Perhaps if the guitar were large enough . . . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apqDbhxAge4

Have to disagree, Jackson. Yes, I know trackers are more playable today than they ever were in their heyday because of modern materials, computer assisted design, and current manufacturing technology. I detest being buried in casework and want some distance between myself and the pipes. It is nice to actually hear what the congregation hears - not always a tracker problem. I played a large EP where the console was so close to the pedal division I could barely hear the pipes. All the sound was going out above me. I didn't grow up with trackers and have never really taken to them. Personal preference, I suppose. They seem to me to be like driving a horse-drawn cart instead of a car. If you enjoy trackers, then play on and peace be upon you. I just don't like them and never will.

Should it not, with modern technology, be possible to create an electronic action that provides all the advantages of both tracker and direct electric actions?

...unless it's played...

Meow.
That's really not terribly collegial.
___________________________________________

As for Stephen's question. It is interesting, but seems to me to beg the question: 'what on earth for?' There is nothing wrong with a direct electric action, which has the advantage of making the console placable wherever one wishes.

There is nothing wrong with a tracker action, which gives the player the same intimacy and musicianship with respect to touch as does that of a piano or harpsichord. Who could fault this? Can you just imagine an electronic piano action that puts an electrical relay betwixt the the key and the hammer? What nonsense! Ditto something similar with a harpsichord. What cretinesque foolishness.

The organ, in purely objective terms, is not different. Everything that comes betwixt touch and mechanical response is a subtraction from ideal musicianship, from the artist's bond with his sound source and its production.

I am not castigating other types of action. My attitude towards them is quite liberal - far more liberal and rational than that of tracker's detractors. Some actions trade off one musical advantage for a different one. This is fine. What is irrational is the view held by some that tracker is an inherently obsolete technology that needs at all and any cost to be avoided for something more 'modern'. There are those, of course, who couldn't resist devising 'improvements' simply because, for them, it is fodder for their misplaced creative urges. The artistic-musical value of what is done is secondary to the thrill of doing it.

Getting back to Stephen's question -
What respective elements of the two systems you mention do you envision being unified in some sort of hybrid? What purely musical advantages would you imagine to result? I, personally, cannot see how a modification of the tracker system by the introduction of electronic elements would be an improvement. For a serious musician the direct communication with his or her sound source and its manipulation is irreplacable in terms of artistry and musicianship in performance. Accommodating such 'interference' is unheard of and would not be tolerated in any other serious music endeavour. Organists alone make trade-offs for the sake of console placement, architectural constraints, technique (or lack thereof), the type (or lack) of schooling they received, and other factors, all of which are secondary to uncompromising musicianship.

Highest paid musician at our parish is a guitarist who would never dream of strumming anything.

These are not remotely liturgical in nature. Obviously they fail from a traditional perspective. Even from a progressive/contemporary viewpoint they are deeply problematic in that they are performer-oriented and personality-driven.

By what objective criteria are these songs that way? I contest your assertion that these are performer and personality driven songs. Particularly with No Longer Slaves, which I have used many times for adoration, people pick it right up and the song is written in a way that makes the human voice the primary instrument. These recordings are all made to sell so they have a certain varnish to them that I take off when I am using them for congregational singing.

people pick it right up

This is not music that a congregation sings. It is music that an audience sings along to.

I will try to think of a better way to explain this, but I feel like if you can't simply tell the difference between performance music and congregational music, I'm not going to be able to say much to convince you.

Adam the Perspicacious is, as is most often (but not always) the case, spot on.
This is beyond dispute.
(Nor does he need to 'think of a better way to explain' it.)

electric guitar verses organ? no contest. ditch the guitar-perhaps a Pete Townsend end of concert demolition?

Chonak, I posted those youtube links specifically in request to examples of how to use a guitar in a liturgically appropriate manner. I otherwise made no comment on the appropriateness of the songs. I would appreciate your opinion on the guitar work in them. Some of your criticisms I agree with and others I do not.

I started with the Audrey Assad song. The vocal is plainly designed for a solo voice. You can tell by its irregular use of rhythm.

