Mary, the first Tabernacle, has now been suddenly demoted to being the first Disciple by Haas.

I think the ideological/ spiritual/ theological issues are important, but I'd prefer to focus on the technical aspects, if that's ok.

Sure. You may wish to change the topic heading to reflect that....

intensify rhyming with personify is just so...
um...
goofy is the only word I can come up with.

Holy birthing place? Where to begin on that one.
Perhaps some people have been banned because their texts are so far superior?
It's irksome that this is praised, and some of the faithful will be browbeaten into giving it voice. I'm sorry, but the text is really awkward, and the political manipulation is insulting.
What would Newman say?!?

Most of you know that I'm a fan of much of David's work.

There are a few of David Haas' pieces that I dearly love, particularly when they're sung by a good, clean-voiced soloist with a simple accompaniment.

What pieces of David Haas do you like?

The day will come when all creation stands before "The Almighty God and Father" and HE will say something akin to "I do not know you because you never addressed me as one of my children... Abba, Father!"

Wesley:

My prayer hath power with God; the grace
Unspeakable I now receive;
Through faith I see Thee face to face,
I see Thee face to face, and live!
In vain I have not wept and strove;
Thy nature and Thy Name is Love.

Cowper:

When, like a tent to dwell in,
He spread the skies abroad,
And swathed about the swelling
Of Ocean’s mighty flood;
He wrought by weight and measure,
And I was with Him then:
Myself the Father’s pleasure,
And mine, the sons of men.

Wood:

The axe, as yet, awaits the tree,
The threshing floor awaits the fan.
Before His justice, none can flee;
Beneath His judgement, none can stand.

Pluth:

The city streets are paved with gold.
The final scroll shall be unrolled,
And no one shall grow faint or old,
For God shall be their glory.

Haas:

Hail, Holy Mary, hope for all, O Maria!
Your song of justice is our call, O Maria!
Poor and broken are held high,
Mercy will intensify,
God’s reign you personify:
Salve, Salve, Salve Regina!

Great interest? I don't think this little ditty can create much interest.

Maureen, if you still have the text of your comments, you may as well post them here, since I doubt they'll see the light of day over at the PT blog.

Transparency--isn't that the watchword? Transparency--and clarity, and syntax.

It's there now. Delay and subsequent publication may have been down to the editorial process (the editor assures us he agonises over such things), or it might reflect a decision reversed in the light of comments made here. Either way, its publication is a good thing, both for its substance and the breadth of views represented there.

This is why God invented editors. David should ask Maureen to be his editor. Editors exist to challenge the blindspots of authors, not merely to find typos.

I like his Vespers. I like that at a time when practically no one in the RC world outside of monasteries sang the hours, or the O antiphons, he came out with an album of Morning Prayer and Vespers.

Haas mentions that this unfinished, problematic, politically-driven text has already been accepted for publication. Would it have been challenged, or edited, by the publishing company? Haas has openly welcomed critique, but what if all critique had been of the "sounds good to me" variety? GIA sells it, music directors buy it--and the People of God accept it. No one hums an encyclical, hardly anyone remembers a homily, but people would actually sing this weak text. In the Liturgy.

We have got to do better.

Adam, I'd reserve judgment on whether people are talking behind Hass' back.
For one thing, PT readers, especially those involved in music, can and do visit this forum. Fr. Ruff is a clear example on this thread.
Another reason some comment here but don't waste time at PT trying to comment- the editorial process there is significantly more restrictive.
But we've already gone through that bit- I'm just pointing out why people prefer to comment on this forum.
Other than that, I totally agree with your critique.


The most practical reason to question Hass' text is one we know well- don't mess with beloved hymns of the faithful without a really good reason. I would further add that his very wordy text does not lend itself to a common purpose for this hymn- processions.

As far as I can tell, "God's dream" is really problematic.

At the literal level, a dream implies sleeping -- but of course God does not sleep. Beyond that, a dream is a vision that may or may not come true. Yet God's thoughts are fully in accord with reality: they _make_ reality. It's contradictory for God to have a thought that potentially doesn't come true. To speak of "God's dream" calls into question His limitless power, so it is a troubling theological expression.

Chonak-
That assumes that when speaking of God's dream, the writer believes that God's dreams are equivalent to human dreams.
It is potentially problematic for the reason you suggest, but that interpretation is not required.
On the other hand, even with the best, most correct intention, language that can so easily be misunderstood might at the very least be inadvisable.

