We must remember that the "Society for a Moratorium on the Music of Marty Haugen & David Haas" was set up for legitmate reasons. We ought not hold temptation to betray these honourable motives ment to attempt to safeguard our Church from heresy.

Charity, which is one of the best of the theological virtues must also be balanced with a healthy fear of the seven grievous sins, namely PRIDE, GREED, and Envy. These three have been shown in some of the practices of major music publishers, such as OCP.

It all depends what exactly David Haas wants to talk about..
whether he acknowledges these the pride of place of plainchant and polyphony and value of our "received liturgical patrimony" over that which is recently created would be a good condition to whether or not he is worthy of being reconciled.

If he can agree to some extent with the below statements, he may be worthy of reception.
_____________________________________________
Nine Reasons for the Adoption
of Plain-song (Gregorian Chant)

by Thomas Helmore

These chants should be used for the following reasons:—

1. Because they are more devotional.

2. Because Plain-Song is undoubtedly the music that fits
most exactly the prose texts of both the Bible and the liturgy.
All other types of music impose formal, metrical and rhythmical
schemes upon these texts, alien to their nature, while chant shows
itself the most suitable music for the delivery of such liturgical texts.

3. Because chanting is musical reading,
and whereas in other music tense is made subservient to sound,
in these each word receives its proper emphasis.

4. Because Plain-Song is the only music in which
learned and unlearned, men, women, and children,
can join with ease and without distraction of mind, and so

5. Ensures hearty response from the congregation
aud greater decency and solemnity in the service of God.

6. Because it prevents the use of florid or secular music and chants,
and in their stead offers something grand,
majestic, simple, and satisfying.

7. Because it guards the officiating clergy and choir,
from temptation to display, and from personal peculiarities.

8. Because these chants have been used from very early ages
in chanting the psalms; some say from the time of King David,
certainly early in the history of Christianity.

9. Because the only basis of a reform of Church music
(which is much needed) is the restoration of Plain-Song,
on the grounds of authority, antiquity, and reason.
_______________________________________________

"The present liturgical chaos in the Western Church is due in no small part to the emphasis that Latin Christians have always placed on dogma, with the consequent tendency to regard the liturgical texts as a mere locus theologicus, a means to an end, rather than a living source of doctrinal truth. Thus orthodoxia, which originally meant ‘right worship’, gives way to orthopistis ‘right believing’, or orthodidascalia ‘right teaching’.45 When taken to the extreme, this exclusive emphasis on the rational culminates in that heresy which rejects the living components of tradition in favour of the written records of the Early Church, the Bible and Patristic writings, and which we know as Protestantism and full-blown Jansenism. The rejection of the liturgical tradition thus implies a rejection of the Church itself."
________________________________________________
"Such is the frailty of human nature that involuntarily and without even suspecting it, people are taking on the tastes, fashions, language and idiom of the country and age in which they live… Our century is the age of Anglomania. It is the dominant strain in the agnostic movement, which rails against the superstition of the populace, the credulity of the devout, the excesses of the cult of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, the despotism of the Pope, the neglect of Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers, and so on. They would deprive religion of all its flesh if they could, leaving just the skeleton. To this end they abolish, polish, simplify, reduce to nothing the little that has been preserved."

I will agree however that the same propers must exist in BOTH neumes and modern notation.

In my vespers booklets for the major feasts I know put all music in both notations.
It bridges the divide. Both have a place.
Neumes are ideal, Modern is the gateway to bring in the newcomer.

Seconded

Yes, to FNJ! and Yes to Charles.
Chris- you have a right to say whatever you want (it's a free country and all that), but you're not helping.
Also not helping is the following:
You're nine reasons above are good, but my Ten Reasons are better.

Back to helpful:
David is sincere. David is talented. David is HUGELY influential.
This seems like someone you'd want to be sympathetic towards the cause(s) of CMAA. Let's not run him off.

Adam, I like your 10 reasons. Although my church is the "traditional" parish in town - whatever that means - I still operate in a mixed culture of chant and good quality music from mostly Anglican sources. I am fine with that, and find Gregorian-chant-only-purists so extreme that I can't tolerate them, either. If there is ever a chant revival, these are the folks who will actually kill it, not GIA.

Yup. Up with genuine dialog, charity (online and offline), and up with moving forward!
Good reminders, Charles and all. Growing pains are most often mitigated with lots of humor and lots of charity. And doing our part however God calls us.

While I am not a member of CMAA, I do have misgivings about any dialogue with Mr. Haas and doubt that it will lead to anything constructive. I come here to seek out avenues other than what the Big Three subject us to Sunday in and Sunday out. With all due respect to the folks posting here, Mr. Haas has played a huge role in what is so bad about music in the Mass today. I have been reading some of Mr. Haas' commentary on the Pray Tell blog and do not believe that he has really changed his position on things.