I think you are underestimating the ability of congregations to deal with difficult rhythms. You cited O God, Our Help In Ages Past as more rhythmically appropriate. To my personal taste, the rhythm of this hymn is simple to an excess. It feels wooden to me. Making such a rule would have the effect of dumbing down the music we put in front of congregations. Now, I agree that we should not play songs that can't be sung. I simply disagree with your opinion on where the line is. I think rhythms should feel natural and naturally fit the text. I know from personal experience that congregations can follow the first two of the songs I posted; the third song I have never tried.

I really found Ms. Assad's song repellent from the first moment, since it starts with a fake-heartbeat sound, a nerve-wracking, manipulative sound effect

Did we listen to the same song? I don't hear any other instruments or sound effects additional to the piano until 0:37 on the recording. Here is the recording I am pointing to, in case we have crossed our signals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFr6dVTVN2w

"No Longer Slaves", I cannot help noticing the very breathy voice of the soloist

That's a legitimate criticism. I expect the people who sing for me to use proper technique. Back to the previous artist, Audrey Assad, she was a vocal technique train wreck when she was a new artist and I told my singers never to sing like her. She's really cleaned her technique up and is now someone I could point to as a role model. I emphasize that I posted this selection for the guitar playing and not the singing.

Again, a song designed for a soloist

I've led this song with congregations many times, and it lends itself extremely well to congregational singing.

Both this song and the Assad song had lyrics which were deeply personal and confessional. That's not what congregational singing is about. That's not what the liturgy is about. We don't go to Mass to put intense attention on our personal struggles. It is much more spiritually healthy to put our attention on God for the most part.

These songs all have lyrics that are addressed to God. You Speak is written about the following quote from Mother Theresa: "“In the silence of the heart God speaks. If you face God in prayer and silence, God will speak to you. Then you will know that you are nothing. It is only when you realize your nothingness, your emptiness, that God can fill you with Himself. Souls of prayer are souls of great silence.” No Longer Slaves is written around Galatians 4:7 "So you are no longer a slave, but God's child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir." He Shall Reign Forevermore is taken from the lyrics to Handel's Messiah and from the old hymn In the Bleak Midwinter.

I disagree with your characterizations of these songs as about being about personal struggles rather than prayers addressed to God. I agree with you that we should not have songs that are all about us or our struggles - this is why I hate All Our Welcome and Go Make a Difference - they talk about us with little mention of God. I disagree with your assessment that the songs I posted are like this.

Again, the cheap heartbeat effect in the electronic percussion

I disagree with your assessment of this being a cheap heartbeat effect and this being electronic percussion. First, you can clearly see that it is a real drumset at 1:37 in the video. If you want to complain about electronics, I'm pretty sure the violin sound is coming from a backing track. You can barely even hear the drums except in verse two. I'd like to hear some specifics about what problems you have with the drums on this.

Finally, recognize that at least the first two songs have a varnish on them designed to sell records. If you don't like how one of these songs uses, say, the drums, simply don't use drums for your congregation. Most of the time, I play these songs with just the piano and they work very well.

Great hymns can be sung by the voice alone. A song that basically cannot be performed effectively without instruments is really not a congregational hymn.

I largely agree with that. I make a point to end many of the songs I play acapella. Mighty to Save by Hillsong and Lord I Need You by Matt Maher have particuarly compelling melodies that congregations sing lustilly when the instruments drop out.

As a soccer player, I keep imagining it is a yellow card, and I've been waiting to see the red card given!

Whatever a yellow soccer card is

Well, to fill in this sadly neglected part of your otherwise expansive body of knowledge:

A yellow card is given in soccer (football for those that prefer!) for a foul that merits an official warning. A red card is given after a player has already received a yellow card, or if the foul or infraction is grievous enough to warrant a 'straight red card,' and results in the ejection of the player.

Fifty shades of orange.

Orange is the new black.

Ha! So now we have a

green card?

What a card Chuck is!

We love small talk, and getting off-topic. They are often the only redemption for boring and tedious threads. People who are new to this forum don't seem to realize it is unlikely they will post topics we haven't covered to death multiple times.

