MERGED: Gregorian chant and folk music

  • Thread starter Thread starter PA650
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I appreciate the reverence and prayerfulness of chant and I also appreciate comtemporary Catholic music, but only if it is done in the proper manner. By this I mean that it leads one to worship rather than attempts to entertain. I am a contemporary Catholic artist part-time and have done EWTN backstage program, AI write and compsoe when I can. When I came back to the Church in the early 80’s at a Jesuit University, although I found later there was liberalism, there was also extreme holiness, as my confessor literally was a saint, and he led me to the light of God in a manner I never coudl have imagined. He was a holy, Rosary-praying, constantly praying priest, was Charismatic liason at one time, and also the officlal exorcist of the Diocese for a number of years. He expellled a few demons from me in confession, believe me!

When I came back to the Church, a number of the Jesuits, Bob Dufford, and Roc O’Connor and those influenced by their music were around and the music was beautiful and uplifting. I sang in the folk group and the choir. Much of the music we did had harmony and parts as the composers were there.

There is a church here where I livenow, that I attend occasionally, and the woman singing does all types of contemporary Christian songs, many of them praise and worship songs. She has a tremendous voice and many seem to love it, but it drives me absolutely crazy because she gets right up on the mic, she has a huge voice and literally I cannot hear myself sing, so I say, what’s the use? This is a huge misatke in terms of whjat we are to do at Mass.

When I started out in “folk” music, we would sing everything reverently or joyfully as was fit, but verses might be solo etc.- ALWAYS with the intention of having the congregation sing and respond fully.

There’s another church where I live, where the man is obviously filled with the Holy Spirit, is one of the best guitarists I have seen (he plays Christmas songs melody on the guitar while picking), has a beautiful clear voice, composes as well, but he generally subdues his voice it to get the youth he is singing with to particiapte, as well as the congregation. BIG difference in Spirit of the worship. I don’t find myself wanting to close my ears as in the other case.

A simple song from the soul born of the Spirit will touch more hearts than any grand orchestration born more of man’s efforts
 
Endure we did. We are still here singing faithfully. We can NEVER go back. Ugly and fearful as that time was, the Holy Spirit is still with the Church as Jesus promised. Good has come from what looked like an act of vandalism. For example, along with other good things, I love the three year cycle of readings and the increase in readings from the OT.
Click to expand...
We can certainly never go back, but the Church can implement Vatican II in light of tradition and bridge the current gap between the Missal of Paul VI and the Missal of Blessed John XXIII as His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI is attempting to do. In the end, what young person or young adult that has encountered Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony in Mass would rather endure folksy tunes sung with tambourines and guitars as if mimicking some sort of hippie seat-in? These past forty plus years primarily characterized by discontinuity and rupture will be examined as an interesting time a hundred years from now by Roman rite Catholics.
 
PA650 said:
We can certainly never go back, but the Church can implement Vatican II in light of tradition and bridge the current gap between the Missal of Paul VI and the Missal of Blessed John XXIII as His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI is attempting to do. In the end, what young person or young adult that has encountered Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony in Mass would rather endure folksy tunes sung with tambourines and guitars as if mimicking some sort of hippie seat-in? These past forty plus years primarily characterized by discontinuity and rupture will be examined as an interesting time a hundred years from now by Roman rite Catholics.
Click to expand...
Brief correction. I meant sit-in near the end.
 
Actually, from what I’ve learned in my music history class in college, much of Gregorian chant originated in England, and that there are other types of chant, such as Ambrosian chant and Byzantine chant.

I love polyphony, but it’s very hard to follow (it often gets very complicated), and monophonic chant gets very dry very fast. Coming from a rich German heritage (which is normal in many areas of Wisconsin), I’m used to hymns, where the rhythms are easy to follow, the melodies are simple, and the words are often vernacular translations of Latin-Sacred texts (even many of Luther’s hymns, as much as I don’t like what he did and disagree with much of his theology, and thus try to steer away from his music). However, Germanic chorales and hymns evolved from polyphony, and much of the simpler polyphonic styles, which are very hymn-like, come from England. It all boils down to the saying: “Keep It Simple, Stupid.” Because hymns are of a simpler structure, they lasted longer than most chants.

