Strategy for winning converts to good liturgical music
-
In the years immediately following Vatican II, when opponents of good liturgical music frequently invoked the Council in support of their stance, it made sense for proponents of good liturgical music to invoke Roman authority in defense of their position.
Circumstances have changed. The majority of those who wish to maintain the status quo in American Roman Catholic Church music do not hold Rome in high esteem. Many became disaffected from the papacy during the reign of John Paul II and expressed chagrin over the election of Benedict XVI. The question of whether their attitude is acceptable is beside the point. It IS their attitude.
Consequently, in current circumstances proponents of sacred music may be making a strategic mistake when they city Vatican authority in support of their position, because most of the people whom they are trying to convert attach little importance to what the Vatican has to say.
It seems likely that if the proponents of sacred music offered their argument on its own merits, without reference to authority, those who heard it might be more receptive.
I am not suggesting that ultramonanists change their own attitude toward the papacy. I am merely pointing out that most of those whom supporters of sacred music are seeking to influence are unlikely to be swayed by appeals to Vatican authority. -
Dear Dr. Ford, may I offer a few observations and comments upon your post?
*I think it very necessary to, at least, identify that "majority....who wish to maintain the status quo.." in reality. From my experience, that majority may, if fact, be our own bishops and priests. They hardly comprise a demographic majority, but they benignly ignore, and in some cases smugly dismiss, the teaching authority of Rome's bishops while keeping their own teaching authority well in tact. If you attach the sees and parishioners of said clerics, it's a "paper tiger" majority. I would refer you to Mary Jane Ballou's article about how the laity have practiced "go along, get along" tolerance for many more decades than the post-conciliar ones.
*Forgive me if I wonder whether there's a distinction to be made between citing "Vatican authority" versus citing the "Magisterial authority" of papal, episcopal and curial documents. Personally, I see the influence of our current pope and others as having been instrumental lenses through which those documents have been correctly read and understood and their "causes" being taken up anew. That influence only serves to bolster the enthusiasm of those among us who can engage our local clerics in the debate. But I really don't think we merely cite papal or curial blurbs, books or photos when we have the opportunity to engage clerics or our laity. I know that won't be the thrust of my meeting with our music leaders next week.
*I see the efforts of CMAA, NLM, Fr. Z as doing just what you state: "(offering) their argument on its own merits,..."
That there is a growing body of adherents to those arguments is a testament to modern technology and a happy conincidence.
*I don't think real "ultramodernists" are any more interested in a dialogue about sacred music than they are about their attitudes toward the papacy or the Vatican. In fact, "ultramodernists" are difficult to actually find these days, unless they're on cruise boats having "ordinations," starting their own centers of religious "study" in Phoenix, or crafting huge puppets for CTA Masses or up in MN. What proponents are trying to get the attention of is what I simply call: conventional wisdom. Which isn't really widsom in the first place, just convenient. -
But in the medium- and long-term, those demi-Catholics who do not formally and actively assent to the Magisterium will find themselves substantially diminished in number and in influence, as is meet and right. At some point all advocacy for excellence in Catholic liturgy and music must make explicit its dependence on the right celebration of the sacraments as revealed in the Church. Music in Church is only good and only beautiful if it conforms to the meaning of the rites as promulgated *and regulated* by the ordinary Magisterium. Naturally every sentence of every statement does not have to reference a papal document, but to be satisfied with a standard rooted more in secular aesthetics than in Tradition is not a reasonable Catholic position. A sophisticated, informed theology of beauty is essential, as is this theology's subsidiary relationship to sacramental theology. Strategy is useful. Truth is priceless.
-
A good observation.
This sort of issue about dialogue comes up in the field of "apologetics" all the time. When someone asks a question about Catholic doctrine, the most expeditious way of answering it might be to cite an authoritative statement, but if the listener doesn't accept the authority behind that statement, one has to take another approach. One has to show how the doctrine is meaningful and good and beautiful and true, based on its own merits.
Really, that's a superior way to answer the question, in any case. It involves a closer examination of the subject of the question; and people can only benefit from that.
--By the way, Charles, I think you misread Bruce's text: he didn't say that the supporters of the status quo constitute a majority.
