Whats happening to congregational singing?

chonak

Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when it is celebrated in song, with the ministers of each degree fulfilling their ministry and the people participating in it.

Indeed, through this form, prayer is expressed in a more attractive way, the mystery of the liturgy, with its hierarchical and community nature, is more openly shown, the unity of hearts is more profoundly achieved by the union of voices, minds are more easily raised to heavenly things by the beauty of the sacred rites, and the whole celebration more clearly prefigures that heavenly liturgy which is enacted in the holy city of Jerusalem.

Pastors of souls will therefore do all they can to achieve this form of celebration.

I'm not sure what Matthew means by 'highest degree'; if he means: 'of the degree that should be done first', then that does express what the document is saying. (see para. 28-29).

matthewj

First degree, highest degree... It's late on a Sunday gimme a break, Chonak. :)

Kathy

"third degree..."

NihilNominis

Just for the record, music is an integral part of the solemn liturgy.

Aristotle Esguerra

Just for the record, music is an integral part of the solemn liturgy.

NihilNominis

it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy.

SC 112

In other words, you don't need a painting or a nice building for a Solemn Mass, but you do need music. Earlier in the thread people were debating whether music is integral to the liturgy or not. This debate had as its basis a decontextualized quote. The appropriate context for SC's declaration are the hard-and-fast levels of solemnity that then obtained in the Roman liturgy.

The Council Fathers were exalting music by stating a truism that the very postconciliar reforms set in motion by the document would abolish. How strange to think about.

Hence the Solemn Vespers I have attended in a cathedral church in which the Psalmody of the day was recited, not sung.

M. Jackson Osborn

Another synonym for solemnitas is festivitas.
Yes! 'Solemnity' is jubilation - liturgically, this means every mark of resplendent liturgical celebration. 'pulling out all the stops' - this is what is expected by the Church on every solemnity. (Why else would they be called 'solemnity'?)

Don9of11

It goes without saying that we all have different taste in music and what we like. But I'm going to go back to some of my original thoughts. First, if you are a musician be it a writer or composer of Catholic music, a music director, choir director, cantor, choir member or priest, we are called as Christians and as Catholics to evangelize, we also are called to be saints.

I think we have a responsibility to recognize and use the gifts God has given us to do exactly this. I'm going to quote myself because I think as musicians we need to have guiding principals regarding hymns.

To me (IMHO) the difference between a hymn and a song is, a hymn is written with a melody easily sung by both adults and children and teaches us the principals of our faith. If it doesn't meet this criteria it shouldn't be in any music directors line up. (addendum...or in any hymnal)

Here is what I think what is most lacking in Catholic hymnody today, our "communion with the saints".

When I look at the hymns that my grandparents sang the content of the hymn was decidedly devotional. There was a communion with the saints in praising God. The words were prayerful and meaningful and most importantly they evangelized the individual when he or she was away at work, play or driving down road.

The real measure of a good hymn is whether that hymn is teaching us anything of our faith...

Each of us has our own sensibility of the measure of a good hymn and whether it will be in hymnals in 100 years from now. But let us not talk so much about our egos but instead, let us look for the reasons why we don't have more congregational singing and do something about it. There is a trend for more "call and response" type settings, it is prevalent in the church today. There certainly is a place for this setting of music and there is some merit in listening to the cantor sing and then repeating what he says.

Kathy - And in the meantime (and I've staked a lot on this) the hymns that are sung should reflect our Catholic faith.

Kathy, I think you are on the right track. I would add though that "reflecting" our faith is not enough. It needs to "teach" us our faith. We need to return to praising God and the Saints.

We have a responsibility as musicians to write and compose music that does exactly this... to evangelize. Don't take your cue from what seems popular but take your cue from what is right and true. Set aside egos and work toward the goal of evangelizing.

dad29

Being guilty of "de-contextualization" earlier, I'll offer the entire context:

112. The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy.

Holy Scripture, indeed, has bestowed praise upon sacred song [42], and the same may be said of the fathers of the Church and of the Roman pontiffs who in recent times, led by St. Pius X, have explained more precisely the ministerial function supplied by sacred music in the service of the Lord.

