Booths are $900, plus the cost of getting there, being there, etc.

Printing expenses...

airplanes, hotels, food, bribes, etc...

Off-topic: Foley's Turn to Me begins with one of my all-time favorite chord progressions.

I joined NPM, joined discussion groups I was interested in and....nothing. An occasional post from someone trying to find an out of print piece of music. A group for DM with a moderator who, seriously, checked her spam folder once every three months resulted in a sudden flood of emails. Then nothing....

Snarky direct and pointed ridicule for their friends (!) who used chant and continued requests for prayers for people....and nothing else... convinced me it was not worth the money.

I could see them being snarky about CMAA members - but these were their friends.

Don't be snarky with your friends. When they get mad and hurt you, remember it is for your own good. ;-)

I had our diocesan director of music try to recruit me into NPM, but when I mentioned I am CMAA, she stopped emailing and communicating. Never got another email after that.

I wish I did not have to attest to the tenor of the last few comments. But over these last six years of association with CMAA, it is clear that regard for me personally changed from friends that were both NPM and internet associates. I was "ignorant....an embarrassment....irrational...etc." (All true, btw!) But such indictments came to me through back channels and despite a track record of encouraging dialogue, defending the integrity of Haas or Ambrosetti showing up here and even proposing lifting the ban on my friend "You know who" in Iowa so he could engage and try to know "us." The unfortunate truth is that it appears the chasm of trust is in "their" minds too large to bother. That's why I'm ecstatic (well, hyperbole is fun) that Rvs. Krisman and Chepponis have stuck around to rumble with the other branch of the family. We takes a lickin', keep on tickin'. But we have to be aware we are perceived, as described above, literally as fringe, kooks, nattering nabobs of negativity (poor Sprio) by lots of otherwise very pleasant colleagues.

It is pretty sad that when we mention a fine organization like CMAA that automatically we are labeled traditionalist snobs, yada yada, and looked at like the red headed step child. Oh well. Christ said it wasn't going to be easy following Him, and he wasn't kidding. At least we are in good company.

"Best to proceed gingerly"--purple?

What's the color for bad puns?

If you don't plan on changing pitch while reciting the joke, I already have it under copyright.

It goes without saying that I would still pursue litigation against you, Wood.

I'm sorry, MJM and AW, but AOZ just texted (she is our "Judge Judy," you know) and she said to pass onto you both to stop lollygagging around on the forum and do some real work! (Oh and she whispered that Matthew could cover those PT gigs if he'd get a motorcycle and that Adam should find a nice Catholic joint to work in.) Don't shoot the messenger, presuming you believe him.

I have both. AND a supportive pastor. Don't hate me. Just be jealous. :)

Pick one, gingerly.

The Mass IS THE Mass, and nothing should be added or taken away... only artistically heightened by the addition of music that is worthy to accentuate its text and action.

Hah! LOL. That is always a problem when you have years of public writings that will be compared to anything new you say. Poor old Neville was the original proponent of can't we all just get along?

The fact that citizens of Texas regularly insult citizens of California (and vice-versa) does not imply that there is a war between Texas and California. It only means that, given enough people, some of them will insult each other.

"The fact that citizens of Texas regularly insult citizens of California (and vice-versa) does not imply that there is a war between Texas and California"

Yet.

The last NPM convention I attended was in 2007 in Indianapolis. The pre-convention events began the day after Benedict XVI issued Summorum pontificum. You can well imagine the general attitude of the average convention goer - one of hostility. I even recall attending a breakout session dealing with the anniversary of Musicam sacram led by several noted "experts" in liturgical and musical practice. We were told that the document in question was entirely irrelevant and could not be applied to modern liturgical music practice because it had been written with the traditional Latin Mass in mind and not the Novus ordo. It was clear that they had no use for, nor could they examine through the prism of continuity, the text of the last legitimate, binding legislation from the Holy See on the subject. It was to be rejected, period. These are not scholars who are interested in examining history and learning from it. These are progressive iconoclasts with a definite agenda that does not include those who actively advocate the restoration of chant and sacred polyphony to the common practice of the Church in the US. Their livelihood is wrapped up in the sale of their books and compositions, and they'll cast their nets to the widest audience they can draw, even if it means the unfortunate choice of compromising their principles.

And since the issue of history has been brought up, I commend to your re-reading the writing of the estimable Rev. Richard Schuler, who in his Chronicle of the Reform spells out in exacting detail the names, places and events that led up to the formation of the liberal/progressive movement and how it found a home with the NPM. By his accounts, which were first-hand, their roots are poisonous, even treacherous. If we fail to recognize their heritage and history, we're doomed to fall into the same traps our predecessors did, and our work will be for naught.

More recently, I recall a rather unfortunate series of events involving Jeffrey Tucker and David Haas. Tucker tried very hard to be conciliatory and to engage Haas in serious-minded dialogue about the value and efficacy of the Simple English Propers. Tucker was quite effluent in his praise of Haas' eloquence and insight. I also recall that Haas quickly turned on Tucker and other members of the CMAA (on the forum), thus revealing Haas' true colors. We discovered in the many exchanges on this forum that Haas doesn't even speak the same language we do, let alone derive his philosophical constructs from the same foundational understanding of music and liturgy, thus making dialogue difficult, if not impossible. (I wrote a lengthy article chronicling this, complete with quotes with a view to publishing it as an editorial piece, but it was never published).

