S
Sarabande
Guest
What a very interesting and fascinating article. As a musician, whose main instrument is the voice, it is even more compelling for me. It does support other articles and histories I’ve read on the cultures and beliefs throughout the centuries regarding Church music.
I do think there are a lot of things to take into account when you look at what the early Church fathers were dealing with at the time. One of them is how the instruments sounded and how they were used. A number of years back I gave 7th and 8th grade students a project of researching early instruments used in the medieval and renaissance times. ( I was a little overly ambitious as a 24 year old for my kids.). Their favorite part of the research papers was being able to hear the instruments, which I helped them find in the computer room for their research. A lot of them weren’t particularly pleasant to listen to. Some were very funny-sounding to our ears and there was a lot of laughter coming out of the classroom during those days of research. In a word, they were somewhat crude in sound and I could see how these instruments and how they were performed were better-suited for more “secular” or paganistic events. I can also see how people of the time might have considered it wrong or evil, but it is strange that evil would have been associated to an inanimate object. That said, it shouldn’t be surprising when people did use to associate good and evil with objects, color, etc. ie. In my 18th century movement classes the use of the left or right part of the body or entering from the left or right side of a stage would have indicated if a person was evil or angelic. It flowed I to real life as well. The use of the left hand was evil, for instance.
I also am reminded of how polyphony was also once considered “secular”, “licentious”, “inciting lust”, etc. Why? Because it started off as a secular form of music. It was rather crudely performed and later performed with more of a “bounce”, a little more spice compared to it’s sacred form. When you look at early secular polyphonic music and then sacred
polyphonic music, you do see a difference in the way it is performed. I experienced this in different choirs I’ve sung in which enjoyed performing early music.
Lastly, I think a lot of criticisms we hear today regarding the usage of certain instruments and styles of music used in the liturgy is similar and a more watered-down version of what the early Church Fathers talked about. The difference is that they were mostly talking about the instruments used outside of liturgy and most critics today don’t care about the instruments outside of the mass. Actually, we haven’t really changed that much.
I do think there are a lot of things to take into account when you look at what the early Church fathers were dealing with at the time. One of them is how the instruments sounded and how they were used. A number of years back I gave 7th and 8th grade students a project of researching early instruments used in the medieval and renaissance times. ( I was a little overly ambitious as a 24 year old for my kids.). Their favorite part of the research papers was being able to hear the instruments, which I helped them find in the computer room for their research. A lot of them weren’t particularly pleasant to listen to. Some were very funny-sounding to our ears and there was a lot of laughter coming out of the classroom during those days of research. In a word, they were somewhat crude in sound and I could see how these instruments and how they were performed were better-suited for more “secular” or paganistic events. I can also see how people of the time might have considered it wrong or evil, but it is strange that evil would have been associated to an inanimate object. That said, it shouldn’t be surprising when people did use to associate good and evil with objects, color, etc. ie. In my 18th century movement classes the use of the left or right part of the body or entering from the left or right side of a stage would have indicated if a person was evil or angelic. It flowed I to real life as well. The use of the left hand was evil, for instance.
I also am reminded of how polyphony was also once considered “secular”, “licentious”, “inciting lust”, etc. Why? Because it started off as a secular form of music. It was rather crudely performed and later performed with more of a “bounce”, a little more spice compared to it’s sacred form. When you look at early secular polyphonic music and then sacred
polyphonic music, you do see a difference in the way it is performed. I experienced this in different choirs I’ve sung in which enjoyed performing early music.
Lastly, I think a lot of criticisms we hear today regarding the usage of certain instruments and styles of music used in the liturgy is similar and a more watered-down version of what the early Church Fathers talked about. The difference is that they were mostly talking about the instruments used outside of liturgy and most critics today don’t care about the instruments outside of the mass. Actually, we haven’t really changed that much.
