These were considered “new” at the time and had to sometimes be refined in order to be accepted for liturgy.

It would also be important to realize that people are people no matter what century in which they existed. They have always tried to put their more popular style of music into liturgy and the Church have constantly had to “lay down the law”. And the Church works on her time. It could take a matter of a few months or years or decades to decree what is and is not to be accepted.

Much of the traditional sacred music that we hear today have had to be reworked and refined so that it most closely worked towards chant. Polyphony, for example. When opera was a very popular classical style at its height in the 19th century and early 20th century, composers were writing sacred music that resembled opera arias and chorus rather than being closely linked to the sacredness of chant. And throughout the centuries you always had people wanted to use their popular music styles for mass and the Church had to constantly put a stop to it. And there was garbage out there… they just didn’t make it to our time.

Right now, we are going through that. What I believe is that out of a lot of the garbage we are hearing today, there are works which will be considered to be worthwhile to keep. Perhaps the Church will require that some of this music be more refined. Perhaps for some the style is right and will not need refinement. We just have to sit it out.

So, I think to just say not include any newer music would be a detriment, especially since the Church, herself, have encouraged new sacred music for every century.