What do traditionalists think of the Piano?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not a traditionalist, but I definitely lean toward tradition.

I don’t like piano at mass. For me, mass is a time of intense prayer. Personally, I find the sound of the piano demands my attention in a way that organ does not. So, it is difficult for me to continue my prayers when piano is playing.

I have the same issue with worship/gospel music. I love this type of music and listen to it frequently, but I can’t do so while I am trying to pray. It is too demanding of my attention.

I hope that makes sense.
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
The pipe organ is the preferred instrument of the Catholic Church partly due to the sustained “singing” nature of the tone. Piano is technically a percussion instrument (because the sound is made by striking something), and the tone simply cannot sustain the way that a pipe organ can, especially in a large space.
Click to expand...
I think that architecture and the resulting acoustics are much-overlooked aspects in these music discussions. Not only do they influence instrumentation, they also influence composition and repertoire. Compare the musical effect of chant or polyphony in a large “cathedral”-like space to that of a much less reverberant space. In addition, technology such as microphones and sound systems can modify the perceived acoustics of a space.
 
babochka said:
The organ always seems to overwhelm the voices. Maybe I’ve just never seen it done well.
Click to expand...
The organist is usually seated in the worst possible place to hear what the organ is actually doing relative to everything else…
 
Last edited:
If you take classical voice lessons, you will eventually learn that piano is actually not the ideal instrument for accompanying the voice. There’s a valid argument that says that, since the piano is percussive, it teaches singers a lot of bad habits when they unconsciously imitate the piano sound. It’s handy; it has a wide range; but it’s also a kind of curse.

Many singers and songwriters can tell if a song initially was composed on a piano, as a piano instrumental. There are a lot of telltale signs; and if he is not someone who respects the vocal instrument, it often seems as if the composer is trying to turn his singers into pianos.

(Of course, the same thing is true of other instruments. Irish traditional musicians are very interested to know if a song was written to a harp tune, or for pipe, fiddle, or tin whistle. Songs composed by singers for singers, from scratch, are supposed to have entirely different qualities; and often they do. You also hear a lot of comparisons of voice parts to specific instruments – mezzos are supposed to have affinities with cellos, for example.)

But organ songs are more likely to be composed in a way that respects the voice, because the organ mimicks the voice in many ways. (Although that’s not the whole story; and composers can do things on purpose to make melodies more natural and comfortable, or more unnatural, to sing.)

Beyond the vocal question, or the theatrical/secular qualities, pianos are somewhat unsatisfactory for leading singing in a large space. Either you have a big concert piano, or a rinkydink piano, but either way you are liable to be drowned out by voices – unless you bring in artificial amplification.

And honestly… artificial amplification stinks, when it comes to encouraging the congregation to sing as one. (It’s not a promoter of vocal health even in a concert situation, but that’s another argument; and it is possible to learn to sing well over a microphone.)

As soon as artificial amplification comes into play, either the songleader/s are going to be consistently blaring over the congregation, or the congregation is going to be blaring over the songleaders. You get weird sound delay and echo problems.

Natural amplification, through acoustic tricks, gives people much more feeling of being together. There are also natural ways of damping too much echo or sound delay.

A lot of this stuff isn’t so much about preserving a sense of the sacred (although it helps), as of using common sense.
 
Last edited:
Pianos sound best in my Cathedral when the Grands are brought in.
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
I thought this was a really great and thought-provoking essay: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/01/11/is-the-organ-really-a-sacred-instrument/
Click to expand...
That is a thought-provoking essay. I will need to re-read more carefully, but in my initial pass it seems the author overstates the perceived sacredness of the organ. After all, at the beginning of the 20th century the church was actively discouraging the use of theatrical organ music. Additionally, there is the great problem that, for many church-goers, the communitarian meaning of the organ sound token is “boring, dry, dusty” etc. It is important to acknowledge the subjectivity involved, if only to work towards overcoming it.

The author makes the strange statement that in order for the piano to be perceived as sacred, it must “replace the organ in religious spaces as the predominant liturgical instrument”–that logic would prohibit all other instruments as well, unless they too could become the predominant liturgical instrument.

Finally, my initial reaction is that he sells the piano (and composers) short. The piano, like the organ, is capable of a great many forms of expression. Perhaps it is my bias as a pianist and composer, but I like to think I am capable of making it suitably sacred. Whether anyone else thinks so is another question 😉 Then again, I’ve heard plenty of organ music in church that didn’t strike me as particularly sacred either…
 
Mintaka said:
If you take classical voice lessons, you will eventually learn that piano is actually not the ideal instrument for accompanying the voice. There’s a valid argument that says that, since the piano is percussive, it teaches singers a lot of bad habits when they unconsciously imitate the piano sound. It’s handy; it has a wide range; but it’s also a kind of curse.
Click to expand...
In a liturgical setting, it does depend on the style of song. The organ is certainly far better at leading certain kinds of congregational singing, such as more traditional hymnody (post 1700). But it is not as effective with certain kinds of contemporary music. (Which sort of music should be used is a topic for a different forum post)

I think the size of the space plays a significant role. What the piano can do, even where subordinate to the voices, is provide an underlying rhythmic base for the congregational singing, helping to keep the singing moving forward and not gradually slowing down–even if what the people are hearing is mostly the attack, and not much of the fundamental tone (c.f. the potentially bad singing habits). The organ cannot do this unless it is approximately equal with the voice of the assembly.

