And, as usual, the answer to every liturgical music question is "Read Sacred Music"! I'll be looking forward to reading that issue, as I do with every one!

To be honest, I've always felt the "beautiful" argument to be the most difficult to defend. There are ways, as Gavin says, to describe beauty (turn of phrase, elegant harmonic movement, or formal symmetry), but to most people this is a highly subjective term. I've always been more comfortable defending chant and polyphony as the preferred music of the Church due to its official status (chant) and traditional application. I prefer to say "this text has a melody or group of melodies assigned to it by the Church." These melodies have stood the test of time and connect us to the communion of the saints in a way that few other things can. They are beautiful because the Church has deemed them "sacred" or set apart from the music of the world. Dr. Mahrt was quite right in saying that chant has no parallel in the secular world. It conveys a sense of the eternal without effort and that's why it is better. Popular music OTOH sends a mixed message. Are we singing prayer or music for our own enjoyment?

moconnor

The Pastoral Relevance of Beauty by Tracey Rowland. Good pointers.

One of the biggest problems facing the definition of beautiful music is the post-modern view that sees beauty in the everyday and the mundane. It's a nice sentiment, but it turns the idea of beauty on its head. Of course this is one of the goals of post-modernism in its never-ending attempt to redefine the world. The folk music of the 1960s was considered beautiful because it was somehow more "pure" than Western art music. It allowed the congregant to pray more directly through music. Alas that well-meaning attempt was subverted by the pop music industry when people got tired of one after another I-IV-V-I folk tune. The very fact that people tired of the pure folk music reveals that it wasn't the right idea to begin with. Suburbanites are not "folk" in the folk music sense. They live in the popular cultural world and popular styles are the most comfortable music for them. So, yes, sacro-pop is the authentic music of the middle class, but somewhere the reason for music in the Mass got lost. It wasn't there for comfort and familiarity. It was there as heightened prayer. Sure, chant can become familiar, but it never loses that sacred sense that I spoke of before.

Well, that was a late-night ramble!

moconnor

Pes, I read the article you sent me and found it lacking. There's plenty commending beauty, but I see nothing in there about what beauty is. And therein lies the problem - I can't acknowledge the existience of external, objective beauty if I cannot recognize it.

You and bjerabek mentioned the experiential beauty - in a nutshell, that beauty is that which draws one to the divine. I am no stranger to such "beauty". I experience it in a well-done liturgy, I see it in a Michigan fall (or winter or spring or summer) or sunset on the Great Lakes. However, I find such conceptions of objective beauty dangerous. My boss once gave a sermon on beauty asking the congregation to allow the beauty of chant and the liturgy draw them closer to God. What immediately drew my attention was Islamic chant, a beautiful tradition to my ears. Yet if I allowed myself to be drawn in by that beauty, I would be subjecting myself to the poison of the Koran and Islamic teaching, which is anti-Christ. Perhaps more reasonable, Pes, you yourself are a Lutheran convert. Are you telling me that you never experienced beauty until your conversion to Rome? In the tradition of Bach, Walther, Buxtehude, and everyone you never had beauty bring you to the divine? And Rome provided that for you with the guitar Masses, pastel vestments and cantor-leaders? Even if you provide the common-sense response that you experienced true beauty in the Lutheran tradition, did that beauty not draw you away from Christ's Real Presence? All the Lutherans I know who are sensitive to musical excellence are firmly committed to the Lutheran version of the Real Presence and by no means driven to Rome. (although I traffic in LCMS circles, ELCA seems to lose many more members to Rome) And you recall the disagreement on NLM over the Pope's remarks on Beethoven's 9th. For some, the "ode to joy" is such an experience of the divine. For many more, however, it's a triumphant affirmation of secular humanism. In short, I can't accept an "objective" "beauty" which draws men to Lutheranism, Islam, Catholicism, Orthodox schism, and secularism. And this is only referring to those works largely agreed upon to be beautiful, avoiding what passes for "beauty" in Catholic churches (Gentle Woman, On this Day O Beautiful Mother, etc.)

I'll add that your article shed a lot of light on the discussion on the "length of music" thread. I found the idea of the importance of aesthetics being disputed to be particularly relevant. To reiterate, I'm not saying beauty is unimportant, but rather maintaining that I remain unconvinced of its existience outside of a subjective (although important) judgment.

