What's wrong with having an organ play hymns automatically using MIDI?
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,513
    [I need some quotes. I promise I will not identify anyone.]

    5, 4, 3, 2, 1. May the games now begin.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,668
    The underlay of "worship" is that it is offered by people, not by robots (or similar).

    Your question is like this one: "Why can't I confess my sins to a picture of my parish priest?"
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,661
    It's essentially a gussied up recording-playing machine. Go the the GIRM, among other places.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,066
    It's about as wrong as playing a recording of the homily or Eucharistic prayer.
  • https://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur59.htm

    Beside , the music will be like chopping vegetable in same rhythm "chomp chomp chomp"
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,513
    Your question is like this one: "Why can't I confess my sins to a picture of my parish priest?"


    They don't allow that in your parish? What are they, orthodox or something? You need to go the the GRIM, like Liam says.

    Are there not more PITHY things that can be said?

    "It's about as wrong as playing a recording of the homily" of course, I've seen the rule overridden when a bishop appears on a projection screen asking, not for souls, but for the annual giving...
    Thanked by 3eft94530 EMH CHGiffen
  • Sing to the Lord, Nos. 93-94:

    93. Recorded music lacks the authenticity provided by a living liturgical assembly gathered for the Sacred Liturgy. While recorded music might be used advantageously outside the Liturgy as an aid in the teaching of new music, it should not, as a general norm, be used within the Liturgy.
    94. Some exceptions to this principle should be noted. Recorded music may be used to accompany the community’s song during a procession outside and, when used carefully, in Masses with children. Occasionally, it might be used as an aid to prayer, for example, during long periods of silence in a communal celebration of reconciliation. However, recorded music should never become a substitute for the community’s singing.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,283
    when used carefully, in Masses with children.


    Is this for parishes where no one knows how to play the Hippopotamus song?
  • canadashcanadash
    Posts: 1,390
    when used carefully, in Masses with children


    What an insult to children!
  • 'What an insult to children!'

    Rather, what a cruel irony... that 'adults' who have never grown up musically, think that children are as musically stupid as they are. An insult, indeed! Our children are not cretins, though quite a few educators seem to think that they are. These people should be barred from teaching.
  • With respect to Noel's query, I should think that the answer should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of intuition, cultural maturity, and understanding of the sacred act, which is, more than anything else, the encounter and inter-action between the totally human and the totally divine. Recorded music is as appropriate as recorded lectionary readings, recorded homilies, recorded eucharistic prayers, and.... well, why not just stay home and listen to a recording and partake of a prepackaged sacrament mailed out weekly by the chancery. Listening or singing to recorded music in church at mass is the clueless act of a culturally dead and spiritually impoverished people - people, that is, to whom the answer is not obvious... perhaps even incomprehensible.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 752
    Music - singing is prayer. Prayer is a not making the right sounds (with our lips, or with a musical instrument) it is an act of the will and the intellect, which may use the vocal abilities of the body (lips) or another tool (musical instrument) to give expression to the right there, right now, occurring act of the will (the raising of the heart and mind to God).

    A recording or music, even of chant or prayerful singing, is a record of a prayer which has happened in the past. It is not a current act by a living person of prayer.
    An automatically playing instrument is not willing, so it is not praying either.

    A person, who listening to a recording, or being supported by the automatic playing of an instrument, is thereby being helped to pray, in the current moment, will indeed be praying, however, it is preferable that all the sounds being made are coming, in the actual moment of prayer, from someone who is willingly praying.

    There .Clear as mud, probably.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,668
    Occasionally, it might be used as an aid to prayer, for example, during long periods of silence in a communal celebration of reconciliation.


    Sensible people would add: "However, this music MUST be the Dies Irae."

    I've been subjected to continuous-music-reconciliation. The poor schlep played every hymn in the book (those that he knew, anyway) and then began again at the top. Good part: my penance was done before I got into the box.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    From "De Musica Sacra" 1958

    "60. The following principles for the use of musical instruments in the sacred liturgy are to be recalled:
    ... c) Finally, only instruments which are personally played by a performer are to be used in the sacred liturgy, not those which are played mechanically or automatically."

