My wife, a CAGO Episcopalian organist/director, heard this "from a major publisher psalm" and said, "That's so Catholic."

The Episcopalians have kept us eating during my extended job search.

I found the video interesting, but it went in an entirely different direction than I thought it would.

On a purely melodic level, the tune isn't so bad. It's the trite "boom-chuck-chuck" accompaniment that makes it awful. When you changed the bass line and the output to organ, there was an immediate improvement (but, mind you, this had nothing to do with the melody).

Placing it side-by-side with a different melody is what I didn't expect, and personally I think it turns the whole thing into pure rhetorical flourish: "You don't need to be a musicologist to tell the difference between Yanni and Beethoven" (to allude to one of your other videos). Plus, you don't specifically address anything inherently better about the Crux Fidelis melody itself. It's the other factors--unaccompanied, free rhythm, lack of functional tonality, etc.--that make it more "dignified."

Where I thought it could have gone was transforming the original melody even more--into a free unaccompanied vocalization in the style of chant. Take away the 3/4 and concomitant awkward rhythm and it could be kind of nice, even with the strong tonal center. Something along the lines of this reworking of R.E.M.'s "Losing My Religion" by the parody group The Benezedrine Monks of Santo Domonica. Voilà, instant "dignified" music and the sacred subsuming the profane--more or less.

The whole approach is unsavory to me, because the notion that we should just toss aside all the bad music will always needlessly offend and factionalize. Why not show what neat things creative musicians can do with even the most terrible of stuff?

Incidentally, I use the Benzedrine Monks alongside the "Chant" albums from Santo Domingo de Silos as a unit in a course I teach on the historical interface between the sacred and the popular in worship music. The one is "legit" and popular, while the other is profane but fringe. The students always like the YouTube mash-ups of chant with a hip-hop beat...

(For those of you who don't click on the link:)

One's immediate observation about the subject of Jeff's discussion is that one should (could) not even concede that the tune is 'happy'.
It isn't. It is silly... embarassingly silly. It's nothing more than a jingle.
That a 'high ranking' clergy would exhibit the utter absence of judgement required to ask such a 'favour' at mass is beyond sad, beyond comprehension.
Jeff's version is certainly an improvement.
I once had to play some similar music, so I treated it the way I would real church music.
The choir were delighted! They said 'it's nice the way you play it - you take the 'country' out of it'.
To what depths have we sunk when someone says of such a tune that it sounds 'so Catholic'!

Dignified music should of course be sung at Mass. Unless pastoral reasons strongly suggest otherwise.

Here's my thing: what if you have a strict no-junk-food rule at your house, but all your kids want is mcnuggets? Honestly, this three year old will eat nothing but mcnuggets.

But what do you do if the three year old has complete freedom, and he drives? So if I say, "No mcnuggets! Eat your delicious vegetables," then he goes to the drive thru and eats mcnuggets AND heresy?

Knowing our limits is also a humility. I plant seeds, let God work in His way and harvest. But I know I can't plant weeds that will ruin other plants and the soil.
If we want to teach children love of Jesus, we need to help them to practice humility, sacrifice and obedience, otherwise they will never taste true love.
I thank God for our Church, through which I truly learn obedience and taste His love of sacrifice given through the holy Church.

Jeff O

Excellent, superb, informed work in that video. The musical examples are perfect.

When I was a wee bit younger than I am now, a poet friend of mine once suggested that any poem being considered for publication must first pass the "sing-song" test. That is, if you can recite the poem in a sing-songy voice and feel a profound sense of disjuncture, then the piece can then be subjected to further considerations. If the sing-songiness does not produce a sense of disjuncture, if it seems perfectly okay to recite the poem that way, then the poem is too trite, or the way the poem is expressed is not related closely enough to its content.

Put another way, the poem would be permitting a divorce between its performed expression and its content. This divorce suggests that the poem's expression and form are IRRELEVANT to its content. Going further, that means the poem cannot be considered artistic because its form/expression is arbitrary.

It seems to me that sacred scripture should never be treated as if its manner of expression were arbitrary, irrelevant, or invite profane associations.

Part of the function of sacred music should be to suggest that the Kingdom of Heaven is not wholly of this world. Sacred music should help dispose us to the call of Another. That means leading us audibly out of the everyday world. This would not be to 'over-spiritualize the proceedings' and make us think that we are not called to be workers in the vineyard. Just the opposite. It's the tension between the Now and the Not Yet that leaves us, as we exit the Mass, with a sense of vocation.

Otherwise, we leave with a sense that the Mass is just another part of ordinary earthly reality. There is simply no challenge in that. Sacred music must in some way challenge us. One powerful way it can do that is to draw a contrast, to produce a sense of beckoning.

