I’m linking this here not because I agree with it; on the contrary, I completely disagree. Adam Barlett is working on a response. But I wanted people to read this on their own and evaluate it on its own terms. This is the strongest possible case for LifeTeen music.
53 Replies to “The Case for a Special Music for LifeTeen Masses”
Comments are closed.
Some people–several priests–in the comments of that article ask a foundational question:
Is "youth culture" really worthy of being called a culture? Does it even exist? Is it hopelessly unspecific?
I do not believe "youth culture" even exists in the first place, so it is useless to try to use a silly inculturation argument here.
When the changes came back in the 60s, I was a teen and bitterly opposed them. It was the clowns in their 50s and 60s who were all for them. Same misguided thinking, I see
Just a note: I am 19 years old and I abhor LifeTeen liturgies.
you're a discriminating and Catholic young man. Deo gratias
Brace yourselves, this is long. I have had to endure Spirit and Song at my parish for the better part of six years. There is better out there and Jeffrey and Adam have shown me this.
The priest, it seems, is rather ingenious in his accusal of Chiesa of writing falsities. It quotes an imaginary (and Sandro Magister, himself, tells us this from the onset) document that Benedict could have written. However, he does not accurately quote Benedict when he actually references him. This talk, made in 2010, does not even mention the concern that the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist, wherein the Instrumentum Laboris airs its strongest concern about the kind of music used at "Youth Masses", the same type that the priest in question promotes:
"In other responses some lamented the poor quality of translations of liturgical texts and many musical texts in current languages, maintaining that they lacked beauty and were sometimes theologically unclear, thereby contributing to a weakening of Church teaching and to a misunderstanding of prayer. A few responses made particular mention of music and singing at Youth Masses. In this regard, it is important to avoid musical forms which, because of their profane use, are not conducive to prayer. Some responses note a certain eagerness in composing new songs, to the point of almost yielding to a consumer mentality, showing little concern for the quality of the music and text, and easily overlooking the artistic patrimony which has been theologically and musically effective in the Church’s liturgy."
This is something that LifeTeen has yet to answer. This is something that the priest who delivered this talk failed to mention. Now, here is Benedict's direct response to this matter, as masterfully written in Sacramentum Caritatis:
"42. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. (126) Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that "the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love" (127). The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything — texts, music, execution — ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131)."
I would say that Benedict pretty much torpedoes the priest's argument. Even as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, our beloved Supreme Pontiff Emeritus, shows consistency in thought when he writes, in the Spirit of the Liturgy, about the kind of music we should be avoiding at Mass:
"On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense ( populus ). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. "Rock", on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit's sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments."
If there is any musical genre that promotes the cult of the banal, it would have to be what is found in Spirit and Song. Who is the target audience for this book? That would have to be LifeTeen.
"First Christ, then his Church, and then his Liturgy which brings us to the celestial heights of heavenly Liturgy."_
Doesn't this priest know that Christ and His Church are one? Doesn't he remember that the Liturgy is our Earthly participation in the Heavenly Liturgy?
I love how he references Sancrosanctum Concilium, but never bothers to reference where it says that Chant and the organ shall receive "primacy of place." Instead, he argues that the opposite is true, that these are not normative.
One last thing on writing style. I don't know who else had this problem, but I re-read paragraphs because I couldn't understand what was being said the first or second time through. Abysmally poor writing/speaking style…perfect for sinking down to the level of today's youth which he seems to wont to do.
When there are so many good alternative, I dont think that inculturation quite fits the bill. Chant, Polyphony, Hymnody and even Taize – what more do you need?
I would like to see what American inculturation would look like. When I think inculturation – brace yourselves – I think of Mormon/LDS musicians as typically American. It just feels American somehow.
I am busy trying to enculturate my idea of South African music in a more sacral style. Rather difficult, although the Moravians and New Apostolics have done a sterling job!
Here the only so-called youth culture is what we get from American TV (esp. MTV) – i..e. *whispers* It does not exist…unless you call lazyness and boredom a type of culture. (Im 24 so I imagine I am still in the young adult bracket at the very least)
I believe this is a transcript of a talk. It shouldn't be judged as a piece of formal writing. If you read it with the understanding that it was originally spoken, it actually comes off not too badly.
Thanks for quoting the real Pope Benedict. Very strange device by Fr. Schreiner of using invented quotes. Is that what is called "setting up a straw man"?