The entire thread started with what seems to be a faulty premise - I can do whatever music I happen to like for the liturgy using any instruments that please me. Church music is not about doing what appeals to you or your congregation, although I will be the first to admit some concessions and work-arounds are possible. For example, I detest "Amazing Grace," but program it 3 or 4 times a year for those in the congregation, even friends, who somehow think it has merit. It probably is a Calvinistic interpretation of grace and not consistent with Catholic teachings. However, the earth doesn't collapse in a cloud of dust and fire because of it.

It amazes me that many musicians work harder at getting around church regulations on liturgical music, than they would ever work following them.

The confusion about the word liturgy is reflected in the wikipedia article on the topic it starts by saying

However, a daily activity such as the Muslim salah and Jewish synagogue services would be ritual, but not liturgy. If the Temple were re-established, the ritual undertaken by the Judaic priesthood within the Temple would be liturgy.

and then goes on to describe both of these as liturgy!
This forum is not exclusively focussed on Catholic Liturgy, but most participants would agree to use the word in this sense, and not more broadly. This is in no way to denigrate other religious activities, or other religious music. I imagine most members engage in many religious activities, some involving music, for their own spiritual benefit.

It probably is a Calvinistic interpretation of grace and not consistent with Catholic teachings.

I have the honor of agreeing with Mr. Charles W for the first time in a long time.

(Now, why did he have to say that he also programs it for liturgy, acknowledging that it is inconsistent with Catholic teaching?)

O God, Our Help In Ages Past... is simple to an excess. It feels wooden to me... dumbing down the music we put in front of congregations.

Touché, jclangfo!

St Anne?
Wooden?
Dumbing down?
What a grievous misfortune that one should have such thoughts about one of the noblest of tunes and texts.
Even worse that he or she would presume to infect others with them.

The entire thread started with what seems to be a faulty premise - I can do whatever music I happen to like for the liturgy using any instruments that please me. Church music is not about doing what appeals to you or your congregation, although I will be the first to admit some concessions and work-arounds are possible. For example, I detest "Amazing Grace," but program it 3 or 4 times a year for those in the congregation, even friends, who somehow think it has merit. It probably is a Calvinistic interpretation of grace and not consistent with Catholic teachings. However, the earth doesn't collapse in a cloud of dust and fire because of it.

It amazes me that many musicians work harder at getting around church regulations on liturgical music, than they would ever work following them.

I reject that premise. I invite you to re-read the blog post I wrote the base this discussion on. http://contemporaryorthodoxy.weebly.com/blog/guitar-in-liturgical-music In the post, I made this claim:

Paragraph 63 continues: "In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions." What are the culture and traditions of the American people? I note the the guitar is common to nearly every style of folk music in the United States, from African Spirituals, to Appalachian folk, to Gospel. The use of guitar in music is deeply ingrained in the fabric of our culture and as such we should be seeking to harmonize its use with the liturgy. But what if the guitar is "by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only"? I answer that it is not. The traditionalist seeking to eliminate the guitar has a lot of ground to cover in establishing that the general population of Catholics in our country considers the guitar "suitable for secular music only" in light of its widespread usage in Catholic parishes. Note that "it's obvious to me personally that it doesn't belong" reflects your personal subjective opinions and says nothing about the general population. Further, such an argument flies in the face of the existence of Gospel music which has been using the guitar for a sacred purpose for over 100 years. I suggest rather that this paragraph is referring to harmonicas, kazoos, and accordions (joke instruments in our culture, by and large) and the sort of techno/computer synthesized instrumentation that accompanies pop music and is in fact considered by everyone to be suitable for entertainment purposes only. As a final note, the judgement of which instruments are "suitable for secular music only" is to be made by the local bishops' conference, which in our country has judged in their favor.

So, I very clearly do not think that "I can do whatever music I happen to like for the liturgy using any instruments that please me." We have a difference in opinion as to what the liturgical documents allow and what musical expressions in our personal judgement meet the needs of the liturgy.