Therefore sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship.

Hmmmm. "Sacred song...." "sacred music..."

Context!!!

ClergetKubisz

The mass is supposed to be sung.

When was this made the rule? Are priests, when saying Mass alone, supposed to sing it? If they are celebrating at a side altar while another priest is at the main altar saying Mass, are they both required to sing?

Quote the documents and I'll shut up. This continued pounding the need to sing everything can be really discouraging to those who visit and feel that they have no place here since they are still working on getting the Lamb of God sung in Latin after 4 years or singing the Communion Verse in English.

The degrees of sung things in Musicam Sacram.

And of course a priest wouldn't sing a private Low Mass. But if something is to be sung at Mass, Musicam Sacram seeks to set a hierarchy of what should be sung first. And the dialogues happen to be the highest level according to this beautiful document.

It seems as if the system of High vs. Low Mass was never resolved. There appears to still be a need for such a distinction. Some would say that the distinction was changed to spoken vs. sung, but I don't think that system really is an adequate replacement for what came before it, although I admit the main difference between High and Low Mass is the singing. I think the main thing in the common practice of the NO, YMMV, as usual, is that we never actually get a fully sung Mass. Replacing the sung Proper with congregational hymns makes it so that the Mass isn't fully sung, as there are two parts to the Mass: the Proper and the Ordinary. It is safe to say that in most places in the US, at least the Ordinary is sung, but the Proper is omitted. So, essentially, and again YMMV, but in most places in the US, the equivalent of the High Mass never actually happens.

Adam Wood

[Worship IV] is flooded with texts by the following persons who are heavily involved in the Hymn Society:

Thomas Troeger is ordained in and "dually aligned" with both the Episcopal and Presbyterian denominations. 12 texts.
Adam Tice is a Mennonite minister. 14 texts.
Ruth Duck is a professor at a United Methodist-related seminary and a former pastor in the United Church of Christ. 13 texts.
Mary Louise Bringle is Presbyterian. 21 texts.
The late Herman Stuempfle was a Lutheran (ELCA) pastor and seminary professor. 44 texts.
John Bell is a Church of Scotland minister. 19 texts.
The late Fred Pratt Green was Methodist. 12 texts.
The late Sylvia Dunstan was ordained by the United Church of Canada. 13 texts.
Carl Daw is an ordained Episcopalian and the former Executive Director of the Hymn Society and a member of the 1982 committee. 17 texts.

I wonder how many of these works are primarily licensed or distributed by/through GIA.

ronkrisman

I wonder how many of these works are primarily licensed or distributed by/through GIA.

I think you mean how many of the works are copyrighted by GIA. That's easy to determine since the ascription under each entry in a GIA hymnal provides the copyright information. The entries that are not copyrighted by GIA have all been licensed by GIA for inclusion in a particular hymnal and are being distributed through said hymnal.

If a hymn that is not copyrighted by GIA appears in, say, 25 hymnals, four of which are GIA publications (information that can usually be found on hymnary.org), then it is not primarily licensed by GIA.

Adam Wood

I meant licensed through or distributed by. This primarily means things where the copyright is held by GIA, but I am aware they also act as administrators/agents for at least a few things, and I didn't want to leave that out.

Regardless of the imprecision of my language, my wonderings was directed toward the following conjecture: GIA really likes progressive/liberal Protestant hymn writers.

M. Jackson Osborn

...really likes...

Indeed! So it would seem, wouldn't it. Perhaps even 'prefers'?

ronkrisman

Adam, I still do not know what you mean in your first paragraph. A piece of music cannot be both "licensed through" and "distributed by" the same publishing company.

ronkrisman

...really likes...

Indeed! So it would seem, wouldn't it. Perhaps even 'prefers'?