P.S. It's a shame Fr. Schreiner who seems to be quite knowledgeable on the subject of liturgical music doesn't reference any preconciliar documents. Actually, another Pope Benedict, Benedict XIV, resolved the issue of sacred vs profane music in the liturgy in 1749 in, Annus qui hunc:
He lamented the fact that although the use of canticles and motets had already been regulated, it still happens "much to Our great sorrow, that the abuse of the theatrical manner and the noise of the stage enters into parts of the Mass."
Quoting St. Nicetius: Sacred music should "show you are true Christians; it should not be like that which is heard at the theatre, but should produce in you sorrow for sin" and "should excite the faithful to devotion." Interestingly enough, the consensus among the Church scholars was that music that is overly "rhythmical" or "broken up with a swing" should be avoided along with music that "interests us and stirs our curiosity, but in reality we neglect devotion."
The most concise and helpful recommendation (Council of Milan, 1565): "profane airs must not be sung . . . guttural sounds must not take the place of labial ones, never must it have a passionate character. Let chant and music be serious, devout, clear, suitable to God's house and to divine praise, executed in such a manner that those who to it understand the words and are moved to devotion."
It'shard to know where to begin here. I believe the author means well, but it seems he never really understood the role of sacred music in the liturgy in the first place.
The account of his "conversion" to the LifeTeen model is instructive, I think. He said he "got" the song – meaning that he saw how it was a part of these teens pursuing holiness.
But the fact that a song, or a genre of music might be an occasion for pursuing holiness, or is inspirational, does not by itself mean that it's appropriate to the liturgy. It seems like this is his original misunderstanding – that the primary purpose of music in the liturgy is to simply to help us to pray – so whatever does that is appropriate.
But this is emphatically not the case, as the documents of the Church make abundantly clear. According to Vatican II, the fundamental reason for the use of chant and the treasury of sacred music is not that it is "better" or more beautiful music, or more prayerful, or more traditional – although I would argue these certainly are things in its favor – but because "united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy" (Const. on the Liturgy, 112). The same cannot be said of the music used at LifeTeen masses.
I am looking forward to Bartlett's response.
Towards the end of address, the speaker gives three qualities liturgical music is judged by: liturgically, pastorally, and musically. However, these are not the only qualities by which it is to be judged. Sacred music must also be holy, beautiful, and universal, as John Paul II wrote in his "Chirograph for the Centenary on the Moto Proprio "Tra Le Sollecitudini" (cf. paragraphs 4,5,6,7). So, let us, in consideration of the speaker, consider his three and JPII's list.
The only difficulty Chant has with all six of these is the pastoral. And this is not an intrinsic difficulty, but a deficient formation of the faithful to engage, pray, and sing the chant proper to our rite. It is drastically less clear whether Praise and Worship is holy (set apart), beautiful (dignified, proportionate, obedient to the liturgy), and even less so, universal.
I think it's just another argument for "What I want at Mass," rather than "What does the Church want at Mass." The fact that he proclaims to be so strict in matters of liturgy and music was frankly a red flag to me… "What do I think Mass should be like," way of thinking.Once you make one exception (chant should have first/pride-of place in the Liturgy; the treasury of polyphony must be maintained) you open the door for anything. Jazz Mass? Polka Mass? Both great genres, but do not belong in the Catholic liturgy.
Let's try this another way…can Church doctrine be altered for a particular community? I think not. Why should the music be so radically altered for a community, any community? We're the Roman Catholic Church, many of us Latin rite. The canon, the language, the music, should be universal. The exceptions have been made the rule, and the entire Church has suffered.
Jeffrey,
Wasn't this just a transcript from a video that you posted years ago? If so, its only value is to re-kindle a campfire that will extinguish itself yet another time.
I'm glad to see BGal back in the game, I'm sad her sorrow continues to this day. And whatever Adam Bartlett comes up with ought to be broadcast from every RC media outlet nationwide, and they have not done a good service by programming "devotional" ditties penned by Dana or Maher as bumper music, while simultaneously putting out poorly performed sacropop on local TV Masses, and not producing good examples (like CCW's videos) on "How to do SACRED MUSIC."
We don't do LifeTeen, but we have a Youth Ensemble (no drums, sDg) that is quite accomplished. However, when I do interact with them, it is difficult to discern the energy as anything but emotion-driven, not contemplative external prayer. It's a quandry.
Excellent point. Why should we have a custom-designed liturgy for every constituency?
I don't mean to sound like a crank, but I take strong exception to the notion that teens should be singled out for special attention. I'm not sure what message is being sent to them by treating them as a group whose tastes and inclinations must be specially catered to. As the mother of many teens, I assure you that such a mindset is already usually in place, so shouldn't efforts be made instead towards including them in the larger community?
