Men and Liturgical Music

[CatholicZ09]

I don’t know really, but I am more inclined to sing more traditional hymns at Mass. Traditional hymns have more of a reasonable vocal range for men, but like contemporary songs, some can require high vocal ranges (Jesus Christ is Risen Today, Ode to Joy, Joy to the World, etc.)

Contemporary hymns also tend to be more upbeat and “dance-like” than traditional. For example - “Enter the Journey” or “How Can I Keep from Singing” (is that contemporary of traditional?) anyway, a lot of men are less inclined to sing dance songs like those from my experience.

 

[Sarabande]

There is a third reason why men don’t sing, and all the men and boys know it, but they don’t voice it around priests. I’ll come right out and say it–many boys and men consider singing “gay.” It’s amazing that with all the push for gay marriage and gay rights and gay acceptance, that men in the U.S. actually think that singing is “gay” (and why is that “bad?” if gay marriage is OK?) , but they do, just like they consider the difficult sport of figure skating “gay.”

This is a good point. As a professional classical singer, it is not unusual that many of the men I sing with are gay… especially in church choirs, surprisingly enough. In the “high church”, mainstream Protestant denominations, they often have professional choirs, or at least professional section leaders. As a mezzo, I sing both soprano and alto repertoire and with the Protestant choirs that sing more early music, or music that appreciates the countertenor sound, I often sing with countertenors who are often gay and then many of the more lighter tenors are gay. I have also sung in Catholic choirs where a number of the men were single, gay men. Most were trying to lead chaste lives and thus found a connection with the choirs that did more “traditional” music. A lot of times, in the Catholic choirs, the gay men try to “hide” their homosexuality, but sometimes it is hard to hide and that could possibly scare some straight men away.

The “music wars” that plagued the Protestant churches in the 1970s and 1980s have moved to the Catholic parishes, and we now have a decided “us vs. them” mentality, in which those who love chant and other ancient forms insist that this is the only music worthy of the Mass, while those who love hymns and contemporary music insist that this kind of music is particularly well-suited to the OF Mass.

I appreciate that you want things to get better in the Mass and you want men to sing. But I think that chant is not The Answer.

It seems the music wars within the Catholic Church has been happening since the mid to late 60s, at least among musicians. When all of this first came out, there was a petition that came out, signed by some of the most prominent musicians of the time asking that this “newer” music not be permitted at mass because it would destroy the long history of Catholic music treasury. I’ll try to find the document on that.

Edit: Found the petition. My mistake that it wasn’t just about music, but the traditions of the Mass that they felt might be hurt from what they saw happening the 60s. The doc is from 1971 and there were a lot of crazy things happening with the sacred arts at the time. These were signed by artists, intellectuals and musicians who were concerned about the lost of traditions… any many of these weren’t even Catholic.

institute-christ-king.org/uploads/main/pdf/england-statement.pdf

 

[YoungTradCath]

It seems the music wars within the Catholic Church has been happening since the mid to late 60s, at least among musicians. When all of this first came out, there was a petition that came out, signed by some of the most prominent musicians of the time asking that this “newer” music not be permitted at mass because it would destroy the long history of Catholic music treasury. I’ll try to find the document on that.

Edit: Found the petition. My mistake that it wasn’t just about music, but the traditions of the Mass that they felt might be hurt from what they saw happening the 60s. The doc is from 1971 and there were a lot of crazy things happening with the sacred arts at the time. These were signed by artists, intellectuals and musicians who were concerned about the lost of traditions… any many of these weren’t even Catholic.

institute-christ-king.org/uploads/main/pdf/england-statement.pdf

That is actually the document that began, at least in a concrete juridical way, the journey toward the eventual promulgation of Summorum Pontificum. That document was brought to Paul VI who permitted the “old Mass” to be used in England and Wales reportedly after reading that Agatha Christie was one of the petitioners. Many or most of those people weren’t even Catholic.

I think it is interesting that you post that in reference not just to the old Mass but to the sacred arts in general. That is a new perspective I shall have to consider. Thank you.

 

[Sarabande]

That is actually the document that began, at least in a concrete juridical way, the journey toward the eventual promulgation of Summorum Pontificum. That document was brought to Paul VI who permitted the “old Mass” to be used in England and Wales reportedly after reading that Agatha Christie was one of the petitioners. Many or most of those people weren’t even Catholic.

