What's wrong with this picture?
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    From Dr. Jerry Galipeau's WLP blog, GOTTA SING, GOTTA PRAY, reflecting upon his experience as a presenter and panelist at a seminar on the revisions to the English translations of the RM"-

    "I know that the changes will elicit some strong negative reactions from many priests, musicians, and the people in the pews. It will take careful and honest formation by leaders to address these issues. Musicians will be in a key position to assist in both the catechesis and in the implementation. Parishes will need to begin financial planning now for the purchase of the new Roman Missal and for the resources and music that will be needed for music ministers and for the assembly. I want you to know that, as a publisher, we are committed to providing the best, most affordable music resources for parishes. This has always been at the center of WLP's mission. We will serve this transition in the best way we know how."

    1. Regarding "It will take careful and honest formation by leaders to address these issues"- is there a presumption therein that liturgical leadership anywhere in English speaking churches willfully shall choose to ignore the implementation of the revisions? Same question as to whether these issues will not be addressed with care and honesty?
    Is it also possible that WLP et al might be overlooking another option not even considered at that seminar according to his account- an appreciable increase in parishes opting for the OF being sung/said in Latin?
    2. "Musicians will be in a key position to assist in both the catechesis and in the implementation." Where is this ideal world where we career musicians are acknowledged by the true PTB as being in key positions regarding catechesis and implementation of liturgical revisions? My anecdotal experience and evidence is that most of us have to stealthily fly under the radar when we implement any changes of any kind; and we have to be extremely well prepared and strategic, tactful to the point of obsequience, and keep our iron hands hidden under the velvet gloves with all parish constituencies.
    3. "Parishes will need to begin financial planning now for the purchase of the new Roman Missal and for the resources and music that will be needed for music ministers and for the assembly." Is this representative of the Liturgical Industrial Complex's acumen for keeping up with current affairs? I mean, Chicago's not that far from Detroit, right? If General Motors does indeed file for bankruptcy in the morning on the heels of Chrysler's similar "reorganization," and all of us surely have been impacted severely since the market collapse last fall, and seeing the shuttering and reorganization of hundreds of parishes nationwide (including our five parish amalgamation,) I ask if any of your church's finance committees or pastors have this issue on its front burner? Which dovetails into....
    4. Are the publishers really ignorant to the paradigm shift regarding the sharing and dissemination of music for worship that is exemplified in SING LIKE A CATHOLIC and the CHABANEL PROJECT, and the multitude of "free" and worthy musical resources this organization alone makes available to all, free of charge?

    Or am I just stating the obvious....?
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    It is an interesting. When this issue first came up, I thought: wow, lots of bad music will now become unusable. Then I thought again: this is a dream for publishers because they get to sell everything yet again. Like the change from LPs to CDs or something. They want to rake it in. this is why it is urgent to educate every priest and every musician about the free resources available.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,532
    It is the PLOY of the publishers (maybe even in bed with _______ ) to resell it all ... again. It's not hard to fill in the blank.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Are the publishers really ignorant to the paradigm shift regarding the sharing and dissemination of music for worship that is exemplified in SING LIKE A CATHOLIC and the CHABANEL PROJECT, and the multitude of "free" and worthy musical resources this organization alone makes available to all, free of charge?

    I see your point, but I'd propose two answers to this:

    1) They are unaware. I see hundreds of people in a day, none of whom really care about the CMAA. Among Catholics, I have yet to run into one outside of a choir loft who cares about music. Among musicians, aside from the 100 or so on this forum, I've not run into one who was aware of, besides the CMAA, the "paradigm shift" being accomplished. Now, I admit one is happening, but I don't think it's as big as we think it is, just because it's thinly wide-spread. The overwhelming majority of Catholic parishes have an organist who wakes up on Saturday, looks at the OCP Quarterly to tell them what to play, tells the cantor which of their parish's 30 songs they'll sing, and does it out of overpriced and low quality books. The paradigm shift likely may not be on their radar.

