M
moreorless
Guest
I’m having a good time trying to imagine a didgeridoo at Mass
- Status
C
Cat
Guest
Is it really a fact that guitars were not used in Mass until the 1970s? How about in the Latino nations?
Even if guitars were never used until the 1970s, that doesn’t make them wrong. After all, the vernacular was not used for Mass until the 1960s, right?
I’m not sure what the official name for this kind of thing is, but I know that the Church is living, and does not dig in at a certain time in history and stay there unmoving (like the Amish). The Church continues to add and subtract practices and make changes even to the as the Holy Spirit reveals the need to the Magisterium.
C
Cat
Guest
I think the local parish has to be very careful not to exclude willing musicians because they “are not talented” or “lack skill,” and I think all of us have to be more gracious in accepting the musical offerings of those who play and sing in our Masses, even if those offerings are a little painful at times.
Yes, there is definitely a bottom line. There are technical standards, and there should be a “minimum” standard set by the priest and the music director of the parish. A young child or enthusiastic adult who can only play piano with one finger and does not read music yet is probably not going to be able to play for Mass no matter how willing he/she is. A willing guitarist who only knows a few chords probably won’t play for Mass either.
Also, sadly, a pianist or organist who has a physical condition that has stiffened their fingers (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis) is, sadly, probably not going to to be able to play for Mass. Heartbreaking but necessary.
And there are behavioral standards. A musician who is obviously “performing” (takes bows, blows kisses, wears costumes, etc.) should be counselled by the priest and only allowed to play if they are able to tone down their secular stage presence.
But assuming that musicians are technically and physically capable of playing/singing, and have a “servants” heart and attitude, they should be allowed to play/sing, unless the parish is a world-famous metropolitan cathedral in which the standards must of necessity be set very high to adhere to the expectations of the many people who visit a world-famous metropolitan cathedral.
But in most parishes, there are musicians and singers who are hardly professional in their abilities. After all, most musicians (I would include myself in this list) only play once in a while, not everyday, and because they work in another job (including taking care of a home and family), they do not practice daily and are therefore not virtuosos.
I do not believe that these musicians should be excluded from playing or singing at Mass, even if they are not ethereal in their delivery of their musical offering.
First of all, there is not a line of professional musicians with great talent waiting eagerly to minister at Mass for a very low or non-existent renumeration.
Secondly, the Holy Spirit uses people where they are and can make use of a “cracked vessel.” We as humans cannot judge someone’s usefulness in the Kingdom of God on the basis of what they lack as humans. What is impossible for man is possible with God.
Thirdly, everyone has to start somewhere. Children and teenagers especially lack experience at playing/singing at Mass, but the only way they will gain experience is if someone gives them the opportunity to play/sing and learn (the hard way!).
Fourthly, as many have pointed out over and over again on these forums, Mass is NOT a performance. We should not be “critiquing” someone’s musical contribution to Mass as we would a concert. In my opinion, a Mass attendee who “critiques” the music and the musicians is no less worldly than a Mass musician who “performs”.
Yes, there is definitely a bottom line. There are technical standards, and there should be a “minimum” standard set by the priest and the music director of the parish. A young child or enthusiastic adult who can only play piano with one finger and does not read music yet is probably not going to be able to play for Mass no matter how willing he/she is. A willing guitarist who only knows a few chords probably won’t play for Mass either.
Also, sadly, a pianist or organist who has a physical condition that has stiffened their fingers (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis) is, sadly, probably not going to to be able to play for Mass. Heartbreaking but necessary.
And there are behavioral standards. A musician who is obviously “performing” (takes bows, blows kisses, wears costumes, etc.) should be counselled by the priest and only allowed to play if they are able to tone down their secular stage presence.
But assuming that musicians are technically and physically capable of playing/singing, and have a “servants” heart and attitude, they should be allowed to play/sing, unless the parish is a world-famous metropolitan cathedral in which the standards must of necessity be set very high to adhere to the expectations of the many people who visit a world-famous metropolitan cathedral.
