« Notes from Home | Main | To Jeff Miller: »
May 09, 2005
Sing It
A blueprint for parishes and sacred music. Very good. Worth passing on to your local music minister.
Also from this group, news of a Summer Music Colloquium at CUA
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I am very sympathetic to the aims of this writer. But to do as you suggest, Amy, and hand it over to a parish music director will almost immediately result in this retort, intended to stop the conversation:
"That's YOUR personal taste."
(All the more reason for me to get the time to finish an article I promised a church music magazine on the difference between judgment and opinion.)
Posted by: RP Burke at May 9, 2005 2:34:07 PM
RP - that is sorely needed, and I hope you do finish it - and let us know when it comes out.
Posted by: amy at May 9, 2005 2:45:36 PM
You know, though, personal taste is a perfectly good argument these days. Chant counts as diversity, too. Oh, and musical enrichment "for the children", by exposing them to diversity in music.
Seriously, though, being enthusiastic and egoless is a very hard thing to counter. I especially like the "make a group and give away CDs" idea. Everybody likes free stuff.
Posted by: Maureen at May 9, 2005 2:45:42 PM
As someone who has spent a good bit of time singing professionally as well as assisting in music ministry in various parishes, I found the article interesting, but ultimately frustrating.
I do not believe that latin, chant, or polyphony are objectively more ordered to worship than other forms of music. They are part of the cultural heritage and tradition of our faith, and we shouldn't simply abandon them, but there is no theological reason why these should be privileged.
Don't get me wrong, I despise the old Glory & Praise standbys (yes, even 'Blest Be the Lord'), but that is simply the case of the music being poorly written; it shouldn't condemn the entire musical idiom. A guitar-playing musician called and gifted by God can help facilitate the worship of the whole community just as well as an organ player and a classically trained singer.
The objection that drives me nuts is that the use of 'popular' music is really an attempt to dumb down the mass and inject entertainment for the haplessly liberal congregation who need a little pick me up during a boring ritual.
That doesn't stack up to the very reverent masses I have attended where the congegation fully, actively, and consciously participated in the celebration of the Liturgy.
Also, the article was full of thinly veiled swipes against contemporary liturgy and possibly the Novus Ordo as well.
I would love to experience more chant and traditional music at mass--just not as part of an agenda to 'save' the liturgy.
My 2 cents.
Posted by: Keith Strohm at May 9, 2005 3:17:50 PM
Yesterday at Ascension Sunday Mass, the homilist reminded us that 20 years ago we sang "Up, Up and Away!" (1967, Fifth Dimension) as the entrance song for this Mass at the Cathedral.
There has been some progress.
Posted by: Benedetto at May 9, 2005 3:45:50 PM
It was Vatican II that said chant should be privileged, and they were following onto tons of work for years and years on reviving use of chant throughout the Catholic world. Seeing as chant is descended from the music of the Jews and earliest Christians, I'd say there's perfectly good reason to give it some privilege.
I'll admit that some folks go a little ga-ga about both Latin and chant; but if chant (and the rest of the Catholic musical heritage) were given more airtime, these folks would likely get calmer.
Anyway, to the tune of "Black Widows in the Privy" by Heather Rose Jones:
Everyone knows some hymn
we'd be better off without;
We'd best not say what's lame.
OCP might be about.
But why commit your budget,
and risk your range's strain,
When a chant in Latin's easy,
and all public domain?
There's chant CDs, and chant bands,
and ads chant on TV.
A Cath'lic church 'sthe only place
where chant you seldom see.
But since the zeitgeist's dumped those
old folk and Broadway songs,
Why not try chant in Latin,
that's lasted for so long?
Yeah, Huron's good, and Spanish;
Hawaiian is the best.
It's only Greek and Latin
that diversity won't test.
But when your parish speaks tongues
as many as attend,
You all could chant in Latin;
there's no group you'll offend.
So if you want to praise God
in songs like liquid light,
Go learn the style of worship that's
your heritage and right.
The repertoire is meaty
and deeper than a well.
A little chant in Latin
says more than I can tell.
Posted by: Maureen at May 9, 2005 6:00:32 PM
Mr. Burke,
I suppose one could respond, "No, actually, it's what the Church asks," and proof-text the relevant documents, but the hammer of reason will probably further harden the parish music director's heart.
Kindly let me know when your article is published, and where.
Ms. Maureen,
Exposing this music to the children is essential for an increase in appreciation of it. Catholic schools that fail to do so, in my opinion, are engaging in theft.
Mr. Strohm,
Some may take issue with the assertion that there is no theological reason for chant and polyphony to take precedence over other musical forms; being uninformed on the relationship between music and theology, I will not weigh in on it. Perhaps the only contribution I could make regarding the theology of music would be to ask the question, "Did God simply state, 'Let there be light,' or did he perhaps intone it, or even sing it?"