Mind you, I find most contemporary “music” to by bad, over-thought, politically correct attempts at poetry set to schmaltzy tunes (because I help lead the contemporary choir at my college Parish, I have become well acquainted with songs that I will NEVER select for Mass…stuff like: “We Gotta Love”…). I wish there were more composers like Richard Proulx, or even Anton Bruckner, who wrote MANY sacred works. What we need are people who CARE about Church music, besides Haugen (who, in his diffence, used Proulx as a model for his “Mass of Creation”), Hass, and the “Organ? What is this organ you speak of?” group of composers at OCP.

On a small side note, there’s an Italian composer Resphigi who was like the Richard Strauss of Italy with his tone poems. My favorite, “Church Wondows”, has a section (the finale) called “St. Gregory the Great”, that used chant in a very beautiful and cinematic way: youtube.com/watch?v=pidXzX0wZf0
 
Come Thou Fount is indeed a beautiful hymn. In my “Worship III” hymnal, the same tune is used for “God, We Praise You” (#535 if anyone feels compelled to find it) based on the Te Deum :D. I would much rather here these texts than “Sing a New Church”. Also, the tune has the same metrical index (8 7 8 7 D) as Beethoven’s 9th tune and Hyferdol (Alleluia Sing to Jesus) I’d much rather hear those over-numerous settings of Beethoven’s music played with the Come Thou Fount melody.
 
pnewton said:
My biggest gripe with that song is that the lyrics can never match the original. The second version is the one I grew up singing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Thou_Fount_of_Every_Blessing

I think you will find the words far more inspiring.
Click to expand...
Interesting – I don’t think I’d ever read the words of Come Thou Fount, but now I have to say: it’s awful!

It’s full of mixed metaphors (“Come thou fount (water) – tune my heart (music?!) – streams of mercy (back to water)”), lame lines like “Teach me some melodious sonnet” (a sonnet is a poetical, not musical, form), and imperatives with no clear subject like “Praise the mount” (who is supposed to do this? God, to whom the hymn is directed? But why would he praise the mount of his own love?). The song bounces around from topic to topic (e.g., verse four leads with a statement about grace, but immediately abandons that theme and instead talks about God’s goodness binding us to him), and never figures out what it wants (“Come my Lord [oh, but wait, no, instead] Send thine angels”).

All in all, I’m not surprised it was written by a 22-year-old.

And never mind the Calvinist undertones of all the lines describing the state of living man as sinful.
 
Dale_M said:
Hm…

Of course, Jesus wouldn’t have heard Gregorian chant (despite Fr. Z’s wishes) since it wasn’t developed until hundreds of years after the crucifixion.

Really, I think this is a question of taste. Some people find that Gregorian chant is reverential and assists their spiritual journey. Others find a more modern form of music speaks to their soul. Neither form of music is wrong. It simply a question of taste.
Click to expand...
I disagree. When I listen to eastern church music, I hear something chant that is not unlike Gregorian Chant. And when one listens to synagogue musics, one likewise hears something similar. In other words, chant goes back to the music of the Temple. The words, the tones are different but the effect is the same.
 
RobbyS said:
40.png
Dale_M:
Hm…

Of course, Jesus wouldn’t have heard Gregorian chant (despite Fr. Z’s wishes) since it wasn’t developed until hundreds of years after the crucifixion.

Really, I think this is a question of taste. Some people find that Gregorian chant is reverential and assists their spiritual journey. Others find a more modern form of music speaks to their soul. Neither form of music is wrong. It simply a question of taste.
Click to expand...
I disagree. When I listen to eastern church music, I hear something chant that is not unlike Gregorian Chant. And when one listens to synagogue musics, one likewise hears something similar. In other words, chant goes back to the music of the Temple. The words, the tones are different but the effect is the same.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Chant is not far from what Jesus heard in the temple. Yes, it’s not exactly the same, but it is not very far.

And Dale: It is not just a question of taste. The church has clearly said that a) chant is the most suitable type of music for the liturgy, b) the closer a piece sounds like chant, the more suited it is for the liturgy, c) the opposite is true: the less something sounds like gregorian chant, the less it is suitable for the liturgy, and d) Chant is to have the pride of place in the liturgy.

That is far from a matter of mere personal tastes. Chant is more suitable for the liturgy than “praise and worship” , aka, “modern” music. Always has been. Some music is “wrong” (I assume you mean “not suitable for the liturgy”), and should not be used.
 
MarkThompson said:
Interesting – I don’t think I’d ever read the words of Come Thou Fount, but now I have to say: it’s awful!
Click to expand...
Well, to each their own. Perhaps you are showing why the Catholic Church permits variety in music. I understand the metaphors and allusions and love them. No, you normally do not sing a sonnet, nor tune a heart.
 
