Is the liberal folk-mass boy turning into a snarky traddie?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Unless you're trying to avoid the near occasion of reading my posts, you've probably noticed that I have been reviewing some of the new Mass settings released by the major publishers. I reviewed GIA's New Mass settings first, and I just released my thoughts on the new musical settings of the Ordinary published by OCP.

    I've been blogging long enough to know that you get awful and mean comments no matter what you do, but this one annoyed me:


    Just stumbled onto this blog. I’ve read through both this and your review of GIA’s new settings. The primary question that springs to mind is: Who are you? You’re entire method of reviewing a Mass is by listening to a few clips on a website? All you really provided was your personal quips on this or that styling and a few zingers to the composers themselves. This attitude in Catholic ministry is just disgusting. Even though I have never encountered anything published by you, I would not use anything you composed or arranged because of this. Perhaps you could spend more time perfecting your own craft before posting shallow “reviews” of others work.


    I'm not sure what to make of it, other than I assume he's a folk-mass/contemp-music kinda guy, and he's trying to fight the battle against the Reform of the Reform. Those of you who know me know that I'm sometimes that guy, so I can sympathize. What freaks me out is... am I the snarky traddie he thinks I am? Of course, some of you have been hoping that I would one day assimilate (resistance IS futile, after all), and if one day I find that I have turned into a conservative EFer, I won't be surprised. It's the snark thing that bothers me- it's the loss of "bridge-builder" status.

    Anywho:

    Here was my public response. I'm curious about y'all's thoughts.

    John, I'm sorry you feel that way.

    I'm not really sure "who I am" is relevant. I'm not famous or well known, so my opinion carries little weight in the world. I'm just a working parish musician who also writes some music (and texts) and has some things to say about liturgical music. If you were one of the handful of people who read my blog regularly or interact with me on the internets, you'd have some bases for deciding that our (yours and mine) taste line up in a way that gives some weight to my reviews in your mind, or you may have discovered that we disagree on taste and suitability, and so you'd be inclined to disagree with my musings. As it is, with no context, you might should just calm down and go listen to the new recordings for yourself.

    As to my method for reviewing, I'm not sure what more you're looking for than someone who has just listened to the recordings on the publishers websites. I mean I guess I could have engaged in some serious score study or assembled my choir for a reading session. Does the fact that I didn't have the time (or the inclination) to do those things mean that my reviews are particularly invalid?

    Then there is the content of the reviews. Of course this is my opinion, otherwise what is the point? I try to be honest, and I point out as many good things as I can. A few of the settings have some really great points (or did you skip over those paragraphs?). Are you upset because I made some denigrating remarks about some contemporary styled music at Mass? I can understand if that bothers you, because I myself am often in the position of defending contemporary styles of music against the attacks of my dear friends over at the CMAA forum. Let me assure you, I believe that contemporary styled music has a worthy place in Catholic liturgy. That's actually one of the reasons I get upset by poor-quality contemp. music form the publishers- it does not help the case, and gives more fodder to the traditionalists who want to ban all music that doesn't fit a narrow view of "Musica Sacra."
    I don't really view my writing here as quips and zingers. I do try to be compact and write in an entertaining manner, but for goodness sakes- what's wrong with just saying that some of these mass settings are either dreadfully dull or obnoxiously peppy or wonderful gems of choral writing?

    I find your dismissal of my own work to be silly- petty and obnoxious, as if it hurts me terribly that you won't be singing any of my music any time soon. Combined, of course, with a subtle dig about how my music isn't being published by any of the major publishers.
    1) It makes no difference to me whether you do or don't sing my music. Your decision to never use it affects me not at all. Particularly since I release most of my work under a Creative Commons license, it doesn't cost me a cent.
    2) I have made no effort to "get published," so it's hardly surprising that I am not. IF they showed up at my door with a check and a contract, it's likely I would sign both- but I do not desire big-label publishing enough to make any effort to seek after it.

    As for perfecting my own craft, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you mean that I shouldn't cast any stones, being without sin myself, I would probably point out that I haven't attempted to kill anyone with heavy rocks, I've simply stated my opinion about the work of a few composers. If you're suggesting that no one offer critique or review unless their own work is above reproach, well- that sounds insane to me. I've never heard of a theatre critic who was a great actor, or a movie critic who was a great director, or a great literary critic who was also great writer (okay- actually Harold Bloom.... but, still). The basis of my opinion is not that I am a stellar composer. I'm not. I have never made any pretensions to greatness in my writing.
    So- will I "spend more time perfecting" my own craft. Well, I'll spend more time on it, but I doubt much of that time will be at the service of "perfecting."

