Anyone up for a waltz around the altar?

More of the same... novelty reigns, experimentation lives on and sacred music is continually sidelined and ignored.

The popular musical styles do resonate with America's culture -- see the wild popularity of Disney musical/movies, for example -- but it's a mistake to attempt to bring such music into the liturgy in an attempt to make liturgy seem more relevant.

For one, it's bringing the profane into the temple.

Second, most parish music groups/bands sound awful trying to pull it off with their mediocre musical abilities, and the congregation knows it.

I don't think most bishops believe the music is well-suited to the liturgy. I think many of them just don't know what else to do nor how to lead to something better because they lack musical knowledge and skill themselves, so they have largely abdicated teaching responsibly in the area of liturgy and liturgical music.

First, to respond to the OP, Mark's example clearly shows that there are people in positions of influence who think it's ok to sing cabaret music at Mass.

I don't think most bishops believe the music is well-suited to the liturgy. I think many of them just don't know what else to do nor how to lead to something better because they lack musical knowledge and skill themselves, so they have largely abdicated teaching responsibly in the area of liturgy and liturgical music.

There's a lot to unpack here.
1.) if I had to guess, the bishops are probably split. Some of them know full-well that this is not in keeping with the mind of Holy Mother Church... but then again, I've seen video after video of bishops dancing in the aisles and saying and doing all sorts of stupid things to know that many of them are... ahem... not properly suited to their state in life. [And I know the Holy Spirit guides the church... but we also know with positive proof that there's all sorts of awful politicking that goes on that clearly is not of the HS... perhaps He is simply keeping things from being worse than they would be otherwise.]
2.) I DO think that anyone who cares to give it even cursory thought knows what to do, at least in a general sense. Church teaching is clear. But then again, it is crystalline on all sorts of other things too—they also get ignored, top down.

The fact of the matter is, it takes a bishop with a good pair to stand up and ruffle feathers. For many, it is probably the least of their troubles. This is sad, since it involves the liturgy and should theoretically shoot right to the top of the list, alas.

But remember too: this generation of bishops was raised by the generation that threw everything beautiful away (I don't just mean TLM; I mean music, architecture, statues, theology, etc. etc.) So some of them are genuinely clueless. They think that wreckovating churches, putting bands in the front where the altar used to be, and having scantily-dressed teens handing out communion are all "good" things. (Only apparent goods, in the Thomistic sense.) There is a strong anti-traditional vein in the clergy that is growing as rapidly as the traditionalist movement is. One group seeks to restore, the other group seeks to stamp out the efforts of the former.

For someone who sits in the middle and isn't sure what to think, they don't know what to do. All they know is that everything that seemingly has come before is "antiquated" and "didn't work" so there's "no sense trying that again".

Then there are those who think that the liturgy should be some grab-bag of every whim that floats in the air in a 100 mile radius. One of my choir members had to travel last weekend and was attending at a certain cathedral where all of the sudden the lector announced, "the second reading will be in arabic" which she then proceeded to proclaim. My poor choir member looked around in confusion because it seemed rather apparent to her that there was not a critical mass of arabic-speakers to warrant such an act. She figured the lector was probably the only person in the room who actually understood anything. If her retelling of the situation is accurate, I suspect this is one of those whim situations. This is why every high-school across the country has gangly white kids singing negro spirituals [terribly] for no other reason than the fact that they can. This is why parishes just loooooooove singing "We are marching in the light of God" and then they have the choir sing the refrain in a language that isn't spoken by anyone on their continent to be "inclusive" all whilst simultaneously rejecting any latin outright as rigid and antiquated. It is so schizophrenic and hypocritical. Again, I chalk it up to a search for novelty in all things. Anything but tradition. Anything. Dancing? You got it. Eucharistic procession? Nope. Singing in an african language at a completely caucasian parish? You got it. Having a schola chant during communion in Latin? Forget it. Crappy praise band in front of the no-longer-used St. Joseph side altar so little Jenny can feel great about telling her friends at public school that she played a flute solo on Sunday? Absofreakinlutely. Pipe organ? What is this? The 1600's?

