Contemporary worship music: How do editors intend their product to be used?
  • Potentially silly question from a CCM newbie (and due apologies if there's a better section for this thread!):


    What do editors of Contemporary Christian Music for publication or home printing have in mind when they're formatting their music? How do they intend it to be used? Is formatting a short piece of music on 7 to 15 pages with multi-page repeats embedded inside other repeats really considered normal these days? Between all the pictures of rock musicians on publishers' sites and some very strange e-mail exchanges with publishers' reps about their abysmal formatting, I am left to conclude that usability for the average musician with a medium grand and a Laserjet is considered an extremely low priority.


    Since reluctantly getting involved accompanying at a formerly "hymnal-free" church with a critical mass of CCM fans, far and away the best thing I've done for my own sanity was a one-man effort where I gifted the church a tiny public domain hymnal as well as the "Voices" contemporary hymnal from GIA. "A Hymnal of the Heart" does not have an accompaniment edition and doesn't need one, but the "Voices" accompaniment edition has been a truly amazing accessibility tool, especially to someone like me who lived 99.99% in the land of traditional hymnals, listening to CCM of any sort rarely if ever, until about 2022. So for the past year, instead of getting a giant headache over a mysterious printout before giving up and completely re-engraving it, I can get straight to the business of practicing unusual rhythms and wondering what the heck a "bridge" is. :-D

    This year I've (also reluctantly) agreed to start producing our own seasonal hymn-books, partly to get back down to just one printed resource (no pews = no convenient book racks), and partly in order to use traditional hymns not included in HoH. What I had failed to predict was that I would once again receive requests for modern music that's not in "Voices", which means I've again run into the issue of downloads I can't seem to use without doing some serious work first!


    So what do other users of non-hymnal resources for congregational music usually do? Is my experience and difficulty at all typical, or is it more common to be able to take weirdly formatted downloads from sources such as PraiseCharts or SongSelect Premium and use them as-is?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,367
    It is a mess. Steubenville has a hymnal, which they published and which hardly anyone else picked up. So much of what is done, at least when I was a student, was done without anything except memory for the congregation. In Austria, it was marginally better, since there was one Mass and far fewer people. I have no idea how the office and the groups singing at each mass handled it, but they had to do all the licensing stuff and had big PowerPoints for the all-school Masses in the gym.
    Thanked by 1michael_in_MI
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,089
    Play off a one or two-page lead sheet and improvise the accompaniment. CCM songs are not difficult to improvise decent accompaniments for.

    I use this site whenever I have to buy sheet music for CCM, such as for wedding preludes. You can select different formatting (full score, lead sheet, SATB, chord & lyric page) and transpose keys:
    https://www.praisecharts.com/
    Thanked by 1michael_in_MI
  • MarkB, that would be consistent with a priest I've contacted who's a singer/songwriter, and it turns out lead sheets are pretty much all he writes down. He then records quite sophisticated performances with many different instruments!

    How did you learn your skill? I've studied jazz improvisation on multiple occasions with marginal results, whereas when music is written out I can play what I like (within reason). Was there any special training you've done that helped?


    MatthewRoth ... licensing! Ugh! I'd never even heard of CCLI or OneLicense before a couple of years ago. OCP were very firm that I might not really make use of some of their stuff without a OneLicense, even though we already had CCLI. I eventually bought one myself and had the church treasurer pay me back.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,089
    It helps to have a good ear for music so you can imitate professional CCM recordings. Barring that, just practice playing the melody line while adding other notes based on the chord symbols.
  • So it sounds like in your experience, listening to lots of CCM records has been an important part of training, and playing only from lead sheets most typical, to the point that you might even choose a lead sheet, when available, even over buying a piano part. That's almost as odd to me as when I heard recently that some people actually dislike using hymnals and prayer books, but okay!


    What do you think makes the difference between some publishers like GIA putting out nice accompaniments (and pew editions!), while others like PraiseCharts seem to think it very strange to request such a thing?
  • This is a broader question than perhaps you might think -- most things praise-and-worship/CCLI aren't intended or written for Catholic liturgies/Masses, but a good chunk of "contemporary" music from GIA or OCP is intended for use at Mass. Perhaps 15-20 years ago or so, OCP started to lessen the praise-and-worship and printed more stuff intended for liturgy -- the result was a much improved Spirit & Song.

