My experience is that most remain, some stop singing, and others continue to sing.

Then you get the folks who left the OTHER parish because they can't stand the (Joan Baez/Cowsills/Bob Dylan/Glen Campbell-----pick one) wannabee.

This all goes back to a discussion in which pastor complained that people were leaving the parish about the music, we alone questioned the church secretary who handled the transfers laughed and said, "No one's every said that. They just hate the pastor's sermons."

I share your pain and sadness, benedictgal.

I, for one, do not go if all I am offered is awful music.
There are also those who go elsewhere if the music is good music because they really do like awful music and want no part of good music.
Too, pastors are very, very selective in those whom they care about: they get very concerned on account of those who dislike good music, but are strangely deaf to those who don't like bad music. Why?
There is, of course, the 'most people' syndrome. But, my experience is that if one can manage consistently to offer good music 'most people' will over time become glad that they have it. Getting one's feet in the door and keeping them there is the challenge.
I have seen old churches on which millions were spent in restoration, but the music is not of the same quality as the architecture. Why do people not sense the incongruity?

I think people don't know good music and need to be taught. I know in my little parish the people were absolutely horrified at the thought of organ music and hymnody. After a year, while there are still some dissenters, the majority of the people are now telling me I've brought back the atmosphere of the mass. As with anything, you don't know what you like until you try it, and, if the majority of people go with it, we've accomplished something.

With all due respect, I didn't think the music was the main reason for either going or not going to mass.......

I walked out of Sacred Heart in Tampa last year at the Gloria I was so turned-off by the "music". Maybe someday I'll get to hear that big Moller..... :(

The Anglican church (St. Andrew?) around the corner, however had a service that was perfect in every way musically (and great desserts afterwards).

I can't be bothered with bad liturgy or bad music, for better or for worse.

To add to M. Jackson's comments, there is also the fact that younger priests who are of a more 'orthodox' character (and often, but not necessarily so, more disposed to singing the Mass instead of singing at Mass) first have to be pastoral vicars at places where they cannot do anything about the music, even as their preaching is solid. And even then, people will complain to the pastor about the preaching. ("Who does he think he is? I've never heard such .... in my X years in the Church." That's an actual comment that's been heard.) Then, those same priests get sent to the boonies as pastors where they will offer the Mass (sometimes in both Forms) reverently and preach solidly, and depending on their own personality and what their marching orders have been from their bishop, will take on either the music or the catechesis or the lay leadership or whatever other hot spot there is in the parish. Saying they offer the Mass reverently assumes that they have taken on liturgical matters insofar as it depends on them, brick by brick. But on everything other than their own conduct of the Mass, they have to prioritize, and it takes years. And in the boonies one doesn't have the money for (nor, often, the availability of) excellent musicians, so a fortunate pastor finds someone like benedictgal who is willing to learn and lead for little or no money (and can afford to do so).

Just a reminder of what we all know: it is a mortal sin to deliberately miss Sunday Mass without good reason. Hell for an hour vs. Hell for eternity? It's a no-brainer. That said, I prefer to attend Mass where the music and preaching are edifying.

What? That there's essentially a captive audience?

Mortal? You westerners need to get rid of all that Scholastic hair splitting. LOL.

If bad music makes you not go to Mass, that is the sin of aestheticism. Just FYI.

Perhaps a good question: If your pastor says you should sing and you don't because the music is bad, how is your disobedience justifiable? Pillory the LCWR and the latter-day Jesuits all you want for being out of line, but you don't have control over their disobedience. You do have control over your disobedience.

The common practice of moving priests frequently contributes to the problem. Until Bishops begin leading in this area for their diocese things will never improve. There is too much room for disregarding what needs to be done to restore the music of the mass for "pastoral reasons".

I thought, right after I wrote this, that I should have said "the CAUSE OF all that is wrong." Which I firmly believe. Alas, I was already in the shower.

But yes, you have a captive audience. If they're there, you may as well entertain them. In fact, you have an obligation to entertain them, so they don't sin by not showing up. They may be showing up to be entertained, but that doesn't matter, because at least they won't go to Hell. Mass is filled with people who hate church and don't want to be there, and the music reflects that.

Chant, polyphony, sacred music are for people who love church and go there intentionally. But we don't have those kinds of people in Catholic churches, because they're only there to check their box.

