A
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I have no reason to doubt your explanation of its origins.
L
ltbpoe43
Guest
Cause we aint’ got no ryhthm.
N
NetNuncio
Guest
I think we need to visit the whole point of liturgical music. One poster mentioned that they attend a particular Mass because they like the music. A statement such as this concerns me, in that the music may just make one feel good or become a source of entertainment.
Another issue is what Praise and Worship, or contemporary Christian music, invokes in matters of feeling. Music that sounds like a rock concert invokes feelings of a rock concert, music that sounds like a cocktail bar invokes the feelings of a cocktail bar. One can disagree with me all they wish, but I would be quite interested in the differences in feelings of a Catholic who is educated in the faith who attends a Mass with contemporary Christian music and then attends a Mass with Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony.
As for the I’s opposed to the we’s, I find that less of an issue. While it is true that the liturgy is a communal act, it is made up of individuals with individual spiritualities. One can note in the ordinary of the Mass “I Confess to Almighty God (not WE confess)”, the renewal of baptismal promises contains the response “I Do”, not “WE do”. In the new English translation of the Mass, we see the Credo beginning “I believe in one God”, which is the proper translation of “Credo in unum Deum” (not WE believe in one God").
When it comes to individual cultures, such as African, Asian and Pacific Islanders, it may be appropriate to use music from their culture for pastoral reasons. However, it makes little sense for a predominently anglo cultured congregation to use African American Spirituals.
When it comes right down to it, I would hope people would want the music to foster spirituality and proper form. Our religion is not one based on feeling, but on intellect, knowledge of the faith and wisdom. I would hope that we would not sink with the rest of American Society in pandering to what makes people feel good and what will change with every generation (do you listen to the same music your parents or children do?). I hope we will stick to the music of the Church, which has endured for centuries.
Another issue is what Praise and Worship, or contemporary Christian music, invokes in matters of feeling. Music that sounds like a rock concert invokes feelings of a rock concert, music that sounds like a cocktail bar invokes the feelings of a cocktail bar. One can disagree with me all they wish, but I would be quite interested in the differences in feelings of a Catholic who is educated in the faith who attends a Mass with contemporary Christian music and then attends a Mass with Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony.
As for the I’s opposed to the we’s, I find that less of an issue. While it is true that the liturgy is a communal act, it is made up of individuals with individual spiritualities. One can note in the ordinary of the Mass “I Confess to Almighty God (not WE confess)”, the renewal of baptismal promises contains the response “I Do”, not “WE do”. In the new English translation of the Mass, we see the Credo beginning “I believe in one God”, which is the proper translation of “Credo in unum Deum” (not WE believe in one God").
When it comes to individual cultures, such as African, Asian and Pacific Islanders, it may be appropriate to use music from their culture for pastoral reasons. However, it makes little sense for a predominently anglo cultured congregation to use African American Spirituals.
When it comes right down to it, I would hope people would want the music to foster spirituality and proper form. Our religion is not one based on feeling, but on intellect, knowledge of the faith and wisdom. I would hope that we would not sink with the rest of American Society in pandering to what makes people feel good and what will change with every generation (do you listen to the same music your parents or children do?). I hope we will stick to the music of the Church, which has endured for centuries.
S
Sarabande
Guest
Well-written, Netnuncio, and many good things were mentioned. 
I understand your conern with your first statement, as I believe people can sometimes have the tendency to focus more on the entertainment aspect of music or any kind of art rather than the actual spiritual enhancement. But, I believe many times people “enjoy” the music of a particular mass because it does help them focus on the spiritual aspects of the mass and on their prayer.
For instance, I try to avoid masses that use Praise and Worship music. As I’ve mentioned before P&W have made me physically sick when subjected to an hour’s worth of it and I have actually had little panic attacks because of it. I can’t explain the physical aversion, and I have spent my time at mass praying for it to go away and to let me focus on the mass. I’ve always had to attend another mass afterwards at a different church, so I’ve just made a point to not attend masses with that music. Strangely enough, I don’t get that way if I hear it outside of mass, but that is probably because I can leave the room and not feel subjected to stay there.