3.) You are absolutely right that the bishops writ-large—apart from Abp. Alexander Sample's exemplary letter—have abdicated any teaching responsibility in this regard. The problem is, this then falls to diocesan staff and even moreso to parish musicians. Since the broader collapse of the church took church music and budgets with it, relatively few parishes have any genuinely trained musicians. Of the many that are musically trained, they are not liturgically or theologically trained. That means that many musicians do the best they can, and many don't even know that what they are doing is not in keeping with the mind of the Church! It truly is the blind leading the blind here. And who can fault them? This is what most of them grew up with, so they don't know there is anything wrong with it. I think it's fair to say that the number of people who take pleasure in reading encyclicals and other church documents are comparably few.

And again, since bishops grant imprimaturs like they're candy on halloween (I literally once owned a "catholic" prayer book with an imprimatur that had prayers to Egyptian deities in it... I kid you not.) rather than laying down firm guidelines for music in their dioceses, there's no system of checks and balances. (Many, ill-suited to their charge, believe that "teaching" the congregation is simply making sure they sing their favorite hymns with gusto... not realizing that they also have the opportunity to form minds about music.)

Couple in the fact that there is always resistance to change... few people have the will to attempt to turn the tide in a parish, especially if there are people who are going to be vocal about the change.

There was an email thread that recently went around a few of my geographically-immediate colleagues and we were assessing what the state of chanting & propers at each parish was. One of our consœurs lamented the fact that she was unable to do any chanting or propers (even in english) at this time because she barely had support from the pastor to even sing theologically correct semi-traditional hymnody. I think she's trying to weed out the SLJ stuff, and even that's a hurdle. In her case, she very much has the desire, but a resistant congregation headed by a resistant priest. She thinks it will be a good long while before she can even pepper in something like Bartlet's simple english propers in addition to what's already there, to say nothing of a Latin ordinary or propers from the gregorian missal. (Pray for her. Her struggle is heroic.)

People are always more apt to complain than to praise. This is well-known. That means that for every letter praising the introduction of traditional chant, there were probably four more decrying it. We need to rally the faithful catholic troops and get them to be more vociferous.
—————
As an aside, we are trying an experiment today: for the first time, my schola is singing a much more elevated Mass; rather than tacking propers on after hymns, we are singing a florid introit (english), latin gradual rather than psalm, polyphonic ordinary (Kyrie and Agnus Dei to start with), latin communion antiphon (english verses), and Tallis motet at offertory. In short, we are trying to see how the congregation responds to an elevated liturgy on the first Sunday of the month. Hopefully all will go well.

Dad29, I bet you're right. If they spend most of their time playing in theatre pits and only serve the church on Sundays, (mind you, many (most?) churches don't want to pay a living wage, so it's almost de rigeur to have a second job) it is a distinct possibility. There's a reason the great composers studied the masters that came before them. Do the majority of modern composers do the same? I don't know. Obviously, many of us here have our eyes fixed firmly on excellent models (regardless of whether our works live up to them—mine certainly don't) but I think that this forum, by and large, represents a distinct minority rather than the majority.

ServiamScores - I hope 1) that you have prepared the congregation for this, and 2) that you are seeking feedback. If it were thrown at me, as a PIP, I would mightily resent the loss of opportunity to raise my voice in song.
As an amateur student of liturgy I would also ask how this florid introit meets the criteria of GIRM§47. Once the Mass is underway I think there is more flexibility possible, most people are mentally settled in.