I don't think either conjecture is accurate. The USA publishers of collections of hymn texts by a single author are primarily Hope Publishing Co., Oxford University Press, Selah, Wayne Leupold, and GIA. (OCP and WLP have each published but a few collections of metrical hymns by a single author.) Such collections are the principle means for introducing new hymn texts to the public. I think it is fair to say that none of those publishers care a whit about the degree of a hymn writer's communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ: full communion, almost full, half-full, running on fumes, etc. They care about well crafted and inspiring hymn texts, scripturally based and doctrinally sound.

I'm sure that GIA, OCP, and WLP would all "like" to be able to publish more collections by Catholics, but if all such collections have going for them is "written by a Catholic wannabe hymn writer," my guess is that they (deservedly) will receive no takers from those three publishers.

Adam Wood

Adam, I still do not know what you mean in your first paragraph. A piece of music cannot be both "licensed through" and "distributed by" the same publishing company.

But one could be one OR the other, I imagine.

Do you really not know what I mean, or are you harping on my word choices in order to distract from my point or make me look uninformed? You seem to be succeeding on the first point, and I assure you the second goal needs no help from you.

Let me be more clear:
I wonder how many of the works represented in the list above are owned by GIA.
I wonder how many of the artists represented above are "GIA artists."
I wonder how objective and unbiased GIA's various hymnal editorial boards are.
I wonder to what degree "consistent with Roman Catholic doctrine" is a requirement, or even a preference, when selecting hymn texts for inclusion in a hymnal or distribution in a standalone hymn text collection.
I wonder, if there is a preference for "consistent with Catholic doctrine," where that preference ranks in relationship to, "we know this guy and we are friends with him."

Kathy

I think it is fair to say that none of those publishers care a whit about the degree of a hymn writer's communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ: full communion, almost full, half-full, running on fumes, etc.

Well that's honest, at least. Scandalous--but honest. These people are framing the euchology of a singing religious people, and their own profession of that religion does not matter? Those who write or translate sacred texts need an imprimatur to do so, but the religion of those who put words in the very mouths of the people of God is a matter of indifference?

Fr. Jim Chepponis

Adam,

I'll try to address some of your questions as they specifically relate to Worship IV, from my perspective as one of the five general editors of that hymnal:

1. At our very first editorial meeting, it was made clear that we had the freedom to choose hymns copyright by any publisher. So, for example, we were not told that X% of the hymns chosen for inclusion needed to be copyright by GIA.

2. We had no directive to choose hymns written by any specific author/composer, whether some may consider them "GIA artists" or not. Never did one of the editors say "I know this guy and am friends with him, so we need to include his work in the hymnal."

3. As a committee, we sat at the table and read through every text (hundreds!) that we were considering, judging its merits poetically, liturgically, and theologically. Of the five editors, at least two of us have theology degrees. Ron has many degrees! I have an M.Div. and an MA in Systematic Theology. In addition, the entire hymnal had to receive approbation from the Archdiocese of Chicago, which it did.

4. As the five editors sat around the table, we discussed each hymn and had a strict method of voting. Hymns that received X number of votes went into the hymnal. Hymns that did not were excluded.

I hope that info helps. Ron could certainly add more to the above.

fcb

These people are framing the euchology of a singing religious people, and their own profession of that religion does not matter?

I would think that the only thing that matters for the purpose of editing a hymnal is the text and what it says. Perfectly orthodox Catholics can write texts that are lame, laughable, or even heretical. Protestants, Jews, agnostics and atheists can write texts that are poetic, moving, and orthodox. In the case of Protestants and Jews, they might even write a text that expresses their own personal beliefs and, depending on the topic, is completely in accord with Catholic orthodoxy. We sing Charles Wesley and Isaac Watts all the time.

Kathy

Of five editors reviewing texts for a major Roman Catholic hymnal, only 2 have theology degrees?

Kathy

Deacon Fritz,

We aren't talking about Watts and Wesley here, but about modern day liberal Protestantism.

ronkrisman

Adam, I still do not know what you mean in your first paragraph. A piece of music cannot be both "licensed through" and "distributed by" the same publishing company.

But one could be one OR the other, I imagine.