When the Greeks sorted out the musical scale, they established a pattern of pitches that became western music. When the church began organizing music forms that were appropriate for worship, they accepted these 8 scales. And considered them all to be equal.

These 8 scales or modes each was considered to have their own character, more about that later.

Certain rules for composition of melodies were put into effect, strictly regulating what a church melody should sound like.

Simpler times, no?

Of course, people went outside the box and tried to push the envelope, but were stopped.

Popular music continued to evolve, but in parallel with church music but without the restrictions. So there was a home there for composers who were unwilling to write under the restrictions of the church. Of course, this had to be frustrating to those musicians who wrote in these alternate styles who wanted their music to be part of the solemnity of the Mass.

Eventually the practice of singing a melody against another melody, polyphony, became popular and eventually became accepted into the church. But the old rules still applied from chant, so melodies were confined to certain intervals and new harmonic rules governing the intervals were created.

As an aside, music schools that still teach counterpoint alongside harmony might do better to teach the rules of early counterpoint first as applied to melodies. These rules delineate what is Gregorian Chant and what is not. Then, once the art of writing these melodies is understood, then pursue early counterpoint, later counterpoint and then harmony. Study counterpoint and harmony simultaneously is like reading a novel skipping from the first chapter to the middle of the book and so on…learning and understanding the timeline of vocal music in order might teach a greater appreciation and understanding of chant and polyphony.

There have always been great composers. And these were always ones that pushed the envelope and the things that made their music great was how they brought together elements that up to then were not permitted or practiced and made them work.

The Beethoven 8th Symphony, for example, has a section with striking chordal sequence that just stops, leaving dead air. Thomas Bricetti taught about this and brought students to understand how shocking that was to audiences of the day.

Of the day. Within the cultural expectations of the people.

There are tons and tons of music written at that time that did not survive the test of time. But Beethoven's 8th did.

At this point in time there were three kinds of music: Sacred, Classical and Popular. Classical music developed as composers took upon themselves to create a serious music that reflected life in both sacred and secular forms, music for a concert hall. Popular music stayed popular.

Compared to sacred and what is generally referred to as classical music, little popular music has survived. Much of it that has survived was through its association in one way or another with sacred or classical music.

Popular music was not then nor now "bad" music, but instead was something created to entertain at that time without an effort to push the envelope of style, since that would result in music that made people think rather than sit back and enjoy. If Beethoven were to write a popular piece and insert those sudden chords and pauses, the owner of the tavern would think the band had messed up and people's complaints would end their booking.

People with their hands on the money the tavern owner wanted exchanged for drink and food. Musicians who do this today are referred to as "cover bands."

If a composer wanted to write music that would be "popular" it had to be within the expected tonal and rhythmic structure common of that day.

Church music and Classical music was not tied as tightly to the need to satisfy the populace, rather it continued to be written to push the envelope of harmony and rhythm. And the congregation and audiences expected to hear music that was growing like an atomic explosion from the initial rules set for Gregorian Chant. They expected to hear music that built upon this foundation. And they expected to hear things that were new and challenging even though they might not like them.

Talking about these changes was part of the interchange both vocal and written in society.

Composers were familiar with chant since it and polyphony were the music of the church. And many composers then and today used chant melodies for classical secular works, never intended for performance in a church.

Popular music continued on as simple music.

Sacred and Classical music are usually not simple and not accessible for performance by the average, untrained musician, though popular music often is.

So there has always been a line between Sacred/Classical and Popular.

There has been a plethora of music that crept into the church from the popular stage of opera and operetta, either in style or by merely changing the words. The church has fought against that, since that sort of music is designed to touch the heart strings, to inflame the emotions. If it does not, the opera fails. So there is a test of emotional impact that music should pass before it comes into the church.

This has always been in effect. The Greeks and others believed each mode had its own emotional impact, and later individual keys in the modern major minor scales were given mood attributes until well-tempered tuning removed the differences.

If we were to sing music of the modern composers writing in new styles at Mass we'd be in trouble. And that's wrong.

But all the criteria for what makes music proper for Mass have been abandoned. The concert hall has not done this.

Why? Why has the commercial concert hall not had to bow to public pressure?

Robert Bridges: “And if we consider and ask ourselves what sort of music we should wish to hear on entering a church, we should surely, in describing our ideal, say first of all that it must be something different from what is heard elsewhere; that it should be a sacred music, devote to its purpose, a music whose peace should still passion, whose dignity should strengthen our faith, whose unquestion’d beauty should find a home in our hearts, to cheer us in life and in death.”

