There is a voice in my head saying: “David, don’t do this.. leave it alone.. you already have said goodbye… just let it go.”

But there are some things that have been said since my last post, that I must respond to:

1) First of all – thanks to you dear ones who have tried to convince me to “stay” so to speak. Some of you have been very kind, and felt you needed to defend and advocate for my presence here. Thanks for that – but it is not necessary. I do not need to be defended. I did NOT come to this blog or Chantcafe to be affirmed, validated, or be noticed beyond anyone else. I am not asking for permission to be OK for who I am, what I do, and what I may or may not represent. But thanks all the same for your kindness, and for what now be some strong indignation to you from others here for the courage to believe that “David Haas” is worthy to be here.

2) To Michael O’Connor: Actually, much of the bile HAS been directed at me, but that is not the point. You say that you are frustrated with those who will not “countenance the possibility that chant or art music…even has a place in Catholic Worship.” Take a deep breath, and listen to this.. what about you (or others here) – can YOU countenance the possibility that music OTHER than chant or art music has a place in Catholic Worship? This goes both ways. I share your frustration with those who reject chant – I have said it before, and will say it again – I challenge them with the very same question, and constantly try to challenge them to honor and be true to the music and prayer of our tradition, so I get your frustration. But what about their frustration (and mine as well) with people who are like many here on this blog, who assert that there is NO place for them? People have been saying, right here on this blog, that my music and the music that I represent has no place, that we are all that is wrong with church music and the liturgy today? How can you expect these people who frustrate you (and me) to even make an inch toward your stance, when you say that the purpose of this forum is to put us “out of work?” How can you say such a thing, and at the same time wonder why we do not “countenance” your stance?

3) To don roy: I DO take criticism very seriously. I have colleagues, mentors, fellow music directors and editors who critique and evaluate my work. FYI, “We Are Called” as it appears in the OCP publication you cite, is not mine.. meaning, I composed this as a unison piece, and others have done the choral writing for this and other publications. You are asking me to make a “humble gesture” on my part and acknowledge my shortcomings as a composer and “try harder.” Well, I certainly can recognize that there are pieces that I have written long ago, and when looking back, wished that I would have pulled it back and worked on it some more; there are other pieces that today I would not have published. I accept that and admit that. I try to keep learning and growing in my craft, even after some 30 years of composing. I accept your challenge (which not unique to the discussion here), that I always have much to learn, and I want to continue to grow as a liturgical composer. Maybe I have not always given my best “to the Lord” as you say. But that is not for you to say. Now in the same vein, I would ask you this, and I am not saying this to you specifically, because I am not sure, but for others here I would have no problem with this challenge to them: How about some humble gestures on the part of some people hear to “simply acknowledge” that they are musical snobs?

4) to bendictgal: you have every right to stand by what you have written, and the tone by which you chose to express those thoughts. I hope it serves you well. I would love to know what texts you believe I have “tinkered” with? In regards to settings of the Order of Mass, I have NEVER “tinkered” with the official texts. Even if I wanted to (and I do not), we would not have permission to do either as a composer, and the publisher would not have permission to do so either. If you are talking about psalmody, yes, I (and dozens of other composers from Fr. Deiss, Fr. Gelineau, Richard Proulx to the most profane of some of us) have created paraphrases, which has been the case for years with publishers. I presume that you (and I know it is the case with many others here) have to respect for the US Bishop’s document, “Sing to the Lord,” but since it is penned as guidelines from our bishops, I would suggest you read paragraph #158, where it clearly lines out paraphrases as a valid approach to utilizing the psalms in worship. I would agree that some composers need to engage in better study and exegetical work before adapting some of these texts – some do it better than others. But the US Bishops approve such practice. But maybe you are not talking about the psalms.. I would like to know which texts you are referring to, SPECIFICALLY, not just a general appraisal.

Finally – you believe that the work I do is a “cancer.” I would say to the rest of you reading this – why should I remain part of a blog that believes this about me and many of my colleagues?