However, Jeffrey, there are some times when even dialogue will not help. A lot of damage has been done and a lot of damage continues to wreak havoc. It just seems to me that all of the dialogue in the world will probably not change Mr. Haas' mind, let alone his compositions.

Right, I mean, the idea isn't to change anyone's mind. I'm not some naive "dialoguist" in the goofy way, as if a compromised consensus is nirvana. The idea is to improve and learn from engagement in a civil way. We should all have enough confidence to do that.

I think it won't be possible to actually determine whether the dialogue will be beneficial until we have gotten past that question. So I'm really in favor of moving forward and giving it a good try.

Donnaswan, my late mother, whose death anniversary is this coming Friday, said that I have a hard head.

It's just that I am so tired of all of the bad music. Mr. Haas is responsible for part of it, as are Haugen, Kanebo, Fr. Manolo, Bernadette Ferrel, the SLJ and Bob Hurd. Haas has even taken liberties with the official texts of the prayers. It's hard to engage in dialogue with someone who seems to think that he can do whatever he pleases with the texts of the Church. It's as though the documents do not matter to the composers, let alone the publishers. Forgive me, but, I just do not trust him.

I will have something to say, but I am going to compose it carefully. I have been prayerfully thinking of this since this thread appeared.

Hello friends...

Let me make this easier for you all. I started to peek in on the conversations here and at Chat Cafe (after taking part in Pray Tell for a bit longer), a while back - mostly after meeting Jeffrey Tucker in Atlanta this past August for the diocesan conference there, and having some nice time together with other colleagues. I never intended to be a center point of discussion AT ALL. I am a liturgical musician, and everything in this ministry fascinates me, and I want to learn about it. I wish that I would have used a different name, because when my name comes up, all kinds of emotions rise to the surface. I just wanted to join in these conversations, learn something, add my 2 cents from time to time, and see what would happen. I never intended to be a lightning rod for so many.

Jeffrey and a couple of others there have elevated my importance far more than it deserves. And others here, I would also say, have bashed me and the work that I do more than I deserve. But that is not the point. I never asked for some sort of "summit" where parties come together, and see where one bends and where another may not. That has come from Jeffrey and others here. The internet, and blogs in particular is a peculiar way of having conversations - you cannot see the other person, and one can just dump what they feel and there it is. I am such a "people" person - I like seeing them in eye, and talking back and forth. I like debate, but I do not care for the way in which some feel that they have to completely discard the other persons work and right them off. I am not just talking about here, believe me, there are folks in the "contemporary-folk" (whatever you want to call them) who can be just as intolerant, and at times, cruel about folks such as some are here. Read some of the rhetoric here, friends, about what people have said about me. "benedictgal" says that I cannot be trusted. This person also says I compose and represent "bad" music, and that I am partly responsible for the awful state of affairs in liturgical music these days, and also, that "David Haas" could not possibly "change his mind" about the matters that are important to some people here, so I really should not be engaged at all (even though I really never asked for that, I just wanted to take part in some of these discussions). I am getting the impression that some here have sort of subtly hoped that maybe, we can "convert" David Haas to our way of thinking, whatever that may be. Others have decided that it is a hopeless cause.

Let me state the record to be clear. I did not come here to be "changed." I did come and participate, because I like to learn, be stretched and challenged. I have to say honestly, that I have learned some things here. But I have also been insulted, vilified, accused of financial opportunism and having strategies to somehow de-value the quality of liturgy and sung prayer in the church. I am sure that some of you have experienced the same treatment in other circles from people whom you want to associate me with. I can say, I have not done so.. I have been critical, shared my opinion, challenged some stances here and on Chant Cafe, but I have never accused anyone of wrong motives or intent. While I may not embrace it fully, and may have some questions and concerns, I have publicly applauded here the SEP project and similar efforts. I try to promote and celebrate a wide palette of musical genres, and I teach workshop attendees and others (including the young people who come to the "Music Ministry Alive" program that I direct each summer) about the importance of recognizing, honoring, and employing the music of our tradition, which includes chant, polyphony and other aspects of the "musical treasury." I also am a passionate advocate for the participation of a singing assembly, and for an diverse landscape of musical styles that I believe do respect the inner fabric of liturgy, ritual action, and prayer. And I guess this, for some here (not all) these two things make me untrustworthy to engage in any dialogue here.

