Tra Le Sollecitudini - A Collegiate Review
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    Or, for that matter, did B-16 read that?

    See: http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/12561/pope-emeritus-benedict-speaks-on-sacred-music#Item_8

  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Dad

    I totally Concur.

    I was reading the Papal Legislation On Sacred Music again last night and it is amazing how much confusion ravages the realm of sacred music especially with regards to the theatrical style and also a tendency to focus more on the music than the liturgy itself. It is a temptation for us all.

    If musicians are not trained how music serves the liturgy from an early age then often confusion sets in about the philosophy that governs right thinking. Too often have I seen this over and over in our churches, basilicas and even cathedrals.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    17 is interesting. At the NOLA Chant Intensive, final Mass then Benediction, we sang a Te Deum, through-composed, in which the chanted verses were sung in alternatim with specific intermezzos by the organist that interpretively represented the "unsung" verse content. Mahrt, IIRC, said this form originated in 19th century France and was somewhat pervasive and received well.
    I could very well understand how that is major cognitive dissonance to TLS and S.PioX, but I found it not only an intriguing proposition, but also a worthy elevation of the roll of the composer and organ in sacral art aesthetic. In other words, the organ is neither usurper nor soundtrack to the rite, but integral to it. One might even say moreso than an orchestral Viennese Mass accompaniment.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    I compose large scale orchestral/choral works. They are fitting for meditation and the music along with the content is the focus. I would never consider imposing my creative aspirations on a rite of the Church. Especially if it robs the focus away from the prayer. In the NO it seems there are places in the Mass for art music: the processions being the primary one. Of course vocal music is the preference. There is very little room for organ music although that may be different in the EF.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,963
    The orchestral Mass by that point was a longstanding custom.

    We did the same with the Magnificat at Vespers in Pitt. It adds another voice to the music.

    TlS lays out really good parameters, but after having been in Europe and going to the EF there, I realized one has to carefully examine customs and go from there. I for one would leave the alternatim chants with organ; in fact, the compromise became that at Mass, the organ could not sing verses with a head bow. But arias need to go, and all the propers must be sung. Those are just a few things I ran into and mulled over.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    We did the same with the Magnificat at Vespers in Pitt. It adds another voice to the music.
    ?
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    The orchestral Mass by that point was a longstanding custom.

    MR, I surmise many here may have to conclude that in a century or so, OEW, MoC, and all the post conciliar bad shibboleths may also, for whatever efforts expended, may achieve that same status. Who knows?
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    especially with regards to the theatrical style and also a tendency to focus more on the music than the liturgy itself.


    But on the other hand, the 'focus on the music'--to some, like B-16--is not really 'on the music' but 'on the beauty'. So if we agree that Truth=Beauty=Goodness=Christ, then we cannot dismiss the music, nor can we state that it is 'extraneous' to the Work of God, can we?

    And--by the way--is Mozart's "Coronation Mass" really 'theatrical' in style? Yes, the Verdi Requiem is--as is Britten's War Requiem.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    dad

    [caution: apodictic sentiments]

    I believe that if it interrupts the motion of the liturgy (because it is too long), it is out of place.

    i... don't... like... mozart... but you all knew that. (actually, i do like to play his sonata in c major for the piano and his fantasy in d minor, and his fugue, but that's about it)

    so even if it isn't theatrical, i would never program it anyway. jmvho.

    [/caution: apodictic sentiments]
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,963
    Francis, whoops. I meant the organ alternatim on the Magnificat. You referenced the Te Deum, which many know from recordings of Cochereau alternating with the schola of Notre Dame on the grand organ.

    Melo: well, if I were Pope...
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,963
    I also agree that we tend to overdo criticism of orchestral Masses. They have their place.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    They have their place.
    yea, at a concert. that is not criticizing the music, it is simply putting it IN its place.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I also agree that we tend to overdo criticism of orchestral Masses. They have their place.

    The problem, MR, is that we tend to generalize maxims here. francis' specification about Mozart at least addresses the tension between past practice (such as Msgr. Schuller's weekly orchestral Masses) and the stipulations that chant and polyphony have pride of place in the post-conciliar documents, and certainly lauded in the 1903. We are, as such, flexible and appreciative of Uncle Haydn when he shows up at our celebrations, but otherwise keep him sequestered in the retirement village. But others not of our ilk may very well not care if he, Mozart or Vierne are front and center, they're going to call us out for duplicity. I believe CMAA, especially through Mahrt's defense and practice, has made its peace with the viability of the orchestral Mass. Having conducted both the Mozart and Faure Requiems at my parish in concert, I can tell you only one of those is appropriate for actual ritual use, IMO.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    X
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    francis, is that a good X or a bad X?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    sorry meloman... i started writing something and didn't finish it out yet and then got distracted and then... ya know... so i put an x there so as not to tread on MJO's signature. "." i will post my thoughts soon. you will be happy that part of what i wrote already was, 'i am with you on this meloman."
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Meloman

    I am with you.

