MERGED: Music in the Mass/Not typical thread about Music

[pnewton]

Just throwing in my two cents.

Whenever the music becomes about our entertainment and about OUR edification instead of being for God’s praise… we’re probably on the wrong path. It really isn’t about our personal opinions, it’s about what pleases God.

This is true whether the music we like is more modern or chant. I like what the poster above said about the minority. I think the greatest mistake we make in modern music is not the music itself, but the exclusion of other great music, like chant or classic hymns. That is “catholic” in the most literal sense.

 

[TheMc]

That said, I really don’t understand how someone can’t like Chant. That’s like saying Mozart is boring. :\ Haha!

I know, right?!?!

I’d actually prefer if there was NO music. I have a very difficult time praying before, during and after mass because of all the music… it’s highly distracting sometimes. I’m probably the minority on that one though.

I often feel the same way when attending other Masses, but one thing I’ve noticed is that at a Chanted High Mass (in either form of the Mass), it is much easier to pray. You might be surprised how easy it is to pray during the Mass when chant is used as it should be, both for the schola and the celebrant.

But… In most parishes today, I’d rather have no music than have to suffer through what they would play.

 

[nickybr38]

I know, right?!?!

I often feel the same way when attending other Masses, but one thing I’ve noticed is that at a Chanted High Mass (in either form of the Mass), it is much easier to pray. You might be surprised how easy it is to pray during the Mass when chant is used as it should be, both for the schola and the celebrant.

But… In most parishes today, I’d rather have no music than have to suffer through what they would play.

Amen… offer up your suffering, that’s all you can do.

 

[TheMc]

Amen… offer up your suffering, that’s all you can do.

Yep… Offer it up or join a schola. (I chose the latter)

 

[Victor_Pearson]

I cannot presume to judge what kind of music pleases God, but I don’t believe it is God’s Will that humans suffer while in an activity of worship or praise. Being uplifted by the Mass, either with or or without “music,” is not “entertainment.” It is a way of bringing us closer to God. I wouldn’t call that “selfish.” I too would prefer no music at all in the mass to noise.

A useful tautology:
Good music is good.
Bad music is bad.
God is good.

 

[Cat]

I cannot presume to judge what kind of music pleases God, but I don’t believe it is God’s Will that humans suffer while in an activity of worship or praise. Being uplifted by the Mass, either with or or without “music,” is not “entertainment.” It is a way of bringing us closer to God. I wouldn’t call that “selfish.” I too would prefer no music at all in the mass to noise.

A useful tautology:
Good music is good.
Bad music is bad.
God is good.

Amen.

nickybr38 said-- “Whenever the music becomes about our entertainment and about OUR edification instead of being for God’s praise… we’re probably on the wrong path. It really isn’t about our personal opinions, it’s about what pleases God. Sure, He’s happy if we’re happy… but I don’t think He’s happy when we’re so focused on ourselves we cease to look to Him.”

Well, then all the chant lovers should be happy that they are not getting edified, but instead, have to listen to various contemporary styles of music during Mass, right?!

Obviously not right. What Victor Pearson says above is right. There is a difference between being edified and being entertained. There is nothing wrong with longing for music that you actually enjoy and find uplifting.

 

[nickybr38]

Amen.

nickybr38 said-- “Whenever the music becomes about our entertainment and about OUR edification instead of being for God’s praise… we’re probably on the wrong path. It really isn’t about our personal opinions, it’s about what pleases God. Sure, He’s happy if we’re happy… but I don’t think He’s happy when we’re so focused on ourselves we cease to look to Him.”

Well, then all the chant lovers should be happy that they are not getting edified, but instead, have to listen to various contemporary styles of music during Mass, right?!

Obviously not right. What Victor Pearson says above is right. There is a difference between being edified and being entertained. There is nothing wrong with longing for music that you actually enjoy and find uplifting.

Good music is subjective. Music that is uplifting and enjoyable is subjective. When I was in music ministry I hated all the music they had me play… but the people I was playing for enjoyed it. It wasn’t about whether I found it enjoyable or not, it was about uniting everyone in worship.

So here we agree; there’s nothing wrong with longing for music you enjoy and find uplifting… however, if that’s not what you’re getting then suck it up and join in the praise of God regardless.

I still think it’s dangerous when we focus more on entertaining then praising… and I think when we focus too much on what we enjoy we’re leaning dangerously towards seeking our own entertainment. It seems like a slippery slope to me.

 

[pnewton]

Whether we speak of chant, hymns or other spiritual songs, we need to have consistency in our opinions. It is illogical (and a violation of the Golden Rule) to make one standard for the music others like and another for the music we like. I have seen so much inconsistency on this topic. We want to say it is not about entertainment, unless it is something we like. Or we want to emphasize the importance of worship being a edifying, unless it is others being edified.