    I eliminated our parish's CCLI license, because I don't and won't use praise-and-worship style music. I don't do it well, and we're not the nearby megachurch or the other nearby megachurch; in general I don't think we should use it. But I do a fair amount of OCP "contemporary" stuff and occasionally a GIA "contemporary" piece. I don't care for Voices (as One) at all, but YMMV.
  • TimTheEnchanter: (great SN, by the way) Great to hear positives about OCP, and that you were able to eliminate CCLI entirely! I have been much inclined to be gloomy about music obviously intended for radio having ever made its way into the worship repertoire in the first place, liturgical church or no.

    Spirit & Song was actually the first contemporary hymnal I evaluated, though at the time I was very confused by its being a melody-only book in the first place, and even more so by its lacking some of the music entirely. I've since wondered if it would have had its advantages, if only the hardback binding! Since my limited observations of CCM in churches have suggested at least some interest in the extinction of hymnals, learning of the existence of such a publication was an absolute game-changer after it had been made clear to me that keeping at least some CCM was non-negotiable.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,089
    Noteworthy to mention in this thread is that OCP has decided to discontinue its contemporary music annual missal/hymnal combo, Choose Christ; 2024 is its final year.

    Apparently, it wasn't selling well. I welcome that news.

    Next target: Breaking Bread, but that's a behemoth.
  • So what do other users of non-hymnal resources for congregational music usually do? Is my experience and difficulty at all typical, or is it more common to be able to take weirdly formatted downloads from sources such as PraiseCharts or SongSelect Premium and use them as-is?


    This gets to the heart of one of the biggest quality control problems with SongSelect. If you're using the lead sheet and especially if you are using the vocal accompaniment sheet, many of these end up with way too many pages and page turns.

    I have dealt with this by generally trying to stick to the lead sheet and encouraging vocalists to improv the harmonies, or printing the vocal sheets for the singers but just the lead sheets for the instrumentalists. Another option is to use image editing software to more efficiently lay out the music onto a smaller number of pages.

    I'm also seeing that printed sheet music is on its way out in worship bands - a lot of people are transitioning to iPads that change the page with a single tap.

    As bad as page counts on PraiseCharts and SongSelect can be, OCP and GIA are in my opinion much worse offenders. The page count seems to essentially be a function of to what degree the publisher assumes you are operating from a classical music paradigm (performer is given nearly complete instructions via the sheet music, limited interpretation expected from the performer) vs. a jazz music paradigm (performer is given very limited information, and expected to interpret a lot). OCP and GIA tends more towards the classical paradigm and often have needlessly inflated page counts for works that I think ought to have been notated in a more stripped down form, such as a lead sheet (that gives just the melody and the chord symbol).

    SongSelect tries to be everything to all people and often ends up with music notation that makes a lot of compromises with all sides and this often makes the final product really frustrating to interact with.

    I could go on about problems with SongSelect. They are inconsistent as to whether they are notating the pieces as they were written or as they are performed on the radio (the performances often have the soloist loosely interpreting notes and rhythms in a way that doesn't work for a congregation). They are inconsistent as to whether they write difficult rhythms out exactly or if they write out something simplified and assume you know how to modify it. They are inconsistent about whether vocal harmonies follow the recordings of the original artists or whether they just make something up, and when they write their own original harmonies its often poor quality work. Sometimes they choose none of the above and publish stuff that's just objectively incorrect.

    I love SongSelect. Getting nearly every song imaginable in any key you want is awesome. OCP should make something like SongSelect, and they are in my opinion clearly losing market share for having not done so. Nevertheless, SongSelect needs to get better quality control.

