How the Church Lost Her Soundscape
November 18, 2011
Peter J. Leithart
Author’s note: In what follows, I draw heavily on conversations with, as well as lectures and interviews by Ken Myers of Mars Hill Audio, currently recovering from a heart attack at his home in Virginia. I hope this piece, with our prayers, will cheer and heal.
“By the twelfth century,” Christopher Page writes in his magisterial The Christian West and Its Singers (2010), “the Latin West could be imagined as a soundscape of Latin chant.” From the eighth-century alliance of Pope Stephen with the Frankish King Pippin, a Frankish-Roman “repertory of plainsong” spread throughout Europe, suppressing competitors. By the end of the first millennium, cathedral singers in Hungary knew the same liturgy and sang the same chants for the same days as monastic singers in Spain and Sweden. When monasteries and hospitals expanded Christendom’s reach to frontier areas, they took their music with them. The sonic space of Christian cities was delimited by the sounding of bells.
In the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa, Christendom’s soundscape was demolished by Islam as the wails of muezzins replaced tolling bells. “There is only the abominable melody of Saracens where there should be the worship of Jesus Christ and chant,” lamented a Franciscan friar after the fall of Crusader Jerusalem. The medieval soundscape took another hit during the Reformation, when metrical Psalms, chorales, or modified plainchant displaced Latin chant wherever Protestantism took hold. Still, for centuries after the Reformation, and across the Reformation divides, churches continued to cultivate a distinctive culture of liturgical music.
What Islam and the Reformation initiated, American churches have completed, voluntarily. Beginning with the charismatic revival and the Jesus movement, the most theologically conservative Protestant churches abandoned the tradition of Christian music and took on musical styles adapted from popular music. It has been an astonishingly rapid and thoroughgoing change. Praise songs routed gospel hymns, and today Reformation-era Psalms and chorales are unknown in wide swathes of American Protestantism. Presbyterian theologian T. David Gordon captures the shift with an anecdote about a theology student at a Protestant seminary puzzled by a professor’s reference to Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress.” Musically, evangelicals are all charismatics now.
I am not assessing the quality, theology, or sincerity of contemporary worship music. I merely observe the fact, and offer a preliminary interrogation of its cultural sources and effects. What ideas, standards, and forces shape liturgical music? And, what does the church’s musical culture say about the church and its future?
Contemporary worship music is, for starters, “contemporary.” Of course, the age of music doesn’t determine its quality, but that bromide misses the point. In a world peopled by advertisers and entertainers, “contemporary” is a hurrah word, a marketing tool, branding liturgical music that is fashionable, up-to-date, oozing youthful cool. Contemporary is young, and young is good. The desire to make worship more appealing to young people was a major impulse behind the development of contemporary Christian music in the first place. The magnitude of this shift cannot be overestimated. Culture is a gift from the old to the young, and the younger generation’s grateful reception is a sign of honor for fathers. Cultural transmission has been thrown into reverse, also in the church.
Contemporary music arose just as general music education collapsed in our schools. As Ken Myers points out, the church did nothing to fill the gap, apparently content to let advertisers, disk jockeys, the Stones, Steve Jobs, and Madonna provide musical training for Christians, especially young ones. It is no surprise that contemporary worship music takes its cues from commercial pop. No surprise, but surely a concern. Pop music is a relatively new cultural phenomenon with its own set of commercially driven values—accessibility, immediacy, instant gratification, freedom, sex. It has its own, extremely limited, range of musical and emotional possibilities. For all its variety, pop music is dismally monophonic. Transgression is encouraged, so long as it doesn’t get too close to the music. Lady Gaga wears her meat dresses and Rihanna feigns sex on stage, but when the music starts they are both as frothy as Justin Bieber. There can be no Stravinsky of pop music.
Expertise is one of the values of modern culture, but expertise has always had a limited scope. We trust experts in physics and computer programming and perhaps foreign affairs. But the suggestion that there are experts in aesthetics, musicians who know what music one should appreciate, is greeted with hostility, also in the church. “I know what I like” stops every argument, buttressed by “Musical taste is subjective.” Lebanese organist Naji Hakim has lamented that in the Catholic Church “many in positions of liturgical responsibility, with no musical education as regards technique or aesthetics, have come to believe in a tabula rasa, denying any lineage whatsoever.” Professional musicians have been “sidelined” as “the lost common denominator has become the rule.” He wonders whether Catholics “realize the level of mediocrity which the present liturgy has reached.”
The church created the soundscape for Western Christendom because she cultivated her own musical life in the liturgy that united human voices with the angelic choirs of heaven. I can hardly imagine a more worrisome sign of worldliness, or clearer evidence of the church’s identity crisis, than our eager renunciation of our own soundscape and our determination instead to reproduce the world’s.
Peter J. Leithart is pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His most recent book is Athanasius (Baker Academic).
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
11.18.2011 | 7:55am
Ben Embry says:
Calm down, Leithart. "better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and strife therewith." that proverb about love and the quality of supper applies to your swashbuckling about music. Food is always better when you love the folks at table, even if the menu is limited. Same with the accoutrements of worship. If you don't have love, then once music suits your aural palate, it will be church furnishings in the crosshairs, then preaching quality, then the aesthetics of parking lot arrangement.
11.18.2011 | 8:36am
Michael PS says:
Since the death of Olivier Messiaen, apart from Arvo Pärt and Sir John Taverner, I cannot think of a serious contemporary composer of liturgical music.
11.18.2011 | 10:01am
DVO says:
This is a huge issue for Christianity these days. The church (here I speak of the entire Body, not only Catholicism) has largely abandoned it's role as creator and patron of the arts. I know Franky Schaeffer comes in for some rough treatment around here, but his book from the early 80's "Addicted to Mediocrity" is by and large spot on. The question seems to be what to do about this state of affairs. As a semi-professional musician who has spent a lot of time, energy and effort (not to mention money) in serving as a worship leader and accompanist in a number of churches, I see a big part of the problem as this. Simply put, you get what you pay for. If churches (and more specifically, their congregants) don't value excellence, don't commit resources and energy to knowing what excellence looks like, don't provide a place for the arts to flourish, why would any artistically gifted person bother contributing there? George Bernard Shaw, speaking on a different subject said, "In my experience, the men who want something for nothing are invariably Christians" This quote comes to mind when I hear someone bragging about their new 78 inch HDTV or Harley Davidson motorcycle and then complaining that the church piano is out of tune. To be sure, there are other issues relating directly to what kinds of music or art are consistent with Christian values. Still, in the absence of a real, passionate, concrete commitment to being "excellent for the Lord", churches will be attended in SPITE of and not BECAUSE of the artistic experience they embody.
11.18.2011 | 10:03am
Chelsea says:
I thoroughly agree that the state of the liturgy is in danger of succumbing to mediocrity (although I have been spoiled enough to find a basilica that transcends all forms of mediocrity....let's just say it's at a large Catholic University...). However, I think the quote you used from the Franciscan in Jerusalem was a little unfair to accurately describing the Islamic call to prayer. While I was in Jerusalem as well as parts of Palestine, I was able to hear it first hand. When the call to prayer was playing, it was absolutely mesmerizing to see everyone flock to the local mosque to pray to God. There was a stillness in the air, mixed with an intense reverence. Granted, it may not be as beautiful for us Westerners, but the beauty behind it cannot be overlooked. It is also difficult for me to agree that this, coupled with the Reformation led to the current state of the liturgy in the Catholic Church. If some of the most beautiful sides of Islamic culture were allowed to infiltrate the Catholic Church, I guarantee you we would be far from mediocrity.
11.18.2011 | 10:35am
habeas says:
What is the church doing today to support serious contemporary liturgical musical composition financially? I am unaware of any Catholic Church-sponsored liturgical composition contests with significant cash prizes, or support for composer residencies where such work could be generated. Perhaps the expectations fall on Catholic academics in music, since many are expected to produce creative work in pursuit of tenure? My point being, the Church is likely to get the art that it pays for. Some of the world's greatest music came out of the patronage system. Catholics should not be surprised when contemporary composition draws on popular music, because that is how many composers make their living the rest of the time. Particularly when the Church has a rich tradition of past musical works for those who are aware of it in terms of liturgical programming, there is simply no impetus for composers to direct their efforts towards compositions for which there is a very limited market and no tangible reward (other than a heavenly one).