Rather, he said that most of those people -- a majority of those people -- do not give much respect to Rome. Which is probably true. -
I've had similar encounters. Once I hear from my conversant that that he/she doesn't support a lot of what Rome says, I have to strategically fall back and plan a new tactic. Let's face it, the downside of pluralistic democracy is that people apply it to every facet of life, including religion. People honestly believe that they have a choice and that they have a God-given right to have issues with Church authority. BTW, what if an ultra-liberal pope had been elected? How many here would gladly put their square notes away and take up their tambourines in support of that pope's initiatives? I wonder. We all need to have our argument for beauty at hand and let the Church's chant speak for itself. I suspect that we will always be a minority as long as musical choices are allowed, but we should be an enthusiastic and friendly minority. I suggest that instead of pushing chant, maybe we could let our enthusiasm be so intoxicating that people come to us and want "in" to the group. Just a thought.
-
Dear Chonak,
Actually I think we've just crossed semantical lines, is all. I understand completely what Bruce meant. To reiterate,
Bruce's assertion and mine are probably the same: the "majority of those who want the status quo to remain don't hold all things Roman in high esteem" are likely "my clerics," the publishers and marketeers and their clientele, DRE's, unaware, pro-forma musicians et al. My assertion is that they purport to represent the wishes of the benign, compliant Faithful who worship under their respective umbrellas.
Of course, what with all the brouhaha surrounding B16 and SSPX, the clarity of the waters have become conveniently more muddied to those who have the temerity and impudence to question this, and therefore, all of the Holy Father's motives and intensions.
And Mike's strategy is precisely what I'm employing out here in our fertile vineyards. -
There have to be strategies within one's own setting - psychological, political, etc. Each knows his own situation best and what will get him from point A to point B with regard to the music program in his parish. But I contend, as I have been for the past eight years, that the best way to gain converts to make sure that the music is heard. It alone has the power to convince in a lasting way.
So again, our main job is our musicianship. It is easy to get caught up in the rhetoric, and in the battle, for that matter. And it is sometimes necessary. But what happens is that the energy that goes into the battle takes away from what needs to be going into music making. The right music feeds the congregation, and feeds us, as well. Sounds preachy, but this is something I've learned over time. And have to relearn regularly. I'm getting better at it. There are times to argue, there are times for extreme strategic maneuvering, but it is so easy to get too caught up in that - to the point where I forget that the music itself is the reason. Time for me to put down the arms and get back to the scores, the practice, the music, and the art. -
The difference between the 00s and the last two or three decades is the difference in loyalties of the rising leadership. The young leaders now do take the universality of the Church seriously.
The commitment of the population at large to universal unity remains much the same. But the leaven has changed. -
Here's a plan
1. Be faithful and visibly Christ-like, as best you can. Avoid being just another secular music aesthete, as this will lead people immediately to question the extent of your own conversion.
2. Sing nothing you cannot sing with skill, confidence, and understanding. You are not a throwback, adopting a pose. You are the offshoot of a living vine.
We live in an aggressively pagan and protestant-free-church sort of culture. The best way to assist its conversion is to represent, in yourself, the best result of taking the sacred music approach. That result should be, in short, a more complete conversion to Christ. A helpful step in that direction is a more complete conversion to the values that sacred chant embodies.
Conversion and sanctification should be beautiful. Like a well-tended vine, it should bear visible fruit. Let it.
Holiness is beautiful, and beauty attracts. That is why so many powerful forces are organized against it. -
Thank you Pes, for your practical guides. The best way to fight the ugliness is not just criticizing it, but doing the beautiful thing, such as singing chants beautifully.
-
Just be a saint, that's all, right Pes?
It really is the exactly right plan. -
I think one issue is to what extent do we NEED converts? Of course we need more musicians who love chant, and choristers willing to sing it, but why does the average person in the pews HAVE to love chant? Do they have this discussion in traditionalist vestment communities - "How do we make people LOVE lace and fiddlebacks?" I always told people, "I'm not asking you to enjoy the Church's music, I'm just asking you to expect it." I'm not sure about your church, Bruce, but I can't imagine anyone walking into the local high Anglican church here and expecting drums and projection screens. I'm sure people just "get" that it's not going that way.