    This was later clarified to mean essentially that pre-recorded music was not permitted, but that all liturgical music must be a "live performance" by the musicians. There was a belief early on that this meant a prohibition on electronic musical instruments such as the Hammond Organ, but this was later clarified that electronic instruments designed to imitate the pipe organ were permissible.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • "You can't tell, but God can."

    "Your insouciance is on display".

    "Try this: say 'I love you' in computer monotone"

    "Should Father give Communion to a picture of you?"
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,661
    A practical problem is that pre-recorded accompaniments have what might be called "a law of the Medes and the Persians" problem - they can't be modified in real time to accommodate unexpected things happening in real time.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,100
    There was a belief early on that this meant a prohibition on electronic musical instruments such as the Hammond Organ, but this was later clarified that electronic instruments designed to imitate the pipe organ were permissible.
    This was ALSO poor judgement, and had everything to do with saving money and nothing to do with giving God our best. Down with the simulacrum!

    A simulacrum (plural: simulacra from Latin: simulacrum, which means "likeness, similarity"), is a representation or imitation of a person or thing.[1] The word was first recorded in the English language in the late 16th century, used to describe a representation, such as a statue or a painting, especially of a god. By the late 19th century, it had gathered a secondary association of inferiority: an image without the substance or qualities of the original.[2] Philosopher Fredric Jameson offers photorealism as an example of artistic simulacrum, where a painting is sometimes created by copying a photograph that is itself a copy of the real.[3]... wiki


    Ask them this:

    Tell me, are you using a polimar based, nueral relay to transmit the organic nerve impulses to the central processors of my positronic net? If that is the case, how have you solved the problem of increased signal degradation inherent to organo-synthetic transmission-

    (Question from Data to the Borg Queen, First Contact)
  • Andrew Malton
    Posts: 775
    What is the difference between recorded music during the liturgy and:

    * a lit votive candle which represents the prayer of who lit it and is now somewhere else?
    * an icon "written" with prayer and fasting by its artist who is no longer present personally?
    * a prayer cut in stone on the wall of the nave?

    Just askin'. (I think I know some answers, and I certainly don't want recorded music at Mass, me.)
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • Good points, Andrew Malton, but none of those things is used within the Mass as part of the liturgy. To the extent that they may be or things akin to them are, it is not the prayer of the artist/lighter that plays a role in the liturgy, but the person making use of them by physical act or observation. In the same way, it would be the person pressing play who is making the liturgical act, but as shown above, a recording lacks the flexibility and real-time act of live production. That's why its use is reserved for outside of the Mass, the requirements of which are less binding.
  • ...the answer should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of intuition, cultural maturity, and understanding of the sacred act.... Listening or singing to recorded music in church at mass is the clueless act of a culturally dead and spiritually impoverished people - people, that is, to whom the answer is not obvious... perhaps even incomprehensible.

    Unfortunately, it seems the latter are more numerous than the former.
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,468
    This whole discussion reminds me of this story:

    http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/handcuff.asp
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    I've actually tried this in a previous decade. As there was a delay of a couple seconds between hitting play and it actually starting, you'd either have an awkward silence, the priest would continue without accompaniment and a few seconds in the accompaniment would start, or I would time it so that I starts on time but then the priest would decide to append words which threw the timing off.

    I wouldn't do it again but I don't think it's so wrong. We're talking about accompaniments only. We're all agreed that a recorded prayer is not active prayer. But an accompanied prayer is. What if a cantor used earphones so that only he could hear the prerecorded accompaniment? Can the cantor use autotune? What about an organ remotely played over the internet by a real person at home? What about an organ that can automatically accompany the cantor on the fly?
  • Andrew Malton
    Posts: 775
    Are you talking Kantor Karaoke?
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,338
    What's wrong with having an organ play hymns automatically using MIDI?

    It's tacky and offends anyone with even a modicum of taste.
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    If it's okay to mimic voices in realtime, what about an organ that actually sounds like a choir? You hit the "Gloria" stop on the organ and every note you play comes out as a choir singing the Gloria.
  • hilluminar
    Posts: 108
    God desires that His real creatures praise Him, worship Him, glorify Him. A machine cannot do any of that.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,100
    The only way that God will allow 'silicon chips' to praise him is when his own people don't. (or won't)
    To whom he said: I say to you, that if these shall hold their peace, the
    stones will cry out. Luke 19:40

    And that ain't the rolling kind.