11.18.2011 | 10:44am
Angiebee says:
To Ben Embry: telling Peter Leithart to calm down is like asking Neil Diamond to be more mellow. I've found Dr. Leithart to be one of the most balanced, thoughtful, and scholarly voices in contemporary Protestant/Reformation theology.
Yes, better a dinner of bitter herbs where love is...but even better than that, love and steak together. Maybe our churches need more musical nourishment than we're currently getting.
Yes, better a dinner of bitter herbs where love is...but even better than that, love and steak together. Maybe our churches need more musical nourishment than we're currently getting.
11.18.2011 | 10:50am
HC says:
@ Ben Embry: Why shouldn't we have the stalled ox AND love. The Proverb you quote is not an either\or mandate. I want both.
11.18.2011 | 11:32am
Steve, Winnipeg, Canada says:
A note about Church history (albeit very, very recent Church history):
If there is a dirth of theologically deep, musically rich, majestic song in evangelicalism, I really feel it. But as someone converted into a charismatic milieu, I must remind myself of another side. Talk to a few people raised with hymns (and the unnecessary dryness that came with) but who fell in with the early Vineyard movement. They will describe it like a breath of fresh air, liberating and life-giving.
As a young upstart who would love to go back to ancient psalms and hymns I must listen to my middle-aged elders and remember why the pendulum swung the way it did. All things being perfect, depth, majesty, richness, history and life would be woven together.
If there is a dirth of theologically deep, musically rich, majestic song in evangelicalism, I really feel it. But as someone converted into a charismatic milieu, I must remind myself of another side. Talk to a few people raised with hymns (and the unnecessary dryness that came with) but who fell in with the early Vineyard movement. They will describe it like a breath of fresh air, liberating and life-giving.
As a young upstart who would love to go back to ancient psalms and hymns I must listen to my middle-aged elders and remember why the pendulum swung the way it did. All things being perfect, depth, majesty, richness, history and life would be woven together.
11.18.2011 | 11:53am
FrCarl says:
A helpful distinction is that much of contemporary music is "praise" - not "worship". Worship demands engagement on multiple levels, including, cognition - the one area where so much of praise music falls short. BTW, I am appalled by your antecdote re: A Mighty Fortress. I am Anglican, but Luther's hymn of faith should be in everyone's hymnal!
11.18.2011 | 12:01pm
Peter says:
When I heard that the likes of Palestrina and Monteverdi were considered somewhat scandalous in their day, for taking sacred lyrics and overlaying them with what was then seen as, well, scandalous (at least for church music) and unarguably secular musical forms, I realized anew that things aren't always what they seem. These two composers were clearly not about upholding any musical status quo ante. My guess is that these two, Bach, Mozart, Muddy Waters, Jimmy Page and Phil Keaggy all could carry on an exceptionally interesting dinner conversation, while also engaging in a variation of "It Might Get Loud." I would certainly like to be there.
11.18.2011 | 12:13pm
Alex says:
Ben Embry: the tone of this article is not in any sense inflamed. I think it more appropriate to say, "calm down Ben." Leithart's piece is not a call to action, it is a call to reflection--important reflection at that. Listen to a mass composed by Mozart or Bach and see if it transports you somewhere.
The essence of art makes it a very difficult object to defend against attacks from relativist points of view. Estalishing a standard of judgement may find its best appeal in down to earth honesty with oneself: when I listen to Mozart's requem mass, do I experience the same movements of the soul as when I hear "Come to Jesus" with a rock/jazz rhythm? Ithink we'd be disingenuous with ourselves if we equate them.
Is one more appropriate after I've received communion, received the almighty God who has taken on such a humble form? These are important questions. And begging reflection on them is in no sense impetutous.
The essence of art makes it a very difficult object to defend against attacks from relativist points of view. Estalishing a standard of judgement may find its best appeal in down to earth honesty with oneself: when I listen to Mozart's requem mass, do I experience the same movements of the soul as when I hear "Come to Jesus" with a rock/jazz rhythm? Ithink we'd be disingenuous with ourselves if we equate them.
Is one more appropriate after I've received communion, received the almighty God who has taken on such a humble form? These are important questions. And begging reflection on them is in no sense impetutous.
11.18.2011 | 1:22pm
Maria says:
I agree with the piece entirely. The situation is dire in many Catholic Churches. I am an adult convert to the Catholic faith and I desperately miss the beautiful hymns and traditional music of the Anglican Church. I also love plainsong and chant, but at least in our Cathedral Church, the music director will only sing the most politically correct modern "songs". When a hymn, borrowed from Protestantism, is sung, the lyrics have been "reworked" to include endless references to us the congregation as demonstrating justice and relief from oppression, or to eliminate any "he's" (including male references to God). The songs are theologically inaccurate and musically banal.
But as for "you get what you pay for", our music director is paid for part time work as much as our priest. Yet I dread Christmas in which we get to sing two hymns each mass: O Come All Ye Faithful for the processional and Joy to the World as the recessional. Over, and over, through all the days of Christmas! Never thought I could hate those lovely old carols but after five years of nothing but.....
Music does nourish the soul and make worhsip beautiful. While I do understand that matters of "taste" vary, and compromise to a degree is unavoidable, the Catholic Church could stand for excellence and worshipful music based on the wide traditions of Christian music, including its own. Instead, I often leave mass in a state of extreme irritation at our unreflective acceptance of whatever is thrust upon us.
But as for "you get what you pay for", our music director is paid for part time work as much as our priest. Yet I dread Christmas in which we get to sing two hymns each mass: O Come All Ye Faithful for the processional and Joy to the World as the recessional. Over, and over, through all the days of Christmas! Never thought I could hate those lovely old carols but after five years of nothing but.....
Music does nourish the soul and make worhsip beautiful. While I do understand that matters of "taste" vary, and compromise to a degree is unavoidable, the Catholic Church could stand for excellence and worshipful music based on the wide traditions of Christian music, including its own. Instead, I often leave mass in a state of extreme irritation at our unreflective acceptance of whatever is thrust upon us.
11.18.2011 | 1:28pm
Ben Embry says:
Thanks, Alex, HC, and angiebee, for broadening my lunch horizons. I agree with you on wanting both love and good music. But consider this. Leithart begins by extolling the uniformity of liturgical music in the church (1200AD) then he laments the development of choral music and metric psalms, then he laments the introduction of gospel songs, then charismatic songs. So does Leithart think metric psalms are a no-go for well-formed worship? It depends, it seems, on whether they are the innovation or the tradition. He approves the thing that can rarely be found, and disapproves of what is widespread. If we were talking food, he'd lament the burgers on our plates and wistfully long for the sausages that Oma Fraulein used to make.
Personally, I love all kinds of music. And nothing pleases me more than when my 8-yr-old daughter comes home from school and teaches me the new hymn of the day, commenting about how the high "fa" note is hard to reach, or being excited about the different rhythm that her teacher proposed for the song. Another pleasure: this past weekend, we had 16 adults and 24 children in our none-too-large home filling the space with four-part harmony acapella. Working from a hymnal that is less than a year old, everyone was eagerly scouring the 1,000 plus songs with shaped note to see which ones they knew and which were new.
And I'd rather have those innovative hymns, whether they are based on Palestrina ("The Strife is O'er") or written by 19th century pastor's wives ("Nearer, Still Nearer") or by German Pietists (Gerhard Tersteegen). And if someone proposes Kumbaya at the campfire, I'm not going to make mild comments about the disappearance of plainsong. Nor would I trade the verve of the music culture in our home for an aesthetic of liturgical uniformity that Leithart aches for.
Personally, I love all kinds of music. And nothing pleases me more than when my 8-yr-old daughter comes home from school and teaches me the new hymn of the day, commenting about how the high "fa" note is hard to reach, or being excited about the different rhythm that her teacher proposed for the song. Another pleasure: this past weekend, we had 16 adults and 24 children in our none-too-large home filling the space with four-part harmony acapella. Working from a hymnal that is less than a year old, everyone was eagerly scouring the 1,000 plus songs with shaped note to see which ones they knew and which were new.
And I'd rather have those innovative hymns, whether they are based on Palestrina ("The Strife is O'er") or written by 19th century pastor's wives ("Nearer, Still Nearer") or by German Pietists (Gerhard Tersteegen). And if someone proposes Kumbaya at the campfire, I'm not going to make mild comments about the disappearance of plainsong. Nor would I trade the verve of the music culture in our home for an aesthetic of liturgical uniformity that Leithart aches for.