    2) On the other hand, "the shift" is spreading exponentially and seeds are everywhere. I would be more likely to wager that the publishers (and their partners in crime, the US Bishops) are aware and are trying everything to suppress and downplay such a movement.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    It seems that God usually picks a small number of people to do His work, usually the weak. He needs only a few who would truly trust Him. Now that's the exciting part for me. It's Him who wins the battle, not us. When we are called, we do our best, and the rest of it, He will take care of it. So why worry?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,532
    I agree with Gavin. I don't believe there are significant changes as much as a heightened interest in good and proper liturgical music. This is because the shift must take place within the ecclesial heirarchy along with the musical community. Those two forces, in a concerted effort, must then redirect the river of common thinking (PIPs, ameteur musicians, staff, etc.). That is probably the most difficult part of an authentic reform.
  • I am a Music Director and here is my two cents. This was my experience running the music program yesterday for Pentecost.

    The cantor (who used to lead a very large Catholic Congregation) was not familiar with the Pentecost Sequence. In his defense, neither did I before I joined CMAA a few years ago. Our schola sang it (probably for the first time in the history of this parish). Was it well received? I don't know. And I don't particularly care (up to the point where it affects my credibility to keep my position.)

    Our pastor likes Taize chant. He likes it because it encourages 'active participation'. We sang the "Veni Sancte Spiritus" (which is all of two complete measures of music that repeats over and over with an English free-form translation sung above the ostinato) for a confirmation Mass a couple of weeks ago and hardly anyone sang. Granted, many of them probaby have never been in the church before, and were friends or relatives of the confirmandi.

    Then there is the staff. They can be some of the most uninformed and malformed Catholics when it comes to appreciating proper liturgy, but yield the greatest influence and are determined to excersize it for their own agenda!

    Just behind them are the 3% very vocal minority (the squeaky wheels). One gentleman recently suggested a mass without any Latin on account of the amount of Latin that has been introduced into our liturgies in the past year. For them, Latin was to be eliminated forever as so "clearly outlined in VII".

    I showed the Pentecost Sequence to a member of our contemporary music group and mentioned that we did it for the morning Mass to see what she might have to say about it. Well, that was like throwing pearls before swine.

    These are the daily forces that swirl around the vehicle of excellent liturgy which is carried down the currents of present day thought and practice as mentioned above.

    Change may come, and it may not. Like miacoyne says, it's entirely up to God.
  • G
    Posts: 1,396
    Our parish is using hard-cover hymnals in dire need of replacement specifically because they don't want to spend the money, (which they can well afford, not because we're rich, but because we're very well run,) until the new translation "arrives." The Liturgy Committee has been thinking about it.

    Our altar missals are barely hanging in, (I've done a lot of recent repair work,) and Father is looking forward to new ones, but at my suggestion we've been putting out feelers for gently used ones from parishes set to close, (in some cases unknown to themselves.)

    I have been trying to lay groundwork for eventually going with something better than Gather for over three years now, mostly on the basis of the psalter, but so far TPTB are not buying it. (I am deliberately letting the choral editions deteriorate.)

    I sometimes wonder if I could present a credible economic case for self-publishing (between CMAA, Chabanel, Jubilate and good public domain hymns,) but I don't want to do all the work for it if the actual contents is taken out of my hands, which it would be.

    And we'd probably end up with no more Latin than Goiter offers.

    And the battle over which ordinary settings are imperative, for the 21st c parish, alone would be epic...

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • G
    Posts: 1,396
    "Then there is the staff. They can be some of the most uninformed and malformed Catholics when it comes to appreciating proper liturgy, but yield the greatest influence and are determined to excersize it for their own agenda!"

    I began a conversation on the blog of an older seminarian recently on this very subject.
    I mentioned that most of the priests I know are relatively uninformed in the area of liturgical music.
    He disputed this, despite my pointing out that I had said "most of the priests I KNOW."
    When I brought up using Propers, he insisted that songs people know and like "work better" than any possible introduction of the propers.
    When I asked in what form he had tried to implement singing of the propers -- vernacular or Latin, Rice Psallite, pslam tones or Gradual, so that he could actually KNOW they didn't work he eliminated the thread and closed his comment boxes.

