So the good folks on the Musica Sacra forum are now talking about how Palestrina is essentially un-interesting and how a cappella music is essentially boring?! Seriously, first Donald Trump, then 'Amoris Laetitia', now here?! Where's a man supposed to turn for orthodoxy in the world?

Nothing wrong with Palestrina. Anything to excess can be bad. With 500 years of good music to choose from, why not do it all, or at least as much as possible.

I have difficulty listening to any music for two hours. Too many other things to do.

Charles, on one hand I know what you're saying. On the other, there is a certain casual dismissiveness about someone who really did so much good for the Church.

Are you referring to polyphony which garbled up the texts so no one could understand them? LOL.

If one knows what the text is about (or, come to think of it, even if he doesn't) he can understand what such eloquent music says about God and all that is holy. Furthermore, polyphony and ambitious choral works are not the only genres which garble words. Quite a bit of the rubbish that is favoured in many of our churches does the same.

Not being able to understand every word is a hollow argument and a fig leaf for the ignorant 'I don't like'.

I do recall that around the time of Trent, it was recognized that polyphony had gotten so extreme the texts were unintelligible. There were calls for the simplification of polyphony for good reasons.

Not being able to understand every word is a hollow argument and a fig leaf for the ignorant 'I don't like'.

Actually, it represents quite well the elitism and arrogance that allowed the beginnings of the current musical mess we are in. Who doesn't see where opening that door has led?

Not talking about Palestrina or Musica Sacra. At the time of the Council - I am old enough to remember - we had rather elitist musicians immersed in Rossini and other "approved" music of questionable worth. The good old days which may have been old, but the music was often far from good. There was a backlash after Vatican II that was predictable and it left most musicians in the dust. Given the tendencies of such, it went to an extreme in the other direction. It could have been managed better, but that was true of the entire Church at the time. Lack of vision is not peculiar to musicians but can also affect clergy.

I LIKE PALESTRINA!!!!!!!!!! That seems to get lost somewhere in this. I keep getting these replies that don't catch that. Too much of him is, too much. Plenty of other good music exists, as well. It is also not all polyphony or chant.

Nice analogies, Adam, really nice!

About elitist and arrogance:

Since finely made music is known and loved by all social and educational strata, it hardly qualifies as 'elitist', whether one is 'arrogant' about it or not. It's really quite literally stupid to use that word in reference to 'classical' music, those who perform it, or those who love to hear it. Words are bandied about so carelessly, and, a keen-eyed observation will reveal the very ignorance (often preferred and cultivated) of those who bandy them. It is beyond me why anyone pays them any mind.

And arrogance? Well, there is more than enough of that to be found in everyone's camp, so we needn't throw stones at our own people. One might well observe that the very epitomy of arrogance can be found in the hearts and minds of those who thoroughly trashed and wreaked mayhem on Catholic music and liturgy after the council. What greater arrogance and snottiness was exhibited, ever, in history!

And, about Charles' comment just below. Yes, we have, and always have had, snotty folks in the world of fine music. Why, even Mozart himself, according to all accounts, could be classified as snotty - he certainly knew his musical worth, and the lesser worth of lesser mortals! But snotty people don't all wear 'soft clothing' and exhibit fine taste in music and the arts. People who hate fine music and the arts and wear torn up blue jeans can be as snotty, arrogant, mean, and horrible about their preferences as it's possible to be.

Wouldn't it be sort of sane to remark that a certain individual was snotty or arrogant, and not allow that to colour our judgment of what he or she was snotty about? Snottiness and arrogance are, after all, character flaws which may imply clinical issues, or be mere eccentricities that may or may not be charming, even humoured, depending on the individual. But, because a certain person is or isn't arrogant really says nothing at all objective about what he or she is arrogant about. Separate the person from the thing.

____________________________________

Nice to hear that you, Charles, are doing some of Greg Hamilton's things. He is really good and has composed a number of things just for me to present in recitals. His style is sort of eclectic, but highly intelligent and tasteful, his mastery of counterpoint truly admirable. He has written a set of psalm meditations (actually an Easter trilogy) for me, as well as an In Nomine (with a nod the English renaissance genre), a beautiful multi-sectioned sort of 'choral-fantasia' setting of the office hymn for the Baptism of our Lord, Implente munus debitum. This last one is my favourite. I can send you copies if you wish to send me your address. Or, you could contact him. He is one of our forumites.

