I think the distinction needs to be made between "contemporary" and "popular" styles. Music written by contemporary musicians, with authentic voices of their era, encompasses a wide range of styles and characters. In contrast, the Church has always opposed the use of popular music within liturgy. Using "contemporary" to describe modern P&W or folk repertoire is as unhelpful as lumping Mother, at your feet is kneeling, I am the Bread of Life, and All people who on earth do dwell under the "traditional hymns/songs" category.

As far as instruments go, I think St. Pius X's "Tra Le Sollecitudini" is still the gold standard in explaining why certain instruments are unsuitable, subsequent documents notwithstanding.

"As the singing should always have the principal place, the organ or other instruments should merely sustain and never oppress it." (Tra Le Sollecitudini, VI.16)

Basically, instrumentation should be able to sustain singing; The sound produced by instruments such as piano or guitar instantly decays, whereas the organ and perhaps other wind instruments (or bowed string instruments) are able to sustain the sound for as long as they need to. Just as Pius says that the closer a composition comes to the model of Gregorian Chant, the more suitable it is, he also seems to suggest that the closer an instrument's sound is able to follow the model of the human voice, the more suitable it is for use in the liturgy.

I generally thought it in poor form to argue with others over the bodies of their deceased relatives.

I agree. Having the policy that we don't play this music for funerals (as TCJ recommends above) means there is no argument.

If you want examples of true "contemporary" (in the actual sense of the word, and not as a euphemism) music that is eminently liturgical, examine the superlative organ works of Maurice Duruflé, Jean Langlais, Thierry Escaich, and Olivier Messiaen—all composers who lived and breathed liturgy their entire lives and were therefore able to push traditional boundaries at times while remaining "in touch with their roots". To that I would add modern choral compositions from Pierre Villette, Igor Stravinsky, Daniel Roth, Barrie Cabena, Pawel Łukaszewski, and our forum's own Chuck Giffen. This is but an assortment of what composers are writing today that is steeped in the history of the Church but not limited to it. To introduce popular music wholesale into the Mass and awkwardly join it to a sacred text is not honest contemporary liturgical music. Those who do so merely appropriate the term. I am not a traditionalist by any means, and take a principled stand against many in the Church who indeed have prejudice against new music or want to take the Church wholesale back to the 1950s. What should be rejected is what is popular or secular in origin, not what is merely new.

It's not the text. What makes the musical style "dumbed down"? Is is the rhythms, the chord progressions, the instrumentation?

rhythms... yes

chord progression... absolutely yes

instrumentation... definitely yes

any more questions?

I'll take a deeper look at "Tra Le Sollecitudini", thank you for that! The comment about instruments resembling the human voice is interesting. I've never heard that before. If that's our measurement of appropriate instrumentation for Mass, though, I'm not convinced of the organ's place. Wouldn't that be more of polyphonic singing, which can be done by the human voice but isn't exactly common? I would tend to think that the piano more accurately resembles the human voice. But then again, who is to say what is "close enough"? Is this still just subject to opinion?

trentonjconn, thank you for those specific examples. Did you mean that the first one was a modern take on the Gloria? It seemed traditional to me, and while beautiful (those harmonies were amazing) the congregation wasn't singing. Is that fitting for community worship, or was that more of a performance rather than praise focus? The other example sounds like something that would take months for a congregation to learn, which, again, seems to go against the purpose of worshipping together.

Is "Eagle's Wings" about feeling good about ourselves or simply reminding each other of God's infinite love and mercy, shown to us on the cross?

a_f_hawkins-would you be fine with "Eagle's Wings" if it were a Responsorial Psalm during Mass rather than a hymn?

francis-I'm not convinced. What specifically is wrong with these musical aspects? Is it that the quarter note triplets aren't complex enough to elevate the music? Or should there be diminished or half diminished chords in addition to major, minor and sevenths? Would it be appropriate if played on the organ rather than piano?

Yes, we definitely need to keep a clear reminder of the beauty and mystery of the Mass. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but doesn't this go against the argument that "Eagle's Wings" is too complicated? Which is it, too complex or not complex enough?

Thanks for the comment on the time signatures! I know most people don't care, but if I'm looking at a melody that could be in 4/4 or 2/2, it irks me not to know which it is before I start singing...but I digress.

Jean,

Ask people why they like music which sounds like OEW. You'll get a variety of answers. Here are some:

It's so meaningful to me.
It's the traditional music I grew up with.
It doesn't sound churchy.
My aunt had it at her funeral/wedding/ quincinera.
It's contemporary.
I like the sound.
It's upbeat, not stodgy or boring.
It's beautiful because it's Scripture.
I like everything by that composer/publisher.

