As well, the selection of the style of liturgical music since the 1960's has been driven by fads in culture that young people like. The thinking is that if liturgical music mimics popular music at a particular time it will keep young people in the Church.
The "Folk Masses" of the 1960's were meant to speak to the baby-boomer generation and keep us in the Church. We were the "now" generation; we were the future generation. We were the "hip" generation. We were the world! We were narcissistic too, weren't we? I do remember that "Folk Masses" were the most popular Masses for young people when I was a young person in the 1960's and 70's. I went to a very popular "folk Mass" at St. Mary on the Hill" in Augusta.
But therein lies the rub and the need for a sociological study on popular music's impact on Catholics as they age. Does it really keep them engaged in the Church for the long haul or is it simply pandering to the tastes of young people that is as fickle as they are?
I have no data to back this up, but in the 1960's prior to the council, up to 80% to 90% of all ages of Catholics attended Mass each Sunday. Then this need of liturgical musicians to speak to the "now" generation in a myopic way may well have contributed to my age group losing interest in the Mass because what we sang during the Mass and the style of singing was so banal, emotional and trendy. It had no substance; it had no meaning; it only had feeling and like "blowing in the wind" it was gone. There was nothing to stand on.
My experience with Folk Masses from the 1960's to the 1980's was that we parishioners and we priests loved to listen to it but we didn't always sing with it because some of it was hard to sing, too high, too low and all over the place and even verses of songs were different from each other. And the theology of so many of the songs were, well, Catholic Lite, vapid to be charitable.
I can remember comparing the congregational singing in my first parish in the 1980's. Our 9:30 AM Mass was the organ Mass with traditional hymnody. The Church was full with a great mix of ages. The congregation sang!
Our 12 noon Mass was the Folk Mass. It was packed and with young people and young families and a smattering of older people. It was less participative. At the 9:30 Mass, the choir sang in the choir loft. At 12 noon, the folk group sang from the front. Clearly the 12 noon Mass was more for the entertainment of the audience and the real presence of Christ in His Sacrifice, Offering and reception in Holy Communion was secondary as was true active participation in the singing of the Mass.
I would suspect if I could interview today that 12 noon Mass crowd and find out how many are still going to Mass each Sunday that I would find that only a small percentage does. If I could interview the congregation at the 9:30 AM Mass today, I think there would be a much higher percentage still attending Mass today.
But this all brings me to my final point. Why are we spending so much energy on singing music at Mass rather than spending all our energy on singing the Mass? Our Mass is not about hymns and anthems, it is about singing the Mass.
We need to look at the Mass as music for the following parts:
1. All the parts of the priest
2. All the parts of the Congregation: Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, Creed, Offertory Antiphon, Sanctus, Mystery of Faith, Great Amen, Our Father, Agnus Dei and Communion Antiphon.
With all these parts of the Mass, there should be an Ordinary Time Setting for after Epiphany; an Ordinary Time setting for after Pentecost; Festive settings for the Christmas and Easter seasons; and somber, penitential settings for Advent and Lent. There should be "celebratory settings for special occasions such as weddings, feasts and solemnities" and their should be mournful settings for funerals.
A parish doesn't need too many settings of the Mass because having a repertoire that is ingrained in the parish will help the parish to know and sing the Mass.
Once that's down, then one should focus on "filler" music that could reflect the congregation who attends a particular Mass. I would say that there are three places for this filler music (at the entrance procession as an additional song after or before the Introit. At the offertory now called the Preparation of the Offerings and as a recessional. I would not have a problem with contemporary or ethnic music for these places if the congregation likes that sort of thing. But the Mass itself should unify everyone in a particular parish not divide them into sub-groups.
19 comments:
Comments on some points:
"As well, the selection of the style of liturgical music since the 1960's has been driven by fads in culture that young people like."
This is not true. It has been driven by fads in culture that OLD people THINK young people like. That is not intended to be rude, but truthful. I am 18. I ABHOR with all my soul the "young people music" that pastors and misled music directors think we young people "like to hear at Mass." It is corny, cheap, and embarrassing.
"Does it really keep them engaged in the Church for the long haul or is it simply pandering to the tastes of young people that is as fickle as they are?"
No. Yes, but see above. First, old people don't really know what young people like. Second, I bet $10,000 that if you gather all truly Mass-dedicated young people, what few of us there are, we all like chant and sacred polyphony.
"With all these parts of the Mass, there should be an Ordinary Time Setting for after Epiphany; an Ordinary Time setting for after Pentecost; Festive settings for the Christmas and Easter seasons; and somber, penitential settings for Advent and Lent. There should be "celebratory settings for special occasions such as weddings, feasts and solemnities" and their should be mournful settings for funerals."
