The Power of Music

[JimR-OCDS]

Who said anything about them being hostile?

The point is that they are volunteers with lives outside of their music ministry.

There are some who are paid, but this tends to be in the large parishes or Diocesan Cathedral.

Jim

 

[pnewton]

What constitutes true liturgical music is very broad, if one considers the Church is spread across the globe.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

And time periods.

 

[PetraG]

What constitutes true liturgical music is very broad, if one considers the Church is spread across the globe.

And time periods.

To be fair, Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy) says: The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. (116)

In other words, whereever in the Roman rite that Gregorian chant can be done, it is specially suited. How can it be said to be unrealistic in any places where it has not been attempted in good faith? So while the same document also says “other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action,” nowhere does it say that Gregorian chant ought to be excluded in favor of other kinds of sacred music.

Those who just don’t like it need to concede that they’re obviouslyl aware that some other of the faithful just don’t like the kind of music they like. This isn’t a popularity contest; that can’t work. Gregorian chant is among the riches of the faith that Catholics deserve to be exposed to, and by clergy and musicians instructed in how it is to be sung. This is also in the Church’s Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. That is one of our axiomatic documents, so in that sense this isn’t up for debate. The special place that Gregorian chant deserves to occupy and is expected to continue to occupy down through the ages is not an opinion, but an established fact of our liturgical tradition.

Meanwhile, stop complaining, it’s unchristian and makes people feel bad

There are uncharitable ways to take issue when one of the recognized riches of the Church are absent from a parish, there is no doubt. It is not true that anyone who dares to raise an objection when such a treasure is lacking is failing at Christian charity by definition. No, there is a third way in which good faith efforts are recognized and yet an ardent desire for inclusion of such a great treasure is still ardently and diligently expressed.

As long as the music is from approved text and the congregation can sing along, they’re not going to force something the music ministers are not experienced with.

This might be true if exposure to this particular type of liturgical music were not specifically recognized as among the particular treasures of the Church. Truly, hearing this music is our inheritance, our patrimony as Catholics!! What excuse is there for withholding it? Taken in that light, it is something of a crime when there are instances where there has been no experience. This is particularly true in our time, when electronic means of exposing people to any sort of music is so easily attainable.

These are not particularly hard (see particularly versions with “simplex” in the title)
https://musicasacra.com/music/english-chant-ordinary/

 

[PetraG]

To those who say that Gregorian music has no place in modern music, I’d point out that “Chant,” the album of plainchant released by the Benedictine monks of Santo Domingo de Silos went double platinum in 1994 and reached #3 on the Billboard 200 music chart. Another plainchant album (this by Austrian Cistercian monks) was again very successful in 2008. It truly is timeless music.

I am not saying that every Mass ought to be restricted to music taken from the treasury written before there were English-speaking settlements in the New World. I’m saying that Gregorian chant truly is a treasure and was pointedly recognized as such at Vatican II. It would be a great mistake to think any parish ought to “evolve” away from it or entirely exclude it from their repertoire.

I don’t think most choirs believe that, either. I think some are rightly concerned that once they sing that there will be some others who say choirs should not be allowed to sing anything else. I think that is understandable. It is a priceless treasure and an irreplaceable treasure, but it is not our only treasure.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

At our parish we are instituting the chants found directly in the missal. As well we have a monthly gregorian chant mass where it all is chanted by our schola. It has become quite a draw for people, especially 20-30 year olds.

 

[pnewton]

The organ too is said to be given a “place of pride,” a term that is undefined. It does not mean every parish is to have an organ. We do not have one, though we help pay for the 1.5 million dollar organ at the Cathedral. The idea of “true” is though is not the way the Church has spoken thought.

At our parish we are instituting the chants found directly in the missal. As well we have a monthly gregorian chant mass where it all is chanted by our schola. It has become quite a draw for people, especially 20-30 year olds.

We used Jubilate Deo during Lent, English for Lent, and Latin for Triduum.

 

[PetraG]

The organ too is said to be given a “place of pride,” a term that is undefined. It does not mean every parish is to have an organ. We do not have one, though we help pay for the 1.5 million dollar organ at the Cathedral. The idea of “true” is though is not the way the Church has spoken thought.

