If you can find it, I know St. Paul's in Cambridge, MA does (or did) an extensive spirituality survey encompassing music as well as other aspects of the liturgy. Of course, they only surveyed their own parishioners.

What is there to be afraid of with "attitudes" of the congregation towards music? Is it not the directive in the Sacrosanctum Concilium to have the people, our congregations, as ACTIVE participants in the Mass? Without going into detail, an objective reading of this document as well as the Musicam Sacram several years later lays out what is acceptable and what is Sacred Music. The Church is not reversing Vatican II. It's time to leave the terms "High Mass", etc. behind. This constant negative criticism of a particular style of music is not productive. The extremes on both sides seem to be in a grudge match. The "people" seem to be not important to either side. The lack of research on congregations attitudes towards music is simple. It is too difficult to compile. It's just like people's preferences towards country, classical, hip hop... As the Director of Sacred Music at my parish, I blend traditional music, contemporary music, and chant at every Mass. Three basic rules: 1) It ties into the Scriptural theme for the Liturgy. 2) The music is beautiful. 3) The congregation sings.

geotev,

Yes - welcome to the forum! The three criteria you mention sound like they're based on the "threefold judgment" (liturgical, pastoral, musical) introduced in the BCL document Music in Catholic Worship and taken up in Sing to the Lord. These are good practical guidelines.

May I also suggest that you consider what the Church has taught in Sacorsanctum Concilium of Vatican II? Naturally, this document does go into how one is to choose music for the liturgy; rather, it offers the underlying principles by which these judgments are to be applied. In other words, the threefold judgment doesn't exist in a vacuum, but has to be informed a more comprehensive understanding of the liturgy and by the Church's tradition.

For example, according to SC, Gregorian chant is not simply one choice among others, but should be given "first place" (or "pride of place") in the liturgy when it comes to the music. The reason for this is not that chant is in itself "more holy" than other kinds of music, but that it is paradigmatic of sacred music being "sacred song united to the
words, [forming] a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy."

So you can see there is no question of "reversing Vatican II," but rather a more careful reading of the documents. Further, a critique of current liturgical music goes far beyond a dislike of musical style. One may or may not are for the sound of the St. Louis Jesuits, or chant, Bach's Mass in B Minor, but I think we can both agree that whether or not these are appropriate to the liturgy is another question altogether.

The only thing I would be "afraid of" in terms of the congregation's preferences are they are just that - preferences at a given point in time, and I think it's safe to say that these preferences have more to do with musical style than anything else. While they should be not be ignored altogether, they should not determine what music is done. I can well imagine that a pastor could use such information to dictate the music, whether or not this is what the liturgy calls for. A well-formed music director should (with the support of his pastor) rather lead the people to a correct understanding of the true role of music in the liturgy, rather than allowing influences outside the liturgy itself to determine what this role will be.

Geotev,

As the resident curmudgeon, let me, too, welcome you to the forum.

I hope you won't mind if I address the substance of some of your comments.

These aren't in any particular order.

* To do away with the distinction between High Mass and the other forms is to remove a distinction which Holy Mother Church herself uses to delineate varying levels of ceremony.

* "Active" participation, as the Church understands the term, doesn't mean that the people must be constantly doing something both audible and visible. (In fact, when discussing the 'responsorial psalm', one document (which don't have in front of me) specifically notes that at this point the congregation participates both by singing the antiphon and by listening attentively.

* Since I'm not a specialist in data collection and such things, I can't really respond to your comment about discovering what the people's preferences are. On the other hand, Cardinal Ratzinger (before he became Pope) observed that people (he had in mind that organism called the Liturgy Committee) don't need to make up the Mass every week, in some attempt to be relevant or liked. Musicians can do their jobs without consulting the polls (be they of Andrew Greeley and his ilk or of those people who think that High Mass is too frilly and pointlessly overextended, or of those people who want to sing only music in (fill in the blank style.) I don't mean that musicians should be mean spirited folks who set out to annoy the PIPs, but that the squeaky wheels are the parishoners who usually get what THEY want, claiming that the people want it, and this is just as abusive of the PIP as a supposedly un-caring musician.

* I completely agree with you, that "effecting positive change is difficult, but worth it".

As the resident curmudgeon, let me, too, welcome you to the forum.

When was I relieved of that duty?
Geez, no pink slip, no email, no smoke signal, nuttin'. Might as well join NPM!

Yes, melo....after all that mooning.....well, enough said.

About High Mass: didn't Musicam Sacram say that the distinction between sung ("High") Mass and spoken ("Low") Mass remains?

28. The distinction between solemn, sung and read Mass, sanctioned by the Instruction of 1958 (n. 3), is retained, according to the traditional liturgical laws at present in force.


It was retained in 1967. But then the 1970 Missal was promulgated.

Page 116 of The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948-1975 by Annibale Bugnini says, in regards to the changes in the Missal:

"The basic distinction between the forms of celebration was no longer to depend on the presence or absence of singing but on the participation of the faithful. The only distinction now was to be between Mass with a congregation and Mass without a congregation."


