I believe the Sister Editor of the Summit Choirbook provided a good model for the internal organisation of a hymnal by gathering such folksongs and other popular songs that are not true hymns or psalms into a section at the back of the Summit Choirbook.

"Bring Flowers of the Rarest" is a sort of popular song that might be put into a section called "Songs and Devotional Music" or something like that. Into such a section could go texts and tunes whose inclusion is motivated by pastoral and other concerns rather than values of musicianship or doctrinal exposition.

But it seems to me that the PBEH has a very different rationale, and at a later date a separate songbook or collection could be gathered and published with a title like "Parish Book of Devotional Songs".

It is not a little surprising that anyone would even mention a song like this, let alone discuss it seriously in connection with a publication such as the PBEH (presumably) aspires to be. It may be even worse than Amazing Grace. I would second Vincent's suggestion of a further PBDS, except that even there one would not want to be guilty of the propagation (and implied recommendation) of utterly worthless and junky schmaltz. Songs like these are like illegal substances - they will be found somewhere by those who are bent on having them. They do not need to be catered to by respectable publications. (And, if such a Parish Book of Devotional Songs were indeed contemplated, I would suggest that its purchase be accompanied by a free box of kleenex.)

Kinda goes to show that Tin Pan Alley will persevere, eh?

I thought the object was to create a hymnal whose content of texts and music was impeccable as well as PD.
Is this going to be yet another book designed to 'sell'?

Part of the job of the music director is to perhaps steer folks away from music deemed substandard. OTH, part of what goes with "tradition" and not certainly the most important part, but an element nonetheless, is the evoking of memories, fond ones especially, and if this song and some others like it fit the bill, and as long as they are not over used and not really employed in the liturgy itself, well, what is the harm? A hymnal is usually a large enough cross section that it can still work well with a good two thirds of the selections avoided.

If it's the tune you don't like, you should sing it to "Flowers of the Forest" instead. I've always thought that was the original tune. :)

People are always going to like some schmaltz, and frankly, they have a right to like what they like. Excellence in music is not supposed to be about making people eat their spinach and then checking their mouth to make sure they swallowed. But if you're going to discourage such songs at Mass (which is fair), that doesn't mean you have to try to totally kill it off. That kind of crazy draconianism is a waste of time. Schmaltz is just as much a part of the true folk spirit as the most gorgeous masterpiece of devotional music is.

A book of devotional songs could be very nice. It would also show people what the CMAA thinks is a song for Mass, and what is not.

"Schmaltz is just as much a part of the true folk spirit as the most gorgeous masterpiece of devotional music is."

Of course schmaltz has its place - I'm all for "Roll Out the Barrel" or "Auld Lang Syne" at the appropriate moments; even some Christmas carols are "schmaltzy." (Actually, I would argue that folk music is never sentimental - notice how none of the examples above are true folk music, but that's an argument for another day.) I just think that sentimentality and devotion are really two different things. It's not a matter of forcing only somber music down people's throats or some sort of draconian church music police. It is about what Vatican II stated: ". . . let the faithful remember that true devotion does not consist in sterile and superficial sentiment . . ."

I'm not in favor of banning hymns or grabbing music from the hands of the faithful, but I hope everyone would agree that a hymnal is supposed to uphold *some* standards, and that this extends beyond the basic level of the orthodoxy of its texts.

Sam Schmitt

Ok, people. There is good schmaltz and bad schmaltz. BFOR is BAD shmaltz and has no place in the hymnal proposed on this site.


Donna

Decisions like this cannot be based on custom.

Otherwise we'll have to cater to the rising majority that truly believes that On Eagles Wings is the traditional entrance hymn for the funeral Mass.

Because the text is bad devotional poetry, and because the tune sounds like a music-hall song, the CMAA should not include it in a book published under the CMAA name.

However, if Noel or anyone wants to publish "The Book of Catholic Devotional Songs", it would be very appropriate to include BFOTR.

And despite its artistic imperfections, we should sing it at May crownings.

Kathy has made some excellent points about the historic importance of the PBEH.

In presenting these resources on line it is important to present what is in the PBEH separately and then followed by whatever else is included online.

I have a couple of Victorian books with Benediction hymns that are echt schmaltz. The CMAA has a wonderful opportunity to point the way forward with theologically sound, well-crafted texts and tunes of great merit.

Better May crowning hymns include Hail, Holy Queen, Salve Regina, and the Regina Caeli.

Kathy, we will usually have a May Procession after Mass to the statue with lots of Marian songs. When we get to the statue, we'll sing Bring Flowers (or other crowning hymn), then the Blessing of the Crown and the Crowning (silence), and then Salve Regina / Hail Holy Queen / Regina Coeli - which will get Father back to the sacristy.

I can, indeed, imagine your horror - and your dismay. Being forced to teach little children such rubish should fall into the category of corrupting youth, if not child (or mental) molestation. One does not, even yet, cease to be dumbfounded at what people will listen to, and perform (and force upon others), with a straight face - without so much as a smirk. (One would like to entertain the possibility that your girls had their tongues in their cheeks when they said 'O, that's wonderful... can we do it again?')

I just spent the morning listening to the 3rd-rate junk pushed by the "folk" music movement of the 1960s. I've never heard this early music of the modern pop movement before this morning. Bad doesn't describe it. It is jaw dropping in its shoddiness. One almost can't believe it. I'm not sure that this Flowers song is bad by modern standards, at least not in the same way. If you are unfamiliar with what I mean, I strongly encourage you to listen to Ken Canedo's podcasts. There is very interesting, if deeply painful, history here. And he is talking about the roots of what is mainstream in the missalettes today. I don't know how anyone could read this book and not feel deeply deeply embarrassed that this ever happened to the Catholic Church.

