in defense of praise music
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756
    Ok , I'm new here but I have a penchant for sticking my head over the parapet, so here goes.
    There is quite a lot of criticism of praise music around here, and sometimes i think there is a confusion of two issues - poor quality music and music used in the wrong place.
    To explain a little, I'm part of a charismatic group and quite enjoy that a certain style of music that goes with that type of prayer - it is usually led by guitar and rhythm instruments and involves a certain spontaneity as well as drawing a lot from scripture.
    but I agree with the tenor of the article distinguishing between praise and worship, and in fact have stopped referring to our prayer meeting as praise and worship - it is praise - but worship is sacrifice hence the Mass only.
    Now I've fallen in love with chant too, for the liturgy.
    But we have no problem because on Sunday what we do is first meet for an hour for praise (with some of that praise music) then go to Mass (trying hard to move it in the direction of chants and propers, a proper missa cantata) and follow it up with an hour of silent eucharistic adoration. It's great fun. Of course the kids are only expected to do the first two hours.
    With respect to praise music - it has its uses in the right place. I can be as critical as the next (i regularly attend other peoples prayermeetings and cringe at 70's folk music being offered as contemporary). Even in a praise meeting things like kumbaya are out for asthetic reasons. Similarly we would never use most of the music offered in the liturgical/catechetical offerings around here, which are all to often in the 'Let's stand in a circle and sing to ourselves about how great we are and never mention God at all' type. Even if praise is not Mass, it is still praise directed to God, and as such should make more than passing reference to him. (I am more and more persuaded to vesus Deum orientation at Mass becasue i have learnt that it is necessary in praise prayermeetings)
    Now I realise that having spent a lot of my time in recent years being part of ecclesial movements i have been very sheltered from what is happening in 'normal' parish life - we've recently become part of a parish and some of it is a real shock to the system.
    I don't really know why i'm posting all this.
    I think primarily it would be nice for people to make a distinction, when criticising music to make a distinction betyween music that is not fit for any purpose, as opposed to music that is not fit for Mass.
    The categories that i see are: Proper music for the mass, and suitable hymnody. Then good praise music, which really directs one to God and also draws on scripture, which is not suitable for Mass but useful for other non-liturgical prayer. Music in this second category which is suitable only for young children becasue of its simplicity. Music which used to fit the second category, but is no longer contemporary, so should only be used by prayermeetings of a certain age or style, but which was good praise music in its day. Lastly, music which has neither aesthetic quality, nor lyrics which can genuinely by called prayer and should not be used for anything. (the shorthand for this last category is WWUSAM or 'what we usually sing at Mass on Sunday)
    It seems to me that if we prayed more, we would have more opportunity to use different types of music in their more apropriate settings, and so no one would need to feel robbed of their favourite type of music, and of course musical tastes can change and mature. (my praise albums are gathering dust while I listen more and more to chant, oratorios etc. Who would have guessed?)
    I guess I'm feeling a bit caught between two worlds - contemporary music afficionados who don't know about chant or what the liturgy really requires, and chant afficionados who don't get praise music having any apropriate place at all.
    What's that song from the musical oklahoma...oh the farmer and the cowboy should be friends..
    Thanked by 2Gavin CHGiffen
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,209
    For the complementary view to which Bonnie refers, see Fr. Christopher Smith's essay on "Why Praise and Worship Music is Praise but not Worship".

