Posted on by Jeffrey Tucker

A Case for the Voice Alone

Quite often people send me queries about what instruments are permitted and what instruments are forbidden at Mass. This is the way the message begins but then there is often a followup, usually concerning a specific (sad) situation that has come up in a parish or seminary setting. The organ is neglected as the piano is brought front and center. Or a new guitar player is permitted to do his thing during Mass.

These are often cries of desperation, stemming from an intuition that something is going wrong and surely there must be some rules governing this situation, something to cite to say no. It is not always about trying to push music in a more traditional direction. In one case this past year, a leader of a praise team found herself annoyed that a bongoist insisted on joining the group but she didn’t want him. She hoped for some legislation that would disallow bongos but permit extended soloing on praise music with piano accompaniment. I could cite no such legislation.

The situation just isn’t that simple. It isn’t just a matter of placing all instruments in the category of “permitted” or “forbidden.” Church legislation is pretty clear that the organ is favored, occupying an exalted place among liturgical instruments. But current legislation does not ban other instruments. Most anything is permitted as a technical matter, but the problem with this focus is that it hones in on the letter rather than the spirit.

I won’t comment on the possibilities for the bongos – I seriously doubt that there are any – but I can imagine situations in which the guitar would actually be an improvement on the piano. Now, to be sure, I’m devoted to the piano as a solo instrument. But it is a percussion instrument, with hammers that hit keys, and this sound alone cuts against the style of sacred music which is always toward a constant upward elevation, as modeled by the style of plainsong. Our cultural associations with the piano range from dramatic symphonic settings to lounge environments; liturgy is not really part of that association. While the guitar might have an improved sound over the piano, it too has cultural associations that do not make it a natural partner with the liturgical sound.

There is a strong case for the organ but my own preference is to use it as a solo instrument. This is when its voice is most beautiful and expressive. It is a waste of a great instrument, and a competent musician’s talents, to turn the organ into nothing but a instrument to accompany voices, whether the chant or congregational singing. I’m completely unconvinced by the cliche that the organ helps people in the pews sing better; I’ve experienced the opposite too many times.

Here is what I do not understand about all of these discussions: why is it that people so rarely consider that the human voice alone is the proper and ideal liturgical instrument? I really think that people have a fear of singing without instruments. They believe that it cannot be done without some external thing to give them the notes, rhythm, and groove. This is the first and greatest mistake that takes place within all these discussions of what instruments are permitted at Mass.

One thousand years of Christian song took place without instruments, so far as anyone can tell, and the organ itself had to earn for itself the right and opportunity to be heard alongside that primary instrument of the human voice. We need more of that: voices alone. Only the human voice can bring together those two necessary things at once: the text and the notes. Too often it is not even considered an option.

10 Replies to “A Case for the Voice Alone”

  1. The experience of this dialog is all too familiar. The reading of liturgical law in this manner, whether it be to scour through it looking for a proof text that can rid the sanctuary of bongos or scouring through it to find the absence of such language in support of using bongos, reminds me more of how most Protestant Church's approach Scripture rather than how the Catholic Church reads the Bible … and reads and writes documents. It always takes me back to Jeffrey's post from some time ago about how, when it comes to music in the liturgy, people act like a child who exclaims, "But you never told me I couldn't throw a frisbee in the house." At some point, people have to take the initiative to form their liturgical consciences according to the entire corpus of liturgical writings form the Church's long history. It was exactly this issue that prompted me to write "A Musical Manifesto" last year. People at my parish were very angry that someone who dare criticize the use of any instrument that was not strictly forbidden in liturgical law.

    All of this stems from a deep-seeded obligationism. Along with obligationism comes legalism and minimalism (and probably some other -ism's that I can't remember). Eventually it leads to relativism (there's one more … that oughta do it). The "better" way is the path of virtue. In a system of virtue, prudence is recognized and trained so that we can apply basic principles to specific situations. It is inherently maximalist, even perfectionist (in a teleological kind of way). This applies as much to liturgical conscience as it does to moral conscience.

  2. Jake,
    I'm grateful to Jeffrey for directing our attention to your blogposts, particularly "A Musical Manifesto."
    Am I incorrect in having missed any direct commentary on your part regarding how we "musical liturgists" who are morally "prepared" to accept the premises of your manifesto ought to address these issues with our pastor/bosses, or even our bishops?
    If you've posted about that elsewhere, please direct me to that.
    I have engaged my pastor and bishop with these very real concerns. It is an experience akin to walking firecoals or swimming with Great Whites-one cannot presume that reason, righteousness nor Church legislation will prevail or protect the musician's integrity and livelihood.
    OTOH, I am extremely hopeful that the MR3 promulgation will provide the realpolitik liturgical decision-makers an impetus to listen to heralds such as yourself, CMAA, and locals like me, in order that we might reach consensus that a moment is before us where we CAN hit a RESET button named orthopraxis. But, I don't think you could get odds on that happening posted in Las Vegas anywhere.

  3. why is it that people so rarely consider that the human voice alone is the proper and ideal liturgical instrument?