Thanks. I hope it went well. I'm glad it went well.
Yes that sounds a reaonable balance, if the schola is good enough that would suit me. One problem with the introit is that in my experience if the congregation does not have something to sing early in the service they lose enthusiasm for singing, YMMV. The Gloria is substantial enough and probably early enough.
There can be no general rule for how to get the entrance song to achieve all those four tasks. In our small church, the celebrant will be from the sacristy door to the chair in barely one hymn (or antiphon + psalm) verse. (No opportunity for musical theater numbers).
Anyway that's all by way of aside, I agree with what you say about bishops, even Abp Sample's exemplary instruction is offset by his responsibilty for OCP.

This is why every high-school across the country has gangly white kids singing negro spirituals [terribly] for no other reason than the fact that they can. This is why parishes just loooooooove singing "We are marching in the light of God" and then they have the choir sing the refrain in a language that isn't spoken by anyone on their continent to be "inclusive" all whilst simultaneously rejecting any latin

It's a problem trying to have things both ways, isn't it? I would hope no one has a problem with 'gangly black kids' singing Old Hundredth, even terribly. A couple of points to bear in mind:
1) We church musicians ought to already know that the division of 'negro' and 'white' spirituals was a segregationist fantasy: this was always a shared American repertory, and the oldest sources suggest even "Deep River" originated among the Quakers.
2) One should be careful in presuming to speak for a whole continent. Our Parish is a monthly host to a Kiswahili community Mass, and my previous employment was at a bilingual parish that was a little more than half East African.
3) Siyahamba has a refrain???

Let's not forget what Cdl Sarah said about trying to bring "culture" into the Church and liturgy, rather than the other way around.

in my experience if the congregation does not have something to sing early in the service they lose enthusiasm for singing

Huh.

In my experience, since the flu-thing is over with, the congregation doesn't really sing at all and they're given the standard 4-hymn sandwich plus Ordinary parts in English.

Yes, Serviam, I agree Siyahamba should not be used as a cudgel against latin (and why not vice versa?) But on averages alone, one might just as "safely state that the average american parish does not contain" any 16c polyphony.
"Negro spiritual" is not an entry in Grove, and a phrase I only come across in books older than I am, which is to say before the Civil Rights movement (its first use seems to have been in 1867). Historical terms have been:
Collection of Spiritual Songs and Hymns (1801)
Slave Songs of the United States (1867)
Jubilee Songs (1872)
Plantation Melodies (1918)
Songs and Spirituals (1921)
National Jubilee Melodies (c1920s)
Religious Folk-Songs of the Negro (1926, ed. Nathaniel Dett)
White and Negro Spirituals (1943)
The Oxford Book of Spirituals (2002)

The first of these was edited by Richard Allan, preacher at a mixed race church in Philadelphia, and was discussed in Methodist Error (1819) by John F. Watson, who expressed disgust and alarm that the songs “has already visibly affected the religious manners of some whites.” Will it surprise anyone that the purchasers of most of these publications were primarily non-african Americans?

To get back to the original purpose of this thread:

They mistakenly believe that doing so is inculturating the liturgy for America, making Mass more relevant for American cultural tastes.

I suspect that I'm in the minority (most of us on this forum probably are?) but for me I want a liturgy that transcends both time and space. This is partly why I look to what has come before. I'm not interested in reinventing the wheel. I'd like to hear the same chant and other music that would be familiar to the great saints.

Wasn't it Chesterton who quipped something to the effect that 'the problem with culture, so-called, is that it is always changing and therefore man is always one step behind'? In other words, any attempt to make the liturgy "current" will only mean that it will soon be outmoded by necessity.

This reality is painfully obvious to anyone who reflects on the awful liturgies that resulted in the immediate aftermath of VII, the likes of which many of us are still trying to bury. People under 30 don't want to hear hymns that are reminiscent of the music their parents listen to when they themselves were in their twenties. Perhaps more obvious than the music, even, are the awful vestments and felt banners. They smack of the tastes of a certain generation. There's nothing transcendent or timeless about them.