I attend mass at specific churches that either have no music or have a great or decent music program, not just because the music is good, but mainly because it helps me focus on the mass and on God. As a musician, music is my main form of prayer and praise to God. I definitely do not need it for mass, which is why I don’t mind attending a mass without music. But because I am so intertwined with music and have it as a form of spiritual prayer for me, certain kinds of music at mass make me physicall ill. (I guess I just answered why I do have a physical aversion to P&W.)
For me what helps me focus on God and the mass (although it is not absolutely needed) are Gregorian chant, polyphony, motets, etc. Mind you, I did not grow up with this music. I grew up in the 80s and 90s and so heard the worse of the folksy tunes and hymns, plus really bad contemporary Christian rock from cousins who were born-again Christians. I was introduced to chant, polyphony and other centuries of sacred music first by my voice teacher, who was Jewish. She was the one who told me that this music wasn’t for hearing on a cd or concert stage and remembered the days when she was a singer at Catholic churches and they did this kind of music. I mean, as a child, I remember hearing this music and wondered why we never did it during mass anymore because it felt so deep, but I just thought it wasn’t allowed anymore. Then in college, when I studied abroad and heard this music for the first time during mass at small parishes and large ones, that’s when I was converted to our long tradition of music and realized how glorious and perfect it was for a traditional mass. As a friend once said, although it’s ok, you can’t go back to Cool Whip once you’ve had the real whipped cream.
It’s a different story for cultural parishes and I believe their practices and music work, especially if they are liturgically correct, although it always feels contrived when people outside of that culture try to imitate it. I actually joined a Gospel choir when I attended a Catholic high school. I was friends with a group of African-American girls on my track team who were in the choir, so I thought I’d try it out. The school didn’t have a classical choir, and this was the best they had. It actually was a good Gospel choir from what I remembered of it. I quickly realized, though, that it just wasn’t me and I was forcing myself to be something that I was not, so I quit after a few rehearsals. Funny enough, I had to go to a public school in order to sing sacred Catholic motets. But it wasn’t the same.
And although I am a paid cantor and do help lead people in the singing of hymns, I actually prefer hearing a decent choir, whether I’m in a church with a choir singing Tallis or Palestrina, an African-American parish with a choir singing Gospel or a Filipino Parish with a choir singing their own music. As long as I can’t see them, up in a choir loft behind me so that it sounds like angels singing from heaven and so that my attention won’t be taken away from the mass.
I understand your conern with your first statement, as I believe people can sometimes have the tendency to focus more on the entertainment aspect of music or any kind of art rather than the actual spiritual enhancement. But, I believe many times people “enjoy” the music of a particular mass because it does help them focus on the spiritual aspects of the mass and on their prayer.
For instance, I try to avoid masses that use Praise and Worship music. As I’ve mentioned before P&W have made me physically sick when subjected to an hour’s worth of it and I have actually had little panic attacks because of it. I can’t explain the physical aversion, and I have spent my time at mass praying for it to go away and to let me focus on the mass. I’ve always had to attend another mass afterwards at a different church, so I’ve just made a point to not attend masses with that music. Strangely enough, I don’t get that way if I hear it outside of mass, but that is probably because I can leave the room and not feel subjected to stay there.
I attend mass at specific churches that either have no music or have a great or decent music program, not just because the music is good, but mainly because it helps me focus on the mass and on God. As a musician, music is my main form of prayer and praise to God. I definitely do not need it for mass, which is why I don’t mind attending a mass without music. But because I am so intertwined with music and have it as a form of spiritual prayer for me, certain kinds of music at mass make me physicall ill. (I guess I just answered why I do have a physical aversion to P&W.)
For me what helps me focus on God and the mass (although it is not absolutely needed) are Gregorian chant, polyphony, motets, etc. Mind you, I did not grow up with this music. I grew up in the 80s and 90s and so heard the worse of the folksy tunes and hymns, plus really bad contemporary Christian rock from cousins who were born-again Christians. I was introduced to chant, polyphony and other centuries of sacred music first by my voice teacher, who was Jewish. She was the one who told me that this music wasn’t for hearing on a cd or concert stage and remembered the days when she was a singer at Catholic churches and they did this kind of music. I mean, as a child, I remember hearing this music and wondered why we never did it during mass anymore because it felt so deep, but I just thought it wasn’t allowed anymore. Then in college, when I studied abroad and heard this music for the first time during mass at small parishes and large ones, that’s when I was converted to our long tradition of music and realized how glorious and perfect it was for a traditional mass. As a friend once said, although it’s ok, you can’t go back to Cool Whip once you’ve had the real whipped cream.
