What do traditionalists think of LifeTeen Masses' appeal?

[VociMike]

What is continuously overlooked (convieniently) is that every so-called “traditional” hymn was once “new”.

In the first place, hymns are not the ideal of sacred music anway, so any discussion of hymns at Mass has immediately dropped away from the ideal.

But more to the point, what is being discussed is that the “new” music isn’t really new at all, certainly not in terms of the popular culture. In the past there was not the relentless push of popular culture that exists today, where six months is an eternity. The faster the popular music culture moves, the more “yesterday’s” music stands out as being so yesterday. Notice how few “contemporary” Masses have music in the style of the 70s or 60s or 50s or 40s? Compare that to the treasure of Gregorian chant which was composed over the course of well over 1000 years, and yet all seamlessly works together.

To reiterate, the ideal sacred music:

1. Is holy - set apart for God and sacred purposes.
2. Is true art
3. Sets the actual texts of the Mass.
4. Is judged worthy by comparison to the supreme model and permanent standard of Gregorian chant.

Use music that meets these criteria and it doesn’t matter if it was written 1000 years ago or 1000 minutes ago. But the farther the music selection drifts from these criteria, the less worthy it is of the temple. That is simple Church teaching.

 

[basil07]

But more to the point, what is being discussed is that the “new” music isn’t really new at all, certainly not in terms of the popular culture. In the past there was not the relentless push of popular culture that exists today, where six months is an eternity. The faster the popular music culture moves, the more “yesterday’s” music stands out as being so yesterday. Notice how few “contemporary” Masses have music in the style of the 70s or 60s or 50s or 40s? Compare that to the treasure of Gregorian chant which was composed over the course of well over 1000 years, and yet all seamlessly works together.

To reiterate, the ideal sacred music:

1. Is holy - set apart for God and sacred purposes.
2. Is true art
3. Sets the actual texts of the Mass.
4. Is judged worthy by comparison to the supreme model and permanent standard of Gregorian chant.

teaching.

It is easy for us to classify 1,000 years of sacred music as being simply “Gregorian chant.” I am not an authority on music history, but that is my major and I would like to comment.

I’d like to point out the fact that with the addition of a second voice (organum) there was a good deal of controversy. Anything that strayed off of perfect intervals such as fifths and fourths was not acceptable as reverent or holy. It is funny how quickly the standard changed; by the late 1200’s, Perotin was writing four part organum music which was chock full of dissonant intervals! Would a “traditionalist” of that time approve of this music? Surely not. Sure enough, rather soon, his new dissonant music became the standard for sacred music.

A look at music history from ~800 AD or so until now will show that the time between one new musical fad and the next generally gets shorter and shorter. This is why it seems that our current music is changing every minute. Does this make it any less sacred? Was Perotin’s music less sacred than Leonin’s fifty years earlier? At what point, exactly, did it begin moving too quickly to be considered sacred? Was it with the addition of a second voice? Perhaps it was with the introduction of dissonance. Or, it could have been when sacred music started becoming more metric. Or was it perfectly sacred all the way up til the 1960’s, and suddenly it lost all value?

The music of artists like Matt Mahr fulfills every requirement listed here. Where does the idea come from that the LT music is not set apart for God and sacred purposes? Many times through history, the stylistic line between secular and sacred music was blurred, and the text was the only significant difference. Who is to say that modern LT music is not art? Even today, we base our Western melodies on the same Church Modes that the monks were using.
While there is some questionable music out there at the LT masses, much of what I have heard is simply sacred text put into a modern setting; this is the same thing that has been going on since c.800 AD.

 

[VociMike]

It is easy for us to classify 1,000 years of sacred music as being simply “Gregorian chant.” I am not an authority on music history, but that is my major and I would like to comment.

Did I say that?

While there is some questionable music out there at the LT masses, much of what I have heard is simply sacred text put into a modern setting; this is the same thing that has been going on since c.800 AD.

Leaving aside the question of true art (hmm, wonder what contemporary liturgical music will be sung and valued 500 years from now), where are the contemporary Masses that actually sing the texts of the Mass, including the Propers? That is the elephant in the contemporary liturgy room.

 

[snhs]

The music of artists like Matt Mahr fulfills every requirement listed here. Where does the idea come from that the LT music is not set apart for God and sacred purposes? Many times through history, the stylistic line between secular and sacred music was blurred, and the text was the only significant difference. Who is to say that modern LT music is not art? Even today, we base our Western melodies on the same Church Modes that the monks were using.

Does it? How can it be holy if it can and indeed is used for secular purposes? I wonder if Evangelical groups, for example, are as comfortable using Gregorian Chant at their services as with some of the rock/pop type stuff that comes out of LT’s Greatest Hits collection.

Is it art? Some people consider unmade beds art, others consider bits of cows’ innards or a diamond encrusted human skull art. I think that when the Church set the criteria ‘true art’ they were looking for something a bit more appropriate than what today’s society at large may class as ‘art’.

Does it set the texts of Mass? Sometimes, does it do it as well or indeed anything like as well as Gregorian Chant?

As you’ve studied it could you possibly outline a few of these occasions. My understanding is that various things, such as polyphony etc, originated as secular devices but were not allowed, indeed often forbidden, from the Church until they had taken the time to refine them to the point where it became suitable for use in a Mass. Indeed from my, very limited understanding, the true popular music of the day has historically seldom if ever been allowed to enter into the Mass. Hence why we don’t have a vast proliferation of Jazz pieces from the 1920s or music hall tunes of the G and S variety written for use in the Mass.

Modal music was also used for rather less noble purposes in Ancient Greece and various other places. I don’t think you can use the fact that they bear some relation to the use of modes by the monks as being an endorsement for their use in the Mass any more than we can use the fact monks more or less invented musical notation as rendering any piece which has been composed and notated suitable for use in the Mass.