However, I wish to point out that the aforementioned forms are specifically cited by the Church in the documents of Vatican II to be preserved and fostered - not merely in the museums of MP3 files and CDs, but in the Sacred Liturgy itself. Bl. John XXIII himself said that the church is not a museum.
However, in too many places the music the article promotes has been relegated to not just "museum-piece" status, but more often, "back storage room of the museum" status.
I do not doubt your experience at reverent Masses where I gather that more contemporary music was played. So please don't doubt my experience at irreverent Masses where the same type of music was played.
By the same token, I have imagined guitars accompanying chant and polyphony, and found it very good. In that sense, I suppose I'm a bit more liberal than a cappella purists (note, term not used pejoratively).
I would love to experience more chant and traditional music at mass--not just as part of an agenda to 'save' the liturgy, but in a real sense, to 'save' the culture at large. I would love for the Sacred Liturgy and its many musical treasures to inform new liturgical compositions and the wider culture, instead of the other way around.
Nowhere in the article has forceful, negative, or immediate imposition been advocated, which is more than what can be said about a lot of postconciliar reforms that were undertaken, legit and bogus. (So I've heard.)
I invite you to read a recent post on my website regarding composition and instrumentation, as well as the rest of the site - I've got, for better or worse, not only two cents, but also a couple of dogs in this fight.
Mr. Benedetto:
I shudder at the thought.
Posted by: Aristotle A. Esguerra at May 9, 2005 6:03:05 PM
There are some gems of good advice in the article. Some serious misconceptions about Catholic liturgy and music, too.
In my opinion, the main musical obstacle to the acceptance of chant is tempo. I'd also admit that the single most common fault of most church music today is an overly slow tempo.
"In the early stages, it is a good idea to avoid large Mass settings, if only because the conviction that the assembly should participate in the singing of these is very intense in modern parish life."
It's a conviction based in the GIRM and the Ordo Missae, which indicates the people are to say or sing these acclamations. Plainsong works. Polyphony is about as out of place as a performance piece for the psalm or as an overlay for the Eucharistic Prayer.
The authors cannot suppress their bias for "professional" music, making several very bad presumptions about the quality of non-classical music and the motivations of non-chant musicians.
I'd encourage interested people to attend chant workshops: they would learn a lot. I'd also encourage people to set aside their cd's and hymn books and go to a monastery where chant is used and prayed. But like it or not, the Catholic liturgical music firmament is much more varied than it was fifty years ago. For chant to regain a foothold in more parishes, its proponents are going to have to do better than this.
Posted by: Todd at May 9, 2005 6:30:12 PM
My parish is on it way partialy at the "adult choir" mass. The choir and most of the people in the pews can sing/chant "Agnus Dei" and "Ubi Cartias" as well as the old standards as such as Tantam Ergo (Latin or English). We also hear "Ave Maria" in Latin. But the otherwise classicaly oriented music director/organist still still will use Haas/Haugen once in aweile. (He is under 40 a Juillard grad)
Posted by: Mary at May 9, 2005 9:00:57 PM
In my current, and in several of my former Episcopalian parishes, a large part of the Eucharist is sung. Not just by the priest, but by the congregation as well.
It's not really that hard, folks. I assume what we do in our "service music" counts as plainsong, yes? It's about 3 or 4 notes, in an easy range, that anyone can do. I'm a music nerd, so I read it -- but you don't have to, it's easy enough to memorize after a few weeks of exposure.
We have more complex music for the "Holy, Holy, Holy" and for "Lamb of God." Keep that music the same from week to week (perhaps changing with the liturgical seasons, no more frequently), and people learn it. We sing the Psalm, also.
I have seen this done in both traditional services and in "praise and worship" services. So yes, you can have chant and guitars together, and it seems to work. No lightning bolts, flame strikes, or the roof caving in, at least.
peace,
Posted by: Zach Frey at May 10, 2005 6:24:11 AM
Thanks for the link Amy. The CMAA conference is wonderful, and it really needs more attention. The Vatican in the last two years has called for sacred music to take on greater prominence in seminaries and parishes, and this is the essential training ground. Pastors would do well to send musicians here.
Really, we must get to the point that everyone who is charged with some musical duty in parishes be able to sing at least, and by memory, the basic chants of the faith--at least this much so that they can get the feel for how chant becomes part of the liturgical structure rather than another musical plug in. Sadly, this is not the case.
In our writing on this topic, we have received several very nice letters from big-name contemporary Catholic composers who have confessed that they know essentially nothing about chant--do not know even once-popular chant hymns such as Ave Maris, Ave Maria, Ubi, O Salutaris--and have been embarassed to admit it. This kind of humility is a great first step!