It’s a different story for cultural parishes and I believe their practices and music work, especially if they are liturgically correct, although it always feels contrived when people outside of that culture try to imitate it. I actually joined a Gospel choir when I attended a Catholic high school. I was friends with a group of African-American girls on my track team who were in the choir, so I thought I’d try it out. The school didn’t have a classical choir, and this was the best they had. It actually was a good Gospel choir from what I remembered of it. I quickly realized, though, that it just wasn’t me and I was forcing myself to be something that I was not, so I quit after a few rehearsals. Funny enough, I had to go to a public school in order to sing sacred Catholic motets. But it wasn’t the same.
And although I am a paid cantor and do help lead people in the singing of hymns, I actually prefer hearing a decent choir, whether I’m in a church with a choir singing Tallis or Palestrina, an African-American parish with a choir singing Gospel or a Filipino Parish with a choir singing their own music. As long as I can’t see them, up in a choir loft behind me so that it sounds like angels singing from heaven and so that my attention won’t be taken away from the mass.
V
VociMike
Guest
And it’s worth pointing out that those who support contemporary-sounding music in the liturgy do so largely for the very reason that it evokes secular moods. They word it differently (“it’s what they know”, “it sounds familiar to them”, “it’s fashionable, or relevant, or not stuffy and old-fashioned”), but it all comes down to “this music is suitable for the liturgy precisely because it has secular connotations”. It is not clear why secular connotations is a desirable thing for liturgical music, especially since the secular world does secular connotations much better than any parish musicians and parish music could possibly do them.
I agree that our religion is based on intellect, knowledge of the faith, and wisdom. But I consider it a dangerous thing to systematically dismiss feeling. In my opinion, the fact that we are a feeling people is one of the very reasons music is so important. Music is a means of uniting/conforming our feelings with our souls and intellects. Thus we can worship as a whole person. I would agree that the type of music is is important. But I also believe that music must sometimes touch people where they are before it can move them to where they need to be.
Actually, I do tend to like the music to which two of my children listen. We all like classic rock. But I have much broader musical likes than they do or than I did at their age.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I have probably already exhausted everything I can contribute here, but I would like to say one last thing.
I, too, would love to hear traditional and intellectually inspiring music at Mass, especially if it’s well done. I was just knocked out, for example, listening to the music at “The Grotto” in Detroit. I couldn’t believe how good those people are with very complex compositions.
But in a lot of parishes, there is no possibility of getting that kind of a group together. Maybe Gregorian Chant in unison would be the maximum achievable. Maybe, maybe, maybe some kind of very simple harmony with a few people salted here and there who could carry the harmony parts. In some places, the music has to be simple and easy to sing. Familiarity with the genre can help.
Also, in some places, folk song attempts and complicated melodies with key shifts just don’t work. In some places, the “culture” is attuned to organically-grown music like Southern Gospel. That’s particularly true in parishes like mine where there are a lot of converts from fundamentalism.
I guess my point is that it would be nice to have the very best, like at The Grotto. But when the parish can manage very simple harmonies at the outside, something else needs to be utilized. But it also has to resonate with the people spiritually; however that resonance originates. If it’s gospel tunes a lot of them heard on the radio and pervaded their environment all their lives, and which are not in some manner contrary to the doctrines of the Church, then I think parishes and bishops ought to look at those forms of music, instead of forcing something utterly alien on them, like the Marty Haugen, St. Louis Jesuits stuff everybody is supposed to learn to sing, but nobody does because nobody can stand to hear it, let alone try to sing it.
I, too, would love to hear traditional and intellectually inspiring music at Mass, especially if it’s well done. I was just knocked out, for example, listening to the music at “The Grotto” in Detroit. I couldn’t believe how good those people are with very complex compositions.
