Music at mass

[aloysiusg]

I just want a respectful conversation VociMike - nothing more than that. We are all working toward the same thing - we should not be so at each other’s throats. It seems that any thread about music turns into this debate, and it is the same argument on both sides.

Let me try this…

I was just looking at my copies of RitualSong - a series from GIA which is their attempt at a collaboration of Worship and Gather. I have used it and liekd how it seemd to combine the “best” of the modern stuff with a strong leaning toward the mnore traditional (including a generous amount of chant). Does anyone here have experience with this series? If so, what is their opinion of it? For those that do and are more of a traditionalist, would this type of hybrid be a worthy compromise?

 

[Cathyd241]

Chant is the standard, in the sense that the texts are meaningful, and the melodies are simple, yet spiritual. You don’t need to “sell it” with a lot of instrumentation. This is the ruler with which to measure the songs.

In my lifetime, I have attended Masses both modern and traditional, that have been pure Heaven, and Masses both modern and traditional that have been unmitigated disasters. In an ideal world, I would like to see each parish have good Masses of both types. It would be a testament to our claim of universality.

I liked a lot about what you had to say…just wanted to comment though…I really don’t find traditional hymns all that “simple”; often the songs are all over the scale, randomly jumping octaves, and I find it both hard to follow and hard to sing with my limited vocal capability.

 

[Cathyd241]

There is a contempoary christian song called “Heart of Worship”. It was written by Matt Redman when he was getting upset about the worship music becoming more of a show and a business rather than a prayer. While this is not a song for liturgy, it is a great song to listen to while preparing to play.

It’s funny you mention that song, because it basically supports what I’ve been trying to say all along…“It’s all about You, Jesus”. It’s not about you, or me, or what songs we prefer to hear at Mass. It’s about singing worship to God, period. If that’s what we set out to do during Mass, how is that wrong?

 

[Cathyd241]

This is getting absolutely frustrating. Those of us on the contemporary side have said on many occasion our appreciation of chant and how beautiful it is, and yet I have yet to find even a moderate comment toward the music we play. Every comment from the traditionalist camp is unilaterally condescending. It is hard to take you seriously if you will not engage in discussion. It appears as if you just want to push your agenda, and anyone who disagrees with it be damned. I suppose you won’t be satisfied until we all take our guitars and throw them into a giant bonfire so that we can then take up organ lessons. You treat people like Haugen, Hass and the SLJ like they are the enemy, like they’ve written pagan music and they are trying to drag us all down to hell - why are you so bitter against the current liturgical music? I can fully understand not liking it, and I can fully understand doing everything possible to avoid it if that is your preference, but the blanket statements made against it just seem so incredibly unChristian. I really, really, really want to understand an dappreciate your viewpoint on this, because it is a voice that needs to be heard, but the way in which you express it is so myopic as to be unyielding. My apologies if I have offended, but I have been biting my lip for some time now and I just see the same posting over and over again - nothing seems to be getting solved.

In peace,
Al

I concur

 

[Cathyd241]

What did you want to discuss, exactly? Can we discuss how the music “on the contemporary side” holds up against the standards given by the Church for liturgical music?

Can we discuss whether this music flows organically from the sacred music of the past, thus uniting us with the faithful who have come before us?

You sound pretty hostile and condescending. This is the very attitude that got me started on this forum.

Can we discuss whether this music will be sung and revered 500 years from now, thus uniting us with the faithful who will come after us?

Sounds like you are drawing your own conclusions here. Who are you to say that songs of today won’t?

 

[Cathyd241]

I just want a respectful conversation VociMike - nothing more than that. We are all working toward the same thing - we should not be so at each other’s throats. It seems that any thread about music turns into this debate, and it is the same argument on both sides.

I agree

For those that do and are more of a traditionalist, would this type of hybrid be a worthy compromise?

That’s the problem, friend. I don’t think the traditionalists here are capable of compromise.

 

[ontologysue]

I once started a thread asking which contemporary Christian songs would be sung and held in high esteem 500 years from now. The forthcoming list was underwhelming. In fact, as I remember, only a few pieces written in a style clearly deriving from chant and older polyphony were put forth as candidates. Not a St. Louis Jesuit song or P&W song on the list.

It’s worth asking again. If somebody is pushing music that won’t stand the test of time over music that has and will, what is the justification for that? If somebody is pushing music that is a break from those who came before us in faith over music that flows from those who came before us in faith, what is the justification for that? What is the justification for using music that does not connect us to the past and will not connect us to the future? That is the very definition of throw-away music, and why would we want to use throw-away music to praise our eternal God?