    Welcome to the forum!
    Thanked by 1bonniebede
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,973
    I make a distinction between devotional music, and mass music. They are not the same, and they don't play well together. I don't do devotional music, but many do, and seem to get something out of it. I am strictly in the mass music camp. I think we all find our niche where we are, if not comfortable, at least the most effective as musicians.
    Thanked by 2bonniebede Gavin
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756
    Yes, that was the article which really spoke to me - thansk for linking it.
    It occurs to me that in the wholesale abandonment of popular piety here, (rather than its correction, simplification, etc) we have left most people with only one experience of prayer - the Mass, and so things which could be dealt with as a form of popular piety have leaked into the liturgy, where they shouldn't be. Fr Smith's essay is most thought provoking.
    Thanked by 1Jenny
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    I have found portions of the Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy to be very instructive...along the lines of what Charles is saying.
    Thanked by 1bonniebede
  • HeitorCaballero
    Posts: 92
    It's been masterfully addressed before, both pop and rock:
    "On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. “Rock”, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the experience of being part of a crowd and by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe." from The Spirit of the Liturgy
    Thanked by 2Scott_W bonniebede
  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 903
    It seems to me that if we prayed more, we would have more opportunity to use different types of music in their more apropriate settings, and so no one would need to feel robbed of their favourite type of music, and of course musical tastes can change and mature.


    Amen, brother. I've often said that the problem with the Sunday worship experience is that people often try to cram it all in so that they can do whatever else the rest of the week. Devotions and popular prayer of many sorts both alone and in group settings should be a part of our daily life which should in turn lead us back to the Mass. The problem lies in trying to change the Mass into something that it isn't.
    Thanked by 7francis oldhymns ParleyDee bonniebede Jenny Jeffrey Tucker Chris Allen
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    To continue Earl's post,

    "which all started happening in the 60's when innovation and novelty and 'do your own thing' were all the rage. unfortunately, that philosophy got carried into the sanctuary, and we have had to live through the error of that thinking. the reform is beginning to happen, but it is a slow and painful process for those who understand what the liturgy is SUPPOSED to be. I was a part of the Charismatic movement for two decades, and while the devotional aspect was a good experience (developing a personal relationship with Christ through bible studies, etc.) IMHO the thinking that superimposed that mentality on the Mass was disastrous.
    Thanked by 2Earl_Grey bonniebede
  • HeitorCaballero
    Posts: 92
    Still, growth and maturity are an important part of our lives as catholics. Pop music is banal and we should be concerned if adults find enjoyment or fulfillment in it. We should address it and allow growth to happen. I believe that an adult who finds fulfillment and /or "beauty" in pop music needs to re examine his music education and education in general.
    Thanked by 2Gavin bonniebede
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,471
    I believe that an adult who finds fulfillment and /or "beauty" in pop music needs to re examine his music education and education in general.


    That's pretty elitist. Also, not helpful.

    Plenty of popular music is beautiful and fulfilling. (And a lot isn't.)