If you all would indulge me to consider some observations leading to a fable based upon common sense and reasonable charity.
There is no reason to believe that if the Holy Father, himself a musician and historian of impeccable repute, gives no appearence of endorsing music other than chant & polyphony (with new music worthy of those traditions) with any other specificity, then it follows that it would be unreasonable to expect lone wolf bishops to create lists, white or black. No one person should bear the burden alone of codifying such lists. That is reflected clearly in SC42.
Therefore, there remains a clear task of winnowing specifically all musics submitted to authority for approval as worthy for worship and devotions. However, we all know that at this time there is no discernable individual or corportate impetus for bishops to convene their (presumably appointed) liturgical/musical commissions to deliberate specific music policy. Why?
I'm going to riff here in the locale of Benedictgal's favorite Dr. Moriarty, the Archidiocese of Portland and Oregon Catholic Press to illustrate the possible horns of all our dilemmas.
Let's assume that among the members of Abp. Vlazny's music commission would be two prominently known DM's, Angela Westhoff-Johnson of St. Mary's IC Cathedral and Dean Applegate of St. Stephens and Ecclesia Dei Cantores. Remember please, I'm just speculating, not reporting as I have no idea if a commission exists there or not. And let's forget that both of these fine DM's have no association with OCP (they actually do, but let's say they don't..) Under the auspices of their respective pastors/rectors, each has developed and honed a fine musical operation and tradition during their tenure. But the cathedral was intentionally steered towards a more eclectic repertoire for which the catalog and content of the conveniently located OCP proved a no-brainer resource solution. St. Stephen's took another route, developing a more homogenous musical profile that pretty much eschews most music that is not chant, polyphony, classic-informed/borrowed strophic hymnody, etc. Out of respect for the legal relationship between the archdiocese and OCP, St.Stephen's does maintain a subscription contract with OCP for maybe a relatively small amount of missal and hymnal pew resource books, but relies more heavily upon weekly printed ordo's of music done on site. But both DM's on the way to a commission meeting simultaneosly have some sort of Saul experience, and Dr. Mahrt's voice calmly calls to each: "Angela, Dean, why do you persecute my music? You know what the documents declare and you know the truth in your hearts?"
So, both of them go to the commission, tell of their experience and agree that Dr. Mahrt was alluding to the scribes and pharisees collecting coinage for OCP After their commission colleagues are over their astonishment, they reluctantly agree to compose and forward a letter addressing their concerns to Abp. Vlazny about the whole of the content of OCP stalwart books, BREAKING (BAD) BREAD and FLOR Y CANTO. Abp. Vlazny is caught unawares by this new challenge to a well established and oiled (machine) status quo. He actually reads SC42 a number of times, along with the profit and loss statements from OCP which are juridically under his pervue. He has a Eureka moment, sort of.
He dictates a letter of response to the commission to complete an audit of OCP's entire catalog and the pew resource books (in particular) with the zeal and scrupulosity of the IRS and the CIA.
Cut to a decade later, the commission is ready to publish it's results, taking into account the various editorial changes. And, lo and behold their corporate analysis concludes that 80% of the overall content of chant, hymns and songs meet the established criteria of the prevailing documents still in force. Many of the "usual suspects" abhored by "conservatives" fail that criteria, so Abp. Vlazny instructs OCP's CEO Mr. Limb to remove "GUI....Sing a New Church...Gather and Remember....Abba Father...Women of the Church, I, myself am the BOL, and others" effective the next year. However, surviving repertoire includes "OEW...SMOG....BNA...HIAL...Toolanbread....Pescador, etc." The vacant 20% Abp. Vlazny directs the commission to cobble from English chant Proper sources and hymns if they can to save $ and as a magnanimous gesture to the conservatives. And he privately channels an advisory to the OCP editorial board to find as many modern settings of proper texts and the psalms in Latin, as he's heard so many parishes use Bob Hurd, Ricky Manalo and janet Whitaker pieces in Latin over many years of confirmations and Easter Vigils. Mrs. Westhoff -Johnson, in particular, expresses gratitude for this. He also had some private consultations with Mr. Applegate, who subsequently convinced Abp. Vlazny to scrap the extent psalter section in Breaking Bread, and divide the psalm settings among three equal sources, the Oost Zinner psalter, the CCW psalter, and the Esguerra psalter, which also could be included royalty free.
And everyone lived happily ever after. Except....
OCP suffers an immediate and dramatic drop in subscription rates, Abp. Vlazny retires, and his successor, upon going over the balance sheets notices the prominent loss of income at OCP, the loss of jobs there that resulted, and reconvenes the commission to directly consult with the editorial board of OCP to start the process all over again.
And the moral of the story is.....?