    "The fault…lies not in our stars….."

    In two words: "church musicians."

    Church musicians, logically, are promoters of 'more' and 'better' music. Since most church musicians are educated in music schools, they're exposed to Western music history, the flower of which includes symphonies.

    So the "more=better" logic encompasses larger forces, not smaller ones like the voice, alone. Since your basic parish doesn't have a symphony handy for Mass, the organ is the substitute; and since actual Education in Music is in very short supply in the US, we have the bongo-ites, piano-ites, guitar-ites, kazoo-ites, (etc.), who imagine their instruments to be just as expressive of "the people" as any 5- manual Austin or 90-member symphony.

    See? It's all very simple.

    Slightly more serious: you see this even in the "Low" Mass–where some priests insist that the organ play CONTINUOUSLY during the Mass save over the sermon and the Consecration–no matter the legislation of Rome on that question. Again, we have more=better, albeit in a different context.

    The longer I'm involved, the more I ask the same question you do: whassamatta with 'just Chant'? …while fully agreeing with those who use "more" for large-scale occasions such as Pontifical Masses, Confirmations, (etc.)

  4. I'm completely unconvinced by the cliche that the organ helps people in the pews sing better; I've experienced the opposite too many times.

    This is my experience as well. The organ only really works as a support to singing when congregations can already sing confidently.

    It seems to me that when you strip away the sonic wallpaper, people become aware of that it is important to sing – there will be no music unless they provide it.

  5. Charles, your comments are too kind. I am also grateful to Jeffrey for drawing people's attention to some of my material. I am glad you like the Musical Manifesto. Unfortunately, this post received very little attention when it went up – it was back before too many people knew of Roma locuta est. Now it is in the "Past Posts" graveyard – Jeffrey and I have had short conversations about how to avoid this, and I was hoping that mentioning these in a few places and placing permanent links on the sidebar would help.

    Perhaps I should focus more on the issue of how moral theology relates to the liturgy. The post you read was a venting of what happened to me this past Holy Week. When my choir director got a hold of a prior post, she became quite upset and informed me that I could not sing the Easter Sequence anymore, something I had done for the past several years. Basically, I was ostracized from the music program. That should serve to explain some of the tone from the piece, but perhaps it is time to pull out the rhetoric and focus on the issue at hand: a sort of "virtue" based approach to the liturgy.

    Of course, all this has bearing on your question – I am not sure I am the right person to talk to about how to approach those "in charge". I got myself in a lot of trouble when I tried. That being said, there has to be a good way … a prudent way. I'll think more about this.

    By the way, stop by Roma locuta est again and check out the other posts on the liturgy that I have permalinked on the side bar, and feel free to let me know what you think

    Thank you again.

  6. One of the issues is the approach to hiring Church Musicians- preference is given to keyboardists (organ and/or piano) rather than choral musicians.

    I'll admit that maybe that view is over-tainted by my own experience, but:
    I've been out of music school for 6 years, and even though I know more about Catholic liturgy and sacred music (across a number of styles, both traditional and contemporary) than the average parish choir director, have extensive choral experience (including working with children's choirs), can (mostly) read Latin, etc, etc…- I have never been able to get a job in a Catholic parish, because my keyboard skills aren't that strong. The few parishes where I've visited after they hired someone else inevitably had hired a lounge singer with excellent contemporary piano chops.

    The Episcopal parish I work at now had an organist when I got there, and they knew exactly what they needed: a choir director. They are very appreciative of my skills, and I'm finally in a parish where the music program doesn't make me crazy.

  7. I have an overwhelming bias toward unaccompanied vocal music and agree that the organ is at its best on its own. In church traditions that have strong congregational singing of traditional hymnody, the organ can do cool things – alternate harmonies, nifty solo stops. In the Catholic Church, it functions as a karaoke back-up in most instances.

    I recently attended several Vespers and Masses with the Fraternites de Jerusalem in Paris. They have a magnificent organ (St. Gervais was the Couperins "family gig"). There are great preludes, some instrumental during offertory and communion, and always a spectacular postlude. The singing is all unaccompanied, mostly inspired by the Russian tradition and the work of Pere Andre Gouzes. The result is balanced and enchanting.

    The longer I think and work with sacred music, the more I think "less is best." I think most Masses would be fine with recto tono and a Sanctus with a five-note range. However, I know that contemporary church musicians are under heavy pressure to keep dressing things up and increase the entertainment/emotional vibe of Sunday Mass – pressure from the choir, from the pastor, and from the industry. All hard to resist.

  9. At our FSSP chapel, the Sunday propers are chanted a cappella by the schola, while the ordinaries are chanted by the full choir with (my) organ accompaniment. I've urged our pastor (who also directs the choir) to dispense with the organ, but he pointed out (1) that the congregation needs all the encouragement it can get to join in with chanting the ordinaries, and (2) that the organ helps to compensate for the fact that our small chapel has virtually no resonance. Both good points. If we ever have the opportunity to move to a larger church with decent acoustics, however, I plan to renew my urgings!

Comments are closed.