Ah, so you are using Windows 10. LOL. I think purgatory would consist of constant updates.

Gamba,

I don't text (even when not driving) and don't smoke. How does one eat and smoke at the same time, exactly?

Now then, how can we steer this conversation back to the relative strengths of CMAA and the "Big Three"?

This thread exemplifies my thoughts about this forum. What began as a focused question has devolved into a convoluted, chaotic set of comments, much of it informally conversational. There are some good posts on here, even at least one from someone who seems to be in a CMAA leadership position, but unfortunately, these good posts are buried beneath less focused, less pertinent posts. I'll reiterate what I previously posted - this kind of thread should be a members only forum, visible only to members, and open for comments to members who can post with their real name or nom de forum. But, for a topic such as this to have any credence, it should be posted on a public forum, visible to the public, and open only to people who use their real name/bio. On such a forum, obviously, I would not be able to post under a nom de forum, however, nor would I feel the need to. There are other legitimate issues that are holding CMAA back from being as influential and relevant as it could be, and this forum in its current format may just be a small part of this - but, using this thread as exhibit A, this forum is part of what is holding CMAA back.

jpnz1,

It can be vaguely annoying to post a direct question and get an oblique answer. Happens, though.

I think the possibility of anonymity is important. We deal, sometimes, with very difficult situations. Good to be able to ask without divulging where and who.

That said, I think I know just about every regular contributor's real name and church from info available here.

No one is really hiding behind a nom de plume.

But, this conversation, too, is not directly relevant to the topic of this thread, so...

JPNZ71,

By our occasional digressions, surely we show that we are normal human beings like anyone who might come here (either looking for information or some other purpose).If we played into a stereotype, such that 6 people on the planet knew what we were discussing and only 3 of them cared even about the esoteric knowledge or other human beings, we would be illustrating one reason people justify hating what the Church has always taught and why the revolution of Vatican II was necessary. With our varying experiences and perspectives we also help "meet people where they are". The contact private message system allows people who want to know and understand more about the SSPX or the Ordinariate or Eastern Catholicism or Texas or Heinrich Isaac or typesetting or ... I think you get the idea.... very quickly, to identify certain persons as being knowledgeable about particular topics. These diverse backgrounds also point to the fact that we're all ordinary people, not egg-heads. You'll also discover that we come from all sorts of parts of this small globe: we have contributors from Australia, England, America, France, Holland, Brazil.... and other places, even though this is the forum of the Church Music Association of America. Some of us are native speakers of both music and English, and some are non-native speakers of either, and, of course, there are those in between. The fact that there is more than one kind of English written here (by native speakers) is fascinating, too, because it shows us capable of being diverse and Catholic.

I grant you that it's unlikely that many bishops read this forum, but I know at least two priests do (or did) and at least one Deacon, because these comment on occasion. There are both old and young laymen, and even some of us middle-bracket people.


We introduce both the sublime and the ridiculous to our contributions here. We prove our quirky senses of humor. We prove that even among people passionately committed to improving Church music in our time and place, we can disagree amicably both on musical and on non-musical topics.

Among our posters are those who compose their own music and share it, those who have computer skills to improve presentations of existing material, those who operate public domain music depositories, organists, vocalists, and instrumentalists. We have those who attend the Venerable Form, and the New Form, not being narrowly focused on only one or the other. (In this, we are significantly more inclusive than the NPM).

The CMAA even hosts a Colloquium every year (when it's not being suppressed by circumstances beyond its control), and those interested in gaining a deeper appreciation of the music in a more concentrated form can learn how to attend those annual events here. This doesn't mean that everyone can afford to fly from wherever to the event, but this, surely, isn't the fault of the CMAA.

Lastly, "influential" is a misleading measurement. Stock brokers are frequently looking for immediate increases in yield, every day, every quarter, and every year. Journalists aim to be influential every single time they write an article or a headline, or put a picture next to a story. Musicians in the field of God's work often caution each other to go slowly but surely, in spite of obstacles which present themselves, and we may not know until the General Judgment how many people we helped to get to heaven (or, God forbid, drove to Hell and accompanied them there).