Francis, no thanks. Noel's "answer" doesn't really touch on the main point, which is that defining "Catholic" music isn't as simple as a basic (and quite glossed) history lesson. Is there something that makes Olivier Messiaen's music more "Catholic" than Vaughan Williams, just because Messiaen himself was Catholic and Vaughan Williams was indifferent toward religion at best? Or, for that matter, is a polyphonic Missa L'homme Armé less "Catholic" because it is based on a pop tune? Noel's categories don't hold absolutely.

If my question were about what makes music proper for Mass, maybe Noel was touching on it (I'll give him that much), but that is an entirely different question. There can be "Catholic" music that is never used for Mass, and Mass music that doesn't "sound" Catholic at all (e.g., "Missa Luba").

dshadle

Then here is a more direct answer. If the composer uses the text of the Mass and composes it FOR the Mass, and the composition is based on the well established norms and traditions of Catholic music throughout the centuries (excellence in melodic line and contrapuntal style), it then reflects the intention of a Catholic sentiment. Is it particulary "Catholic Music" at that point. Maybe!

But I will take it one step further... and this one can only be judged by God. So you will never have an answer in black and white... sorry.

More important than the music itself, is the state of heart of the composer... that the composer is striving to live in full communion with God and His RC Church, to follow its decrees, is loyal to the magisterium, and practices the sacraments regularly. That is about as "Catholic" as it gets!

Jesus said it like this; "You will know the tree by its fruit."

Non omnis qui dicit mihi Domine Domine intrabit in regnum caelorum sed qui facit voluntatem Patris mei qui in caelis est ipse intrabit in regnum caelorum. Multi dicent mihi in illa die Domine Domine nonne in nomine tuo prophetavimus et in tuo nomine daemonia eiecimus et in tuo nomine virtutes multas fecimus. Et tunc confitebor illis quia numquam novi vos discedite a me qui operamini iniquitatem.

Invoking "well established norms," "traditions," "excellence," etc. etc. isn't very convincing, because anyone with technical skill can do that.

If what you say about non-musical aspects is true, then we're going to have to dump a lot of good music by less than stellar Catholics. Maybe Benedictine monk X who wrote Y chant was a total jerk! You are right that we can't judge that anyway, so maybe we shouldn't try too hard. If someone is paid to write the music, as was the case with so many of the Renaissance polyphonists, does that change things? Hardly a pure springing forth of the Spirit there.

Perhaps it's the combination of the two, as you suggest, but if that's the case, then we're ultra limited in ways that Church teachings don't really coalesce with. Why speak of "the treasury" of sacred music at all if it's only a very narrow construct? And where does new music fit into the picture? Is the Church really alive if she cannot grow the treasury?

Having said all that, I understand what you're saying and agree for the most part. Forthright statements like, "It isn't Catholic," as if that is some universally understood category, don't sit very well with me. Not all Catholics speak the same musical language, as much as we would like to think they do. The Church fully recognizes this fact.

Francis,

Donatism is a heresy for a reason.

Musical Donatism is also to be eschewed. The state of the composer's heart and the disposition of his soul may or may not be reflected in the music.

A Colloquium-goer last year told me that a certain solo performance was not authentically sacred because she "did not feel the prayer when [person x] was singing." That sort of thinking is not constructive to us as musicians or as Catholics. One may have a pristine soul and still write second-rate music; and great singers are often notorious cads.

Maybe we should start bargaining with the Eternal in the style of Abraham: "Lord, would you spare our Church for only fifty righteous composers?"

It would be a lot harder to find ten righteous singers, at least if we're talking opera singers here. At least that is my experience! And no, I'm not counting myself among the ten.

hmmm... wow Yuridovi... I would'nt go there. Lot was the only one who escaped the brimstone and fire!

I think we best just plead the Blood of Christ and leave it at that!

Thank you Francis. The Mass is the summit of our Catholic faith. Therfore, to me, the sacred music in Mass is most Catholic that I cannot casually participate, both internally and externally. The sincere catholic musicians will try to find and understand what the Church asks and follow the instructions. (I'm learning that this is a big task.) Of course there should be beauty in music, but musical skills alone cannot inspire me for my faith. I can go to a concert if I want to be inspired just by the beauty of the music. There are groups of monks singing chants that inspire me immensely, although they might not be as highly musical as professional gruops. It's very hard to explain the spritual aspects of the Church's sacred music. One has to ask with sincere humility and experience it. And I am glad that there are many in this forum who share this experience.

The Church gave lots of options for parishes in different situations and missionary countries. Why not keep the music that are written for entertaniment and keep them as entertainment? We have plenty of sacred music and more coming. I don't see the need of disfiguring the music and try to fit it into something else. I'm from Korea, and it took awhile to appreciate chants. They may sing chants in Korean, but they don't try to transform their entertaining music or Buddhist music, which are ingrained in our culture, to use in Catholic church. No matter how much you change, the association of the music that are known to audience remains, and to me that's a distraction. Sacred music in Mass supposed to remind us of heavenly things. Because of the heavenly reminder we have courage to go out to the world and do what we supposed to do.

