My own experience of the Liturgy over that last 33 years of my ordination is that music is the most contentious issue when discussions of it occur in parishes. It is not about Latin, it is not about ad orientem and it isn't about the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
For the most part, those who still come to Church regularly and those who come infrequently are not concerned so much about the ritual as they are about the music. There are several camps in this polarization:
1. Those who want a quiet Mass with no music at all
2. Those who like music that is "traditional" but not in the "traditional" Catholic sense of pre-Vatican II time, but in the sense of traditional hymnody that would include many classical Protestant hymns. This group would see these hymns as a higher priority to sing rather than the actual parts of the Mass.
3. Those who like contemporary music. People my age, (aging hippies) who had their youth and heyday in the 60's and 70's like the traditional folk music of that period, like "Be not Afraid," "Here I am Lord" and all the stuff of the former St. Louis Jesuits. They like upbeat music, lively music, music that gives a spiritual high, like Rocky Mountain or puff the magic dragon.
4. Then there are those today who like worship and praise music and they are the ones in high school and college and even older, music that comes from the non-denominational branches of Christianity that relies too on the rocky mountain high or puff the magic dragon but is more like prescription pain relievers that so many people are hooked on today.
In this polarization, you can see that I've not listed chant or polyphony, Gregorian or otherwise. No one has really been exposed to it and when they are they get bored by it and fall asleep, there's no caffeine or narcotize hit or lift.
And therein lies the problem, we have cast such a wide net in terms of what is acceptable music at Mass that we've lost our Catholic identity as it regards appropriate music for the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours.
I'd like to make a disclaimer here though. In pre-Vatican II times, there was a great deal of flexibility in hymns for devotions especially Marian devotions but also for novenas. I think that could still be the case today and that contemporary, whatever that means at any given time, could be done at devotions and outdoor processions and I wouldn't even mind liturgical dance or movement at these, especially when outdoors.
But for the Mass, I think we need to pull back, take stock and realize that the Mass should have a universal character to it including what is sung and how it is sung, the quality, spirituality and essence of it. That is what is lacking today, not only from nation to nation, but from parish to parish and even from Mass to Mass in a particular parish. Polarization reigns supreme.
15 comments:
If it's the Mass and not a concert or even a mere devotional service, why the anguished analysis of what kind of music people want, like, or prefer? Is it about kind of music turns them on, or what kind of music gives glory to God? When the Holy Spirit has guided us over centuries of liturgical development to His answer as to what He wants. (Just rhetorical questions, of course.)
This above all else is my baileywick. I had the glorious opportunity to live with the foremost musicologist in the Church in America for several years in college. I would like to share some thoughts.
1. The Church calls that a low Mass. And it is ok.
2. There really is no place for hymnody in the Mass. The Mass itself is a song. It needs no supplement. So, while they may like it, there is no inherent value in using hymns, especially if they be Protestant or secular in nature.
3. The theology and the practicality of that type of music is just terrible. I will tell a quick story. Fr. J. Michael Joncas was a professor of mine in college. The first course I took from him was called "Music and the Bible." During the course of the class we had an open forum on music and the state of it in the contemporary Church. I asked the question, "Why would you start a hymn on a dissident 7th? It is one of the most difficult meters one can endure with regard to music and for those who are not trained, it makes it very hard to sing." Of course I was speaking about "On Eagles' Wings. The music is not practical and theologically most of it is just awful.
4. Worship and praise music, is by and large secular and has no place in the Mass. The Mass is a sacred, not a secular endeavor. By that I mean that W & P music is profane.
Finally, you say, "No one has really been exposed to [Gregorian Chant] and when they are they get bored by it and fall asleep, there's no caffeine or narcotize hit or lift." I wholeheartedly disagree. I would be willing to bet that if I were to chant the Lord Have Mercy or the Glory to God or the Our Father as it was used in the 1970s or 80s and most would get it. They've been exposed to Chant, but Chant has been so DEMONIZED that people have been conditioned (not unlike Pavolov's Dog) to not like it. To find it boring. To call it blase.
However, when the Mass is properly sung...by properly I mean in the style of Solemnes, either in the Novus Ordo or in the TLM, they get it immediately. Why? Because it fits. It fits properly. The moment I was exposed to it, the first time, my way at looking at Holy Mass changed. And I wasn't looking for that kind of change.
I would put $1000 down on a bet (and would win) that if you were to celebrate Mass for a month using the style of Solemnes and the ceremonies which I teach, that there would be NO ONE falling asleep or being bored. I would put another $1000 down on a bet (and would win) that once that stopped, people would ask you why you quit doing that. And I'll up it one more and say I'd do it in the Novus Ordo and not the TLM.
When the Mass is celebrated properly, there is no need for hymnody. The Mass itself is a song. It is the greatest song ever sung and it is done more often than Elvis or Mozart or Maroon 5 or Beethoven.
The point of the Mass is to sing a song to the Lord. Aging hippies ought to understand that sentiment; based upon that stupid song.