11.18.2011 | 2:47pm
aquinasadmirer says:
@Michael PS
Happily, I found someone you might consider serious: Kevin Allen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffFlo0r274&feature=related
Cheers,
Mark
Happily, I found someone you might consider serious: Kevin Allen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffFlo0r274&feature=related
Cheers,
Mark
11.18.2011 | 2:56pm
AKO Army says:
I have always thought of the church when thinking about angelic music or choir. In fact it's one of the reasons I learned how to sing in the first place, and allowed me to go on to sing in concert choir.
11.18.2011 | 3:57pm
Art Nesten says:
Ben Embry, you've spent four long paragraphs ironically proving Leithart's case, simply repeating variations of "I know what I like." You didn't need four paragraphs to tell us you are unaware what aesthetics have to do with worldliness, or what Jesus has to do with objective standards of truth, goodness and beauty.
These are hard issues, but you love all kinds of music and it's as simple as that. Your daughter sang "Fa" and made you happy. You like burgers, but if someone likes Twinkies, good for them! Just not too many; well, that's probably alright as well. After all, there was a starving man and all he had to eat were Twinkies; who am we to judge Twinkies? We should stop judging starving people. Ben, is it possible you love all kinds of people and places and things, not like Leithart and other narrow-minded curmudgeons? Can't they see the pleasures of detachment from the past?
These are hard issues, but you love all kinds of music and it's as simple as that. Your daughter sang "Fa" and made you happy. You like burgers, but if someone likes Twinkies, good for them! Just not too many; well, that's probably alright as well. After all, there was a starving man and all he had to eat were Twinkies; who am we to judge Twinkies? We should stop judging starving people. Ben, is it possible you love all kinds of people and places and things, not like Leithart and other narrow-minded curmudgeons? Can't they see the pleasures of detachment from the past?
11.18.2011 | 4:26pm
Junker George says:
Read Harold Best's book "Music Through the Eyes of Faith". He explains why and how Leithart has fused the subjective to the objective and called them simply "objective".
11.18.2011 | 4:50pm
Angiebee says:
Ben Embry says: >>And if someone proposes Kumbaya at the campfire, I'm not going to make mild comments about the disappearance of plainsong. Nor would I trade the verve of the music culture in our home for an aesthetic of liturgical uniformity that Leithart aches for.
11.18.2011 | 4:55pm
Angiebee says:
Looks like the rest of my comment about the above Ben Embry quote disappeared...
I was going to say that writing an article in a periodical dedicated to theological reflection is hardly the same thing as snickering at your fellow Kumbaya-fans around the campfire. A call for reflection about the music in our churches does not equal a call for snobbery and divisiveness.
As for liturgical uniformity, I don't see Leithart arguing for that in this piece.
Good for you enjoying music--in all its wonderful variety--in your home.
I was going to say that writing an article in a periodical dedicated to theological reflection is hardly the same thing as snickering at your fellow Kumbaya-fans around the campfire. A call for reflection about the music in our churches does not equal a call for snobbery and divisiveness.
As for liturgical uniformity, I don't see Leithart arguing for that in this piece.
Good for you enjoying music--in all its wonderful variety--in your home.
11.18.2011 | 5:08pm
Ben Embry says:
Angiebee, we also enjoy steak in our home. And recently the children (#5 is on the way) have been pleading for us to play, everytime we are in the minivan, an acapella chorale project from St. Thomas Aquinas College in Ojai, CA. "Father, put on the song tape with "Riu, Riu, Chiu".
11.18.2011 | 6:04pm
A Donathan says:
Chelsea: re: your statement, "While I was in Jerusalem as well as parts of Palestine, I was able to hear [the muezzins' call] first hand. When the call to prayer was playing, it was absolutely mesmerizing to see everyone flock to the local mosque to pray to God. There was a stillness in the air, mixed with an intense reverence. Granted, it may not be as beautiful for us Westerners, but the beauty behind it cannot be overlooked."
This actually hits the heart of the issue: aesthetic relativism. Tash is not Aslan, and neither are Tash's cultural artifacts comparable to Aslan's. Inability to distinguish the musical stylings of a foreign god, whether he be Allah or some idol of our contemporary culture, and those of our own Triune God, is the root of failure in American liturgy. Music designed for other occasions, whether public worship of a false god, or sexual inflammation of the youth, or anti-war rallies, or innocent birthday parties around a campfire, is not suited to the worship of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is a unique occasion, and there is none like it, just as there is no deity like Him. We ought to recognize that it requires unique music, too. Unchurched people ought to enter a church and think, "There is no music quite like that that I've heard."
This actually hits the heart of the issue: aesthetic relativism. Tash is not Aslan, and neither are Tash's cultural artifacts comparable to Aslan's. Inability to distinguish the musical stylings of a foreign god, whether he be Allah or some idol of our contemporary culture, and those of our own Triune God, is the root of failure in American liturgy. Music designed for other occasions, whether public worship of a false god, or sexual inflammation of the youth, or anti-war rallies, or innocent birthday parties around a campfire, is not suited to the worship of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is a unique occasion, and there is none like it, just as there is no deity like Him. We ought to recognize that it requires unique music, too. Unchurched people ought to enter a church and think, "There is no music quite like that that I've heard."
11.18.2011 | 8:23pm
Pearse Marschner says:
As the Lebanese organist would well know (unless he were a particular type of confessionist Maronite), there is a great deal of power and majesty in an (acoustic) call of the muzzein. Neither the notion that moments of the day should be set aside for prayer nor the actual structure of the music (i.e., the scale and phrasing) of the music is not foreign, at least to the Eastern Church.
The lamenting Fransiscan friar in the 12th century certainly had cause to miss the Angelus when it was replaced with a numbingly simple affirmation that God is great and the stunningly false proclamation that Mohamed is His prophet. But for me, as someone who has lived a good chunk of life in both Christian and Saracen lands, I can affirm there is something they retain, no matter how misguided, that we have lost.
As for the "better herbs and love than ox and discord" comment, Mr. Embry and those who follow miss of the point. This is sacred music we are talking about - i.e., it's in church among fellow believers. The love is implicit. The question is whether we give herbs or meat in our offerings to the Lord. Please refer to the story of Cain and Abel to see which the Lord appreciated more.
The lamenting Fransiscan friar in the 12th century certainly had cause to miss the Angelus when it was replaced with a numbingly simple affirmation that God is great and the stunningly false proclamation that Mohamed is His prophet. But for me, as someone who has lived a good chunk of life in both Christian and Saracen lands, I can affirm there is something they retain, no matter how misguided, that we have lost.
As for the "better herbs and love than ox and discord" comment, Mr. Embry and those who follow miss of the point. This is sacred music we are talking about - i.e., it's in church among fellow believers. The love is implicit. The question is whether we give herbs or meat in our offerings to the Lord. Please refer to the story of Cain and Abel to see which the Lord appreciated more.
11.19.2011 | 12:12am
DirkVA says:
Michael PS says:
"Since the death of Olivier Messiaen, apart from Arvo Pärt and Sir John Taverner, I cannot think of a serious contemporary composer of liturgical music."
Where have you discovered this body of liturgical music by Messiaen? It certainly isn't published or known to specialists.
"Since the death of Olivier Messiaen, apart from Arvo Pärt and Sir John Taverner, I cannot think of a serious contemporary composer of liturgical music."
Where have you discovered this body of liturgical music by Messiaen? It certainly isn't published or known to specialists.
11.19.2011 | 12:25am
Ben Embry says:
So sorry. I just saw that Art Nesten made comment on something I had posted.
Does it not seem clear from our Lord that the worship He loves is childlike? When He says that the glad cheers of children are the thing preventing the stones from crying out, does it not expose the wrongheaded approach to worship that is grounded in particular worship traditions or musical designs? The OT records David's exuberant dancing with approval, and condemns the liturgical purist, David's wife Michal.
I'm not sure if i follow everyrhing that Art wrote, but Art, it isn't that my delight in music is its own justification. It's rather that this business of tracking a supposed worldliness in liturgy is not justified by any measure of significance.