May I quote from the article itself? Here we go:
"First Christ, then his Church, and then his Liturgy which brings us to the celestial heights of heavenly Liturgy. And among all the instruments and worship, the Church is very clear about this. The human voice is primary.
Bring in all the instruments you want but they better not drown out the voice. The human voice, the voice of prayer. Josh has made the point with you. Music ministers back off. When they get it, they get it, let them have it. Let them hear themselves be brought into the heavenly chambers. And so it must serve the voice, the human voice."
Therefore I say: The human voice is primary. I would a thousand times rather sing a good Mass with guitars, bass and drums and have our voices clearly heard and understood, in a way that singers can sing comfortably, and have the words be understood cleanly and clearly, than have the singers drowned our by a ear-splittingly loud organ that shatters every eardrum in the room! God Bless the guitar. Guitars are the perfect instrument for singers to convey sacred melodies and vocal prayer.
BTW, I sing the Extraordinary Form Mass every week complete with Gregorian Chant and Renaissance Polyphony. It is from this perspective that I say, God Bless the guitar, and the drums, and the Life Teen Masses! Let our voices be heard.
Point well taken about overpowering organ accompaniments! Still, I believe there is something about plucked and percussive instruments that don't lend themselves well to a church setting. Interestingly enough, Dr. Marier, the distinguished Gregorian chant master, recommended that singers not use the piano to demonstrate the melody in a chant piece since "the piano is a percussion instrument. If the singers listen to the hammer stroke for each note and reproduce that sound in their singing, the legato cannot be achieved." That is obviously why the organ is preferred in sacred music since the sound is smooth and sustained and not jarring in any way.
I think the Church's general rationale over the centuries has been to exclude music or instruments that evoke the theatre and perhaps that's a good guideline for us today: avoid music and instruments that imitate or evoke public secular performances since the Church's liturgy should be offered in a sacred, reverent, contemplative atmosphere that is easily distinguishable from the mundane and profane.
Point well taken. Yes, it is paramount that chant singers have the legato tone and voice. But, I'll throw this into the mix (because I've really actually done this): A guitar can be tuned to "just intonation temperment," that is, not in equal temperment, but in pure fifths, that have the harmonic resonance of the original medieval chant and polyphony. From this, we teach the singers to sing in pure note intervals. The human voice becomes the leader of the singers, which is natural, not any instrument leading. The voice comes first. Thereby, the glorious and magnificent harmonics of the original chant and polyphony (the way it was meant to sound) resonate beautifully throughout the church.
All you out there, any thoughts on this?
Interesting thoughts on the tuning and guitar accompaniment. Part of the 'guitar problem' is the way it's played: TA-ti-ti-ti-ti-TA. In your treatment, does the player strum a chord before each phrase?
On an interesting (have to say it) note, I really enjoyed the Clark setting of the Pentecost sequence, as seen on this site. The recording used piano; the score called for organ. I found myself arpeggiating the chords on the organ. There have been other calls for the piano to accompany chant.
The Church's rationale aside, I think a lot of problem is the way/ style in which the instruments are played. Yes, the piano can make the music sound like a lounge act. There is also literature (and imrovisations) for the piano that can create a sense of the Eternal.
Some of my thoughts…
I have to confess I'm mystified by this post. I'm not thrilled by the LifeTeen approach either musically or pastorally. But this seems like an excuse for the cool kids to gather around and snicker at the (fill in the blank) misfits.
Why not continue to present chant and polyphony at its best? Why the indulgence to exalt oneself and one's music at the expense of other people and theirs? A small person cutting other people down to size is still a 12-inch midget in the weeds.
As for an encultured American music? That's easy. Jazz, blues, Gospel music, shape-note singing, and white spirituals from the New England tradition.
Todd
I play the guitar as a harmonic support to the chant, in the same musical way that the Ison (movable drone) is the support for Eastern Orthodox Chant. Also, I play a Classical (I call it Spanish) guitar with flamenco strings made by LaBella. This provides a beautiful classical tone, fit for any high-end concert hall. (For I find it very important to play with, not against, the natural acoustice of the church we're in.)
The Classical guitar with flamenco strings is also perfect for Taize Chant, which I do admit, I love.
I am sorry but I can't read that article to the end. It's so long-winded, so foggy, so avoiding the point, and I'm not even a native English speaker. If this is the kind of homilies that young people get from this priest, they'd just as soon be fingering their cell phones, making faces at each other, snickering, blah, blah, blah! I give no credit whatsoever to Life Teen Masses, ever since I heard my grandson singing Anderson's Gloria. Duh!