5) To Liam and Jeffrey, especially Jeffrey. I know you have tried to explain this to people until you are “blue in the face” but I have to say to you and everyone else reading this right here and right now – you are WRONG. This is false, it is a lie, and it borders on libel. Your quote: “Publishers are very open with composers on this: please change the text just enough so that we don’t have to pay royalties and therefore lose money.” I am sorry – this is irresponsible to say, and to write about it publicly. I am sorry – but I know more about this than you do. NEVER in my entire history with GIA Publications, and I will state this on behalf of every composer in their catalog – NEVER have we been told anything close to this, either overtly or covertly. I would be willing to bet with absolute assurance the same is true for the editorial leadership of OCP and WLP as well. This really steams me… they do not say such things, and to suggest so is to me, represent a misplaced anger and enter into the world of the most dangerous fiction. So again, I ask myself… do you really want people like “me” to be a part of this blog, when you suggest such things?

I just cannot believe some of the things I read here. Among the people like “me”, there are not many would dare come and visit with you all.. I tried… do not expect others to come. The internet I believe, can be a positive thing in our ministry, but it also can be dangerous…

I know myself too well – I cannot say that this will be my last “post” because I have already violated my resolve here. I hope it will be my last one, because I feel it is not healthy for me to continue.

Here is a challenge to you all, and I believe it should come from you, not me. Have the courage to sponsor an event with representatives from this group, and invite an equal number of heretics like me.. and let’s have an honest, face to face dialogue.. one where we have to look each other in the eye, and communicate in some healthy and adult ways. If someone here wants to organize something like that.. man, I am there. Forgive me if I am pessimistic of such a prospect.

As I said in my earlier post – I started to visit this blog and ChantCafe because as a liturgical musician, everything in this field fascinates and interests me. I came to learn from those different in some ways than myself – to be stretched and be challenged, and to learn. It is obvious that many here wish I and others like me would go away – again, as Michael O’Connor said – for many of you, your vocation is to run people like me out of town. Some are hoping that my presence here would result in a “conversion” to see the light in accordance with their stance. Some also believe that to have me a part of this discussion would be dangerous, and that I cannot be trusted. Many of you continue to ask me to admit things, to challenge myself about my weakness and shortcomings. Any hopes for conversion among any of you about your stances on things? I doubt it.

I will leave you with this… this all seems so sad to me, because it makes our God, our faith, and our church so small. I believe in a God that does more than just tolerate, but actually celebrates the grand diversity of expressions that offer praise: chant, polyphony, the great classical masses, choral motets, traditional hymnody, folk, pop, rock, jazz, the great gospel songs and spirituals of the African American tradition, the wonderful music from non-western countries and ethnic traditions; the music from Asia and the Pacific, and so much more… to many to mention. I believe boldly as you do, that the patrimony of our tradition, namely chant needs to be worked on, promoted and diligently utilized. But I also believe (and sorry folks, there is a large population not only in leadership, but among the people in the pews) that we are Pilgrim Church, where God is being revealed in many, diverse, fresh and creative ways… many of them believe that these two “worlds” can not only find room for each other, but is necessary for us to worship in “spirit and truth.” We also believe unabashedly in the nurturing and empowerment of a strong singing assembly.

Enough.. sorry for these “tomes.” Brevity is not my gift. I know that many of you are getting ready to throw the pies at me… God bless…

For what it's worth (which isn't much), I too would like to see you stay, David. You've shown yourself to be a knowledgeable man with liturgy and music, with well-articulated positions. That these challenge the rest of us just makes your presence all the more necessary.

I would like to respond to your point for "Benedictgal", although I offer no apology for her tone or statements. Simply a matter of fact: "I would love to know what texts you believe I have “tinkered” with? In regards to settings of the Order of Mass, I have NEVER “tinkered” with the official texts. Even if I wanted to (and I do not), we would not have permission to do either as a composer, and the publisher would not have permission to do so either." What readily comes to mind is the Mass of Light refrain: "Glory to God in the highest, sing glory to God..."

Is this change (the addition of the word "sing", and the possible extra clause) not what one could call "tinkering with the Order of Mass", and thus forbidden in musical settings and publications?

I honestly don't think this is remotely important to anything; I'm just curious whether this had crossed your mind as an example of what she's talking about.

Gavin and Jahaza - sure, I guess if want to call these "tinkering," you can. In both cases, at the time that they were composed, what was then called the BCL (Bishop's Committee on the Liturgy) approved both. Does one think that this "tinkering" was really that abusive? If this is what "benedictgal" is talking about, that I am guilty.

