Telling exchange on another blog
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,033
    I came across this exchange on another blog recently, part of the comments on the recent NPM convention. I think it gets at the heart of the confusion of the last 40 years:

    Commenter:
    I’m glad that there are high-quality alternatives to this convention now, and resources such as CMAA’s Parish Book of Chant and Adam Bartlett’s Simple English Propers, which JUST came out. I throughly enjoyed the CMAA Winter Chant Intensive in New Orleans this January, and more and more of these events are cropping up around the country and filling up quickly. PLEASE, people, learn what the CHURCH wants us to sing. Sing the music of our heritage that will last instead of that of the big 3 publishers which is here today, gone tomorrow.


    And the response from the blog author:
    Hmmm, this is a bit narrow and harsh.
    You seem overly confident, in my view, of what THE CHURCH wants. It sounds a bit like what YOU want. Read all the documents, not just the parts you like, and you’ll find many, many things. Advocacy of Latin and chant and choirs and pipe organ, yes – but also advocacy of inculturation, pastoral discernment, active participation, liturgy as the act of the entire congregation, and much more. And these aren’t throwaway comments on the side – they’re quite central to the CHURCH’s understanding of worship.


    Now the response comes from a very prominent and learned voice, one who loves the full repertoire of chant but doesn't think it should be pushed in most parish situations (and, at the end of the day, wouldn't really work anyway). But there seems to be a false dichotomy being set up here between chant, use of the organ, and choir music on the one hand, and inculturation, pastoral sensitivity, and active participation on the other. There's an implication that doing things in the first group excludes the items in the other - or at least they are in conflict and have to be reconciled through some sort of compromise.

    But then the compromise almost always seems to go only one way. As I read it, this position boils down to saying that the Church doesn't really have a preference or ideal about how people should worship. As long as the minimal rubrics are followed, congregations are free to do what they think will work. As the author goes on in the same comment: "My sense is that their selections [at the NPM convention] are based on their understanding of what will help this group of people to worship. It reflects the culture and music background of the attendees." There is no model for church music, no tradition that carries any real weight (other than the "the culture and music background of the attendees," no objective standard - it's "what will help this group of people to worship."

    I hope I'm not misinterpreting things here - I'd love to be proved wrong.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Sam, I rather thought I took that dichotomy head on with the person leveling charges. I find the blanket condemnations of this voice to be vexing, and a bit whiny.
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,296
    rich_enough, I think you're right on about the direction this compromise almost always seems to take. It's never, "We've been doing so much P&W music lately, we really should do a few pieces with the organ and maybe chant the ordinary for a few weeks."

    It seems to always be, "We chanted the Agnus Dei for Lent last year, so let's do P&W ALL SUMMER!!! YAY! Shine, Jesus, Shine is my FAVORITE!"
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    I agree with Ruff.
  • aquinasadmirer
    Posts: 102
    I've sung for Fr. Ruff.

    In some rehearsals, he shared some observations regarding the plausibility of implementing chant in your run-of-the-mill parish. A summary of some of his comments could be stated like this: "They tried to do this in the 50's around here, and it didn't work. If it didn't work then, it'll never work." This is the impression I'm left with after singing with him for a year. If he thinks otherwise, I apologize for my confused impression.

    It appears that he still has the same viewpoint.

    In an article Fr. Ruff wrote, he talked about the problem of using the phrase "pride of place" as a "hammer" to advocate for chant. This is true and wise advice. However, terms like "pastoral," "inculturation," and "active participation" are also potential "hammers" to be used to protect the status-quo and keep chant in it's current "boutique" status.

    -M
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    It's always useful to learn from the opposition. Are there ways we can work within the chant tradition that address this nearly universal perception? The Parish Book of Chant was the first collection of mainstream chant hymnody in Latin with English translations in the postconcilar period. Why had one not come out before?

    That book has sold 12,000 copies. This was one way.

    Now we have books of propers in English that use chant styles, notation, and modes, plus we have a work of choral propers. These were the first two generally available Catholic books of sung propers in English to appear in the postconcilar period. Both assist in leading people toward a chant Mass and toward the normative music of the Church. Why did it take so long for these to appear?

    It's good to listen to critics. They help provide a strategic guide forward. People need tools, not just lectures and rhetoric, to make it possible to do the right thing.
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    irishtenor is correct: there may be valid arguments on both sides, but look at the reality!! Are the parishes in this country (or any other) in imminent danger of being overrun with chant jocks? Sad to say, not in our lifetimes, even if that is what we are aiming for. So why the overreaction? The mere MENTION of Latin, much less chant and polyphony, in most parishes can you shunned or fired. Yes, it is our duty to listen, in all humility, to our critics, but why does that never seem to work the other way?