A lot of interesting and inspiring stuff said, I would only add that appreciation of beauty is part of on-going catechesis. (as my pastor said) One's ideas and reception about beauty are formed over an extended period. GH

Pes, I never fail to get something out of your posts.
Thank you.
Without wanting to dump on any one work of art -"There are many well-trained musicians who would judge BNA as beautiful," - are there really?
I have honestly never met one.
Surely the clumsy prosody resulting from its rhythmic oddities are recognized by anyone with the tiniest bit of musical or vocal training.
But I agree with moconnor that a judgement that an object or piece of music possesses beauty, or lacks beauty is difficult to defend, (although one can subjectively discuss unity, variety, harmony,) and in our line is, frankly, not usually material -- it might be a later question, to be confronted only after determining that a piece is or is not suitable liturgically, is or is not well constructed, is or is not within the capabilities of those who will need to sing or play it.
And Pes, while Beauty can be a form of pleasure, not only is the pleasing not necessarily beautiful, (I know we all know that,) but the Beautiful may not be all that pleasing on first acquaintance, its pleasures may not be instantly accessible, and gratification may be delayed.
Our society's impatience has impeded our perception of much that is Beautiful, (and much that is True, and much that is Good.)

Save the Liturgy, Save the World!

Gavin, if I say more, I shall probably embarrass myself in front of philosophy and theology types. But that has never stopped me before, so I'll venture a bit more. At some point I'll stop and go no further without the aid of footnotes, quotations, and other forms of homework to buttress the shaggy mass of ideas I'm creating here.

1. Re: "goodness" in music. By this I don't mean the morality of music itself. I was mainly thinking of lyrics. So that, for example, however formally excellent the melody may be to Qur'an:9:5 -- "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war" -- I could never bring myself to say that it (music + words) is "beautiful." I don't believe it is ever "beautiful" to urge our brothers and sisters to murder.

I question how music can have or lack goodness

This is a more interesting question, isn't it? Let me offer a hypothetical. Let's examine the process of composing something. If it's a conscious process, writing music can be thought of as the manipulation of musical material. You do things with lines of melody, for example. Let's say you take as your raw material a chant melody, say, the Resurrexi. This melody and text has significance. What does your music do with it? I can see an atheist fundamentalist composer taking this melody and subjecting it to all kinds of manipulations: first stating it, then dismembering it, distorting it, eventually exploding it into motivic fragments that are then inverted, etc. Then, the composer would rebuild a new melody that would be offered in place of the Resurrexi. I don't think it's abusing language to say that this music would not be "good" because it consciously deconstructs a sacred melody so as to offer an anti-Christic alternative. If we understand music to be symbolic activity, then we can, I think, begin to talk about the morality of musical form. I don't know how far this would get us (probably not very), but it is not, to me, nonsensical to begin such a discussion.

2. I should clarify something about my "Lutheran past." I was never a Lutheran, really. I was always a Catholic, just one who was insufficiently catechized, particularly regarding ecclesiology and the Eucharist. (I know, those are surprising insufficiencies for a Roman Catholic, but there we are.) You yourself have hit on what my answer would be to your question about beauty and truth and Lutherans: that your organist friend does indeed have experiences of real beauty, and that the reality of these experiences is grounded in God's Infinitely Beautiful Act. It's very difficult to tie any theorizing about his experience to specific doctrinal questions. I'm a little at a loss there, because how one acts as a result of an experience varies quite a bit. When I sang Bach chorales with them, I have to say that I discerned no untruth in what we were singing. In fact, I don't think we ever sang a text that contravened the Catholic catechism. (But then, I was far from being an expert.)

In fact, what puzzles me more about my own thinking is this. Everything that exists is supported in its existence by the loving and infinite act of existence called God. He is present to everything that exists. If that's true, what distinguishes moments of Beauty from other moments? If we saw everyday existences (like that sunset of yours, or like an old hippie singing BNA at his friend's funeral) in light of God's sustaining presence to them, then potentially everything is thereby transfigured into Beauty, right? Well, to be consistent, I would have to say not quite, and then prepare for an onslaught of complaint. God is present to things without excellent form. He is present even when someone lies, though He is certainly not in the lie. But is being aware of these things' radical dependence on God an experience of Beauty? Again, no. I would call it something else. Sometimes it's "poignant." Sometimes it's "touching." Things like that.