 

[TheMc]

**Disclaimer: There is nothing wrong with having different tastes. I’m not trying to bash anyone and their tastes, only explain what the church wants for music during the holy sacrifice of the Mass. **

Now that that is out of the way…

Since music is so subjective, the church makes it easy for us, because we all are human, and we all have different tastes.

The Church has clearly stated that gregorian chant is to have the pride of place in the roman rite, as well as polophony and similar music being encouraged. How many parishes actually do any chant or polophony, never mind giving it the “pride of place” in the Mass. I know of one parish that does this in my area (not including EF Masses). O N E parish, and it’s not mine.

When it comes to the rubrics, the church does not say “do whatever is uplifting to you” or “do whatever you find edifying”. It tells you what we are to do, no exceptions.

I have no problem with praising God through music in a praise and worhsip setting. In that setting, feel free to use pretty much any style of music you see fit to praise God. That is an appropriate to discuss the merits of particular styles in praising God.

But when it comes to the Liturgy, Mass in particular, Chant is the music that should be given the pride of place. Chant should be the normative music for Mass. The standard. We should be hearing a heck of a lot of it on Sundays. But ask yourself. Are we?

While it may not be as completely clear cut with music as it is with the rubrics, the church does something remarkably similar in saying that the proper music for the roman rite is chant. In this, she is not trying to oppress us, she is trying to set us free, and show us what is best, in the same way that she tells us to kneel because it’s what’s best. If people would read the documents with honesty, we wouldn’t need to be having these discussions, or waste our time with these ditties that are sung in most churches today.

Let me translate: When there is music at Mass, in almost every case, if chant is not sung, that is a liturgical abuse, and everyone should do all in their power to fix it (per Redemptionis Sacramentum, 183).

Again to point out, The Mass is not about edifying us. It is solely about our woship of God, in the ways that he has asked of us. While a Mass done well, according to the rubrics (especially in the area of music) can be very edifying, but that is not the primary focus or reason for the Mass, and should not be looked at as such. Have you noticed in Israel, when the priests didn’t follow God’s instructions in reguards to worship of Him, they were often struck dead. While God has not done that recently (to my knowledge), we should still live and worship with that same holy fear for these sacred mysteries.

And for those who don’t find chant and polophony edifying and uplifting, you’ve pretty much got two options. I don’t mean to be rude, just honest.

Option 1: Offer it up
Not liking this is no different than not liking color purple being used for lent. You may think brown is much better color, much more pastoral, people will understand the symbolism better, etc… You don’t have a choice, and it’s not about you. It is how it is. It’s exactly the same situation with chant.

Option 2: Accept it
Some years ago, I really didn’t like chant, and thought it was weird, old, dark, etc… Since then, I’ve met Aristotle Esguerra, a great chant scholar, who has shown me, (gently, with love and patience) why chant is important, and why it has the pride of place in the liturgy. Since then, I’ve learned to love it, and even learned to sing it! Trust me, it’s not that bad. You can get used to it.

Long story short, the music used at Mass is not subjective, and is not really up to us.

 

[pnewton]

The Church has clearly stated that gregorian chant is to have the pride of place in the roman rite… Chant is the music that should be given the pride of place.

Yes.

Chant should be the normative music for Mass. The standard. We should be hearing a heck of a lot of it on Sundays.

No, or at least, this is an opinion, an interpretation, of what the Church says and goes beyond Church teaching. It is a valid opinion, but I know of no bishops that hold to this. Perhaps someone is in a diocese where the bishop has instituted this interpretation. Polyphonic chant is given no special place over other music and is included in “other music” in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

 

[hs_hopeful]

Although I feel the sound of the pipe organ is beautiful, I’ve been to a number of small parishes where there is either no room for an instrument of that size, or it was built without one, and there are no funds for installing one.

He detailed how Aaron and his sons were to be vested. Christ has given that authority to the Church, and Vatican II specified that Gregorian chant should “have pride of place” in the liturgy. While “other instruments” may be permitted by the local bishop, the documents also state that the pipe organ is the principal instrument of the Church.

It does not say that the organ is the principal instrument in any document that I have read, only that it has a place of pride. If I am mistaken, I am open to correction.

 

[pnewton]

It does not say that the organ is the principal instrument in any document that I have read, only that it has a place of pride. If I am mistaken, I am open to correction.

Correct. I was using the term “principal” as synonymous with “place of pride” and intended no further expansion. I think when we err is when we start thinking that this must mean most parishes, most Masses, etc. It is not just numbers that can indicate something as a place of pride. For example, our new Cathedral has a most strking and dramatic pipe organ financed by all in the diocese. That instrument definitely has a place of pride for us and is used on all solemn occasions.