But in most parishes, there are musicians and singers who are hardly professional in their abilities. After all, most musicians (I would include myself in this list) only play once in a while, not everyday, and because they work in another job (including taking care of a home and family), they do not practice daily and are therefore not virtuosos.
I do not believe that these musicians should be excluded from playing or singing at Mass, even if they are not ethereal in their delivery of their musical offering.
First of all, there is not a line of professional musicians with great talent waiting eagerly to minister at Mass for a very low or non-existent renumeration.
Secondly, the Holy Spirit uses people where they are and can make use of a “cracked vessel.” We as humans cannot judge someone’s usefulness in the Kingdom of God on the basis of what they lack as humans. What is impossible for man is possible with God.
Thirdly, everyone has to start somewhere. Children and teenagers especially lack experience at playing/singing at Mass, but the only way they will gain experience is if someone gives them the opportunity to play/sing and learn (the hard way!).
Fourthly, as many have pointed out over and over again on these forums, Mass is NOT a performance. We should not be “critiquing” someone’s musical contribution to Mass as we would a concert. In my opinion, a Mass attendee who “critiques” the music and the musicians is no less worldly than a Mass musician who “performs”.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Pride of place doesn’t necessarly mean exclusivity… In fact by the very nature of the words there is an acknowlegement that there are other instruments allowed in the Mass. In fact, even traditionally more than just the pipe organ and gregorian chant have been used. Violins, trumpets etc have all found their way into mass, but some how not caused the stir that the guitar has. Probably because of the guitar’s connection to “devil music”.
Regardless, even if guitars can plan “devil music” I would suggest they can also play music which effectivly praises God. Yes I’m happier with pipe organs and Gregorian Chant, but I’m not offended by guitars either. And I realize some people prefer them.
E
elgar
Guest
I find it very distracting having to watch those show-off performers, even if they are proficient at their art. There probably was a good reason that organs and choirs of years past were relegated to the loft and out of sight. I say if they perform up front–which is all the rage these days–sing and play behind a screen. I’m sure that would go over well. Hee-hee.
C
Cat
Guest
I think that playing or singing behind a screen would actually call more attention to the musicians.
I would have objection to playing behind a screen because as an accompanist, I like to be able to see those whom I am accompanying. I know that other pianists will understand what I am saying. I watch the congregation and gauge their “mood” and play accordingly to help them get more out of the music. If they’re bored, I speed things up and put more power into the attack on the keyboard. If they are thoughtful, I soften up and play in a more reflective style.
I’ve played piano for congregational singing for more than 40 years, and this kind of thing takes time to learn.
I’ve played in churches, Catholic and Protestant, where there is a balcony for the musicians in the back of the church. I have a hard time with this. I know that a lot of organists use mirrors to watch the congregation, but since I wasn’t trained to do this, I think I would just make a mess out of it (probably fall of the bench!).
I think that if you feel that a musician is being too “showy,” you probably should try to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that their heart is pure. (Our bishop suggested that all of us do this on his “morning minute” this morning on TV.)
Musicians develop certain mannerisms over the years that are very hard to stop. For example, I often finish playing pieces with a “flourish;” i.e., my hand goes up in the air. (Watch Liberace sometimes on youtube and you’ll see what I mean.)
Thankfully the piano in our parish is arranged in such a way that most people in the congregation will not see this. I’ve tried to be more aware, but it’s such an ingrained habit.
Also, I tend to sway when I play. I’ve always done so. My piano teachers tried to break me of this, but it never worked. I just love the music so much and “feel” it throughout my whole body. I’m not a dancer (raised Baptist and dancing was a sin!), so perhaps this is my way of “dancing.” Honestly, I’m not “showing off” or “performing” when I sway–I’m just loving the music.
I know that other musicians have other mannerisms that can be annoying to people in the congregation who are especially sensitive to anything that smacks of “performing.” But I beg you to please give the musicians the benefit of the doubt. You probably have mannerisms, too, that are habitual, that you don’t even know you are doing, and that look “bad.” e.g., Maybe you frown when you smile. Or maybe you bite your lip or roll your eyes or sigh loudly (have you ever noticed that a lot of children do this? I’m guessing that adults who do it can trace the habit all the way back to their toddler days).
