I could use a spear some Sundays! ;-)

Could you, Fr Krisman, enlighten me as to any in our western culture to whom dance is reverential? (I am confessing my genuine ignorance of any such.) I have been the unfortunate witness on about two occasions in my life in which so-called 'liturgical dance' was performed at Anglican eucharists. I experienced it, though 'nicely' and 'tastefully' done, as foreign, eccentric, distracting, liturgically and sprititually disruptive, 'put on', and Very Hollywoodish. Ditto, at a Catholic mass, the lady in very flowing costume in pastel colours who carried on high a large bowl of incense from which issued great billows of smoke, and who, twirling around with great and exagerated ceremony, laid it before the altar. An actual thurible was nowhere to be seen. It was the fakey sort of 'ceremony' which Hollywood might have invented for some exotic religious rite.

And, another question: technically, does the Zairean missal represent a Use, or a Rite? It seems so distinct that it should be cosidered the latter.

While, personally, I have experienced some Western ballet as "reverential," I think it is the wrong form of choreographed movement to serve the liturgy. Ballet is not communally participatory, and any liturgical dance which eventually may emerge needs to be communal, and flowing from the liturgical action, not something artificially imposed upon it.

I had an experience of something which may have approached my idea of a communal "liturgical dance" some time ago - at the 1967 study week of the Southwest Liturgical Conference in Pueblo, CO. After receiving holy communion, communicants joined hands and did a simple procession, led by a crucifer, around the altar and through the worship space until all the communicants had received and were joined in the movement (and song). When the music and movement stopped, everyone continued in prayer, with hands joined, for some period of time. I was the crucifer; Ade Bethune had designed the procession.

I suppose it could be described as a "ring dance" of sorts. It did not come across as being hokey or anything like a Cotton Eye Joe dance. It was not balletic, but simply a slow movement, a communion in and with the Body of Christ. It was very prayerful.

There were no dance "soloists," no leotards, and no fish kites.

Yes, one is apt to encounter "Those... People," especially if one if looking for them.

Here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dx4QVbqrFg

I suppose you are right: '...for all we like sheep have gone astray'.
The moral, I guess, is that
liturgical dancing is objectively and substantially irrelevant to
any of the family of rites and uses above the equator.
The pertinence of liturgical dance rather sneaked in
because a dance-featuring rite south of the equator was mentioned by Mr Kanga
in his comprehensive list of Catholic rites and uses.
So: perhaps we were not too far astray.

I was once approached after a Lifeteen-ish Mass I attended as a visitor, and told that if I had just raised my hands up and swayed back and forth (LIKE EVERYONE ELSE) at whatever praise song or other then I would have had a much more worshipful experience.

White people are constantly imposing culture on other people. After a few centuries of attempting to impose European style spiritual practices on everyone, that has generally died down in the late 20th Century. Unfortunately, out of some weird sense of guilt and restitution, white people are now making up for it by imposing other people's culture onto their own.

The drive to exert control and influence is, I fear, fundamental to our fallen nature. And I suspect that if the people of any other continent or cultural framework had risen to global military and economic power, the story would have been largely the same, with only minor accidental changes.

As for reverent dancing within a white-American traditionally Catholic liturgical framework:

I do actually tend to sway back and forth in time to the music (or, simply freely in the case of chant), and this is exaggerated if I happen to be holding a small child.
(I DO NOT raise my hands up, however - and I don't do either when the music is crappy loud yelling about THE PEACE OF JESUS LOVE)

I know several other people who do this. If you happened to be in celebration where most of the people had that tendency, you would think we were dancing as part of the liturgy.

But it would be ridiculous to go try to get people to become the sort of people who do that sort of thing.


"If you would just SWAY BACK AND FORTH you'd feel so much closer to Jesus. You'd really be ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING in the Liturgy!"

Hogwash.

We bring ourselves. We are not asked, and should not be asked, to bring ourselves-in-character.

A former DOM loved African-American spirituals although the congregation detested them. She lingered after retiring as too many are wont to do. She would ask why I never programmed those spirituals. I would point to my very pink skin and say that I had no link to that music physically or liturgically. It doesn't mean much in my context. Too many musicians, I think, seek novelty and innovation instead of promoting the tried, true, and significant.

At a former parish, there was a "gospel choir" that I was in charge of directing. They fancied themselves as very tolerant, hospitable, open to all cultures and welcoming towards those with a darker skin color who might walk through the doors (although the congregation was probably around 97 - 98% white).

In reality, every last one of them was over 65, whiter than me in skin color and culture, and, in my opinion, perhaps even a bit racist in their assumption that those with darker skin color must surely prefer this loud music done badly with the help of a tambourine over the music of J.S. Bach.