Leithart asked,"What ideas, standards and forces shape liturgical music?". One hymn says that "Love consecrates the humblest act". I hoped to show that this is true- even humble tunes sung for the Lord. Is that an acceptable aesthetic standard? The scriptures speak of all tongues and tribes being represented in the consummate worship of the Lord, and I'd like to think that the particular idiom of worship is negligible, and that that negligence is part of the beauty of worship- not a sign of declining liturgical standards per se.
Anyway, of the three most intimate activities that we humans can participate in woth each other, two of them are eating together and singing together. And I'd be ready to enjoy that with Art, or any of the rest of you. But no Twinkies. Even though the son of the sweet singer of Israel might qualify that restriction. Better is a dinner of Twinkies where love is....
Does it not seem clear from our Lord that the worship He loves is childlike? When He says that the glad cheers of children are the thing preventing the stones from crying out, does it not expose the wrongheaded approach to worship that is grounded in particular worship traditions or musical designs? The OT records David's exuberant dancing with approval, and condemns the liturgical purist, David's wife Michal.
I'm not sure if i follow everyrhing that Art wrote, but Art, it isn't that my delight in music is its own justification. It's rather that this business of tracking a supposed worldliness in liturgy is not justified by any measure of significance.
Leithart asked,"What ideas, standards and forces shape liturgical music?". One hymn says that "Love consecrates the humblest act". I hoped to show that this is true- even humble tunes sung for the Lord. Is that an acceptable aesthetic standard? The scriptures speak of all tongues and tribes being represented in the consummate worship of the Lord, and I'd like to think that the particular idiom of worship is negligible, and that that negligence is part of the beauty of worship- not a sign of declining liturgical standards per se.
Anyway, of the three most intimate activities that we humans can participate in woth each other, two of them are eating together and singing together. And I'd be ready to enjoy that with Art, or any of the rest of you. But no Twinkies. Even though the son of the sweet singer of Israel might qualify that restriction. Better is a dinner of Twinkies where love is....
11.19.2011 | 12:34am
Andrew Lohr says:
God's glory is infinite; everything [nonsinful] is lawful if received with thanksgiving; pride is the chief sin. Pride: we're satisfied with our customary music instead of stretching to praise triune Jehovah in new ways ('sing a new song' is a commandment) and to bring everything to praise him, whatever musical language any thing speaks right now. Pride in medieval chants as if that's all we need, pride in Psalms as if that's all, pride in Victorian-type hymns, pride in music that's modern, pride in the old classic Vineyard music or in the new Vineyard music that's current right now, pride in our cross-cultural music mix, pride in our quality or in doing badly things worth doing even if badly. Am I making any of this up? Oh yeah, pride in perceiving all that pride.
11.19.2011 | 12:59am
aquinasadmirer says:
@Andrew Luhr
Pride Indeed.
Pride: We don't need to follow instructions from Rome that have been given recognitio, we're Americans!
I agree; pride is the first problem.
Pride Indeed.
Pride: We don't need to follow instructions from Rome that have been given recognitio, we're Americans!
I agree; pride is the first problem.
11.19.2011 | 5:21am
Michael PS says:
DirkVA
The piano and choral “Trois petites liturgies de la présence divine,” the piano pieces “Vingt regards sur l'enfant-Jésus”, the organ piece “La Nativité du Seigneur” to name a few
The piano and choral “Trois petites liturgies de la présence divine,” the piano pieces “Vingt regards sur l'enfant-Jésus”, the organ piece “La Nativité du Seigneur” to name a few
11.19.2011 | 8:42am
John Wickey says:
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Does the new music enhance your vision of God or is it a new exercise in self-love? I am a late-comer to the fold of Eastern Orthodoxy and feel a sense of peace with the ancient music of early Christianity. My first hearing of it brought tears to my eyes.
11.19.2011 | 9:04am
BE says:
Messaien is unsingable by a congregation; he didn't write hymns. Is there greater singable music than Gospel, Renaissance and Gregorian? Not in my hymn book. I think a really talented composer could do wonders with rock music, it has a lot of possibilities. Jazz for Mass seems to work less well.
11.19.2011 | 10:30am
Matt Yonke says:
Josh is, of course, right. Though Josh is Orthodox and I'm a Byzantine rite Catholic and we share the same glorious musical tradition, which says to me that this isn't a Catholic problem, it's a western problem.
For those who say you get what you pay for in a music program, I answer that our music program costs precisely nothing except the paper to print the propers on. Our liturgy is reverent, beautiful, other-worldly and I am loathe to go to Church anywhere else because, even though Jesus is present in every Eucharist, my heart misses the chant that IS the sound of liturgy to me. Everything else is just an imitation.
We don't need new composers, we don't need high-dollar music programs. We need fidelity to the rich tradition of beautiful music that the east still cherishes and the west, outside of Latin Trad Catholics, has tossed by the wayside.
For those who say you get what you pay for in a music program, I answer that our music program costs precisely nothing except the paper to print the propers on. Our liturgy is reverent, beautiful, other-worldly and I am loathe to go to Church anywhere else because, even though Jesus is present in every Eucharist, my heart misses the chant that IS the sound of liturgy to me. Everything else is just an imitation.
We don't need new composers, we don't need high-dollar music programs. We need fidelity to the rich tradition of beautiful music that the east still cherishes and the west, outside of Latin Trad Catholics, has tossed by the wayside.
11.19.2011 | 10:53am
Pr. Dan Biles says:
Am I wrong, of does this article start off sounding like another lament for the Middle Ages as the golden age of the Church's worship?
I have come to regard anyone who uses the juxtaposition "traditional" vs. "contemporary" as almost hopelessly lacking understanding of what they are saying. What they really mean is "old" vs. "new." But a living tradition is always contemporary.
A local fellowship church has now introduced a service they call "The Classic," featuring old-time hymns. Seems the young adults were turning off to the "praise services," with the guitars and drums. "We hear that music all the time," they said.
I have come to regard anyone who uses the juxtaposition "traditional" vs. "contemporary" as almost hopelessly lacking understanding of what they are saying. What they really mean is "old" vs. "new." But a living tradition is always contemporary.
A local fellowship church has now introduced a service they call "The Classic," featuring old-time hymns. Seems the young adults were turning off to the "praise services," with the guitars and drums. "We hear that music all the time," they said.
11.19.2011 | 12:59pm
JB says:
For anyone interested in this topic I highly recommend two essays by Anthony Esolen - one on the music, the other on lyrics.
Part One:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8485
Part Two:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8790
Also highly recommend Thomas Day's book "Why Catholics Can't Sing."
Part One:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8485
Part Two:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8790
Also highly recommend Thomas Day's book "Why Catholics Can't Sing."
11.19.2011 | 1:38pm
Paul B. says:
Joshua Gibbs comments: 'Ahem. "How the Western Church Lost Her Soundscape."'
Alas, the Eastern, too, according to some musicians and thinkers. The Orthodox are not all on the same page, musically (though no doubt there's a greater sense of one-mindedness among them than among U.S. evangelicals). Some regard all that four-(or more)-part music from Russia and other Slavic lands -- which for many of us really is the soundscape of Orthodoxy -- as an unfortunate "Western" development.
Meanwhile, here's a comment I ran across just the other day, at orthodoxtwopartmusic.org:
"Is it time to simplfy in order to reflect a deeper quality of Orthodox Life? It was once said that the return of the Byzantine style icons in the early mid 1900's would also neccesitate a change in its liturgical companion, Orthodox music."
Alas, the Eastern, too, according to some musicians and thinkers. The Orthodox are not all on the same page, musically (though no doubt there's a greater sense of one-mindedness among them than among U.S. evangelicals). Some regard all that four-(or more)-part music from Russia and other Slavic lands -- which for many of us really is the soundscape of Orthodoxy -- as an unfortunate "Western" development.
Meanwhile, here's a comment I ran across just the other day, at orthodoxtwopartmusic.org:
"Is it time to simplfy in order to reflect a deeper quality of Orthodox Life? It was once said that the return of the Byzantine style icons in the early mid 1900's would also neccesitate a change in its liturgical companion, Orthodox music."
11.20.2011 | 8:17am
De Las Casas says:
The unique magnificence of the Catholic Church’s achievements in the arts and sciences inspires awe. A study of accurate history will lead to the judgement that Christ’s founding of the Church was integral to the moment that proved to be the great hinge of world history. The instant that altered everything.