You wouldn’t like it if anyone judged you, so please don’t judge the musicians. Most of them honestly have pure hearts and holy motives when the play or sing in Mass.
J
JHow
Guest
You know, the Orginal Poster mentions guitars in the context of youth retreats, presumably in an outdoor setting, at camp? maybe with no outlet to plug into? maybe lacking a piano or organ, smaller group than back home in the parish church?
Does the more portable nature of a guitar now become an advantage in accompanying the singing, such that it is more acceptable in such a setting?
Also, the guitar does belong to a distinct (albeit “low”) tradition of campfire songs. (Think Kum-Ba-ya, Michael Row the Boat, you know the genre). Does the pride of place of the organ cede a bit under these circumstances?
A further thought: In Poland I witnessed a “field mass” (msza polowa) for a hunting club, held outdoors, accompanied exclusively by brass instruments. Attendees were in their traditional hunting attire (cool hats!) and brought their dogs (and guns and equipment). When the horns lit up, so did the dogs (Owoooo!).
For the anti-guitarists, was this really wrong, or can it be understood in its context of place and time? (I have no answer, and can be persuaded either way).
I admit that I laughed inside at the baying hounds (it was one in particular, who just seemd to want to talk to the french horn). Was that wrong of me?
Does the more portable nature of a guitar now become an advantage in accompanying the singing, such that it is more acceptable in such a setting?
Also, the guitar does belong to a distinct (albeit “low”) tradition of campfire songs. (Think Kum-Ba-ya, Michael Row the Boat, you know the genre). Does the pride of place of the organ cede a bit under these circumstances?
A further thought: In Poland I witnessed a “field mass” (msza polowa) for a hunting club, held outdoors, accompanied exclusively by brass instruments. Attendees were in their traditional hunting attire (cool hats!) and brought their dogs (and guns and equipment). When the horns lit up, so did the dogs (Owoooo!).
For the anti-guitarists, was this really wrong, or can it be understood in its context of place and time? (I have no answer, and can be persuaded either way).
I admit that I laughed inside at the baying hounds (it was one in particular, who just seemd to want to talk to the french horn). Was that wrong of me?
D
Dubliner
Guest
It’s the music that matters not the instrument.
S
SimonDodd
Guest
S
SimonDodd
Guest
Yes, but why is there an assumption that in such settings, guitar accompaniment is better than no accompaniment? My parish’s daily Mass has no accompaniment, yet we still manage to sing a hymn and, generally, the Sanctus and the memorial acclamation. And that’s better than this, which I think is the kind of thing the OP had in mind.
J
JHow
Guest
Okay, Simon’s link is why I am conflicted on this subject. While in my head I can imagine guitar being used in theory at mass and it being a beautiful thing (my tastes run to Parkening and Bach), in practice it comes out as “rock mass” or “kum-ba-yah mass”.
To the no-instrument crowd, I have to say, you need to go one further: no song book!
This I have witnessed in Poland. They typically have no instrumentation and no song book, so they sing what they know - what everybody knows - and everybody participates (not like here). It works, its beautiful, but it requires a unified culture, which we don’t have.
To the no-instrument crowd, I have to say, you need to go one further: no song book!
This I have witnessed in Poland. They typically have no instrumentation and no song book, so they sing what they know - what everybody knows - and everybody participates (not like here). It works, its beautiful, but it requires a unified culture, which we don’t have.
R
rben20
Guest
Council of Trent would say otherwise…
C
crazzeto
Guest
Here’s the reference to music I found in Trent:
I’ll admit I have yet to read the whole church document, so I’m not completely familiar with it. But do you have any part of the document to offer which suggests otherwise? It seems to me that Trent is saying exactly what was stated by Dubliner.