I usually point out to people that this pride of place was established before organs became commonly used in movie theaters and then later in ballparks and rock concerts. It is no longer an instrument used only for sacred music, but is firmly established as a secular instrument, as well.
And yes, pipe organs are both tremendously expensive and not suitable for every church’s accoustics. The bigger problem (as I see it) is that there simply are not enough people who have mastered the pipe organ for every parish to have an organist competent to play it. It is very different than playing piano, because pipe organ is an on/off wind instrument and piano (although it has strings) has the characteristics of a percussion instrument. The finger movements that have to be mastered are quite different. The smooth playing needed to play sacred music on an organ is (I think) much more demanding than the kind of playing that works to play rock music or music at the ballpark on an organ.

 

[Peeps]

I think all the people who love Gregorian chant, or other kinds of chant, should take the lead and offer classes in their homes to teach the music ministers and other volunteer musicians, as well as laypeople who want to learn all about the various kinds of chant and the proper names for these chant types, and how to properly do them.

Then the group can volunteer to sing the Masses in their parish!

Frankly, I wouldn’t mind. As much as I love playing the piano/organ at Mass, I wouldn’t mind a few weeks of vacation from practicing and playing.

If the teaching was good, I would attend the chant classes. I’m afraid I would be kicked out because I don’t have a good “chant” voice, but hopefully the teachers would be able to teach my the correct intonation and placement to properly sing chant in a beautiful way.

But I wouldn’t attend if the teaching wasn’t detailed. I would not want to have someone sing a chant, and then ask us to “repeat after them.” That’s not teaching.

 

[PetraG]

I would not want to have someone sing a chant, and then ask us to “repeat after them.” That’s not teaching.

How do you teach people to sing hymns? It’s not as if everybody can read music.

…who want to learn all about the various kinds of chant and the proper names for these chant types, and how to properly do them…

Do parishioners typically learn about all the various kinds of melody and the proper names and so on? Do they have music theory courses? No, those leading the music choose something attainable and they sing that.

I remember when the priest chanted Mass parts and we responded. It was not that hard. I still go to a Benedictine abbey near where I live, and chanting the litugy of the hours is something that can be learned after hearing it for awhile. This isn’t a Japanese tea ceremony or something.

 

[Peeps]

It was not that hard.

I disagree. I find it difficult and frustrating to sing “melody-less” music.

 

[snarflemike]

To those who say that Gregorian music has no place in modern music, I’d point out that “Chant,” the album of plainchant released by the Benedictine monks of Santo Domingo de Silos went double platinum in 1994 and reached #3 on the Billboard 200 music chart. Another plainchant album (this by Austrian Cistercian monks) was again very successful in 2008. It truly is timeless music.

It seems almost a sure thing that any Chant recording will hit #1 in the category of Sacred and Religious Music (Amazon). In fact, #3 in that category today is that same Cistercian monks recording, from 11 years ago.

On something of a whim, last year I started mining youtube videos of chant and polyphony for comments. There were comments by Catholics, Muslims (a lot from Muslims!), atheists, and who knows who else, and over and over they brought me to tears. And a great many of the were clearly young people. Maybe I’ll post a few - I think I ended up with 26 pages worth.

 

[snarflemike]

In other words, whereever in the Roman rite that Gregorian chant can be done, it is specially suited. How can it be said to be unrealistic in any places where it has not been attempted in good faith? So while the same document also says “ other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action ,” nowhere does it say that Gregorian chant ought to be excluded in favor of other kinds of sacred music.

If you ever get challenged on the “other things being equal” escape clause, just congratulate them for doing polyphony ("especially polyphony) instead.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

That’s what we did in our parish! Me and several other put on a chant workshop for the congregation, then had a mass in all chant afterwards. As well we will be putting on a chanting the liturgy of the hours workshop every Saturday morning starting in the fall.

Not everyone likes where we’re taking the music in our parish, but they cant argue with the increase in interest and attendance since elevating gregorian chant and suppressing praise and worship songs.

 

[snarflemike]

This is a long thread, and maybe this has already come up, but all Catholics should note that in 1962, the Fathers of Vatican Council II wrote

"112 The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art.
…
“114. The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care.”