I think it is interesting that you post that in reference not just to the old Mass but to the sacred arts in general. That is a new perspective I shall have to consider. Thank you.

You’re welcome! And I didn’t realize that it led to the Summorum Pontificum. You learn something new every day. Actually, it is a document that a few of my older colleagues and music teachers (Catholic and non-Catholic) have cited to me even before I knew much about the history of our Church. My colleagues always saw what happened was a danger to the sacred arts and cited that many of these non-Catholic artists and intellectuals saw the writing on the door as well and took it upon themselves to at least try to do something about it. When it first came out, a lot of my older colleagues really paid attention to it because they were afraid about what was going to happen to the musical and artistic traditions of the Church. (At that point, many were also losing their positions at Catholic churches in favor of the “guitar masses”) 30-40+ years later they felt that the arts and especially the musical arts (as it was in their field) really suffered and that was when they were expressing these things to me and my contemporaries as we were next generation they were trying to bring up so that we wouldn’t completely lose it. I finally looked it up a few years back when it was last brought up to me and I was surprised to see the names of Sir Colin Davis, Ashkenazy, Menuhin, Agatha Christi and Joan Sutherland on there.

 

[SaintRita]

I have to say that’s one thing I miss about my time in a protestant church. EVERYONE sang… we do most of the old traditional hymns… occasionally there would be something contemporary but almost all was the old hymns…

In star contrast when I started returning to Mass again NOBODY was singing - only a handful of women. My husband will sing when its an older hymn they occasionally slip in, but he does not sing for any of the Catholic hymns.

Honestly I never put two and two together before but you make a really good point.

 

[CharlesinCenCA]

Forgive me for proposing a POV based upon anthropological observance rather than anything liturgical or musical. Doesn’t matter where, what or when, should there be some sort of social activity, recess at a school, dinner in the cafeterias, cocktail parties, etc., you’re going to encounter a great amount of gender-based association. I happen to think this is nature not nurture-based, but I’m sure there’d be disagreement. I just have observed this, my reality, for sixty two years.
I’ve actually had people ask me if there are women in my mixed schola because the men chant and sing but heartily but well. The point about our physical tessituras is germane here. But otherwise, no, I don’t buy any of the “effeminate” causality of why Catholic men don’t sing. Catholic women PiPs don’t sing either. I’d rather count blades of grass than guess and surmise why?
Anyone can superimpose their “take” on whether a “song” has gender ID associations to one. If you look and hum VW’s “The Call”(Come my Way…) you could easily build a case for its lyrical lilt and call it feminist, and never know its origin was for baritone, Welshman at that. You could take the martial like strophs of VW’s “Sine nomine” (For all the saints) and claim that’s for the gentlemen, if you please. You’d be wrong.
There is merit to forming mens’ choirs/scholas for musical reasons, just as for the women (note the best selling classical CD at the moment is of a schola of Missouri nuns). There’s a “need” for such, just as there is for gender based barbershop quartets. They all have a place in the spectrum of aural pleasure in music.
GUI’s just a horrible song in church, while “The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald” is really cool from your stereo.
Discretion through analysis, objectively based always, is the way to “seduce” both men and women into enjoining sung worship successfully. Success alone builds success.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Alot of that has to do with the voice register of men. We tend to speak in the lower part of our vocal registers. For instance my speaking voice tends to be on the lower end of the spectrum in the 80 - 85 Hz range or roughly around E below Low C. My usable singing range is B below Deep/Double Low C and G above middle C, so my normal speaking range is in the lower fifth of my register. I switch from chest to head voice around E below middle C. It is only another 5 or 6 notes and I have to move into a falsetto range.

Okay, now what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china? Most men are not taught to sing in a head voice so they don’t have good breath support. They also don’t know how to make a smooth transition from chest to head voice. So if you have a bass or low baritone voice then any part written for tenor or high baritone will likely have significant parts in the upper chest voice or head voice. For instance I have to sing in a head voice for all but the lowest couple notes of a tenor part. Having to sing through the break will lead many men to try singing above the break in a falsetto that can put a strain on their voices.

Now if you look at many contemporary pieces they are not well suited to bass voices, so you have many men trying to sing in their upper range (that they have no experience in) and they either feel strained or silly if it sounds poor. End result is that most men stop trying.