    "Pop Music" (whatever that means) isn't unfit for liturgy because it is banal or low-brow. It is unfit because it is not liturgical.
    Thanked by 7Spriggo jpal ParleyDee CHGiffen bonniebede Chris Allen Mark Husey
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    To put it another way, I like the occasional McDonald's cheeseburger and Wendy's Baconator. (BACON!), but if that was the bulk of my diet, you would (after making the obligatory hysterical ejaculation about how unhealthy it is) rightfully say I had bad taste. Like Adam said, there's nothing wrong with low-brow, but low-brow tends to be like kudzu--if you don't manage it pretty soon it chokes everything around it to death.
    Thanked by 2bonniebede SkirpR
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    http://www.adoremus.org/1958Intro-sac-mus.html
    Thanked by 2Earl_Grey bonniebede
  • HeitorCaballero
    Posts: 92
    If there was liturgical music in the pop style, Would we have to accept it? Would we have to give it a place in the holy mass? We understand some adults, regrettably, find beauty and fulfillment (a reflection of God's creation) in pop music. It is a sad, alarming reality reflecting of our times. Children and some young people somehow relate to pop music as it is simple and, like the holy father says, banal. Immaturity is adolescence's curse. Yet, we grow from it. As in all things, we aim at growth and leave behind the things of children. Adults who do not have the exposure to greater things cannot be blamed nor judged. Those who do and yet close their eyes to the overwhelming evidence of pop's music banality and its attachment to a frivolous world must re-examine their approach.
    Thanked by 1bonniebede
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756
    Interesting thoughts above, thanks for commenting.
    I think elitism is a dangerous thing in some respects. A liturgical lecturer of ours took us on a church tour to show us examples of what she considered high art in Architecture , church art etc. In one modern church (which I have to say i found as bland as a corporate office waiting room) The 'high art' batik stations of the cross, which were to say the the least obscure, had been supplemented by some helpful parishioner who had sellotaped small devotional stations of the cross pictures under each one, obviously cut out from some prayerbook.
    My lecturer was horrified that the batik modern items were not appreciated, but i was thinking that the Stations had a function, to help the people in the church to pray. Obviously at least for some they had failed in their primary functions as visual aids to prayer, hence the supplementation.
    Now how to assess this? On the one hand an expert extolls something as high art (I disagreed). But more importantly the high art failed to acheive its purpose, to lead into prayer and contemplation. So for me the cut out pictures were the better solution. not the best - that would have been to have truly artistic pictures of quality where good form also fulfilled its function. In short I think she was an elitist snob.
    With respect to music, would it not be fair to say that certain forms of music, what in previous centuries would have been termed folk music, were ways in which ordinary people learned to express the concerns of everyday life (love romance etc) in simple tunes and melodies. Further could one not argue that this same learning process is necessary today - that people need to engage with music as a mode of expression; and further that only when they can do so can they really pray through singing. If music is not a way of expressing ourselves then how can it be prayer?
    Having integrated music as a something which can contribute to communication in a relationship - ie the commuication of prayer in our relationship with the Lord - the people are ready to have the musical expressions elevated to the highest art forms music has to offer.
    After all, an atheist singing beautiful chant is not praying.
    A fervent believer singing kumbaya prayerfully is.
    The challenge is the help the fervent believer develop in skill, but more importantly to helpt the atheist to grow in faith. Art for arts sake is , I think a false dictum.
  • Ralph BednarzRalph Bednarz
    Posts: 493
    The situation you described with an hour of praise before and after Mass validates your choice of music. I would love to achieve this with chant.


    Thanked by 1bonniebede
  • HeitorCaballero
    Posts: 92
    The fact that high art does not achieve "relating " to people is because people have failed to be exposed or educated. Our work stands vast before us: we must educate people. Growth is the key word here and it gets lost when emotions and resentments come afloat. Growth is our mission. Meet people where they are and lead them to growth. Let's also make the distinction between those adults who have never been exposed to great art, as preserved and delivered by the church, with those who elect to reject it. These are two completely different subjects and both worth of discussion. Yet, they must be addressed under different premises. Pedagogic strategies , for those adults who, sadly, have never been exposed to the treasures of the mother church. Catholic doctrine for the other group. In my experience, it is easier to awake appreciation and love for the treasures of the church among those who have never been exposed to it, than to those who are willingly emotionally (not intellectually) detached from it.
    Thanked by 1bonniebede
  • HeitorCaballero
    Posts: 92
    "After all, an atheist singing beautiful chant is not praying.
    A fervent believer singing kumbaya prayerfully is"

    I thank God on my knees the Jesuits and Dominicans who evangelized latin america did not think this way. They were able to truly understand the manifestations of God's creation away from emotional empirical observations.
    Thanked by 1Jenny
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756

    I thank God on my knees the Jesuits and Dominicans who evangelized latin america did not think this way. They were able to truly understand the manifestations of God's creation away from emotional empirical observations.