No one love Gregorian Chant more than I do. BUT, it was NEVER the only form of sacred music (or songs like Silent Night could not have been written).

I would hate to see it become the norm. Once again, some people are advocating a language that the majority of the people simply do not understand, in a musical format that does not move them.

If you truly want to see the Catholic Church fragment, and become a tiny minority of what it is today, force through Latin once again. That will cause tens of millions to end up leaving the church, if not hundreds of millions. All to placate a very tiny, but vocal minority?
 
The_Old_Medic said:
No one love Gregorian Chant more than I do. BUT, it was NEVER the only form of sacred music (or songs like Silent Night could not have been written).
Click to expand...
I heartily agree that it is not the only type of sacred music. But it is the principal type of music for the roman rite.
The_Old_Medic said:
I would hate to see it become the norm. Once again, some people are advocating a language that the majority of the people simply do not understand, in a musical format that does not move them.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it already the norm? The church has said so many times that it has the pride of place in the liturgy.
The_Old_Medic said:
If you truly want to see the Catholic Church fragment, and become a tiny minority of what it is today, force through Latin once again. That will cause tens of millions to end up leaving the church, if not hundreds of millions. All to placate a very tiny, but vocal minority?
Click to expand...
Force through latin again? Why do you have such a problem with latin? We are the Latin church for pete’s sake!

What about Sacrosanctum Concilium?
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
There’s also other statements like this.

What do you have against latin?
 
For most Catholic “baby boomers,” folk-inspired" music was the sacred music of their generation, and at its best, that genre of music is certainly warm, gentle and very comforting.

Though I personally prefer Gregorian Chant, renaissance polyphonic music, and the classical sacred music of Bach through Vaughn-Williams, I suspect that by and large, the “boomers” will want to hang on to that music for many reasons and the treasury of Gregorian Chant and renaissance polyphony will not successfully be re-introduced into their parishes while that generation is a majority.
 
IAGladfelter said:
For most Catholic “baby boomers,” folk-inspired" music was the sacred music of their generation, and at its best, that genre of music is certainly warm, gentle and very comforting.

Though I personally prefer Gregorian Chant, renaissance polyphonic music, and the classical sacred music of Bach through Vaughn-Williams, I suspect that by and large, the “boomers” will want to hang on to that music for many reasons and the treasury of Gregorian Chant and renaissance polyphony will not successfully be re-introduced into their parishes while that generation is a majority.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid that’s true. But those of us with the memkories (pre-baby boomer) n3eed to keep the tradition alive. Post baby boomers are our hope.
 
Dale_M said:
Hm…

Of course, Jesus wouldn’t have heard Gregorian chant (despite Fr. Z’s wishes) since it wasn’t developed until hundreds of years after the crucifixion.

Really, I think this is a question of taste. Some people find that Gregorian chant is reverential and assists their spiritual journey. Others find a more modern form of music speaks to their soul. Neither form of music is wrong. It simply a question of taste.
Click to expand...
Gregorian chant was “codified” hundreds of years later, but liturgical chant had been around from the beginning - it developed from Hebrew Chant.

And it’s not really a question of taste, in fact , taste has nothing to do with whether or not something is written in a style that is acceptable for the liturgy. Some “modern” music may be, some may not be. Unfortunately, much of the “modern” music used in Mass (at least in my area) is composed and performed in the style of secualr music rather than sacred. Bishop Olmsted has a series of articles out on this subject in the Catholic Sun.
Here is the first of the 4 articles:catholicsun.org/bishop/2011/121511.html
 
The_Reginator said:
It would seem to be a little more than just a matter of taste.
According to Vatican II:

CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 4, 1963

From personal experience I have found that Gregorian Chant is much more conducive to worship than other holy music. At Mass it really raises one’s spirit towards heaven.
Click to expand...
**Amen and Amen.

:bowdown::angel1::crossrc:Please. Bring. Back. More. Gregorian. Chant. And. Leave. The. Guitars. At. Home.* Or at least give equal time to those of us who agree with the Vatican and prefer more traditional music.***:harp::nun1::highprayer:
 
Gregorian is definitely the way to go. Get us back to our Latin roots. I personally don’t care for the modern “taste” as it sometimes sounds protestant in nature. That feel good hand holding music doesn’t belong in Christ’s Church, if you ask me. I’d much prefer the humbly sound of gregorian chant that can’t make but help you feel as though you are in God’s presence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top