I see much more substance than snicker in these comments. I'd be much more interested in your response to some of the arguments made here rather than a broad-brush dismissal of the proceedings. (And I never thought of the RotRers as the "cool kids"!)
I think it's important that there be a response to the kinds of arguments we see in the article, as they are pervasive and win over many people who seem not to know any better. I don't see Fr. Schreiner and the folks running LifeTeen as "misfits." They do, however, IMHO, seriously misunderstand the Church's musical tradition and the place of music in the liturgy. His arguments are ubiquitous and should be answered.
A response implies an actual dialogue. An exchange between two people in a real conversation. Not a Father Z narcissism fest in red and black.
Heck, you don't even have to convince me of the shortcomings of the LifeTeen approach to music and liturgy. I can't imagine this discussion, however well-reasoned, is making converts. This thread just reinforces what everybody "already knows." Just like the cool kid clique in high school.
Much more interesting is the side discussion on guitar and the significance for related plucked string instruments: lute, harp, dulcimers, even the harpsichord.
Todd
Anywhere to find more info on that style?
I was thinking about the role of the harpsichord back in 'the day." I know Bach had a harpsichord at St Thomas, but I've not heard of the harpsichord in traditional Catholic music: voice, organ, brass/ wind, and strings
I disagree. I have read enough transcripts of homilies and speeches to hear a speaker's voice while reading. This style is so disjointed, I would find reading this nigh unbearable whether or not I agreed with the message. Poor style makes his points weaker, no matter how mistaken they are.
Has it really? I'm gaining insights from both sides by reading these replies (which I don't normally do). And, if I may be so bold, in today's liturgical praxis, LifeTeen is the cool kid. Chantophiles are the misfits. All we want, at the very least is for our arguments to be taken seriously, the priest in that link is not taking us seriously.
Father Z is far superior to you, Toddy boy. You have a nano bit of knowledge in terms of Liturgy and the Church compared to Father Z. You should stick with the simpleton, Pray Sniff crowd. That's your proper intellectual "milieu"
.
As one of the founding member/contributors to the Chant Cafe, TJM, I regret to say that you have egregiously violated the terms and conditions of the forum, and of basic charity. There is no love behind your condemnatory remarks, there is no respect for a fellow Christian and you do your mentor, Fr. Zuhlsdorf a disservice by invoking his name and repute to impugn another person. For no matter what you think, no one can judge and call into question the dignity of any other soul. If, after you hit the "submit" button (how ironic, "submit") you didn't have remorse for your anger, perhaps an examination of conscience is in order. "Cantare amaris est" is the motto. Singing is for those who love. Regain your filial love would be my advice.
Popular music for youth is largely a commercial construct of the mass entertainment industry.
Trust me: relatively few liturgists are completely on board with LifeTeen. It's more a product of youth & catechetical ministry than a serious issue of worship.
Julie's question above: "Why should we have a custom-designed liturgy for every constituency?" is quite interesting. My friends here would certainly know I don't hold in high regard chant Masses or the celebration of the 1962 Missal. Does it not strike any of you as odd that you would ask for a "misfit" (your term) celebration of liturgy yet be so critical of the parallel request of others?
Todd
And LifeTeen Masses don't even cater to kids' tastes. They usually are at least ten years behind the times, just like the "children's hymns" inflicted on us back in the Eighties. It's somebody's else's idea of What Kids Should Like.
How on earth is the guitar the perfect instrument to accompany voice? As a singer, I perpetually have encountered the guitarist who plays songs nobody can possibly sing, or who attempts to turn a soprano into a tenor because that's the way the song "must" go.
Well, I'm glad that you've found an acceptable tuning and playing style for accompanying chant.
Basically, however, this means that you're no longer playing the same instrument as most guitarists, just like mandolin tuning means you're basically emulating a mandolin.
". . . mass entertainment industry."
Was the pun intended or not? (Works either way.)
Todd,
Not even addressing the "misfit" vs. "cool kids" lingo…I don't see it as a parallel request. It's a matter of celebrating the Mass how the Church desires it (chant pride of place/ polyphony, use of Latin AND vernacular, and….Propers!) rather than always, always following liturgical loopholes.
We've been down this road before…Council of Trent. The music was getting unintelligible, the musicians were irreverent, secular styles, tunes, and instruments had been introduced into the Mass. Enter some guidelines and composers like Palestrina, et al.
cont.