    I'm not sure how my blog is part of the disgusting attitude on Catholic blogs. I have seen a lot of snark and slander from all corners of the "Catholic blogosphere." I try very hard here to be upbeat, fun, and useful. I also try to build something of a bridge between liberals and conservatives, and my (pretty small) readership seems pretty well split (with a lean away from my own ideology, actually). I absolutely understand your concern about the pettiness and bile that runs through a lot of Catholic internet avenues. I really don't think this is an example of that. Nasty snark and polite compliment are not the only two options. I feel it's okay to disagree with someone, or to voice a negative opinion about publicly available work. Unlike you, I didn't attack any people. In fact, I'm a big fan of many of these composers' other works.

    Also- I note that your comment didn't defend any of the works mentioned. If you think I'm wrong, then a productive approach would be to review them yourself and post your thoughts/rebuttals here, or on your own blog (be sure to leave a link here in the commments).

    Finally - Since your first question was, "Who are you?" I would encourage you to spend some time getting to know me before you declare me to be terrible person and a bad Christian:

    For more information about my own tastes in liturgy, check out this post about my ideal Mass.
    For more information about my intellectual framework for thinking about liturgical music, check out this post on my reading of The Constitution on the Divine Liturgy in the light of the Reform of the Reform.
    For ongoing interaction with me, I frequent the discussion forums over at MusicaSacra, and I'm trying to spend more time on my friend Fr. Ruff's PrayTell blog.


    I also sent the gentleman a nice email, thanking him for reading my blog and engaging with it.

    Would you have done more, less? Do you agree with his characterization of my review writing? Would you feel compelled to rush to my side by defending me publicly among the Music for Sunday comments (wink, wink)?
  • Well, this kind of attack is hardly unusual. I used to think that I really was saying nasty things, however inadvertently, and that I needed to develop charity toward other music besides my understanding of liturgical music, and so this I've tried to do. More recently, I've found that while charity is always a good idea there are certain dogmatic partisans who just don't want music investigated or critiqued or realistically evaluated at all. Anything less than "oh this is so wonderful because people can sing it" is regarded as a wicked comment. I expect that we will see much more of the sort of thing as the transition proceeds apace.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,161
    Ha! Good thing he didn't read my comments on the forum about those Mass settings.

    By the way, where I didn't add any observations, that's just 'cause I agreed with Adam's take (favorable or not so much).
  • Is Harold Bloom really a great writer?
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    As I've said in private correspondence, I think your reviews have been very fair, for the scope of one paragraph. As for your recent ideological shift, I think you're simply feeling disenfranchised with your fellow liberals - for what it's worth, I've had the exact same feelings on federal politics for the last few years. So long as you don't go whole hog trad, I think you'll have a lot to offer people on both sides.
  • Maureen
    Posts: 675
    I realize that there are times when people have to kinda get used to a piece in order to appreciate it. I also realize that God is the ultimate audience for sacred music settings. That said... even a first impression by even an untrained, non-musician listener is a perfectly valid basis for a review. Such a viewpoint would be particularly valuable for a music company or composer doing mass marketing.

    So if even the absolute nadir of knowledge would be useful, why would it occur to people to demand credentials from a casual music reviewer on the Internet, as if there's some kind of special qualification needed? Either a person can hear something and describe it (in technical terms or otherwise), or he cannot. What else is needed? Is there a license to drive a keyboard?

    If the reviewer makes some factual mistake with the technical terms, people can always complain about that. Otherwise, it's an opinion, and the reviewer has a right to hold it. People who don't agree with the reviewer can review the music themselves.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    You've all been very kind, thank you.

    JT- It's interesting you said that, and I have to remember when I first starting reading your stuff I thought you were being a bit uncharitable. Once I "got to know you" from reading a few things, I realized where you were coming from and I didn't view your stuff that way anymore.

    MJO- I thought his book on Hamlet was stellar.

    Gav- "Disenfranchised." Excellent word, and in fact, I think using it frequently in conversation will actually make me sound more liberal. :)
    Thank you for your thoughts.

    Maureen- That's exactly my point!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Keep in mind that the majority of people on earth don't read blogs. The blogging world is a bit consumed with its own self-importance. That said, your reviews are as valid as anyone else's.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    That is absolutely true.
  • Erik P
    Posts: 152
    .
  • Maureen
    Posts: 675
    About half the music reviews in the world have always been "the things I like are better than that lame stuff you listen to". So if there was a golden age of sweet loving reviews, I guess I missed it. :)