These already exist! Graduale Romanum, anyone?! The VAST repertoire of sacred polyphony? Come on, now.
"Once that's down, then one should focus on "filler" music that could reflect the congregation who attends a particular Mass. I would say that there are three places for this filler music (at the entrance procession as an additional song after or before the Introit. At the offertory now called the Preparation of the Offerings and as a recessional. I would not have a problem with contemporary or ethnic music for these places if the congregation likes that sort of thing."
I believe this just represents a selfish philosophy, and no judgement on you, Father. Truly I say, the only thing cornier than old people trying to discern young peoples' taste in music, is when you have a Mass with every part in a different language and style to be "accommodating" or "inclusive." I much prefer the whole thing to be in one language, even if it is not my own, and even if that means I can't "actively participate." Active participation is overrated and misunderstood, IMO, anyways.
This is my opinion on filler music. It is sometimes necessary, and if it is used, it should be of truly outstanding quality, even if it is simple. A processional hymn/ethnic song is alright, but it should be done during the procession, that is, before the Introit. The Introit belongs at the time in which the priest and deacon(s) [and subdeacon] enter the sanctuary, not at the procession, hence "INTROit." I can't honestly conceive of a reason why a hymn would be needed at the Offertory (btw, it is called Offertory in the Roman Missal now, of which the "Preparation of the Gifts" is a part). The Offertory is relatively short and is always covered by the Offertory antiphon. The recessional is also fine to have a hymn/ethnic song, since no music is prescribed anyways. Basically I think that the official antiphons should always be said or sung, and any extra music should only be at the procession or recession, which aren't part of the Mass anyways.
:)
YTC I agree with you about what old people think young people will like! I haven't thought about it that way before. While I attended Folk Masses in the 1960's I did not listen to Folk Music I listen to the Beatles, the Beach Boys, the Four Seasons, the Monkeys and all the great black performers of that day too! What I liked was a choir Mass and at that time choirs had basically dismantled and only folk groups sang!
ytc, I think Fr is correct, it's just the young folks got old. Also, one of my parish's most vocal and active proponents of folk and pop music masses is a fairly you person of about 30 who left he Church whilst living in Georgia and attended a Methodist church. He has returned to the fold energised by his experience with their community spirit and aided by his wife, our music director.
However, this quote, "But this all brings me to my final point. Why are we spending so much energy on singing music at Mass rather than spending all our energy on singing the Mass? Our Mass is not about hymns and anthems, it is about singing the Mass.", is most profound.
I am more and more convinced that the single flaw in Vat II that makes it as much a hazard as a help is the idea of almost unlimited latitude of participation. This has led to usurping the role of the clergy by 'Liturgical councils' and 'experts' and the presumption of bishops to deviate openly from the Pope and clergy from their bishops.
rcg
Agreed, 100% !
So let me get this straight for the record, before the Council the "higher ups" decided that 80 to 90 % of folks attending Mass was not enough so they changed all the music, and the liturgy to further appeal to the 10 to 20 % who were at home? Worked well, looks like that 20 % now goes to Mass and everyone else stays home. Good plan.
Fr. Allen, like you I grew up in the 1960s, but my take on this topic might be a bit different. When Vatican II permitted Mass in the vernacular, it seemed natural that the music would change too. I see it, first, as a supplemental way for people to participate (assist at Mass), and second, as infant steps toward more and better liturgical music that requires neither choir training nor restriction to pre-Vat II hymn format. Opening the field of liturgical music to creativity, of which the Folk Mass was only the initial (and mercifully brief) attempt, we have and will continue to evolve musically through the works of a range of composers, arrangers and orchestraters, to a wider selection of hymns and songs, and instrumentalization. (Your photo of the group with the accordion player is amusing, but goes to my point that all gifts may be welcomed by God, not just those you or I might find pleasing.)
We still find the inane and meaningless, musically bankrupt attempts here and there, but we also have some very beautiful songs based on Scripture that are quite singable and still very inspiring.