Let me focus on the "it doesn't sound churchy" for a moment. Since music at Mass is.... at Mass, it should sound 'churchy', as that term is properly understood.

The simple fact is that the organ is the instrument most suited for the demands of the pre- and post-conciliar liturgy, in being able to:

a) easily fill any space from a small carpeted church to a large cathedral with sound for an indefinite period of time;
b) fulfill the roles of accompanist, leader, and soloist during the liturgy;
c) provide a wide variety of tonal colours for a broad range of situations and repertoire;
d) play or adapt the majority of liturgical music expressly written for the Catholic Church and other musical denominations;
e) produce a sound concept that is decidedly of the church and (given a well-built instrument) unmistakable for something secular.

I do not believe that appeals to tradition or "I like X" are necessary to justify the organ's primacy of place in the church. The pianoforte simply does not have the specific qualities that are needed in a well-rounded church instrument.

Of course the Church has authority. My questions come from documents like that of Vatican II, when "appropriate instruments" were not defined by the Church. The characteristics that struck me as traditional were the Latin text and the style of the music; not just chant, but the overall presentation which is less involvement of the laity and more of a meditation rather than participation in the prayer.

First of all, I would ask you to reconsider what you think of as "participation in the prayer" in light of the remainder of the Mass. In North America, Catholics are a quiet and timid species that rarely rises above a low hum at any of the responses, including congregational singing. Our liturgy is not one that supports a raucous congregational element, but rather a dignified (if often unenthusiastic, sadly) affirmation of the gravity of the Mass. I speak of the Novus Ordo here, not just the usus antiquior. In that sense, I do not see the lack of a congregational element in any music as necessarily "traditional" or "contemporary", just as we would not cast labels on the Scriptural readings or the Canon for not inviting participation from the congregation.

Do you think people are intimidated by the traditional chant/stereotypical church music? Could there be a "fear" of not being at the level of faith in which one appreciates this music, whereas "Eagle's Wings" is more approachable?

Yes, OEW is definitely more approachable. However, Roman Catholicism is not an approachable religion, and it never has been. We have the most severe Eucharistic theology in Christendom; we re-live the sacrifice of our Redeemer at every Mass. Our Church makes severe, uncomfortable, and difficult demands of us in our everyday lives, and invites us not to take the easy path. With this in mind, I do not believe that our liturgical practice should be "approachable". There should be a recognition that weightier forces are at play than in everyday life, and this is already telegraphed through heightened language, specific vestments, the architecture of the Church, and the careful and specific design of the liturgy refined over the course of two thousand years. I see no reason for music to be exempt from these requirements; quite the contrary, in fact, since it usually possesses more of a grasp on the hearts and minds of those present, and is able to effect a stronger impression of mood and solemnity.

trentonjconn, I see your point about the instruments. Does the organ having preference mean that other instruments are irreverent? Has any instrument been explicitly banned? Here's another question: what about howthe instrument is played? You can play a guitar or piano in a rock or country concert, but once in church, they are (well, should be) played in a completely different way. Does the way in which a musician plays a certain instrument change your views on how whether it is appropriate for church?

Some here view TLS as still binding; I do not. That being said, as mentioned above, I believe the organ is the instrument that developed around liturgical necessity and is best suited for the demands of the present day. I would not exclude stringed or wood-wind instruments from the liturgy and would perhaps even accept a guitar or other similar instrument (theorbo) played in a continuo manner. The guitar is not a practical instrument for the church and, because of that, no particularly liturgical body of repertoire or specifically sacred school of technique has ever been developed. (As a practical example, see Franck's devotional idiom blossoming from his improvisations at Sainte-Clotilde vs. Léfebure-Wély's irreverent, unashamedly populist compositions. There are two very distinct schools of interpretation and composition stemming from exactly the same Cavaille-Coll instruments.) If there were, I would be more inclined to admit the guitar in some capacity as a liturgical instrument, but until it is properly "inculturated", I would reject it. The same practical concerns apply to the piano.

When we are discussing these things (specifically various styles of liturgical music-i.e. "Eagle's Wings" and Gregorian chant-and instruments suitable for the Mass), are we claiming that one is inherently "bad" and the other is "good"?

I would dispassionately say that the difference is "liturgically suitable" and "liturgically unsuitable" or "less suitable". I don't think there's a moral judgement involved, necessarily. There is music I think is spectacular, highly compelling, deeply spiritual, the greatest expression of the essence of the Roman Catholic Church (Anton Bruckner - Symphony No. 6) - that nonetheless does not belong in liturgy.