Although the earthly Church is but a shadow of the spiritual Church, when we turn our sensory receptors to witness the palpable achievements of the Church we see that a blinding transcendence abounds.
From plainchant through Arvo Pärt, the last thousand years of the Catholic Church’s music is illuminated by the guiding touch of the Good Shepherd’s hand. The invasion of the mediocre “popular” music, an evocation of Dionysian titillation, into the Mass has jammed the reception of the authentic spiritual infusion that occurs in those minutes when the Flesh and Blood is woven into our flesh and blood.
Last Sunday in my local Church these moments were accompanied by the electronically amplified singing of “Kumbayah”, a folk-spiritual whose contemporary meaning has become soaked in promiscuity, self-justifying arrogance, and pot. Silence would be better. The urge of the Shepherd’s hand that comes gloved in Gregorian Chant would also be better.
Our adversaries understand the power of music better than we do. The suppression of The Church’s magnificent music is not an accident, nor is it the least important strategy of aggressive defamation, that has damaged the faith of Catholics. Those that have left the Church are said to have “lost” their faith. Actually their faith was maliciously assassinated.
Although the earthly Church is but a shadow of the spiritual Church, when we turn our sensory receptors to witness the palpable achievements of the Church we see that a blinding transcendence abounds.
From plainchant through Arvo Pärt, the last thousand years of the Catholic Church’s music is illuminated by the guiding touch of the Good Shepherd’s hand. The invasion of the mediocre “popular” music, an evocation of Dionysian titillation, into the Mass has jammed the reception of the authentic spiritual infusion that occurs in those minutes when the Flesh and Blood is woven into our flesh and blood.
Last Sunday in my local Church these moments were accompanied by the electronically amplified singing of “Kumbayah”, a folk-spiritual whose contemporary meaning has become soaked in promiscuity, self-justifying arrogance, and pot. Silence would be better. The urge of the Shepherd’s hand that comes gloved in Gregorian Chant would also be better.
Our adversaries understand the power of music better than we do. The suppression of The Church’s magnificent music is not an accident, nor is it the least important strategy of aggressive defamation, that has damaged the faith of Catholics. Those that have left the Church are said to have “lost” their faith. Actually their faith was maliciously assassinated.
11.20.2011 | 9:36pm
Ben Blackhawk says:
De Las Casas eloquently states that mediocre "popular" music acts as spiritual "jammer" to authentic spiritual infusion. I couldn't agree more.
For at little over half a decade when I first became Catholic, I led a "contemporary music group (back in the '90's). When I programmed music at mass based on the comments of fawning parishoners, it never felt quite right, but I was not understanding why: NO ONE was telling me I was doing anything wrong by programming easy-to-sing and easy-listening toe-tapping gospel-style music at communion, but a still small voice within me was indicating conflict with the liturgical action and aesthetic.
Years later, I now realize that part of the problem with "baptizing" non-traditional tunes and styles for use in the mass is that we do not control the meanings and associations of those tunes and styles as they are used outside of mass. If by inviting the congregation to sing "Change My Heart O God" with a syrupy-sweet chord structure and the sultry-slinky rhythm of a lingerie commercial, I cause even one of these little ones to stumble, would it not be better for me to be thrown into the sea with an electric piano tied around my neck?
Like the camel going through the eye of the needle, I suppose that it is theoretically possible for this kind of music not to make anyone stumble, but I for am no longer willing to risk it. The associations of Palestrina or Monteverdi with worldliness are no longer widespread except for history buffs, but it will take generations if not centuries to change the association of guitar-bass-drum set-keyboard combo with loose morals.
For at little over half a decade when I first became Catholic, I led a "contemporary music group (back in the '90's). When I programmed music at mass based on the comments of fawning parishoners, it never felt quite right, but I was not understanding why: NO ONE was telling me I was doing anything wrong by programming easy-to-sing and easy-listening toe-tapping gospel-style music at communion, but a still small voice within me was indicating conflict with the liturgical action and aesthetic.
Years later, I now realize that part of the problem with "baptizing" non-traditional tunes and styles for use in the mass is that we do not control the meanings and associations of those tunes and styles as they are used outside of mass. If by inviting the congregation to sing "Change My Heart O God" with a syrupy-sweet chord structure and the sultry-slinky rhythm of a lingerie commercial, I cause even one of these little ones to stumble, would it not be better for me to be thrown into the sea with an electric piano tied around my neck?
Like the camel going through the eye of the needle, I suppose that it is theoretically possible for this kind of music not to make anyone stumble, but I for am no longer willing to risk it. The associations of Palestrina or Monteverdi with worldliness are no longer widespread except for history buffs, but it will take generations if not centuries to change the association of guitar-bass-drum set-keyboard combo with loose morals.
11.20.2011 | 11:40pm
Mike Linton says:
The unified "soundscape" that Christopher Page writes existed by the 12th century is probably more varied than a quick reading of his pages might suggest. Look at any family of medieval chant manuscripts and you'll find a good deal of local variation -- and some very significant differences in different families (as between Milan and Salisbury, for instance). Ruth Steiner (Professor emeritus at Catholic U) and Margot Fassler (at Notre Dame) probably know more about this subject than anybody and are wonderful authors for folks to investigate who are interested in this history.
But Peter's point about the church loosing her soundscape is well taken, just a bit tepid. The soundscape isn't lost. It's dead. As a door-nail. Here are two pictures of its funeral.
http://theratzingerforum.yuku.com/topic/524/Papal-apartment-and-family?page=47#.TsmeZ_F9
The first is a picture of the pope shaking his brother's hand after a Sistine Chapel performance of Mozart's Mass in C minor given by the Lintz orchestra and the Stella Doufexis choir in honor of Monsignor Georg Ratzinger's 85 birthday (Georg Ratzinger is the pope's brother). Go back and read that again. A picture (yep, the media is invited). The Sistine Chapel. The Pope. Mozart. The Mass in C minor. Performance. That last one is the important one. "Performance." The mass is performed without the mass being celebrated. Even the music lover pope, in the Sistine Chapel (that same place where Palestrina worked and from which we get the term "a capella") didn't have Mozart's music function as Mozart intended it: as an accompaniment, and an adornment, to the celebration of the Eucharist. It's just played. You get the aesthetic thrills, and the eternal life available through the reception of the sacrament that was the reason why Mozart wrote this music, where's it? Yeah, well, you know, the Pope (and we're not talking about a simple parish priest here, we're talking about the Pope himself) must think that relationship just isn't that important. You can skip that part. We'll just have the music. And we'll have pictures of me just listening to it available for the whole world to see. The music lives. The "sacred" part? Yep. Dead.
The second is Michael W. Smith's "A New Hallelujah." You can see it here (along with an ad for Byonce "Live at Roseland").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBxOkruKpqI
It's cool, it's up beat, it's got fly-over camera work. It's even got a cute African children's choir. And it's spiritual and kinda Christian but not in a Jesusee way. There's a good reason for that.
Jesus is a problem. He's specific, and that kind of narrow specificity might turn people off, so he's just best not mentioned. You can use "church" (after all, even the Moonies have a church) and you can use a generic "He" (Krishna, Jesus, Che Guevara, the Maitreya -- they all could work). Just don't mention "the Name." Evangelicals, who used to get pretty heated over how important "naming the name" was, can pretend they hear it, and pretending is good enough, just as long as they buy it.
Buy it. Yep. It's about business. Although he does not record on it, Smith began Rocketown Records in 1996. Today the label is partly owned by Word Records which is itself co-owned by Warner Music Group and Curb Records (Warner Music Group is partners with MTV and since May, 2011, has been part of Access Industries, the toy of the Russian billionaire Len Blavatnik). Smith was one of the first artists to record with Reunion Records, based in Brentwood, Tennessee. Reunion became business partners with David Geffen (yes, that David Geffen) and has gone through several marriages but is now part of Sony BMG Music Entertainment. Provident-Integrity Distribution, which distributes material for the Provident Label Group, is also a division of Sony Music Entertainment.
Mr. Smith may be a very fine person, but Michael W. Smith is a business. And business is business. Find a niche, focus-group it, exploit it, maximize profit and don't limit your market by alienating potential customers and that name "Jesus," okay, at some dim future every knee might bow but right now we're only concerned about this morning's stock report; "long term" is the quarterly report sent to Tokyo, and "Jesus" just narrows our customer base. Can it.