    Not getting the point... Can you elaborate?
    Thanked by 2marajoy Ralph Bednarz
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    HC, with appreciation for your counterpoint, I nonetheless think its a false syllogism. The good friars all over the globe imported select contemporaneous art forms and either planted them like seeds in a pottery, or into the soil. The former method, like erecting a gothic cathedral instead of a pyramid, remains to this day in seminaries and conservatories that occasionally dot the Hispano-American landscapes. The latter evolved, grafted if you will, into hybrid forms of formerly pure chant and polyphony, and in California with S. Serra eventually were subsumed by even more inculturated forms of musical expression. In any case and happily because of musicology, they are being revived more extensively now, but they are far from expediant usage as sacred music in Latin America as well.
    And those wonderful examples heard in the film "The Mission" and on Chanticleer and SAVAE collections have long since been displaced by the same sort of panopoly that English, Filipino, European and other hymnic repertoires now suffer. Ironically, a significant portion of these current musics' authors have the initials "SJ" after their names.
  • HeitorCaballero
    Posts: 92
    Melofluent, again, growth is missing here. Growth is essential in missionary work. Latin America has grown from the tools used 500 years ago. The missionaries did not force them into church art but taught them towards it. The word growth is essential today as well. Still.....latin americans natives were not exposed to the treasures of the church. A comparison cannot be made to modern day americans.
  • HeitorCaballero
    Posts: 92
    Bonnie. A chant by an atheist, in itself a sophistry, is not farther away from God than a mediocre display of emotionalism by a Christian. The missionaries in latin america viewed Jesus in the "pagan" expressions of religion among natives. They did not say, as I believe one would today, that their prayers and rituals were farther away from God than the mediocre prayers of a conquistador. Today, we must not forget the growth element. And we must no forget that some adults have not being exposed to the treasures of the church, therefore, they cannot be included in the same category as those who have been exposed but refuse to open their minds to growth. These two points, growth and education are essential when discussing the place of inferior music in the church.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Heitor, you are not doing a very good job of clearly expressing your point. Are we to understand that you're asserting that, even apart from liturgical usage (which everyone from the first post to this one has been clear we're NOT talking about liturgical usage), it is WRONG to get pleasure out of popular-style music? Like it's a sin to have a CD of it in your car? What exactly are you saying?
    Thanked by 1ContraBombarde
  • HeitorCaballero
    Posts: 92
    "Sin" and "wrong" are not words used :) Once again, my point centers in growth, education and the two distinct categories: those adults who are not exposed to the treasures of the church and those who are. Our job is to educate and aim at growth to those who have never been exposed to the church's treasures. The Holy Father is the one who defines pop music as "banal" and I am sure we agree on it, as it is a correct definition.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    I disagree with the definition for the simple reason that "pop" and "banal" are not synonymous. There is almost nothing banal about Cole Porter's music, for example.
    Thanked by 1ParleyDee
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,471
    "pop" and "banal" are not synonymous


    This.
    Thanked by 1ParleyDee
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    A timely and reasonable article illustrating many concerns in this thread

    If the link doesn't work, here's the URL:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,209
    Pop music doesn't belong in the liturgy, but not on the grounds that it's not art: it often is art. However, it is in a secular style associated with dancing, concerts, parties, and other forms of entertainment.

    For the same reason, a movement from a Beethoven piano sonata would not be suitable meditation music after communion.
    Thanked by 8ParleyDee Adam Wood francis Chris Allen Jenny ryand bonniebede SamuelDorlaque
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Don't tell Schenker that Beethoven's music isn't sacred.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    DougS

    We won't tell him... he will eventually realize it.
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood Ralph Bednarz
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756
    A chant by an atheist, in itself a sophistry, is not farther away from God than a mediocre display of emotionalism by a Christian.

    But that is not the comparison i made.
    A chant by an atheist can never be prayer because prayer is a raising of the heart and mind to god. If you don't believe there is a god, you can't raise your heart and mind to him.
    A 'fervent believer' is not indulging in emotionalism just because their musical accomplishment is still limited to low quality music.
    In charity, i would have to presume that someone who is doing their best musically, even where that falls far short of the high standards we should be seeking to attain from an artistic point of view, may still be very pleasing to god becasue their heart is set on the Lord, even if their musical choices are still set on the 1970's. ;-)
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    Their hearts are most certainly in the right place, but their musical choices should be reevaluated so that the prayers are sung in a manner that is not at odds with the mind of the church.
    Thanked by 2Scott_W bonniebede
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,471
    If you don't believe there is a god, you can't raise your heart and mind to him.