To ease your pain.. in the revision of "Mass of Light" which just came out this past week, and all other future mass settings (revised and new) these "tinkerings" are no longer allowed... you will notice that the two items mentioned are now changed to not be "tinkered."

Charles is correct. In my early days I was taking liberties in the same kind of things. With age comes wisdom. The Bishops allowed all kinds of erroneous practices. If you read the American documents on music in liturgy you will see a progression towards good practices from the earlier ones that were quite troublesome.

including one that alternates Latin with English

Is this not allowed?

I don't want to debate the point that David makes about text. I have no doubt that he is telling what's true as he sees it. I can only say that I haven't made this up about the text (having heard it directly from GIA composers even) and what's more I would completely defend using alternate translations, insofar as it is licit to do so, in order to avoid royalties. I think we should just let this drop so that I don't have to go into more detail here.

Don and IanW,

this is exactly why (even though he was an execrable human being) Irving Berlin is my hero as a businessman. He left an estate valued around $150,000,000 because he never sold a single song: he only sold licenses.

Most composers today do not have the clout or leverage to do that - if you look at the pieces you buy from G.I.A. or OCP, you will note that the publishers are the copyright holders - not the composers. Not even David Haas, although he is well known and accomplished, has the power to keep his own copyrights.

But Don, what I'm trying to tell you is that the composers lose control over their works when they are sold. The publishers can besmirch your name with shoddy arrangements, treacly descants, and whatever else they want. Even if the composer is famous. That is a complaint to address to the publisher, not to the composer.

you are right of course jde but i still cant help and think haas could do something. as it is shame on ocp for letting such gross incompitence get published. (i am of course talking about the arrangement rather than the tune itself) if nothing else, a disavowel by haas would be in order at the very least.

Adam W, I seem to recall that a "macaronic" setting (alternating languages between Latin and vernacular) is specifically forbidden in the GIRM, but I can't find the citation immediately. Anybody else know this off the top of the head?

It would be a great shame if macaronic settings were to be forbidden; they can bear testimony to the hermeneutic of continuity.

Don, I looked up that video and was seriously amazed by your skill. Not just because of your disability, but that is also some incredible playing! Your parish is very lucky.

gaven
comming from you that is high praise indeed! thank you.

james
my pinkie would certainly be up if I had one. ;)

don roy:
I just watched your video. That isn't a pinky?

Ignore the point. That's fine.

Adam, I am not ignoring the point. The bishops voted on the document only after they were told that it was not going to Rome. From what I have read in other sources, it seems that the NPM lobbied heavily against a stronger version of the document that would have brought us into conformity with the authoritative liturgical documents.

I'm sorry that one person was so vociferously against talking with David Haas; I think it would have been worthwhile to get his comments, ask him questions, seek answers, and clarify views.

I'd ask about this. In his comments above, Mr. Haas wrote:

we are Pilgrim Church, where God is being revealed in many, diverse, fresh and creative ways…

Using the word revealed here may have been a mistake, since that word has an important meaning in theology. We Catholics believe -- in fact, our faith holds as a supreme truth -- that God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ, and that this revelation is full, definitive, and complete and can never be surpassed or improved.

The Second Vatican Council summarized this basic teaching in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum: the Christian covenant "will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ." (para. 4)

Now, what is possible? There may be new ways for the Church to express the revelation God has given; there may be new insights that we as individuals can discover through contemplating God's revelation in Jesus Christ. But if someone speaks of new revelation, they are offering something that is impossible to Catholics -- a pretense.

Is it possible that God is being revealed now in diverse, fresh, and creative ways? No. That's an exaggerated claim. He has already revealed himself fully, and we in 2011 are not so privileged as to get some new revelation that our forebears didn't have in 1911. This isn't the Age of Aquarius.

I'm going to assume that Mr. Haas just didn't choose his words well. If he really believed such dreamy talk about new revelation, that wouldn't be bridging differences among Catholics; it would be exacerbating them.

Uh, in the immortal (gender altered) lyric of Hall and Oates, B-Gal, "He's gone, he's gone."
You're edifying your argument into airspace. If you feel better for that, good on ye.
We, adherants to the paradigm, are yet and still impoverished by wasting a great opportunity to share, first, and then persuade "Mr. Haas" of the fraternity we proclaim in the credo, and then listen to his voice without prejudice.
This whole episode stands in stark and embarrassing contrast to the courtesy and manners I am experiencing now at CMAA intensive in NO, and every colloquium I've attended. I only say this because I cannot abide the descent into petty polemics that are rampant in our culture, society, government. and our churchly institutions, especially the noble CMAA.
He's gone. Move on.