"Sacred"? What, you kidding? Sure. Pass the sake. We'll toast the deceased.
On the one hand there's an ecclesiastical culture so infatuated with aesthetics it's lost sight that the beautiful bottle exists only because there's a more beautiful perfume for it to contain--and dispense. And on the other hand there's a music business so desperate for every buck it can capture that it will surrender anything to the quarterly bottom line -- even the name of the Savior who I expect Mr. Smith loves.
When the Pope doesn't know that Mozart's "mass" is meaningless without being a "mass" -- and particularly with him attending it as an audience member and not as a congregant, and when Michael W. Smith cagily skates around the name of his Savior, avoiding it for the purposes of profit, we're witnessing a Christian "soundscape" so dim as to be non-existent. It existed once. When something that existed once doesn't any more, we call that dead.
PS. Ben, about what we can call the "resonance" of things, like music, you're exactly right. Pieces of music don't exist in a vacuum and they all carry with them cultural references. If they didn't we composers wouldn't have anything really to work with.
PPS. And before y'all say that I'm just cursing the darkness in the funeral home instead of lighting that candle, well, I've tried. It's still really dark.
http://www.refinersfire.us/page8/page8.html
But Peter's point about the church loosing her soundscape is well taken, just a bit tepid. The soundscape isn't lost. It's dead. As a door-nail. Here are two pictures of its funeral.
http://theratzingerforum.yuku.com/topic/524/Papal-apartment-and-family?page=47#.TsmeZ_F9
The first is a picture of the pope shaking his brother's hand after a Sistine Chapel performance of Mozart's Mass in C minor given by the Lintz orchestra and the Stella Doufexis choir in honor of Monsignor Georg Ratzinger's 85 birthday (Georg Ratzinger is the pope's brother). Go back and read that again. A picture (yep, the media is invited). The Sistine Chapel. The Pope. Mozart. The Mass in C minor. Performance. That last one is the important one. "Performance." The mass is performed without the mass being celebrated. Even the music lover pope, in the Sistine Chapel (that same place where Palestrina worked and from which we get the term "a capella") didn't have Mozart's music function as Mozart intended it: as an accompaniment, and an adornment, to the celebration of the Eucharist. It's just played. You get the aesthetic thrills, and the eternal life available through the reception of the sacrament that was the reason why Mozart wrote this music, where's it? Yeah, well, you know, the Pope (and we're not talking about a simple parish priest here, we're talking about the Pope himself) must think that relationship just isn't that important. You can skip that part. We'll just have the music. And we'll have pictures of me just listening to it available for the whole world to see. The music lives. The "sacred" part? Yep. Dead.
The second is Michael W. Smith's "A New Hallelujah." You can see it here (along with an ad for Byonce "Live at Roseland").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBxOkruKpqI
It's cool, it's up beat, it's got fly-over camera work. It's even got a cute African children's choir. And it's spiritual and kinda Christian but not in a Jesusee way. There's a good reason for that.
Jesus is a problem. He's specific, and that kind of narrow specificity might turn people off, so he's just best not mentioned. You can use "church" (after all, even the Moonies have a church) and you can use a generic "He" (Krishna, Jesus, Che Guevara, the Maitreya -- they all could work). Just don't mention "the Name." Evangelicals, who used to get pretty heated over how important "naming the name" was, can pretend they hear it, and pretending is good enough, just as long as they buy it.
Buy it. Yep. It's about business. Although he does not record on it, Smith began Rocketown Records in 1996. Today the label is partly owned by Word Records which is itself co-owned by Warner Music Group and Curb Records (Warner Music Group is partners with MTV and since May, 2011, has been part of Access Industries, the toy of the Russian billionaire Len Blavatnik). Smith was one of the first artists to record with Reunion Records, based in Brentwood, Tennessee. Reunion became business partners with David Geffen (yes, that David Geffen) and has gone through several marriages but is now part of Sony BMG Music Entertainment. Provident-Integrity Distribution, which distributes material for the Provident Label Group, is also a division of Sony Music Entertainment.
Mr. Smith may be a very fine person, but Michael W. Smith is a business. And business is business. Find a niche, focus-group it, exploit it, maximize profit and don't limit your market by alienating potential customers and that name "Jesus," okay, at some dim future every knee might bow but right now we're only concerned about this morning's stock report; "long term" is the quarterly report sent to Tokyo, and "Jesus" just narrows our customer base. Can it.
"Sacred"? What, you kidding? Sure. Pass the sake. We'll toast the deceased.
On the one hand there's an ecclesiastical culture so infatuated with aesthetics it's lost sight that the beautiful bottle exists only because there's a more beautiful perfume for it to contain--and dispense. And on the other hand there's a music business so desperate for every buck it can capture that it will surrender anything to the quarterly bottom line -- even the name of the Savior who I expect Mr. Smith loves.
When the Pope doesn't know that Mozart's "mass" is meaningless without being a "mass" -- and particularly with him attending it as an audience member and not as a congregant, and when Michael W. Smith cagily skates around the name of his Savior, avoiding it for the purposes of profit, we're witnessing a Christian "soundscape" so dim as to be non-existent. It existed once. When something that existed once doesn't any more, we call that dead.
PS. Ben, about what we can call the "resonance" of things, like music, you're exactly right. Pieces of music don't exist in a vacuum and they all carry with them cultural references. If they didn't we composers wouldn't have anything really to work with.
PPS. And before y'all say that I'm just cursing the darkness in the funeral home instead of lighting that candle, well, I've tried. It's still really dark.
http://www.refinersfire.us/page8/page8.html
11.21.2011 | 5:58am
edmond says:
I like some ccm music, though not many were composed with the holy mass in mind. They can work with charismatic prayer meetings which are copies of protestant/born again worship services. Mr. Blackhawk's comment says a lot. My point is, if you come to mass to enjoy the music then you're not there for the mass at all. However, I put my foot down on songs, contemporary or not that painfully do not match the liturgy. Also for choirs that have no love for singing. "Tantum Ergo" will always have its place in the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, but you can count with the free fingers in your rosary praying hand, how many would know the latin lyrics. Maybe "O sacred heart" would have more participation.
Sacred music does not have a big following for folks born in the 80s onwards, it is not popular as the holy mass was never a popular event because it has always been looked at as an obligation. However, should that paradigm change by more people understanding that the sabbath was made for man to WORSHIP GOD, (nuthin more, and less) then everything else will follow.
Sacred music does not have a big following for folks born in the 80s onwards, it is not popular as the holy mass was never a popular event because it has always been looked at as an obligation. However, should that paradigm change by more people understanding that the sabbath was made for man to WORSHIP GOD, (nuthin more, and less) then everything else will follow.
11.21.2011 | 7:41am
Michael Ps says:
BE notes that "Messaien is unsingable by a congregation; he didn't write hymns."
Ever since the 14th century, (think of Graneti, Defronciaco, Loÿs, "Baralipton", Cordier, Tapissier and de Thenis) composers of sacred music have produced works that are "unsingable by a congregation."
To exclude, in effect, the whole legacy of late Mediaeval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic and Modern sacred music from the liturgy would be an impoverishment indeed
Ever since the 14th century, (think of Graneti, Defronciaco, Loÿs, "Baralipton", Cordier, Tapissier and de Thenis) composers of sacred music have produced works that are "unsingable by a congregation."
To exclude, in effect, the whole legacy of late Mediaeval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic and Modern sacred music from the liturgy would be an impoverishment indeed
11.21.2011 | 10:17pm
TLelyo says:
I believe this article strikes at 2 very important and timely issues for musicians in the Church today: 1) a deeper understanding of the 3 main contexts of worship in the Church (liturgical, para-liturgical, and devotional) and the variety of musical expressions that can and should be appropriated thereto. For the liturgy, the Church has clearly defined her preference for chant - although I would still advocate for a careful discernment of hymnody and contemporary Christian music that COUlD be permitted into the liturgy so long as it conforms to the principles of sacred music (adding delight to prayer, fostering unity, and adding greater solemnity/focus to the rites themselves. Sacrosanctum Concilium 112 I believe). This would bree a very small pool of songs, that ought to be prayerfully concerned and not picked at random but I do think it's possible. As Church musicians we haven't devoted much time to this study.
