Purpose of Music at Mass

[Sarabande]

(Continued from above)

The other part of the musical training which I have sometimes considered both an incredible blessing and a curse, is knowing too much about the technicals, the theory, etc. of music to recognize what is poorly and excellently written or composed. Of course, there is always music which I think most people can recognize as poorly written, hokey or just bad in general, (as well as music where most people can recognize as extraordinary and beautiful, even if it is a style they don’t usually listen to or particularly enjoy on a regular basis) but there are others where, before I became a more consummate musician, really loved and enjoyed for the melody, not really recognizing or noticing anything more in the counterpoint (or lack thereof). This went for classical and more popular styles of music. I can still enjoy that kind of music outside of the spiritual realm… meaning for pure fun and for times when I don’t want to really dive too deeply into the actual instrumental part of the music. But if I’m doing that music for God, it is much more work for me mentally and spiritually to find something spiritually enriching so that it doesn’t sound superficial and trite - to me. I stress “to me” because I do know that there may be people who do find music like that deep for them.

Then, there comes the belief that liturgical music shouldn’t be about feelings and isn’t the purpose for the music being there at mass, which I agree with to a point. But I believe music naturally conjures all kinds of feelings within a person. It cannot be helped. If no feelings arise, then there would be no reason for music. The same with sacred visual arts, whether in architecture, sculpture, painting, etc. That is one of the reasons why I think chant is so much preferred and held in high esteem for “singing the mass”. In many ways, the purpose of that kind of music is supposed to conjure the feelings of sacredness, reverence, meditation. For me, it is even almost entrancing, especially when you are doing a very long chant. Chanting is also a different way of singing from other styles of singing and, for me, puts me in a different psychological state of mind where it just flows out of my head and my mouth. Along with that thought of singing styles, there is also that balance that I, as a classically trained singer, is always trying to master, especially during the liturgy… The singer knowing how and when to hold back and not sound like he/she is singing in an opera hall, musical theater show, folk concert, rock/pop concert, etc… yet not completely stifling the sound so that it becomes cold and completely meaningless. Again, it would be almost the same as walking into church built without any spiritual inspiration or seeing a piece of sacred art which touches no one. (Although, it does seem like the visual arts do get more leeway in terms of allowing to be more “luxurious”… look at some of the churches and cathedrals in Europe and the US or the artwork within them. )

I am definitely not an “all-chant” person, as I do believe that other forms of music can be appropriate and acceptable and the Church has allowed it. In history, so much of the sacred music repertoire has had to have a refinement of sorts to make it appropriate for liturgy. If composers couldn’t refine it enough, then it would eventually make its way out.

Anyway, I think my thoughts are a little too scattered, but I hope I make sense.

 

[prodigalson2011]

(Continued from above)

The other part of the musical training which I have sometimes considered both an incredible blessing and a curse, is knowing too much about the technicals, the theory, etc. of music to recognize what is poorly and excellently written or composed. Of course, there is always music which I think most people can recognize as poorly written, hokey or just bad in general, (as well as music where most people can recognize as extraordinary and beautiful, even if it is a style they don’t usually listen to or particularly enjoy on a regular basis) but there are others where, before I became a more consummate musician, really loved and enjoyed for the melody, not really recognizing or noticing anything more in the counterpoint (or lack thereof). This went for classical and more popular styles of music. I can still enjoy that kind of music outside of the spiritual realm… meaning for pure fun and for times when I don’t want to really dive too deeply into the actual instrumental part of the music. But if I’m doing that music for God, it is much more work for me mentally and spiritually to find something spiritually enriching so that it doesn’t sound superficial and trite - to me. I stress “to me” because I do know that there may be people who do find music like that deep for them.

Then, there comes the belief that liturgical music shouldn’t be about feelings and isn’t the purpose for the music being there at mass, which I agree with to a point. But I believe music naturally conjures all kinds of feelings within a person. It cannot be helped. If no feelings arise, then there would be no reason for music. The same with sacred visual arts, whether in architecture, sculpture, painting, etc. That is one of the reasons why I think chant is so much preferred and held in high esteem for “singing the mass”. In many ways, the purpose of that kind of music is supposed to conjure the feelings of sacredness, reverence, meditation. For me, it is even almost entrancing, especially when you are doing a very long chant. Chanting is also a different way of singing from other styles of singing and, for me, puts me in a different psychological state of mind where it just flows out of my head and my mouth. Along with that thought of singing styles, there is also that balance that I, as a classically trained singer, is always trying to master, especially during the liturgy… The singer knowing how and when to hold back and not sound like he/she is singing in an opera hall, musical theater show, folk concert, rock/pop concert, etc… yet not completely stifling the sound so that it becomes cold and completely meaningless. Again, it would be almost the same as walking into church built without any spiritual inspiration or seeing a piece of sacred art which touches no one. (Although, it does seem like the visual arts do get more leeway in terms of allowing to be more “luxurious”… look at some of the churches and cathedrals in Europe and the US or the artwork within them. )

I am definitely not an “all-chant” person, as I do believe that other forms of music can be appropriate and acceptable and the Church has allowed it. In history, so much of the sacred music repertoire has had to have a refinement of sorts to make it appropriate for liturgy. If composers couldn’t refine it enough, then it would eventually make its way out.