So how can we get people to "expect" good music? By having everything else be good! If I described a situation where a priest walked in wearing felt vestments, said "Good morning, everyone, how about this weather?!" instead of the invocation, replaced the word "he" with "God" throughout Mass, and so on, what music do you expect with this scenario? There are many chant groups at liturgically abusive parishes, and it's the same rite, yet we expect music of low caliber. And yet, how many young priests wear fine vestments, prayerfully follow the rubrics of the Mass as well as they can, chant the Mass, then process out to "City of God"? And not to attack those who are less "scorched earth" as myself (although I think that's an inapt description of my ministry philosophy) , but what kind of context for chant are you setting if it's in the middle of 3 songs from Gather?
I don't have the answers to Bruce's correct conundrum, but I will say that proper liturgical praxis will feed into more. There was a point at my last job when people stopped asking for "On Eagle's Wings" because they knew it wouldn't happen. At the very least, they realized that I wouldn't do it, but likely at some level they were accepting that is the way things are at that church. I don't think any fewer people would have LOVED to have it make an appearance, but they were slowly learning "my wants and desires are irrelevant to how this parish is run" - just as I accepted that my desire to have Styx at Mass would never be fulfilled. Perhaps when we stop focusing on trying to PLEASE everyone, or more realistically when PRIESTS (and bishops) stop using happiness of the congregation as a judge of liturgical practice, then good liturgical music can make some inroads. -
And if you will indulge another short rant: I find the "throw out the dissenters"/smaller-purer Church attitude in the conservative Catholic blogosphere disgusting. Yet there is some element of this in quoting documents which is productive. When I discuss liturgical legislation with people, the subtext is usually "if you can't stand to hear Latin or chant, maybe you should go somewhere else on Sunday mornings?" Or, as my Lutheran ex (maybe I can find a nice Catholic woman now?) used to put it, "Do these people WANT to be Catholic or not?" I'm not saying people should leave over music, I'm just saying they should consider what they're a part of. Quoting documents, even to the obstinate, help.
There's also a strong element of "these are MY orders." In fact, I try to tell people, "Look, this is what I HAVE to do. I'm glad to have your input on how you think I can best fulfill this duty." Those who want me to just ignore my duty are of course not welcome to share. -
The problem is big. But I believe in doing one person at a time. I believe when our schola sings chants we remind at least one person of our Holy Church through the beautiful tradition and help one person to be connceted to Her. That keeps me going in my doing music ministry in our parish where all the masses are celebrated with pop-sacro music. The pop-sacro music might get popuar, but I know this is such a superficial fad that can be changed very quickly. So, I don't get frustrated at all. I've seen my schola members, who joined the schola just out of curiosity or whatever reason, started to experience the true joy of liturgy through singing chants, which will last with them much longer.
Our catholic faith is based on our humility, humility of our Christ, a lot more and deeper than what secular world demands. The first sin of Adam and Eve was caused by the pride, the pride they want to be equal as God. We all still have that tendency thinking we might know better than our Church, the Church founded by Christ. This will be our continuous struggle and our Church's role of purifying us. -
"Perhaps when we stop focusing on trying to PLEASE everyone, or more realistically when PRIESTS (and bishops) stop using happiness of the congregation as a judge of liturgical practice, then good liturgical music can make some inroads."
Great axiom, Gavin. And kudos to Arlene and Pes for their praxis and common sense.
Realize, however, that for many DMs who wish to both remain employed at a parish with potential (arggh, no better word comes to mind) that has such priests as Gavin describes above, there's a sort of Venn diagram overlay wherein the DM must carefully tread as s/he grafts the living vines while methodically letting the weaker vines dissipate and disappear. Otherwise, the unhappiness of someone-the DM, the rest of music ministry personnel, the celebrants and the PIPs- will most likely result in that DM's feet moving on down the road. Happiness is, and shouldn't be, the ludicrous factor in measuring liturgical or ecclesiastical success. But I see it infused via the massaging of the PIPs' comfort zones at nearly every Sunday Mass, funeral or wedding at which I'm present. I won't say by whom. -
One of the book I read says "you cannot give what you don't have" (chanters and other church musicians). The church musicians who don't have the faith and the humility and strive to have His humility cannot touch the souls of the listeners. It will remain as just another entertainment of the beauty. I pray I don't become one of those ego-centric church musicians, if I'm one, I probably even notice that I am. Only God can teach me.