CGZ

nicely put.

i LOVE being a part of this forum. for years I was a 'member' of the CMAA and paid my dues and got my journal. however, I lived in the middle of nowhere shortly after becoming a member, and could not afford to attend any of the colloquium events... even the one i so much wanted to attend in SLC.

nonetheless, THIS forum has been, for me, the connection to true, authentic sacred music and has driven me to discover the timeless liturgy of which that authentic music strives to be the handmaid.

we are given respectful freedom here to express our thoughts, questions, concerns, opinions and more within guidelines that are fair, reasonable, and 'inclusive' (a philosophy i do not particularly subscribe to this day and age), but we are inclusive nonetheless...

No one has yet answered the core of my question - why does this forum have to be public? Why could it not be exactly what it is for members only, visible only to members? How would his hurt CMAA?

because TRUTH draws in those who seek it. ...if this were not a lamp set on hill, YOU would have never found us. this forum does not hurt CMAA, it reaches out to those who are searching for the truth in sacred music.

...and maybe the most valuable thing we do here is pray for each other... @Ccooze is in need of our prayers and support today. i hope we all can help her and her family in some small way.

JPNZ71,

All sorts of material are available for download for free here (outside the forum). See how much you can get of the most valuable collection in Christendom for free at the other conference.

This forum is public because there are other private spaces within the organization (and even accessible from this website).

Diplomatic tea parties are one thing. They have their place, no doubt, but this forum isn't intended to be a diplomatic tea party.

JPNZ71,

It's not collateral damage. It's not damage (often enough, although sometimes it might be, I guess).

Neither you nor I has the privilege of being a member of record of the CMAA, and yet you and I are allowed to comment. If it were a members' only club you and I wouldn't be appearing here. (Whether that's a good thing or not, I'll let others decide.)

I'll let others raise other points, but my argument certainly wasn't "we like it this way, so go pound rocks". Rather, you claimed that the CMAA had not nearly enough influence, and was composed of all like-minded (although you didn't do these things in the same post) automatons (though you didn't use those words), so I set out to demonstrate the inaccuracy of your statement. I won't repeat all of what I wrote. Only one poster (to the best of my knowledge) likened your conduct to that of a troll, and she cited a widely accepted definition to back up her claim. She claimed, in effect, that your comments were merely hurling insults and offering nothing of substance and that your presence was not showing the forum at its best.

Thankfully, there has been nothing offensive on this thread, just casual, distracting banter. My point is that even casual, distracting banter is not a good look for CMAA. You are right, I would not be on this forum if it were for members only, but I would be on a public, on-the-record, forum that was moderated for lack of decorum, offensiveness, and any other kind inappropriate comments. Such a public forum could contain all the wealth of knowledge, resources and all manner of good things, and be a net positive for CMAAs overall mission. AND you could still have all this other stuff on a less formal private, members only chat forum which, because it would not be visible, would not shine a negative light on CMAA no matter what kind of banter or offensive material people posted. The bottom line is whether or not CMAA is achieving the kind of broad results it as an organization desires, and which its members desire. My observation is no, it is not, and in that case, everything on this website, and everything CMAA does, should be assessed for effectiveness, including this forum.

why does this forum have to be public?

We choose to make it public because CMAA wants it to be of service to people who aren't members. We want to encourage members' initiatives without screening them all and choosing what to publish.

The benefit of sharing information, compositions, and experience outweighs the downside of having some silly talk and opinionated blather on the site too.

We trust the readers.

So, another pattern I've noticed in my time here on this forum, is that you will occasionally find a new member (a certain banjo enthusiast comes to mind) pop-up ad hoc, essentially in order to criticize the organization, the way it is run, its goals, or indeed its vision of Sacred Music in general.

I guess that I've always felt it was big of the CMAA to have a public forum like this in which it was, shall we say, vulnerable to that kind of public criticism. I mean, my big problem with NPM, when I was a member, was that it felt like I was being tracked by a top-down organization with specific goals in mind, goals in which I had no say. I have been, to say the least, inconsistent in maintaining a CMAA membership, which frankly this thread has convinced me that I should renew, since I realize how much I respect and value this organization (THAT MAKES ALL OF ITS RESOURCES *FREE TO ALL*)

During that time, though, and even as a lapsed member right now, I really feel as if I have a stake in the organization, and that the highest levels listen to the lowest levels in an accountable way. It feels so much more collaborative than any other professional organization of which I have been a part.