  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,513
    God desires that His real creatures praise Him, worship Him, glorify Him. A machine cannot do any of that.


    Well, that sort of rules out pipe organs...we'll miss them.
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 980
    An organ doesn't praise God. It helps the faithful to do that. As do all the other objects we use in Mass.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    When did this dead horse suddenly start breathing again?
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,066
  • I am strongly opposed to the use of recorded music in the sacred liturgy. It is fake. Artificial. Dead. Without any spirit. Soulless and inhuman. It is perhaps even a sort of deception. Not to mention it is begging for a power outage, computer glitch, or the dreaded "technical difficulties, please standby"...

    However...

    If it were to be used only, say, in the form of a monitor speaker to help the schola to chant; or even an earbud for a cantor, I could see that as tolerable in very limited circumstances. Even in this circumstance it should be such that only the vocals are audible to the congregation, recorded music should never be "played" as part of the liturgy, but in some exigent circumstance its use to aid the singers in some minimal fashion might be forgivable.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    If it were to be used only, say, in the form of a monitor speaker to help the schola to chant; or even an earbud for a cantor, I could see that as tolerable in very limited circumstances. Even in this circumstance it should be such that only the vocals are audible to the congregation, recorded music should never be "played" as part of the liturgy, but in some exigent circumstance its use to aid the singers in some minimal fashion might be forgivable.

    SM, you portray perhaps the worst possible scenario of outcomes. I'm tutoring a celebrant among whose primary, initial goals was the Exultet. He asked me about your very solution, a "discreet" earphone "feeding" him the practice recording I created for him. I had to explain the ten's of things that would likely go wrong until he understood that a slight error, live and un-tethered could be overcome, whereas trying to Karaoke-lipsynch would likely result in a meltdown.
    I have declared this before. There are subtle but clear distinctions between audio recordings and digital sequencing. First and foremost, unless one relents to second source sequencing, a sequence created under the guidance of the director and the player is essentially a "fingerprint" artifice. Secondly, a digital sequence can be modified. However one wants to parce the "human" factor in both those scenarios is a matter of philosophy. But, sequencing is a first generation version, recording is secondary. That their original source was a human is a given, but sequencing is not identical to recording. (Caveat, I'm not defending anything, just delineating functions.)
    Despite the valid objections Jackson and others may raise, Noel's point of "ex machina" about any type of organ is quite valid. Bottom line, it is no more a human voice than any other instrument, be it oboe, violin, flute or trumpet. The defenses that focus upon simulacrum, therefore, are straw man arguments. Don't bother quoting Pio X, thanks. We're dealing in the real world, 21st century. If you hold to the stubborn philosophy, then be prepared to pay real gambists and lutenists the next time you do the Monteverdi Vespers.
    OTOH, the voice (as Pio also noted) is the instrument par excellence most suited for worship of the Creator Almighty. Why? Because not only does it emit from the creature formed in His image, but it is the vehicle for the re-creation of the Logos, as well as inspired text intended for praise of Him. But as in all things, RCC, either we have the ganas to legislate a capella (as the Church of Christ, and even they've started relenting) or we stop fussing over the secondary aspects of our musical praxis, and get our vocal act together, and employ whatever accompanimental devices that minimally assist in that noble endeavor.
    RC's are so prone to see trees over forest.

    PS. I don't use sequencing or recording.
  • '...then be prepared to pay real gambists and lutenists the next time you do the Monteverid vespers.'

    Actually, Charles, using such instruments is not at all extraordinary these days. One thing that 'original instruments' and 'authentic instruments' folk never get right, though, is boy trebles. A boy soprano and a mature female soprano are neither the same instrument nor the same sound. The former would be 'authentic', the latter not at all. So, it would seem that even 'purists' draw the line where it pleases them (whilst yet they boast of 'authentic period performances'). (And, by the way: I do not consider 'purist' to be a negative, a signifer of immorality, nor a 'Bad Thing' - it's just that really real and consistent ones are as rare as are boy sopranos in this country.) Oh, and another thing period specialists never get right is the 'authentic' performance of plainchant as it would have sounded to, say, Machaut... then Monteverdi... or Tallis.... or Mozart... or Tournemire or Titelouze.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen melofluent
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,066
    Male sopranos and altos, one reason why Chanticleer is so wonderful to listen to.