Indeed, the 2010 GIRM states:

Chapter IV: The Different Forms of Celebrating Mass
  I. Mass with the People
    A) Mass without a Deacon
    B) Mass with a Deacon
    C) The Functions of the Acolyte
    D) The Functions of the Reader
  II. Concelebrated Mass
  III. Mass at Which only One Minister Participates
  IV. Some General Norms for All Forms of Mass
    Incensation
   276. Thurification or incensation is an expression of reverence and of prayer, as is signified in Sacred Scripture (cf. Ps 141 [140]:2; Rev 8:3).
Incense may be used optionally in any form of Mass:

For that sort of situation, it might be good to read "When Sheep Attack", a book about conflict in churches.

Dearest...you are curmudgeon emeritus. :) Which means you are no longer obligated to show up and be curmudgeonly daily, but can come in when you feel like it, to keep an eye on the younger curmudgeons and ensure they are upholding the dignity of the office. It's still an awesome responsibility, without the time pressure.

If you look at the broad sweep of liturgical reform (beginning LONG before Vat.II with the "Liturgical Movement" people of Germany) you'll find that the direction has been toward more and more spoken and sung participation from the PIPs.

A noted and scholarly liturgist of my acquaintance has made that clear.

That movement, however, did not then and does not now dump the choir (and schola) into the ash-heap of history. It concentrated on more use of Chant Ordinaries and psalmody (antiphon/response), not on cha-cha and hootenanny.

For a while, that direction was subsumed by the cha-cha/"modern style" crowd, which had changed the language to favor their own direction. That crowd is mostly dead; what remains of them is dying; and CMAA has emerged as the new standard-bearer of the authentic movement.

So yes, "High" and "Low" Mass terminology is dead. ALL Masses should be sung Masses. If there's a schola to do the harder parts, great! If there's a choir which lends its 2-, 3-, 4-, (or more) part-singing capability using music of old or new masters, great!

What is really dead is the norm of the PIPs doing nothing except listening (if that) or worse, ignoring the Mass while praying their beads.

I believe that now-Archbishop Sample used the term 'High Mass' in his recent pastoral letter on music to refer to the principal Sunday Mass with the assistance of Choir, Cantors, Organ and the singing of the full Propers and Ordinary.

If you are referring to the pastoral letter "Rejoice in the Lord Always," then page 13 of the pdf refers to the Sung Mass. The single reference to the term "High Mass" is in this context:

2. Specific Musical Standards for Parish Masses
a. Singing the Mass
1] One parish celebration every Sunday should be a Sung Mass (Missa cantata),
offered with consistency and with the greatest care and attention the community
can give it. In the former traditional parlance, this may have been referred to as a
High Mass. It could also be referred to as a Solemn Mass. A Sung Mass need
not be elaborate - indeed, the principle of noble simplicity should guide it. Other
Masses in the parish may include less singing and more recited parts, but the
Sung Mass sets the pattern and the model for sacred music in the parish.

2] The current Missal sometimes makes reference to the “principal” Mass of a
parish. This may be the appropriate choice for the celebration of the Sung Mass.
Parishes whose only Mass of precept is on Saturday may make this a Sung
Mass. Pastors who have the care of more than one parish may rotate the Sung
Mass among them weekly or seasonally according to local circumstances.

3] The Church’s liturgy admits of the principle of “degrees” or “progression” of
solemnity, according to the liturgical calendar and the capabilities of the ministers
of the Mass and the congregation. Singing plays a significant role in the
application of this principle. In other words, on more solemn occasions, more of
the Mass would be sung by the ministers and congregation and more elaborate
music might be used.

In that context, now-Archbishop Sample gave the priests/celebrants in the Diocese of Marquette this guidance about their role in the Sung Mass:

b. Orations and Dialogues
For the Sung Mass, the celebrant should learn to sing, without instrumental
accompaniment, the celebrant’s chants for the orations and dialogues to the
melodies given in the Roman Missal, with the responses sung by the faithful.

Regarding the Propers, now-Archbishop Sample was careful to emphasize the importance of singing the Propers according to the options described in the GIRM:

The pastors and musicians of these parishes are encouraged and
challenged to work toward a restoration of the sung Propers in some form at the
Sung Mass, according to the options which are described in the General
Instruction of the Roman Missal.

Chonak

Oh, I've seen that. It ain't pretty. But while the PIPs feel stuck with their pastors, they don't feel that way about funding their musicians. Especially if they are in urban or rural areas with more choice over where to attend Mass. Musicians may bleat about the PIPs being sheep on the attack, but the PIPs are not necessarily going to join the pity party.

Parishes (especially smaller ones) are constantly in self-conflict over their understanding of their need to change and their desire to remain exactly how they are (or perceive themselves to be).

I'm convinced that this conflict dynamic (which plays out even at the level of the individual person) is the source of most smaller-parish problems, and possibly larger ones too.