"Gregorian chant and organ music...get real." Posted on a video
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    You can quote popes all you want, but one of the biggest complaints I hear from my Catholic, and formally-Catholic friends is that the music at Mass is boring, hard to sing, and old-fashioned. Contemporary styles of music, like rock, can be inspiring, worshipful, and meditative. As soon as my parish switched to contemporary music, the attendance trippled! With all due respect, I think the leaders of the Church are totally out of touch. Gregorian chant and organ music...get real.

    (Comment posted on this video)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,510
    We organists are real. And we also know how to spell, "formerly." Some of us can even kick old hippie butt, when provoked. LOL.
    Thanked by 1Ben Yanke
  • Wow. Those who use the actual music that belongs to the Church need to "get real"? Hm. Interesting.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "One of the biggest complaints I hear from my Catholic, and formally-Catholic friends is that the music at Mass is boring, hard to sing, and old-fashioned."

    I agree. That "Glory and Praise" stuff is just awful.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,510
    Yes, it is awful. ;-)
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,142
    I don't think the person who made this comment has any idea what type of music his friends are typically hearing at Mass. I would be very surprised if they were complaining about traditional hymns, chant, and polyphony, well-executed. I suspect they're complaining about the '70s esque folk-pop that fills so many hymnals and parishes these days.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    I apologize that I was not more clear as to why I posted this comment from YouTube

    The reason I posted the comment was . . . well, just to show that there still are a lot of opinions out there. I also enjoyed reading the reactions on this forum.

    [edited by moderator]
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Do not openly scorn those who cannot spell.
    I am one of them.

    Seriously though, I have heard that same argument, but referring to chant. This is the challenge: How can I address people with these opinions without coming across as inflated, overly pious, or snobbish?

    Also, is it our job to fill the pews? I've always wondered about this. I'll admit, I get a buzz when someone says ''I come to Church for the music." Or, when I see tears in the congregation during a particular piece of music.

    On the other hand, what if I find evidence that the music I choose is actually driving people away? It could happen... Maybe.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    Music at mass is, primarily, the prayers of the mass, albeit in an "elevated voice."
    Nothing else.


    The entire argument about which "style" is better is rather ridiculous. If it serves the particular prayer, then it is good. If it distracts from the particular prayer, then it is terrible. For this reason, P&W is inappropriate.


    Of course, there is sometimes a need for instrumental music, which is obviously not "sung prayer," but the question there is whether it adds to the solemnity of the liturgical action which it accompanies.
    Thanked by 1PurpleSquirrel
  • People need to understand that there is a major difference in music that is meant for worship outside of the celebration of the mass, and that which is conducive to the Eucharistic celebration. I have no problem with Glory and Praise during a prayer service or some other kind of spiritual gathering. But, not in the context of the Holy Mass. Chant allows the listener to be totally involved in the text, without any thought to being "at a concert". With Simple English Propers, the congregation is able to understand the words of the chant and understand the simplicity of its form. Chant transforms the listener (and singer for that matter) to another plane of existence that is spiritual and ethereal. Also, hymns written in simple SATB form with easy line rhythms allows the people to enter into the solemnity of the lyric, and not the music itself.

    We will forever have to deal with people who believe that we must "sing a new song onto the Lord" and do so with spangles, bangles and bows!
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    The entire argument about which "style" is better is rather ridiculous. If it serves the particular prayer, then it is good. If it distracts from the particular prayer, then it is terrible. For this reason, P&W is inappropriate.


    I'll have to disagree with you here. The argument over "style" is important. Who is to say P&W or even heavy metal doesn't help people pray? It still comes down to a style debate. Use what you want in private devotions. But in the liturgy, it is not objective. It's not about us. It is about style.
  • Yes, Ben, aspects of our sacred music worship practices are important.
    But, OTOH, I am personally weary of the arguments themselves as I don't think they, in and of themselves, produce good fruit. In point of fact, we have created among ourselves a professional mob of arguers, idealogues, polemicists and permanent adversaries who seem to have vitriol for their lifesblood. The more we argue, especially over "style" (your word), our self-identification as Christians gains in unseemliness.
    Wanna change the heart of a well intentioned sacropop afficianado, bring them with you to a colloquium.
    Wanna start an exchange, a sharing? Petition to be a presenter at an NPM event or at the LA Religious Ed. Congress. They're just as convinced their "thing" is G-G-G-Great as we are of chant.
    Arguing, noble an art as that may be, has little opportunity of changing hearts by comparison to sharing in an authentic worship environment.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    Ben,

    You meant to say subjective.

    And I really do love my heavy metal devotionals.
    Thanked by 1PurpleSquirrel
  • CGM
    Posts: 488
    We should all pray our nighttime prayers in the style of Metallica's "Enter Sandman."

    ("Now I lay me down to sleep...")
    Thanked by 1PurpleSquirrel