17 Replies to “Seems like I heard this conversation before”

  1. Permit me this comment:

    I love both a chant-style, and a "contemporary worship" style, expression of praying the liturgy. I've been involved in both and while I can certainly say that chant 100% of the time can move me to an authentic experience of the mystery of the liturgy, "contemporary worship", when done well, can have the same effect.

    So here's my "crux" with regards to this sacred vs. secular dichotomy. While I agree that "pop", "rock", "broadway" and other genres should be avoided, I believe with all my heart that there is emerging within the broader "church" if I may use that word to include all worshiping "Christians", a new genre that can be labeled "worship." Now, granted 90% of these songs belong to protestants and are totally appropriate for their worship b/c it doesn't have the ritual and tradition behind it like the Catholic liturgy, HOWEVER, I believe there's a smalllllllll tidbit of this style of music that may be appropriated to the liturgy.

    I have experienced deep, authentic experiences of worship in the mass by means of "contemporary" praise and worship music. That is why I can't just say, "get rid of all of it!" I really believe the Lord has placed it on my heart to find a Catholic "both-and" for the expressions of worship in the liturgy.

    So permit me this comment: Sacred and Secular indeed exist, and the secular should be kept out of the liturgy, but I believe there is something of the secular that Lord is beginning to use to reveal the sacred to his people. That is to say, I've seen the Holy Spirit work through what may be considered "secular" instrumentation, melodies, and rhythmic patterns to communicate God's power, richness, mercy, love, mystery, etc. Many times I hear proponents of chant speak of the beauty and mystery that chant brings to the liturgy, and I've experienced it too, but like I said I've also experienced it through a "contemporary" expression of liturgical celebration – so I encourage my fellow music ministers to press on and become better, more knowledgable and more skilled in their ministry to learn more about chant – THE sung prayer of the Church and LEARN from it, to dive deeper into this rich treasure of the Church. And if I may be so bold as to encourage chant-lovers to begin to appreciate the profound impact and possibilities that the Holy Spirit has wrought and continues to bring about through what may be deemed as "contemporary Christian worship" – Pax Christi.

  2. I believe there is much wisdom and insight to be gleaned from this young voice, Mr. Lelyo. I also am inclined to allow the potential that an amalgm of diverse, legitimate styles of sacred music can and ought to coalesce beyond the categorizations and caricatures we seem so predisposed to defend our dismissal of "types." Holy Mother Church's Magisterium needs to stand up, shake the sand off its head which has entrenched itself into incomprehensibility, and define the criteria by which the proper chants and ordinaries can find their return as normative, but as an additional benefit provide composers the parameters to add to the congregational and choral repertoires viable and worthy new settings meant for worship, not the concert.
    There will always remain an intrinsic need for metered forms of declamation. But, the era of couching sacred texts within clearly secular popular styles obviously is waning. Mariachi is NOT an artistic step above Conjunto; Calypso is not a step up from Polka; Reggae is not a step up from Arena Rock, etc.
    We composers need to trace our DNA back to chant, and the honestly crafted polyphonic and homophonic branches of that noble art that sing out "Holy, holy, holy" without question.
    Ambiguity in worship arts cannot survive, much less thrive.

  3. This conversation makes me think of one of my first posts over the summer at the Chant Cafe:

    http://www.chantcafe.com/2010/07/denis-mcnamara-applied-to-sacred-music.html

    I think that it applies very nicely to the issues at play here.

    So much of our conversation revolves around our subjective experience of musical style. I'm hearing from Tom that he has had powerful "experiences" of prayer and of worship through the medium of what has been called "worship music". I'm very familiar with this because in the course of my formation as a Catholic I have had these same experiences. In my late teens and early 20's I considered myself a "worship leader" in the same sense that Tom describes himself.

    A startling realization that I made was that the musical "style" that I was so deeply and subjectively immersed which gave voice to my prayer, was not timeless and eternal, but transient and always slowly changing. I was in this world long enough to see music that at one time so powerfully seemed to draw people into deep and intense prayer, only a few years later was joked about because the music was so "dated" or unfashionable. I began to see that people who were immersed in "worship music" in the 90's were so moved to prayer by things like "Shine Jesus Shine", and "Awesome God", which, by the time I came of age already wreaked of the neon and stone washed jeans. The biggest wake up call for me was when I realized that the music that I so despised, Glory and Praise, was actually the "worship music" of my parent's generation! In the 70's this was not seen as "folk music" as we often see it now. The people at that time were so consumed in the surrounding culture that there was an enormous chasm between the St. Louis Jesuits and Crosby Stills and Nash, although to us now we would certainly lump them together (although CS&N obviously was of a much higher quality!)