    O Frondens Virga by Hildegard von Bingen (1098-1179)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGXXrUvNzec

    Victoria - O Magnum Mysterium

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg1l65xiGkY

    Nigra Sum Sed Formosa - Tomás Luis de Victoria

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTEDD-G2yOw

    Lauda Sion Salvatorem

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwBsQ7FMpH8
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    Watch a video of a play and then tell me that it is as good as being there in person.

    The fact is that a live performance will always be better than a recording, even if there are mistakes or fudging of certain things. I've been to churches which (illicitly) used what I like to call "canned music" and it is really quite tacky.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • Andrew Malton
    Posts: 775
    Have a cantor performing to a feed in his earbud, and pretty soon the liturgy will look like a scene from Wag the Dog.
    Thanked by 2melofluent CHGiffen
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Thanks, Jackson, for not eviscerating me. ;-)
    I believe there's a lot to fisk from discussions such as this, as I fear our Aussie friend Martin may be missing a lot of points implicit in our dialogues. Even a discussion that deconstructs the nature of vocal performance practice throughout eras has to account for many realities that may be uncomfortable to conceive of or believe. We are told of the beauty of boy sopranos like Lassus and Palestrina and naturally conclude that the golden era of Renaissance polyphony produced idealized choirs; after all they were living in the genre with nothing else to do, how could it not be ideal? But we also have evidence of very bad choirboys whose antics had to have undermined the quality of performance of pretty serious music. I'm performing tenor 2 in Singet dem Herrn in a week in a vocal octet (it's a lunatic proposition, won't go into it here), and one has to wonder if the beauty and precision of Bach's architecture would even compare to any Rilling-led choir today, from what we read in Groves about JSB's tenure in Leipzig. And since I spoke of Monteverdi, that slight shift (along with German cantata/oratorio forms) eventually would give us the last castrati warbling the Schubert on a wax recording, representing performance practice that S.Pio X notably abhorred but yet persisted well into this century in Capella Sixtina.
    Sometimes it seems all too much to consider for a simple parish musician. Hence my default to the Ostrowski "My Way" method of conducting as well as the inclination to chant and perform polyphony over other options (Gee, I wonder why?). Just do what it takes to get the vocals right.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • melofluent,

    I am not sure I made the point I was offering quite clearly, and I frankly don't know quite what you are exactly getting at in your response to me above, so I am just going to leave it without reply, because I don't understand in the least the technical distinctions you are making, sorry, just an amateur here.

    Now your most recent post: "Just do what it takes to get the vocals right."

    I do agree that lipsynching to a recording is, generally, a very bad idea, and should be avoided.

    Never as the option you plan for, but perhaps a prudent choice in the moment under exigent circumstances, that is my view of technological gadgetry for liturgical use. Take for example the time the schola I was singing with arrived in the chapel for the liturgy only to discover that the piano we were counting on to give pitches (all of our singing was otherwise a capella) had been removed without anyone telling us. So, the fellow who was supposed to do that for us pulled out his iPhone and loaded an app that let him play an on screen keyboard. Certainly I would never promote the idea of using an iPhone as a liturgical instrument, but it worked in that moment.

    I have wanted to use my phone for a similar purpose leading the singing for a outdoor prayer service, but I just could not bring myself to do it. Visions of technical difficulties, and my gut reaction against artificial recorded music, just wouldn't allow it. Also, it would look silly, very silly indeed. So, instead I just tried to do it from memory, and ended up high enough that even the boys present needed their falsetto range (and I am a baritone!).

    If someday I should hear of a cantor, discovering the accompanist is a no-show, should load up a practice recording or some such and lipsynch, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to turn them over to the Inquisition or the civil authority on that account. I know the purists would say liturgical law must be upheld, even at the cost of an otherwise good cantor, but I just don't have the intestinal fortitude for public executions, and a burning would certainly ruin my appetite, the smell being most displeasing (doubly so if you are a fan of BBQ pork, my firefighter friends say it never tastes the same after the first time you smell cooked human).
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Stephan, no worries, and you're in a large constituency that never gets anything I say!
    I do agree that lipsynching to a recording is, generally, a very bad idea, and should be avoided.

