Glorification and Edification... of Whom?
  • RomanticStringsRomanticStrings
    Posts: 337
    I just wanted to propose a formulation for discussion:

    The problem with much of the post-Vatican II music is that, rather glorifying God and edifying the people, it seeks to glorify the people and to edify (teach/speak for) God.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    image
    Thanked by 1Spriggo
  • RomanticStringsRomanticStrings
    Posts: 337
    Cool. Then just lock it and save my oh so simple and clever phrasing...
  • RomanticStringsRomanticStrings
    Posts: 337
    Why is it that when I think about the state of sacred music today I fixate on the same issues?

    Better, does anyone have advice about how to move on from the fixation, especially when every interaction with the parish music where I work reinforces the fixation?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    RomanticStrings

    You are right. I'm just saying, this isn't news.

    Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
    - Gen 11:4


    The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.
    - Luke 18:11



  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Again, Adam for the win.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,150
    The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.
    - Luke 18:11
    This is my favorite setting of this parable:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEqMyG6zP8Q
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood M. Jackson Osborn
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    I know it has issues, but I particularly like the way the meaning parses out in the NAB translation.

    spoke this prayer to himself
  • JanDen
    Posts: 23
    RomanticStrings, our pastor recently decided to take this issue on at our large RC parish. He created a list of approved songs that address God/JC/HS directly and we're instructed not to sing any other music unless he approves it. So, all of the "schmaltz," as I affectionately call it, is gone. This has had mixed results for everyone involved. The bigger problem seems to be that most people are so used to the schmaltz that they don't understand the change, "But I loved that song!" I'm not sure where this experiment will go but I'm proud of him for taking this on. It is the right theological approach to sacred music.
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    It is the right theological approach to sacred music.


    No, it really isn't. It's still the same old "We're going to sing my favorite song instead of your favorite song."

    The right approach is to ask what the Church wants you to do. And the answer is the Mass propers.
    Thanked by 6Ben kevinf ClergetKubisz Adam Wood Mary Ann CCooze
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,156
    This has been going on forever. There is nothing inherently theologically correct about white lists.

    Reading about the introduction and practice of organum and early polyphony in the (liturgically conservative) Parisian church in the 12th and 13th. I bet there was a similar tussle, especially when the composer wanted to add schamltzy tropes in French, and I imagine the cantores majores saying Ok, no other organa unless I approve it, grumble.

    (Anyone know how I can find out the musical details at Louis VIII's funeral in 1226 at St Denis?)
  • JanDen
    Posts: 23
    Gavin, I've repeatedly pitched for using the Mass propers but my appeal falls on deaf ears...
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,185
    I've repeatedly pitched for using the Mass propers but my appeal falls on deaf ears...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_alyn3e6kYs
    "My heart hath expected reproach and misery. And I looked for one that would grieve together with me, but there was none: and for one that would comfort me, and I found none. And they gave me gall for my food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."
    — Psalm 68(69):21–22 (DRB); Offertory, Palm Sunday, Roman Rite*

    *If only it were permissible to grieve together with Christ by singing/hearing this text at its appointed time. As it stands, this expression of Christian and Christlike grief called for by the books of Christian public worship is mostly relegated to the catacombs of private devotion. Amen.
    Thanked by 3williamjm CHGiffen M. Jackson Osborn
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    The right approach is to ask what the Church wants you to do. And the answer is the Mass propers.
    [sarcasm]And the BEST thing is to do them in English.[/sarcasm]
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    Why, um, Francis! You are really coming along. Er uh, what is sarcasm?
    Thanked by 1francis
  • CGM
    Posts: 683
    I wrote a setting of the Palm Sunday Offertory, with text in English.

    It's a part of my growing-nearer-to-completion setting of much of the propers: Introits, in Latin [check]; Responsorial Psalms for the 3-yr. cycle [check]; Gospel Acclamations using hymn-tune Alleluias or shorter melodies from the Graduale Simplex [check]; and freely-composed English settings of the Offertories [ongoing]. I'll start on the Communions in the next couple of years [I hope].
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen canadash nun_34
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    How nice!
    Thanked by 1CGM
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Lovely, CGM!
    Thanked by 1CGM
  • canadashcanadash
    Posts: 1,499
    That is moving CGM! Wonderful!
    Thanked by 1CGM
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    "The pastor created a list of approved pieces that address God/JC/HS directly. This addressed, though indirectly, the issue of theocentric vs. anthropocentric.

    But what about the music? I would contend that the music can express, at least as concretely as the text, the desirable aspects of the theocentric.

    The American bishops proposed guidelines for making judgments about hymns, but they only addressed the text. But a lot of the Schmaltz of so much church music, while it derives from the text, is experienced at least as much through the music. So, among the texts which the pastor approves, the musician needs to make a judgment about the quality and orientation of the music.
    Thanked by 9Andrew_Malton melofluent CHGiffen ClergetKubisz EMH bonniebede eft94530 Gavin nun_34
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Dr. Mahrt, your contributions to this community can never be over stated.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,152
    Think this discussion we've been having is relatively new? If it weren't for Palestrina, there would be no music or singing at Mass. Music at Mass had gotten so complicated, what with melodies and countermelodies, etc. that often the words couldn't be understood and the Pope during Palestrina's time was ready to ban all music from the liturgy.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    '...couldn't be understood.'

    It is a specious argument that proposes that all music must not impede a clear 'understanding' of the words. Some of us sing Latin ordinaries (at English masses, yet!) which most people in the pews likely don't understand but a few words of. Still, they know very well (unless they are being facetious) what the text is about and what it means. So, there is no rational reason not to sing this, that, or the other in Latin. LIkewise the textural context of the music. Most of us know (and anyone who doesn't can be provided with a translation) at least what the text of a given motet is about and can be aedified, even transported, by the musical expression of that text, no matter how elaborate and complex the music may be. So, there is no reason at all not to sing late mediaeval and very early renaissance music just because (in someone's opinion) the words cannot be 'understood'. If we know what the words are, that is enough to contemplate them as they are enshrined in a gorgeous musical aedifice.