    Unfortunately there is not much you can do other than take what SongSelect gives you and make small modifications. I'm not aware of any other services that provide anything comparable. WorshipNOW publications has a hymnal and accompaniment books for about 200 of the most common worship songs. PraiseCharts often notates the music to a higher standard but they make you pay for each song individually, which gets expensive. Everything else I can think of just gives you chords.
  • I guess the Y'all-pad thing makes some sense. If you're tapping a button to turn pages and there's a repeat of several pages, I suppose if you're using a computer program you could have it insert those pages a second time so you only have to advance forward, regardless of whether it makes it take 20 pages.

    I had wondered about the weird rhythmic artifacts, and what you say does seem to explain some of the SS accompaniments that just aren't very good. Do some of these editors actually use some kind of software to transcribe an audio tape instead of just getting the music from the composer? PrintMusic! 2001 has that capability if you play into it from a MIDI-enabled keyboard, but I could never play precisely enough to get anything that didn't effectively need to be rewritten. I guess that program came out over 20 years ago now ... perhaps someone has a transcription computer program that can listen to the radio and turn it directly into sheetmusic of a sort?


    I know my experience is limited, but I've not yet encountered accompaniments from GIA/OCP that are worse than PC/SS parts in unnecessary length - nothing like - though that isn't to say it couldn't sometimes go on fewer pages or move measures about to eliminate an awkward page turn (I'll sometimes photocopy a page in such cases). And while the multiple-keys thing is potentially handy, I've absolutely had requests from stuff for which they have only words, if even that. I went through more than enough of that 15+ years ago when a family friend wanted me to play for a Christmas program, and helpfully brought a photocopy with just some words on it (for some very bad poetry I'd never seen before), and made a great show of thinking I was insane, not to mention inexcusably rude, for not innately knowing how and what to play.

    At least in the GIA publication I have, having fairly complete performance information lets any idiot have a go at playing even if he's only ever listened to or played better sorts of music. No need to be the least bit "musical" in the folkie sense - a few years of private lessons and classical ensemble experience are enough. At least half the battle with this stuff can be figuring out the structure, and PC/SS seem to artificially make that far more obtuse. One of the great things about good congregational music is its simplicity - in modern hymnody, something like St. Patrick's Breastplate is an anomaly in that it has two different tunes and an abrupt repeat in the first verse and in a harmony edition is notated on up to four pages; most anything else, at least in hymnals I own, is perfectly straightforward in structure, usually doesn't require page turns at all, and just making the notes happen, and providing musical contrast as we are able, is sufficient challenge for those of us who are less experienced and have limited practice time. Pop-style music adds considerable complexity just to figure out what to play and when, especially when there are two or more versions of a refrain (alternated with verses in ways that vary greatly, and sometimes each verse varies the melody so you can't just repeat the whole thing) and that's not to mention this newfangled interlude thing they call a "bridge" that may be in one place, or possibly in another. Notating the accompaniment with sufficient information, and keeping any performance notes as simple as possible, is very much of the essence - anything else really does require specialized training or experience, extensive practice time with someone else to help, or both. Voices! #191 ("Mighty To Save") is an interesting example; Ed Bolduc provides enough information that despite never having seen anything quite like it, even I could make it very musical and interesting in a short period of time, and provide a really big improvement over using poorer music that sounds like "Leavin' On A Jetplane" just because a few people like folk trios and are in rebellion against historic church music. No input from anyone, no searching for audio recordings, just the music book and a piano, and I didn't even have to learn the melody. By contrast, I was aghast recently to discover that some people called "Hillsong," who apparently consider themselves professional performers of a sort, took the same song and completely ruined it - all narcissistic face-making layered with vague guitary stuff, and no musicality at all. This guy called Matt Redman seems to have this talent as well, even with stuff he wrote himself. Makes me want to throw things!
  • Soo, I’m not really into CCM and the other music they use in churches these days. I started studying the history of music, and it’s pretty impressive that it all basically started with Gregorian chant. I was hoping to find out more about the current state of church or choral music. From what I’ve gathered, are you guys really that against any changes in the music? There are so many more ways to create music now, and I read a lot about different software and plugins on forum https://faqaudio.com/. New musicians can bring something unique to the music, and that really excites me. As someone not connected to faith and religion, it’s hard for me to grasp how important traditions are in the church, but I think changes, if not necessary, are definitely inevitable.
  • The short answer? No, not in the least do I object to change qua change, though I'm afraid I would be slow to object to complete stagnation. I've played saxophones, strings, and even my guitar in church, for example, though I consider an organ to be the default church instrument. I also experienced an environment that seemed to me to have gotten hide-bound slightly beyond reason in insisting that every congregational song had to be accompanied by a piano, even when the music director was insisting that those of us so able play along on strings and flutes every Sunday. You'll meet wonderful Christians who have big objections to specific instruments in church (Old Regular Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians have the only total solution for that), and conventional wisdom highlights a generational divide between old people only "knowing" "old hymns" and young people always employing "contemporary songs" (which I would have expected, but found inaccurate in my experience ... also, I'm personally incredibly stupid when it comes to "knowing" a song, leading to extremely slow comprehension when I'm told "no, we can't use that, no one knows it.").