I'll reiterate that I love the forum (precisely for its freedom, even if it gets a little wacky at times). I even love the fact that we have clashed here about non-music issues such as COVID-19. It's a world crisis that directly affects all of us in our work as church musicians, and as individuals and community members. I see no reason why it can't be discussed (assuming people are respectful).

HOWEVER, I do think that without clearer organizational goals the CMAA is a little difficult to get a handle on; especially if one is new and trying to understand the organization, what it offers, and why one might want to join. So in that context, the Wild West of the forum can be more troublesome than it should. Not to put too fine a point on it, I would not send colleagues or priests to the CMAA website knowing they could easily encounter anti-Novus Ordo screeds on the main pages associated with the site (primarily NLM). If I'm trying to help someone improve the Novus Ordo music in their parish, I'm unwilling to associate myself with an organization that seems to devote a great deal of time to denigrating the Novus Ordo.

Now, as a member I have a more nuanced view of the CMAA and I'm happy to participate. I'm just saying that I don't recommend the organization itself as a whole package, to those who are trying to do good things and may be on the fence. Because it's very easy to get the wrong impression. As a member, I think more could be done and influence extended by having a little cleaner/tidier approach. E.g. maybe a mission statement/description that clarifies that the CMAA supports both forms of the Roman Rite. Maybe a bifurcated website that clearly directs people to articles and resources specific to each form. Just off the top of my head.

This EF/OF identity crisis for the CMAA has become very pronounced in the Pope Francis era, and it's not helpful to the organization or to those looking for ideas and help.

I stumbled onto this forum when I had a question/gripe whether it was proper to be singing "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" on the first and/or second Sunday of Advent. As it turned out, I did not get the answer I had hoped for, but I did get reasoned & respectful discussion supporting that answer and as a result I have kept coming back to read and learn. Some discussions are over my head musically, some are so deep theologically that I cannot follow, but most days there is something worthwhile, maybe even humorous. Read, shrug your shoulders, shake your head, pray, learn and give others the benefit of the doubt. This is strictly my OF amateur musician's point of view.

The Church Music Association of America (founded in 1874) is an association of Catholic musicians and others who have a special interest in music and liturgy, active in advancing Gregorian chant, Renaissance polyphony, and other forms of sacred music, including new composition, for liturgical use. The CMAA’s purpose is the advancement of musica sacra in keeping with the norms established by competent ecclesiastical authority.

Don't project your own ideas of what CMAA represents, mainly because you side with the NO or the VO. The church is where it is on account of the revolution of PPVI, and that is the reality of the confusion in the church en masse... that includes organizations trying to come to terms with the continued spiral downwards or upwards (depending where you are standing on the staircase)

IMHO, the only questionable part of the mission statement is the 'competent ecclesiastical authority' lol.

It's OK to acknowledge that there is a certain amount of 'Wild West' in the forum. It's even recognized in the banner of the site.

The logo starts with the delicate script lettering of 'Musica Sacra', in a typeface based on the handwriting of Jane Austen. After that the word 'Forum' appears in a blockish typeface called 'Informal'. It's similar to the same designer's 1923 'Neuland' font, which was used for the logo of the movie 'Jurassic Park'; styles like this have long been used to indicate wild territory.

The banner hints to readers to set their expectations.

The banner hints to readers to set their expectations.

I don't care what banner fonts are used. Like JaredOstermann, I would never refer a bishop or priest, or for that matter, another music director, to this forum because I would be mortified about what they might find here.

similarly, the entire Jewish heirarchy saw Jesus as 'irrelevant too.

Snarky comments like this are another example of useless material. I have to work in the Catholic Church, and deal with the sacred music culture wasteland that exists out here in the real world, so it would be helpful if more people, like people on this forum, and CMAA leadership, came out of their little snark bubbles or their echo chamber bubbles, and grappled with the issues that could help CMAA improve, rather than slinging around platitudes and pithy comments.