Jackson,
I agree completely. I don't understand this warning cry of "elitist, elitist". I have felt that way when listening to a group of Marty Haugen/David Haas devotees, especially among some of my college classmates who were into this "build a new church into being" nonsense. (Really, is there anything more arrogant than this kind of thinking?) So it really doesn't matter. Here's the Credo, I think, of church music:
1.) Do all things for the glory of God and the betterment/instruction (edification) of the faithful.
2.) Do the best music that most appropriately fits the Liturgical Season/part of Mass as well as you can.
3.) Do this as charitably as you can.
4.) Do this with as much dedication to the truth - the Gospel - as you can.
5.) Allow for others to shine with the light God has given them and allow them to use their gifts.

If you take care of these things, one won't care about the "snotty guy" down the road, (no matter his liturgical/stylistic persuasion). In the end, the eye is on the prize!

Jacob, I like your list very much. Keep up the good work!

Don't let the comments of Charles W fluster you. His perspective is seasoned, practical, and sometimes jaded. But he's sincere and has served for years- lots to be learned there. Most forum member comments aren't as high on the dismissive scale. He just tells it like (he thinks) it is. And he's pretty clear that his habit of always accompanied chant is simply his preference, based largely on what sounds like a choir that isn't changing (improving) anytime soon.
Do I agree with him on this issue? No way. Just sayin', no need to take his comments to heart to much, especially when he doesn't.

Charles, I consider your comments to be a good guard rail against a certain snobbery that says, "it always has to be THIS way". And I mostly agree on that.

Personally, I find almost all of the accompaniments I've heard to be less than musically compelling. None of them I know of are written by great composers. And it shows. The attempts range from cheesy to drippy to awkward to sort of tolerable. So much depends on the skill and wisdom of the organist. The best solutions I've heard are from organists who improvise well, sing chant fairly regularly, and know exactly what the group of singers need. They can accompany from the chant score.

It is so refreshing to hear MJO's observations about people discussing various accompaniments- as if that makes the chant. Hilarious!

As often as I've heard shaky chant, I've heard insensitive or musically lame accompaniment even more. Often one hears both simultaneously! We all have work to do...

I use the ICEL chant accompaniments written by Charles Thatcher (WLP). They seem to me the best ones out there in that they don't clash with the melody line. For Latin, the NOH seems unequaled.

Keep in mind that MaryAnn works for SSPX, or did the last time I looked. These folks are, in essence, neo-Protestants, small in number, and not the tail that wags the dog - although they are prideful enough to want to. Will they have much impact on the direction of music in the mainstream church? My experience with them has been that they prefer isolating themselves from everyone else. Not a good way to influence anyone.

I am in a conservative leaning NO parish, probably one of the most conservative in the diocese. As far as the choir, yes they are entrenched and quite entitled. They would rebel at any more chant or Latin, or at least half of them would. I have Florence Foster Jenkins in that choir, only she is male and sings bass. Our new pastor tolerates our chant, although he did make the statement to one of our members that Gregorian chant makes his toes curl. Good guy, but not traditional liturgically speaking.

When I took this job in 2001, I threw out the "contemporary" trash they were doing and improved music as much as I could. I have no doubts that when I retire the sounds of Haugen and Haas will once again be heard in the land. The advantage to being Eastern is that I can shake the dust from my sandals and not look back.

Mary Ann Carr-Wilson is presently providing her musical expertise (and has been for quite a while) at St. Anne Church in San Diego. It is an FSSP parish of the local diocese.

Good! I hadn't heard from or about her in some time, and she is a nearly a continent away. Folks on the west coast are not exactly conversation topics 3,000 miles away.

Your attempt to dismiss her comments because she's (at some past time, perhaps) connected to the SSPX is, at least from what I can see, mean-spirited.

I may have her confused with another poster who writes from time to time about SSPX. FSSP is a better place to be, I think.

Chris, you would find heaven mean-spirited because they wouldn't let you run the place. LOL.

And I think many of use sympathize with Julie's opinions:

St. Nicholas du Chardonnet + King's = Nosebleed High Catholic liturgical sensibility with robust congregational participation. -- Yep, I'm in!