Agree. And, love your Chesterton quote!

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I suppose you won’t be satisfied until we all take our guitars and throw them into a giant bonfire so that we can then take up organ lessons.
Al

The hippie '70’s music is going to die out soon anyhow, the young people don’t like it. As for burning the guitars, it would probably be better to sell them and give the money to the poor. You can definitely burn the tambourines though.

 

[ontologysue]

All of you in the “contemporary music crowd” out there are entirely missing the point.

It has nothing to do with my preference or ANY persons preference; there is nothing "superior, arrogant, inflexible, or uncharitable about it:It has to do with the time tested ‘Tradition’, with a capital T, of Mother Church!

That is the Church to which you belong, and have given your allegience. I say, “thank God” it has nothing to do with any of our preferences, in this rather insignificant slice of time in which we live presently. We uphold a long and inspired legacy. We don’t have to depend on the fads of our time. Mother Church has passed on to us an “ancient beauty,” we must humble ourselves and try to understand and uphold this gift, not narcisistically assume we know better.

This all sounds very “postmodern” to me, namely, the very fact that if something is “modern” then it has supremacy over anything in the past.

And, I have to say, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with debating the issue with passion on both sides…there is something more important than the "peace, and the can’t we just all get along mentality, and that thing, is truth.

I grew up Protestant, I love the old hymns like “The Old Rugged Cross;” when I converted I didn’t stop loving those songs, I still play them on the piano and sing them to my grandchildren, but along with St. Augustine, in his poignant lament, “too late have I loved Thee, O ancient Beauty,” I understood, that the ethereal beauty of the Church’s Tradition, including its Liturgical music, compels a similar lament.

 

[THutch04]

I was just looking at my copies of RitualSong - a series from GIA which is their attempt at a collaboration of Worship and Gather. I have used it and liekd how it seemd to combine the “best” of the modern stuff with a strong leaning toward the mnore traditional (including a generous amount of chant). Does anyone here have experience with this series? If so, what is their opinion of it? For those that do and are more of a traditionalist, would this type of hybrid be a worthy compromise?

I’ve seen RitualSong used, and as far as modern hymnals go I think it’s one of the better ones. The times it’s been used, traditional hymns have been sung from it, so I know they have at least a decent selection. I don’t know what their contemporary music is like. It also didn’t seem to have as many inclusive language changes as the other hymnals (which is my biggest complaint about Worship, although I think that’s also one of the better ones). I wouldn’t be unhappy if RitualSong were used more often.

 

[VociMike]

Originally Posted by VociMike
What did you want to discuss, exactly? Can we discuss how the music “on the contemporary side” holds up against the standards given by the Church for liturgical music?

What is hostile or condescending in the questions I asked? Do you disagree that they are legitimate questions? Did I attack anybody by asking them?

Can we discuss whether this music will be sung and revered 500 years from now, thus uniting us with the faithful who will come after us?

Sounds like you are drawing your own conclusions here. Who are you to say that songs of today won’t?

How is asking a question drawing a conclusion? Perhaps you’d care to discuss this question. What contemporary pop-style songs of today will be revered and sung in 500 years, and why?

 

[VociMike]

That’s the problem, friend. I don’t think the traditionalists here are capable of compromise.

What would this compromise look like? And since when are people who simply want to do what the Church calls for in liturgical music now labeled as “traditionalists”? What then should we call people who don’t want to do what the Church calls for in liturgical music?

 

[VociMike]

All of you in the “contemporary music crowd” out there are entirely missing the point.

It has nothing to do with my preference or ANY persons preference; there is nothing "superior, arrogant, inflexible, or uncharitable about it:It has to do with the time tested ‘Tradition’, with a capital T, of Mother Church!

That is the Church to which you belong, and have given your allegience. I say, “thank God” it has nothing to do with any of our preferences, in this rather insignificant slice of time in which we live presently. We uphold a long and inspired legacy. We don’t have to depend on the fads of our time. Mother Church has passed on to us an “ancient beauty,” we must humble ourselves and try to understand and uphold this gift, not narcisistically assume we know better.

This all sounds very “postmodern” to me, namely, the very fact that if something is “modern” then it has supremacy over anything in the past.

And, I have to say, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with debating the issue with passion on both sides…there is something more important than the "peace, and the can’t we just all get along mentality, and that thing, is truth.

I grew up Protestant, I love the old hymns like “The Old Rugged Cross;” when I converted I didn’t stop loving those songs, I still play them on the piano and sing them to my grandchildren, but along with St. Augustine, in his poignant lament, “too late have I loved Thee, O ancient Beauty,” I understood, that the ethereal beauty of the Church’s Tradition, including its Liturgical music, compels a similar lament.

