Fascinating. And probably very familiar to lots of people here.

Two questions come to mind… first, do you have the support of your pastor? What does he say about this? Could he support through catechesis efforts? And second, are there multiple Mass times at your parish? Would there be an opportunity to provide different styles for different Mass times? (Not that that would be ideal at all, but it might be the only way at this point to make any progress whatsoever.)

Looking forward to the thoughtful comments that this thread is sure to inspire. Thanks for sharing this, Claire.

I'm glad you brought this up. This is a hugely important issue. I'm not sure that I have the answer really. It was pretty clear in the 1960s and 1970s that the upbeat contemporary music didn't match the liturgy. One had to go. Over time and in many places, the liturgy adapted to accommodate the music, and you can tell this from the way people comport themselves in general. Eventually over time, many people have gotten used to this. They want hopped up music to take the "edge" out of the Mass text and to provide a kind of buffer between themselves at the real action on the altar.

I've seen this again and again. When people say that they want toe-tapping, upbeat, contemporary music, they are really saying: "we need music that will permit us to avoid serious thought about the actual meaning of the liturgy and otherwise make the sacrament easier to deal with."

This poses a serious problem for those of us who believe that the Roman Rite ought to be permitted to speak for itself. The truth is that many people don't want this to happen, and this precisely why they want to cover it up with every manner of musical distraction, among other accoutrements. Sacred music makes the truth of the liturgy more clear, and this is a major reason why people might resist it. The faith makes them uncomfortable. Church makes them uncomfortable. Religion and all that it demands makes them uncomfortable.

This is especially true among a generation of older people who think that if we let the faith speak for itself, the young people will leave in droves. So they want to give to religion to the kids the same way we might give heart medication to dogs. We cover up the pill in something yummy so that they will swallow it without noticing. We might call it the "spoonful of sugar" approach to liturgy.

The problem is that eventually all you are really giving people is sugar and no substance. When the substance inadvertantly pops up from time to time, people get scared and depressed and think something has gone very wrong.

So what's wrong with being depressed? They ARE sinners, after all. And if it were not for the Sacrifice on the Cross, they'd really have something to be depressed about. I bet they want a crucifix with Jesus' arms reaching out to them (instead of, you know, him hanging from them) with a skylight right above is so it's all lit pretty. (Seriously, I saw that once.)

JT's comment nails it: I've actually cross-posted it on FB.

If you have a supportive pastor, may I suggest an introductory (before you start delving into heavier material) Latin Mass which is not depressing? And the introductory motet (at least the one which comes on my CD sung by the Westminister Cathedral Choir), I think, was written for All Saints' Day, so, with the support of the pastor, you could prolly use it as a prelude to the opening hymn or introit (actually, I think it is the introit).

How about Tomas Luis de Victoria's "Missa O Quam Gloriosum"? While I am not a music major or director, I do not think this setting of the Holy Mass of the Latin Church is in a minor key, and it most certainly seems to sound "glorious" to me.

Educate the faithful, yes, but perhaps we can meet them in the middle somehow (insomuch as not giving them something "depressing", at least not immediately)? Then you could try some of the above tactics, such as using strings for some well known pieces, like "All Creatures of Our God and King" or something.

"If you have people in the pews with an aversion to prayer and don't want to think about God"
I don't think I would dare to say that, myself. I can't know what's in people's hearts, but it seems logical that if people didn't want to pray and think about God, they wouldn't go to a place where all you do is pray and think about God. Even if they're just going to fulfill their obligation, they still feel obligated. But that and the 10 commandments is about all they think God expects of them.