Mary Ann has provided fine commentary on musico/liturgical matters, as one would expect from FSSP musicians. For that matter, there are some fine SSPX musicians out there, I suppose.

I have never known any SSPX people and they have no presence in my area. There were some at one time who said they were with Pius V. Those folks were extremely unpleasant. Some would say they were nuts.

.

Copyright (c) 2014, M. Jackson Osborn. All Rights Reserved.

I think what some TLM fans don't realize, or care to realize, is that some of us are not fans of the TLM. We are working in NO parishes and don't do the EF. It isn't an "ideal" since it is either impossible or impractical in our circumstances.

However - big HOWEVER - we still want good music. It is possible to have good music within the NO mass. That is my ideal. I know, this always brings out the natterers - you know, the ones you would most have liked to beat up in high school - who chide us for not doing the EF mass. But it isn't an option and that decision has been made for us.

It does seem to me that CMAA has a high proportion of people who want to reestablish the EF as the norm. Good luck in converting the bishops to that. Even better luck in converting most of the congregations and pastors to it. It isn't realistic. This organization is going to have to reach beyond the EF to have anything to say to the majority of the U.S. church. As I mentioned above, I'm for good music, which is definitely achievable in the OF.

What I meant is they wouldn't allow you to dictate right order and proper procedure, which it seems to me, is a tendency I have noticed.

My goal is not to convert the world, the country, the USCCB or even you to the TLM.

It isn't a matter of conversion. The EF is not an option for me. If I were involved with it, I would do the best I could using the best resources I could find. Same as i do for the OF. I am under no illusions, however. When I retire, I expect things to go downhill fast.

We're doing our best where we are with what we have.

That's the point and I hope that is what all of us are doing.

rich_enough (which I'm not) is quite right -

It is sometimes depressing to hear people constantly carrying on about what is 'practical', what is the 'down to earth reality' and so on and so forth. This is an attitude which really seems to shut out anything which might challenge these piteous states of mind and the regimens of mental slavery to which they are not a constructive answer. It is as though they are living in a cage, which may be of their own making, or that of an unfortunate cleric. It is the attitude of defeatism and of those who are in comfortable ruts out of which they don't wish to be nudged. Ruts and purely practical regimens are the opium dens of spiritual vitality. Get up and do something! 'Pick up thy bed and walk'.

We need ideals. We need them desparately. We need paradigms. Isaiah said it nicely: 'a vision, O Lord, give the people a vision lest they perish'. Vision! Paradigm! Ideals! As much as some here seem burdened by their existence, they do exist, they are real. Further, we need to live up to them, strive for them daily, be coloured by them in thought, word, and deed. Ideals are a blessing - they show us where we ought to be heading and what we should be working towards, for they are God-sent. Sometimes, some few actually reach them. As for most of us: we may not reach those goals in this life, but it counts for much, very much if we, in the words of St Paul, 'run the race' and 'fight the good fight'. Every time I hear any of the myriad varieties of 'practicality' I want to pull up a (very, very very large) tree by the roots and toss it for at least ten miles. There are, to be sure, times when something that is 'practical' is a virtue. Most of the time it is a millstone about our necks minds.

It has nothing to do with substitutions. It's about what to do in the gaps in the legislation because let's be honest: the OF is very vague many times.

Ok I know I don't post as much as I'd like, but come on now, Charles!! I take it for granted that you have dismissive posts, and I'm ok with that, but just a reminder on the facts: I'm not SSPX or FSSP or EF or anything besides Catholic.
I do serve most gladly at an FSSP parish, not because I'm a traditionalist (I'm not), but because it's the only parish in a 50 mile radius that's interested in a sacred music program.

Or, as my husband told me when I was considering the position after being a music director at two other diocesan parishes, "They're the only ones who want you". Huh. True!

I'm grateful to be able to use my music degrees and love for sacred music in an era of liturgical identity crisis. And the volunteers who work under my direction continually amaze me- folks who really do care about sung liturgy and giving God their best.

but because it's the only parish in a 50 mile radius that's interested in a sacred music program.

Same here. I think we are the only parish in the area that doesn't wan't to do trash. I wouldn't work in any of the other ones.

And the volunteers who work under my direction continually amaze me- folks who really do care about sung liturgy and giving God their best.

That makes all the difference.