Traditional ***AND*** Contemporary Music?

[arieh0310]

I love contemporary (some of them) and traditional hymns. Traditional for mass and contemporary for parish hall and my home stereo.

 

[MarthaMartha]

beckyann2597:

I Like both. I have been singing all my life and I find it benifitial to sing both well. I was remembering going to a music liturgy meeting at a new church and suggesting songs like “On Eagles Wings” and some John Micheal Talbot songs because they were appropriate with the readings for a certain week. Some older ladies (I am in my 20’s and these ladies were in their 80’s) got all bent out of shape because On Eagles wings was too contemporary! It was written in the 60’s!!! 40 years ago!!! I guess everything is relative!

My mother-in-law, who just turned 88, says she LOVES “On Eagle’s Wings.” Go figure.

 

[johnnykins]

MarthaMartha:

My mother-in-law, who just turned 88, says she LOVES “On Eagle’s Wings.” Go figure.

You know if it were just a difference in taste in music it would be OK. People have different tastes. It’s the elimination of traditional music, the use of music with heretical lyrics, the association of “modern” music with abuses, it’s the arrogance of those who have put this stuff out there in the “Spirit of Vatican II” while ignoring the actual language of Vatican II with respect to chant, it’s the disregard for history, tradition, solemnity, authenticity, orthodoxy all to make the Mass “relevant” as if it’s ever been anything but relevant.

And the results: loss of faith, loss of vocations, cafeteria Catholicism, abuse scandals, etc., etc.,…

 

[frommi]

johnnykins:

And the results: loss of faith, loss of vocations, cafeteria Catholicism, abuse scandals, etc., etc.,…

That’s a bit much to blame on “On Eagle’s Wings” dont ya think?

Few songs in modern hymnals are ‘heretical’…at least I can’t think of any that rise to the standard of heresy.

We had all the problems you speak of long before the first Glory and Praise hymnal hit the market.

It is about a difference in taste of music in my opinion…I’ve heard people say that chant ‘sounds like angels’…well…with all due respect…does anyone really know what an angel sounds like?

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

That’s a bit much to blame on “On Eagle’s Wings” dont ya think?

Few songs in modern hymnals are ‘heretical’…at least I can’t think of any that rise to the standard of heresy.

We had all the problems you speak of long before the first Glory and Praise hymnal hit the market.

It is about a difference in taste of music in my opinion…I’ve heard people say that chant ‘sounds like angels’…well…with all due respect…does anyone really know what an angel sounds like?

It’s all part and parcel of the same mentality. The loss of faith over the last 40 years is unprecendented. Even the Reformation and Great Schism did not lead to atheism in the same manner we see today. You see it as unrelated - a naive view if ever there was one.

It’s funny how those who would trifle with the Mass always seem to prefer the G&P hymnal. Related? Well…

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

johnnykins:

Come on, Rome - Vatican II no less, has said that chant should have the place of honor. How many Catholic Churches reallly honor that? Be honest and you know it’s very few. So the Church has given its guidance on this - you just don’t want to listen to it.

Absolutely Correct!!! Thank You!!!

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

Della:

The problem really isn’t about contemporary vs. traditional or one form of music over another. It is all about the Mass.

Is what is being played and sung appropriate for the Mass?

Does it engender reverence?

Does it help us keep our minds on the readings and not on ourselves?

Does it bring attention to the altar and the Sacrifice being offered there?

Does it help us be properly disposed to receive Christ’s body and blood, soul and divinity?

Does it aid worship or only make us think of the music?

These are the sorts of questions every choir director/music director ought to be asking, not whether or not people will like it or how it will make people feel.

This is a good criteria to follow. There is no “Well we prefer this over that.” that makes no difference. How about just doing what the church asks of us, musicam sacram, Sacrosanctum Concillium. I bet if we were to look at those documents (which i have) as group and to take what Holy Mother Church is asking of us on this particular topic, there would be none of this vagueness it would be clear. It is not about personal taste, it is about correctness, Orthodoxy, reverence.

 

[SMHW]

I’m surprised no one has commented on my original post where I said that I think chant is the hardest form of music to sing well.

And I don’t think it usually is sung well.

I personally think chant probably does angelic if sung well. But if the tone goes even slightly flat it sounds HIDEOUS!!!

But we live in a culture that doesn’t spend much time teaching people to speak in a way that makes good use of their voices …let alone sing well with them. So what do we expect?

 

[johnnykins]

SMHW:

I’m surprised no one has commented on my original post where I said that I think chant is the hardest form of music to sing well.

And I don’t think it usually is sung well.

I personally think chant probably does angelic if sung well. But if the tone goes even slightly flat it sounds HIDEOUS!!!

But we live in a culture that doesn’t spend much time teaching people to speak in a way that makes good use of their voices …let alone sing well with them. So what do we expect?

Chant can indeed be difficult. Most Catholics would never know, however, since it is tried so seldomly. “Place of honor” seems to mean to most Catholic priests and music directors - “on a shelf in written form never to be touched.”

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

johnnykins:

Chant can indeed be difficult. Most Catholics would never know, however, since it is tried so seldomly. “Place of honor” seems to mean to most Catholic priests and music directors - “on a shelf in written form never to be touched.”

I agree, you are right.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

It’s all part and parcel of the same mentality. The loss of faith over the last 40 years is unprecendented. Even the Reformation and Great Schism did not lead to atheism in the same manner we see today. You see it as unrelated - a naive view if ever there was one.

Amen. I really think many people just do not get this, and it is all inextricably tied together. Lame music, vague teaching, warm n’ fuzzy homilies, etc. all lead to, not necessarily cause by themselves, but certainly lead to universalism if not apostacy.

What I’m saying is, why do we have to be hell bent on destroying the traditional faith that was so strong? Vatican II was a very good thing, no denying that, but what happened in between Council and parish? I would think common sense would dictate that since the Church has never radically changed Herself, why the stampede to get rid of Latin, to get rid of Chant and other sacred music, and to get rid of traditional architecture and replace it with banality, fuzzy catechesis, and irreligious non-sense? Smoke of Satan indeed!