Ms. Gal: Of course the sin is not objectively as bad, much as murder and vivisection are not coequal sins, but disobedience can still be a sin. The question is what you're required to do at Mass versus what the director is required to do at Mass versus what the priest does.

It is the music director's job to select music. When attending Mass, it is your job to sing it, excepting grave circumstances. Isn't the law quite clear on this?

The point is not singing or not singing a particular bit of tripe. The point here is that the burden of proof is upon you each and every time that you refuse to sing at Mass. You must, in each circumstance, have solid reason to believe there are grave circumstances which defend your conscientious objection.

This should not be read as a personal accusation. I know some folks around here make this a kind of hobby, egging you on, but these principles are intended to apply to everyone.

Now, for Mr. Gavin:

If they're there, you may as well entertain them. In fact, you have an obligation to entertain them, so they don't sin by not showing up. They may be showing up to be entertained, but that doesn't matter, because at least they won't go to Hell. Mass is filled with people who hate church and don't want to be there, and the music reflects that.

Mass does not equal "going to Church." (The music should reflect "The Mass" and not reflect "going to church.")

This question of being entertained or not is beside the point. In fact, that whole dimension of liturgy as entertainment --- if by entertained you mean "enjoying spectacle for itself" --- is completely antithetical to the Mass. We have fancy vestments and cloth of gold and silver chalices not because they draw attention away from the Sacrifice but because they draw attention towards it. (I'll spare you further ramblings along these lines.)

An illustration: If you love chant so much that it distracts you from the Sacrifice of the Mass, you'd better not go to a Mass with chant at it.

There's a helpful article about the obligation to attend Sunday Mass at the website of Catholics United for the Faith. The Church does envision that the obligation has exceptions, when there is a grave reason, such as illness, distance, the lack of a priest, or duties such as caring for the sick. Call me Jesuitical if you like, but I doubt that aesthetic suffering is quite on a par with those "grave reasons".

That's a fair point! In some cases, terrible music could detract from the beauty which the Mass deserves; so it could be laudable to refrain from singing it.

If the mass were celebrated so badly it became an occasion of sin, then it would probably be better to not go to that place. RC churches are plentiful enough that another can usually be found.

Making an excruciatingly learned decision about the degree of sin or disobedience invloved in deciding whether or not to participate in musical drivel, or endure the un-holy noise of rock bands? This is pure, Jesuitical legalism... which one should be presented with no occasion to entertain at mass. (Indeed, I should think that any burden of sin rested, rather, on those who present such dilemmas.)

Nothing Jesuitical about it, if by Jesuitical you mean "a thing I wish to call bad, legalistic and pretentious." Here is the logic:

1. Disobedience when a sin is a form of pride. Pride is a very serious sin not only because it is the source of all sin but because it is the hardest to ferret out.
2. We should be very careful when dealing with occasions which could involve very serious sin.
3. Therefore, we should be very careful when dealing with occasions which could involve disobedience.

Dismissing scrupulous obedience so lightly is untenable. This dismissiveness tends to encourage kneejerk disobedience, which, if anything, is worse. This would cultivate, in a parishoner, a baseline attitude of disobedience even in little things. This could have huge consequences for the big things and the last things.

So, really, a distinction should be made between disobedience and conscientious objection.

In other news: Funny that an argument "obedience in love" as a universal value would be called Jesuitical.

Charles, the analogy about the toilet is great, and we must be willing to assist in bringing in better music where we are able, but most of the time, it is not lack of support from us as it is from the DM or pastor. I think most on this board in sub-par musical conditions are only wishing they could get in there and clean that toilet.

"When attending Mass, it is your job to sing it, excepting grave circumstances. Isn't the law quite clear on this?"

Actually, no, it's not quite clear that this is so. It's not even quite muddy that this is so.

Mind you, I heartily support singing by the congregation of its parts, but the idea that this is a *legal* obligation in the manner promoted here is one of the most repulsive arguments I've ever encountered on Catholic liturgical discussion listservs/boards/forums/blogs since the mid-1990s. And that's saying something.

Throwing a few rotten tomatoes might actually get those warbling diva cantors out of the sanctuary and out of sight. Has anyone else noticed the takeover of the altar area by old bats in pantsuits? Was it warbling or pantsuits in 19th-century Russia? It was not!

It's out in Nevada near "Area 51", and is where most liturgists landed... LOL

Sacrosanctum Concilium 42