    In a nutshell, I think my biggest concerns are threefold:

    * Risk of idolatry - placing of one or more musicians front and center in worship with a giant spotlight has the potential to draw focus to man rather than the Creator.
    * Risk of hypocrisy - hypothetically, people who have perfected the art of looking "worshipful" for a video camera may be unsaved/unconverted/unbelievers and so lead people astray by promoting false teaching or an unholy lifestyle ... also, emotionally manipulative musical and presentation styles may encourage a pattern of getting "high on Jesus" on Sunday morning and compartmentalizing an extremely wicked life during the week.
    * Lack of charity - categorical dismissal or disrespect toward musicians and other churchmen who have not already adapted to new customs that tend to accompany CCM - in other words, the unspoken attitude that if you're not already in the in-group and willing/able to sway, strum, listen to CCM radio constantly, memorize everything that's newest under the sun, improvise from lead sheets (or sometimes just chord charts!), and use an iPad instead of a music book, you're generally no good and lacking in seriousness. Hopefully I'm exaggerating, but the careless attitude I seemed to get from publishers whilst trying to purchase accompaniments was a big part of the impetus for starting this thread in the first place.

    These concerns of course don't address the likelihood toward bad or trivial music and theologically questionable lyrics, specifically because I've found a diligent pastor/musician team ought to be able to avoid those problems most of the time - but those could also be concerns where leadership is less discerning. Obviously, the risks I enumerate above are not unique to the CCM movement, and it doesn't follow in the least that something will necessarily happen just because it's possible or even likely, but to some of us it appears that the CCM movement may provide new opportunities for such risks. And to be fair, I've been short on charity myself toward musicians and music fans who differ from me, so it's something I try to repent of regularly, and adopted the discipline of always referring in my mind to "Brother so-and-so".

    All that said - I've been talking with people as I have the opportunity, doing a bit of reading here and there. I've found out that for all the years I was happily singing both modern and historic traditional hymns in traditional mainline Protestant churches, and somewhat less happily singing a mix of traditional modern hymns, turn-of-the-20th-century Gospel hymns, and certain CCM in hymn form in a traditional independent Baptist church, a broad segment of the visible church had largely moved away anything I would have recognized as normal churchmanship. Apparently as far back as the 1990s, some churches had a CCM music supplement in addition to a more traditional hymnal, and some were even using video screens as an integral part of services! Possibly some of you already knew that, but I would have had no idea if I hadn't been told. My kneejerk 20+ years ago was to assume all such congregations were minority outliers and not really serious churches, but circumstances as well as new information have made me reconsider. I've commented that contemporary churchmanship seems like a rebellion against traditional churchmanship, which may well be true, but on the other hand there may be any number of possible reasons for abandoning traditional churchmanship, from individuals finding they'd been hurt by "traditional" churches that apostasized or "conservative" churches that became uncharitably legalistic.