I also repect all the priests, because they are the ones who open the door to heaven and give us Jesus at the mass, nobody else. God made it that way. That's enough for me to give them the highest respect I can give to any human beings on this earth. They may not be perfect, make mistakes and have struggles. In many ways we can help them without loosing our respect for them. -
I have found that when I present concrete examples of poor texts, poor music (usually by singing the "Brady Bunch" theme immediately followed by the refrain of "Here I Am, Lord" to which people reply, "Well, now you've ruined that song for me" . . . good, my work here is done!) and liturgical abuses, then speak in terms of received tradition, the difference between rupture and continuity, etc., some (NOT all) of the people I talk to as intelligent human beings actually respond. They say, "I didn't know that, and I've been Catholic all my life", and "you need to talk to others", and (my personal favorite) "what does the liturgy committee think? (to which I reply, "I don't know").
I explain to them that this isn't what I want, it's what the Church and her liturgy call for. I think the vast majority of people are silent not because they're ignorant or satisfied with what they're subjected to at the hands of the progressives, but because they've been beaten into submission by a cruel elitist bunch who have babbled at them in a steady stream of baby talk for so long that they just want to be left alone. When you speak to the disenfranchised like intelligent, thinking people who are capable of grasping new (old) precepts and philosphies, they secretly lap it up like a starving, thirst-ridden animal that's been abused and abandoned by a self-serving owner. And, the more you feed them good food (starting with simple fare of things like mode VIII chants and working your way up through polyphony) the stronger they'll get, and the more they'll crave it.
It takes time. (And yes, Gavin, I still subscribe to the "brick by brick" philosophy!) -
Every parish has a different need.
If you have many kids, you know each child is very different, even if you don't do much differently when they are babies. Some kids need more hugs, others need more clear explanations, some needs to be more reminded ect..I try to meet their needs, but I don't have different family rules for each child. I need to apply therm in different ways so they can coorperate and live as a family. -
CharlesinCA: I made a typographical error, leaving the "t" out of "ultramontanists," and you thought I had meant to type "ultramodernists."
My point was that those proponents of sacred music who hold the papacy in high esteem can remain loyal to their principles and at the same time base their outreach to opponents on something other than papal authority. -
Sometimes it is very helpful to point out to others (pastors, parishioners) that when you started out in church music you didn't know what you were in for, either. But that this is the music of the Church, and you had no choice to but follow Church teaching- once you had done your homework. They themselves have had similar experiences in other areas. Leave it at that. It is amazing how stymied people are by a comment like this. And how it makes them think. Especially if they see this borne out in liturgy after liturgy...
Charles in CenCa, thank you for saying "Venn diagram." Unexpected words can make me laugh at inappropriate times. What a colorful way you have about you! -
"Sing nothing you cannot sing with skill, confidence, and understanding." And with intoxicating enthusiasm.
Well put - as are all of these comments - even Gavin's double rant.
Beauty does attract and we've seen a great many efforts to stamp it out. But they don't work because beauty's origins lie in the Divinity. It's my personal belief that singing chant, even with only one or two other singers, begins a process of change in an environment. Chant may be the first harbinger of beauty's return. And what a wonderful joy to be part of it. -
I marvel at the architects who designed the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris knowing that they would never live to see it finished: Neither would their children nor their grandchildren. I hope that's not the case with proper church music.
-
"the massaging of the PIPs' comfort zones at nearly every Sunday Mass, funeral or wedding"
Isn't this the REAL problem, as it always has been per omnia secula seculorum? Especially when one considers that Christianity (and particularly Catholicism) is about everything BUT comfort zones.
David, your reply sums up what I was incompetently dancing around. The PRIMARY liturgical error in Western Christian religion, transcending denominational lines, is to view worship as something WE do and make ourselves, rather than something we RECEIVE. The liturgy has always been handed down, from generation to generation, and we are mere stewards of it and recipients of its benefits. Even years after my interest in chant, it took visiting an Orthodox church to understand this. This is why "option 4" is so toxic: it sets the individual liturgist or musician as decider for what's good and what isn't, when there's a proven tradition waiting to be embraced. Or, as one priest described what they tried to teach him in seminary, "the purpose of the Mass is to receive YOUR special touch and be a vehicle for your creativity." Those of you who feel similarly will know what I'm talking about as to the difference, those of you who don't will no doubt think "what's he on about? I sang Adoro Te in Latin on Sunday, isn't that good enough?"