I am not trying laud myself here, but I came to these blogs in good faith, trying to just simply, hear and learn and try to understand viewpoints that sometimes I do not always understand or agree with. Some of you have written that Pray Tell has not treated some of you with the respect you have deserved. That is too bad, if that is the case, and it is not my place to disagree, if that is what has really happened for some of you. But look at some of the rhetoric that has been aimed at me, not just personally (which does hurt, I will admit), but far more importantly, but at literally hundreds or more of other people who work in the vineyard who hold similar values - not just composers and publishers, but the people who struggle in their parishes, and who belong to choirs, and who play what some of you believe to be instruments that are profane (pianos and guitars and percussion and saxophones). These are good people, who invest and share their gifts out of their love of God and the people whom they serve. You do not have to like the music, but the people who do this music which so many of you vilify, deserve better treatment.

I appreciate Jeffrey and a couple of others here who are trying to say, "let's have some conversations together" in a respectful manner. Maybe, just maybe, that is possible. Just yesterday I read one of the introductory threads about "ettiquette" on this blog, and standards of behavior. I suggest that some may need to read it again. There are better, more adult ways to have these conversations.

I would like to move forward.. but I have to say, would any of you want to be part of a blog where a good number of people think that YOU are part and parcel of the reason why things are so awful? Would you want to be part of a blog, where people who do not know you personally, have decided that you are not trustworthy? Even though I disagree with things that I see posted here, there are things in which I agree, and regardless of the percentages one way or the other, I believe you all believe that what you are doing and the approaches you take are being true to the spirit of your ministry. It is too bad that many of you do not think I, and many others in "my camp" so to speak, have the same heart.

Here is the thing - it is obvious that this blog and ChantCafe are places where many of you can come and learn together, share common goals and values, and support each other in your work. Obviously for many here, I am a distraction and get in the way of that, and have become a trigger for anger and judgment. You really do not need me - and that is fine. And I do not really want to keep coming back to a place where many believe I am the devil.

So maybe I need to "withdraw" my name from whatever role Jeffrey and a couple of others think I am supposed to play here (I really never sought out any specific or unique role)> I did not come here for that, nor is it necessary for you all in your ministry and work.

I am thankful to you who have been trying to reach out to "me" and what I represent. Maybe we find some times for "face to face" meetings, where such a conversation can be more fruitful. But I think it may be time for me to step away.

God bless you all in your ministry and work.

From MaryAnn: "Again, I would stress that we can communicate with others and their opposing views, call out problems, and work to solve them"

I think that the less that we can do this, the less relevant we and the music we support are to the wider Church.

I'm sad that a few extremists with decades-old emotional baggage had to damage what could have been a very fruitful dialog.

I think everyone might enjoy this post. It was sort of difficult to write, and it took a long time to think through all of this. See what you think. In any case, it seeks to deal with present realities.

David-

I've been one of your defenders here and elsewhere (to the extent you need one... I'm sure you would say that you don't). I've also been critical of some of your work, such comments I hope you take in good faith (and know that I expect the same level of respectful criticism of my own work).

On the one hand, it is sort of funny and weird that your presence has become this lightning rod for discussion. On the other, how can you blame anyone? You are, sir, a force to be reckoned with. Whether you appreciate/like/accept the role or not, you represent an entire genre of music. Some love it (I do! I do!), some hate it (benedictgal, among others). Your name is almost synonymous with Contemporary, folk-inspired liturgical music. Your music (along with Jeannie Cotter's arrangements from back in the day) taught my brother how to play piano, taught me to sing, and taught a whole generation of Catholics a particular way of thinking about music and liturgy. The CMAA, for the most part, disagrees with that way of thinking. (Several members here balk at the very notion of using a piano at Mass, let alone any particular style or piece).

My point is: You can't wish away your influence, or your brand name. And I'm glad you came here under your own name and not a pseudonym. Perhaps you could have learned more about chant or the propers or something if you just hung around anonymously, but that wouldn't contribute very much. It may be frustrating to spend time around so many people who don't care for your work, who hurl accusations at you, who seek to eradicate your contribution to the Catholic faith. Believe me, I know. I also know that you probably have a lot of better things to do than spend time on an internet forum, regardless of the participants. But please: the people here, especially the "haters," need a reminder that behind the catalog and the bylines is a real person with a real faith and a sincere desire to serve God and God's people.

Perhaps you can take a cue from our mutual friend, Fr. Ruff. He's not exactly a regular around here, but he manages to pop in at just the right time, usually under two circumstances:
1. When a scholarly question comes up that he happens to be able to contribute an answer to.
2. When the attacks on PrayTell escalate to the point that a gentle reminder that there is a real person over there (a priest, no less) is in order.