But in a lot of parishes, there is no possibility of getting that kind of a group together. Maybe Gregorian Chant in unison would be the maximum achievable. Maybe, maybe, maybe some kind of very simple harmony with a few people salted here and there who could carry the harmony parts. In some places, the music has to be simple and easy to sing. Familiarity with the genre can help.
Also, in some places, folk song attempts and complicated melodies with key shifts just don’t work. In some places, the “culture” is attuned to organically-grown music like Southern Gospel. That’s particularly true in parishes like mine where there are a lot of converts from fundamentalism.
I guess my point is that it would be nice to have the very best, like at The Grotto. But when the parish can manage very simple harmonies at the outside, something else needs to be utilized. But it also has to resonate with the people spiritually; however that resonance originates. If it’s gospel tunes a lot of them heard on the radio and pervaded their environment all their lives, and which are not in some manner contrary to the doctrines of the Church, then I think parishes and bishops ought to look at those forms of music, instead of forcing something utterly alien on them, like the Marty Haugen, St. Louis Jesuits stuff everybody is supposed to learn to sing, but nobody does because nobody can stand to hear it, let alone try to sing it.
C
Cat
Guest
I just finished reading The History of Catholic Church Music by Karl Gustav Fellerer, translated by Francis A. Brunner, S.Ss.R.
Copyright 1949, republished in English in 1961.
According to the jacket notes, “This is the only complete and authoritative account of Catholic church music in English today.”
The book has the Nihil Obstat from Edward A Cerny, S.S., S.T.D, and the Imprimatur from Francis P. Keough, D.D., Archbishop of Baltimore, September 26, 1961.
So this is definitely NOT a Vat. II book.
There was a lot of technical information about the various forms of Catholic music through the centuries. Much of it was difficult for me to fully grasp, as I am a pianist, not a vocalist or organist.
There was also a very detailed account of the various styles of music and their composers. I finally know who Palestrina was (I have the impression that we’re supposed to make some gesture of awe whenever we mention his name, so how’s this: :getholy: We’re not worthy!!).
But the main thing that I got out of this book is that the music wars in the Catholic Church have been going on since the Apostles took over from Jesus.
I’ve heard so much talk on this board about Gregorian Chant and how perfect and sublime it is. I’ve heard so much talk on this board that implies that Gregorian Chant and polyphony were the “norm” until the Vat II upended everything.
Well, that’s not what this history book said. This book showed that **in almost every papacy, there were conflicts about the liturgy and what kind of music is appropriate for Mass. ** It’s amazing how many popes conducted a “study of liturgical music.” Of course, the biggie was Pope Pius X and his motu proprio in 1903.
But his wasn’t the first papal “proclamation” and it certainly wasn’t the last.
I would hate to be the Pope. I’m sure one reason why the men don’t want the job is because they know they will face “the music wars” of their time!
This book pointed out that there are music texts that demonstrate that much of the “chant” music was also the musical style of that time. *IOW, chant was the “contemporary music” of the Gregorian age and it became the CCM of that time! *
Please forgive me while I indulge in a “ha ha!” I will go to confession and confess the sin of gloating.
And apparently the “Latin” vs. “vernacular” has been a struggle from the time the Church first started using Latin in the Mass. This is not something that came up after Vatican II, which is the impression that I have received from many on this Board.
A lot of the movement to impose Latin on people was purely political rather than spiritual. Spain was one country that resisted the Latin songs and used their own music for many centuries. The Germans were just as stubborn about giving up their native language; many of the German Mass hymns are half Latin and half German! (It’s pretty funny to read them in the book!)
The book was more prose than editorial. I would describe it as dry and boring to the point of sleep-inducing.
But there were a few paragraphs of author opinion (only a few). This particular author pointed out that music is an ever-evolving thing and that the Church has always strived to incorporate new styles and developments into the liturgy, or to find another place for new music to be performed outside of Mass. He made it clear that Christians cannot park their musical tastes in an ancient Century and disparage all the other music of the ages, including the modern age (remember, the modern age for him was the 1940s).
