What do traditionalists think of the Piano?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually the church does, read those documents you posted. Voice first and foremost, and if it needs support, get your other instruments .
That quote doesn’t support your premise that the voice is not an instrument, or considered one, by the Latin Roman Rite Church.

That quote discusses other kinds of Sacred music, and the pipe organ as the traditional instrument, after voice being given pride of place.
We must acknowledge what the writer means by polyphony as opposed to the chant

Ps your link doesn’t work

My argument here is that the voice is defined as an instrument. Vocal chords are instruments.

We can argue different man made musical instrument and their uses in the Mass all day, we can argue male only or male female choirs and that’s ok.

It won’t make the voice any less an instrument of itself. And I believe one of the opening clauses of the document from 1903 discusses the voice as an instrument.

The OP asked, the first two instruments are voice, then organ. And that’s the ( I hate to use the word traditionalist). I will use preferred way of the Latin Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

I make music for Mass and attend both EF and OF . We use pipe organ and electric organ. We bring many splendid and beautiful instruments in over Advent and Christmas

I will also say to the OP , if we want to get down to brass tacks, we do what a King David did 👼
 
Last edited:
Go the document for that ? I would like to read it. Thankyou.
 
Aquinas11 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Piano and organ not played together? Since when?

D
 
Pipe organs for churches are quite expensive, I believe they are all custom built. And it costs a lot to periodically rehab the instruments as well.

I think people are picking a nit when they “insist” on this particular instrument, without considering the costs.

The late Andrew Carnegie was among the industrialists that donated a lot of pipe organs to churches, it took someone like Carnegie to be able to afford it. I never heard of modern tycoons like Gates or Bezos making this kind of donation.

www.carnegie.org

Church Organs, Andrew Carnegie’s Passion! | Carnegie Corporation of New York

While Carnegie Corporation of New York no longer supports the donation and refurbishment of church organs, these instruments were a passion of our founder, Andrew Carnegie, who paid for new organs in thousands of community churches.
www.carnegie.org www.carnegie.org
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that, but the question still remains with respect to anyone’s opinions concerning Piano when you account for the meanings of these definitions. And that is why I am asking.

The Documents are really silent with regards to the definitions. Since it is not Dogmatic and can be changed, I am essentially asking if Traditionalists are blindly following and support unchanging something that can be changed.

Essentially, should it be as it is now, for reasons and definition I have given? Or should it not be changed for allowance. And in your opinions, why?..for or against. I cannot find a reasonable argument that should prohibit usage in this reference. It is my opinion that music has evolved along (in the Sacred sphere) to the point where allowance of these instruments, if done appropriately, can be allowed. Faith remains what it is, but music, instruments, and usage have changed significantly over time.

I am trying to evoke more than just opinion and personal taste and bring forward a discussion proper place of instruments, music and its usage, with respect to liturgical use.
 
DaveBj said:
40.png
Aquinas11:
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.
Click to expand...
Piano and organ not played together? Since when?

D
Click to expand...
Talk to a piano tuner about inharmonicity that all pianos have but is not present in pipe organs. That makes impossible to tune a piano and and organ so that they are perfectly in tune with each other. This does not stop people from trying to play them together, but they really shouldn’t.
 
It’s not just the instrument, but also finding a musician who can play the instrument. Finding someone who can actually play a pipe organ well can be difficult-to-impossible, depending on the size of the community and the general location. Finding someone who can play a piano is usually a much easier proposition.
 
The piano was condemned at the Fifth Synod of Carthage in 878. Note that it was utterly condemned without exception. That being said, its recreational use is only a venial sin. Its liturgical use is a grave sin.

True story.
 
If people would sing with full voices , then the organ wouldn’t overwhelm the voices.

🤔
 
The “voice” is not an instrument, but the human body is.

I just finished accompanying a woman’s choir (beginners, not expert singers), and the director spent about a half hour during warm-ups explaining “the instrument” that most humans have, and how to properly use it. Very helpful information.
 
Really? “…splintered against the head of the music director…”

Rather violent language. Hope you don’t feel the same way about the piano. 😱

“Fellowship afterwards?” Really? Your parish has this? With music? Wow. I wish our parish would do this.
 
Definitely expensive. I believe the pipe organ in our parish cost nearly a million dollars, and was donated.
 
I got that (name removed by moderator). I am asking for more modern documentation, post Pius XII. We have had a whole bunch of new documentation since 1958. VaticanII was prolific in documentation.

I am sure there will be Papal statements about mixed choirs in post VatII documents.
 
Last edited:
I took that post to be an attempt to add a bit of levity. I initially read it and thought to myself, wait a minute. There were no pianos back then. That must mean tongue in cheek mode.
 
I was being sarcastic. Dry humour.
I was trying to highlight the absurdity of the position some “traditionalists” take in these matters but perhaps I was too subtle ;).
 
I think the organ is a much stronger musical instruement and has much more tradition in being used for contemplative worship. I would favour that.

I am open as well to having separate choirs for the different sexes. I think we ppssibly lose a lot in mixing them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top