Jazz music is not sacred music

[japhy]

There have been a few threads in which genres of music have been proposed as fit or unfit for liturgical use. These often go without “concrete” support either way.

Well, the case was closed on Jazz in 1966. (If it’s been reopened since then, I don’t know, but that must be proved by someone else.) The letter L’heureux développement of Cardinal G. Lercaro (president of the Consilium for the implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium), published in Notitiae 2, was sent to presidents of conferences of bishops; it dealt with problems encountered in the reform of the liturgy. In addition to recommending the retention of Masses celebrated in Latin (and this is January 1966, just over two years after the document on the liturgy was promulgated!) this letter briefly dealt with “The Sacred Quality of Church Music” (section 5):It is necessary moreover that the principles of sacredness and dignity which distinguish church music, be it for its chant as for its sound [better translation of the French is: “in regard both to singing and to music instruments”], should remain intact. All that which is merely secular should be proscribed from the house of God. Jazz, for example, cannot today be part of a musical repertoire designed for worship.

Where musical instruments are concerned, differing mentalities, cultures, and traditions are to be borne in mind, and those instruments which have an entirely secular connotation should not be allowed in church. The Church has immense possibilities for deep, effective and uplifting action, without having recourse to means which are very dubious and even, by common consent, harmful.
If you have Documents on the Liturgy, this is DOL 32, n. 427.

 

[CTA1967]

Not saying that jazz should be played at mass, but just nitpicking about the “instruments which have an entirely secular connotation should not be allowed in church” thing. Organs are used in jazz. Of course, not pipe organs, but how often do you find those in local churches, anyway?

 

[pnewton]

Where musical instruments are concerned, differing mentalities, cultures, and traditions are to be borne in mind, and those instruments which have an entirely secular connotation should not be allowed in church.

Culture changes over time, especially after we entered the information age. While I do not ever see Jazz becoming anything but secular (and unpopular at that), that does not preclude the possibility that it never will. Sorry Jazz fans. But such letters, even in French, must be taken in the context which they were written. Piano, Organ, guitar, all went through a time they were secular. Even Polyphonic chant was condemned as secular at one time.

But I agree with the OP. Anything but Jazz…

oh, and Bluegrass.

 

[VociMike]

But what happens if you just break the rules and use “entirely secular” instruments in the liturgy for decades? Then you can claim, with some truth, that they are no longer entirely secular. Heck, that was easy!

 

[pnewton]

But what happens if you just break the rules and use “entirely secular” instruments in the liturgy for decades? Then you can claim, with some truth, that they are no longer entirely secular. Heck, that was easy!

Therein is the rub. Every instrument broke into liturgical music this way. I guess one back door way is let some other denomination without such liturgical norms crack the door for you. Still, while it is highly subjective, I have a feel for some instruments that are so associated with secular music that they ought not be used., e.g., the kazoo.

 

[PoliSciProf]

Before dismissing jazz as incapable of producing sacred music, I suggest you listen to Paul Horn’s Jazz Suite on the Mass Texts which was arranged by Lalo Schifrin. While I am not advocating it as liturgical music, it is certainly capable of expressing the sacred.

 

[japhy]

Even Polyphonic chant was condemned as secular at one time.

With polyphony, I believe the problem was that it had been corrupted by secular principles, not that polyphony in and of itself was secular.

 

[CTA1967]

oh, and Bluegrass.

 

[VociMike]

Therein is the rub. Every instrument broke into liturgical music this way.

I’m not at all convinced that this is true, but neither am I able to prove it to be false.

I guess one back door way is let some other denomination without such liturgical norms crack the door for you. Still, while it is highly subjective, I have a feel for some instruments that are so associated with secular music that they ought not be used., e.g., the kazoo.

I’ve heard kazoos at Mass (a children’s Mass), so they may now be classified as suitable for the liturgy.

The fact is, some people and parishes are going to use whatever instruments they please. They just don’t care about the secular/sacred distinctions and connotations and associations. The horse has been out of the barn for too many decades.

 

[japhy]

The fact is, some people and parishes are going to use whatever instruments they please. They just don’t care about the secular/sacred distinctions and connotations and associations. The horse has been out of the barn for too many decades.

Now there’s an idea: horse-neighing and donkey-braying as sacred music!