    The funny thing was, the conversation had been perfectly friendly and civil so far as I could tell.

    His subsequent posts on other topics became increasingly curse and obscenity laden, so I gather he has some issues he may want to deal with before ordination.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • G,
    Very interesting commentary and anecdote. There's a "there" there.
    I've even noticed "it" with men after receiving orders to the permanent diaconate.
    It's something about "the collar" I'm afraid. Dead serious.
  • Richard R.
    Posts: 771
    You may project cash-register noises on them if you must, but I find Dr. Galipeau's comments rather restrained and surprisingly apropos to what portends to be a major dilemma for average parishes, once these new translations are implemented. Nothing like this has been seen in thirty years. I keep waiting for somebody to add an authoritative caveat along the lines of, "But of course, musical settings of long standing custom may continue to be used in parishes for X amount of time," X being about forever. Considering the odd English translations of the Ordinary I continue to encounter here and there (including the Anglican stuff sung at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception), I can't imagine this go-around will be any different. If it isn't, and bishops start issuing cut-off dates and mandating missalette/music issue-burning sessions, I think we are in real trouble. This would be worse than the upending we experienced in the late 60s-early 70s. Like them or not, the standard Ordinary settings heard in the vast majority of parishes nationwide are ingrained, if not actively loved. That to me represents a legitimate attachment, which denied or ignored is bound to cause serious spiritual harm.

    If Dr. Galipeau's publishing company can make that transition any easier (and he clearly thinks it can), then he deserves whatever cashing-in he can manage in the process.
  • Richard, I'd like to clarify my concerns as not at all concerned with Dr. Galipeau's intent or presumed self-interest as an agent of a publishing company, among others, which would profit upon the revisions' promulgation.
    I was a bit put off by what I perceived as his "sunny disposition" regarding those four points I enumerated. Which, then, I feel you validate by stating "I think we are in real trouble."
    Do any of us here need reminding that a great burden of responsibility for the quagmires we've encountered in the post-conciliar American liturgical landscape can be traced to the simultaneous lack of coherent leadership and catechesis from see to shining see AND certain publishers filling that vacuum with the oh-so-convenient periodical missal(ettes?) Will the same mistakes be made again? Probably, because the Dr. Galipeau's are looking at the future of their marketplaces. The rest of Catholicism is dealing with......well, everything else.
    If and when the major publishers convene another and new "Milwaukee Symposium" I would hope that at the panel, in addition to the Galipeau's, the Batastini's and the Rendler-McQeeny's, the names Oost-Zinner, Rice, Poterak, Tucker, Turkington, Ruff and Mahrt will be given seats at the table. That would certainly make my disposition a little more sunny.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,532

    The only things of note that ever came out of Wisconsin, that I am aware of, were the "Fat Boy", very smelly cheese and maybe some brews. Do we really need another Symposium? CMAA seems to be doing a fine job on its own, no matter how small or insignificant it seems or by its limited reach. True success can never be measured in numbers... only in authenticity and quality.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    G: "which ordinary settings are imperative, for the 21st c parish"


    # 61
    ... However, care should be taken to foster the role of Latin in the Liturgy, particularly in liturgical
    song. Pastors should ensure "that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin
    those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."[60] They should be able to sing
    these parts of the Mass proper to them, at least according to the simpler melodies.
    # 62
    At international and multicultural gatherings of different language groups,
    it is most appropriate to celebrate the Liturgy in Latin, "with the exception of the readings, the homily and
    the prayer of the faithful."[61] In addition, "selections of Gregorian chant should be sung" at such
    gatherings, whenever possible.[62]
    # 74
    The Second Vatican Council directed that the faithful be able to sing parts of the
    Ordinary of the Mass together in Latin.[70] In many worshiping communities in the United States,
    fulfilling this directive will mean introducing Latin chant to worshipers who perhaps have not
    sung it before. While prudence, pastoral sensitivity, and reasonable time for progress are
    encouraged to achieve this end, every effort in this regard is laudable and highly encouraged.