    I think orchestral masses are one of the aberrations between liturgy and a concert. And yes, I do think it is an aberration. The Holy Sacrifice is the ultimate reality that hangs between heaven and earth. We as musicians truly have no right or license to take it and use it as a platform for our personal or worse, collective ideas and musical musings.

    Even B16 I believe, suffers confusion on this point, and when someone at the highest level promotes or endorses such a philosophy, well it certainly seems to grant license that will never be contestable.

    And once this has been said, one always gets the immediate pushback from advocates such as "I guess you know better than the pope!" To which I usually respond, "No, I just don't wish to see what appears to give license (what may only be an aberration) open doors to outright abuses in the name of "personal taste" (preference) in musical style. The church is quite clear on all these points in her documents, especially on the continual struggle to keep the liturgy pure in how music should serve the liturgy and in no way overtake it.

    I certainly respect Dr. Mahrt and I have not read his philosophy on this matter. Can you point me to anything in print?
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    http://media.musicasacra.com/publications/sacredmusic/pdf/sm136-4.pdf
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Thanks melo:

    I read the first article. It is interesting that the article strikes me to be somewhat an apologetic for the cause. You see, it IS a confusion right out the gate.

    It does not at all change my position on the matter. Again. I have a 'Requiem for the Nations' which I composed for 911 which employs orchestra and choir. Even though it is fully 'sacred in character', it would still 'steal' away the focus of the liturgy onto the music. There is no getting around this. And when you add solos into the middle of an ordinary, well, what else can I say. It is the type of CONCERT we SHOULD be having in our churches... not the secular works of Beethoven and Wagner. They build elaborate buildings that rival many church buildings in our country and around the world... they are called 'concert halls' and should be used as such... not the sanctuary.

    I also composed and performed two large scale works for orchestra and choir in the past five years, Et Lux in Tenebrae and Septum Ultima Iesu Christi In Cruce both composed for performance IN the church. We need more music like this being composed and performed in our churches. It is the REAL way to evangelize the surrounding community as it is NOT the Mass, but leads one to it (and the Faith).

    Don't subject the liturgy to musical whims. Save it for the sacred music concert and do it up right! In my view, the whole subject is a slippery slope.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Warning! Another document hurl in progress. LOL. Until someone with enough authority to do so stands up and actually enforces this, it isn't worth the paper it is written on. We can produce reams of documents - tinkling brass and clanging cymbals - that will change very little. The enforcement mechanisms were destroyed in the reforms.


    I guess I'm Toto! I may not have the authority to stand up and enforce it, but I certainly can draw back the curtain! Who are you? (There are four characters left not including the Wiz-on-the-Wall. [OK... I know... it's a deragatory pun, but that is about all that the church has been doing for the past few decades... wizzing on the wall when it comes to sacred music]) Bishop Sample promotes this document as his cornerstone for sacred music. I suggest we get behind him and hold up his hands... he's holding the staff.

    "And Moses' hands were heavy: so they took a stone, and put under him, and he sat on it: and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands on both sides. And it came to pass that his hands were not weary until sunset." Exodus 17:12


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    Francis, your argument (contra orchestral masses) is well-constructed and persuasive. Over the last 10 years I've become more and more enthusiastic for monody--specifically Chant as the Best Way to sing the Mass. (Took me a very long time to catch up to PioX.)

    How-some-ever, B-16 also makes a very good point when he reminds us of the need for Beauty because (following the Greeks), Truth=Beauty=Goodness and God is THE Beauty (and Truth, etc.)

    So. While Beauty is expressed in Chant, it is also expressed in the music of Haydn, Faure, Bruckner, Palestrina, Gabrieli, and even your favorite whipping-boy Amadeus. Spending more time immersed in Beauty is not bad, per se. In fact, arguing that 'more time' is not good is akin to arguing that ONLY 60 minutes should be spent at Mass on Sunday.

    It's true that B-16's argument springs partially from his mysticism, which makes it less convincing to us crusty (and a bit pragmatic) parish worker-bees. But that doesn't make his argument invalid.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Dad:

    O, the music of all those composers is very valid and needed and should be played. Even Mozart. My only argument is that they don't belong at Mass...

    But let's put the shoe on the other foot.

    OK... maybe there would be an extraordinary circumstance where a three hour Mass might be fitting with 20 minute movements of each ordinary part. What kind of circumstance would that look like?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    meloman:

    I just read most of the third article, which really kind of says what I am saying in much more palatable terms.

    Here are a couple of the paragraphs that caught my eye.

