Are you sure it isn't banners that'll do it? I think it's probably banners.

The problem with this thesis is that Rome's stunning churches are nearly empty.

Of course, the music is execrable.

Flying fish banners

IIRC, said devices were somewhere between a kite and a processional banner, no?
Well, regarding aesthetic reform in the church universal, one can lead a horse to water...
I think it's high time we Americans place a moratorium on the automatic inclination that when WE see a problem, here or elsewhere, we become fixated upon the mandate that is has to be corrected, and by God if they won't do it, we will!
RotR is not WWII. And yes, I know that souls may be very well at stake in part because of the religious formation of the faithful, but I don't think our individual judgment will hinge upon whether we sang "Peace is flowing like a river" with the schlomo strumming two chords on a guitar at every Sunday Mass.

I think it's high time we Americans place a moratorium on the automatic inclination that when WE see a problem, here or elsewhere, we become fixated upon the mandate that is has to be corrected, and by God if they won't do it, we will!

Is this laziness talking, or Rodney King, or what? "Souls are at stake, but our individual judgment is not going to depend on our action or inaction, so don't get involved"??? What kind of charity is that?

[Would you mind easing up on the rancor here?--RC]

This is a discussion board for sacred music. It is precisely a place where people discuss, among other things, the difference between good music and bad music, the effect this has on our brothers and sisters, and what we can do about it on every level. If someone finds some of these discussions so uncomfortable that he repeatedly speaks negatively about other participants' contributions and motives, including their religious motives, then perhaps he could participate in only those discussions that don't make him uncomfortable. There are probably other solutions, but that could be a good one. There would still be many interesting threads to participate in, and meanwhile those of us who want to distinguish between good and bad, good and better, etc., would have the freedom to do this without the discussions being diverted.

Furthermore, I might add, it's an open question whether the Catholic Church will survive except in tiny pockets of the United States at the rate things are going now so building up the Body of Christ in the best way I know how---through the fully realized beauty and power of the Catholic liturgy and the sacraments---- is the only way I know of to combat the threat of our eventual extinction.

Just look at what's happening to the Little Sisters of the Poor if you're not concerned that the Catholic Church is under attack in America. We may not have mobs of wild-eyed fanatics waving swords and demanding our heads, but give it some time.

Sorry to be aggressive about this, but I guess my mama bear instinct is coming out.

"The Church must breathe with her two lungs!"

- Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, no. 54

I was trying to say my observations about American Catholics interested in liturgy seem to think they have a moral imperative to make wholesale and blanket criticisms of liturgical praxis around the globe, and offer up immediate opinions on how to remediate those.

Point well taken, Melo, since almost none of us, at least that I'm aware of, have chancery positions or have offices in Rome and so we're trying to work from the ground up instead of the top down. This forum and resources have been enormously helpful in assisting and encouraging people to work towards authentic reform, and personally I'd be very much handicapped without it. I receive so much inspiration and hope from listening to all of you. I often feel like a little mouse listening at the feet of giants, but that's alright since it's always good to be stretched intellectually and musically.

The point is, though, even if it sounds trite, that each of us does exert significant influence on the state of the liturgy in our own corners of the world. Do you ever stop to realize that generations of people may be influenced by your music decisions? People will carry the hymns and music you sing and play at Mass with them wherever they go. Do you remember the musician from China who came to the forum once and recalled how Catholic Chinese prisoners would sing church hymns in their prison cells from memory for inspiration and solace?

I've spoken probably ad nauseam of my humble place at the keyboard at our diocesan TLM in St. John's Cemetery, and it's probably the lowest rung on the totem pole by church music standards, and that's fine with me because it offers us a unique perspective and opportunity (and responsibility) to do things correctly from the beginning. I should call my reflections "Notes from the Crypt" because I feel like we're like the Christians in the catacombs and are trying to establish a liturgical music program and Catholic community literally from the ground up. I'm very grateful for the opportunity and only hope God will multiply and bless our efforts, and the efforts of all of you who are laboring in the Lord's vineyard.

JulieColl: "While the ancient and medieval theories of beauty grew from metaphysics (where beauty was treated primarily as a property of being), the aesthetic theories have completely different roots. They are connected with the milestone that was Cartesian philosophy [NB R. Descartes 1596 - 1650].. as a result of [which] beauty was separated first from being, then from nature, and in the end it became a value ascribed to art alone." (P Jaroszyński, Beauty and Being, ch. 5).

The process (of shifting "beauty", from "perfection of being, goodness, and truth in relationship to the understanding soul", to "sensual expression ordered to the spirit"), would be completed by the time of Hegel [eg 1820-1830] but aesthetics as a separate (Cartesian) science begins with Baumgarten (1714 - 1762) which is why I said 300 years.

Not much Catholicism in there, at any rate.

Melo, are you referring to the American Catholic conservative attitude that the whole world should revolve around "our problems" and the universal Church must stop everything and solve "our problems" in the liturgy and the lack of attendance, etc., instead of more pressing problems like the persecution of Christians in the Middle East?
If you are, I agree wholeheartedly that liturgical/aesthetical abuse in my local church shrinks to almost nothing in comparison to the plight of persecuted Christians in Timor, but I'm still going to do what I can in my little corner of the Catholic world (and believe me, it's literally a tiny corner of a tiny cemetery chapel) to promote authentic Catholic liturgy and beautiful sacred music

Yes, Julie, more or less this. And your intuition about what you doing affecting the future of your grandchildren and theirs I share as well, and act in accord as much as possible. I have neither sought to stifle free discussion, nor steer it away from those aspects most beneficial to the mission of the forum, and I've always allowed as how YMMV. That said, I think friend Jeffrey Quick's linking of beauty towards truth is remarkably on point. Our liturgical problems will always be a subset of ecclesial problems. I'll bow out at this point. Thank you.