The problem is in how they think about God. There's an idea, imported from Protestantism (also found in modern American neo-paganism) of God as your best friend. Which, yeah, He is, but people don't maintain the relationship; they don't treat God like they treat their friends. My wife is my best friend; I treat her lovingly, which leads her to treat me more lovingly, which inspires me to be better to her, in a feedback loop. If one of us quit doing that, it would make the whole enterprise much harder, and the quality of everything we do together would suffer. I take her needs and desires seriously. Now, God is not going to change. But we did. The Church got rid of that scary old guilt-riddled pre-V2 culture. "Our" God (forgive the collectivism) would never hurt us. We're in the Church, so we're not going to Hell. He wouldn't ask us to risk social disapproval, net alone martyrdom. He won't stop loving us, so we can stop loving HIm. "Our" God is good-time Charlie, fun to hang with, who'll buy us a drink if we're broke, but we don't have to reciprocate. We've trivialized the notion of Deity.And a bubblegum God is best praised with bubblegum music. Say "Lord Lord" and the Skittle-dropping unicorn will jump the rainbow and lay His head in your lap. It's not that people don't want a relationship with God; it's that they don't want to be changed by God.
They don't want an awesome God with awesome music, because awe is life-changing.

Steve Reich: Beethoven was a great, great composer, whom I admire enormously. But for me, music history basically begins with Gregorian chant then goes to the end of 1750 with the death of Johann Sebastian Bach. Then it goes on without me paying much attention until Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartok and so on. The entire classical and Romantic period is filled with geniuses that I don't listen to and from whom I've learned absolutely nothing.


http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15419743,00.html


This seems appropriate for this discussion.

I believe it was Reich voting people off the island.

And let's not forget folks like Dom Guéranger, whose work was in some important ways influenced by the currents of his own time.

Reich wrote it, it was way beyond my level of thought and understanding!

How I wish that such a strategy would play out so simply. But I believe we live in a social and political climate that is typified by this catch-all word, "gridlock." Folks nowadays seem to immediately gravitate to extremes, even with issues such as repertoire choices for Mass(es). You'll have the "Saul Alinsky" populists at the left pole who won't budge an inch, even in the face of a whole congregation chanting a Kyrie, and insist that people will only sing "what they know," which actually means "what, I, the people's champion knows." That boils down to a ubiquitous list of usual "suspects." On the other hand you find a quieter, yet fervant bunch who secretly confess to a DM that they love the reintegration of the "old chants" (SEP!) but feel isolated or ostracized from each other and the vast middle of PIPs, and the last thing they want to do is bother Father. And then, in the middle, are the Mary Jane Ballou crew, the immovable throng of the disinterested who prefer just to watch and tolerate whatever latest innovation or improvement the "experts" run up the flagpole at Mass. Bulletin announcements are for the extremes, proof of a tyranny they wish would go away, and for the muddled middle, birdcage lining.
I again concur with both Tucker and Quick that this doesn't represent a dissatisfaction and disease with "music," but with the essence and attributes of worship itself. People don't know what they want, or better, need from worship. Just change the word "worship" to "government" and we see the same dynamics pasted all over the media daily. I wish that there was a magic pill (there actually is, I'll get to that in a second) that could impart Tucker's wild optimism among all the faithful.
I think the one action DM's can take that do have a positive effect is to regularly schedule events like "hymn-sings" or "Mass setting sings" where those PIPs who are interested from whatever quarter can get deeper inside the discerning process.
But moreso, I really believe that liturgical effectiveness ironically lies within each priest-celebrant's ability to provide a clear and unaffected view of how awe-ful (Quick's apt term) worship actually is. Whether the celebrant takes a Jonathan Edward's "fire and brimstone" exhortational style, or a Scott Hahn enthusiastic, beatific approach, is immaterial. People need their noodles shaken and tossed, to realize that heaven is right before them at Mass, not awaiting them in the barcalounger afterwards when they get home to "the game." And they need to know that the magic pill, isn't magic; it's the very Body of the Lord with which they ought to approach with love, and fear and trembling. I dunno....

Is it possible that you are simply playing the hymns too slow? That would most certainly give the impression of "sadness," even in "Lift High."

My personal opinion is that the reason most congregations breathe every 2 bars is that the hymns are too slow (and so the untrained singer has to!), and of course that causes them to think they're depressing.