    Here are some resources I've come across that I'm finding helpful, which appear to be at least trying to find a fair perspective. The first is a book I'm currently about halfway through by what seems to be a fairly traditional pastor, the second is an interview with two of the Newsboys about musicians leaving the faith, and the third is just sort of a monologue by a traditional PCUSA layman.

    https://www.amazon.com/Why-Johnny-Cant-Sing-Hymns/dp/1596381957/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuTTv8kqtvQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3FjwocKlY

    Finally, it turns out Grammy-winning CCM superstar Matt Redman also wrote a book, which may be helpful, but so far I've only made it through the preface.

    https://www.amazon.com/10-000-Reasons-Thankfulness-Inspired/dp/1434702901/
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Due to my ecclesiastical and familial loyalties, I currently play synths and percussion (and sing) in a church band that is about 80% (or more) "Contemporary Praise and Worship" (and most of that is late 90s or early 2000s Hillsong or Hillsong-adjacent).

    I'm having fun.

    But there are serious problems with this repertoire.

    - Roadmaps are weird.
    Few things are as simple verse-refrain. There are verses, choruses, pre-choruses, half choruses, double choruses, bridges, intros, outros, codas. Our MD usually re-engraves pieces to fit them on 2-pages and this often makes them more difficult. (The fact that the music is often a repetitive chord loops makes it doubly easy to lose one's place.)

    - Rhythms are awkward.
    Most of the music is written for soloists, and is any notated version is hardly 'canonical' (the original artists almost never wrote dots - if they wrote down anything, it's lyrics and chords)
    There is constant tension between 'how its written' and 'how it goes'. This is exacerbated by a musical culture among the singers that doesn't really have oral tradition as a central experience.

    - Rhythms are hard
    This is a little different than the soloist-focused problem of weird/hard-to-notate idiosyncratic stuff. Even when there's a definite 'right' way a thing goes which can be notated in a relatively correctly, it's often syncopated and there is A LOT of anticipation. This is tough for congregations and for 'regular' (non-pop oriented) church choir singers.

    - Range
    A lot of this stuff is either too low or too high for a congregation, or has too wide a range.
    The too-low problem is exacerbated by our MD, who seems to think congregations can't sing above a C, so things get transposed down "to make it easier" (which it doesn't).
    Things also get transposes (or not transposed when they should be) because...

    - Guitar-friendly keys
    Guitarists like to play in E, A, D, or B. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but it does create a sort of gravity towards those keys even when a different key might be better for singing.
    (As I side note, as a just-okay keys player, I prefer D, G, C, F, Bb, Eb - so sometimes I have trouble keeping up)

    (And all of that is not even getting into the theological problems with this repertoire.)

    As to the original question, I think publishers are trying their best, but the some of these problems are basically insurmountable. And I would suppose (educated guess) that there isn't A TON of expertise overlap. That is to say - the people who know and love and understand traditional congregational singing (and how to produce scores that support it) are not the same people who know and love and understand the pop-oriented praise and worship music (and those people come out of a musical context which doesn't produce scores at all).
  • One of the best synopses I've seen so far, @Adam Wood! The roadmap/rhythm/rhythm synopsis does pretty succinctly summarize my practical issues trying to get my brain around the stuff in the first place (and continues to be a challenge still). It's also reassuring to hear that I'm not the only one crazy enough to re-engrave things (for better or for worse).

    It's interesting how in my communications with some musicians who do nearly or all contemporary style on Sundays (for both new and old music), they talk about their classical training but their current practice seems quite different, as you say (i.e. not producing scores at all).
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,486
    I think CCM musicians plsy from a lead sheet. Or just a page with lyrics and chords. A wriiten ot keyboard part takes up many pages, but they don't use it. As well, many don't read music, they just memorise the choruses.
    In general, thunk.of a band in a bar and add Christian lyrics.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,985
    I think much of "contemporary" sacred music is not sacred and is entertainment, not worship. In the minds of many, there is no barrier or distinction between the two. Gone are the days when the world is left outside the temple doors. Now it is welcomed in with open arms. As far as the publishers, it seems they throw things against the wall and see if they stick and generate any income.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    I think most of the people who compose, perform, and publish this music have good intentions and are sincere and earnest. I think they've mostly lost the plot on what the Sunday gathering is for and what music's role is within that.