    Sooooo.... here are some hard numbers: in my diocese, according to the Diocesan web page, there are 280 Masses scheduled every weekend (Saturday evenings and Sundays). Of that 280, 214 are in English, 62 are in Spanish, 1 is in Korean, 1 is in Portuguese, and 2 are in Latin. And yes, I know that the language of the liturgy does not equate to the music used at the liturgy, but I would wager $100 that, aside from the Latin Masses, not ONE of the others has any music besides the big three publishers' offerings.

    So, in the light of situations like this (which, again, I would wager is not much different anywhere else), how is it that WE are overreacting and being narrow minded by pointing out that some of the things explicitly called for in the documents are ignored? Let OCP's greatest hits roll on, but program a chanted Kyrie, and the Sheep Will Attack.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    yes, all of this is true! I would say the situation is even worse. But the question is why. There are many reasons but a main one is that people have no idea where to begin and they are afraid to begin. Change is hard. We need to make it easier than we have in the past.

    It's true that there is vast ideologically opposition to what we are working for. But I don't believe that this is the main barrier. In fact, I think these are just excuses. We need to continue to find ways to lead people in the right direction in whatever way we can.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    I think it depends on where you want to go. For example, all Latin chant in a Latin mass every Sunday has never been one of my goals. We have an EF mass every Sunday for those who want that. But using some Latin chant, some English chant, and other very good music in an English liturgy that conforms to GIRM and the new missal, is my objective. The unfortunate problem, as I see it, is the extremists who either want everything as it was prior to 1962, or everything mediocre that has been produced and sold since by the 3 or 4 big "Catholic" music publishers.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    I would add that the ideological barriers are often built by traditional-minded chant enthusiasts.

    True Story:
    At an otherwise spectacular CMAA event in Houston last year, I was seated in the loft next to an ungentle-man who thought that the (legal, licit, valid, and commonly seen) presence of a female altar server at the (Ordinary Form, vernacular, regularly-schedule parish) Mass was cause to mutter nastiness about the inappropriateness of said altar server's presence. The most inappropriate utterance of which was a word which I'm sure he thought was a clever feminization of "server," but I took as a fairly offensive vulgarity.

    True Story:
    The comment box community over at Fr. Z's is so disgustingly violent in it's attitudes about the place of women in the Church that I had to stop reading, even though I do like knowing what the Prayers really say.


    If you ever wonder why liberals and progressives don't just get on board with the whole traditional music, traditional liturgy bandwagon- that's the reason. The deep well of sweet water that is traditional music is constantly being poisoned by Pharisaical tribalism. It isn't any wonder that so many people on the "other side" have a hard time separating the riches of our tradition with the deep sickness that is too often its loudest champion.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Adam, if you read a blog through Google Reader, you won't see the comments posted there, so that's a way to avoid seeing unpleasant comments posted there.

    To speak of your first true story: I think I know the pun you're describing, and while it may be vain, it probably is not intended as anything vulgar. As you know, it's always good to interpret people's words charitably; it helps one to avoid making rash judgments.

    For the other story, it's a mistake to speak as if a combox "community" at some blog had attitudes at all. There are individuals, and they represent themselves.

    On the other hand, I wouldn't want to take up space here to denounce That Other Music Blog either.

    Chant advocates have better things to do than to go over there and waste time writing comments and suffering abuse from people who don't want to hear from chant advocates. Brush the dust off your feet, folks.

    Apologetics work is not for everyone. It requires infinite patience; and one has to keep in mind the fact that one is writing for the silent readers, not for the people who post comments. The latter are always more vociferous in their views than the muddly mainstream who don't post. Those are the people who appreciate patient explanation and good humor.
    Thanked by 1rich_enough
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,184
    There are raucous elements of Pharisaical tribalism on both sides of this discussion. Each have their own "poison pill" issues. You, Adam, have named some of them on the traditionalist side, but the liberals have theirs also. In the interest of charity, there is no need to name them here.

    But, I believe that it is high time that we recognize the all of this bubbles around the perennial problem of ecclesiology. In other words, just what does your vision of church look like. That, my friend, IS the $64,000 question. Issues around authority,liturgy,catechetics and sacramental practice swirl around the pole of ecclesiology. Who is in charge and who is going to say what the People of God shall pray, sing and believe is the struggle. That is where the real discussion need to happen. Perhaps when that conversation begins to happen, we shall see the dialogue that desperately needs to happen.