If the sun shines upon us all equally, and there is no Jew/Greek/Man/Woman/Slave/Citizen, then opting not to sing a beautiful spiritual from the African American tradition because of the hue of one's own skin is not only contradictory to the premises of being "in Christ," but also ridiculous hogwash as well. Should we therefore ban using "white spirituals" as found in the Southern Harmony and shape note traditions of the gulf coast flatlands and Ozark Mountains, even tho' our skin color matches that anthropological demographic?

The Church has been down this road time and time again. That is why a 'natural grass roots' liturgy sprung up from the Church and developed organically over hundreds of years and is the amalgam of ALL cultures. It includes ALL ethnic backgrounds, skin colors and demographics.

My point was to agree with Charles.

You all have reiterated quite reasonably the impetus towards restoration of a native Latin/Roman cultural ethos for the HRCC, one to which I subscribe personally. However, your arguments are attended by presumptions that are not prima facie correct. I, too, have never suffered from "white man's burden." OTOH, my cultural experiences combined with those of my education enable me to examine, absorb and recreate fine musical works of art from a spectrum of traditions. This whole canard about cultural primacy was just keelhauled a couple of weeks ago in response to Dr. K's essay. What struck my fancy about the remarks of one poster at CCW is that he could tell I was of Franco-Germanic White ancestry (off by the difference of the British channel and the highlands north) whose self-loathing made me incapable of distinguishing the superiority of the Mozart Requiem over, say, the Indian Raga school/tradition. What the KIA poster didn't realize is that I had not just three years ago produced and conducted the Mozart with full orchestra and 100+ voices to an overflowing house. Uh, don't judge a book by its cover, that's being judgmental which is not equal to rendering judgment.
In case I've lost any of you by my remarks thus far, I'll use another illustration that accounts for my broader cultural perspectives. As a schooled choral director in the USofA, one soon realizes that Americans are expected, pro forma, to be immersed in as many choral traditions as possible because Americans, essentially, do not have a singular tradition of its own. That's reality. Oddly enough, if you've ever traveled with a chorus in Europe or Asia, what choral tradition from America is most demanded by nationalities and ethnicities: the American spiritual! Oddly enought, two of the finest interpretational ensembles of this genre are St. Olaf's and Brigham Young U., go figure huh?
I digress. When I read through any new work that crosses my desk, I make it a point to deeply examine the union of text to setting for an aesthetic authenticity that is self-evident beyond its stylistic or traditional origins. For example, if I'm looking at a Magnificat, should I be more concerned with its relationship to the chants than the text and subtexts of the hymn? Because the BVM was a post-pubescent teenaged Jewess (I didn't even think of this till this moment on Annuciation Day!) should I be more concerned with a setting that reflects the Aramaic origins and textual references within the hymn "He has brought low the mighty from their thrones and uplifted the poor and lowly" than the sheer weight and magnificence (pardon pun) of the Russian Bogoraditze version? Does a pristine setting in Latin by an English composer of any era demand that we affect our diction and tone because of the school of singing tradition prevelant there? Enough of that. Perspective without prejudice will inform me that "Hey, this 'Magnificat' by the late American black composer Leon Roberts, 'MARY'S CANTICLE," expresses an ethos of fiat, liberation, freedom despite oppression, Godliness and other factors in addition to being obviously sacred and beautiful, if not universal to some minds.
I'm again going to emphasize that I'm not endorsing the multicultural mindset for liturgical use, especially in CMAA environs. But I wholehandedly reject the premises of race/ethnicity as determinants of a music's worth and value. If I've said it once, I've said it thousands of times: judge the music, not the person. And, for God's sake, don't judge the intent of another fellow with half-baked stereotypes of bygone eras. We've enough division in real life globally to blatantly expose our prejudices here.

This isn't because white people can't sing black music. It's because those particular people can't sing that particular music.

Yes. Besides St Olaf and the MTC's abilities (see above), both the Wagner Chorale and the Shaw Chorale could render that stuff very well, indeed.

What my learned, and erudite Richmond fellow said +1 (I don't have a thank you option on my tablet.) Whether or not each of us actually (as he and many of us are able to effect) or aspirationally are trying with all our might and influence to raise the Barque aright and tight, we ought not to afford ourselves the vanity of prescribing idyllic solutions to local needs from afar. Why is that so difficult to accept?

The Shakers, while perhaps including some fine people, were far from orthodox Christians. They didn't hold the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. So one shouldn't think of their religious dancing as though it had the significance of being something done by Christians.

Ritual to effect is fine - in context. When the ritual doesn't fit the context, then there is a problem.