    That was a mis-speak on my part. The focal point regards the use of an ear monitor, which is not just a bad idea, it is a train wreck that's 99% to happen. A singer efforting to "get it right" by synchronizing with the voice on the recording will always have too many variables in conflict with his senses and mental processing. The only exception to this is in the recording studio, overdubbing being a process successfully used for more than half a century. You don't have the luxury of a retake in live performance.
    I mentioned earlier I'm tutoring a priest with his chanting. What you stated about initial pitch acquisition is, to this priest, an obsession which he cannot dismiss yet, and which is actually counter-productive to the learning amateur. Knowing the role of reciting pitches, flexes, finals and how they all relate to the 8 modes would be a worthier curriculum, IMHO. Chant is basically pitched and noted for ease of reading and singing. What the chanter/schola master must have a sure sense of is where is the ideal fach, or medium range of the singers, and simply intone the incipit from his/her own internal sense of where the starting pitch will achieve its strongest execution within that range of notes. Devices of any kind, tuning forks, pitch pipes, apps for that, are okay, but only really necessary if the chant is being accompanied. But if you can get to a point where you can internally "hear" that ideal start, you'll have made great progress.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,513
    Is there a difference between using a pitch pipe and an iPhone in a liturgical setting?

    A piano in place of an organ?

    A digital piano in place of an acoustic piano.

    An electric guitar...

    An acoustic guitar playing over an amplified sound system.

    It's really more of a matter of using a tool in a way in which it was never intended.

    Otherwise we'd be singing by torch light.


  • Simulacra all!
    The difference is that between reality and deception, verity and falsehood, genuine and fake, truth and a lie, between 'sounds like a piano (organ, etc) because it is a piano' and 'sounds like a piano but isn't one'. And, of course, 'electric guitars' neither look nor sound like guitars, and, thus, are not even simulacra.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,513
    And incandescent is little like torch and candlelight...let's not even get into fluorescent and LED lighting.

    The problem, worldwide, is not that there are not rules but that there are priests, bishops and lesser/better, who have no interest in the beauty of liturgical ceremonies...as well as lay people. The colors and fabric of vestments, the trappings of things that they can adorn themselves is more important that the liturgy. The maniples, the lace...

    It's sort of like the joke about the man visiting the funeral home and standing there, viewing the body of his atheist friend, very neatly laid out in a suit.

    Shaking his head he turns his head to the funeral director and says, "All dressed up, and no place to go."

  • An iPhone as a pitch pipe in a pinch seems to be a fine use, if your analog device is broken or missing. For chant, it seems unnecessary, as melofluent (Charles?) mentioned above, since getting in the best part of the voice is most important, rather then pitch exactitude. For polyphony, it is slightly more important, since you have many ranges to coordinate, but has anyone done polyphony without an exact pitch? Does it work?
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    'sounds like a piano (organ, etc) because it is a piano' and 'sounds like a piano but isn't one'

    But Jackson, what Noel (and I) are trying to establish is that the lovely Steinway you may or may not have was preceded by a forte-piano, it a harpsichord, it a virginal, and at its genesis, some sort of harp, if not the modern chromatic version. So what is verity? The manner in which an instrument (such as the guitar's topwoods) disturbs and changes the frequency and equalization of the air by its vibrations, or the ear, which may or may not be capable nor interested in the means of vibrations, simulated or analog. As a subservient to the real human voice if edified, all things being equal, how does that diminish the affect of the import of the voice?
  • Charles, (and, this is not excoriation!) the Steinway is a work of art, as is a forte-piano, as is an harpsichord, as is a virginal and an harp. None of these are pretending to be any of the others. None of these is beguilingly marketed to gullible souls to sound like the others, nor meant to be substitutes for them. Though they are musical cousins, each is an historical musical instrument in its own right. Simulacra they are not. And, as for your disturbances of air which (some!) human ears fail to distinguish as being from the 'real thing' or a fake, we are here speaking of deception, even, often, outright lies (which is sin), not of admirable artistic accomplishment. Which leads, further, to the fundamental fact of the laws of physics, namely, that a sound electronically (or, ahem, should I say 'digitally'?) produced cannot possibly sound just 'like' one produced by vibrating strings or columns of disturbed air in a pipe. This is not physically possible. The immutable laws of physics forbid it. One is left inescapably with, if you will, a computerised (digital?) copy of the Mona Lisa which would fool the elect. With or without the necessary fools, it is a fake, and its maker a charlatan.