Anyway, I think my thoughts are a little too scattered, but I hope I make sense.

As someone who also has a good working knowledge of the technical side of music, I’d like to bring up for your and everyone else’s consideration, a point made in an article whose author I can not recall: That liturgical music should be SIMPLE. Traditional hymns are based on folk rhythms and employ minimal melodic movement that is easy enough for even the most musically illiterate to follow and with a small enough range for the average pew sitter to comfortably sing. So much of this CCM that has made its way into Mass is full of such intervallic leaps, syncopated phrasing and melismatics that it discourages participation. Compare the number of people singing in a church that uses more traditional hymns to those that use pieces specifically composed by and for professional musicians.

Also, just today I attended Mass at a parish not my own, and the arrangements of some of the music were such that if I closed my eyes I would have thought I were at a rave. Bass drum thumping BOOM-ch-BOOM-ch-BOOM-ch at 140bpm or more. Mass is not a rave up!

 

[agapewolf]

As someone who also has a good working knowledge of the technical side of music, I’d like to bring up for your and everyone else’s consideration, a point made in an article whose author I can not recall: That liturgical music should be SIMPLE. Traditional hymns are based on folk rhythms and employ minimal melodic movement that is easy enough for even the most musically illiterate to follow and with a small enough range for the average pew sitter to comfortably sing. So much of this CCM that has made its way into Mass is full of such intervallic leaps, syncopated phrasing and melismatics that it discourages participation. Compare the number of people singing in a church that uses more traditional hymns to those that use pieces specifically composed by and for professional musicians.

I disagree with this.

Traditional hymns are textbook difficult with how many syllables are crammed into measures. This is not subjective, this is fact. It takes about 5 times as long to get my school kids to sing “Holy God we praise thy name” as it does any of the praise and worship songs. . PW music is written to be repetitive, with long tones, and mantra like.

Now perhaps you are talking about more Christian Rock to which I would agree with you. It is not simple or easy to participate.

Praise and worship however, is written to be easy to sing a long with. When I do one after communion, I’ll easily have my church singing along after one chorus–many times they don’t have the words in front of them.

 

[pnewton]

Since pop and folk music aren’t considered good art, they’re not good enough to offer to God.

Does anyone agree with that?

I don’t think best is the same as most complex. I think plainchant can be as pleasing to God as polyphonic chant; praise and worship as pleasing as complex hymns.

 

[Sarabande]

As someone who also has a good working knowledge of the technical side of music, I’d like to bring up for your and everyone else’s consideration, a point made in an article whose author I can not recall: That liturgical music should be SIMPLE. Traditional hymns are based on folk rhythms and employ minimal melodic movement that is easy enough for even the most musically illiterate to follow and with a small enough range for the average pew sitter to comfortably sing. So much of this CCM that has made its way into Mass is full of such intervallic leaps, syncopated phrasing and melismatics that it discourages participation. Compare the number of people singing in a church that uses more traditional hymns to those that use pieces specifically composed by and for professional musicians.
!

Thank you for mentioning this. I actually don’t have anything against hymns. In fact, I do love many hymns, and I do believe from my years of working and freelancing in so many parishes (In a little over 10 years, I can honestly say I’ve freelanced in at least 100 of them) the hymns with the most simple of melodies are best for congregational singing, if we are only focusing on the purpose of congregational singing. And I would say that some hymns can be quite inspirational and moving, depending on the reasons for having the liturgical music. This is one of the reasons why I consider my musical training a blessing AND a curse. Perhaps, too, in my previous posting, I was thinking of liturgical music in a broader sense of both choral and congregational singing spanning centuries, rather than in more recent centuries or just within the last century and the current one comparing music only for congregational singing and how most parishes today celebrate the mass.

That said, I should have also been more clear that I don’t believe good compositional writing has to be blatantly complex.

 

[Cat]

I disagree with this.

Traditional hymns are textbook difficult with how many syllables are crammed into measures. This is not subjective, this is fact. It takes about 5 times as long to get my school kids to sing “Holy God we praise thy name” as it does any of the praise and worship songs. . PW music is written to be repetitive, with long tones, and mantra like.

Now perhaps you are talking about more Christian Rock to which I would agree with you. It is not simple or easy to participate.