    And even if you have an inkling that maybe it's not a great way to do things, it's hard to be a countercultural force. Most people in that culture who see the problems can't imagine much more than "well... maybe if we wrote better lyrics."

    This often ends up creating some really good and interesting pieces of music, for example - hymns like "In Christ Alone" or the albums of Sons of Korah.

    But that doesn't really solve the problems of a larger musical/worship culture that is largely focused on emotionalism, entertainment, and ease.

    I'm broadly of the opinion that nearly any style/genre of music could potentially make worthwhile liturgical music. But for "non-traditional" (or non-sacred) styles, you have to go back to the folk roots of people making music in community, as a community.

    The problem with Contemporary Praise Music as a genre is (in my opinion) not the presence of guitars, drums, or syncopations. It's that everything about the way it is written and performed is driven by hyper-commercial/capitalist practices. I'd rather have the Dad Band and the School Music Teacher leading the congregation in the Best Catholic Hits of the 1970s - at least it's honest.

  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    I think most of the people who compose, perform, and publish this music have good intentions and are sincere and earnest.
    what is their "good intention?" The greatest of sinners are sincere and earnest to do what they do. Ignorance, however, is the real issue... the devil plays on that one big time.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    > what is their "good intention?"

    they want to do what God wants them to do
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins GerardH
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    they want to do what God wants them to do
    do you mean they want to do what they THINK God wants them to do?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Yes.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,912
    I think they want to do what they like for God. There’s a difference.

    There’s a distinction to be made between doing what we like for God and doing what God likes for God whether we like it or not.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    You are free to think that, but I know a lot of these people, and I don't think that is an accurate assessment of most of them. (At least, in the context of local church ministry. I think the upper echelons of the production end of this stuff is corrupt.)
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,912
    I’ve met people who are really into PW stuff who seem to be utterly disinterested in what Holy Mother Church actually teaches about sacred music or the nature of the Mass (or worse still: outright reject it).

    To their credit, they are often very eager to make their musical offering (and do so with love), but they are rarely even mildly bothered when they learn that drums and electric guitars are *literally incompatible* with sacred music. Really entrenched NūCherch™️ folk just want to do what they want to do, at least from what I’ve seen.

    That said, I’d wager a healthy majority of people who participate in this type of music at mass do so merely out of ignorance. It is a similar dynamic to the paltry flor-y-canto Hispanic parishes. If it’s all they have or all they know, well… who can fault them.
    Thanked by 1DavidOLGC
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    I was mostly talking about Protestants (and specifically Evangelicals) for whom Praise Music isn’t just one genre among many but a whole way (the only way) of doing church.

    I’m less tuned in with the LifeTeen crowd.
  • I was mostly talking about Protestants (and specifically Evangelicals) for whom Praise Music isn’t just one genre among many but a whole way (the only way) of doing church.


    One local Calvary Chapel has a stage set up for musical performances as its "altar". I had to pick up something unrelated to church matters from the pastor (we were both teaching music at a local charter school) and I got to see the inside of their church.

    but they are rarely even mildly bothered when they learn that drums and electric guitars are *literally incompatible* with sacred music.


    I've noticed this too. It's as if they just reject that part of Catholic teaching...I guess they are Music Cafeteria Catholics.

    flor-y-canto Hispanic parishes


    Our English language masses only use organ, traditional hymns and now sing the antiphons and other parts of the mass, often in Latin

    Out Spanish language masses use guitars and modern music. It's quite a difference.

    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,089
    P&W music wouldn't work and wouldn't spread if the performers had to play and sing from a choir loft. The genre's success in worship venues has relied upon and depends on the "worship band" and the lead singer being visible front-and-center and imitating a secular rock/pop concert performance for the "audience". The connection or bond between the performers and the audience during a performance relies on visibility.

    It's Christian entertainment, not liturgical musical prayer. Some well-meaning people confuse it with liturgical prayer, however, because they don't know any better and they mistake an emotional experience for a spiritual experience.