My blog www.catholic-worship.com tries to gain a better understanding of Catholic music, including Traditional, contemporary, Chasrismatic, Contemplative and so on AS WELL the contexts of worship in order to help Catholic musicians of particular genres appropriate themselves to the principles instead of preferences. I applaud the author and intend on passing this article on to my readers as well. God bless.
My blog www.catholic-worship.com tries to gain a better understanding of Catholic music, including Traditional, contemporary, Chasrismatic, Contemplative and so on AS WELL the contexts of worship in order to help Catholic musicians of particular genres appropriate themselves to the principles instead of preferences. I applaud the author and intend on passing this article on to my readers as well. God bless.
11.22.2011 | 9:54am
De Las Casas says:
To Mike Linton,
The fervor of your feeling for the sacred element within musical settings of the Mass is wonderful to witness. Perhaps you do not know that your intense candle is shining here in this room as I read your comment. I cannot help but want to hear the music you might compose as a setting of the Mass.
I caution that your criticism of the use of a Mozart Mass in a concert setting by this very musical Pope to honor the birthday of his older brother is misplaced. His brother is a priest and was the longtime conductor of the Regensburger Domspatzen. Devout Mozart would be surprised that you view it as disrespectful to listen to his Masses apart from the actual ritual. As, I am confident you know, concert performances of this genre of music have always been a common practice especially for the great quasi-operatic Masses that are masterpieces as well as being liturgical music. Some were composed with that in mind.
These musical missionaries travel the secular world, evoking the sacred meaning of the Mass, much as does viewing Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper”. These “performances” sometimes draw someone to attend an Eucharistic Mass. Many souls have been wooed into the Body of Christ by these settings of the Mass, encountered out in the secular world.
I do not think that the times I have read the words of the Mass to non-believers as poetry I was being disrespectful. Some hearers are even inspired. At this pre-dawn moment my CD player is playing the wonderful Fritz Reiner recording of the Verdi Requiem, a “performance” that awakens day dreams of being at Mass as it has for me these last 52 years. I do not understand the idea that I am disrespecting Verdi or God and his gift to us at the Last Supper.
For a great part of your concern you will find a ally in Pope Benedict XVI.
Link to : http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4041
The fervor of your feeling for the sacred element within musical settings of the Mass is wonderful to witness. Perhaps you do not know that your intense candle is shining here in this room as I read your comment. I cannot help but want to hear the music you might compose as a setting of the Mass.
I caution that your criticism of the use of a Mozart Mass in a concert setting by this very musical Pope to honor the birthday of his older brother is misplaced. His brother is a priest and was the longtime conductor of the Regensburger Domspatzen. Devout Mozart would be surprised that you view it as disrespectful to listen to his Masses apart from the actual ritual. As, I am confident you know, concert performances of this genre of music have always been a common practice especially for the great quasi-operatic Masses that are masterpieces as well as being liturgical music. Some were composed with that in mind.
These musical missionaries travel the secular world, evoking the sacred meaning of the Mass, much as does viewing Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper”. These “performances” sometimes draw someone to attend an Eucharistic Mass. Many souls have been wooed into the Body of Christ by these settings of the Mass, encountered out in the secular world.
I do not think that the times I have read the words of the Mass to non-believers as poetry I was being disrespectful. Some hearers are even inspired. At this pre-dawn moment my CD player is playing the wonderful Fritz Reiner recording of the Verdi Requiem, a “performance” that awakens day dreams of being at Mass as it has for me these last 52 years. I do not understand the idea that I am disrespecting Verdi or God and his gift to us at the Last Supper.
For a great part of your concern you will find a ally in Pope Benedict XVI.
Link to : http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4041
11.22.2011 | 6:57pm
Ben Embry says:
Mike Linton, I'm planning on doing my part to immortalize your intense candle this Christmas season. If the brother-in-law will return to me the borrowed copy of "The Second Spring" by Joseph Bottum, we will likely be singing at Thanksgiving the carol that you and he put together for that book. And, JB, nice links. They really wooed me.
11.22.2011 | 9:13pm
MDF says:
Does it really matter if CCM writers and performers make money from their music if it brings the audience closer to God? Is Mr. Leithart advocating a return to worship limited to chanting in Latin? Why not limit worship to Greek or Aramaic? The point is: there was a time when Bach, Handel, and Rutter were new and innovative. Humans, made in the image of God are creative beings. I'm sure God delights when we focus our creative energies toward worship whether its music, visual arts, poetry, or prose. Sure, its not going to be perfect but can we honestly say that all of the music that Mr. Leithart advocates is perfect? Unless we have a recording of the original chants, how do even know that they're being sung as intended? The truth is, we don't - because even chant had evolved before it was finally written down and it continued to evolve after that. Personally, I wish we had recordings of how David sung his own psalms. But I'm not disappointed in the rich diversity of interpretations we've created since then. Bottom line is... I think Mr. Leithart, like many of his followers, is truly afraid of that which he can't control.
11.23.2011 | 3:54pm
Army Knowledge Online says:
@JB
For anyone interested in this topic I highly recommend two essays by Anthony Esolen - one on the music, the other on lyrics.
Pretty interesting essays, thanks for sharing!
For anyone interested in this topic I highly recommend two essays by Anthony Esolen - one on the music, the other on lyrics.
Pretty interesting essays, thanks for sharing!
11.24.2011 | 1:15am
Mike Linton says:
Dear De Las Casas:
Thank you for your very kinds words, I really do appreciate them. I actually have written a mass. It's available on line for free. It's dedicated to Charles Chaput and you can listen to it here:
http://www.refinersfire.us/page10/page11/page11.html
But it's really not supposed to be "listened to" and I explain that here:
http://issuu.com/cmac13/docs/the_caput_mass/2
And while I really do appreciate your kind words, I don't give a rat's petooey about my candle and neither should you (I'd use much stronger language but the FT folks probably wouldn't allow it). The candle isn't important, it's what it lights-up that's important. And that's Jesus. And I think that by so dramatically highlighting a non-liturgical performance of a Mozart mass in the Sistine Chapel the Pope set a very poor example. It looks like he's more interested in the candle than he is in what it's supposed to light up. If he wanted to just have a concert performance there are lots of spots in the Vatican where that could be done, he didn't have to have it in a chapel, and THAT chapel (the Paul IV Audience Hall is a good spot for a concert, there's a decent DVD of the Bernstein "Mass" on the market that was filmed there). But I'm not only disagreeing with the Pope here, I'm been carrying on a public complaint with the organization "Soli Deo Gloria" about this for a while and what I've criticized the pope for is fleshed out in those longer arguments with that Chicago area group here:
http://issuu.com/cmac13/docs/solo_deo_gloria_web/2).
You write "many souls have been wooed into the Body of Christ by these settings of the Mass, encountered out in the secular world." Okay, well that brings us to what I'll mention to MDF below but while I wish what you say were true, I don't think it is, I don't think I've ever met someone who's become a Christian primarily because of a lovely piece of music. I'd love for you to introduce me to some. I'm not being sarcastic. I really would (I've heard rumors from missionaries in Japan that Bach's music has been instrumental in converting some Japanese to Christ but those are only rumors, maybe they're true). On the other hand I know dozens of people who were raised listening and performing the greatest works of sacred music who have become quite happy, well adjusted, and thoughtful atheists (the composer Rico Muhly is one, the conductor Simon Carrington, who sang with the King's Singers and lead the choral program at Yale's Institute of Sacred Music is another).
And MDF, a couple of things. First, the scripture tells us that a servant is worthy of his hire. I most certainly don't have a problem with making a living but I do have a problem with being in a partnership with some of the most corrupt businesses around and enriching them. Mr Smith could very easily form his own completely independent company. So far he hasn't.