I realize that it’s just one history book by one person and therefore, not necessarily comprehensive or objective. Perhaps some of you can recommend a Catholic music history book that staunchly condemns all music except chant and polyphony, and proves that these musical forms are the only appropriate styles for the Holy Mass.
Copyright 1949, republished in English in 1961.
According to the jacket notes, “This is the only complete and authoritative account of Catholic church music in English today.”
The book has the Nihil Obstat from Edward A Cerny, S.S., S.T.D, and the Imprimatur from Francis P. Keough, D.D., Archbishop of Baltimore, September 26, 1961.
So this is definitely NOT a Vat. II book.
There was a lot of technical information about the various forms of Catholic music through the centuries. Much of it was difficult for me to fully grasp, as I am a pianist, not a vocalist or organist.
There was also a very detailed account of the various styles of music and their composers. I finally know who Palestrina was (I have the impression that we’re supposed to make some gesture of awe whenever we mention his name, so how’s this: :getholy: We’re not worthy!!).
But the main thing that I got out of this book is that the music wars in the Catholic Church have been going on since the Apostles took over from Jesus.
I’ve heard so much talk on this board about Gregorian Chant and how perfect and sublime it is. I’ve heard so much talk on this board that implies that Gregorian Chant and polyphony were the “norm” until the Vat II upended everything.
Well, that’s not what this history book said. This book showed that **in almost every papacy, there were conflicts about the liturgy and what kind of music is appropriate for Mass. ** It’s amazing how many popes conducted a “study of liturgical music.” Of course, the biggie was Pope Pius X and his motu proprio in 1903.
But his wasn’t the first papal “proclamation” and it certainly wasn’t the last.
I would hate to be the Pope. I’m sure one reason why the men don’t want the job is because they know they will face “the music wars” of their time!
This book pointed out that there are music texts that demonstrate that much of the “chant” music was also the musical style of that time. *IOW, chant was the “contemporary music” of the Gregorian age and it became the CCM of that time! *
Please forgive me while I indulge in a “ha ha!” I will go to confession and confess the sin of gloating.
And apparently the “Latin” vs. “vernacular” has been a struggle from the time the Church first started using Latin in the Mass. This is not something that came up after Vatican II, which is the impression that I have received from many on this Board.
A lot of the movement to impose Latin on people was purely political rather than spiritual. Spain was one country that resisted the Latin songs and used their own music for many centuries. The Germans were just as stubborn about giving up their native language; many of the German Mass hymns are half Latin and half German! (It’s pretty funny to read them in the book!)
The book was more prose than editorial. I would describe it as dry and boring to the point of sleep-inducing.
But there were a few paragraphs of author opinion (only a few). This particular author pointed out that music is an ever-evolving thing and that the Church has always strived to incorporate new styles and developments into the liturgy, or to find another place for new music to be performed outside of Mass. He made it clear that Christians cannot park their musical tastes in an ancient Century and disparage all the other music of the ages, including the modern age (remember, the modern age for him was the 1940s).
I realize that it’s just one history book by one person and therefore, not necessarily comprehensive or objective. Perhaps some of you can recommend a Catholic music history book that staunchly condemns all music except chant and polyphony, and proves that these musical forms are the only appropriate styles for the Holy Mass.
V
VociMike
Guest
So you’re saying that there was Ragtime music in Masses a hundred years ago? Tin Pan Alley music? Big Band music? No, things really were different after Vatican II. And BTW, Gregorian chant was never the secular music of any age.
Here’s what the President of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music has to say about the aftermath of Vatican II:
“But we must note an important difference: the reforms of the past had to deal with forms of music that were, perhaps, “excessive,” but formally correct. But much of the “music” that is written today ignores, I will not say the grammar, but even the ABC´s of musical art. In the more or less critical situations that we have considered, there was never a degeneration like the present one.”
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=6966&eng=y
Here’s what the President of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music has to say about the aftermath of Vatican II:
“But we must note an important difference: the reforms of the past had to deal with forms of music that were, perhaps, “excessive,” but formally correct. But much of the “music” that is written today ignores, I will not say the grammar, but even the ABC´s of musical art. In the more or less critical situations that we have considered, there was never a degeneration like the present one.”
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=6966&eng=y
C
Cat
Guest
“And BTW, Gregorian chant was never the secular music of any age.”