With regards to artificial amplification, there are also artificial ways of mimicking natural amplification. It requires spending money for a properly set up system though.

I agree very much with your final sentence–what is needed is to take the time to ask these questions. What is the goal in using a particular piece of equipment, whether it is an organ or piano? Many churches have improperly sized or poorly voiced organs because these kinds of questions were not asked.
 
Roseeurekacross said:
Looks aghast. 🙀
Click to expand...
I think we’re in agreement that vocal music / chant is supposed to be the primary music of the Church.
I think our point of disagreement is that the Church doesn’t quite seem to define the human voice as an instrument. But go ahead and be aghast all you want…😉
116. 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.
But 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, as laid down in Art. 30.
  1. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.
Click to expand...

Sacrosanctum Concilium

Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy - Sacrosanctum Concilium
www.vatican.va
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
We’re talking about instruments, I thought. Voice and chant are certainly crucial in the Mass, and more important than any instrumental music, but the human voice is not an instrument. By definition.
Click to expand...
While not an instrument, voice is preferred. Gregorian chant is the preferred music for the liturgy, as Sacrosanctum Concilium points out. And the preferred way to chant, indeed the way it is meant to be chanted, is a cappella.

Not all choirs were created equal though, so some organ support is acceptable. When I started in our schola 16 years ago we had an organist for that purpose, and when he quit we made the decision to go a cappella. The result was a significant improvement in our skill level, as we were suddenly forced to concentrate on what we were doing. It was our best decision ever. We now again have an excellent organist in our schola but we only let him play preludes, offertories and postludes; the rest of the time he has to chant like the rest of us. 😉
 
I prefer Organ. Not only because its more traditional and I prefer the sound but it beautifully fills up the Cathedral I attend whereas I doubt a piano would resonate with half the depth.
 
OraLabora said:
While not an instrument, voice is preferred.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong but think OP is asking about mutually exclusive instruments, i.e. that aren’t played together, such as Piano and Organ. Voice and Organ frequently go together.
 
OraLabora said:
We’re talking about instruments, I thought. Voice and chant are certainly crucial in the Mass, and more important than any instrumental music, but the human voice is not an instrument. By definition.
Click to expand...
I’ve read this a couple times on this thread and am wondering why some don’t consider Voice as an instrument? Voice is taught (as is vocal singing , a technique) as an instrument. For arguments sake, how are you defining an “instrument” without overtly putting a condition to make it a non-human component entity? (I think of defining instrument in terms of the prayer of St. Francis).

For example, one can use their hands as percussive instruments or use them to play the organ. So it is appropriate usage, and not barring your hands being used in the liturgy.

Cannot any instrument (musical or not) be utilized in praise to God? (Consider Psalm 150…) A human soul must cause an instrument to produce its sound. Is this not a gift of stewardship that needs to be suppressed from Liturgy?

Yes there should be restrictions as to the form, appropriateness, and subservience to the Liturgy. But how does fulfilling those requirements eliminate certain instruments themselves?
Click to expand...
 
Well, I think that voice does function in a music-making capacity, but in this particular discussion, “What do traditionalists think of the Piano”, voice is a separate category and not a subject of discussion while we are comparing the relative merits of piano v. organ. For instance, the Vatican II document quoted above, “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, discusses the use and merit of the singing voice separately from the use of “instruments”, i.e. organ, piano, etc.
 
Last edited:
A church I used to go to was a fairly new church building (20 years old at the time I was there and had been designed around a beautiful pipe organ which was in a choir loft. There was also a grand piano in the loft that was used at times but what I remember is the beautiful organ music. The church had a sound system which was built and modified by the then pastor. He was a holy and reverent man, an excellent pastor, a whiz at computers and web programming and did not know the first thing about acoustic engineering. The acoustics in the church were just fine until the sound system was turned on.

I think the problem with many churches is that the acoustics and the instruments that support liturgical music are way down on the priority list (it they are considered at all) when the building is being designed.

By the by,in answer to the OP’s question, I prefer organ but pianos are more common as are piano players and that, I would guess is probably a major deciding factor for many parishes.

Patrick
AMDG
 
For church music I much prefer the organ, preferably a huge pipe organ but I realize there aren’t enough of them to go around.

I grew up in a home with five siblings, all of whom played piano and guitar. By the time I was 18 I couldn’t stand the sound of either one.
 
Drums and guitars do not belong at mass. I don’t mind them at fellowship afterwards, but I’d rather see the guitar splintered against the head of the music director than listen to whatever is going to be broadcast from it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top