 

[pnewton]

With polyphony, I believe the problem was that it had been corrupted by secular principles, not that polyphony in and of itself was secular.

Whatever the reason, it was condemned in official Church documents as unsuitable. Now it is considered highly valued.

 

[VociMike]

Whatever the reason, it was condemned in official Church documents as unsuitable. Now it is considered highly valued.

I’ve heard this before, but never seen any documentation. Can you cite the document (documents?) that stated polyphony was unsuitable?

I think the issue of secular vs. sacred musical genres becomes quite clear when you ask, which of the “contemporary” genres will be valued and performed in the liturgy 500 or 1000 years from now? Which current genres have what it takes to be esteemed for century after century? Which genres will have the timeless, universal quality necessary for such longevity?

 

[pnewton]

I’ve heard this before, but never seen any documentation. Can you cite the document (documents?) that stated polyphony was unsuitable?

Sure. I read about it in Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, Spirit of the Liturgy. I would recommend this book to anyone, BTW. It is very balanced and gives an idea of where we might head with the author at the reigns. I found it convincing and compeling on several points considered traditional, while at the same time understanding the need for change and adaptation.

I think the issue of secular vs. sacred musical genres becomes quite clear when you ask, which of the “contemporary” genres will be valued and performed in the liturgy 500 or 1000 years from now?

Probably not kazoo music. While I have never used it, I would not be surprised to see electronic keyboard to have a lasting effect, simply because of it’s similarity to organ and piano, flexibility of sound and economic feasibility. Whereas when the first synthesizers came out they were definitely not appropriate.

 

[japhy]

I’ve heard this before, but never seen any documentation. Can you cite the document (documents?) that stated polyphony was unsuitable?

Musicae Sacrae (of 1955) briefly recaps the history of polyphony in the Church:
53. It is not Our intention in what We have just said in praise and commendation of the Gregorian chant to exclude sacred polyphonic music from the rites of the Church. If this polyphonic music is endowed with the proper qualities, it can be of great help in increasing the magnificence of divine worship and of moving the faithful to religious dispositions. Everyone certainly knows that many polyphonic compositions, especially those that date from the 16th century, have an artistic purity and richness of melody which render them completely worthy of accompanying and beautifying the Church’s sacred rites.

1. Although over the course of the centuries genuine polyphonic art gradually declined and profane melodies often crept into it, during recent decades the indefatigable labors of experts have brought about a restoration. The works of the old composers have been carefully studied and proposed as models to be imitated and rivaled by modern composers.
2. So it is that in the basilicas, cathedrals and churches of religious communities these magnificent works of the old masters and the polyphonic compositions of more recent musicians can be performed, contributing greatly to the beauty of the sacred rite. Likewise We know that simpler but genuinely artistic polyphonic compositions are often sung even in smaller churches.
3. The Church favors all these enterprises. As Our predecessor of immortal memory, St. Pius X, says, the Church ``unceasingly encourages and favors the progress of the arts, admitting for religious use all the good and the beautiful that the mind of man has discovered over the course of the centuries, but always respecting the liturgical laws.’’
4. These laws warn that great prudence and care should be used in this serious matter in order to keep out of churches polyphonic music which, because of its heavy and bombastic style, might obscure the sacred words of the liturgy by a kind of exaggeration, interfere with the conduct of the liturgical service or, finally, lower the skill and competence of the singers to the disadvantage of sacred worship.

Which current genres have what it takes to be esteemed for century after century? Which genres will have the timeless, universal quality necessary for such longevity?

Regarding sacred music: those genres which more closely attain to the qualities of Gregorian Chant, the supreme model for sacred music in the Latin Rite, of course!

 

[ShemariahBeans]

Ah, the diametrical juxtaposition of the Apollinian/Dionysian duality raises its head…and always will.

At the root, orderly intellectual (i.e. of the mind) are allowed, while the excessively emotional are not.

Thus string instruments (Apollinian) such as the piano, violin etc can be brought under the subjection of the mind, while the wind instruments (Dionysian) by nature are thought to too deeply connected to the flesh and emotions.

I’m a member at a very orthodox parish, the Cathedral in Toronto, and the music is very, very ordered.

At home, I will listen to Gaither! LOL - I think.