M
moreorless
Guest
Here I go again being a broken record. This is the last time I will say this (okay, probably not). Just because something is not banned does not make it preferred or ideal. I think most (I would like to say “all” but “all” is a dangerous word) liturgical music can be jammed into one of these three categories:
We miss the point when we spend so much time arguing (and I am as guilty of this as anyone) whether something is banned or not. I think that we, especially those of us who are church musicians, have a responsibility to make sure that everything we do, at a minimum, fits into the “allowed” category, and I think that most musicians do a good job at that. But we also have a responsibility to be trying to move into the “preferred” and “ideal” categories.
The syllogism “A is not banned, so therefore A is allowed, so therefore A is the best possible choice” does not follow logically.
Example: music to accompany the reception of holy communion. “One Bread, One Body” is allowed. A seasonal antiphon or psalm: preferred. The proper antiphon: ideal.
Why do so many seem to oppose moving toward the preferred and ideal?
- Ideal
- Preferred
- Allowed
We miss the point when we spend so much time arguing (and I am as guilty of this as anyone) whether something is banned or not. I think that we, especially those of us who are church musicians, have a responsibility to make sure that everything we do, at a minimum, fits into the “allowed” category, and I think that most musicians do a good job at that. But we also have a responsibility to be trying to move into the “preferred” and “ideal” categories.
The syllogism “A is not banned, so therefore A is allowed, so therefore A is the best possible choice” does not follow logically.
Example: music to accompany the reception of holy communion. “One Bread, One Body” is allowed. A seasonal antiphon or psalm: preferred. The proper antiphon: ideal.
Why do so many seem to oppose moving toward the preferred and ideal?
J
JHow
Guest
I’m not opposed to moving toward the preferred or Ideal. However, sitting in the pews for while, I would like a move to the excellent in music, which we clearly don’t have now. Further, the swing from traditional music to folk to modern to backlash is all in the hands of liturgists, music directors, pastors, bishops - and they clearly all aren’t on the same sheet of music, so to speak.
C
crazzeto
Guest
- It’s not always so cut and dry, as is in the case of a retreat yougth mass. You might be outside, in a field etc.
- There is some attention being paid to making sure the majority of people are as engaged as possible at mass. I hate to say it in our culture what is actually ideal isn’t always as engaging as some hyms which may not be ideal (gregorian chant, pipe organ) but are in fact allowed
S
SimonDodd
Guest
If the guitar is “by common opinion and use” suitable only for secular music like rock and roll, then Musicam Sacram 63 “stop
One way to read Musicam Sacram is to say that it does nothing more than polices the boundary, keeping out only things that everyone—discounting any kind of heckler’s veto—agrees are unsuitable for Mass. I’m talking about waterphone, gamelan, theremin, hydraulophone, drumkit, kazoo, and the like. I suspect, however, that a more sympathetic, purposive reading is warranted and appropriate, because the literal reading renders it a dead letter. “[T]hose instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only,” are unlikely to ever be at issue; if everybody agrees they shouldn’t be used at Mass, no one would try to use them at Mass, and so a narrow, literal reading of MS63 makes it a vain and useless instruction. The question is how broadly it should sweep, and while there’s some allure to reading MS63 to cover instruments whose primary association is with secular music, I don’t have a good answer for that.
M
moreorless
Guest
I agree 100% with point no. 1. There are of course situations where pipe organ and a chant schola are simply impossible. In my view, this is why the Church’s documents allow for exceptions, and some deviation from the ideal.
I mostly disagree with point no. 2. People should not be coming to Mass to be entertained. But further, the Church has a responsibility to educate and catechize people about why what is preferred is preferred and what is ideal is ideal. Music leaders share in that responsibility.
I also realize that we cannot shock people into the ideal, which is why Cat’s earlier point made sense: that it is best to move toward the preferred and the ideal incrementally. For example, why not go from singing 4 hymns at Mass (Entrance, Offertory, Communion, Recessional) to singing 3 hymns (Entrance, Offertory, Recessional) and one proper (communion antiphon)? Instead, however, I have seen too many music directors use the incrementalism argument as an excuse not to even attempt to move toward the ideal. I believe that we have a sacred responsibility to move toward the ideal, or make a good faith effort to do so.
- Status