Alleluia, Sing to Jesus at 120bpm?
Snooze-ville.
Try it at 138 or so.

Or even better, play it in one at dotted-half in the mid 60s.


(Of course, all that is subject to your building, your organ, and your people...)

"Because I know how much Jesus loves to rock."
-Steve Martin in A Leap of Faith

Actually....
Here's the thing I just realized in singing that with a metronome, and thinking about my own experience.

Even 108 isn't too slow... IF YOU STAY THERE.

Assuming you don't get ridiculous (like quarter note = much less than a hundred on that tune), the thing that makes hymns sound draggy and depressing isn't the tempo exactly, but the deceleration over time.

Each with quarter note = 132, but felt in one or two, not three or four, respectively.

Did I wander into an auction?
That's exciting!
You say what? "It's selling hymn tempi."
Oh, that's depressing. Bye.
;-(

So ... the same hymn ... a million different tempos, from 108-180+bmp.

Very subjective.

And no, my tempo is not snooze-ville.

It's not so much how fast or slow, but how much the bass line moves.

A lot of talk about hymns. Not one word about propers.

Here's what I don't get: if the propers are necessary, why invest the capital in traditional hymns vs folk songs? It seems to me it'd be better to replace the Offertory or Communion with the proper chant rather than getting people angry about Hyfrydol - which is not part of the Mass anyway.

JERUSALEM. Oh Charles, I wish you hadn't said that. It's doing all sorts of things to my cultural receptors. Mmmmm...

Ian, the prosecution rests!

The water is wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide, I cannot cross oooooooooooooooooooo'er.

It's a gathering that consists of hymn-singing by the congregation, sometimes with the addition of choir anthems, solo songs, or prayers. It's sort of a precursor of praise-'n'-worship.

Wow, it is something to watch conversation take off! Thank you very much for the encouragement and insight, and even a few laughs. :) Keep it going, please!

To respond to some of the questions asked above (I can't figure out how to do the quotation boxes; would someone be so kind as to enlighten me?)

1. "Two questions come to mind… first, do you have the support of your pastor? What does he say about this? Could he support through catechesis efforts? "

Yes, the Pastor is overall quite supportive (he hired me), but he is also a first-time pastor and a lot of complaining and negativity can weigh on him (I think I mentioned this in another thread). He is a gentle (not aggressive) leader, which is a good thing, but can also include not taking quite as emphatic a stance on certain things.


2. "And second, are there multiple Mass times at your parish? Would there be an opportunity to provide different styles for different Mass times? (Not that that would be ideal at all, but it might be the only way at this point to make any progress whatsoever.)"

There are multiple Masses, but because we are a small parish continuity between Masses is important, I believe. I can see where this approach might appease some, but honestly I could see it contributing to further division/fragmentation. Right now part of my job description is to select the music so that it is used for all three English Masses.


3. "Do you ever sing the Our father or preface dialogues?"

Our Father, no, but our pastor is an eager chanter of his parts of the Mass, so the dialogues are sung frequently. (A somewhat minor aside: I found upon coming there that the people all sing "We lift them up to the Lord" with an incorrect melody progression. It can be both amusing and bothersome at the same time... =)


4. "Is it possible that you are simply playing the hymns too slow?"

I try not to. I realize that a hymn played too slow can be heavy, and that recessional especially requires a tempo conveying zeal. ;)


5. "I wonder if some catechisis might help. Perhaps a note in the parish bulletin"

I actually wrote a series of "Music Q&A" articles in the bulletin. Not sure how many actually read them, but I did try to provide some positive explanation.


6. "Missing variable: Processional or recessional?"

"Lift High the Cross" (example mentioned) was a recessional.


7. "A lot of talk about hymns. Not one word about propers. Here's what I don't get: if the propers are necessary, why invest the capital in traditional hymns vs folk songs?"