    The point here is that these musical styles that we can find ourselves so engrossed in, which maybe can assist us in our devotion to God, in our prayer lives, are ephemeral. In a decade or two I can guarantee that the "worship music" repertoire and stylistic elements that Tom is engrossed in right now will not be as conducive to him. And his children will view it like we view 1980's hair and neon. This is just how the fallen world operates.

    This obviously is not how the liturgy operates. As I show in the post linked to above, the liturgy is about participation in the eternal realities of heaven! This is why the Church has passed down and developed sacred forms of art. They become a part of the Christian culture which is a tapestry of faith that sacramentally represent salvation. So through scripture we hear the voice of God. In water we see the washing away of sin. In oil we see the anointing of the Holy Spirit. In sacred architecture we see the earth restored from a fallen state and to heavenly perfection. In sacred music we hear the choirs of angels singing eternally around the throne of God in heaven.

    This is what sacred music is about. It is not ephemeral, it is not transient. It is transcendent for all cultures, times, generations. We shouldn't think of hippie culture when we hear sacred music composed in the 1960's, we should hear the universal voice of the Church giving glory to God eternally in heaven. This is the litmus test for sacred music. This is the test that Gregorian chant has passed time and time again throughout the Church's history. Other repertoires have done it also, and we have the ability to tap into it today, and an obligation to find a modern expression of the transcendent, the eternal.

    This is not about us. This is about "in saecula saeculorum."

    Amen.

    (wow, that was a long comment. sorry for preaching…)

  5. Other than being absolutely hilarious ("That is correct"!)… this is a rather odd context in which to hear this discussion.

    Tom Leylo;

    I understand exactly what you are saying, and like Adam said in his comment, I too have "been there" in terms of being a "worship leader" in the 80's and 90's, jumping on board the Life Teen bandwagon and taking part in energetic, spirit filled "liturgies" that had more the atmosphere of a Nirvana video than the sacrifice of the Mass. It is a truly vexing situation – the comments and compliments from the people attending (not the teens, but the foklks in their mid 50's) telling you how "moved" they were by "your music" – and this happened just about every week – are enough to make you think "This is something REAL here… this is actually working"… but believe me (and I would assume Adam as well), it comes crashing down rather quickly and one day you wake up and realize that you are little more than a religious entertainer and are doing precisely what document after document warns you NOT to do, and you suddenly understand WHY those documents instruct us to not do those things… they lead us away from the worship of God and instead immerse us in a worship of our culture and of ourselves. And it will keep happening and keep happening until you jump off of the wagon…

  6. On the other hand, being "moved" can also apply to classical, tradition, and even sacred styles. Indeed the difference is how the music and musicians set out to serve the liturgy.

    Working with young adults, I see a largely good orientation, and there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to get the music right within the bounds of personal skill.

    "This is the test that Gregorian chant has passed time and time again throughout the Church's history."

    And yet, Gregorian chant has also "failed" time and again. It was found wanting in the Middle Ages, so people developed organum and polyphony. It was found wanting in the Tridentine era so baroque styles and opera were adopted. Many people I know still associate it with "boredom" or "dirge." It's not the fault of the style, but the inability of music leaders to get it right.

    God chooses to surprise. And if the instrument associated with sexual license in a decaying empire is now king, we can probably do a lot worse than contemporary worship styles.

  8. Todd;

    My emphasis was not on the being "moved" part, but on the "your music" part. I have never heard anyone complimenting our chant schola (and yes…they do compliment us) refer to what we have sung as "your music"… it is always either "the music" or "the chant", as in "the chant was beautiful" or "the music was perfect". My point is that popular style music is so firmly rooted in the cult of the performer that even when transported into a worship environment, it is nearly impossible to separate it from the performer and his/ her personality. It is not a fault of that style of music, but rather it is a characteristic of it that is very difficult to overcome. I have never seen or been involved in a Teen Mass or Contemporary Worship where the musicians were placed in a loft or somewhere out of view. They always are assumed to have to be the center of focus. That is no accident.