But I am trying to bridge this gap among Catholics, which can't happen unless we are able to come to an understanding. I can see that understanding coming from an acceptance that while everyone has their preferences in liturgical music, we ought to be able to agree that what we might not like may not be wrong (assuming the text, instrumentation and presentation are done reverently). Thoughts on finding common ground?

If those who wish to bring guitars into Mass wish to be taken seriously, they should look to what was done with English folk songs by hymnal compilers such as Ralph Vaughan Williams, and composers of "parody Masses". Both of these took music that was originally secular in origin and rebuilt the idiom from the ground up in order to fit seamlessly into the liturgical ethos of the Church. A body of appropriate and liturgically-originated repertoire should be developed for the instrument, a school of technique that is recognizable as "sacred" should be developed and promoted, all unnecessary excess should be purged from the profession, and all of this should be led by serious, highly skilled musicians who are both devoted to their instrument and steeped in the Church's liturgy. The result would probably sound more like this or this than what is heard today.
Instead of what I described above, which is the process taken by every other instrumental school that has become assimilated into the Church, the feeling is that popular musicians have imposed their style and ethos on the Church without regard for liturgical appropriateness. Texts are often mangled to suit progressive causes of the day, absurd instrumental combinations are proposed (such as drum kit) that have no place in a church ensemble, and the essential character of this repertoire is unmodified from the secular world. While more conservative musicians feel strongly about retaining the proper texts of the Mass which the Church has called for, maintaining a separation between sacred and secular styles, ensuring that their work fits seamlessly and effortlessly into the liturgy, and developing a body of repertoire that is theocentric, popular musicians have forced the Mass to conform to them rather than the other way around. If the only differences were in our choice of instruments or harmonic procedures, there would be far more common ground. This is what makes the distinction not merely based on preference; over the last sixty years, one group has tried their best to do what the Church has asked for, and one group has decided that idea does not matter. Frustration with the above is undoubtedly what has led to the pithy responses in this forum. Although I harbour no ill will towards individuals that genuinely wish to inculturate their style, I cannot take musicians seriously who insist that the guiding principles of my work are simply irrelevant.

Perhaps monks and popes have always had the funeral music the Church wants, but before the liturgical movement & VII spelt out the unity of music and rite, things were no better than now for the rest of us, probably worse. See JFK's funeral for example.

The word sacred means set apart (for God/gods). But that is a definition based on the use of a thing, and the inhibition of using it for secular purposes, not on easily identified characteristics. In the past, plucked instruments were normal in worship, we can be pretty sure that some psalms were written to be accompanied on harp/lyre. In the past organs were characteristic features of high-class brothels, I can imagine what St Jerome would have said about using them in church. Autres temps, autres mœurs.

First, I am hearing a lot of argument for traditional music. While I am not belittling it at all, sometimes it feels like we're ignoring Vatican II and the church teaching on sacred music which was "updated". Gregorian chant and traditional instrumentation are to be given "preference", but modernized music was also encouraged so as to increase laity participation. Not all of the interpretations of Vatican II were reverent; I don't think many argue that. But I don't believe these hymns to be some of those irreverent interpretations. Musicam Sacrum says "The following come under the title of sacred music here: Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony in its various forms both ancient and modern, sacred music for the organ and other approved instruments, and sacred popular music, be it liturgical or simply religious." My issue with this statement is that they didn't define "approved instruments", so that's been left to opinions, causing even more problems. However, based on this document/statement, does sacred music really not include hymns like "Eagle's Wings" and even praise and worship songs like "What a Beautiful Name"?

Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII all taught, one after the other, that gregorian chant was to be restored. Then Vatican II reinforced that chant was supposed to be given pride of place. Paul VI even promulgated "Jubilate Deo" — a booklet of chants that every catholic should know. Further still, they taught that the more new pieces of liturgical music approached in their "inspiration and savor the gregorian form" the more proper-suited to the liturgy and the holier they were. Renaissance Polyphony was also singled out as particularly worthy of the temple. That means that we need to take these as our models when composing new church music. "The more out of harmony a work is, the less worthy it is of the temple." Mind you, Pius XII also said in Musicæ Sacræ,