The problem is that you can't force this view of the liturgy. You can't point to the rubric "only those who properly view the liturgy as a thing received may be seated in the church during Mass" or the legislation which tells people how to think. And that's fair. But to those who don't see the liturgy in such a way, for us to justify the answer the question "what do we sing for communion" being "the Communion antiphon, of course!" we may as well be speaking Latin to them. -
Bruce, you make a good observation. 'In the years immediately following Vatican II, when opponents of good liturgical music frequently invoked the Council in support of their stance, it made sense for proponents of good liturgical music to invoke Roman authority in defense of their position.' It seems to me that in retrospect this is truly an either/or argument at its core. Was the Council truly in opposition to Rome (or the Magisterium)? Not if you consider the documents. Where did the opposition to magesterial authority come from? Why was there a conflict of authority? How is it playing out to this day? These are the questions that come up for me. Even though I wasn't there, I have to wonder about plain old 'power grabs'.
Is it really holding to ultramontanism if one appeals to magisterial documents? Some people lump fidelity to the Magisterium in with ultramontanism, maybe its a confusion about terms.
But your point is taken. Appeals to legitimate authority won't work if one has a gripe about authority. Too bad Nike hasn't washed our culture with, 'Just Be Obedient'.
Arlene and Pes made comments about letting the music be heard (incrementally, and any way possible) and striving for sanctity in all things, including the performance of music. Those two ideas in combination are the way to barrel ahead with beauty, I think.
And what else can we do, when we realize what the Church is asking of us- both in terms of authentic sacred music and a life of holiness? Its nearly impossible to go back once you understand these things, without feeling you've compromised your soul. -
Romano Guardini begins his famous "Spirit of the Liturgy" with a discussion of the objective nature of Catholic worship - that it is neither individualistic as is Protestant worship nor focused on a particular temporary group or circumstance. And it was that "objective nature" that Guardini believed to be the special strength of Catholic liturgy per se vs. other forms of corporate devotion suited to specific groups and places. He didn't have anything against the latter; he distinguished them. We tossed out the first and kept the second.
When that objective character is lost, Guardini points out that "It is true at at first every mistake will be completely overshadowed by the particular circumstances - the emergency or disturbance - which justified the adoption of that particular line of conduct. But in proportion as the extraordinary symptoms subside, and the normal existence of the soul is resumed, the more forcibly every interior mistake is bound to come to light, sowing destruction on all sides in its course."
If you haven't read this short book, I cannot recommend it strongly enough. -
MA Singing Mum wrote: "Was the Council truly in opposition to Rome (or the Magisterium)?"
Of course not. But many who promoted ill-considered change cited the Council as their authority, even though they had not read the Conciliar documents. So, when they encountered proponents of good liturgical music, they accused them of rejecting the teachings of the Council. It was, therefore, entirely appropriate that the proponents of good liturgical music should respond to them by citing those very documents.
Nowadays many of the ill-considered innovations of the 60s and 70s endure. Those who are committed to maintaining them, however, maintain them because they judge them to be good. Furthermore, since most of them don't hold papal authority in high esteem, they are not likely to be much influenced by appeals to such authority. PERHAPS, they would be more responsive to other arguments in favor of sacred music. That's all I meant to say. -
Mr. Ford, could give some examples of other arguments?
-
Kathy
Just be a saint, that's all, right Pes?
Naw, I'm just tossing out there the idea that effective work in this area can easily be sabotaged. If you're skillful, sincere, Christ-like, and well-informed about what you're singing, it's harder for others to attack you.
But Gavin and the other commenters here also know that being a good exemplar isn't enough. If a pastor is bent on having protestant and secular music, you've got real problems. There are many other problems that others here can speak to.
In my situation, the most effective thing to do is not press too hard, to do everything with goodness and skill, and to let slow, steady, and skillful win the race. Our situation has luxuries that others do not have, though, so it's best for me to stay quiet.