    # 75
    Each worshiping community in the United States, including all age groups and all ethnic groups,
    should, at a minimum, learn Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII,
    all of which are typically included in congregational worship aids. More difficult chants,
    such as Gloria VIII and settings of the Credo and Pater Noster,
    might be learned after the easier chants have been mastered.[71]

    SC, no. 54; see MS, no.47; Sacred Congregation for Rites, Inter Oecumenici (Instruction on the Proper Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), no. 59, in Flannery, Vatican Council II.
    Pope Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis (The Sacrament of Charity)(SacCar)
    (Washington, DC: USCCB, 2007), no. 62.
    SacCar, no. 62.
    "Steps should be taken enabling the faithful to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary
    of the Mass belonging to them" (SC, no. 54).
    See GIRM, no. 41. Further resources for congregational Latin chant are Iubilate Deo (Vatican City:
    Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1986) and Liber Cantualis (Sable-sur-Sarthe, France: Abbaye Saint-Pierre de
    Solesmes, 1983).
  • Francis, I can't argue about the outcome of another such symposium (not in Milwaukee necessarily; don't be so literal!) as I just expressed a wish based upon a conjecture.
    However, there is some middle ground between your perspective on the "reach" of CMAA and Gavin's assessment.
    I believe any number of outcomes, musical and otherwise, are possible once the revised missal is officially prescribed for English language Masses.
    Those outcomes should not be left to factions, whether such be commercial, artistic, sociological or political interests.
    So, if the BCL/USCCB does really step up to the plate as one body, and not send in their pinch hitter proxies via the bishoprics of Portland and Chicago, then my hope for a symposium that purports to be "inclusive" will, in fact, be inclusive by adding the CMAA voices to those of the publishers, their stable of composers, and other satellite ad hoc groups such as the Snowbirds et al.
    So, I guess my answer is "Yes, we need that sort of officially charged and sanctioned symposium" to guide the bishops with their liturgical responsibilities in implementing these changes in unity and fidelity.
  • G
    Posts: 1,396
    eft94530, you know that and I know that -- but the guy on the liturgy committee who doesn't think that the St Louis Jeb's Mass not respecting the integrity of the text of the Mass is any problem for using it? and whose favorite song, which he has pre-planned as part of his funeral liturgy, is Little Drummer Boy? and who thinks Let There be Peace On Earth is the perfect hymn for Mass because it always gives him a "peaceful feeling"?

    Not so much...

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • francis
    Posts: 10,532
    Charles... I am not being literal... I was just taking a sarcastic dig at the Milwaukee Symposium.
  • eft, your point being?
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    I'd like to see what Dr. Jerry will say to what Chironomo said...in the comments of that blog after his break as he says.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    let's not forget where the money comes from to pay his 30 employees.
  • Well, it seems to me that we're all, except Richard R., interestingly enough, anathema at GSGP already. I've tried to be pleasant. And Chironomo's post at AuthUpdate is required reading on my syllabus.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
  • Maureen
    Posts: 673
    Maybe we should work up a free/cheap CMAA "workbook" for liturgical planning.

    You could pick out several free options per week, maybe put them in order of difficulty or suggest pieces for different voice needs, link to them, and suggest further places to look. That would be something folks would be used to, so it might be more palatable as a bridge to reform. You might also suggest ahead of time stuff like "this is a good week to start thinking about Lent" or "you're going to want to start practicing Lent stuff soon".

    Maybe? It'd be a lot of work, I know, but it's the sort of thing you could build on for later.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Thanks, eft. Finally Dr.Galipeau came back with an answer! He seems to have a strong backup of US Bishops. He says the following;

    "How does a publisher make "a serious and professed commitment to the Church's vision of liturgical music?" As a publisher of music for the liturgy that is to be sung primarily in the United States, we must find our guidance from a number of sources, chiefly the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' newest document on music for the liturgy, Sing to the Lord"
    Although he says "we must find our guidance from a number of sources," he seems to weigh STTL as a more immediate instruction than the Church's official ones. All the quotes are from STTL in his article. I want to say if he is genuinely interested in "the Church's vision of liturgical music," I would comnpare the documents to see whethere there are any discrepancies, but then I'm implying that we cannot totally trust US Bishops instruction, which is not a desireble thing to do.
    US Bishops, NPM and publishere are tightly bonded, it's hard to break in.
  • Methinks the "chiefly" is a bit much; perhaps "including" may have been more intellectually honest.