Yes. And if we are talking about an entry in a hymnal, the publisher of said hymnal either holds copyright to that work or is licensing the use of that work from some other person or publisher that holds the copyright. Whether the hymnal publisher holds the copyright to an item or is licensing the use of someone else's copyrighted work, it becomes a distributor of the work in either case.

When GIA holds copyright to a given work, it does not need to "send a letter to itself" to request a license to include that work in a GIA hymnal. It's only other publishers that need that license from GIA to include that work in their hymnals.

Similarly, every time GIA publishes a hymnal containing Martin Hellriegel's hymn, To Jesus Christ Our Sovereign King, it must be licensed to do so by the copyright holder to that hymn, Irene C. Mueller (and her estate).

I wonder how many of the works represented in the list above are owned by GIA.

Adam, I don't have the time to address all of your specific concerns at this time. Fr. Chepponis answered a number of your questions. GIA holds copyright to most of the texts by Tice, Bringle, Dunstan, and Stuempfle; none of those by Daw, Troeger, and Pratt Green; perhaps half of those by Ruth Duck. And GIA is USA agent for the works of John Bell, but it does not hold copyright to such works. If you want more precise numbers than this, all the information is contained in Worship 4, in the ascriptions below individual entries and in the acknowledgements (no. 1230).

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Father Chepponis,

Receiving approbation from the Archdiocese of Chicago involves what, precisely? Does it involve a group of advisors to the archbishop resifting through the work of the committee, or does it involve a checklist (filled out by I don't know who) saying, in effect, "I did all these things"? Was it on Cardinal George's watch, or Cardinal Bernadin's watch, or Archbishop Cupich's watch? How does "approbation" differ from Nihil Obstat and Imprimi potest?

God bless, and thank you for your priesthood.

Chris

fcb

We aren't talking about Watts and Wesley here, but about modern day liberal Protestantism.

True, but if we are talking about what a particular text says, whether or not it states anything heretical, then you're indulging in an argumentum ad hominem. I've learned a lot about Aquinas from reading the works of the agnostic Anthony Kenny and the unaffiliated theist Norman Kretzman, things I would not have learned if I had rejected their works out of hand because they were not not written by Catholics (or even Christians). It seems to me that the argumentum ad hominem is equally problematic with regard to hymn texts.

Of course we wouldn't want to give scandal by offering the faithful a hymn text by someone whose life was out-and-out unworthy, but at least as I read the documents of Vatican II, being a Protestant does not in itself identify someone as living an unworthy life, and singing texts by Protestant authors might actually edify Catholics by teaching them this.

Particularly when we are talking about texts that paraphrase Scripture, retell biblical stories, or even deal with matters of the Trinity or Christology, I don't see how it is relevant whether the author is Catholic or Protestant. And I would never presume that a text from a Catholic author needed less rigorous vetting than one from a Protestant author.

Kathy

I've learned a lot about Aquinas from reading the works of the agnostic Anthony Kenny and the unaffiliated theist Norman Kretzman, things I would not have learned if I had rejected their works out of hand because they were not not written by Catholics (or even Christians).

We're not talking about learning or scholarship, but about prayer. Learning is by nature argumentative. Challenges are vital for growth.

Of course we wouldn't want to give scandal by offering the faithful a hymn text by someone whose life was out-and-out unworthy,

You wouldn't. I wouldn't. Would Fr Krisman and his team?

being a Protestant does not in itself identify someone as living an unworthy life, and singing texts by Protestant authors might actually edify Catholics by teaching them this.

Agreed. I feel this way about Idle and sometimes Daw, as well as Wesley, Bonar, Cowper--many others.

Particularly when we are talking about texts that paraphrase Scripture, retell biblical stories, or even deal with matters of the Trinity or Christology, I don't see how it is relevant whether the author is Catholic or Protestant. And I would never presume that a text from a Catholic author needed less rigorous vetting than one from a Protestant author.

Right. It depends on what is said. If Peter Phan wrote a hymn on salvation in Christ, or Catherine Mowry LaCugna had written a hymn on the Trinity, well, give me Wesley!