Darned if I know, Julie. Considering the art I know best, beauty seems to involve ratios of small whole numbers (or their near-equivalent in 12th-roots of 2), body-measurable rhythm, formal symmetries, a certain amount of predictability but not too much. All of these can be quantified, but their perfection of balance can't be quantified, only experienced. There is other music which I find meaningful, but not beautiful. And sometimes, in my own work, beauty and meaning battle for which shall cede place at any particular instant. I don't see perfect beauty as being possible. I may change my mind about that if offered a commission for the Heavenly Choir, but here on earth, that's how it seems.

Many thanks for these excellent and thoughtful explanations. It's bringing back memories of metaphysics classes. I remember reading Tolstoy's essay on art and being impressed with his definition of art as the activity by which one person accurately transmtis his experiences and feelings to others, but that still doesn't define beauty per se.

This isn't a perfect definition either, but it comes close:

A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness.
JOHN KEATS, Endymion

I often notice that - especially in the context of the liturgical arts - people who claim as beautiful something that I think is downright gawd-aful tacky will also say, in another context, that they don't think beauty is that important in the liturgy.

Just sayin'.

Okay, I'll buy that, Francis. I believe beauty is an objective truth as well, and the article was very helpful in establishing that, but if I attempted, as Kathy helpfully suggested, to offer a concrete example of musical perfection and beauty---the best of which I firmly believe to be John Eliot Gardiner's performance of Bach's Mass in B minor, and in particular the choral segment below from the Gloria--- there would be any number of people who could pop up and say they don't agree with my assessment at all, so where do you go with that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ohS-o4kys

JulieColl

There are a number of layers to your hypothesis:

1. The beauty of the composition on its own merit
2. The truth to it's appropriateness in being used in an actual liturgy
3. The beauty of the performance

I would rate them as follows:

1. 10 - the composition is true, timeless and beautiful.
2. 0 - was never intended to be performed for the liturgy. It's waaaay over the top!
3. A performance, in my mind, is not something that can receive an objective judgement. It is in itself flawed because it uses humans to execute it's performance, can receive a widely varried treatment concerning tempo, acoustic harmonics, dynamics, balance of voices and instruments, intonation, and more, which enter into a subjective analysis of a performance. Nonetheless, I would say the performance that you have posted is... simply beautiful, oftentimes because it is the human reaching for the sublime.

One would be loathe to suggest that beauty is anything other than an objective category. But, one is right back where one started by suggesting that 'simplicity', 'harmony', and (MOST of all) 'brilliance' are anything other than hopelessly subjective descriptors, which, besides being subjective, are hardly universal qualities of anything that is objectively beautiful. Coming immediately to mind is much rococo and baroque art and architecture that is certainly not characterised as simplicity, yet much of it is very beautiful; certain musics and art may be said to be 'harmonious' (whatever that means) and yet lack beauty in any meaningful sense; as for 'brilliance', well, what, pray, is meant by this? - splendour? genius? daring? light-filled? or what?, none of which are required attributes of the beautiful. Again, I, too, insist that beauty is an objective category; but, we are on the same old slippery slope when we cannot define how it is objective but in inevitably subjective language.

By the way, Choirparts, I just sent out links to my schola of your very helpful videos for Ne Timeas, Maria which we're going to sing on Candlemas.

A thousand thank you's for your practice videos. We use them all the time.

I have enjoyed reading all of your contributions to this thread. I also agree that beauty is an objective reality toward which we all aspire. The difficulty in achieving it in liturgy (at least in my neck of the woods) flows from the difficulty in introducing our congregations to beautiful music. I have found that it is time consuming and requires patience, persistence and above all..prayer.

I don't believe that this resistance is due to materialism or pragmatism and I have witnessed several fellow laborers in "middle America" who are doing God's work against great odds. I do think that much of the music which surrounds us on a daily basis is formulaic, and uninspired. Just turn on a radio and it is apparent. In my experience, much of the problem comes from a lack of exposure to beautiful music which is complicated by a lack of thorough musical training and curiosity in many liturgical musicians. It's easier to sing four hymns and call it a day than to study liturgical documents and play through more challenging works. We need to seek out that beauty and dedicate time and effort to mastering it.

In addition, the majority of us must accomplish our work with little help from the clergy. While I am sure that the pastors that I am familiar with want beautiful music in liturgy, I am less confident that they have the musical vocabulary needed to recognize, inspire and support the efforts of dedicated scholas in their parishes. We have to delicately open minds and hearts to the same beauty that inspired us to use our talents for Christ.

Ed Feser has an entry on aesthetics and plastic which is relevant because "plastic" is a good description of much of the modern liturgical ditties:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-metaphysics-and-aesthetics-of.html

Moreover, plastic, though in another and obvious sense “artificial,” is not ugly when new and functional. Indeed, the plastic components of computers, automobiles, toys, and many other artifacts can all be aesthetically highly pleasing.

But old, broken plastic seems pretty much always ugly in a way old, broken stone, metal, wood, or glass need not be. Why?

Some things never seem to get old....

http://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/italia/lazio/roma/piazza-navona.html

http://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/italia/lazio/roma/fontana-di-trevi.html

http://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/italia/lazio/roma/pantheon.html