    "What, then, are we to make of this document? We will all find the paragraphs we like and quote them, but their authority is ambiguous: when the document quotes established liturgical law, such as Musicam Sacram and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, their authority is secure; we might as well quote the respective documents. For the rest, since the bishops did not submit them for ratification to the Vatican, they are in a kind of limbo, not liturgical law, but ratified by the bishops. But perhaps like the doctrine of limbo itself, the document will find itself obsolete in due time. We might view it as a transitional document—the revival of Gregorian chant and excellent liturgical music will progress apace, and a subsequent document, though it may only restate the status quo, will have to accommodate those things Sacred Music has perpetually advocated: the sacred and the beautiful as represented by the priority of Gregorian chant and classical polyphony in the service of the liturgy." William Mahrt, "[A Critique of] 'Sing to the Lord,'" Sacred Music, Vol. 135.1 (Spring 2008), p. 51.

    (Dr. Mahrt is much more forgiving in his view of SttL than I, to be sure.)
  • francis
    Posts: 10,532
    ...but don't you think STTL is definitely swimming in a better direction as opposed to its antecedents (music in catholic worship, or environment in catholic worship, which did the olympic breaststroke toward a whirlpool that descended into the abyss)?
  • Francis, I certainly do. Which makes its perceived rationalizations even more negatively pronounced.

    One example I have in mind (and it's been brought up before) is the following:

    [STTL] 136. Sufficiency of artistic expression, however, is not the same as musical style, for “the Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her own. She has admitted styles from every period, in keeping with the natural characteristics and conditions of peoples and the needs of the various rites.” ((104. Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 123.)) Thus, in recent times, the Church has consistently recognized and freely welcomed the use of various styles of music as an aid to liturgical worship.

    Looking at SSC 123, we see this:

    123. The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her very own; she has admitted styles from every period according to the natural talents and circumstances of peoples, and the needs of the various rites. Thus, in the course of the centuries, she has brought into being a treasury of art which must be very carefully preserved. The art of our own days, coming from every race and region, shall also be given free scope in the Church, provided that it adorns the sacred buildings and holy rites with due reverence and honor; thereby it is enabled to contribute its own voice to that wonderful chorus of praise in honor of the Catholic faith sung by great men in times gone by.

    Which seems on the face to contradict SSC 116:

    116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place (principem locum) in liturgical services.

    But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

    Yet when we look at the actual document, we see that SSC 112–121 is the chapter on Sacred Music. SSC 122–130 deals with Sacred Art and Sacred Furnishings — not sacred music. The argument brought forth by STTL 136 to justify different styles of sacred music thus looks pretty specious to me, since SSC treats sacred music as greater than any other art, not only in SSC 112 but also in light of the fact that SSC addresses sacred music as a topic distinct from any other art.

    Citing SSC 116—even placing an ellipsis in place of "especially polyphony"—would have been more plausible.

    I share largely Dr. Mahrt's view inasmuch as it's useful in certain situations—however, I suppose I am praying that the possible subsequent document comes sooner than later.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Thanks, Aristotle. It is very subtle. I was confused about that, thinking the Church's document was pretty contradictng. I should read Dr. Marht writng again.
    (Aristotle, I wish you post the quotes above here,

    I think this can help him to read STTL more carefully. And I believe he is a very influential guy to what we sing in average local parishes.)
  • Mia: I just posted a slightly modified version of it in the comment box…we shall see if it merits inclusion.

    Regardless of my own personal assessment of the Sing to the Lord, I am citing it liberally (along with Sacrosanctum Concilium and Musicam Sacram) in a document that I'm putting together for a comprehensive plan of formation in liturgical music.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Thank you so much Aristotle. Whether he agrees with it or not right now, I know this will definitely help in time.
  • Yes, Aris. Good observation.