I think you know what I mean by liberal Protestant concerns, liberal Protestant preaching. It's limited. It's shallow. It's immanentist.

M. Jackson Osborn

Truth aedifies, is spiritually enriching, and is ennobling, regardless of its source. Anything that expresses truth is, regardless of its provenance, ipso facto, Catholic. Schmeucke dich is far more Catholic than some eucharistic songs popular nowadays with many Catholics. One could list dozens of other examples. We cannot afford to live in a fish bowl. People who live in fish bowls get nowhere. They don't even become mature 'fish'.

Adam Wood

I think you know what I mean by liberal Protestant concerns, liberal Protestant preaching. It's limited. It's shallow. It's immanentist.

Eco-friendly. Communitarian (not in the good way). Anthropocentric.

Some of these hymns are fine. Some are even excellent.

But the late output of the major publishers looks like hymnals created for the UCC.

fcb

I think you know what I mean by liberal Protestant concerns, liberal Protestant preaching. It's limited. It's shallow. It's immanentist.

I do indeed know what you mean, and think that I am just as put off by it as you are. But these things are, in my experience, found just as often in texts written by Catholic writers as by Protestant writers. My point is mainly that the Protestant/Catholic distinction in this regard is a red herring.

Also, I suspect that if it became widely known that Isaac Watt was an unrepentant serial rapist or made huge profits in the slave trade then Fr. Krisman would not want to include his texts in a hymnal. But I'll let him speak for himself. I know that I've never felt the same about Eric Gill's art after reading Fiona MacCarthy's biography abut him (though I think it would be foolish to remove his Stations of the Cross from Westminster Cathedral).

Kathy

Jackson, just as a reminder, we aren't talking about Lo, He Comes, or All Hail the Pow'r of Jesus' Name.

We're talking about things like these:
http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/8898/text-for-discussion-worship-iv-my-elder-son-go-work-today/p1
http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/8919/worship-iv-a-new-easter-hymn-text-for-discussion/p1
http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/8932/o-christ-your-heart-compassionate-text-by-herman-g.-stuempfle-jr./p1

etc. etc.

Plus S,F,US

chonak

I know it'll never happen (unless Edward Snowden gets a consulting job at GIA), but it would be interesting to see the hymns that were proposed but not selected.

Kathy

Deacon Fritz,

Would it help if I said that I don't think Protestants have a corner on the market of liberal Protestantism?

fcb

Alas, all too true.

CHGiffen

This thread has turned into a discussion of hymn texts, their authors, and these authors' affiliations. This is a major drift away from the original title and subject of this thread.

While it's nice to have an editorial board that assiduously examines hymn texts, for the texts are indeed important. However, no hymn published in a hymnal is worth its weight in ink and paper if the music for it is tawdry or mundane or otherwise out of place and does not match well with the text.

After all, hymns are to be sung, not simply read through. If the music is not important and treasured, then one might as well be publishing a book of poetry.

Don9of11

Kathy - We aren't talking about Watts and Wesley here, but about modern day liberal Protestantism.

I'm talking about "Whats happening to congregational singing" and the way in which the cantor is favored to sing over the congregation. I have even offered my own thoughts and direction that we should all have when writing and composing hymns. It's obvious that what the OP has to say doesn't matter anymore.

What are you guys talking about? Are we talking about the same things just at a higher level? It seems to me your like electrons orbiting the nucleus, chasing each other round and round and going nowhere mighty fast as Mr. Scott might say.

I'm happy that my post has generated so much discussion and brought in the giant's and "elitists" of the forum but we seem to be getting a little downwind of the topic.

Just as I was writing this CHGiffen, your post appeared. Thanks for noting the same thing as I did.

chonak

That usually happens on the 3rd "page" of comments on a thread, if not sooner.

Thanks for the reminders.

Kathy

I think the connection is fairly obvious.

If what is available for singing is sometimes heterodox, always drivel, it will not be sung.

(Although I do agree about the thread drift...)