 

[japhy]

Thus string instruments (Apollinian) such as the piano, violin etc can be brought under the subjection of the mind…

The piano is also a percussion instrument, unlike other stringed instruments played with bows. Those instruments (played with bows) were given special consideration by the Church.

Consider De Musica Sacra n. 60/b: “The difference between sacred, and secular music must be taken into consideration. Some musical instruments, such as the classic organ, are naturally appropriate for sacred music; others, such as string instruments which are played with a bow, are easily adapted to liturgical use. But there are some instruments which, by common estimation, are so associated with secular music that they are not at all adaptable for sacred use.”

And three years earlier, Musicae Sacrae n. 59: “Besides the organ, other instruments can be called upon to give great help in attaining the lofty purpose of sacred music, so long as they play nothing profane nothing clamorous or strident and nothing at variance with the sacred services or the dignity of the place. Among these the violin and other musical instruments that use the bow are outstanding because, when they are played by themselves or with other stringed instruments or with the organ, they express the joyous and sad sentiments of the soul with an indescribable power. Moreover, in the encyclical Mediator Dei, We Ourselves gave detailed and clear regulations concerning the musical modes that are to be admitted into the worship of the Catholic religion.”

 

[bpbasilphx]

Organs are used in jazz. Of course, not pipe organs, but how often do you find those in local churches, anyway?

**Organs were originally used in early Roman theatres and circuses, which is why Orthodoxy as a whole rejects them. (There are exceptions in the USA.)

What makes a musical instrument sacred is using it for a sacred purpose.

Harps and violins are hardly more sacred by nature than saxophones.**

 

[Guitar]

Organs are used in jazz. Of course, not pipe organs, but how often do you find those in local churches, anyway?

**Organs were originally used in early Roman theatres and circuses, which is why Orthodoxy as a whole rejects them. (There are exceptions in the USA.)

What makes a musical instrument sacred is using it for a sacred purpose.

Harps and violins are hardly more sacred by nature than saxophones.**

Pipe organs (of a particular voicing) are used in theatres, pizza parlours and sport stadiums. Pipe organs were used in church before that, though.

Hammond B3s were/are very popular in jazz, rock and blues and I can tell you that all throughout the regional part of the place I’m from, Hammond spinets and C3s with the same tone generation system (though usually with the Leslie disabled) were everywhere when I was a kid. My church had a C3 until 1991, when I was finally able to get it replaced. It was Hammond or harmonium or nuttin, if you couldn’t afford or get a pipe organ.

The early Christians rejected the organ because of the Roman/pagan association. From memory (and assuming no scholarly revelations have occurred since I did my little treatise on it from a few years back) it isn’t until the 1100s some time (possibly even later, I will check) that the first totally unambiguous reference to an organ being used in the liturgy is found (Notre Dame, Paris). From my reading at the time, it seems that the words organ/organum/organistra etc were in the past incorrectly assumed to refer specifically to organs and organists when it has been shown they either did not or could not have in the context.

There is proof organs were present in churches before this date, but so were almanac clocks and other sorts of “town hall” and novelty items that were not used in the liturgy, and study of the architectural history of Notre Dame alongside the historic records shows that organs were present at times when they physically could not have been used at Mass.

I suspect a lot of people would give quids to know when and why the organ made the leap from pariah to the standard.

 

[bpbasilphx]

BTW–I have degrees in music–woodwinds and keyboards.

I’d rather hear a well-played piano in church than a toy spinet operated by a left-footed organist with mittens, as is so often the case.

 

[VociMike]

Organs are used in jazz. Of course, not pipe organs, but how often do you find those in local churches, anyway?

**Organs were originally used in early Roman theatres and circuses, which is why Orthodoxy as a whole rejects them. (There are exceptions in the USA.)

What makes a musical instrument sacred is using it for a sacred purpose.
**

It helped that the knowledge of organs was lost in the west for some 250 years. Thus there were none of those Roman circus connotations in the west when the organ made its reappearance.

It’s really all about connotations, associations. If people are likely to associate the sound of a particular instrument with secular music and culture, then that instrument does not belong in the liturgy. When celebrating the sacred, people should not have their minds pulled towards secular thoughts. The liturgy should be a secular-free zone.