This “treasure of inestimable value” referred to the vast corpus of chant and polyphony along with a smaller corpus of other music, but how many parishes treat this treasure with the respect and honor that Vatican II calls for? How many Masses contain even a single piece of this music? How many contain even a single piece of chant or polyphony? I’m clearly not suggesting that this music constitute 100% of every Mass, but why is the music I have heard in decades of Masses about 5% of the first 1600 years of the life of the Church, and 95% of the past 65 years? This is exactly the “chronological snobbery that CS Lewis so justly condemned.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Latin should have a place of pride, along with Gregorian chant…in the west. Eastern Catholics don’t use Gregorian chant and have never used Latin. As for me, when I go to Mass, I usually go to the evening one on Sunday, and this is a youth oriented Mass. That being said, although contemporary music is still used, so is some Latin. My preference for Mass in the west is lots of organ, and some Latin. However, I have gone to Masses entirely in English that I thought were quite beautiful (and I could barely hear anything at the last Latin Mass I went to). The good thing about the Church: There’s room for everyone. That’s why, at my home parish church, the 11 am Mass is usually the one with more incense and Latin, and traditional music, because it’s the most well attended.

 

[snarflemike]

Our pastor invited my wife, a chant expert, to speak to the music ministers about the teachings of Vatican II regarding sacred music. One woman, in her 80s, burst out, “So they want to take the Church back 5000 years!”

Not making that up.

 

[Peeps]

I’m clearly not suggesting that this music constitute 100% of every Mass, but why is the music I have heard in decades of Masses about 5% of the first 1600 years of the life of the Church, and 95% of the past 65 years?

There was no “norm” for Mass music that started in 33 A.D. and stuck around for 1600 years.

Music in the Mass was constantly evolving, and many priests and religious wrote about their frustration with the changes. Some of their writings, especially those in the first three centuries, read just like this thread! Words like “Vulgar” and “Entertainment” keep showing up these writings, and longings for a return to the way Mass was in some earlier time.

The first Mass music in the First century was probably Jewish music, mainly Psalms, and it is likely that instruments were used, as they were used in the synagogues. The Old Testament includes several fascinating descriptions of how music was to be done in the Jewish worship, and also names the “hired musicians” who were responsible for the worship music!

Music evolved constantly after the First Century, but for most of the first 8 centuries, the Mass was sung by the congregation. Use of instruments died out, but then came back, and of course, many people protested their use in the Mass.

At one point in history, music and math became intertwined, as humans thought they could access “real music” by mathematical calculations. This made it difficult for “regular folks” (non-intellectuals) to get much out of the Mass music, which sounded rather mechanical, although some people thought it was beautiful.

It’s fascinating to read about Mass music, and it becomes obvious that there has been a constant evolving, constant innovation and invention of new music in every generation, not just in every century.

One author that has written a very interesting book on the music history of the Church says, concerning conflicts about music and the writings of the Church leaders and laypeople throughout the centuries:

“With little modification of detail, these comments could sound like those in any period of the church’s history from the early church to the present. This is because the church by its very nature is forever forced to ask how to enter and serve the marketplace without becoming the marketplace.”

Sounds like this thread!

I personally think that the change in Mass music is a good thing, just as it has been a good thing throughout the history of the Church. All the changes in Mass music have not destroyed the Church, and our use of piano and other instruments, or our lack o use of chant in favor of more contemporary Christian music, will not destroy the Church. Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.

 

[snarflemike]

There was no “norm” for Mass music that started in 33 A.D. and stuck around for 1600 years.

Sorry, i meant 1900 years (that is, the entire corpus of Catholic music before Vatican II). But nothing I wrote talked about a “norm” (although John Paul II did write “With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the ‘general rule’ that St Pius X formulated in these words: ‘The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple’” Almost sounds like a norm.

But no, I am not speaking about a norm. I am asking, where in the Church is the musical tradition being “preserved and fostered with great care”? Given that most Catholics can go decades without hearing any of this musical tradition other than perhaps some parts of the Jubilate Dei now and then. That’s pretty slim pickings for “with great care”.

 

[PetraG]

If you ever get challenged on the “other things being equal” escape clause, just congratulate them for doing polyphony (" especially polyphony) instead.

If someone wants to complaint that polyphony is complicated and difficult to do well, I’m in total agreement.

I disagree. I find it difficult and frustrating to sing “melody-less” music.

There is a difference between plainchant and singing tunelessly. The notes are not random.
Besides, many other people find syncopated rhythms with weird melodic lines–meaning disjunct and not making leaps along the triad of a major chord, either!–far more difficult. My husband is one of them, and he is not Mr. Plainchant, not by a longshot. Actually, I’m on of them, too, and I can read music.
The difference is that one is clearly sacred music with a long history of use in the Church for prayer that continues to the present day and one clearly comes straight from the treasury of the secular music of the 20th century. One is the kind that people who aren’t even Catholic buy for its meditative quality, and the other does not have a meditative effect on anybody.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting all plainchant all the time.