And let’s add that Vatican II called the sacred music of the Catholic Church “a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art.” How much contemporary music adds to that treasure? How much contemporary music is of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art?

We know the value of what was replaced, for the Church has told us, praising it as a treasure of inestimable value. But what is the value of the music that has done the replacing? Is that music worthy to push aside a treasure of inestimable value? Is it worthy to stand alongside music that is greater than any other art? Can anybody possibly make an objective argument that it is?

 

[aloysiusg]

How can we assess the historical standing of music that isn’t even half a century old? If the music is able to stand to test of time, then it will - but none of us will be around to know the answer to that anyway, so we can only speculate.

So how about a little redirection/speculation…what songs, written post-VII, do you predict will still be around in say, 100 years?

 

[aloysiusg]

And to add, while the CHurch must of course hold on to traditions, of which i am a big fan, it must also, in some areas, adjust to the times, or else it will become obsolete. The Church of today looks a lot different than the Church of 500 years ago, I would imagine.

 

[VociMike]

How can we assess the historical standing of music that isn’t even half a century old? If the music is able to stand to test of time, then it will - but none of us will be around to know the answer to that anyway, so we can only speculate.

True, but if we try and evaluate what has made the great music of the past still sung and still revered and regarded as a treasure, and apply those standards to contemporary music, then we can at least make an informed speculation.

So how about a little redirection/speculation…what songs, written post-VII, do you predict will still be around in say, 100 years?

Good question.

 

[VociMike]

And to add, while the CHurch must of course hold on to traditions, of which i am a big fan, it must also, in some areas, adjust to the times, or else it will become obsolete. The Church of today looks a lot different than the Church of 500 years ago, I would imagine.

Which is why the Church calls for (and thus I call for) new compositions, pervaded by the same spirit that gave rise to and so molded Gregorian chant, growing organically from the traditions of the past, having Gregorian chant as their supreme model and permanent standard, and written by composers who are profoundly immersed in the sensus Ecclesiae.

These are not my words, my qualifications. They are the words and qualifications of the Church.

 

[japhy]

And to add, while the CHurch must of course hold on to traditions, of which i am a big fan, it must also, in some areas, adjust to the times, or else it will become obsolete. The Church of today looks a lot different than the Church of 500 years ago, I would imagine.

Well, the Church has not said it’s changing its musical tradition; it called its trove of chant and polyphony and other sacred music its greatest treasure.

As for “adjust[ing] to the times”, G. K. Chesterton said that we don’t need a Church that moves with the world, we need a Church that moves the world. It’s one thing to address modern concerns and needs… it’s another to adopt modernity.

I would expect the Church of 500 years ago looks more like the Church of 75 years ago (and of 750 years ago) than it looks like the Church of today. But She has been growing and changing throughout Her history… why does She look so different today?

 

[aloysiusg]

one difference - the Church of to day is far less Eurocentric than the Church of 100, or even 50, years ago. Such a change is bound to have an effect on some aspects of liturgical practice.

 

[Sarabande]

You see, Cathyd241, the problem here is that the majority of people posting here (a) state their personal preferences with a conviction which should be reserved for reading the Scriptures (in the original language); (b) don’t know what they’re talking about; (c) have never functioned as a liturgical musician; (d) have no idea what, and have never heard, the types of songs you and I are talking about; and (e) have never experienced such a worship-filled Mass such as you or I have experienced.

Actually I believe a number of the people were not trying to put their personal preferences first even if some of their personal preferences might have gone a different direction from the other. Maybe I like to think the best in people and I’m definitely not perfect myself and have done it myself, but it would be wrong of me to presume the above accusations of people who I never met and can only get an idea of from their posts.

For myself, I think I do know what I’m talking about, having studied music since I was 4, have been studying and performing seriously as a professional in both the sacred and secular spheres since I was about 22, have functioned as the sole liturgical minister for a parish (and I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who does work as the Liturgical Minister/Director of Music - I know it’s not easy and almost always a balancing act for you guys/gals), have worked as a liturgical musician from 16 to the present and have experienced almost all of the other music that were discussed, and have attended those masses that were probably worship-filled to others around me, even if it wasn’t for me in terms of the music liturgy. I have also done my study (and still studying) on the history of western music and sacred music.

Can’t we just continue the unattached, unemotional questions and answers and opinion that was in the beginning of the thread? I think more would come out of that for all rather than assuming that the “other side” is ignorant (ie “don’t know what they’re talking about”). We can’t get anywhere in a discussion when that is brought up.