I don't believe JO said that was the best. He improved, but there is a limit. Then he showed the different music which is truly sacred. Isn't that what he said? That was the only choice for him at that moment. But if he had a choice, he will not be using that melody at all.

Here's a quiz:

Is Schubert's Ave Maria truly Catholic and truly sacred? Why or why not?

Is Mozart's Ave Verum truly Catholic and truly sacred? Why or why not?

Is Mendelssohn's Elijah sacred or not?

The Psalms were not originally written for use in the Roman Catholic Mass. Is it okay to sing them at Mass? Why?

Schubert "Ave Maria" and some of Mozart's religious music, e.g., "Exsultate, Jubilate", are operatic in style. I'm not sure what fault could be found with his "Ave Verum", though.

I don't think Mozart is a composer of sacred music. His stuff tends to be sappy and showy. More for opera.

Shuberts AM... gag me with a spoon.

Mozarts Ave Verum is on the edge of sacred at best. I tend to agree with chonak... it is more in the religious category than truly sacred music.

However, I play all of them in church at times along with the SLJ. Who am I to make the final judgement!?

Btw... You can add Francks Panis Angelicus to the test also.

Kathy,

the quiz is terrific! Here are my answers.

1) Schubert Ave Maria: No, it isn't Sacred. It's a secular song . . . read Sir Walter Scott's original text to see that it is meant as a prayer, but in the context of a drama in verse. Is it Catholic? Well, Schubert was sort-of Catholic. I'm not sure just how Catholic, though, because he omitted the "et in unam sanctam et apostolicam ecclesiam" from every Mass setting he composed. It was apparently not just a youthful oversight!

2) Mozart Ave Verum: If I recall correctly, there is a problem with the text; for this reason it is not exactly kosher for liturgy. Is it sacred? Not exactly, but it is certainly devotional or "religious" in character. Musically it is of a feather with O Isis und Osiris from Die Zauberflöte. Is it Catholic? Sort of . . . Wolfie at least used all the words for the Credo most of the time.

3) Mendelssohn's Elijah: Not Sacred Music. It is an oratorio meant for concert performance (or "entertainment" if you will). It is a terrific piece, though; when I still sang baritone I used to do For the Mountains shall depart on occasion.

4) Not sure about the Psalms! You know they were written by Jews. (totally facetious here)

On a sideline, one day I was supposed to call the pastor at a Lutheran church to discuss an upcoming service, but I had completely forgotten. Then I heard Mendelssohn's Symphony No. 6 on the radio and voilá! Suddenly I was reminded.

And No. That piece is most definitely not sacred!

Some music may sound more 'sacred' in a concert hall.

I think the original video started us off in a profitable direction, concerning sacred music's "dignified" character. I'm more of a words girl--I fell confident discussing the dignity of texts, but with music I'm still at the "I know it when I hear it" stage. I wonder if there are musicological principles and insights that could be forwarded.

I'm a bit late to the party on this discussion- but I wholeheartedly agree that music schools should teach theory chronologically.
Use Gregorian chant first year to teach sight-singing and melodic ear training, as well as melody writing.
Then move into studying early and then renaissance polyphony, using Palestrina's music and Gradus ad Parnassus as the primary text-book.
Then move into homophonic harmony- Bach chorales and Rameau's Treatise.
That moves us into form and style, as well as an expanded understanding of counterpoint with the classic period and Mozart.
And then back into (now expanded) harmonic vocabulary with Beethoven and the Romantics.
Wagner's chromaticism leads to Schoenberg's ridiculousness, and we have yet another approach to both harmony and counterpoint in the early 20th century.
This way, a student's understanding of music would be organic, and would evolve the same way music itself evolved- with each development being an expansion, elaboration, or (informed) rejection of what came before it. The student's ears would develop naturally too, from the most simple and foundational, to the most complex. Likewise, their sense of beauty and musical aesthetics.

The way theory and ear training are done in most college music programs (common practice harmony first; unrelated to ear training; with Counterpoint as a senior level elective) makes no sense at all, and only sets musicians up to understand variations on I-IV-V-I progressions (with seemingly arbitrary voiceleading rules). Throwing Schenker at them does not help the situation.

This is the way I wish I had been taught. I am currently in the process of re-building my musical education in this manner, and I can already see the fruits of my labor. Perhaps when I'm done I'll create a self-study course.

(Not incidentally- this is the method I think Theology should be taught as well. What the heck kind of sense does it make to study Teihard or Merton or Teresa if you don't have a grounding in first the Scripture, then the Desert Fathers, and then, and then....)