    P&W music can rouse devotional sentiments and reinforce Christian devotion, which are good things, but those are difficult to disentangle and distinguish from the live performance rush caused by emotionally manipulative stage light schemes, large crowds (especially in conference arenas) united in enthusiasm, hushed whispers of invitation from the lead vocalist, and tried-and-true emotionally moving chord progressions, especially using synth pads.

    In the Catholic context, the liturgical reforms have resulted in so much experimentation and lax enforcement of liturgical norms that many Catholics in the pews expect the Mass to be entertaining and to provide them with an emotionally uplifting experience. The notion of the Mass as the sacramental re-presentation of Calvary and the celebration of the paschal mystery are lost on them. It's just a religious communal gathering to them, which they owe to God because going to church is what good Christians do, and they evaluate it based on secular criteria for entertainment rather than based on Catholicism's own internal criteria. They've grown up for decades with devotional music at Mass, so they expect it and consider it to be the norm.

    However, by introducing rock/pop secular-styled devotional music into the liturgy, we corrupt the liturgy and corrupt the minds and souls of the people who attend those liturgies because the secular worldview, introduced via secular-styled music, replaces the Catholic worldview within the experience of worship. Even though the texts of the Mass are there and unaltered, the presence of secular-styled entertaining music alters and diminishes the perception and reception of the Mass, its sacramental grace, and its fruits as a sacramental encounter with the Lord.

    This recent article at the Source & Summit blog explains it well, I think:

    https://www.sourceandsummit.com/blog/what-is-the-role-of-liturgical-music-in-an-apostolic-age

    Excerpt:
    In other words, the aims of the council for the authentic renewal of the liturgy are far from being fully realized in the Church today. Rather than serving as a radiant sacramental embodiment of an alternative vision of the world in our secular time, our celebrations of the liturgy all too often have become instead a faint echo of the secular culture, actually reinforcing a secular imaginative vision rather than radiating a radically different, Christian one. Perhaps more unfortunately, this situation has caused many—and especially those in the younger generations—to lose interest in the unique and transformative worldview that the Church has to offer, with many of them fully abandoning the practice of the faith.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    So, this brings us back to the point that the RC Church has wandered so far from the theory and spirituality (and architecture and instrumentation and posture [facing the people] and furniture and... the list goes on) that is intrinsic to liturgy AND to sacred music, I would put forth the thought that the GnuCatholic Church IS an entirely different religion. And the present pope admits to it by his actions towards the RC tradition and the very liturgy itself.

    ...more and more, people are waking up to the fact.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,189
    It sure is an entirely different musical culture, at least.

    Above, MarkB used the term “synth pad”. Hmm, said I, whatever is that? So I turned to the universal oracle, and found that despite my decades of musical experience I couldn't understand a single word of the explanations I found. But of course: professional exposition in a completely different field isn't supposed to be understandable to outsiders.

    I found this, though: “Synth pads are used in all kinds of music, from pop and electronic tracks through to film and video game scores.”

    All. Kinds. Of. Music.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,089
    Tutorial that explains synth pads with a focus on "worship band" applications:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa0Ssv0huH8

    Thanked by 2Andrew_Malton igneus
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    "Pad" is a particular type of synth sound. The stereotypical ethereal slow-attack, long decay sound you might think of when you think of a synth. (Contrasted with "synth lead" the bell- or guitar- or trumpet-like synth sound that you might also think of which is used for melody lines.)
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,478
    Nah, that was no explanation - like Andrew I couldn't understand a single word - what IS a synth pad? to what class of entities does it belong? is it a physical object? if so what does it look like?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    synth pad - A particular configuration of sound created with a synthesizer, usually simulating soft strings or lush mellow sonorities. It is similar to a voix celeste on a pipe organ.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,089
    The iconic introduction to U2's song "Where the Streets Have No Name" is an example of a synth pad sound.
  • GerardH
    Posts: 481
    So a synth pad is the functional equivalent of string celestes on an organ?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    > like Andrew I couldn't understand a single word - what IS a synth pad?

    really?

    Do you not know what a synth is?

    "pad" is just one of the sounds a synth can make

    (If you're pretending you don't understand because non-physically-instantiated instruments are somehow beneath you or whatever, please stop.)