I seriously doubt that schmaltzy songs ruin taste for music. People who only like schmaltz were never going to like any other kind of music;

No, but what happens is bad music becomes associated with a good experience, and so even people who know better end up "liking" some piece of rubbish, and they perpetuate it.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Songs such as this are to genuine hymnody and spiritual song what the paintings of Thomas Kinkade are to the art of Michaelangelo or Rembrandt; what camp songs are to Bach or Tallis. Maureen is right: people will sniff stuff like this out if they must have it - let them not find it here. And G is also right: never ever should bad music or text be in any way associated with what otherwise would be a good experience. It is intellectually disorienting and spiritually demeaning.

BFOTR

Sounds like a young child's song to her mother, ala, 'Mother, I bring you these flower today.' This is a fine song, endearing, given this context, sung as a devotional, especially amongst children. My crank-o-meter has been working a little better than my schmaltzoid detector today. I would think we could make room for such a hymn, given the relative paucity of Marian devotionals that are truly well known. Short list, oddly enough.

I am just really amazed at the amount of dogmatism levied here, when hymns themselves are not the approved music for the liturgy, although allowed, of course. Maybe I should say, not the "preferred" music. In either case, I have not heard one hymn in my Byzantine church. I know, the hymn is preferred to the (Catholic) mod song, which is worse. But I just don't get all the hand wringing about this guileless, if musically unsatisfying (for some) piece. In judging music, as in people, I generally trust younger kids instincts, kids and dogs.

Hymns are supposed to be somewhat sentimental. I really don't understand the neuralgic response to Bring Flowers. It encourages piety by children. For a song that's sung once a year, it's remarkable how many people remember it and sing it well. As I mentioned earlier, there are other PD hymns that have more theological meat to them, and none of them have caught on, despite the best efforts of hymnal editors. That's not to exclude the possibility of something new, and vincentuher's idea is a good one.

As far as the comparison with Eagles Wings, I've never actually heard people humming or singing it outside of Mass--it has a lot of sixths and sevenths, even octaves, and an overly broad range (low A-high D). Is it designed for percussive accompaniment? The lyrics are fine and worthy of inclusion in any hymnal--just not for Funeral Masses as they have nothing to do with encouraging piety for the dead: it is a Psalm for the living. As St. Augustine says, "This Psalm is that from which the Devil dared to tempt our Lord Jesus Christ: let us therefore attend to it, that thus armed, we may be enabled to resist the tempter, not presuming in ourselves, but in Him who before us was tempted, that we might not be overcome when tempted." In the context of the funeral Mass, it seems to hint at a message of universal salvation. The appropriate place for this text in the Church's liturgy is the First Sunday of Lent, when the Gospel of the Temptation is read--we throw the Psalm back at Satan as we bravely start our fast.

Outside of the world of music aficionados, Bring Flowers is actually seen as a symbol of a return to orthopraxis, because it was typically suppressed along with all Marian devotions during the dark era when people were kicked out of churches for praying the Rosary. Many parishes have not held May Crownings in 40 years, despite the fact that even Church authorities started encouraging and formalizing the practice recently. So when a parish decides once again to accept the fact that their Mother is the Queen of the Universe and deserving of devotion in her images, Bring Flowers is brought out of storage and becomes a hymn of victory for those who held fast to Marian devotion over those who chose to prefer the heresies brought in by elitists.

"The reassurance of continuity" is a very profound point, Jeffrey. Thank you for that.

Kathy, are you opposed to the crowning of the image of Mary ... or do you mean the custom of singing this song at the May Crowning?

My point exactly, Jeffrey. There are plenty of things that "feel" old and provide that sense of continuity, which at the same time are theologically weighty, for example, Panis Anglelicus.

Jeffrey, I saw people with teary eyes by praise band or Haas' music at Mass also. Should they be also part of this 'reassuarnace of the continuity' for our next generation?

Once we begin to talk about hymns--a musical form that is not intrinsic to the Mass (and yes, of course I'm excluding "hymns" such as the Gloria)--we are cursed by questions of taste.

If the text is heretical or borderline, a hymn doesn't belong in the PBEH. If the music is clearly secular in form (rather obviously Haas, Haugen, and the like fall into this category as well as everything associated with the "praise band" phenomenon), it doesn't belong.

But that leaves quite a large gray area, and I suggest we should calmly acknowledge that.

I'm not wild about Bring Flowers of the Rarest, but I've sung it for May crownings at the request of my former music director, and if it's included in the hymnal, why should I have a fit?

If I don't want to sing the bloomin' thing, I won't program it. Is the church somehow damaged if someone else sings it? I don't think so.

I despise Amazing Grace and How Great Thou Art. Will I refuse to purchase PBEH if such things are included? No, I simply won't program them.

There is personal taste involved in these decisions, therefore we will never all be able to agree.

Can we not accept that each of us will not love every hymn in the book . . . and move on?

Perhaps I'm a philistine. I simply don't apply this standard to any other collection of music I possess. I doubt anyone else does either.

I haven't read the book, but I lived through that time. It's true that a handful of people undermined Catholic music. However, our inept and inattentive bishops allowed them to do it.