Praise and worship however, is written to be easy to sing a long with. When I do one after communion, I’ll easily have my church singing along after one chorus–many times they don’t have the words in front of them.

This is true.

And I think that in all the genres commonly used in church music–e.g., traditional hymns, contemporary, rock, P &W, and chant–there are “easy” pieces, and there are “more difficult” pieces, and there are “virtually impossible to learn” pieces.

I would hate to see a music director stick with “easy” pieces all the time, as these are rather uninteresting for the people who do appreciate a challenge in their music (e.g., the few musicians that are left in Catholic churches).

Also, I think that what is most important in congregational songs is a strong MELODY–this is what makes a song easy-to-learn and memorable and pretty.

Some of the chants actually do seem to have a “melody” of sorts, while others just kind of meander around (to me, it sounds like a lot of the new Mass translation chants were generated by a computer program). I would say to avoid the meandering chants and select those that actually have some kind of recognizable melody.

Same for a lot of the contemporary pieces–some have no melody and a lot of rhythm and melismas, while others flow beautifully and naturally. Pick the melodious ones, not the dance songs.

**One other thing–there are Christian songs in all genres that are written for soloists and these are extremely difficult for the congregation to sing along with; ** e.g., the two most famous Ave Marias (for that matter, most classical arias), or “Our God Is An Awesome God” (Rich Mullins–the chorus is very singable, but the verses should be done by a soloist or by a very skilled small group). I think that it is best for a music leader to avoid doing these “solo” songs as part of congregational singing.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m sure this puts me in the minority here, but I simply do not care for the vast majority of Gregorian chant. I like hymns, particularly the more traditional hymns…but I can’t help but think that many people here advocating chant would be perfectly happy if we dispensed with hymn-singing altogether.

And quite frankly, if chant is a treasure of the church, than so are many of our hymns. To give them up would be no less of a crime than many believe the lack of chant to be.

I love Gregorian chant and polyphonic music AND I love hymns.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Anyway, I think my thoughts are a little too scattered, but I hope I make sense.

Thank you for your insightful comments! I guess what jumped out of your posts for me was that its not either/or quality vs. feelings, but that good quality music will be better at eliciting feelings and prayerfulness which are a genuine part of worship?

 

[Sarabande]

Thank you for your insightful comments! I guess what jumped out of your posts for me was that its not either/or quality vs. feelings, but that good quality music will be better at eliciting feelings and prayerfulness which are a genuine part of worship?

Well, yes. In my opinion, I think quality can and does have a lot to do with worship in the liturgy, from the art, the music, the text used for our prayers, the priests’ homilies, etc. With the exception of the mass text, the rest are not absolutely necessary, BUT they are a part of our humanity… elements created and developed by us to assist in our connection with God and our understanding of God. Various forms and styles of chant, for instance, has been used for prayer long before Christianity. In liturgical music, one can see through history how our human side works towards creating this connection… and it’s a constant evolution and learning process for each new style of music introduced to the liturgy. You see how the Church in history prided herself in always getting the best artists, musicians and composers and how all of these people in the art world strove to give the best. For centuries, you do see how some of the best art was sacred art, whether musical, visual, architectural, etc. Yet, they also had to sometimes be curtailed by the Church because they would sometimes go a little too far with their styles, performances, etc.

To get back to “Quality”… in terms of music, poor musicianship and poor singing from a choir or cantor can turn a “quality” piece of music into something dreadful. Poorly done polyphony and the more complicated chants that only choir would sing, for instance, can sound deadly and wretched. That really isn’t conducive to praying the mass or praying at the mass. And I have seen good musicianship and singing turn music otherwise considered poorly written or just plain bad and hokey, into something prayerful and reverent, just by simple tweaks to the music or even the way it is sung. From my experience, most people, no matter how little expertise or experience they have, can recognize quality or mediocrity.

 

[AthenaC]

**One other thing–there are Christian songs in all genres that are written for soloists and these are extremely difficult for the congregation to sing along with; ** e.g., the two most famous Ave Marias (for that matter, most classical arias), or “Our God Is An Awesome God” (Rich Mullins–the chorus is very singable, but the verses should be done by a soloist or by a very skilled small group). I think that it is best for a music leader to avoid doing these “solo” songs as part of congregational singing.

I have been to some churches where they sing something similar after Communion - where people are not singing along but rather meditating and praying after Communion and the music acts as setting the meditative mood. (One guy tried to do some CCM with just him and his guitar, but the songs he chose didn’t work because they needed a few more instruments to properly set up the harmony … ugh.) My favorite example was during a Christmas Eve vigil, the choir sang “Gaudete.” (Look it up on YouTube sung by the Medieval Babes)

I think its a nice touch. Also a good way to introduce a new song to the congregation - no real pressure to sing along so they can hear it and learn.