I think the problem is, not so much the choice of songs and hymns played at mass, but rather the "mass settings". Take for instance, the GIA mass settings, which range from bland pop to patronizing urban beats to stereotyped mountain music. All of which are improper for the mass settings. The Gloria should NOT be sung to the melody of the "Cheers" theme (to reference a comment on another post) with a dozen responsorials refrains.
If all parishes could get on the same page with mass settings, having it sacred and chant-like, then I don't think any one would object to contrasting it with more pop centered hymns. But to have both the hymns and the settings as modern jingles is what drives most people over the edge.
@ Ben:
And yet the most popular "tune" which is used in the new, new revised musical settings is highly reminiscent of the musical RENT.
I spoke about this on my blog late last year, December 19, to be exact. Notice at the blog, how similar the "Mass of Renewal" is to "Life Support" from RENT.
I actually like RENT. I've seen it on Broadway a couple of times, but I cannot consent to the music of the Mass being similar. It saddens me.
A Traditional Catholic in Iowa
Just sayin'...
My only question about that Iowa priest, Andy ..... Did he eat--then and there at Mass--those pancakes with sausage off the plate that was handed him when he sat down after the sermon?
He took a bite of sausage and set the rest on the credence. I am still not over it.
I have since joined that KofC Council and I can guarantee you that this will NEVER happen again.
That whole day was just a train wreck. I almost went SSPV after that! LOL!!!
Andy, I gently ask you to consider whether your Freudian skirt was peaking out a bit when you described the first vocal pitch of OEW as a "dissident" 7th. I'm sure there may be such a thing, but it dwells not in that song. Knowing that you meant "dissonant" doesn't really address the anxiety that many critics have leveled against Joncas' anthem.
The melodic/harmonic device that Joncas intuitively uses as the vocal starting pitch is quite common in both classical and popular genres. (In absolute theoretical terms, it's a veritable model of the Schenkerian I-V-I inevitability.) The use of the "leading tone 7th" was obviously done against type-it doesn't immediately resolve to 7-1. It temporarily resolves to scale degree 6. Underneath that is the achingly dissonant V/IV (or A/G) chord which meshes both the restful plagal push with the imperitive dominant push of V together. That makes for a rather plaintive structure that Joncas wraps his YooHoo text within. It's actually still quite a brilliant concept, and is commonly found in chant accompaniments by Jeff Ostrowski, Richard Rice and many others. In 1979, it was positively revolutionary, even by the proximity to the neo-sophistication then of the Jesuits of St. Louis.
Like all elements and aspects "out there" in the cosmos, melodies, harmonies, rhythms, forms have always been "there" for the choosing. But as Indiana Jones' dad said, it's rather important when choosing to take these devices such as your dissonant 7th, one must "choose wisely."
Joncas knew what he was doing, and no matter what one thinks of the whole of OEW, it was commendable that he used that "conveyence" wisely.
Pandering to the lowest common denominator of taste has done much to empty churches. CDs of Gregorian Chant sell well, but are marketed as 'mood music' which is of course missing the point. But no-one who hears even a line of chant can fail to recognize it for what it is, or put it immediately in context: "It's what them monks do, innit?"
People are so used to hearing hymns or pop-derived Haas/Haugen settings that they regard them as normative liturgical music. It doesn't necessarily mean they like them, and it's highly unlikely they listen to them at home. I sing chant regularly, but still listen to chant CDs, as well as polyphony, Viennese Masses etc.
There's no simple solution. Rulings from Rome will be simply ignored. Bishops will still push the meretricious settings favoured by the music publishers. Strangely enough, many non-Catholics still expect to hear chant in a Catholic church. They experience Mass for the first time and come out bemused; it's the same stuff used in the Pentecostal church down the road, although the Pentecostalists do it better.
The Church Music Association of America is doing sterling work and there is plenty of worthy music available for free download. Parish priests need to get some backbone and tell their parishioners: "We will no longer be singing the 'Mass of Creation' because, basically, it's crap. I could dissect it bar by bar and explain why, but I won't bore you with it. Instead on Ordinary Time Sundays we will be singing Mass XI,'Orbis Factor'. After hearing it once, everyone will be able to join in the Kyrie. By the First Sunday of Advent, when we shall be changing to Mass XVII, it will all be quite familiar. This is what real liturgical music sounds like; it was being sung a thousand years ago and will still be sung a thousand years hence".
@ Charles,
You ask, " I gently ask you to consider whether your Freudian skirt was peaking out a bit..."
It was. And it was asked that way too. LOL!!! I don't have much respect for that style of music, admittedly and I was goaded into it a bit by Fr. Joncas, who asked me to comment (tongue-in-cheek) because he knew I lived with Mons. Schuler. So it was a bit of turnabout.
As for the rest of your statement, I don't disagree with the theory. You're absolutely correct. But I'm not as praising as you are for his "genius." There is nothing commendable about OEW. It is nothing but pop-influenced tripe. To hear Fr. Joncas talk about it, there was no expectation of the song. I am fairly good friends with two of his seminary classmates (they are priests in my diocese) and they constantly speak of his "swole head."