I didn’t say it, VociMike. The author of the book said it. Sorry.
Actually “Gregorian” chant wasn’t the secular music of the time. “Chant” was the secular music of the time, and Pope Gregory turned it into “God’s music.”
According to the author, surviving texts prove it.
This history was written in 1949. The author devoted a chapter to Pius X’s motu proprio and praised chant and polyphony as having the highest place in the Mass. He wasn’t trying to disparage chant in favor of ragtime or any other music style.
He was only trying to report historical fact. Chant was “the vernacular” in Pope Gregory’s time.
Got any new historical works to prove otherwise?
I didn’t say it, VociMike. The author of the book said it. Sorry.
Actually “Gregorian” chant wasn’t the secular music of the time. “Chant” was the secular music of the time, and Pope Gregory turned it into “God’s music.”
According to the author, surviving texts prove it.
This history was written in 1949. The author devoted a chapter to Pius X’s motu proprio and praised chant and polyphony as having the highest place in the Mass. He wasn’t trying to disparage chant in favor of ragtime or any other music style.
He was only trying to report historical fact. Chant was “the vernacular” in Pope Gregory’s time.
Got any new historical works to prove otherwise?
S
Sarabande
Guest
The views of where plain-chant and other forms of music derived from has been changing and been in discussion a lot since that book was published in the 40s. I believe this gentlemen’s view is contradictory to what I’ve read or learned regarding plain-chant and Gregorian chant. I’m no expert, so I can’t say that guy is absolutely wrong, but the scholars today would not agree with his old analysis. Just go into your typical updated history of music textbook from school or ask anyone who are really into chant and plainchant in terms of studying and performing it.
James McKinnon, an American musicologist, is well-respected in the field. He was an expert in early and rennaisance music, especially in the Latin liturgy. He unfortunately died “young” in his 60s. I’ve not read any works of the following, but these guys are apparently also current scholars in the field - Andreas Pfisterer and Peter Jeffreys and Robert Snow. They are all part of the debate, but I do not believe any of them would say that it had “secular” roots. Roots in faiths other than Christianity, but not something that a group of people would get together at the local watering hole and chant the night away on how much they miss their lady. haha!
They would also not agree that Gregorian chant actually was created by Pope Gregory the Great. He may have introduced it, but it definitely was not started by him. Chant has been around long before Christianity. It was used for worship in Judaism (still is) and probably in the pagan faiths. It wasn’t used as secular music. Gregorian chant also probably came from the chants of other Rites, although it is still in debate.
James McKinnon, an American musicologist, is well-respected in the field. He was an expert in early and rennaisance music, especially in the Latin liturgy. He unfortunately died “young” in his 60s. I’ve not read any works of the following, but these guys are apparently also current scholars in the field - Andreas Pfisterer and Peter Jeffreys and Robert Snow. They are all part of the debate, but I do not believe any of them would say that it had “secular” roots. Roots in faiths other than Christianity, but not something that a group of people would get together at the local watering hole and chant the night away on how much they miss their lady. haha!
They would also not agree that Gregorian chant actually was created by Pope Gregory the Great. He may have introduced it, but it definitely was not started by him. Chant has been around long before Christianity. It was used for worship in Judaism (still is) and probably in the pagan faiths. It wasn’t used as secular music. Gregorian chant also probably came from the chants of other Rites, although it is still in debate.
S
Sarabande
Guest
I would agree with the author regarding his opinion. I also believe that most people would also agree that the Catholic Church has a long and rich history of sacred music ranging from the Medieval age to modern day. Although I know that there are people who believe only chant and polyphony (i.e. Palestrina) are the only forms that should be used, many, including myself, who love those forms would also claim that the sacred music from later centuries also has a place in the Church. Where the debate starts is the genre of music. When Fellerer wrote his book, they didn’t have P&W in Europe. I’m assuming he is either German, Austrian or Swiss based on his name and that there was a translation. (Edit - I looked him up and found a German page on him. He was born and raised in Bavaria (Austria) and studied there and in Germany.) The German tradition in music is very “hoch”, so he was basing the sacred music of his day to that rather than what is heard today. Who knows what he would think of the sacred music today especially since he was a musicologist. Knowing a musicologist myself and Germans as well as having a German background in my family with really old relatives only speaking German, I have a good idea of what many of them would consider music appropriate for liturgy. So, we probably shouldn’t base on Fellerer’s opinion if we are trying to say that all contemporary music is appropriate for liturgy. (I’m not saying that you are.)