    Now, if you wish to invent an instrument whose sounds are electronically or digitally produced, whose sounds are new and unique to that instrument, and wish to call this instrument, say, an Hgronth, I will grant you its legitimacy and will admire the artistry of Hgronthists. Otherwise, what we are talking about is sophisticated synthesisers, simulacra.
    Thanked by 2melofluent francis
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 1,771
    MJO,

    Something like this? If it plays in your neighborhood, don't miss the documentary Wavemakers.

    As long as we're bringing virginals into the discussion, can we at least agree to spell the singular with an s? ;-) While one hears arguments that some repertory is idiomatic to mini harpsichords, there's no doubt in my mind that our Steinway console upright is a simulacrum, perhaps even a more honest one than a unit organ.

    It should be easer to draw the line at non-human performance (DId I just say 'performance'?). Nevertheless this as well as this is certainly not what the composer had in mind.

    This thread has reminded me it's been an unreasonably long time since I listened to Nancarrow's Etudes for player piano. There's an interesting interview with Ligeti (Nancarrow himself mostly edited out) here (German w/ Spanish subtitles) in which he ranks the music next to Bach and late Beethoven.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,283
    Now, if you wish to invent an instrument whose sounds are electronically or digitally produced, whose sounds are new and unique to that instrument, and wish to call this instrument, say, an Hgronth, I will grant you its legitimacy and will admire the artistry of Hgronthists. Otherwise, what we are talking about is sophisticated synthesisers, simulacra.


    Theramin. Vocoder. Electric guitar. Autotune.

    All legit Hgronths. And still not really suited to liturgy.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,637
    For those interested, the film "Wavemakers" is available for viewing on-line for $4 through several of the big streaming services: Google Play, Amazon, Vudu, etc.
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 1,477
    A boy soprano and a mature female soprano are neither the same instrument nor the same sound.

    Neither are a modern 10 year old boy soprano and a Baroque 17 year old boy soprano.
    You do what you can.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    (W)e are here speaking of deception, even, often, outright lies (which is sin), not of admirable artistic accomplishment. Which leads, further, to the fundamental fact of the laws of physics, namely, that a sound electronically (or, ahem, should I say 'digitally'?) produced cannot possibly sound just 'like' one produced by vibrating strings or columns of disturbed air in a pipe. This is not physically possible. The immutable laws of physics forbid it. One is left inescapably with, if you will, a computerised (digital?) copy of the Mona Lisa which would fool the elect. With or without the necessary fools, it is a fake, and its maker a charlatan.

    An extraordinary paragraph there, Jackson. I would have thought you'd've already presumed I understand the distinctions made there and other innumerable postings. Regarding the perpetration of simulacra at service to worship, are we to conclude that to be an occasion of sin, whether by omission or commission? Were you speaking figuratively or literally or somewhere in between? And as it doesn't bespeak an "admirable artistic accomplishment," is the offense against God, His Faithful or both? I'm not excoriating this notion either, words and actions mean something.
    Your statement about the fake DaVinci reminds me of the film, "The Thomas Crown Affair," in which the title character goes to ridiculously extreme levels of deception just to have apparently one single night with the stolen Monet sequestered in his office. The upshot of that is that it calls into question the value of values, the purpose of art, the stratification and segregation of those whose interest in art may prove them fools or sophisticates. Is it a fool's errand to consider the Mona Lisa from within the confines of a university seminar hall, or must we all make a pilgrimage to the Louvre and parade around her cell as if we're at the Kaaba in Mecca?
    I likely have exhausted the discussion. But Adam summed it all up quite succinctly with his uncertain declaration "And still not really suited to liturgy."