  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,189
    I wasn't pretending at all. Not thinking things are beneath me. Happy to acknowledge that electronic instrumentatation and the skills and language that come with it is quite outside my experience. The quotation above still is funny though, that anyone would propose that narrow list as exemplifying “all kinds of music”.

    Like several others above, it genuinely took me a while, reading, before I realized that “pad” is the name of a technique, not of a device. It doesn't help that the pictures Google found for me were actually rectangular keyboardish units with buttons on - just what I would have called a “pad” at first glance.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • There’s a distinction to be made between doing what we like for God and doing what God likes for God whether we like it or not.


    As if ANY of us know what God likes!
  • I'd certainly bet God's Church knows what He likes...otherwise what are we doing here....
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    As if ANY of us know what God likes!
    o wow...

    why do you think Jesus went into a desert, fasted, prayed in the garden, etc etc etc. ... perhaps this was the prime example of "how to know"?

    ...otherwise we can all feign ignorance of God's will and do what each of us da*n well please! GMAB

    btw... there is also the example of the Saints, what the church has HANDED DOWN to us, tradition, dogma, catechism, writings of the doctors... need I really go on?

    I mean... do you REALLY want to say this out loud?!

    Incredulous?

    (sorry for being so direct... i am just too old to play games any more)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,985
    Andrew_Malton don't feel bad. I didn't know what a synth pad was either - still not 100% sure since the Google notes were sparse. I do know I have never seen nor heard one, but I don't play or listen to any contemporary music. It is something I haven't encountered for good or ill.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    Charles... if you click the links above, you will forever know.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,912
    Pax, one can make some very well educated guesses about what type of music God prefers based on no small number of encyclicals and conciliar documents which address the nature of sacred music (and liturgy in general). And lest we forget: God was pretty specific about how He wanted worship to be in the Old Testament, so there’s no reason to assume that He doesn’t hold or reveal certain preferences to us now via the authentic magisterium.

    Case in point: it is reiterated time (and time) again that Gregorian chant is the most pure and authentic form of liturgical music, and that it is imbued with a particular spirit which is to be emulated by other styles (notably, sacred polyphony). Then Pius X states point blank that the more music is “out of harmony with the Gregorian model, the less worthy and fit is is for the sacred temple” (and this statement was again reiterated by JPII, a SECOND sainted pontiff in living memory. MULTIPLE popes of the last century have all decried profane (secular) music or instruments defiling the temple, and that instruments which were “of common opinion fit for secular usage only” were *forbidden* from the temple. It is very easy to conclude, therefore, that electric guitars and rock drum kits playing music with only a very thin religious veneer in a truly secular (or very adjacent) style is therefore NOT something that God desires for His formal worship. This has been a very clear common thread among multiple teaching documents for the last 150 years (all of which were reinforcing principles and practices that had been firmly ensconced centuries before).

    So yes, as it happens, we DO know a thing or two about what makes appropriate church music, and certain trends well exceed sensible limits and actually constitute liturgical abuse, regardless of any good intentions behind them. Praise and worship, polka masses, etc. etc. are truly incompatible with an authentic spirit of the liturgy if you actually digest and assent to what these documents teach.
  • For what it's worth, I'm "young" (20) and had no idea what a synth pad was either. I also assumed it was a literal pad, an electronic control board from which one played synthesized sounds. I imagined something similar to the Novation Launchpad Mini which I used for stops when building my virtual pipe organ a couple years back.
  • I'm "young" (20)

    The scarequotes gave me a chuckle.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,985
    Thanks, Francis. I think I will stick with the pipe organ. The synth pad seems too gimmicky.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    synth pads can be fun...

    one of my synth comps from 2009 stolen from my string quartet from 1983

    the synth pad is found at the start and reappears at 2:51

    (if you remember in the sixties and seventies we lived in pads... "hey, let's crash at my pad!")

    http://bizextend.com/quintetMixdown.mp3
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,478
    My last comment got lost somewhere in the ethernet and appeared here about four hours after I sent it. So - apologies and thanks to Adam, my comment was about the tutorial. And thanks, now, to Mark & others.