42. [Sacred Music] must be holy. It must not allow within itself anything
that savors of the profane [worldly] nor allow any such thing
to slip into the melodies in which it is expressed. The Gregorian chant
which has been used in the Church over the course of so many centuries, and
which may be called, as it were, its patrimony, is gloriously outstanding for this
holiness.
44. It is the duty of all those to whom Christ the Lord has entrusted the task of
guarding and dispensing the Church's riches to preserve this precious treasure of
Gregorian chant diligently and to impart it generously to the Christian people.
Hence what Our predecessors, St. Pius X, who is rightly called the renewer of
Gregorian chant, and Pius XI have wisely ordained and taught, We also, in view
of the outstanding qualities which genuine Gregorian chant possesses, will and
prescribe that this be done. In the performance of the sacred liturgical rites
this same Gregorian chant should be most widely used and great care
should be taken that it should be performed properly, worthily and reverently.
46. We are not unaware that, for serious reasons, some quite definite exceptions
have been conceded by the Apostolic See. We do not want these exceptions
extended or propagated more widely, nor do We wish to have them transferred
to other places without due permission of the Holy See.

This is pretty clear, and immediately antecedent to the council, so it's hardly as "irrelevant" as something from 400 years ago.

Pius XII specifically says that even MELODIES shouldn't sound secular. When you hear OEW, it strikes me as imitating music that is distinctly secular. A pop ballad, essentially. This is particularly reflected in both the melody and the piano accompaniment.

"Modern church music" as I read it should be exemplified by things like Christoph Dalitz's Missa Tribus Vocibus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoHH3a-eH28 or his Tollite Portas, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFjmChMLi-Y or Alvez Barkoskie's Salve Regina: https://youtu.be/yoFIIA1iPWk for example.

the organ is the instrument most suited for the demands of the pre- and post-conciliar liturgy, in being able to:
....
e) produce a sound concept that is decidedly of the church and (given a well-built instrument) unmistakable for something secular.

Ahh, yeah.

I'll just leave this here:

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

Ahh, yeah.

I'll just leave this here:

Just because it is possible to use the organ for (dumb) things like that does not mean that its essential character is changed, no more than the possibility of including popular music in the Mass would give it a liturgical character.

Not the vv, that's the problem. I agree the refrain with accompaniment is closer to that idiom, but the vv are not.

There are contempo songs that are closer, but OEW is to my musical theatre ear not one of them.

I think of this music as having its own siding on the rails of religious music for pew dwellers of the last 150 years.

Just because it is possible to use the organ for (dumb) things like that does not mean that its essential character is changed

Really? You might experience the organ as essentially sacred. But you are a minority: for many, many people the video I linked is the high-point or an organ's existence, they are usually only hear it at ball games. In their eyes, there is NOTHING sacred about it.

"There are Sondheim shows in which it would not be foreign."

That's an insult to Sondheim.

It would seem to me that ball park wurlitzers and church organs share little more than mechanics, their respective cultural milieus are quite distinct and maintain mutually exclusive characters. This is reflected in the style of instrument and the repertoire played. Further still, arena organs are quite rare these days and even then are only relegated to playing a few distinct tropes that have a codified nature all their own.

I still assert that the clear association for most modern Americans is still that organs are a church thing, and “organ music” sounds “churchy” writ large.

You'd have to play a very specific phrase on the organ for it to (first) call to mind a ballgame.

In my experience, using some of the more conventional stops on a theater organ can produce some pretty "churchy" sounds. One of our local churches once used an Art Deco theater with a Wurlitzer while their sanctuary was being refurbished. Sounded like a church organ to me. The organist didn't use the theater stops - no marimbas or such. Theater organs have principals, strings, reeds and the stops common to most pipe organs.

.

True, but in a lurch, a theater organ could be used for worship. A Methodist church here used a Wurlitzer for years until they could afford a Moller - if that is much better. The "normal" organ stops in the theater organs sounded more like those in conventional organs of their day. Many church organs of the time had unification, high wind pressures and a thicker sound than what is popular today. You certainly couldn't play Bach as Bach-o-philes now think he sounded.

Moller organs have been a mixed bag, especially the smaller ones. The older Kilgen organs have proved much nicer (at least to me) - lower wind pressures, no unification, and generally aesthetic voicing. The approx. 12 rank Kilgen in the church I grew up in (Bedford, Indiana, First Methodist) had been retrofitted with an electric blower at a pressure of only a couple of inches or so ... but when we would crank the pressure up with the still present hand pumped bellows, we could make it sound a bit more like a calliope!! Most of the pipework became part of the echo and positiv divisions of a much larger organ (with Roosevelt pipes and Kilgen electropneumatic action) that was acquired when I was about 13 years old.

Am i dating myself to include roller skating rinks as having organ music?

I think Joncas cried all the way to the bank about that song.