Showing off...

And..... just what constitutes 'showing off'? I have heard some respond to a beautifully played mass by someone who really, musically, 'knew what he was talking about', with daft comments such as 'well, I'm not a concert organist, I'm just a church organist playing for the glory of God', or 'the organist is just showing off'. There are, of course, an infinite number of variations on such vacuous remarks. The implication is that anything really good musically is 'showing off', anything beyond an amateur's limitations is 'showing off', anything I can't do, or don't wish to learn how to do, is 'showing off', or, even, anything that caught my attention and was well done is 'showing off', etc., etc., ad infinitum. All of us could, doubtless, add to this list of cretinesque pouts.

The only thing that I can think of that would be showing off would be something that was badly played and should not have been played. Our great colleague, Charles, has mentioned the chamade during communions. I would aver that, in the hands of one who really knew what he or she was 'talking about', even the chamade could at some rare moments be brought into play, yes, even during communions. The crucial, and deciding, factor is that the organist has caught on to the unique and never-to-happen-again spiritual air of the moment and has expressed it musically. Yes, it's conceivable (but not often likely) that a plenum as a brief climax could be just the thing. One senses the air and fills it with what is momentarily appropriate. Those who aren't so talented, or who are out to lunch when it comes to musical poetry gracing the moment, will fasten onto the old 'showing off' cant and, Grinch-like, will spoil everything, chamade-like showing off for all to see their own ignorance.

The only 'showing off' is, normally, poor playing of what should not have been played. Silence is always better than poorness. When we are engaged in ritual we bring forth the finest of our talents, and the finest of talents which we can employ. We don't say of the priest who is wearing a fine Belgian cloth of gold chasuble embroidered by the hands of choice nuns that he is showing off, or that the nuns are showing off, etc. Nay, if we can afford it it is an appropriate offering and an apt expression of loving sacrifice, expressing the splendid beauty of God. With music it is no different. Our music is a rare embroidery in sound, lovingly stitched by the highly talented hands which God created just for that purpose. It is as appropriate that we should be in breathtaken awe of it as we are of those rare and costly vestments in the sanctuary. After all, the servant who 'showed off' what he had done with his 'talents' is the one with whom his master was pleased.

Of course, one needn't improvise to show off. One merely needs to do something like this during Holy Communion....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoCW2Nho7bk

CharlesW

And choice of repertoire is not much different than choice of improvisation....

I have found that continuing practicing Bach aids in the fluidity of improvisations that happen to occur before, during, and after the mass. Typically I progress harmonically as in whichever hymn happens to be on the music stand. Things of complete invention happen occasionally too that are satisfying to resolve and transition succinctly to whatever is going on... for instance the handing out of crosses to the catechumens, or other things which occupy an intra-liturgical space during which you've reasoned to have music also occur. I think it's a dying art, and those spaces are being filled with choir acclamations as well now. I think some take it way too far as to intrude into what people are used to listening to unaccompanied.

On of the issues I have with reasoning is that some people draw incorrect conclusions.

Mostly criticism by other musicians. The lay non musical population might raise an eyebrow.

Alas! Chris is, methinks, a little hopeful.

It would be nice if sacred and secular-styled music were appropriate each in its proper context.

The truth is (relative to probably a generous majority of our churches) that sacred music is not appropriate in its presumed context.

It is the secular-styled music that is as appropriate in sacred precincts as well as at the sporting event.

Sacred music is not considered appropriate anywhere - in church or anywhere else.

Can you just imagine the hue and cry, and the booing and hissing that would greet Palestrina or Bach at a sporting event?

Why, it might rival the booing that greets genuine sacred music at mass in many, very, very many churches - by those in and not in holy orders, even by some who wear mitres.

Jackson,

I'm speaking of the norm, in the sense of what SHOULD be, not what is.

Mr Hawkins -
Curious you should mention the Toccata and Fugue in D-Minor -
when I wrote the above I started to add 'except maybe for his D-Minor Toccata and Fugue'.
There is something vulgar about that piece that seems to enchant great numbers of people.
From my first hearing or reading of it I didn't like it at all.

Toccata and Fugue in D-Minor

The only time I hear that piece is around Halloween. It has come to be identified with that holiday since it has the "haunted house" sound. I haven't heard anyone use it as a concert piece in many years.

The opening measures of the toccatta would be fantastic for a baseball game, as a closing pitcher with a 108mph fastball takes the mound.

With regards to improvisation: it is a blessed useful skill and has been encouraged by many schools of organ playing with the French taking it to incredible heights. I'm offended by any notion that says it is not a useful skill for service playing. As one who regularly has to improvise, it makes for wonderful moments in the liturgy when I take the antiphons or some other theme and use it as a basis for my improvisation. For Catholics in particular, we have many moments when indeterminate lengths of time need the organ for improvisation.

For those unaware, the great French organist Marcel Dupre gave us a course of study in improvisation, in such things as harmony, form of pieces and developments to guide the learner. However, in the end, Louis Armstrong is correct when asserts that one can or cannot improvise. Its all in the soul of the player.

I once heard Louis Robillard say that anyone can play pieces on the organ but a true organist must improvise. Amen..deo gratias.

No one has had a medical emergency since.

Could this, um, be due to not wanting hear you improvise again?

a secondary slate of qualifications for village churches or those whose means and resources really are limited - meaning those which aren't cathedrals or parishes of means.>

Does this refer to small parishes, like rural and small town, say in the South? I'm trying to apply this discussion to my situation and can't find much of anything that fits or is anywhere close to fitting. Organs are very rare here--lots of keyboards, banjos and guitars.Two particular Catholic parishes I'm familiar with here:

Parish 1: Has an organ. Organist is a parish member. Pastor controls the "style": "traditional" with organ (twice/month), LifeTeen with guitars (once/month), "contemporary" with guitars (once/month). Choir members sing for organ Masses and the "contemporary" Mass--75% do not know how to read music. Choir director (who is not the organist) just tries to get the choir to sing the hymns/songs in unison.

Parish 2: Has a keyboard. Pianist is Presbyterian, having zero familiarity with anything Catholic. Plays everything, including chant, theatrically. No music/choir director--just a list of volunteer "cantors", 90% of whom do not read music. On any given Sunday, music can be a combination of Latin, meaningless campfire songs, "traditional" hymns, and Sunday school ditties.

How does anything in the above discussion speak to our situation? Maybe it doesn't which I can understand.

Back to the OP:

I am in the process of creating some courses for my diocese and would like your input.

What should any sacred musician know? Any particular standards they should be achieveing etc.?

Do you have any small/rural parishes in your diocese? What can you offer them?

My suggestions would include the following:

1. Musicians in Catholic parishes must be Catholic.
2. They must be familiar with Church documents on liturgy and music.
3. They must know what is and what is not sacred music.
4. They must be skilled in their instrument (e.g. voice, organ, trumpet, etc) or position (e.g. directing).
5. They must be willing to learn, to listen, to serve.

This is basic, but I would be one happy Catholic parishioner if I found all the above at our parish.

Are we assuming that a church choir member and a church musician are two different things? If so, why? (Especially since in another thread it was agreed that singers are musicians.)

I don't think organists or directors need to be Catholic. Two of the best liturgists I have known in my area are Presbyterian and Episcopalian, respectively. Both have a better sense of liturgy than most Catholic musicians I have known.

An Episcopalian I know is both a better musician, and a better Catholic than most who call themselves by that name. Why she hasn't formally converted, is for her to answer. However, she lives and adheres to doctrines many if not most Catholics reject. Go figure. You can put a label on a pig, and you still have a pig, with a label attached.