    This synthesis of the sacred and the secular—a process that Carl Dahlhaus has eloquently called “the secularization of the religious and sanctification of the profane,” would have far-reaching implications, including the move of the mass from its liturgical setting onto the concert stage.

    In the last half of the eighteenth century increasing enfeeblement and sickly sweetness finally overcame art; keeping step with so-called enlightened attitudes, which killed every deeper religious impulse, it eventually drove all gravity and dignity from church music. Even music for worship in Catholic churches, the masses, vespers, passiontide hymns etc., acquired a character that previously would have been too insipid and undignified even for opera seria. Let it be frankly admitted that even a composer as great as the immortal Joseph Haydn, even the mighty Mozart, could not remain untouched by the contagion of mundane, ostentatious levity. . . . It is clear . . . that Haydn’s masses and church hymns cannot stand as models of church style, particularly compared with that truly sacred music of former times which has now vanished from the earth.


    In the first paragraph, we can now say, 'including the move of the profane from its theatrical setting onto the altar'. God help us. Far reaching implications is an understatement.

    Mozart... the contagion of the mundane? I would NEVER dare to say that!

    Oh, and the "vanished from the earth thingy"... How's that going for you?

    Let's thank PVI for that:

    Clearly the most noticeable new departure is that of language. From now on the vernacular, not Latin, will be the principal language of the Mass. For those who
    appreciate the beauty of Latin, its power, and aptness to express the sacred, substitution of the vernacular certainly represents a great sacrifice. We are losing the idiom of the Christian ages; we become like profane intruders into the literary sanctuary of sacred language; we shall lose a large portion of that wonderful and incomparable, artistic and spiritual reality, Gregorian chant. We indeed have reason for sadness and perhaps even for bewilderment. What shall we put in the place of this angelic language? We are sacrificing a priceless treasure. For what reason?
    Yes, what IS the reason, praytell!?!?

    What is worth more than these sublime values of the Church? The answer may seem trite and prosaic, but it is sound because it is both human and apostolic. Our understanding of prayer is worth more than the previous, ancient garments in which it has been regally clad. Of more value, too, is the participation of the people, of modern people who are surrounded by clear, intelligible language, translatable into their ordinary conversation. If our sacred Latin should, like a think curtain, close us off from the world of children and young people, of work and the business of everyday, then would we, fishers of men, be wise to allow it exclusive dominion over the speech of religion and prayer? Pope Paul VI, General Audience, 1969


    The answer did not seem at all trite and prosaic. It embodied the height of foolishness and swept through the church removing every sanction of beauty.

    The participation of modern people was far more important to this latter lot than the garments of the church and sacrament with which it was certainly regally clad. The clear and intelligible language has removed our need to approach God with august fear and trembling. Jesus is now just another friend on facebook.

    We do not have a "sacred Latin". We have a sacred Church, of which Latin is one part. But once these silly arguments are assimilated into our thinking, the very fabric of the garment of our faith, the Bride of Christ, is systematically removed, piece by piece, and the only thing left in our minds and hearts and our entire life is the desolation of beauty, truth and goodness. All we have done is the most memorable thing that Romans do well: crucify the Christ one more time.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,963
    Pontifical Masses of Ordination in the usus antiquior. That is one such occasion. And, even then, I don’t think the music needs to be that long. I finally realized orchestral Masses had their place when I went to the Insititute ordinations in St. Louis. The Ordinary was an orchestral Mass from the 1740s.


    For what it is worth, there are quite a few orchestral Masses which were for parishes so they are not all that long. They are longer than chant, but shorter than or equal to in length as the longer polyphonic Masses
    Thanked by 1francis
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    MathhewRoth:

    Do you perform the shorter ones with orchestra?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,963
    Yes. I have been to one on Christmas a few years ago... Now, it would be five to ten minutes longer with the Credo...
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Which Mass was it? (Composer, Title)
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,963
    Oh, gosh. It was a Schubert Mass, I think. It took about an hour and a half.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    They are longer than chant, but shorter than or equal to in length as the longer polyphonic Masses

    We're on a merry-go-round now, MR, it was "too many notes" among other things prior to Trent, and no matter whose legend you follow, it was a short hop to Monteverdi, Mozart and J. Haydn (I get Michael), to Beethoven, to Verdi to Britten, and so forth. And I'm sorry, If I have to sing the Schubert in G Major ever again, it'll be one time too many, whether in concert or otherwise.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    well, melo, perhaps i should compose you an orchestral mass, with the stipulation that it is for concert only. (lol)
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    Francis, you must take those tempi REALLY slow! We used Mozart's "Coronation" for the dedication of a parish church. Whole Mass, top-to-bottom, was about 2 hours on the nose (maybe a bit less.)