I'm sure your breadth of knowledge and experience could come to bear on questions here from time to time (your opinions on some of the new texts and compositions that are previewed here would be very much appreciated, I'm sure), and a specific answer to some of the criticism, when it occurs, would at least be welcome by me.

So....
I'm hoping you won't run off just yet.

God bless.





PS-
Please write a contemporary-styled cycle of propers. It is badly needed.

Many years ago in a graduate seminar the noted theologian Richard Niebuhr made a casual comment to me which I've never forgotten. "You always learn the most from those you argue against." It was an adage that has served me well. Acknowledging its truth often helps me contain troublesome inclinations that lean toward arrogance.

As one who must grudgingly admit he's now over 60, it's obvious that today's technology has diminished safeguards against public incivility. Accountability no longer seems a virtue. You see it in the ways news is now reported. Everything is agenda driven and no one is interested in hearing opposing voices. A Harry Reasoner could not make it as a journalist today (though the gentlemanly Jim Lehrer comes close). With public personalities daily demonstrating an absence of restraint, it should not surprise that blog comments can so quickly veer into the gutter.

There is no reason to be forlorn however. I've followed the conversations on this web site for some time now and there always seems to be someone who voices a rebuke when things start to get out of hand. It gives one hope that in the end the wise heads really do prevail.

i think the responces in this thread have for the most part been wonderful and shows that the vast majority of folks here at cmaa would seriously welcome dialogue with david haas and others.
adams responce particularly says it all.
Mr. Haas, I know for a fact that the best of your music works beautifully within catholic worship and works well with chant and polyphony.It is a perminant part of the churches patrimony. I do your music pretty much every week and i must say, my choir does it very very well.
However, please take criticisms here seriously. many of us are musicians in the trenches fighting to do whats right every week. When (through limited fault of your own) your music arrives in sloppy editions with sloppy undefensable part writing mistakes and when , strapped for time, we have to take the time and correct (or figure out) what on earth you ment to do with such as sloppy product then we might get a little testy.
I think its fair to say that you (like all of us) havent always given your best to the Lord. Unlike the rest of us, when you choose to say "good enough for church work" it has a definate immediate and negative impact on literally millions of people.
You, for millions, define what sacred music is. That is a huge responsibility that makes products like OCP's choral praise adaption of" we are called" (for example) simply unacceptable. and when i see you at top form (as in some of your excellent psalms for the church year) i simply cannot understand how you can allow (or defend) such sloppy and unacceptable basic theory mistakes. (and dont go off on the "style" thing. these mistakes have nothing to do withg style, there just sloppy.)
I think it would be a great and humble gesture on your part if you would simply acknowlege that fact and try harder to follow (and show more concideration for) our common musical language. .

Benedictgal,

About the tinkering with texts: Mr Haas is not the source of the problem. As has been noted often and elsewhere, it's been a practice long encouraged by the publishers to deal with copyright issues, issues that many people here complain about. It doesn't make it right, but the "agenda" involved in tinkering with texts has its primary source in copyright avoidance.

Jeffrey

Thanks for the confirmation & validation on this point.

Just because the wrong words are in the score does not mean you have to sing them!

Here is the solution:

"Choir, take out your pencils and mark the following changes . . . " and correct the errors on the spot. This helps because a) you don't have to do every copy yourself and b ) you educate the choir members about what is wrong and why it has to be corrected.

Considering that Pope Benedict has shown himself willing to dialogue with people who disagree with him -- i.e., with anyone from Hans Kung or Oriana Fallaci to Muslim imams -- people who like to take inspiration from the Holy Father could do well to imitate his example.

Still, I can understand someone deciding, "I don't want to dialogue with a certain person, because I don't think it will produce any benefit to anyone."

I do not understand someone saying the same thing in order to discourage other people from talking with him.

JDE:

My mother died of ovarian cancer 17 years ago on January 7, 1994. I do see the problem of bad music for the Mass as a symptom of a deep cancer infecting the liturgy. What we say/proclaim/sing at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is just as important as how we pray. When these things start seeping into the Mass, there is cause for concern, real concern. For me, this forum has been a welcome oasis because at least there are those who recognize that a real problem exists.

Excessively long musical introductions to the parts of the Mass that sound like something from a Broadway musical or some sort of a concert, responsorial Glorias, tinkering with the Agnus Dei are things that I have been subjected to for a very long time. Sadly, this has come from the pens/computers of a few composers. Parishes buy into this stuff because of the marketing done by the publishers. There is no quality control here.

Are you allowed to change words of the text that is copyrighted when you use it in public?

But how can you change the words that printed in everyone's hymnal?