There are those among us here on this forum who have spent many long years poring over the many documents of the Church, the writings of the Holy Fathers and the commentary of truly eloquent scholars in the field and carefully developing and honing our understanding of the Mind of the Church in this matter. They are in a position to enter into the breach and debate in a civil and logical manner the merits of the CMAA's position on sacred music. This is not, however, where we should be sending neophytes, nor should we encourage them to "learn" from the voices of the NPM. They're unprepared by virtue of their youth, inexperience and not-yet-developed knowledge to critically analyze what they're told by those voices, and we leave them vulnerable to drawing the wrong conclusions. Imagine if a young and inexperienced sacred musician who was well on the way to embracing the "reform of the reform" had attended the breakout session I described above? In their naivety they may very well have taken for convincing truth what was said about the irrelevance of the documents in question, and then been open to the more progressive, liberal interpretation of those documents issued by the USCCB. At best they may have developed the dangerous notion that chant and polyphony are merely a valid choice among many. (A notion that we know from experience is advanced by NPM.) How does it serve our interests, or theirs, to expose them to such confusion?

As for me, I find it interesting that the gospel reading yesterday included the allusion to the apostles knocking the dust off of their sandals if they weren't received in a town. I knocked the sand of NPM off my shoes in 2007, and I haven't looked back.

I say let the musicians in Austin and San Francisco/LA meet up in Taos or Sedona for a new Woodstock.

Taos would be better - more restaurants.

And thanks, Charles, for callin' 'em as you sees 'em.

Thread drift...gotta love it.

The original question was this...

I am trying to decide if I should join either of these groups. Most of my colleagues here belong to NPM, but shy away from CMAA, so I am beginning to wonder if NPM is not as sacred-music minded as CMAA. If anybody could give me any information, I'd appreciate it.

The answer is quite plainly...as an organization, NPM does not define sacred music in the same way as CMAA does. It is my opinion (and my opinion only) that CMAA has a more historically accurate presentation in terms of what music should be used for singing the Mass.

Debating the motivations of individuals within the two groups is probably a conversation for another thread.

Dearest. I chose the word authentic quite deliberately. Praise music is not appropriate for Mass. Sappy sentimentalism is not appropriate for Mass. For devotions sure. For Mass...no. The documents of the church very clearly state what the ideal is. There are certain allowable compromises, but they remain inferior choices.

Authentic liturgy is not about low Mass, or High Mass, or EF or OF. It's not about organ or piano or guitar. Authentic liturgy is doing what the church commands.

If someone advances the notion that chanting the Propers is just one equal choice among many then they do not have an authentic understanding of what the Mass is, and how the church asks us to celebrate it.

Of course that is just an opinion. I'm also of the opinion that the opening hymn is completely unnecessary, chant the Introit and leave it at that.

In fact I have long been of the opinion that hymns should not be sung at Mass, period. I have modified that position over time and as I grow in my knowledge, but I remain convinced that hymns are vastly over-used, should NEVER replace the Propers of the Mass, and should be carefully chosen both regards to text, and tune.

Now before anyone gets the mistaken impression that I don't like hymns...I do. Some I like very much. I like some praise music as well, my cd shelf at home is full of such things. I just don't think they are appropriate for Mass.

My solution would be to reintroduce devotions at the parish level and promote them. People's lives used to revolve almost entirely around their parish church. That should be revived. If it were, quite frankly much of this kind of dissension would become irrelevant. No one would be upset that they weren't hearing their favorite childhood devotional songs anymore...because they would still be sung. Just not at Mass.

CMAA has a more historically accurate presentation in terms of what music should be used for singing the Mass.

Now we're talkin'.
As I offered early on, "NPM, all things to all people." "CMAA, get it RIGHT the first time."
Measure twice, cut once.
If this helps, I've never seen a conga line dance weave through a congregation at a colloquium or chant intensive Mass. I HAVE seen that at an NPM concluding Mass. (Las Vegas, 2000) Hope someone found and used my sandals back then.
Wendi, the scope of what repertoire is used at liturgy world wide is unfathomable, which argues for GC first, polyphony 2nd. However, as repugnant as many find it, OEW and IATBOL and such are licit for use at worship under Option Four. Period until the GIRM is amended. That is not an endorsement. Unfortunately this house of cards (of an open ended interpretation of Option Four) was not constructed by bishops who abrogated their duties back in the seventies. And lack of an imprimatur or nihil obstat does not guarantee "authenticity" either. The St. Gregory had those. There are great deficiences, not necessarily the Pelagianistic inferences of "Anthem", but hymns that needed killin' and were over time.
Under your definition of authentic, even on a simple level, Temple's "Prayer of St. Francis" would be inauthentic. But does it occur to anyone that according to the current GIRM, one could argue quite successfully that those performance Masses that Msgr. Schuler conducted weekly are, theoretically, inauthentic to the reform that Pius X envisioned through to the TLM of 62, and certainly under the 1970 Missal.
I'm not saying any of this to contradict either you or David, just trying to be very specific rather than leaving terms open to general interpretation or conventional wisdom as arbiter.

I'm not at all surprised Adam. As I've said repeatedly...I'm not even out of basic training in this musician's army. :D

Dearest, sometimes it seems that I define words differently than the modern definition. I don't know if that's a result of reenacting...or homeschooling...or both.