Mass settings, as you know, have been and are being overhauled to comply with the New Roman Missal. I would point out that not all priests are comfortable singing, and many will not do so. A choir, I've found, usually sings only one Mass per Sunday, which leaves the remainder of the Masses (our parish has seven per weekend, and more on holidays) to smaller choirs and cantors. As a cantor, I appreciate a flowing melody and meaningful lyrics, but I also want it to be congregation-friendly. I am happy to sing "Holy God, We Praise Thy Name," but I am equally happy to sing the works of Joncas, Inwood, Walker, Kendzia, etc. I have no doubt that liturgical music will continue to evolve, producing beautiful and inspiring music that enhances one's worship experience. May God find it pleasing that his people are singing, rather than sitting quietly because they cannot manage the choral parts, or are not invited to. *~ +
I should add a disclaimer. As a "victim" of circumstances I've been in parishes since 1985 that almost demand a more traditional style of music because of the architecture and the magnificent pipe organs. I have no real problem with other instrumentation, including classical guitar and more contemporary liturgical music, although I have grown accustomed to a more traditional form of liturgical music. Our neighboring parish has a very good contemporary choir and while I would encourage some adjustments I think moving them to the choir loft rather than confrontational with the congregation and with some of their movements, etc would be much better so that the focus remains the altar and not them. But this group is very good.
It's even more troubling to think that, even now, we still have folk/guitar Masses at some of the parishes in the Savannah Diocese. A mere one hour's drive to a neighboring parish (everything is about one hour from Waycross!) can show a real (and not encouraging) difference!
Ytc is right on the money about the folk/contemporary music being what older people think (and thought) that young people like. This was even true when I was a high school and college-age young person (mid 70's to mid 80's).
I have been attending lately the parish nearest our home, and though the pastor remains true to the Missal, the music is poor and getting worse. The difficulty, of course, is not with the choir, but with the selections.
Also, at the end of Mass, after the recession, and at the end of the last song (I cannot make myself say hymn in this context) there is applause. I finally concluded that this applause is for the choir. It is jarring to my sensibilities, and seems to me to identify quite well a major source of the difficulty: the focus is not on the worship, but on the performers.
Add to this that the perfectly good organ is untouched, in favor of piano, flute, guitar and (shudder) drum kit, and you may get the sense of how offensive it can be.
Then too, of course, the hymnal is "Gather" from GIA, and is filled with all manner of oddities. And being hammered by Haugen, Haas, and Schutte does not make my day. Ever.
The architecture is mundane, though not as offensive as some of the 1970s spaces. The church is about 20 years old, and at least the tabernacle is not banished to some hidden area.
Still, it makes for an odd juxtaposition: faithful liturgy coupled with music which verges on the profane.
I pray for good fruit in the negotiations with the SSPX; there is one of their chapels only about 18 miles from us. The alternative is the FSSP which is 43 miles away. Or perhaps one of the parishes in the city (Atlanta) which still do a good job.
I offer all this because it is not mere preference, nor even a matter of taste. Some of these musical pieces and their novelties are so distracting as to intrude upon ral worship.
Anon at 12:38,
"Musically bankrupt attempts HERE and THERE"? Horrid music is found almost EVERYWHERE; it even sneeks into St. Joseph at times when Fr. McD is on vacation.
The V2 documents did allow for SOME regional music to be sung at the Mass, but it also stated that Latin was not to be removed and that Chant should have priority. Music at Mass is NOT intended to "inhance one's worship experience", but to give praise to God. When our own worship experience becomes more important to us than obedience and right worship to God, our focus is on self and not on God and faith dies.
I would rather hear a bad traditional Catholic choir at Mass than a good folk group or contemporary choir...and they certainly do not need to be standing down front. It is the same with instruments. The organ is appropriate for Mass and, at certain times, chamber instruments or a symphony group.
I have nothing against guitars (I play the guitar) or other instruments, but I do have trouble with the statement such music makes at Mass. Perhaps if the Church were not so embattled with secular, protestantizing factions this would not be as big a deal. But, in today's Church, anyone with any degree of awareness of these things who brings folk singing and guitars into Mass is making a political statement...they are choosing sides and supporting the de-constructing of the liturgy. The only possible excuse for such behavior is ignorance or stupidity. Ignorance should be corrected; stupidity should be redirected to a nice protestant church somewhere...
Carol H. said...
"The V2 documents did allow for SOME regional music to be sung at the Mass, but it also stated that Latin was not to be removed and that Chant should have priority. Music at Mass is NOT intended to "inhance one's worship experience", but to give praise to God. When our own worship experience becomes more important to us than obedience and right worship to God, our focus is on self and not on God and faith dies."
I agree with you, but by "worship experience," was not talking about how good we feel about ourselves, or how entertained we are. I was talking about our ability to remain worshipful rather than being distracted by things that grate -- like poor music. It seems that is what we ALL are talking about here, since so many are complaining about the worship environment as it is affected by architecture, placement of musicians, the sound said musicians are making, and so on. Worship is as much an experience for the worshiper as it is for the Object of one's worship, as it reflects a relationship between the two, or more correctly, between the assembly and the Deity. That being said, do not misinterpret my words. Worship is our reason for being there, but we cannot be there without having some cognizance of who we are, why we are there, and what we are doing, and I call that experience. :-) *~+
I am not a Roman Catholic, but rather, an Orthodox Christian. My husband was raised in the Roman Catholic faith (and is also an Orthodox Christian); he was repelled by the changes of Vatican II. My husband says that the Roman Catholic Church fell into the trap of becoming more like the Protestants. He, and many other Catholics of that era, felt that there was no reason to stay with the RC Church after it abandoned its own traditions.