    Not really the point of this thread, but I disagree with this statement.
    Thanked by 3Ralph Bednarz Gavin bonniebede
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    Their hearts are most certainly in the right place, but their musical choices should be reevaluated so that the prayers are sung in a manner that is not at odds with the mind of the church.


    Indeed. Good intentions do not entitle one to a venue. Begone djembe and rainsticks!
    Thanked by 3Jenny bonniebede francis
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756
    Not really the point of this thread, but I disagree with this statement.

    True adam, but a fascinating diversion. Why not?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    The only rainstick I employ is an umbrella.
    Thanked by 3Adam Wood Gavin bonniebede
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,471
    in re: whether an atheists can raise the hearts and minds to God.
    Two thoughts off the top of my head...

    All the stir of living is a cry for life. All the struggle of business is an appeal of man to live. All industry, all enterprise, all thought, echoes with the dread of death, the prayer of life. And God hears it, and gives the world, and gives to you and me, day by day, the life we ask.
    -Phillips Brooks, in "The Sacredness of Life"


    Human beings have an innate restlessness for God, but this restlessness is a participation in God’s own restlessness for us. - Benedict XVI, Homily on Epiphany
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen HeitorCaballero bonniebede
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I don't feel like doing the research myself, but I think St. Paul would agree with you, Adam.
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood HeitorCaballero
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756
    yes , i get the point, and somewhat agree. I've always loved the scene in CSLewis' LAst Battle where the young man who faithfully worshipped Tash is told by Aslan that 'all true worship renedered to Tash is counted as given to me, while all false worship given
    to Aslan is actually rendered to Tash.

    However atheism is not the same as lack of knowledge of God, but a consciously willed and chosen position of rejection of God, as in Romans 1:20
    For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    Atheism is not an expression of our hearts inbuilt restlessness searching for God if it amounts to a decisive answer to the hearts questions. Agnosticism may be an expression of that continuing questing, but atheism is a more definite thing.



    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,471
    Sidenote: anyone not familiar with Phillips Brooks, I highly recommend his writing. He was an Episcopal priest and (momentary) Bishop, the rector at Trinity Boston when the current HH Richardson church was built, and the writer (among other things) of "O Little Town of Bethlehem." His sermons are phenomenal.

    And, to balance the Protestant recommendation- I've also been reading G. K. Chesterton recently as well. Highly recommend.


    As to the question somewhat at hand, see the eminent writer quoted below (my emphasis added)

    Whither shall I go from thy spirit?
    or whither shall I flee from thy face?

    If I ascend into heaven, thou art there:
    if I descend into hell, thou art present.

    If I take my wings early in the morning,
    and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea:

    Even there also shall thy hand lead me:
    and thy right hand shall hold me.

    And I said: Perhaps darkness shall cover me:
    and night shall be my light in my pleasures.

    But darkness shall not be dark to thee, and night shall be light as day:
    the darkness thereof, and the light thereof are alike to thee.
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen HeitorCaballero SamuelDorlaque bonniebede
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Nice call, Adam. Another eminent writer's version:
    "If you stand before the powers of hell, and death is at your side,
    Know that I am with you through it all."    Fuerchte dich nicht...
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen jpal bonniebede
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I was just wondering if it's a bad thing that I was singing Adams post in my head to "you are near"....
    Thanked by 4Adam Wood jpal Ally bonniebede
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Only against Bp. Serratelli if you humagined the Tetragrammaton in your head! ;-)
    Thanked by 1bonniebede
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    more on light and darkness... your thoughts?

    http://home.pausetoponder.org/darkness.htm
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756
    Hmm, interesting riposte. But,
    I was not arguing that the atheist is not loved and known by God. The question at point was could the atheist be praying while at the same time willing not to be speaking to a god that he does not believe in.
    as in hebrews 11:6
    And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him
    Thanked by 1francis
Add a Comment