A fast move like eliminating songs/hymns and replacing them with propers would be utterly rejected if done all at once (especially at a place like this). For the time being, we are confined to the hymnals in the pews, so it's been a case of trying to make best use of what is available/possible right now. I've just been very surprised how many classic, theologically and melodically solid hymns -- that I thought anyone and everyone must be at least familiar with -- are apparently foreign to many people here.

***

A few more factors that contribute to the overall challenge of this particular community:

1. They've undergone several changes in pastoral and musical leadership in the span of a few years. This causes them to be very wary, slow to trust those now on the staff because most of us haven't been there very long. This is the kind of parish where you're a newbie unless you grew up here...

2. Although there were individuals having the title of "music director" in the past, for at least a decade or so it seems like direction in this area was actually quite minimal. There were a few small groups of musicians very used to self-sufficiency, picking and doing their own music (mostly from Gather) and no one really telling them what to do or teaching them new things.

3. We have very few musicians. Honestly, among our singers we have only about 4 individuals (3 women and 1 man) who actually read music and have voices strong enough/skilled enough to lead, cantor, or solo. And none of these four have any training/experience of the style needed for chant to be done well. There are others who come sing but have very little vocal ability beyond holding a tune...so any major works would be entirely beyond our resources as they are now.

4. Prior to my coming, there were never practices (except probably for Christmas and Easter). Just trying to get singers to come out once a week to prepare the upcoming Sunday's music has been a hurdle.

5. Up to a few months ago, there was no organ (only a piano and a keyboard). We moved the keyboard out and made space for a small, simple organ donated (it used to be a theater organ, I believe). It's not bad and is a step up just having an organ at all, but naturally doesn't provide many options for settings, etc. I accompany using this instrument, but my voice is my primary instrument so I'm not able to add much "color" via the organ playing (although the above comment made many excellent points on this aspect!).

5. I thought complaints about the music originally centered around implementing use of some simple Latin chant ordinaries (also mentioned in another thread), but it's been more recently that I realized the unrest extended rather strongly beyond that.

wow noel...

that is an incredible statement to make about an entire era in musical developement... actually, a series of them! saying it very simply, it all became progressively more and more human and less and less divine finding its destination at the opera, bafoonery, sillyness, excesiveness and self indulgence. so much for musica sacra!

i t kind of echoes my own sentiments which i have spoken of in other threads about the classicists and romantics... music that has some kind of vaccuum that does not emote an intellect, sense of direction, or growth and moving forward... seemingly a preoccupation with emotions, feelings, and technical gymnastics that drags along the genius... backwards really. kind of like someone talking a thousand miles a minute with not much to say. for me, their center is not so much in God but more in self. its kind of like sitting in a room where someone has dumped out a bottle of perfume. i cant sit there very long without being overwhelmed with the trauma of it all and to no benefit to the soul. a fabrication made entirely to impress the nose and nothing else. this was the huge error of the enlightenment... it should have been called the coming of darkness, not light.

make no mistake, however... darkness is powerful and can be very enticing and all enveloping. wagner is indeed a cult unto its own. could the fruit of it have been the revolutions and world war? wagner was the music who shaped hitler. (following on platos philosophy that music precedes and shapes culture that follows)

i too learned nothing from anything beyond bach until the arrival of stravinsky and forward. bach is not stuck in an era... he superceded time and style and developed counterpoint to where no one else has ever come close. his art will never be old, sound old or go out of style... it truly was a greAt travesty that he was not a composer in the faith... imagine the Masses we would have had from him. humanity let him down by adopting the superfulous in place of the supernatural and protestantism instead of Catholicism. we failed to carry him into the bossom of the Church and music became fatherless when he died. and if i dare carry that thought to its logical platonic conclusion, that is why the Church is also fatherless and society has lost the sense of fatherhood and family. yes, music can certainly be depressing! but joined to the Mass, it attains the ultimate call to beauty and dispels the greatest darkness, because light will always overcome the darkness and sadness and crying will be no more.

now all that said, can we really be surprised about the silly music having wandered back into the Church and is filling the void? who is to blame? us musicians will have a lot of 'splainin' to do on judgement day.