I personally have quite an interest in church music. The old Latin chants and hymns of the RC Church are quite beautiful, but the liturgy and hymnography of the post-Vatican-II era are vapid, trite, boring, and lacking in any beauty. The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, refuses to "change with the times" - and that's exactly the way we all like it!
Carol H. said...
"The V2 documents did allow for SOME regional music to be sung at the Mass, but it also stated that Latin was not to be removed and that Chant should have priority. Music at Mass is NOT intended to "inhance one's worship experience", but to give praise to God. When our own worship experience becomes more important to us than obedience and right worship to God, our focus is on self and not on God and faith dies."
April 22, 2012 6:24 PM
I completely agree, but when I used the phrase "worship experience," I was not talking about being entertained, but the ability to maintain a worshipful attitude without being distracted by that which grates -- such as awful music. Isn't that what we are ALL talking about here? Or why all of the comments about atrocious architecture, interior layout and positioning of musicians, the musicians themselves, and the music they make? It's about our sense of what is pleasing to God, but it is entirely subjective, isn't it?
Do not misinterpret me: I know the difference between entertainment and worship. That being said, we cannot really worship without knowing who we are, why we are there, and what we are doing while we are there -- and these things are, you'll excuse the expression -- experiences. Our experience of worship should be reverence, and reverence may be enhanced by many things, including soul-stirring music and prayerful lyrics. There simply is no single way to stir every soul, and thus inspire reverence in every heart. Just as there is room on God's green Earth for all kinds of people and cultures and means of praise, there must also be room for all kinds of expressions of faith and worship. I think God must appreciate the variety. *~ +
I do not like the term "worship experience." It reeks of psycho-theology, self-indulgence, and modernism. There may be room on God's green earth for all kinds of people and cultures and praise, but that does not mean they all need to be brought into Mass.
Also, self-awareness is not so much a condition for worship as it is a fruit of worship. Nor do I have to understand everything that is going on (many people do not) for my worship to be meaningful and valid. These are modernist psycho-babble fallacies and they are also concepts upon which several heresies are based. Leave the pschology books and the guitars at home next to the bong and the backpack...
Taking Gene's statement about the choir one step further: it is far easier to have a good traditional music setting than a good contemporary one. This is because a traditional music setting begins with a known composition of higher quality and can be conducted with as little as one voice. Contemporary music settings are lucky to start with a tune based on a 'traditional' folk song and 'performed' by a self taught musician. This is simply sloppy and is as bad as allowing the lectors to grossly mispronounce words or omit passages.
rcg
Though I share the usual reservations regarding the rubrical and textual deficiencies of the OF, and the usual laments regarding the lack of ars celebranda on the part of a couple of generations of untrained priests, I think no less responsible for the general failure of the OF to sustain faith and worship has been the disintegration of sacred music, rooted in domination by non-liturgical music at Mass over the liturgy of the Mass itself. As a consequence of which, people have lost any real sense of what proper liturgy and sacred music are.
I don't seem to hear folk music anymore as I do "Praise Music" Really simple lyrics.
A glimmer of hope:
My wife and I attended the Evening Prayer service on Monday when the Bishop was in town. At that service the older Clergy in the Diocese seemed to all sit up front, while the majority of the younger Clergy sat amongst the laity. There were 3 young Priests in our pew and prior to Mass spent a good 15 minutes reviewing the books in the pews. They were delighted at the sight of the St Joseph hymnals, making mention of how delighted they were to not find someting with an OCP stamp on the cover. They were doubly delighted with the Liturgy of the Word books allowing the laity to follow the readings, making mention how none of their Parishes have them. And lastly they made positive comment on the small green books used for the new translation, mentioning how their parishes had only small laminated cards or printed sheets noting the changes for the Laity only.
I say this is a glimmer of hope because these young Priests, Vicars today, will be Pastors of Parishes in the Diocese tomorrow. Their heads are screwed on right, and they are patiently awaiting the Biological Solution to the yoke of "Spirit of V2" Pastors they labor under today. The dark cloud to this silver lining of course is that it clearly demonstrates that St Joseph Parish, is still far from being the norm in this Diocese.
Post a Comment