    Best part: Rembert Weakland was at the faldstool, he who only 10 years later roundly condemned the "Coronation" Mass after it was used at St Peter's for a Mass celebrated by JPII.

    So you and Rembert are on the same page. Thought you'd like to know that.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    dad,

    Best because it shows......
    [Sorry, it's Rembert Weakland and what looks like hypocrisy, so it could show several things.]
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    I condemn no thing or no one. I simply try to hold up the desires and wishes of mother church and do my best to live up to her expectations.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Well, it was only fitting that the first president of the CMAA would stand at the faldstool during an orchestral Mass.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    I can not be on the same page as Rembert. He lives in an entirely different book.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Well, for the past 49 years, yes.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    orchestral setting of sanctus in ENGLISH!

    btw... the text has been abrogated so you can't use it for an actual Mass.

    http://www.myopus.com/preview/sanctusFugue.mp4
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    Perhaps Rembert does live in another book. He certainly does NOT live at his home monastery in Pennsylvania.

    Prof. K. made an interesting observation which bears on this discussion:

    ...what intrigues me is the general claim that Rationalism and Romanticism — the two great counterforces of modernity, each an extreme reacting against the other — are the two slave-drivers behind the liturgical reform.[2]

    Rationalism cracks the whip and shouts: “No silence! Everything must be SAID and UNDERSTOOD! No complexity! Stop all that intricate symbolic stuff! Stop all that lugubrious chanting! Modern man has no patience, no time, no ability, no need for it! It promotes an aristocracy of clerics! Let the light of objective reason shine!” But then Romanticism sneaks in, elbows an unsuspecting Rationalism aside, and, with a voice all the more poisonous for seeming friendly: “Relax! Go with the flow! You are too formal, uptight, rigid, and cerebral! Let go of the rubrics, find your inner child, feel it in your bones, be yourself! Everything’s about YOU, your feelings, your neediness — this is your moment!” Each struggles for supremacy; in a weird sort of way, they are codependent and collaborative. They stop at nothing to eviscerate the tradition that precedes them, until all that is left is a disembodied reason of empty structures and a derationalized self-indulgent sentimentalism....


    One can infer that the 'rationalism' thing excludes the contemplative-time spent in actively listening to Beauty (even though it may be lengthy.)
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Good catch, Dad. Trouble is, there's no middle ground when it comes to interpretation about all these nuances. Every swingin' expert thinks that the "words" of the legislation, if followed to the letter, will solve any and all problems, like "take two aspirin, call me in the morning."
    What we, NPM and all free agents need to realize is that it eventually comes down to mutual respect and collaboration. A musician needs to be able to demonstrate expertise from day one. A pastor needs to recognize competence from his day one in a new joint.
    Unfortunately, reason is being trumped by polemics and rhetoric these days.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668

    Part VIII. Principal Means


    24. For the exact execution of what has been herein laid down, the Bishops, if they have not already done so, are to institute in their dioceses a special Commission composed of persons really competent in sacred music, and to this Commission let them entrust in the manner they find most suitable the task of watching over the music executed in their churches. Nor are they to see merely that the music is good in itself, but also that it is adapted to the powers of the singers and be always well executed.

    25. In seminaries of clerics and in ecclesiastical institutions let the above-mentioned traditional Gregorian Chant be cultivated by all with diligence and love, according to the Tridentine prescriptions, and let the superiors be liberal of encouragement and praise toward their young subjects. In like manner let a Schola Cantorum be established, whenever possible, among the clerics for the execution of sacred polyphony and of good liturgical music.

    26. In the ordinary lessons of Liturgy, Morals, and Canon Law given to the students of theology, let care be taken to touch on those points which regard more directly the principles and laws of sacred music, and let an attempt be made to complete the doctrine with some particular instruction in the aesthetic side of sacred art, so that the clerics may not leave the seminary ignorant of all those subjects so necessary to a full ecclesiastical education.

    27. Let care be taken to restore, at least in the principal churches, the ancient Scholae Cantorum, as has been done with excellent fruit in a great many places. It is not difficult for a zealous clergy to institute such Scholae even in smaller churches and country parishes-nay, in these last the pastors will find a very easy means of gathering around them both children and adults, to their own profit and the edification of the people.

    28. Let efforts be made to support and promote, in the best way possible, the higher schools of sacred music where these already exist, and to help in founding them where they do not. It is of the utmost importance that the Church herself provide for the instruction of her choirmasters, organists, and singers, according to the true principles of sacred art.

  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    the Bishops, if they have not already done so, are to institute in their dioceses a special Commission composed of persons really competent in sacred music
    I know a bishop or two who banned Latin. I don't think the bishops are up to this task because they themselves are deficient in knowing what constitutes sacred music. The seminaries need to have a solid formation process or we go nowhere fast.
Add a Comment