I maintain that the documents of the church clearly allow some form of contemporary music, particuarly Musicam Sacram paragraph 61:

61. Adapting sacred music for those regions which possess a musical tradition of their own, especially mission areas,[42] will require a very specialized preparation by the experts. It will be a question in fact of how to harmonize the sense of the sacred with the spirit, traditions and characteristic expressions proper to each of these peoples. Those who work in this field should have a sufficient knowledge both of the liturgy and musical tradition of the Church, and of the language, popular songs and other characteristic expressions of the people for whose benefit they are working.

Ultimately, I think you are making a post-modern argument: that contrary to universal legislation of the church and affirmation from the local bishop's conference, that your personal taste in liturgical music should be enforced. I emphasize that in support of the use of chant and polyphony; I am merely arguing against the onlyist position.

I rise in support of St. Anne. If it is not truly experienced as among the most moving of hymns, may I respectfully suggest that we're doing it wrong?
https://youtu.be/asrwlIxLeko?t=30s

Here's why I don't like this song and used the word wooden to describe it. This song is written in 4/4 and every single word or syllable occurs on the beat. I think this lacks complexity and variety. Most hymns keep it interesting by having some words that are held for multiple beats or occur in between beats (if counting 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and, some words would occur on the "and").

So I don't personally like it, but I recognize that other people do. What I objected to what not really this song but the suggestion that this level of rhythmic simplicity is what is required for a congregation to be able to sing - if so, most liturgical music of any genre would be out the window.

Here's why I don't like this song and used the word wooden to describe it. This song is written in 4/4 and every single word or syllable occurs on the beat. I think this lacks complexity and variety.

jcl,
I follow your reasoning, but as in all things-not all of such exemplary hymns results in "word wooden" syndrome. One that comes to mind is FINLANDIA/Be still my soul. (Tho' I acknowledge many find this hymn lacking.)

I assume you're writing from the United States, jcl, so I would challenge the fittingness of using models of "inculturation" at all here: they are intended for missionary settings in which the Gospel is entering for the first time. In that setting it is fitting to appropriate the existing religious music forms of a non-Christian people, if they can also be applied to express the values of Catholic Christian worship.

That's just not the situation here. We all know that Christianity has been in this country for over 500 years, and the church in the U.S. graduated out of "mission" status quite a while back. Christianity came with musical traditions from Europe: Catholic traditions in the southeast and southwest; Protestant traditions in the northeast -- and many of the latter were really of Catholic origin too.

"O God our help in ages past" is actually a fine example of that. While it came from Protestant New Englanders, it fits into the format of the Catholic hymn tradition of the Liturgy of the Hours: a tremendous quantity of strophic hymns in regular meters, one note per syllable (most of the time) and no syncopation. Think of chant hymns adapted to English like "Creator of the Stars of Night" or "Sing, my tongue, the Saviour's glory". Some of those hymn texts were put into English and set to different tunes: e.g., "Come Holy Ghost", "At the Lamb's high feast". (As an aside: yes, the music of the Office is different from the music of the Mass in certain ways, and we can get into that distinction too.)

Let's not kid ourselves: P&W songs are based on forms of entertainment music. There's nothing wrong with entertainment per se, but it is intrinsically non-sacred. P&W imitates various genres of commercial pop songs: rock anthems, boyfriend songs, dance songs, TV themes, advertising jingles. Even if you were using an inculturation model: those are not the religious music forms of any existing culture here. And it's not hard to recognize the structural elements P&W songs often take from their commercial counterparts: when you hear a P&W song drop the instruments out after two verses and bring them back, you know you are hearing a "breakdown", a common structural element in commercial entertainment-oriented pop songs.

If one were to strip out the instruments completely from a four-minute soloistic, irregular P&W rock song, the result would be kind of ridiculous.

But classic congregational hymns can be performed completely a cappella. While I'm not a fan of this particular recording, it shows that "O God our help..." can be done in its entirety with no instrumentation.
https://youtu.be/hRaqvt48RYM

A performance like that is not far from the chant tradition of the Church:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiAk1ssEj3Q

While I'm not a fan of this particular recording, it shows that "O God our help..." can be done in its entirety with no instrumentation.

Ironically these choristers styled studio musicians were probably listening to General MIDI piano in the headphones while singing.