It is my belief that when researching periods of history, always read many books on it. (I love the Tudor period and have read at least 5 different books on the subject by different authors.) I would suggest reading McKinnon’s history of music and try out the writings of the other names I mentioned in my above post. You will find out that books by musicologists are more heady than the average writers. So be prepared to have to take breaks in between reads.
V
VociMike
Guest
Are we talking about the same thing? Secular is not the same as vernacular. Of course chant was in the vernacular (at least, the educated vernacular) for the time. Latin was the educated vernacular. But chant was not secular music - music sung at parties and other social events.
Nobody is denying that Latin was once the educated vernacular in the western Church.
V
VociMike
Guest
FWIW, I just read through the Early Church history section of “Western Plainchant, a Handbook” by Prof. David Hiley (1993), considered to be the definitive work on chant in the English language. He says nothing about any of the dozen or more forms of early chant deriving from secular music.
T
tom.wineman
Guest
** Some of the best music I’ve ever heard in our church, Sacred Heart in Tampa, was by an a cuppela gospel group in town for a convention.**
See photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7941988@N07/sets/72157600196509946/
It was a concert and may not of been suitable for the liturgy however their rendition of the Ave Maria was one of the best I’ve ever heard.
**Sometimes I think the American Bishops have lost control over liturgical music or have defaulted to Oregon Catholic Press.
**
See photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7941988@N07/sets/72157600196509946/
It was a concert and may not of been suitable for the liturgy however their rendition of the Ave Maria was one of the best I’ve ever heard.
**Sometimes I think the American Bishops have lost control over liturgical music or have defaulted to Oregon Catholic Press.
**
S
Sarabande
Guest
Beautiful church. Was it a new setting to the “Ave Maria”? Who was the composer? There are lots of beautiful settings of Ave Maria from various centuries that are done a capella. I would have liked to hear it.
S
Sarabande
Guest
Yes, I would agree that I’ve also never read or learned anywhere that chant was derived from secular music. It was always mentioned that it was derived from chant for other faiths, such as Judaism and Paganism, although there are still studies on this. It is now believed that we did not get the chanting of psalmodies from the Hebrews because they hadn’t been singing them for hundreds of years, BUT we did get the Alleluia, the Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, etc. from them. The scholars are still debating all of this, though.
I rememberd that my husband has an old book on music from the Medieval period. So, I thought I’d look up what another contemporary of Fellerer was saying in the 1940s. This book is entitled “Music in the Middle Ages” by Gustave Reed. The entire book is just dedicated to that period of music. I’ve never read it, but my husband did. I did look up the chapter called “Gregorian Chant: Its History and Notation”. He never mentions anything of the chant being derived from secular means. He does claim that Gregorian chant was influenced by the music of Hebrews and Greco-Roman paganism. This was the music used to worship the Jewish God and the pagan gods, but not used in everyday fun music.
T
tom.wineman
Guest
I was a few years ago and I can’t remember but it was a familiar one.
They had a CD with it on it but I didn’t have any cash on me that day.
I’m still trying to find it online. It helps to have a memory
D
dympnha
Guest
Praise and worship music is garbage. It’s just a poor imitation of pop music. I’d much rather listen to Beyonce or Fergie than a cantor doing a pitiful imitation of them with “Christian” lyrics. A copy is never as cool or as well done as the original.
As for Gospel music… there is nothing funnier than a bunch of middle class white suburbanites trying to sing Amazing Grace or Were Your There. Unless you grew up with Gospel music as part of your culture you just seem patronizing and ridiculous when you try to sing it.
As for Gospel music… there is nothing funnier than a bunch of middle class white suburbanites trying to sing Amazing Grace or Were Your There. Unless you grew up with Gospel music as part of your culture you just seem patronizing and ridiculous when you try to sing it.
- Status