I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy,

yup

I've been trying to say this about concert organists. I DO think that organists should pursue conservatory level training and get as good as they can be - but I question the job search committees that hire music directors due to their brilliant resumes: 2nd place in this international organ competition, concerts in Europe, 1st place in this competition ... To me those type of facts make a candidate more interesting and are almost akin to hobby activities; they don't have much to do with the job itself.

I only wish that those hiring could see that.

The liturgy and a recital are two distinct happenings, two distinct aesthetics.
This is not to suggest that the role-specific music played at mass should not be of recital quality. Of course, all of our organists are not equally trained and talented. But, I must disagree with the under-tow of notion here that 'recital quality' excellence is out of place in the performance of liturgical organ music in the service of the liturgy. The liturgical organist should be (or should strive to be) the musical equal of a recitalist, with the added dimension of a deep spiritual understanding of the liturgical drama, the ineffable God-People intercouse of the mass. I have heard from time to time organists who shouldn't be playing for mass but are excuse their inability with the rejoinder, 'well, I'm a church organist, not a concert organist', as though excellence was out of place in service of the Church at worship. Your preludes, postludes, voluntaries, hymn accompaniments, anthem and ordinary accompaniments, improvisations, & cet., should all betray their sacred function and emotion, their partisanship in the sacred event; but, also, should be of impeccable musicianship and performance. Because the mass is the mass and a recital just that is no excuse whatever for a difference in musicianship at either. For there to be a difference in someone's mind is an insult to God. (Come to think of it: IF there is a difference, the bar should be higher for liturgy than it is for a recital-concert.)

No, MJO, I'm definitely not one of those that doesn't think highly trained and qualified people should be playing at mass. And it's a cop out to excuse poor quality by saying "I'm not a concert organist." It's just that on the flip side, being a concert organist doesn't say much in itself.

In the end, if you play a 25 minute long masterwork beautifully and from memory, that just still doesn't tell us much about your ability to accompany, select appropriate music, deal with people, direct a choir while achieving good choral sound, and the other 30 skills that I'm forgetting here that a parish or cathedral music director needs to have.

The liturgy and a recital are two distinct happenings, two distinct aesthetics.
This is not to suggest that the role-specific music played at mass should not be of recital quality. Of course, all of our organists are not equally trained and talented. But, I must disagree with the under-tow of notion here that 'recital quality' excellence is out of place in the performance of liturgical organ music in the service of the liturgy. The liturgical organist should be (or should strive to be) the musical equal of a recitalist, with the added dimension of a deep spiritual understanding of the liturgical drama, the ineffable God-People intercouse of the mass.

I don't know if this applies to organists, but with singers I found in one parish, that professional or high level amateur performers were actually much better than non-performers at subsuming their personalities to the task at hand, and at allowing the liturgical music to be about itself, and not about them or their rendition of it.
I thought it might have been because they had other performing outlets, and didn't need the ego-stroking that seemed to be the reason some psalmists had offered their services.
Sorry about the OT, Milord Melo
(Save the Liturgy, Save the world)

G, What OT? I never get paid for overtime!;-)

professional or high level amateur performers were actually much better than non-performers at subsuming their personalities to the task at hand

Their training in choral skills was very solid. The higher-level amateurs and professional singers understand the concept of "chorus." In contrast, I've seen low-level amateurs scream their lungs out (badly, too) b/c they think that's what choral singers do. It's enough to make one a Methodist JW or something.

I must disagree with the under-tow of notion here that 'recital quality' excellence is out of place in the performance of liturgical organ music in the service of the liturgy.

To be clear, that is not what I said, nor would I imply that.

In a nutshell, and possibly exaggerated for the sake of the argument, the recitalist can play whatever and whenever he wants. The CHURCH organist operates under restraints, not only as to music selection, but also as to when, during the Mass, one can play.

This restraint applies to singers, choirs, and celebrants, mutatis mutandis.

I don't really find that to be true. Actually, there are a number of good organists coming out of conservatories these days, relative to the number of churches that WANT an organist and not a praise band.

If anything, there might be an over supply. The competition is pretty fierce. IMHO it's a fallacy that there are not enough organ students to go around.

I was reading in a bulletin for one of the previously discussed jobs that was posted here that over 50 people sent resumes in for this particular position. Sure, out of 50 maybe 10 or 15 are utterly unqualified, but even if only 10 are actually qualified for the position, it's hardly the case that places have to go around begging to find an organist. Now if you want it for free, well that's another story.

Actually, correct that - I just read this weeks bulletin for that place and the rector said that 65 people had sent resumes.

Anyhow, yes, I agree that remote areas are another story. I guess I'm speaking as one in a major urban area in the northeast.