In my parish, I will offer workshops as workshops in "sung prayer." I think appeal to Church documents is good for defense; for offense, a gentler and more encompassing approach is probably best. -
'Nowadays many of the ill-considered innovations of the 60s and 70s endure. Those who are committed to maintaining them, however, maintain them because they judge them to be good.'
True. And therein lies the conflict. People set themselves up in judgment as authorities at odds with rubrics, documents they might not even be aware of, etc. And it becomes one (illegitimate) authority versus another.
I agree with your original point, Bruce, about using other arguments, a way of being all things to all people. Let the music be heard, with love and skill. But if disobedience is at the root of things, the progress toward fulfilling the Church's vision in any diocese or parish will be slow.
MJ, thanks for the nudge toward Guardini. I keep meaning to get to that, and hear its truly great. -
Let's not forget that the musical culture in the Roman Catholic Church in America prior to Vatican II was hardly ideal. Had it been better, it might not have collapsed overnight. That being said, I don't think PIPs from this era would have thrown a fit had they heard good music--it was very much a rarity. Moreover, fine music could be heard on major media including television (who heard something good on TV now without really having to search for it?). When President Kennedy was killed, symphony orchestras performed on network television!
So, the whole culture promotes the drivel we endure today. The past and the present all conspire to ensure mediocrity. -
An item about liturgical obedience (Archbishop Lipscomb on relationship of liturgy and law) ...
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/1102.shtml
At the "Conclusion" heading:
In conclusion, however, Archbishop Lipscomb had planned to offer you some brief reflections on the relationship of liturgy and law as we embark on an implementation of the revised Roman Missal. I ask you to permit me to read them to you.
We have made a profound journey these past forty years—one which has abandoned a view of rubrics as rigid norms observed in the interest of mere ceremonial or spectacle. We have to a great extent seized a moment of grace and opened our hearts to the movement of the Holy Spirit in our own time.
Yet, still, some unhealthy and unrealistic attitudes toward the liturgy and her laws perdure. This has been made all the clearer in the months preceding and immediately following the publication of the new Roman Missal. Such individuals just want to know what to do and what to change and how to get on with it. The rich catechetical, historical and doctrinal elements of the Roman Missal are but an impediment to their efficiency.
Others become lost, to a remarkable extent, in endless speculation on the theological, ecclesiological and doctrinal significance of new liturgical laws. Their reflections, as ingenious as they are endless, petrify and preclude any real action.
Then there are those who use the law to resolve personal vendettas, to exercise control over those whom they do not trust. Such conflicts, rooted more in relational failures than liturgical issues, even gave rise to a too long lived and increasingly aggravating joke.
Finally, there are those who exercise an approach to liturgical law which lives by the motto: "the exception is better than the norm." They search untiringly for the exception to every particular norm and use it to justify the setting aside of the law itself. In the resultant vacuum, they gladly assume the role of sole remaining arbiter of the truth.
I suggest there is but one sufficient antidote to such self-serving attitudes toward liturgical law. It is the virtue of obedience—a virtue even less practiced than it is appreciated. I ask you: if the heart of the liturgy is Christ's kenotic self-giving upon the cross, what virtue is more liturgical than obedience? That is what the antiphon for the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time means when it proclaims: The precepts of the Lord give joy to the heart. Each person who seeks to implement the new Roman Missal must be inspired and driven by precisely such a response.
That is why the new Roman Missal speaks about posture by saying: "The uniformity in posture, which must be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Scared Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the mind and spiritual attitudes of the participants"(GIRM, no. 50).
Patience, conviction, and courage are needed as we embark on an implementation of the new Roman Missal. Discernment is crucial and must be complimented by a strong measure of common sense and pastoral sensitivity. But in all this we must never lose an appreciation for the prescient words of the responsorial refrain for the Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time: Blessed are they who follow the law of the Lord!
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,102
- General Music Discussion7,591
- Job Openings1,302
- Management of Music Programs833
- Choral Matters519
- Church Documents and Rubrics504
- CMAA Notes291
- Events651
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony528
- Hymnody821
- Gregorian Chant: General2,582
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis354
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology57
- Vernacular Plainsong671
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant66
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire414
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,208
- Recordings222
- Music for Hispanic Ministry151
- Music Education: Children205
- Music Education: General214
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism723
- Amusements170
- General Discussion1,000
- Opinions113