    That is what i pray for everyday and will continue to pray for.
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    From my experience with regular parish musicians, I'd have to agree with JT that people are simply afraid of chant. How much music is in the parishes simply because it's *easy*. Most parish musicians are busy amateurs with little training. CMAA is looking for ways to reach out to them, and this is critical work. An ideal is upheld and CMAA proIvides resources for getting there.
    To say that people in an average parish can't learn a few ordinaries and an average choir will never sing Gregorian propers is defeatist. Where there is a willing pastor and music staff, there is a way. Where these two elements are lacking, it's simply proof of our fallen nature. That is what we must overcome- always.

    I also concur with Mark that these issues point to a crisis in ecclesiology. Die-hard opponents to Catholic tradition will always find a reason 'it can't be done', namely because they don't want it to be so.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Oh, it can be done. Chant is often easier to sing than some of the newer stuff. My choir has no difficulty with chant at all. But one thing gets lost in discussions of chant. Some folks - and I have met a number of them - simply either dislike chant, or thoroughly detest it. It is a style of music that doesn't appeal to everyone. Chant can be viewed as either sublime, or as primitive music from a long dead and gone culture. Someone once told me, "I can't stand that eerie wailing." The use of Latin seems to fit in that viewpoint somewhere, too. Making chant more widely available will not, unfortunately, fix this one.
  • Ruth Lapeyre
    Posts: 341
    Ah Charlemagne was really on to something when he used music as a tool of unification!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Charlemagne used brute force more than he ever used music.
  • Ruth Lapeyre
    Posts: 341
    Oh Charles I know that but, he most definitely used music too. My point is the power of music. I have been involved in and have read enough of these same sorts of discussions about what music to use or avoid at Mass to understand music is really important. I suspect we use beauty (art and music) to pound each other because it is a form of identity. Identity is one of the most important aspects of ourselves and even though it is subject to change...change is never easy. People have to be convinced that change is a good thing or at least something they want or that is necessary.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    I agree, but I try to be realistic about what we are all dealing with. If you want to hear chant in Knoxville TN, you have to come to my parish. The other parishes don't sing it. One of the area "contemporary" musicians said that since I took the music director/organist job, "The music has gotten much more traditional." I was thinking, "YES!" He's a nice guy, but he is musically about as contemporary as leisure suits and disco.

    I think many labor under the delusion that if the contemporary folks hear traditional music, they are going to get ecstatic and come over to our side. I don't think so. There has been a real culture shift since Vatican II. In many places, fortunately not everywhere, those cultures are irreconcilable.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,944
    Charles

    There are many factors.

    One important factor is the spaces that have been built and furnished in the past few generations (this goes back to cost-cutting that became prevalent during the Depression, and continued in the post-War boom as newly erected parishes prioritized schools over church buildings; the American love of minimalism predates Vatican II) do not flatter chant and vice versa.

    Another is addiction to sensory gratification (I plead guilty too). And here is where chant advocates (I'm one) face a sticky wicket. For *many* people (believe me, I've heard the complaints), chant is not an idiom that provides much sensory gratification. Telling them chant is what the Church wants and that is better is going to be received by them as "eat your peas." Worse still, and this is the sticky part, those of us who love chant *are* getting sensory gratification from it (by and large). So it's like people who LOVE peas telling people who HATE peas to eat their peas because it's good for you and you will like it and, anyway, because Mommy says so. It's a context that is fraught with more opportunities for failure than success.

    That does not mean to avoid evangelizing and making resources available. It does, however, mean one has to adopt a more modest approach than one might like. Especially rhetorically.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    The current state of music in the church reminds me of being in a classy restaurant for brunch and overhearing father saying to his son, "It's Eggs Benedict. It's just like an Egg McMuffin."

    Ordinary chants are not that different, aside from being easier that is, from lots of music being sung now if you subtract the rhythm section.

    Don't tell them its chant, do it in English, accompany it and have a lady waving both arms in the ambo when they are to come in. It's deculturization.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    @Frogman
    And if you really have a resistant "assembly," make sure to add stems to the note heads when you give it to them.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    You are absolutely right. Do it the traditional Catholic way. Print the words, no music.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Yes, definitively no stemless notes, because when I see them, I think:

    "This is chant for someone who can't read neumes (I wish they used neumes)."

    That's the only reason I've ever seen stemless modern notation used. As long as the cantor/director/organist knows it's chant (so that they can sing/play in a free rhythm, and not be "tied down" by the note values), no one will notice.

    Or, as you said, if you can get away with it, just print the words.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    I think some appreciation to Bruce Ford for his "grouping" of oval noteheads rather than assigning values with stems and dots is worth mentioning (American Gradual.)
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Yes, this is a major improvement for 5 line chant.
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Umm... I read Fr Z all the time and I've rarely seen the ugliness you describe, Adam. Fr Z usually pounces on it if it gets through. I think your statement was a caricature of the comboxes there.
Add a Comment