I don’t know what “head voice” and “chest voice” means. But maybe I can sort of guess. My comfortable range is from basso profundo through baritone, and I can sing most hymns. On a good day, I can get to a good part of second tenor.

I agree that a lot of modern hymns are too high for a lot of male voices, however. Now and then I find myself the only one singing in the higher registers, whereas lots of men join in if the notes are lower.

But I think that’s only part of it. In my parish, the songs the men really belt out are usually the old protestant hymns. They really are more manly in their lyrics, have pretty simple melodies and are in lower registers. Sometimes, however, a Mozart or old Irish, German or Scottish hymn will get good treatment, and I believe for the same reason. Generally speaking, the older the hymn, the more men will sing it. I don’t think it has anything to do with the age of the hymn per se, it’s just that some of those older hymns have passed the test of time, and that’s why they’re still around. Some of the “newer” (typically circa late 1970s, early 1980s) are, I’m convinced, only still around because they’re in the books and music directors keep trying to make people sing them, in the mistaken belief that they’re “more contemporary”. One would think that after 30+ years of resistance, the directors would give up on them, but they don’t.

I will confess that some hymns strike me as effiminate, almost gay, and I just won’t sing them, no matter what. It’s embarrassing to do so. One of my least favorites is “City of God”. That part “may our tears be turned into dancing” is just bizarre. What man EVER has his tears turned into dancing? (I’m not sure any women have either, but they can speak for themselves.)

 

[Elizium23]

Cat, that was utterly pessimistic of you and rather unrealistic. Chant is not hard to sing. I am not saying that it is the easiest thing to do. But in the spectrum of things given to the congregation to sing for a liturgy, it is by no means difficult. It is monophonic and the notation is simple. Even if you have never seen neumes before, what’s to learn? They go up and they go down. The range is more limited than modern staff notation, accidentals are few, no key or time signature, no chords. Anyone who wanted to, could learn to read the notation in weeks. Anyone who wanted to could learn how to sight read it and sing it cold! It is all a matter of motivation.

It is also a matter of catechesis. Men of my generation are steeped in the “Spirit of Vatican II”, OCP/GIA/WLP folk hymns, happy-clappy music. It makes us feel good because it reminds us of our childhood. Yet the Church prefers something different; how is a pastor supposed to introduce chant? I think it should be a gentle, gradual transition and I think it should be done with dialogue about why chant is a superior choice.

My dad can’t sing a note. But he tries, he always tries. My mother isn’t so great either, but they have always encouraged me to excel. I never thought that it was “gay” to sing. I grew up with folk hymns and then I entered a long phase of alternative rock, where I went to concerts, but I would always “actively participate” in these concerts because I was so used to the OF of Mass being my concert. So I would sing along and immerse myself in the technical details of how the band played their instruments. Bands I enjoyed were often appreciated not for their lyrics or style but for their technical prowess in coming together and playing tight sets of music. And then I reverted to the Church, and I began to enjoy CCM music more. The first choir I joined played very modern stuff, and I really got into it. But as I was exposed to traditional hymns and chant, my taste changed. I read Church documents and found out the truth. I began to really hate the music I used to like, because to me it represents the false “Spirit of Vatican II” and liturgical abuse and weak theology and banal lyrics. Yet - I still sing it in my present choir, because that is what we do liturgically.

We are obligated to sing in the liturgy. It is a divine command that cannot be discounted or pooh-poohed. Even if the music is horrible, or if we are horrible, we owe it to God to make some kind of a “joyful noise”. We also owe it to God to improve our own skills. We also owe it to Him to work to improve liturgical music so that it is not abuse, it is not weak and banal. It is my job as a choir member to lead the assembly in song. If they don’t sing then I have failed in my ministry. It is also up to me to express my opinions as a Catholic on what music is worthy of singing in the liturgy and which music I’m singing under protest.

I think there are myriad reasons why men don’t sing. It is likely culturally ingrained such that it would take a paradigm shift before men would willingly sing. But I think it is a good first step to improve liturgical music so that it is what the Church wants, it is theologically strong, and can speak to hardened hearts.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think there are myriad reasons why men don’t sing. It is likely culturally ingrained such that it would take a paradigm shift before men would willingly sing. But I think it is a good first step to improve liturgical music so that it is what the Church wants, it is theologically strong, and can speak to hardened hearts.