So what I think is that a moment of Beauty is like opening a window to the light, bright composite of formal excellence, goodness, and truth.

How do you think you would make an apology for beauty with them? [American Catholics in the pews]

Man, you sure ask the hard questions. I don't know. I would say, start with where they are and lead them gradually into experiences that they can embrace in some informed way. Always be sincere. Give some concerts. Explain some of the thinking behind the music. I've often found that people are often more willing to learn and be open to new things that you might think. What they don't want is sneering and dictatorialisms. Personally, I'd like to lead people to embrace a much more open sense of harmony. There's so much beauty to be had if you just give up a little bit more of your preferences! But this can only happen by degrees. So I would try to make Beauty happen and let that be the main vehicle of persuasion -- but I'd try to educate along the way, without it seeming like Education.

As always, G talks sense: the Beautiful may not be all that pleasing on first acquaintance. Sometimes things just sorta grow on you. That just takes time.

Pes,

My intention was to help us define our terms. We use the word 'beauty' in so many different contexts, across which there is a wide range of meanings and connotations. If we explicitly focus on consideration of musical beauty in the context of the Roman liturgical tradition, then we have a framework within which we can analyse, assess and discuss. This framework isn't either unduly restrictive or overly relativistic: it is a tradition of liturgical and and musical thought, teachings and practice, within which we select, perform and listen. The more we immerse ourselves in that tradition, and the wider musical traditions with which it has a close relationship, the more likely we are to encounter beauty in it.

Monsignor Philip Whitmore's broadcasts on Vatican Radio are a good example of the fruits of this approach. He's a music historian who discusses aspects of liturgical music in an intelligent, illuminating and enjoyable way. A number of the talks can be downloaded from the Vatican Radio Site.

That article has obvious weaknesses, like holding up "How Great Thou Art" as a great hymn hmmm

I am somewhat daunted on even trying to talk about this one.

Opinion or Truth?!

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is an objective truth. Anyone who says differently subscribes to relativism. So too in art, music, and life. If someone THINKS something that is actually ugly is beautiful, I believe it has to do with the corruption of conscience. After all, con-science means to 'go with science' or is in touch with reality! When one struggles against the moral law, especially in a state of pride or indifference, one is given over to their own thinking. Everything becomes relative, and beauty becomes a subjective state of life.

Let's remember. Lucifer was the most BEAUTIFUL thing that God had created until he went south. So one of his greatest ploys is to deceive us all into this notion that all things are beautiful. Sin is ugly. (ie, Pornography... taking one of the most beautiful elements of reality and corrupting it's purpose.} The world tries to repackage 'beauty' and tries to steer us south in the process.

OK, francis, get on with the music!

BNA is the example at hand. Let's dissect the piece. Words, melody, chordal structure, lyrical lines, phrasing, etc. If I examine each part, (and let's be truthful and totally objective) I can find something beautiful in each part. Those moments (and they are far and few between!) glimmer like stars in the galaxy, even if they are dim ones. Something 'resonates' in all of us (most of us, anyway). Whether it belongs in the liturgy or not is an entirely different question. Everything beautiful doesn't belong in the liturgy. But ANYTHING UGLY definitely does not!

I suspect I could write entirely new harmonies for BNA (such as a polyphonic treatment) and make it even more beautiful. I could change the words entirely and maybe make it more beautiful, but don't know if I want to spend the time trying since the melody is so-so to begin with.

The very sad reality about chant is that its apparent beauty is somewhat cloaked. Truth is a lover. It is not cheap, or fast, or full of glitter. Chant is probably the most beautiful and sacred of musics because it was forged in love. But to know its beauty, one must 'love with it' over time, live with it (Him), know it (Him) deeply, daily, and realize its (His) unexhaustable complexities, its (His) depth, its (His) overwhelming reality. Perhaps it IS The Song of the Lamb. Everything else is a dim reflection of that song, some dimmer than others.