Snarky comments like this are another example of useless material.

I agree with this. Often people write remarks that come across as rhetorical parries rather than containing any actual content pertinent to the discussion.

most on this forum clearly prefer a preaching to the choir approach to CMAA

You're projecting the comboxes of the national media onto the CMAA forum's box. Of course people like to have their principles acknowledged, but your statement, as written, simply isn't true. Mind you, if it were, if there were no dissenting opinions permitted, your opinion wouldn't be published here. On the other hand, if dissenting opinions weren't permitted, wouldn't the strength and focus of the CMAA be reinforced and, therefore, its effectiveness and influence broadened?

One particular service the Forum provides, and which relates to our image in parishes and dioceses, is in the job announcements we post for them. In the past year, about ninety have appeared, and Janet and I often enough get thank-you messages from pastors or diocesan HR staff happy with the candidates who contacted them based on the information they found on the Forum. It's good to know that people in positions of responsibility felt that CMAA was helpful for them.

It's about time to let this thread sink, to slow things down. In general, when people respond quickly on a discussion like this, the contributions don't improve the discussion much.

Since we are into fonts and typefaces, I invite you all to explore the "Dull Men's Club" which meets semi-annually to discuss the joys of Helvetica and other items of interest and relevance.

https://www.dullmensclub.com/

if this forum gets the coronavirus, we can migrate to another location... however, you will be asked to wear a mask and gloves when looking at your monitor and typing on the keyboard.

Is that the Gerre (?spelling) Matatics story?

JPNZ71,

Thank you for your concrete suggestions.

one thing CMAA could do to elevate its influence/relevance would be to publish a hymnal, or a series of hymnals, that contain music that represent the best of congregational hymnody, and doesn't waste space trying to be all things to all people, something the Worship IV hymnal and many other Catholic hymnals are guilty of. Parish Book of Chant is a great resource, but is not a resource that will find its way into many parishes, at least not without being used side by side with a hymnal or missallete. Vatican II Hymnal, and subsequent efforts by Corpus Christi Watershed, are good in spirit, but are just not useful.

A nice thought but I suspect you may have no idea what it takes to produce a successful hymnal. Even the large publishers sometimes lose money on hymnals. I knew someone on the committee for a prominent Protestant hymnal. The wrangling and behind the scenes deals to include one hymn or another were worthy of any Bond thriller.

CCWatershed does not succeed because one rather know-it-all individual includes all his idiosyncrasies in their hymnals. He clearly doesn't know enough or have the ability to create a hymnal parishes will actually spend money to buy. Parishes with limited resources don't spend scarce resources to validate someone's individual quirks. Even if you have customers, they may be like my parish and use the same hymnal for 20+ years. That's not much turnover in terms of demand to keep up a cash flow for the publisher.

CMAA publishing a hymnal... well, they did that already

What hymnal did CMAA publish? I would be interested in looking through it.

A nice thought but I suspect you may have no idea what it takes to produce a successful hymnal. Even the large publishers sometimes lose money on hymnals. I knew someone on the committee for a prominent Protestant hymnal. The wrangling and behind the scenes deals to include one hymn or another were worthy of any Bond thriller.

Large publishers might have a difficult time publishing a hymnal precisely because they are large publishers. I agree with your observations re: CCWatershed hymnal efforts. I am suggesting an effort, at least in number of people and interests involved, that is much smaller than the large publishers, but at least a little larger than CCWatershed (so, more than one person.)
There are so many ways that publishing in the 21st Century is different than publishing even 20 years ago, let alone 30, 40, 50 years ago. Many of these differences favor small, focused efforts by small, focused groups. For all his shortcomings, the CCWatershed individual has actually published substantial material (albeit, flawed and idiosyncratic.) If he can do it, what would keep CMAA from doing it. I think this is something CMAA could do well, and better than larger organizations or publishers, and could do successfully given the modern, publishing landscape. It need not cost a fortune, or make a fortune. It just needs to be done well.