It's not just on the internet....

I think it's arbitrary to speculate about a person's motives like that, Noel, but I am very disappointed at the member who seemed to take it upon herself to decide for the rest of us that there should be no dialogue, and didn't merely opt out of it personally, but posted complaint upon bitter complaint, to the point of insult. Such an approach does not reflect that of the CMAA.

Oh for crying out loud.

I have, until now, chosen to stay out of the fray as I have a rather unhappy reputation of being more direct than conventional wisdom and popular prejudices regarding charity and political correctness favor.

Having said that, I offer the following observations and comments that I think are germane to the issue at hand.

I am aware of, and fully appreciate, the motivations on the part of many who regularly contribute to the discussions on the forums. They wish to be friendly, inviting and charitable to those, like Haas, whose ideologies are demonstrably on the progressive side of the spectrum. We do not wish to become the very thing we dislike or even detest about the character of many of the progressives - dismissive, arrogant, unbending ideologues. Unfortunately, there is a serious risk of becoming disingenuous if we cannot say in clear terms, "this is what we stand for, and this is why," while at the same time being polite about it. It is the ideas and philosophies to which we strenuously object, not the people who advance them.

Haas repeatedly insisted that he desired dialogue, an opportunity to learn what we were all about, and to have an adult exchange of ideas while making it abundantly clear that he operated from a paradigm alien to the core principles of the CMAA. I have no doubt that Haas has spent his entire career quite sincerely stressing how important “the people” are, making music an inseparable element of their collective identity, developing his understanding and perception of a "diverse musical landscape" and investing his deepest convictions on the importance and centrality of the people and their music, built on his respect for the “inner fabric” of liturgy, ritual and prayer. However, it becomes difficult to engage in fruitful dialogue with people like Haas, whose ideology is decidedly subjective, and based on a construct of carefully developed terms, cliches and ideologies that he deftly applies to the discussion. It is easy to understand how some, who derive their understanding based on terms defined by the Church and drawn from Tradition may view his desire for dialogue with suspicion and skepticism, and it becomes easier to understand why Haas takes it personally. Like his view of liturgical music which makes the people its central focus, his constructs are as personally connected to him as they are to the subject they seek to circumscribe.

I think that while dialogue is certainly an admirable goal, and charity is important (especially if trying to "win friends and influence people"), we must approach it with the understanding that progressive ideologues like Haas will soldier on, dismissing our cause or our efforts, like the Simple English Propers project, by constantly challenging its value through the prism of self-referencing philosophies, odd pseudo-theological constructs (such as “sonic theology” or the notion of an “inner fabric” of liturgy), and application of “Swiss cheese” readings of the documents.

While we may fear that some will be "turned off" by directness, there are also those who are understandably confused by the conflict between the principles of the CMAA, grounded in a long-established examination of the whole of the documents within the context of the history of the Church and the writings of the Curia and the Popes, and those of Haas and others who promote and advance a progressive world view. Some may also be in danger of being easily beguiled by the outward “reasonableness” of the highly convoluted philosophies and "super-dogmas" developed and advanced by the progressives. True duty to charity calls upon us to inform and instruct, because the philosophies and theologies of the progressives do not just influence liturgy and music, but the very beliefs of those who subscribe to them. This is no small or easy task, if this present experience is any measure.

Very well said David. B-gal has said (very objectively) the precepts that we all try to follow. It is a very black and white issue for many of us, for some more gray, but definitely more toward the objective of seeking out and employing the traditions and wishes of the Curia. That does not fare well in the face of those who do not care to do so. It takes all of our energy day in and day out to grasp at the ideal, much less make it a reality in our parish.

I would like to have had a discussion with Mr. Haas, but he needs to be able to hear us without feelings being involved. Discussing principles of sacred music is a very sticky business this day and age, especially because the table is turning hard and fast, and he has everything invested in what has gone on for the past forty years. I feel for him greatly and I pray that he will continue to learn and grow about what our Church desires and what music is appropriate for the liturgy. God bless David Haas, and all his confreres.

I support all the comments cited by BenedictGal.