For my part, I like it because it is evocative and interesting, unlike much of the rest of the text. Also, being fairly familiar with David's music, I feel like I understand what he means by it, and I don't think what he believes he is communicating is heretical or unorthodox.

et al

Here is my very strong opinion which pushes toward probable fact.

The comments on this forum, I would wager money, are probably viewed by members of PT and other blogs and sites. This forum garnishes more 'legitimate' weight in the liturgical music sphere for the Roman Rite, because it's members seek to know and understand what the Church desires of her liturgy, uphold it and put it forward. I am not too familiar with other sites that aim to do just that, except for the Cafe, TNLM and Fr. Z.

Are there others?

As for speaking behind anyone's back, I wholly reject that idea. Because this is a significant public forum on sacred music, anything that anyone hangs here, or on a blog or in the webosphere, is open and fair game. If you speak here, you might as well be putting it in the NYT or the USA Today. It's no different.

Once again- my "behind [his] back" statement was only referring to Mr. Haas's knowledge of the conversation, not to Kathy's intention.

Kathy, it's marketing: "Look, Mary! Hass has written better words for Hail, Holy Queen and they include more contemporary images, and others that reflect Catholic social teaching and the spirit of the Magnificat in Luke."

Are the Hail Mary and the Our Father next in line? "Hail, Mary, who's up there above, Her name's shouted out..."

Professionalism is a two-way street. One man's candor is another man's lack of professionalism.

hmm....

OK... I put my (first) post on PT... I will put it here too so those who don't visit PT will be able to read it.

______________

Adam!

CMAA… a generally ‘conservative’ forum?? How do you defne conservative?

DH:

A good and blessed day to you. The CMAA’ers are certainly similar threads of a Christianity that is steeped in historical premises, I will grant you that. Don’t get us wrong. Your EFFORTS are well appreciated. However, it is sometimes the impetus underneath of many ‘contemporary’ efforts that sometimes befuddle us. For instance:

make attempts to explore different approaches to composing and pushing the envelope either musically, ritually or textually.

Why is THAT so important to you?

The question quickly arises in my mind: when does “pushing the textual limit of the envelope” border or wander off into the rewriting and reformation of sound theological content? You aren’t just writing poetry in your creative journal… you are composing music for the RC Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that is to be published for thousands if not millions to sing regularly.

New imagery or exploring different ideas is great, but it has to find roots in the essence of the faith. Text should be crafted just as carefully as the notes that sing them.

Ding-Dong Merrily on High!

(NOTE: DH ended his post with "God bless you – keep it coming! Jingle Bells!")

I hate the idea that a bunch of anti-Haas commenters are carrying on about a text I assume is somewhat dear to you behind your back.

There is absolutely no sense in attempting to comment in the com boxes at PT. One of the editors is on record as saying that the reason he deletes comments by conservatives is "they are not smart enough" to make their case in the same way liberals are...

Just to touch again on the technical aspects...

I began this thread using the word "fluency," and although I believe it is exactly the right word, it is hard to describe.

Charles Rosen said that any work of art would be judged on 3 things:

"A style may be described figuratively as a way of exploiting and focusing a language, which then becomes a dialect or language in its own right, and it is this focus which makes possible what might be called the personal style or manner of the artist, as Mozart worked against the background of the general style of his age, yet with a more specific relation to Haydn and to Johann Christian Bach. But analogies with language break down because a style is finally itself treated as a work of art, and judged as an individual work is judged and by much the same standards: coherence, power, and richness of allusion."

Just focusing on that aspect of "richness of allusion," it seems to me that hymns are strongest when they are thoroughly soaked in Scripture. This is one of the great things I see in Adam's stanza quoted above. Every image is a biblical image. Every biblical image in his hymn is true to its meaning in the Bible.

Regarding "power," that really is more of a question of liberal arts. Does it scan? How dense is the poetry? How well done is the alliteration? Are the conventions of rhyme, meter, and word order observed?

John Wesley put it this way:

"In these hymns there is no doggerel; no botches; nothing put in to patch up the rhyme; no feeble expletives. Here is nothing turgid or bombast, on the one hand, or low and creeping, on the other. Here are no cant expressions; no words without meaning. Those who impute this to us know not what they say. We talk common sense, both in prose and verse, and use no word but in a fixed and determinate sense. Here are, allow me to say, both the purity, the strength, and the elegance of the English language; and, at the same time, the utmost simplicity and plainness, suited to every capacity. "

Put those two together--Scripture plus poetic power--and you've got a hymn worth singing. I certainly hope the new hymnals are full of such hymns.

Noel,

I think the CMAA is mostly about promoting something good.