I think men will sing, and have heard it plenty of times. There might be cultural variations in this country. I live in the Bible Belt, where “Southern Gospel” singing is prevalent among men, and not considered at all effeminate. In fact, lots of the Southern Gospel groups are exclusively men. I understand black men sing in church as well, and perhaps for the very same reason. Perhaps in other places there is no cultural overlay that encourages singing.

But the hymns have to be singable by men and must move men to sing. Many of the hymns in the books are neither of those.

 

[ATeNumquam]

Hmmm - possibly it’s a cultural thing, or just a practical one.

New Zealand men, especially the older generations, are far from being likely to sing “effeminate” hymns if they thought they were that, but they do tend to sing at Mass as much as women do.
In my parish, and in others I have attended, we have a mixture of SOME modern (not the really stomach-churningly saccharine ones), some traditional, some “originally-Protestant” hymns, and some simple plainchants (in the current OF Mass).

Everyone sings everything, in my observation, and at a reasonable volume.

I don’t know if it is the common practice in US churches, but in practically all parishes here, we have the words projected on to a screen (power-point, or the older type of projector) to one side of the sanctuary. It doesn’t intrude on or obscure the liturgical action, if you will believe me. It draws people’s heads up which helps voice projection, the words are large and easy to follow along as the hymn progresses, no one has to search for hymn numbers, and it has improved the singing no end (I remember back a couple of decades before we used this sort of system).

The screen is also used for the words of the Gloria and Creed.

Do you do this in the US?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Do you do this in the US?

Oh God no, most parishes do not!

 

[ATeNumquam]

Oh God no, most parishes do not!

So - have you actually experienced this, or are you just assuming that this is an abomination - maybe part and parcel of the OF Mass? (I see you are a Trad. Catholic from your name).

I can assure you that my experience of the (OF) Mass is that it is totally reverent and orthodox, with periods of sacred silence - and the screen to one side does not seem to interfere with the worshipful atmosphere one iota.
We do not run around the church dancing, we have a brief sign of peace, we don’t chat, chew gum, text or let our cellphones ring during Mass.

So - what’s your problem with words being visible, to encourage hymn singing?

 

[Sarabande]

I don’t know if it is the common practice in US churches, but in practically all parishes here, we have the words projected on to a screen (power-point, or the older type of projector) to one side of the sanctuary. It doesn’t intrude on or obscure the liturgical action, if you will believe me. It draws people’s heads up which helps voice projection, the words are large and easy to follow along as the hymn progresses, no one has to search for hymn numbers, and it has improved the singing no end (I remember back a couple of decades before we used this sort of system).

The screen is also used for the words of the Gloria and Creed.

Do you do this in the US?

It’s not as common where I live in the U.S., but I have attended masses at parishes which do it and I always found it to be a distraction for me. Firstly, because they don’t provide the actual music to read. It’s only the words and that is really disconcerting for me as I read music. I personally prefer singing when the actual notes are on the paper. Secondly, I’m near-sighted and need my music/words close up. Thirdly, it reminds me too much like going to an opera which often provide the surtitles either behind the each of the chairs or above the stage, but you end up looking at the screen more than what is going on the stage. I just caught myself doing that the other day waiting for my cue to enter on stage from the audience and even though I knew what was being said and what was going on, my eyes couldn’t help but watch the screen above the stage. lol!

That said, I have found that they tend to be more conducive in more modern, starker-looking, stream-lined church buildings. They aren’t as distracting, visually-speaking. When I’ve seen it done in more traditional-looking, older church buildings, it is a real visual distraction because of how different it looks from the rest of the interior. For me, when they are in the older, more ornate buildings, it’s like a huge, red pimple on an otherwise very attractive visage.

Whether or not they help with the singing… I don’t know. The ones I’ve been in had pretty much the same kind of lack of singing participation, although it doesn’t mean that’s the case all across the board. Like I mentioned earlier, it’s not very common where I am. It might be more cultural, in terms of participation.

 

[Phemie]

Whether or not they help with the singing… I don’t know. The ones I’ve been in had pretty much the same kind of lack of singing participation, although it doesn’t mean that’s the case all across the board. Like I mentioned earlier, it’s not very common where I am. It might be more cultural, in terms of participation.