 

[TheMc]

Polyphonic chant is given no special place over other music and is included in “other music” in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

My reference to polyphony is from GIRM # 41.

TheMc:

Chant should be the normative music for Mass. The standard. We should be hearing a heck of a lot of it on Sundays.

No, or at least, this is an opinion, an interpretation, of what the Church says and goes beyond Church teaching. It is a valid opinion, but I know of no bishops that hold to this. Perhaps someone is in a diocese where the bishop has instituted this interpretation.

Personally, I’m not seeing another interpretation. If something is given pride of place, doesn’t that mean it would be prominent, certainly used at least once or twice per Mass (for Masses with music, that is)? Certainly if it has the pride of place, we should be hearing it quite frequently!

That’s how I see it, though if anyone is willing to try and explain any other interpretations, I’m open to discussion.

Does anyone have an official definition of “pride of place” when it comes to chant?

Anyone want to join me in writing a letter to the CDWDS, to ask what the proper place of chant is?

It does not say that the organ is the principal instrument in any document that I have read, only that it has a place of pride. If I am mistaken, I am open to correction.

De Musica Sacra, Paragraph 61The principal musical instrument for solemn liturgical ceremonies of the Latin Church has been and remains the classic pipe organ. …

 

[pnewton]

Personally, I’m not seeing another interpretation. If something is given pride of place, doesn’t that mean it would be prominent, certainly used at least once or twice per Mass (for Masses with music, that is)? Certainly if it has the pride of place, we should be hearing it quite frequently!
De Musica Sacra, Paragraph 61

Place of pride can mean a lot more things than just numerical frequency. For example, daily Mass is Mass, yet I venture to guess that seldom has the organ been used for daily Mass. Yet we accept in principle the idea that the Sunday Mass has a prominent position in the week. The Cathedral has a place of pride in the diocese, and we accept that it is its singular use that gives it that place of pride. A Valedictorian has a place of pride at a graduation ceremony, yet he is but one.The place of pride can refer to the most important place as easily as the most frequent place.

Let me ask again, is there any bishop that has indicated that this place of pride means chant or an organ is to be incorporated at every Mass or every parish? If not, and no bishops hold your understanding, you must at least acknowledge the possibility of another understanding.

The principal musical instrument

for solemn liturgical ceremonies of the Latin Church has been and remains the classic pipe organ. …*I thought I had seen principal somewhere.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

My parish is slowly making a return to more traditional forms of music, though it’s a very difficult uphill battle. And that’s with me as music director. The problem lies in the fact that the majority is opposed to changes, and this [sometimes] includes the pastor. For instance, prior to me being in this position, this particular church never did any Gregorian chant except as instrumental on rare occasions (I was told the previous Music Director played a chant and told people not to sing it). Recently I used chant (English since the pastor isn’t too permissive of Latin except on a rare occasion) for one weekend and the number of negative comments was astounding, even from the people who were supportive of it beforehand. This opposition comes even with the Church’s insistence that chant is to have pride of place and the fact that our Holy Father loves Gregorian Chant. Of course, it doesn’t mean I will stop working to improve the situation in my parish - I just have to work slowly.

Now, that was one incident, however, there are positives (and I’m seeing more and more as time goes on). Overall the situation has improved immensely in short time I have had this position.

I have never been favorable to contemporary songs. I find many of them irreverent, hard to sing, and requiring of a massive voice range. A good number of them have different music for the different verses as well. On the other hand, chant is very easy (though I know some people disagree). I can sing a chant instantly (sight-reading) in Latin with no problem. I’ve taught others to sing chants in relatively little time. There is nothing hard about it.

Music also really effects moods. Sure, rock, jazz, and pop make people feel energized, happy, and so on. But is the music for us only? Isn’t it supposed to direct minds toward God? Rock, etc., do not. I can tell by behavior in a church what the music is doing to people. For instance, I have been doing In Paradisum at funerals (it is the policy of my parish) and what a difference there is in how the people act! When I’ve heard On Eagles Wings played as a closing hymn, the church is just abuzz with people talking (loudly!), laughing, and having a good time immediately after. There is nothing to indicate any reverence or any realization that this is a funeral. Now, when I play In Paradisum, the people are silent afterwards and they process reverently (in comparison) out of the Church.

If I were to go on, I could cite the [general] behavior of those who attend different masses with different music. On one hand there are people who ignore the Blessed Sacrament, chew gum, talk loudly in church, dress immodestly, and otherwise look and act like they are at a baseball game… and on the other, people dressed modestly, silent in the church, praying, genuflecting… But that is enough to get the idea across.