I hope others have the chance to read our little strategy meditation. No, we do not call for a polyphonic Psalm, obviously. And as for the claim that the Sanctus or Angus Dei must be participatory with the people, the Pope has dealt with this subject already and completely rejected the idea.
"Whoever does not pay attention to the mystery character and cosmic character of the invitation to sing in unison with the praise of the heavenly choirs has already missed the point of the whole thing. This unison can occur in a variety of ways, and it always has to do with being representative of or standing in for others. The congregation assembled in one place opens into the whole. It also represents those who are absent and unites itself with those who are far and near. If the congregation has a choir that can draw it into cosmic praise and into the open expanse of heaven and earth more powerfully than its own stammering, then the representative function of the choir is at this moment particularly appropriate. Through the choir a greater transparency to the praise of the angels and therefore a more profound, interior joining in with their singing are bestowed than a congregation’s own acclamation and song would be capable of doing in many places."
Posted by: Jeffrey at May 10, 2005 9:45:22 AM
I'm curious about the idea of recording CDs. I record our rehearsals onto a digital handheld recorder and then sometimes I burn those MP3's onto a CD, but the quality is terrible. Other than a studio, is there an easier (and cheaper) way to do that, in order to produce something people would really appreciate?
Posted by: Greg at May 10, 2005 12:26:21 PM
Well, I suppose we have some regrets about the two CDs we recorded: they sounded great at the time, and really helped our purposes within the parish, but the problem with recordings is that you hear the mistakes over and over and over again. Now, the parishioners think they are great but no one in the schola really wants to hear them, mainly because we have become more fussy in the time since we made them.
On a side note, one track by Thomas Tallis for our CD was used by EWTN as theme music for a show, and when I heard it, I couldn't believe that we sounded so great! They had remixed and remastered it. Obviously the professionals, as employed by EWTN, do make a big difference.
So there is no real substitute for professionals. They can come into your parish--if it has no carpet--and do a great job of recording and mixing. Prepare to spend about $500. And then you can burn the CDs and print the covers yourself and make back the money.
Even if you lose money, it serves an important function. People will listen to a CD of their own parish choir when they will not listen to the Collegium etc. etc. So it is a way to jump start the process of getting people familiar with the sound and feel of chant.
One side note: a prayer group in the parish that is not known for being a hotbed of orthodoxy was crazy for the CD and started using it as the weekly music for the group to pray with. This was very gratifying.
For our part, if we used the CD to pray with, we would only end up praying for better intonation, rounder vowels, and crisper consonants.
Posted by: jeffrey at May 10, 2005 1:46:23 PM
I think Jeffrey overstates the case for a choral Sanctus. His link provides no reference to the GIRM or the Ordo Missae, which would cover the normative case of music at liturgy. The article linked is an interesting philosophical reflection, but hardly authoritative. Aside from the occasional choir-only Sanctus as part of a unified presentation of a single Mass setting, there's not any need to undo the people's role in the Sanctus, especially when choral alternatives are so numerous at other times during the liturgy. Chant is still preeminent over polyphony, and the people over the choir as an instrument for the praise of God.
Posted by: Todd at May 11, 2005 2:10:17 PM
Well, it's generally a good idea, as a Catholic, to regard what the Pope says concerning liturgy to be authoritative. I'm assuming here that Benedict XVI knows something about the Roman Rite. Let's just say it takes a lot of chutzpah to disagree with him about how the Sanctus can be rendered.
Posted by: jeffrey at May 11, 2005 3:29:31 PM
I think we run into troubles when proof-texting statements to find something personally ideal for our favored position.
This is what the Ordo Missae states:
"At the end of the preface (the priest) joins his hands and, together with the people, concludes it by singing or saying aloud: Holy holy, holy ..."
I think a case can be made for a choral Sanctus on occasion, but as a regular practice, two things would weigh against it: the prescription of the Missal itself, not to mention the preference for chant over polyphony. Polyphony is part, but not all of the Church's musical tradition. I think for those special occasions, you'd expect a choral masterpiece from a masterful choir, not your ordinary everyday parish choir piecing something together.
Now, Benedict XVI can indeed change liturgical law, but that would involve another extended period of rewriting, translation, and the like. Seems like a lot of trouble to accommodate a rather strident and exclusive view of church music.
Posted by: Todd at May 11, 2005 4:41:32 PM
For a response to the choral/assembly Mass participation discussion (in my opinion, a bit of an off-topic digression), please see this post on my blog.