  9. Chironomo, like you, I haven't heard much of the performing meme communicated where church music is concerned. I also don't see–and neither does my parish–the connection between pop music and church music. The setting is different. The words are different. And the musicians, though skilled, are largely amateurs carving out a genre that, to be honest, would be no airplay on commercial radio.

    In contrast to your defense of traditional or classical sacred music forms, I do see a leaking in of a performance ethic from time to time. I suppose if its not a caricature of a lead singer on a microphone, it's the egoism of a conductor.

    All that said, I'm willing to grant that you and I are on the same page when it comes to authentic music ministry, and the reaction of our faith communities. The only difference is the relative portions of chant in our respective repertoire. Deal?

  10. I know this is a contentious topic and I suggest the following:
    1. The documents of Vatican II, while they did say that Gregorian Chant had "pride of place" did not specifically state that we should return to using chant in all regular Sunday liturgies. This could be taken to mean, in Rome and for other specific liturgies where extreme solemnity is called for. The documents also recommended adapting to the various cultures where the Caholic Church is present throughout the world. The United States of America is not Italy and Americans are not especially predisposed to Gregorian chant, per se.
    2. As to instruments, I am aware of the organ as preferred, however, with the current dirth of qualified organists, we may need to be a little more pragmatic. I recently attended a liturgy at a larger parish in the Allentown diocese where "canned" music was used to which the choir sang-along. I found it extremely distasteful. I would have been much happier to have a good keyboardist or a guitar, well-played accompanying the choir
    3. I am 50+ years old. I have been exposed to both chant and the wide range of hymns in use since Vatican II. I enjoy a variety of hymns, traditional and contemporary, but I do not like chant. I cannot imagine not being able to participate in congregational singing – as was the case before Vatican II – and I would not be happy to have chant incorporated into my parish's Sunday liturgy because it was intended to be sung by a choir and not well suited to congregational singing. Have you ever tried to teach a congregation a new hymn? Something basic takes a few go-rounds….
    4. Proponents of chant always remark how it is so conducive to worship and devotion, but that is only true if you like that music. I realize that Mass is not about "putting on a show" or "feelin good", but when the music is of a style which you have not been "brought up" with – and one that is foreign to our era – it can actually distract from worship. Yes, we should go to Mass regardless of the music, presider, etc., but tell people who are marginal Catholics that…The fact remains, if liturgies are uplifting and pleasant experiences people will come – if not many will leave, rules or no rules.
    4. Let's get realistic – the only thing that the 1000 year history of Chant tells us conclusively is that the Church was trying to make a statement to the Protestants: we speak Latin/ we sing in Latin and you don't. We had choral singing and not congregational singing because congregations singing hymns was what Protestants did….
    5. What was happening in the first 1000 years? I suspect that before Pope Gregory, a lot of the liturgies may have been simpler and had singing of songs based on the Psalms set to simple folk tunes. If there is any music form that appears almost universal worldwide, it is folk tunes – simple, easy to learn, even somewhat repetitive – and people, especially children seem to graviate to this – as in the case of Christmas carols
    6.I am happy for those who appreciate sacred chant if they are able to locate a priest who feels likewise and they are able to arrange to celebrate Mass in that manner periodically. I would personally love to attend a charismatic Mass periodically and am most pleased when I am able to attend one. But, for Sunday liturgy in the average parish in the United States, I think the best choice is to honor the traditions we have established in the past 45 years – hymns, both traditional and contemporary.
    Thanks

  11. Dear Diane,

    You have stated your feelings clearly, this is for sure. You might consider studying the historical context a bit more though, in order to develop a better foundation for them.

    For example, you mention that chant has a "1000 year history", but this is historically incorrect. The Mass Proper was composed in the 7th century (see James McKinnon's "The Advent Project") and the chanting of the psalms in the liturgy, it is documented, reaches to the patristic period. In fact, historical documents show that the chanting of the psalms in the liturgy in the early Church grew right out of the rites of the Jewish temple sacrifice. Liturgical chant has been with the Church, undoubtedly, from the beginning.

