Heyyyyyyy! There's another Charles here. Don't chuck him out.

As there's no crying in baseball, there's no chuck in haggis! Only the finest offal from the nether regions of the bovine, if ya please. But Chuck, by all means, join us on the Miracle Mile. Bonnie Prince........

So we can return from the Scot's Total Dependence Day, I'd propose that for schola-wear, kilts (black) are optional when we chant. It should free the diaphram significantly for smooth exhalation/phonation purposes. Aye?

I'm interested in the function/utility side of the discussion. Indeed, the music is functional, but why is it there? If the "function" of music is to carry the words, amplification does that. If it is to express the words, or the spiritual realities therein or inexpressible by words, then it must be artistic. That's the problem. In order for it to be functional, it must be beautiful. And the beauty, according to Catholic theology, is its own end. It is edifying. Tastes can diverge, indeed, but I can't imagine in this day and age a music that is purely functional. Even the Mass of Light seems to seek some principle beyond conveyance of word. It just uses a style whose sacredness might be called into question.

I guess the "function" of "uplift" could be considered, thinking of the peppy guitar music. But again, it seeks some level of artistic merit in order to "function."

Function is necessary, but music as purely functional is not necessary.

~Conor

(Written distractedly on my iPhone)

I think that this needs to be read within the context of Benedictine discipline. It can only break Fr. Ruff's heart that they want less chant, but as a Benedictine he has a vow of absolute obedience to his Superior. In other words, he felt constrained to make public assent, probably personally constrained. He is a wonderful person.

Various people connected with CMAA or with local chant movements could relieve that a little if they invited him to give more seminars. He works closely with Fr. Peter Funk whose Chicago Benedictines do chant round the clock, if I understand it. The seminar I took in connection with NPM was great in every way, but I think they said they only do it every 2 years. Perhaps we could implore Collegeville to offer yearly seminars, as they do at St. Meinrad.

As for the future, I think there is a great deal of popular support, when people are exposed to it, to chant in English. Fr. Kelly's compositions are very singable, but, as he says, they are road-tested and have been rewritten over 50 years. We've been using them, as well as the Chabanel psalm settings, and Andrew Motyka's communion settings. My young choir director slipped in both the communion chant and the Simple English Propers on the vigil Mass, and no one knew what they were--but they like it.

One of those things Fr. Kelly likes to say is worth repeating: he was taking a seminar with Bunigni himself, and the class pointed out that Sacrosanctum Concilium was contradictory on this point--promoting Gregorian Chant and the vernacular at the same time. Bunigni reportedly said, "You're right. We couldn't figure it out. That's for you to do."

This paragraph of Fr. Ruff's struck me as wistful, and accurate: There are significant differences between the views of various groups. These no doubt reflect generational difference among Catholics in general. Graduate students, whose average age is considerably younger than that of the monks, are much more affirming of the value of Gregorian chant than monks. Graduate students affirm more strongly than monks that it is important for a Benedictine monastery to preserve Latin chant. They are more likely to desire more Latin chant in the liturgy, whereas a very large group of monks, including those who affirm the value of Latin chant, say they would like less Latin chant in the liturgy.

Wistful, and hopeful.

Kenneth