To be frank, I've never attended Mass in the Extraordinary Form. Kind of hard to come by in my neck of the woods. I'm a post VII baby. But, I know that I thought that some of the music I heard in the 1980's was ridiculous. It didn't get better when I began working with a Baby Boomer music director who liked Broadway-eque tunes and other happly-clappy nonsense. I would LOVE to be able to attend a Ordinary Mass celebrated extraordinarily ( to borrow a phrase from a parish you know and love…wink, wink). But the current political situation in my current parish does not allow it.
Thanks for reading. Any harpsichord info? 🙂 And how did that other guy get to make that long post?!
Give thanks to the LORD on the harp;
with the ten-stringed lyre chant his praises.
Sing to him a new song;
pluck the strings skillfully, with shouts of gladness.
Psalm 33
That was from the responsorial psalm today. I was thinking of this conversation when I heard it at Mass.: )
When we had LT at a local parish it was readily evident that it was the middle aged set who most appreciated the music.
Hey John,
In this cafe, the cool kids are definitely the chanters. It might be different at a different high schoo–I mean web site.
I also think many, if not most church musicians think "their" music is what the Church "desires." LifeTeen advocates think they reach more people. You and I might disagree, but clearly, we're not making many converts, are we? And people do still attend LifeTeen Masses. By the hundreds of thousands.
Todd
The ones above seemed to work. +1!
Ah, but where are they 5-15 years after LTMs? Not bangin down the doors of my parish church!
Good chat as always!
JO
These videos are great. Thanks, Charles. The best example I've seen so far, however, in the Benedictine Monks of Mount Saint Savior (Roman Catholic) Benedictine Monastery in Elmira, NY. They sing all the Psalmody of the Liturgical Hours accompanied by classical guitar and harp. You have to be there in person to hear it. They have a truly sacred and devotional way of praying the Psalms. These are the real deal, sung by agricultural Monks who run a farm, the original Benedictine way.
Any Jazz and Blues player can play the notes of a fretted guitar, "bending" the notes, pulling them out of the fretted temperment and into any subtle harmonic shade the player desires. This is what makes Jazz and Blues such a powerful form of music. The same is true of the Classical guitar, when applied to Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque music. The fretted notes can be easily pulled out of equal temperment and into any harmonic shade the player desires. These subtle variations of pitch have always been the historical source for what we call "tone color." This is what makes music come alive.
Love your point about keyboards. Exactly! I have a good friend whose obsession is tuning harpsichords and organs into the original Baroque temperments (five tone comma, etc, etc.) This also makes the music come much more alive.
I'm not sure how you know all of this.
Perhaps there's a person (not a liturgist) reading this thread who feels that there's something wrong with the LifeTeen, but just can't put his finger on it. I think this thread would give him some well-reasoned arguments against what the article is saying.
I'm wondering whether we're reading the same comments? And if you're right that we're all just here to feel like the cool kids in high school, then certainly your own comments won't make any converts, either . . . .
I'm going to try to get a guitarist from our semi-autonomous folk group to accompany some chant on guitar. I think, even with standard tuning, it will be ethereal. Especially with the distortion up….kidding! It's classical/ folk guitar!
The challenge is to channel that youthful exuberance into a mature proclamation of the Word through song.
Why people are negating this POV is a bit beyond me.
These are lovely. Thanks for sharing.
Exactly! Go for it. " Ecce Panis Angelorum" is a good place to start. This is nice with classical guitar accompaniment.
Your question strikes at my main objection to LifeTeen. Or Catholic high schools. It's not the music. These efforts don't seem to do enough at integrating young people into the mainstream of the Church. I think they are well-intentioned. And they do inspire and create disciples. But instead of banging down the doors, as you say, they creep in in trickles.
Todd
Jesus said "My Father seeks worshipers who worship in Spirit and in Truth"
True worshipers are found in all kinds of different worship settings– We all want people to encounter Christ-and maybe that's why people get upset with the different styles of music because if on one hand something is "dull" that's not helpful for a 'life encountering Christ' and if some music is 'worldly' that' would be the 'false' encounter with something other than Christ.
I say 'God bless the worship leaders'- whether they are traditional or contemporary. I love them both. I'm priviledged to be one of the Worhsip leaders at mass….and I'm one of the 'imperfect people'. Sometimes I 'get it right' and sometimes I don't….I've done both traditional and contemporary. Scripture says "Love Covers a multitude of Sins" and Love can cover our differences in musical styles too. The bottom line is that Jesus came to seek and save the Lost- wherever they may be…