    You might also want to take a look at your late-medieval history. The Reformation was a 16th century event. This was 500 years ago, not 1000 years ago.

    I say these things not to be pedantic, but in hopes that a more thorough study of the context might offer more insight into why the Church has upheld, even to our present day, Gregorian chant as the model form of sacred music.

  13. No qualified organists in many Catholic churches? Try NOT using the "lady who gives piana" down the street to play for Mass. Interview and hire a qualified organist who has studied the instrument. Look up the American Guild of Organists chapter in your area. There are lists of substitute organists, many of whom would love a permanent position. The organ, when played as a proper support to chant, is not loud and over bearing. As an accompaniment to traditional hymns, it supports the singing of the congregation, providing the proper tempo and phrasing for the hymn.
    RedCat, CAGO

  14. Diane, my dear,
    Let me see – – here is how I read the gist of your comments:
    1000-year old Tradition is worthless and foreign. 45-year old Tradition is worthy, likeable, and pleasant. To heck with the Vatican documents that started the wonderful 45-year Golden Era we are living in.
    I'm trying to think of a Gospel message that would correspond to the idea "if you don't like it or it's "too hard", just forget it".
    I can't think of one.
    By the way, in my diocese, we occasionally sing "Sanctus", "Agnus Dei" in Latin. The congregation sings out loud and proud on these, probably more so than one "One Bread, One Body". With exposure and maybe even education, perhaps people are capable of even more?
    I'd like to know why they aren't learning chant and better music in every Catholic school in the country. That's why I send my kids there – – to learn Catholic culture in addition to the three Rs.

  16. "Let me see – – here is how I read the gist of your comments …."

    We can all read these comments. We don't need a translator.

    "I'd like to know why they aren't learning chant and better music in every Catholic school in the country."

    Because music, the arts, and Catholic culture is not the priority that computers, athletics, and mainstream academics are.

  17. I agree with RedCat…there are many qualified organists throughout the United States that could play for Mass. I live in a small city in the south and we have a local chapter of the American Guild of Organists with several members. Many of these members would gladly serve in a Catholic Church. However, there seem to be many reasons for why this does not happen.

    1. Many Catholic parishes do not want to pay serious money to musicians. If you don't compensate organists/musicians with serious money you won't normally get serious music.

    2. Many Catholic parishes and priests to me seem scared to make musical changes. What often seems to happen is that a certain volunteer musician has been serving in a parish for many years, and sayings such as "oh, we couldn't possibly get rid of so and so, because they have been here for so many years" seem to happen. Volunteers can be great musicians, but then again they are volunteers. If you have a professional musician in charge, the priest or music council or whatever can offer suggestions for musical improvement to said professional musician without offending them. I also find that many volunteer music directors (with little or no formal training) do not know much about different styles of church music…They do what they have always done. In my diocese of about 100 parishes, maybe 3 of us musicians are members of NPM or the AGO. The majority of music leaders in parishes are volunteers with modest skills…most would not even consider going to a church music conference (national or regional AGO convention, or NPM convention)to learn about different music.

    3. I think many priests are scared to make musical changes simply because they don't want to deal with the people who are not happy with musical or musician changes…I think if priests would stop being politicians and be unafraid to offend anyone that this might be beneficial.

    4. Many Catholics say that music shouldn't be about money, or that a small parish can't afford to pay any money to hire a qualified music director. I don't believe this at all. In my southern state there are tons of small rural Methodist and Presbyterian churches (maybe 100 members) who have paid part time choir directors with music degrees or some formal musical training. At the same time I find some parishes in our diocese with 1000 plus membership who have a completely volunteer music program, no paid director, and no music budget. However, Life Teen will have a large budget in many cases.

    I don't mean to rant, but being a professional organist, I am in a unique position. I play regularly for a Catholic Parish now, and we do a large array of music…we even have one mass where all the Gregorian propers and the mass setting is chanted. (I am lucky). Before I started in this parish I substituted in many Protestant churches of many different denominations. I find in general that protestants (especially liturgical protestants such as Episcopalians and Lutherans) care a lot more about quality, serious church music than Catholic parishes of similar size!

Comments are closed.