"My general impression is that this was yet another talented, earnest lady who was badly misled by progressive Catholics around her."

I'm not so sure she was misled. She was after all a major figure in the development of jazz. All the major personalities paid homage to her (Ellington, Gillespie, Armstrong, Monk, etc.). It was only natural that she express spiritual convictions in her natural language, jazz. The performance of her Mass in St. Patrick's Cathedral (1964?) still inspires debate (it comes up from time to time on the dot.commonweal blog). Those who see it as an exemplary example of valid stylistic liturgical diversity often tend, however, to overlook the obvious. She was a pro who surrounded herself with pros. This was not your run-of-the-mill parish praise band. In other words, it would be hard to duplicate.

Mary Lou Williams was from Pittsburgh, by the way. Pittsburgh was also hometown to Erroll Garner, another giant of the jazz piano. Makes me envy those folks attending the Colloquium.

I didn't mean to question the quality and interest of the compositions as music, or even as religious music. It's the wisdom of the pieces as liturgical music that I question. I mean, if conga drums at Mass were going to be a problem (and I can't see where this couldn't have been predicted), why wouldn't anybody advise her, "Ix-nay on the ums-dray"? And if drums were a problem with Mass A, why would you then proceed to write drums into Mass B? Was everybody just assuming that in a year or two, drums would be okay? (Actually... seeing it was the Sixties... they probably did think that. And I guess they were rihg)

That said, I was really really appalled by the Vatican thing. Why did they even invite her to present her Mass setting at all, if they weren't confident about the content being appropriate? Weird.

Re: not everybody's parish has famous jazz players, obviously everybody's parish doesn't have opera singers either. It's okay to aim your Mass at cathedrals or other major music centers, or possibly at great solemn occasions of national religious importance. If somebody wrote "Mass for those times when the Pope stops by your stadium", it wouldn't be crazy to do it. (Actually, given the weird acoustic situation in stadiums, it might be helpful if somebody wrote a Mass for Honking Big Stadium Masses.) But yeah, I would assume a composer would compose differently if he wanted to sell five zillion copies of the sheet music to every St. Normal's Catholic Church in the USA, than if he wanted to sell only to parishes with access to the musical forces of countertenors, bagpipes, and Chinese erhus.

I think the criticism that Mary Lou Williams was "misled" or "misguided" is unfair. Church authorities asked her to write the music knowing full well that she was the first lady of jazz and had been for a long time. The point I think Maureen could be missing is that no one was advocating for the widespread dissemination of her music in parishes nationwide. She led it from time to time while on tour, and that's about it. After she moved to Durham, NC, she led greatly pared down versions of it in a local African-American Jesuit parish (Holy Cross), but she could do it herself and didn't need to rely on all the extraneous musicians. In this parish she wasn't putting on a show to the extent that she was in larger venues. Her manager, by the way, was definitely very controlling and a "typical post-Vatican II Jesuit" if that means anything to anyone.

This entire discussion raises other important issues. First, African-American Catholicism experienced a revitalization--indeed, simply a "vitalization"--during and after Vatican II. Although some of the theological and liturgical invigoration of black Catholicism was heavily laced with progressive interpretations of the conciliar documents (and led to one radical separation from Rome altogether), much of it was a genuine attempt to determine how to bring the rich heritage of African-derived and African-American cultural forms to the table. It is hard to say, then, where Mary Lou Williams's music fits into the bigger picture. Most of it isn't suitable for run-of-the-mill liturgy, but neither is a lot of "acceptable" music out there. Jazz itself isn't "secular" per se, because it has strong roots in African and African-American spirituality. Does it fit our typically narrow definitions of sacred? Probably not, but most of us do not fully consider other cultural perspectives when laying out those definitions. For me, Mary Lou Williams's music should be a case study in larger discussions, not an item for easy dismissal.

Interestingly, when Mary Lou Williams was writing her sacred compositions, another African-American musician was coming at the problem of inculturation from a vastly different angle: Fr. Clarence Rivers. If you read Tammy Kernodle's notes carefully, she mentions Rivers's American Mass Program. Rivers and his supporters were advocating for musical inculturation using a blend of Gregorian chant and "bluesy" melodic formulas. The result is different, but quite striking. I transcribed and arranged some of the music from his LP for the Alleluia verse at my own wedding (the "God is Love" selection from 1 John 4). Unfortunately this music was forgotten because the split between "traditional" and "folk" happened so quickly that the question of how to compose "new," "good," and "appropriate" music became unimportant. One of the weaknesses of the CMAA, in my opinion, is that there is little advice for composers in this regard.

Lastly, I don't think there is a distinction between "art" and "suitable for liturgical use," because art is simply that which tends toward Beauty. Isn't the liturgy itself beautiful? I'm not saying Mary Lou Williams's music is art, suitable, or even beautiful (because the shrieking is really disconcerting), but I don't think the logic behind calling it "art" and therefore "not suitable" really holds. But maybe Chrism was being sarcastic.

Having just sung Haydn's "Lord Nelson Mass" this last Saturday night, Chrism's comment reverberates quite a bit within me. (And, yes, I've pondered the issue of the Viennese Mass as licit liturgical practice vis a vis Colloquium 09 and the articles in Sacred Music.)
No matter how devoted to God a composer is personally, no matter how sublime that reverence is revealed in the composition, if said opus draws the ear and soul in balance more towards its own ingenuity than towards an unambiguous connection to God, then we are going to perpetually have disagreements about the what's and why's of all musical settings meant to be "sacred."
Perhaps therein lies the wisdom of the Church's elevation of chant and worthy polyphony as the unambiguous models for musical expression at worship. Notice Yurodivi's citation of the Verdi; would the same questions arise if the setting chosen for a requiem Mass was penned by Faure or Durufle?

"And if so, isn't culture important? Many times I read from the proponents of Gregorian chant that the Church is supra-cultural or transcends culture, but this attitude neglects the theology of Incarnation altogether."

Dr. Shadle, could you expound a little further on your last phrase, "neglects the theology of Incarnation altogether?"
Thank you.

Welcome to the forum, Dr. Shadle (as you are a new user).

Dr. Shadle,

agreed! We should definitely encourage composers. Music did not stop being valid when the calendar turned over 1600, as some directors seem to think. I also agree that chant need not be the only music, just the first choice. Since what we are doing in most American churches is making Option Four the default setting.

This summer I may submit a piece or two of my "stealth chant" for the New Music reading session at the Colloquium. The pieces are contemporary in style, but contain harmonized Psalm tones. The idea is not new; it's been done many times. But in my case it is the best way for the camel to get his nose under the tent. People hear, learn and sing chant (at least Psalm tones) without knowing it's "good for them."

It seems important that the Williams works were commissioned by Church authorities, most notably Msgr. Joseph Gremillion, secretary for the Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace. Most of the documents you posted emphasize that lack of episcopal approval was the crux of the matter at the time. Perhaps Gremillion was the wrong kind of authority...

Also, the only stipulation given to Williams (to my knowledge) was that she use approved liturgical texts--style being entirely secondary. The question of style that Bugnini so blithely painted as black and white in the press conference is treated with much more subtlety in the document. What makes jazz (which/whose jazz, at that) "obviously" profane or unfit to express the power of prayer? Clearly Bugnini had concrete ideas, but he was not looking at the issue from an "Afrocentric" perspective, as it would later be called.

Not trying to argue any one position here, but raising issues related to the documents.

I totally agree with you (hence the ellipsis) but money talks.