Pride of Place.   Yes, the Church document says that about the organ and the chant, but that, to my memory, is an incorrect translation of the original documents written in Latin.   Originally it is "Principal place".  So yes, chant should be heard on a frequent basis - and more often than anything else.

As an organist, I don’t really like it when people say no music. Don’t try to take away my job! No, really, I agree to some extent. I do not like the organ to be too loud and distracting. The choir/singer should be able to be heard above the organ. If the organ is played as instrumental during the Mass it should be low key, reverent, and in the background. There are also times when silence is really, really nice. The only time I’m really in favor of really letting loose with it is the postlude. That’s my time to play something thunderous. Of course, there are the occasional triumphant Glorias and such for special Masses, too.

As an ending note, I’m a Traditional Catholic stuck in a Novus Ordo parish. Forgive me, but I have to earn a living!

 

[TheMc]

Place of pride can mean a lot more things than just numerical frequency. For example, daily Mass is Mass, yet I venture to guess that seldom has the organ been used for daily Mass.

As for the organ, it has the pride of place in solemn liturgical ceremonies. Tell me if I lose you here, but here’s my explanation for that:

• De Musica Sacra (where this quote is from) was written before the reforms.
• Before the reforms, there were solemn and simple celebrations. (Sung/Solemn Mass, and Low Mass, respectively).
• Low Masses had no music
• Therefore, no organ would be used at low Masses, because there was no music, or minimal music.
• Therefore, the quote can be restated as saying: The organ has the pride of place in liturgical ceremonies with accompanied music (ie, among the instruments used in Mass)

Yet we accept in principle the idea that the Sunday Mass has a prominent position in the week. The Cathedral has a place of pride in the diocese, and we accept that it is its singular use that gives it that place of pride. A Valedictorian has a place of pride at a graduation ceremony, yet he is but one.The place of pride can refer to the most important place as easily as the most frequent place.

True… True…Um…I’m not sure how to answer that.

I think the problem is we really don’t have a good working definition of “pride of place” in this context.

I see your point on pride of place and the numerical prominence/prominence through importance

While I’m thinking, how do you think chant’s pride of place should play out in real life? To me, this still seems the most logical way, in my mind at least, to bring it’s “pride of place” to it’s fullness, but what do you think? What’s the best way in your mind?

Let me ask again, is there any bishop that has indicated that this place of pride means chant or an organ is to be incorporated at every Mass or every parish? If not, and no bishops hold your understanding, you must at least acknowledge the possibility of another understanding.

I’m not sure.

 

[pnewton]

To me, this still seems the most logical way, in my mind at least, to bring it’s “pride of place” to it’s fullness, but what do you think? What’s the best way in your mind?

An excellent question. I try to avoid having an opinion on the topic of music. It makes it easier just to accept some things as outside my pay grade, do what I’m told and accept the way our bishop does things. I know he is a good man. Personally, going to an organ only, or chant only would be the best thing that could happen to me. I would not have to concern myself with music any more. In my parish, we probably would have no more music, but that would just make things simpler.

I’m easy either way. I will do what I am told.

 

[TheMc]

An excellent question. I try to avoid having an opinion on the topic of music. It makes it easier just to accept some things as outside my pay grade, do what I’m told and accept the way our bishop does things. I know he is a good man. Personally, going to an organ only, or chant only would be the best thing that could happen to me. I would not have to concern myself with music any more. In my parish, we probably would have no more music, but that would just make things simpler.

I’m easy either way. I will do what I am told.

You are a much wiser man than I.

I’ve felt that the Lord has put it on my heart to try and spread chant, because whatever the definition of “pride of place” is, we can probably both agree that it’s probably not there, whatever “there” is, in most parishes today.

We can worry about what too much chant is later. That doesn’t seem to be an imminent problem.

 

[Eugenius]

I’m curious how much the average parish spends on music, whether buying new music or paying musicians. Are there any statistics on this?

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

I’m curious how much the average parish spends on music, whether buying new music or paying musicians. Are there any statistics on this?

I’m not aware of statistics, but I can say that my parish doesn’t pay enough! (I’m Music Director).

Besides my own salary, the parish has spent a total of around $2.75 on music since I’ve been there. There are several reasons for this:

• I’m not purchasing any new Mass settings because they will be obsolete shortly. Therefore I’m waiting.
• Any instrumental music is my own property. If I want new instrumental, I purchase it myself.
• The church has a large store of music from the past that I can dig through.
• There are so few people available for a choir, there’s not much point to working on anything fancy. It’s hard enough to get one singer, let alone a full SATB group.