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Kathy,

Is the problem that the musicians and their soloist/diva dopplegangers have decided to substitute their own likes/dislikes, voices/microphones for that of the people of God?

If this is true, how did we come to such a pass?

Assuming it's true, how do we recover from it, and -- very importantly -- how will we recognize that recovery when it occurs?

Kathy

I think the problem is more institutional than that.

And I don't know what to do about this, except to stop buying the koolaid.

chonak

There has been very little comment here on service music, which is a pity. The parts of the Mass which change least through the year provide an opportunity for hesitant singers to get involved.

CharlesW

I will say that if we have a morals or ethics test on composers whose music we play or sing, there will be much, much more silence in church on Sundays.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Kathy,

What would no longer purchasing the over-sugary-and-barely-flavored drink entail, exactly?

Don9of11

chonak - There has been very little comment here on service music, which is a pity. The parts of the Mass which change least through the year provide an opportunity for hesitant singers to get involved.

I think the reason I didn't initially involve the sung Mass parts is because in my parish the congregation does a really good job. We are using the Missa Emanuel setting this Advent with the revised text. In the context of the topic singing the Mass parts constitutes congregational singing but I was leaning more toward understanding if other parishes were relying more and more on the cantor.

As my pastor noted in his homily this week that there is merit to having the "call and response" settings and listening to the cantor sing then the congregation repeating.

Kathy - I think the problem is more institutional than that. And I don't know what to do about this, except to stop buying the koolaid.

CHGiffen - While it's nice to have an editorial board that assiduously examines hymn texts, for the texts are indeed important. However, no hymn published in a hymnal is worth its weight in ink and paper if the music for it is tawdry or mundane or otherwise out of place and does not match well with the text.

I think there is a lot being said in these two statements. Again for me, the real measure of a good hymn is whether that hymn is teaching us anything about our faith...

CHGiffen

You seem to have abandoned your original questions, Don9of11, and are dragging the thread back to the text and whether the text "is teaching us anything about our faith." That, to me at least, does not directly address what's happening to congregational singing as your first posed it. I tried just above to get us somewhat back on the original track, at least as far as hymns and hymn singing are concerned.

The point I was making, and still am, is that a good hymn is both text AND music. I really cannot imagine a good result from pairing the text of "O Word of God Incarnate" with PASSION CHORALE ("O Sacred Head..."), both of which are 76. 76. D meter. Or for a more bizarre example, "Conditor alme siderum" (or "Creator of the Stars of Night") sung to the tune of Hernando's Hideaway.

Somewhere, the music itself has to be a part of any discussion of hymns. This makes one wonder just what the musical criteria and standards are by hymnal editorial selection committees. I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

Adam Wood

I think the reason I didn't initially involve the sung Mass parts is because in my parish the congregation does a really good job. We are using the Missa Emanuel setting this Advent with the revised text.

I have a good friend who is an Episcopal church musician. He has worked in several high-profile Episcopal parishes, and also some Roman Catholic ones.

He has said to me, several times, that Protestants will sing things just to sing things, and that Roman Catholics really only like to sing things that have a ritual purpose. I think this is quite accurate.

Your congregation sings the Ordinary because it is ritually relevant, and is straightforward. If you want them to sing anything else, it needs to satisfy those two requirements.

tomjaw

Some questions,
How important is congregational singing?
Is congregational singing an important part of Catholic Liturgy?
Why do we encourage congregational singing?
How important is it for the congregation to sing songs / Hymns?
Are Songs / Hymns and important part of Catholic Liturgy?

These questions raise a number of points...
I will write from an English view point, but I will start with a historical note,
While the Solemn High Mass is / was the normative form, it is not always possible to have such celebrations. So varying degrees have been introduced Missa Cantata, and the Low Mass. In England prior to the Reformation the Solemn high Mass was the norm for the main daily Mass at least on Sundays and Feasts. Of course the changed circumstances after the Reformation made the Low Mass an ideal.
After the Restoration the Missa Cantata became the norm, mainly due to the change in priestly formation that centered the training of priests in seminaries rather than in Parishes causing a lack on clergy (Sub-deacon, Deacon)

Of course for those working in a modern industrial country a Sung Mass on week days causes a great difficulty, TIME. The popularity of the Low Mass was that it was short enough that it did not delay getting to work. A daily Low Mass in the morning is a good thing. N.B. A Solemn High Mass on Sundays and Feasts is also a good thing.