I have to say that it did not work in my parish. We got more participation once we got rid of the overhead projector and put hymnals in everyone’s hands.

I cringe when I go to daughter’s parish and a hulking big screen is the focus rather than the altar. They use it for lyrics but also for pictures to set a theme or mood. :banghead:

 

[FrStevenJones]

Visual aids, such as a projecive screen, are not considered as appropriate for the liturgy, I forget where but there is a Vatican document that talks about that!

 

[Edmundus1581]

On the topic of men singing, I want to add my observation that most men in my parish don’t sing at all, during any of the hymns or parts of the Mass.

I personally don’t like most of our hymns (which are mostly modern songs, or flowery old songs) but I never thought of them as *effeminate *and this being the reason men don’t sing. I think there’s something in the idea though. However, I doubt that if we resurrected traditional hymns that the men would sing more. But they might hate them less. It would be worth trying it to find out - I may be wrong.

I agree with previous posters who have pointed out the effeminate music tends to have a higher range, and also has embellishments which make it difficult for men. I sometimes feel silly even trying to sing it. Hymns should have a good strong melody, medium range, and simple rhythm.

All of our hymns are selected by women - which may explain why effeminate music dominates. I doubt whether they have the slightest clue that what the select might not appeal to men, and I also doubt whether they care.

 

[Edmundus1581]

This thread has given me some useful understanding on what might be wrong with so many of our hymns. I would like to take this up with the liturgy committee, and it is good to have some reasons for my objections apart from “I don’t like it”.

 

[Digitonomy]

Visual aids, such as a projecive screen, are not considered as appropriate for the liturgy, I forget where but there is a Vatican document that talks about that!

This is questionable. You are thinking of De Musica Sacra. Paragraph 73 prohibits the use of projectors. However, paragraph 71 prohibits the use of recorded sound during mass, and it is frequently ignored by bishops, who are entrusted with the interpretation of liturgical law.

I think the best way to reconcile this is to say that either Musicam Sacram in 1967 superseded De Musica Sacra, or that the law on music in liturgy was reordered by the Code of Canon Law in 1983, and thus earlier documents like De Musica Sacra no longer carry the force of law. Since neither later document discusses projectors or recorded music, the canon law angle is the stronger argument because Canon 20 allows for an entire topic to be reordered.

 

[Sarabande]

All of our hymns are selected by women - which may explain why effeminate music dominates. I doubt whether they have the slightest clue that what the select might not appeal to men, and I also doubt whether they care.

Hey! That’s not fair! If it were up to me, I’d rarely choose the newer or older “flowery” hymns and I’m a woman. Men usually choose the hymns here (at the request of the priest), so it’s not me choosing the flowery hymns.

 

[Usige]

I don’t know what “head voice” and “chest voice” means. But maybe I can sort of guess. My comfortable range is from basso profundo through baritone, and I can sing most hymns. On a good day, I can get to a good part of second tenor.

I agree that a lot of modern hymns are too high for a lot of male voices, however. Now and then I find myself the only one singing in the higher registers, whereas lots of men join in if the notes are lower.

Yeah, I guess I could have simply said that most men speak in the lower quarter of their registers, but much of the music we get at mass is aimed at the upper quarter of many men’s registers. (reminder of why I shouldn’t be on CAF at 1 am )

But I think that’s only part of it. In my parish, the songs the men really belt out are usually the old protestant hymns. They really are more manly in their lyrics, have pretty simple melodies and are in lower registers. Sometimes, however, a Mozart or old Irish, German or Scottish hymn will get good treatment, and I believe for the same reason. Generally speaking, the older the hymn, the more men will sing it. I don’t think it has anything to do with the age of the hymn per se, it’s just that some of those older hymns have passed the test of time, and that’s why they’re still around. Some of the “newer” (typically circa late 1970s, early 1980s) are, I’m convinced, only still around because they’re in the books and music directors keep trying to make people sing them, in the mistaken belief that they’re “more contemporary”. One would think that after 30+ years of resistance, the directors would give up on them, but they don’t.

I think it’s that some of the older hymns stir men’s hearts more then the newer style of hymns. The hymns that I generally hear men sing either have a slower more stately measure or they have a slightly militaristic feel.