Second, the Balaam's ass argument trumps all. God's uses what He will for His purposes. Even an ass. But apparently that's a last resort. There are better ways and I think that engaging in simony (which can be defined as using the Holy Spirit for personal profit) isn't one of the better ways. It's a kind of a fraud, and I wrote about that eleven years ago in the pages of First Things, referencing Charlie Peacock and his book on Christian contemporary music. You can access the FT article here:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/apostles-of-rock-the-splintered-world-of-contemporary-christian-music-and-at-the-crossroads-an-insiders-look-at-the-past-present-and-future-of-contemporary-christian-music-11
A bit of history, old and contemporary: J.S. Bach's music was at one time new but most his contemporaries didn't see his work as innovative, he was well known as a musical conservative (he was "old Bach"). And you mention Rutter. Rutter, who is an agnostic, has made a good deal of money for himself and his publishers by selling to churchgoers’ perfectly inoffensive sonic drivel. Well some folks are enthusiastic about drivel sermons, with Rutter they get music to match. And any case, I'm sorry but I don't have a lot of patience with the "bring the audience closer to God" business. How do you know and are you sure? Somewhere I misplaced my "Godometer", that device that you can hold up check how close the folks around you are to the Divine (it's kinda like that applause meter that was used in the old "Queen For A Day" TV show; if you're too young to know the show google it, there are segments up on YouTube). God only knows how close, or distant, we are from him. And artists are tricksters. We can fool you. We might even be able to trick you into feeling that you've encountered something "divine." I can prove it. Go to this YouTube site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRWbp6yZzlE
Listen to the piece and at three minutes and thirty-nine seconds you'll have a modest feeling of uplift. A bit of euphoria. You'll have another one at four minutes and forty eight seconds. Are these religious experiences? I don't know for sure, maybe (Balaam's ass business again) but I am certain that I've used some well-worn musical devices to provoke a predictable emotional response, at least a predictable emotional response from Western concertgoers. It's a tick. Like the rabbit in the hat.
And Ben Embry: Thanks also for that kind comment about "Second Spring." I love Jody's poetry and I love writing music for it. But again, the poetry and music of the carol isn't important, it's the heart of the person who sings it. Beautiful carols can be sung to one's damnation as well as blessing; the difference doesn't depend on the music or the words but upon the heart of the singer.
And finally about Anthony Esolen's piece on music that's been referenced here. Sorry, he's really dead wrong about at least one thing. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Vaughan Williams, me...we're all arrogant narcissists. We actually expect our listeners to do nothing else with their lives, for ten minutes or several hours, but listen to our music. A furthermore we expect performers to devote months and even years to learn it and to perform it. Novelists don't expect their readers to re-write their books. Architects don't expect the people who walk through their buildings to take up stones and re-built them. But composers expect their performers to do just that -- to recreate their works. It's just about the most arrogant thing anyone can do. To get along we'll pretend humility, but I assure you we're not. Oops, maybe I just gave that secret away, maybe you've noticed (I said composers were arrogant, not humorless).
Thank you for your very kinds words, I really do appreciate them. I actually have written a mass. It's available on line for free. It's dedicated to Charles Chaput and you can listen to it here:
http://www.refinersfire.us/page10/page11/page11.html
But it's really not supposed to be "listened to" and I explain that here:
http://issuu.com/cmac13/docs/the_caput_mass/2
And while I really do appreciate your kind words, I don't give a rat's petooey about my candle and neither should you (I'd use much stronger language but the FT folks probably wouldn't allow it). The candle isn't important, it's what it lights-up that's important. And that's Jesus. And I think that by so dramatically highlighting a non-liturgical performance of a Mozart mass in the Sistine Chapel the Pope set a very poor example. It looks like he's more interested in the candle than he is in what it's supposed to light up. If he wanted to just have a concert performance there are lots of spots in the Vatican where that could be done, he didn't have to have it in a chapel, and THAT chapel (the Paul IV Audience Hall is a good spot for a concert, there's a decent DVD of the Bernstein "Mass" on the market that was filmed there). But I'm not only disagreeing with the Pope here, I'm been carrying on a public complaint with the organization "Soli Deo Gloria" about this for a while and what I've criticized the pope for is fleshed out in those longer arguments with that Chicago area group here:
http://issuu.com/cmac13/docs/solo_deo_gloria_web/2).
You write "many souls have been wooed into the Body of Christ by these settings of the Mass, encountered out in the secular world." Okay, well that brings us to what I'll mention to MDF below but while I wish what you say were true, I don't think it is, I don't think I've ever met someone who's become a Christian primarily because of a lovely piece of music. I'd love for you to introduce me to some. I'm not being sarcastic. I really would (I've heard rumors from missionaries in Japan that Bach's music has been instrumental in converting some Japanese to Christ but those are only rumors, maybe they're true). On the other hand I know dozens of people who were raised listening and performing the greatest works of sacred music who have become quite happy, well adjusted, and thoughtful atheists (the composer Rico Muhly is one, the conductor Simon Carrington, who sang with the King's Singers and lead the choral program at Yale's Institute of Sacred Music is another).
And MDF, a couple of things. First, the scripture tells us that a servant is worthy of his hire. I most certainly don't have a problem with making a living but I do have a problem with being in a partnership with some of the most corrupt businesses around and enriching them. Mr Smith could very easily form his own completely independent company. So far he hasn't.
Second, the Balaam's ass argument trumps all. God's uses what He will for His purposes. Even an ass. But apparently that's a last resort. There are better ways and I think that engaging in simony (which can be defined as using the Holy Spirit for personal profit) isn't one of the better ways. It's a kind of a fraud, and I wrote about that eleven years ago in the pages of First Things, referencing Charlie Peacock and his book on Christian contemporary music. You can access the FT article here:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/apostles-of-rock-the-splintered-world-of-contemporary-christian-music-and-at-the-crossroads-an-insiders-look-at-the-past-present-and-future-of-contemporary-christian-music-11
A bit of history, old and contemporary: J.S. Bach's music was at one time new but most his contemporaries didn't see his work as innovative, he was well known as a musical conservative (he was "old Bach"). And you mention Rutter. Rutter, who is an agnostic, has made a good deal of money for himself and his publishers by selling to churchgoers’ perfectly inoffensive sonic drivel. Well some folks are enthusiastic about drivel sermons, with Rutter they get music to match. And any case, I'm sorry but I don't have a lot of patience with the "bring the audience closer to God" business. How do you know and are you sure? Somewhere I misplaced my "Godometer", that device that you can hold up check how close the folks around you are to the Divine (it's kinda like that applause meter that was used in the old "Queen For A Day" TV show; if you're too young to know the show google it, there are segments up on YouTube). God only knows how close, or distant, we are from him. And artists are tricksters. We can fool you. We might even be able to trick you into feeling that you've encountered something "divine." I can prove it. Go to this YouTube site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRWbp6yZzlE
Listen to the piece and at three minutes and thirty-nine seconds you'll have a modest feeling of uplift. A bit of euphoria. You'll have another one at four minutes and forty eight seconds. Are these religious experiences? I don't know for sure, maybe (Balaam's ass business again) but I am certain that I've used some well-worn musical devices to provoke a predictable emotional response, at least a predictable emotional response from Western concertgoers. It's a tick. Like the rabbit in the hat.
And Ben Embry: Thanks also for that kind comment about "Second Spring." I love Jody's poetry and I love writing music for it. But again, the poetry and music of the carol isn't important, it's the heart of the person who sings it. Beautiful carols can be sung to one's damnation as well as blessing; the difference doesn't depend on the music or the words but upon the heart of the singer.
And finally about Anthony Esolen's piece on music that's been referenced here. Sorry, he's really dead wrong about at least one thing. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Vaughan Williams, me...we're all arrogant narcissists. We actually expect our listeners to do nothing else with their lives, for ten minutes or several hours, but listen to our music. A furthermore we expect performers to devote months and even years to learn it and to perform it. Novelists don't expect their readers to re-write their books. Architects don't expect the people who walk through their buildings to take up stones and re-built them. But composers expect their performers to do just that -- to recreate their works. It's just about the most arrogant thing anyone can do. To get along we'll pretend humility, but I assure you we're not. Oops, maybe I just gave that secret away, maybe you've noticed (I said composers were arrogant, not humorless).
11.24.2011 | 9:30pm
edmond says:
Many thanks Mr. Linton for helping lift the "veil" of the "mystique" of the role of musicality . "Forum shopping" is still popular in my parish because aside from the convenient mass schedules, the songs that are sung are sometimes unsingable by the congregation because the key is too high for a male voice or the music is great but nobody knows the lyrics. Even if you do get a powerpoint presentation going for the words, the focus shifts from mass to trying to catch up with the singing. This brings up my point that the mass is the bigger picture and the singing etc., should help draw the congregation towards proper worship. You may have a 100 member choir going, but if the SATB 'par excellence' becomes a distraction then God will have something to say about it.