    And, more about 'understanding' the words: I have been subjected to contemporary music, sacro-pop, rock, etc., at which the words were not at all 'understandable'. Worse yet, they could not even be profitably contemplated on because the music was so unspeakably hideous and loud, or, pathetically infantile. People who can't sing without microphones should not be allowed to sing.
    Thanked by 5Adam Wood CHGiffen francis ghmus7 JulieColl
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,152
    Well, it was the opinion of a Pope, so it must have carried some weight in its day. Besides, what is the purpose of music at Mass? Is it to show off the talent of the choir or individual singers? Or is it to help draw the people in the pews closer to God?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    I would like to go on record as agreeing with everything MJO just said.
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    '...to show off the choir or individual singers?'

    Another specious proposition! One hears this sort of thoughtless remark from time to time. What it may be boiled down to is: 'I don't like this music (or this music is too high-faluting..., or too this or that...), therefore the choir are showing off'. This is an obvious non sequitur. May heaven forbid that we be treated only to what such people would consider 'not showing off'. One hears occasionally the same sort of cant after playing the organ well: some people were greatly aedified by it and said so; others (especially poor organists) can only say that 'well, after all, I'm not a concert organist, I'm just a church organist who plays for the glory of God'. The implication (preposterous as it is!) is that God is only glorified by ineptitude or outright care-less-ness... and, that he might actually be offended by the attempted perfection of the gifts that he has bestowed so generously, not only upon the organist (or choir), but upon all present who participate by singing their parts or hearing appreciativly. Music is a charism. Only the mean spirited and professionally ignorant resent this.

    (If churches were built by architects who were of the same quality as the music and musicians many of them permit at mass, the architects would be in jail.)
    Thanked by 5CHGiffen chonak EMH Richard Mix ghmus7
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    People who can't sing without microphones in church should not be allowed to sing.

    Fixed. Sorry, Jackson, but a qualification is needed there, per Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Kurt Elling, Nat Cole, Joni Mitchell/Judy Collins...
    You get the picture.
    Church music doesn't necessarily mean Victoria de los Angeles or Dietrich Fischer Diskau, mais oui?
  • williamjm
    Posts: 19
    If churches were built by architects who were of the same quality as the music and musicians many of them permit at mass, the architects would be in jail.


    Aesthetics-wise, the first part of this is true, regarding most modern churches. The second, alas, we can only wish for.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    'People who can't sing without microphones in church should not be allowed to sing can hardly be considered musicians.'

    Fixed.

    Well, Charles, that's one of the reasons that I would never go to hear or listen to singers who are of the entertainer variety. A voice that needs amplification is not that of a serious nor genuine musician. Nor would a serious and genuine musician make a living singing in places in which he or she could not be heard without amplification. Further, a voice that has to be amplified is not the voice of a musician artist. I said that was one of the reasons. The other is aesthetic, and you and I very likely would have to agree to disagree on the aesthetic value of the music sung by entertainers (the lot of whom I do not find entertaining [sometimes amusing, but never entertaining]).
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756
    Thank God for microphones. It really helps when you are listening from a different continent. Of course lack of microphones can challenge those with keyboard skills...
    in case of microphone failure
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,464
    Go MJO!
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • RomanticStringsRomanticStrings
    Posts: 337
    We ought perhaps to make a distinction between microphones for amplification and for recording, but we also must never forget that a recording represents a (typically) intentional sound design by the engineer, choosing where to place the mics and how to balance the levels.

    I guess, either way, one can see the challenge of true musicality with mics.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen M. Jackson Osborn
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    "If churches were built by architects who were of the same quality as the music and musicians many of them permit at mass, the architects would be in jail."

    The churches would fall down.
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen francis M. Jackson Osborn kevinf
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,152
    @ M Jackson. After reading this discussion and some of the remarks, I asked the question in earnest. Your dismissal of it only underscores the snobbery and lack of Christian charity that is all too common on this site.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    Dr Mahrt -
    That was exactly my point.
    That is why they would be in jail!


    And, to bhcordova -
    A lack of charity is not a charge that can be levelled justifiably against those of us who believe that people are capable of more than they are doing, that they have the potential for precisely those accomplishments that certain predictable types, in an out of holy orders, would like to see denied them. It would seem to me that you are accusing the wrong parties of being charitably challenged.

  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    I think there may be some mutual incomprehension between bhcordova and MJO, above. bhcordova mentioned the Renaissance concern in some quarters about polyphony. MJO was reacting against demands for immediate superficial comprehension. These are two distinct topics.

    A 2002 paper about the Council of Trent's effect on music (rather pricey, alas) corrects some historical myths.

    There's apparently no documentary evidence that the Council of Trent ever intended to ban polyphony, but most bishops did want to eliminate the use of secular texts in polytextual pieces. The legendary Canon 8 that demanded strict comprehensibility ("the entire manner of singing in musical modes should be calculated [...] so that the words may be comprehensible to all") was only proposed and never adopted. The Council, in 1562, only adopted this brief statement: "Let them keep away from the churches compositions in which there is an intermingling of the lascivious or the impure, whether on the organ or in the voice." [source, and worth reading]

    The widespread accounts that the emperor Frederick's counsel or the performance of a Palestrina Mass setting pulled the Council back from the brink of rashly banning polyphony seem unlikely too.
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen eft94530
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Wasn't St. Phillip Neri in that legend's mix somewhere?
Add a Comment