Posted by: Aristotle A. Esguerra at May 11, 2005 8:38:07 PM
One brief remark concerning recordings: Jeffey quite rightly mentions the problem of carpeting. One could, of course, record in a neighboring church, but there's much to be said for distributing a CD recorded in one's own parish (to say nothing of the extra rehearsals and occasional scheduling nightmares that could be avoided). Another, better alternative is to buy sheets of masonite to cover the carpeting for the recording session. (One might also invite the pastor in to hear the sound of the choir while the sheets are still down: "Gee, Father, just think: we could sound like this all the time!")
Posted by: David at May 11, 2005 8:58:37 PM
"I think a case can be made for a choral Sanctus on occasion, but as a regular practice, two things would weigh against it: the prescription of the Missal itself, not to mention the preference for chant over polyphony."
I will believe that a liturgist is sincere in this reasoning if he will also aver that it would be "proof-texting statements to find something personally ideal for [your] favored position" to deny that as a rule the communion song, entrance song, offertory song ought preferably to be rendered by the choir/schola alone, although, of course, the people might sing, for instance, a communion song "on occasion."
And Todd, old buddy, why do we not see you on the RPI boards? (Whence I seem to be exiled -- can't post, but I can still read.)
Posted by: Gadfly at May 11, 2005 10:30:15 PM
Terrific article, Mr Tucker.
"Well, it's generally a good idea, as a Catholic, to regard what the Pope says concerning liturgy to be authoritative"
But I would argue with that -- while a Pope's opinion has weight, more than, say, your parish liturgist's or your tenor section leader, it is not absolutely authoritative. It is not infallible, and is open to questioning and even -- oh, my! -- arguement.
Sometimes the Pope speaks with the voice of the magisterium and sometimes it's just that of a wise, good old Polish guy, I mean, GERMAN guy.
("Vivat Papa Ratzi!" to quote anothe rpi guy.)
And Mr Burke, right that article!
(And post on rpi more, this place is interesting, but not enough on litrugy and music)
Posted by: Gadfly at May 11, 2005 10:39:29 PM
Gadfly, you should check the small red print in the Roman Missal to see what the actual liturgical document has to say about the songs you mention. My additional suggestion is to visit monasteries which have maintained the tradition of chant: How much polyphony compared to plainsong? How much choir only music is provided?
As a lover of well-performed music, I cannot deny that listening to great art is wonderful. But singing it, especially in the context of worship, is far better. I would ask Mr Tucker's experience (or any church music director) of the audience his choir might draw outside of Sunday Mass. I've organized many concerts of sacred music over the years and I've never filled the place like a Mass would.
I still have the RPI boards bookmarked and I visit there from time to time. I already have my voice in an RPI organ and figure it's best to leave it at that. My best to all there, if you would pass it on, please.
Posted by: Todd at May 12, 2005 8:36:49 PM
To answer Todd, we think of ourselves as a liturgical choir and so have refused performance invitations. We find ourselves haunted by the edict of Pope St. Clement I from the first century. It seems that members of Church choirs had taken to singing Christian chant for unusual venues outside of liturgy (even festivals and minstrel shows) in order to satisfy public curiousity about the Mass. St. Clement issued an opinion that set the standard: no performances of liturgical music for profane festivals and no profane music at liturgy.
We do make the exception of singing for non-Catholic religious services and events, however, since our pastor considers this a form of evangelization. Also: I doubt St. Clement would have imagined a time when sacred music would not be the norm in Churches, so we should probably be grateful for any performance and recording venues that have kept the genre alive during these difficult times. We are pleased that we have the opportunity to assist at liturgy with song, and haven't been driven to sing only at museums and concert halls.
Posted by: Jeffrey at May 13, 2005 7:38:55 AM
Jeffrey, I would not limit my horizons, were I in your position. The Eucharist is certainly the high point for the ministry of a choir, but there are other prayer forms and other opportunities as well. Some choirs give concerts in their own churches, doing so with a performance yoked to evening prayer or some other devotion. I find this gives a good setting for a demonstration of sacred music, especially when a degree of freedom from the liturgical and pastoral demands of the Mass might dictate affairs. I find it interesting you have not considered such options: these ideas were not original to me, though I have made use of them on many occasions. Presenting black-and-white choices of the Mass or the profane seems tragically short-sighted.
Regarding the comment, "I doubt St. Clement would have imagined a time when sacred music would not be the norm in Churches," my sense is you think too highly of your own music and too little of other music directors to say such a thing. St Clement would likely find the notion of a classical music establishment curious, especially the division of music into "serious" and "popular." The sacred in music is less defined by particular repertoire, and even on occasion less by skill, and more for how it uplifts the human spirit in worship.
Posted by: Todd at May 14, 2005 10:18:57 AM