So what of congregational singing...
Here in England after the Restoration congregational singing was most popular at the many devotions, that were hugely popular say from 1850-1960. These devotions have largely now been abandoned.

Of course Congregational singing is also possible during Mass, but this has always depended on the Choir / Schola, and the choice of music they sing. So took a second place to the singing of devotional songs / hymns outside Mass.

Here in England we also have a similar problem with Congregational singing, I suspect the reasons can be found in the list below.

1. The Congregation can participate in the Mass without singing.
2. Songs / Hymns are one of the easiest ways for the Congregation to participate.
3. Songs / Hymns are not an important part of the Mass.
4. Participating in the sung parts of a Mass is not always easy.
5. The Sung parts of the Mass have been changed far too many times over the last 100 years. We don’t have a tradition anymore, the music and words keep changing.
6. Popular devotions have been pushed out by the innovation of Evening Mass amoung other things..
7. Our Song and Hymn books have been changed far too many times, I would suggest 5 major changes, in the common English Hymn books over the last 150 years.
8. The words of traditional songs / Hymns have been changed in modern editions.
9. Each Parish has its own style of music.
10. Singing and music is no longer an important part of school life.
11. Secular styles of popular music have changed very quickly and are very difficult to use during Mass.
12. Older generations each have different ideas of whether a song or hymn is traditional, the younger generations don’t go to Mass.
13. The Rubrics of the N.O. encourage the easy option of a low Mass with songs / hymns.

One final Question,
Was the Congregational sing a fashion that was really a fad and has now passed it’s sell by date?

Don9of11

CHGiffen - You seem to have abandoned your original questions, Don9of11, and are dragging the thread back to the text and whether the text "is teaching us anything about our faith." That, to me at least, does not directly address what's happening to congregational singing as your first posed it. I tried just above to get us somewhat back on the original track, at least as far as hymns and hymn singing are concerned.

I don't think so, I simply reiterated one principal of why I think congregational singing of hymns is becoming less and less. The text of the hymn is very important and the music of the hymn is just as important. They go hand in hand. However,

A hymn is (should be) written with a melody easily sung by both adults and children...

I'm all for great musical compositions in hymns if one remembers we want the congregation to sing not the cantor. Call and response music settings have their place and merit in the Mass and in congregational singing but the trend from what I could discern from some of the earliest post was to favor the "call and response settings" in lue of a hymn. Accepting congregational singing as "call and response" really isn't singing a hymn.

Here is what I think what is most lacking in Catholic hymnody today, our "communion with the saints".

When I look at the hymns that my grandparents sang the content of the hymn was decidedly devotional. There was a communion with the saints in praising God. (addendum...go back and look at hymns the saints were singing, how are they different in musical nature and text) The words were prayerful and meaningful and most importantly they evangelized the individual when he or she was away at work, play or driving down road.

We are all called to be Saints and to evangelize. If you are a musician how are you using your talents to accomplish this goal.

We have a responsibility as musicians to write and compose music that does exactly this... to evangelize and teach. Don't take your cue from what seems popular but take your cue from what is right and true. Set aside egos and work toward the goal of evangelizing.

dad29

there will be much, much more silence in church on Sundays.

Feature or bug??

ClergetKubisz

A hymn is (should be) written with a melody easily sung by both adults and children...

From Rev. Anthony Cekada (who is himself a church musician):

“It is virtually impossible to create music with true artistic merit and singability for a non-musician…”

Liam

To which (Fr Cekada's comment) I would say, twaddle.

I would suggest a different way to think of the model hymn tune is that it should ordinarily be eminently singable by non-professional singers without accompaniment.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories