On a purely objective level, a couple of those are rather difficult for congregations to sing, which boggles the mind as to why they are still around. I didn't see "Sing of the Lord's Goodness" on the list or near the top of the commentary, but sheesh, a song in 5/4? Some congregations have enough trouble singing in common time!

"which boggles the mind as to why they are still around"

It's 'cause they were often used to wrap up testimonies/witnessing in renewal groups, having a huge impact on people there and they drug this music into Mass to share with the whole world. Emotions were touched.

They are not surviving for reasons of singability or musical excellence, unless you are a broadway show at mass person.

I make no apology for this opinion.
The writer of this article freely, albeit tongue planted in cheek, offered that maybe "First Things" had too much time on its hands. So, this article is a muckraking device. Has anyone, including those faceless masses who share the author's sentiments, not decryed these items personally or publicly already? Did anyone receive further enlightenment or a deeper appreciation of the distinctions between its premise built upon an axis of "worst" v. "best?" In other words, what benefit was gained among all believers by its publication?
CMAA is a boots on the ground enterprise. This ground has been trod upon time after time for decades. We should move forward onto positive pathways towards reformation and reclamation. As JT noticed with the publication of the archives of "Caecilia," we've always engaged the same bogeymen in previous eras.
This was a classic example of "Keep moving, nothing to see here."

"But anyway, it's usually not the time signature that throws people off, so much as:

Awkward phrasing and stupid note jumps.
Extra notes thrown in on each verse, but always in a different place.
Syncopation that is designed to punish the congregation for not being sightreaders, and which is different in every hymnal edition of the same song.
Verses that don't rhyme or scan, in a totally irregular way.
Melodies that deliberately mess people up.
Incredibly stupid hymnal pagination practices."

So true!!!

There is no ridicule loud enough for these pseudo-musical emanations.

Randolph

I once witnessed a groom sing that, mit guitar, at the ceremony - and he sang it an octave below the usual men's placement because he was a Bass 3...

This reminds me of the situation of a four-year-old who's just heard his first swear word and can't wait to share it with the world. Sure, it's something everyone needs to know, but we already know it and no one gains from you yelling it all the time in church. I posted it on my facebook, but again consider the comparison I drew, and you have most content I post there. This, the "society for a moratorium", and other "black lists" advance the cause of true sacred music in no way, and really set back those of us who have real work to do. It reminds me of reading a letter in the diocesan newspaper a while ago by some kook from "The Society for Catholic Sacred Music" or some nonsense. In this form letter, he argued that the music in Mass is bad, poorly performed, heretical, written by heretics, sung by heretics, and he hates the people around him, etc. His solution? Get rid of all music in Mass, and when there is music, don't pay the musicians. I've been known to agree with his summary of the state of Catholic music, but all he offered is whining. It's utterly unhelpful.

I WILL say this about the list, since I find it (with only two exceptions) strikingly accurate... I've heard people say "what about (such song)? That's the worst!" And usually that song is of debatable quality, but hardly the WORST. What all of these songs (I won't argue my exceptions) have in common is that they're terribly over-sentimental. I find ST. COLUMBA, for example, to be a rather sentimental tune. But these are just a big bowl of sugar-water sludge. And yet they are at the same time the most reviled, beloved, and commonly used repertoire.

This just strikes me as interesting. They didn't choose the most heretical texts. Or all the vox-dei ones. Or the music that most violates the rules of good composition. Or the hardest music to sing. They picked the sappiest and identified it as the worst. I can't say I disagree.

I have revised yesterday's post about this issue over at the Chant Cafe, "Conventional Wisdom? 'So what...." that might shed more light on my POV, and JT's as well.
Interestingly, what I predicted would happen, did already in fact occur on Jeffrey's companion article combox.
I agree totally with Mike's last two sentences above. But do we want to fly into anyone's Catholic radar buoyed by someone else's hot air?

Looking back, what has survived and is of most interest from church publications from 1900-1950?

The White List and Black List.

These say a lot about what was considered bad and good then, as selected by an active group of church musicians.

Maybe it is time for another set of lists.

I think lists like this, and the attitude that goes with them is detrimental to "the cause."

It seems to me that people that could be most helpful are moderates: people l(ike me, for example) who are comfortable enough in the Catholic folk music world that we can handle "average" parish life, and yet who still have a strong love of and yearning for traditional sacred music in Mass. I'd be willing to bet the a good number of parish MDs like that stuff (it probably has a lot to do with why they went into church music in the first place), and you don't win them over by insulting them or their tastes.

I would say that JT's approach in his rhetorical approach in his reflection on the SLJ is really respectful (considering his viewpoint, especially) and is probably about at the limit of "this music is bad" that is worthwhile. Beyond that, and people start shutting down and you become really unhelpful. (Remember, your goal is not to make other people who agree with you already giggle and feel good- your goal deals with the serious business of [ultimately] the salvation of souls]).

But even with JT's respect, wittiness, and keen observations (and dapper dress), a rhetorical approach is probably simply not that helpful. The three biggest needs (in order) are:
-prayer
-example
-instruction.

Prayer, is obvious. Example is needed to give people a goal. Instruction is needed to show them how to get there. I believe that instruction is the biggest missing piece right now (although CMAA and CCW and others are doing a stellar job filling that need as fast as they can). NLM does a great job with examples, but they are likely to piss off someone like me (I unsubbed when JT left). I know many of you pray already.
But more could be done.

I feel about this list the way Cardinal Arinze feels about liturgical dance: the people who had time for it should have prayed an extra rosary instead.

JT and Charles: I like you guys more and more all the time.

It is hard to take seriously, or even seriously snarkily, a "Worst of..." (as it would also a "Best of...") list that does not recognize that all of history did not being with our experiences, our sentience.

But I do think those who are suffering are entitled to blow off a bit of steam now and again, (and yes, people do suffer from being subjected to tripe when they are trying to engage in the highest activity of human existence.)

Save the Liturgy, Save the World!

And another thing...


This list is hardly the worst songs. It is simply the most popular among a set of songs found objectionable as a whole.

A useful list would be:
"Songs even hippie-Catholics shouldn't like"
which would really be code for
"Songs even Adam wouldn't program, and why they are so awful."