Interesting, no?
I think the music of "On Eagles' Wings" is nothing other than "Danny Boy" sentimentality. Father Joncas has written many things that are far better; in my opinion the responsorial psalm "Every Nation on Earth" is very, very good indeed. But how the text of "On Eagles' Wings" can be the object of insult, being as it is a paraphrase of a psalm, "He that lives in the shelter of the Most High shall abide in the shadow of the Almighty" (or however it goes), is beyond me.
I would appreciate also having explained to me what is objectioable in Haugen's Mass of Creation (although I myself think the Mass of Remembrance is better). To me the Mass of Creation evokes the very proper philosophical perception that ("so to speak") "God did not know what He was getting Himself in for" when He created things outside Himself, particularly matter. In any event, it seems to me that the responsorial psalms "This Is the Day the Lord Has Made" and "My God, My God, Why Have You Abandoned Me" are of a quality so as to make for Haugen a place among the great. Whether any of this should be used at Holy Mass, or whether we should have nothing but music-free low Mass or chant, is a separate question. But I defend against all criticism the text of "On Eagles' Wings." and I ask for some specific criticism of "Every Nation on Earth," "This Is the Day the Lord Has Made," and "My God, My God, Why Have You Abandoned Me."
Ancil Payne
I'm not a musician, but for the life of me the only way I've heard the Mass of Creation played is with organ and it sounds very much to be in our tradition. The revised Mystery of Faith is great too as is the revised Lamb of God, all played on the organ and at an organ's speed. On Eagle's Wings is another matter. I call it the You Who song but you have to say it at a pitch that makes it sound like you are summoning someone from across the street. :)
The music causes contention because it is important. I had no idea that is was important to so many as it was to me and I had no idea that people a world away thought the Mass of Creation was crap, as I do, until I began talking to people, corresponding and reading about it. After years of listening to the tunes, rather than being programmed into liking them, I became sensitive to the Haugen/Hass motif such that I could identify even new tunes in the first bar. And it is not the tunes that I abhor, but the insipid lyrics that distract and misinform. I was stunned to find that I was not only alone, but that many, many people had come to the same conclusions as I did. That can't be coincidence.
Music, or chant, is important because it is not only pleasing to the Lord, but it is a tool for teaching. I think I came truly hate the tunes of H/H because they were distracting from the Mass to try in entertain me and contradicting some important lessons rather than reenforcing them.
Ban them.
What's wrong with Haugen's 'Mass of Creation'? Well, I'm basing my criticism on the full-score version. With the organ alone you are at least spared the jangly rum-ti-tum accompaniment and those awful trumpet parts. But you still have the liturgical anomaly of a recurring refrain in the Gloria, and the absence of the vamping must surely draw attention to my second criticism - the banality and lack of subtelty of the melodic material. Sing just the melodic line of Haugen's Gloria. Now sing the mode 7 Gloria from Mass IX (many Irish folk-songs are in this mode, so a real folk Mass would be one in Gregorian Chant, but I digress). It makes Haugen sound repetitive, predictable, unimaginative and rhythmically insensitive. Compare Haugen's Sanctus with the well-known one from Mass VIII - the thousand-year-old melody is ravishing, whereas Haugen's is pedestrian.
Turning to those parts of the MofC chanted by the celebrant, what on earth is the point of replacing a Preface tone which has served the Church perfectly well for over a millennium and a half, and which is used in the new English missal, with something which is markedly inferior and more difficult to sing?
The only thing this sort of thing evokes is the era of long sideburns, kipper ties and flared trousers. If you want a modern English-language setting of the Ordinary, you can download one of Aristotle Esguerra's settings; they are in free rhythm, modal, can be sung unaccompanied if necessary and are easy for congregations to sing. Above all, they are in the musical tradition of the Western Church. Haugen, Haas, Schutte et al. lead us down a blind (and tin-pan) alley.
I had to look up 'On Eagle's Wings' on Youtube, since it hasn't managed to fly the Atlantic, and of course there is nothing inherently objectionable about paraphrasing psalms to make hymns; it's been happening for centuries. Psalm 90 is well-known because of its connection with the First Sunday of Lent where it is used in all the sung Propers and, in the Tract, quoted almost in its entirety. It is also one of the three psalms of monastic Compline.
Because of its length the Tract is rarely sung in its full gregorian setting, but it is effective in psalm-tone or faux-bourdon arrangements and there is a good English version. In Joncas's hands it becomes a pop ballad with a predictable and saccharine refrain. It's hardly surprising that people are so irritated by the musical style that they pay no attention to the lyrics. I suspect there is a special circle of hell reserved for those who set sacred texts to bad music.
I have tried of late to never post on these sorts of blogs... but I stumbled on this, and while I could take issue with so many things offered here, I will limit my question to just one, toward the end of the original post. How can "On Eagle's Wings" be theologically awful? It is a setting of Psalm 91!!!!
Post a Comment