That's all fine and dandy. And were they made of felt and looked like a preschool craft fair entry? Or were they finely stitched with gilt embroidery on silk brocade? If the former, then good riddance, even if what they represented was a good thing. It is only with exceptional rarity have I seen the latter (typically in Europe, and typically at least 100 years old). I have nothing against the latter. It's the former I resent. You know the type: dusty 40 year old felt with cartoonish depictions of wheat and grapes. How very transcendent.

Also, if modern church architecture wasn't so iconoclast and ugly, then these banners wouldn't be necessary, because the frescoes and statuary would be sufficient. But when you build a plain brick box with white walls and ceiling, with no reredos, and only a single statue of our Lady banished to the vestibule, suddenly banners seem a real necessity.

If it's not too much of a diversion, what I have wondered over the years is how many current DMs come to the job from a musical theater background.

Aspects of performance as well as musical/textual choices might be influenced by this personal history to such a degree that publishers are only responding to their market rather than directing its taste.

A_F: we note that "the CHANT"--not 'the hymn'--is specified, and that it is to 'introduce....to the mystery of the...time...or festivity.

That "chant" would be the Introit.

But you provided a foundation for your remark, thanks!

Cantus does not specify any particular kind or type of song.

...unless it is then clarified that the cantus is the chant from the roman gradual or the missal. (re: §48)

It's not just the Church that suffers from this forty year old 'trend'. Ken Cowan at prestigious nearby Rice University requires his students to learn "Ride of the Valkeries' and its like. And on any and every recital one such is required. Cowan is training entertainers, not organists. If this disgusting trend is being nurtured in our universities, it's no wonder that pop, rock, theater, etc., find their way into our churches. Most of the masses sung on a Sunday morning could be waltzed or otherwise danced to.

However, dance music has a rather old precedence in the Church - at least in France. It is no secret that dance forms were typical of many of the French baroque organ masses. This was not meant to be an musical affront to God, It was because the French believed that dancing would be a major part of life in the hereafter. Also, dancing in heaven is pictured in the left wing of Fra Angelico's tryptich of the Last Judgment. And, Dance forms are not at all rare in Bach's religious works. I don't believe, though, that any such lofty sentiments are being expressed in the musical effrontery of the purveyors of the street music enjoyed by priest and faithful on a Sunday morning.

That's all fine and dandy. And were they made of felt and looked like a preschool craft fair entry? Or were they finely stitched with gilt embroidery on silk brocade? If the former, then good riddance, even if what they represented was a good thing. It is only with exceptional rarity have I seen the latter (typically in Europe, and typically at least 100 years old). I have nothing against the latter. It's the former I resent. You know the type: dusty 40 year old felt with cartoonish depictions of wheat and grapes. How very transcendent.

Also, if modern church architecture wasn't so iconoclast and ugly, then these banners wouldn't be necessary, because the frescoes and statuary would be sufficient. But when you build a plain brick box with white walls and ceiling, with no reredos, and only a single statue of our Lady banished to the vestibule, suddenly banners seem a real necessity.

I don't think you can in any way describe the old church as iconoclast & ugly. It was built in the 1930s with a 350 seat capcity to replace the even older church which was built in the 1800s with a 150 seat capacity. The banners were in no way looked like a preschool craft fair entry. While not stitched on silk, they were tasteful and just looking at the banners informed one of several saints and several apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary

regarding Negro Spirituals, this is the 150th anniversary of the Fisk Jubilee Singers, and the NY Times just released a long-form piece on their history and presence in the present (paywall):

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/opinion/fisk-jubilee-singers-black-spirituals-anniversary.html

That came straight out of the latest Disney movie.

This is just incredibly appropriate... https://mobile.twitter.com/FlatCath/status/1445914765260476428

In regard to the OCP psalm...

Isn't it funny how singing a melismatic chant or a piece of polyphony is unnecessarily prolonging the Liturgy, but when it comes to sacro-pop ditties, they can be stretched forever and it's okay?

In regard to the video...

Even should that parish miraculously switch to actual sacred music, the woman singer needs to go.