Pop music, even when the text is Christian in its intent, is transient in two fundamental ways.
First, the music itself comes and goes like fashion. This is what it is supposed to do. This is its character. Everyone in the pop world is interested in the new hit whereas hits from the past that last are relegated to the oldies status. Perhaps only a few make it more than a decade. Just think of any performance act that features music of the 1970s. There is a good chance that you could name 3 or 4 of the hits that would necessarily be included.
Second—and this is so obvious that it hardly needs to be pointed out but I will do it anyway—youth itself is transient. The young get old, new groups of young replace them, and so on. And people always grow up and look back and ask, “What was I thinking?”
This pattern has repeated since, oh, the beginning of time. But it is especially true in our time when no real responsibilities are expected of young people. They don’t have to provide for themselves. They have no meaningful work to do unless it is created for them. They sit at desks most of the day, hang out mostly with their peers, and are not responsible to adults in a way that is integral to their daily life activities.
So yes, many young people today might imagine that they occupy a sub-culture of their own, something self-sustaining and insulated from the rest of the world. That such impressions exist at all is living proof that adults in our world have not done their job to prepare young people for life. So it’s no wonder that we see so many post-college meltdowns among those who have never actually encountered an authentic adult world before and cannot navigate it or even understand it.
The question is whether this sub-culture has any relevance whatsoever for the important choices we make concerning music at liturgy. The answer, I believe, is that it does not.
Is Inculturation an Excuse for Pop Music at Mass?
Here is my new piece at CRISIS
And yet, popular music forms continue to fashion sacred music as it has through the centuries. That we are still having this conversation forty years after Ray Repp says something.
An obvious point you've missed, my friend, is that the Holy Spirit utilizes human expressions to stir faith. It's not so much that a particular composer or even a particular piece of music does this. But it has been a continual theme throughout the experience of Christendom.
Another obvious point is that there is no single "subculture." Even among young people.
Non-classical music styles will continue to be with us. Soli Deo Gloria.
Todd
It's really true. somehow the mix up between ritual music and just plain old music is probably ultimately responsible. And I would say that murky teachings and documents that can be interpreted many different ways are mainly to blame for this. It's not the musicians' fault.
Unfortunately I don't have the same access to the Holy Ghost that Todd has. Is there a correspondence course in "parish liturgy" that can provide this?
You can blame the documents and the wiggle room they offer. But you're agitating against a basic Christian instinct, a twofold approach of bringing the human to the divine, and bringing a measure of sanctification to the world. In a way, Jesus was the first offender, bringing divinity into the world, and cultivating an expectation that the means to salvation are really only the means–not the end.
As for JP's comment, it has nothing to do with supposed "access" to God. All I have to do is cite the continual examples, even in the late Renaissance. Don't believe me; just ask a scholar of music.
Todd
I don't know if you know about this, but the news got me pretty excited. Church music that had been hidden for for several centuries will be made available to the public:
http://kankakeelatinmass.altaredesign.com/2013/05…
Yes, the issue of the sacred vs the profane in the Church's liturgy has been ongoing through the centuries. This question was thoroughly thrashed out in 1749 by Pope Benedict XIV in his encyclical Annus qui hunc, which I've mentioned before.
Pope Benedict XIV was an exceedingly well-read scholar, and his erudition is evident in his numerous citations. After an extensive and fascinating discussion, he definitively concludes that music evocative of the theater, or, in other words, secular, entertainment-style music has no place in the Church's liturgy:
"There is certainly no one who does not desire a certain difference between ecclesiastical chant and theatrical melodies, and who does not acknowledge that the use of theatrical and profane chant must not be tolerated in churches."
This is a pretty emphatic statement, in fact, a categorical statement: Everyone wants ecclesiastical music to be clearly and recognizably different from the music which surrounds us (assaults us, is more like it!) on a daily basis.
Just one more thought: While it may be a basic Christian instinct to bring the human to the divine, as you suggest, it's also a basic instinct that makes us automatically separate the mundane and profane from the sacred. I don't think it's anything that has to be taught.
I'd be willing to bet a great deal on this experiment:
Play Palestrina's Sicut Cervus and Chris Tomlin's How Great is our God to a four-year old and ask him/her which one is "church" music and which one is "showtime" music.
I don't believe it's difficult at all for children and other honest brokers to tell the difference between music that is perfect for a party or a concert in the park under the stars vs. music that is appropriate for the house of God.
Two things …
I think it's good to resist the urge to separate. God is not harmed by the elevation of the mundane, as you term it. Really good music works in a variety of circumstances.
Your experiment isn't quite pure. Mr Tomlin and Maestro Palestrina and their respective ensembles do not play in your parish or mine. Church music is made locally. I prefer "Sicut Cervus," as I suspect you do. The difference between me and you and most of the Café regulars is not the music we like or favor. It's in what we are willing or eager to dislike. What does that say to you?
Todd
What if we treated all the elements of the Mass like the music? The priests' vestments are outdated- wear any appropriate clothing. This genuflecting thing is too formal. I can't believe that God is SO high-n-mighty that he expects us to revere HIM? How ' bout an air high-five… Let's update the language of the Scriptures to reflect local traditions. 'Jesus said the Apostles, "Peace be with you. They replied, " 'Sup, dude!"
Interesting conjecture here, julie, " Just one more thought: While it may be a basic Christian instinct to bring the human to the divine, as you suggest, it's also a basic instinct that makes us automatically separate the mundane and profane from the sacred. I don't think it's anything that has to be taught."
Without engaging in either literal, fundamental or allegorical scriptural issues, petroglpyhs (cave paintings and such archeological evidence) seem to suggest that your premise is faulty. That reality is perhaps why the folks at the premiere of "La Sacre du Printemps" had such a reaction.
I, like Todd, am on "your side." But centuries of artistic refinement, conditioning and contextualization have to be factored in for your hypothesis with a four year old deciding sacred/profrane. Ask the four year old to make the same distinction between the Tomlin P&W tune and "Jesus loves me, this I know…." Yeah, we have a tough gig.
You have a point, Charles, since much depends on that four-year old's experience and associations with "church." Somehow I tend to forget that if children go to church at all nowadays they probably only hear P&W music so that colors their perceptions significantly. (Shows how old I am that I automatically assume that church-going people of most faiths will be hearing standard type hymns and organ music!)
Like Pope Benedict XIV whom I quoted above, I just assumed that the universal expectation is that "church" music should be different than "secular music." You'd think that was just common sense and the normal human reaction but perhaps it isn't anymore, and that's very troubling.
Have we completely lost the sense that there are genres of music, art, and architecture that are "set apart" for the worship of God? Have we forgotten the concept of "consecration"–that the cult of the divine requires the absolute best from us—human compositions and actions that are specifically dedicated, hallowed, and sanctified for liturgical use?
You can't dodge the point by saying that some kids will have tastes in sacred music different from yours. Kids also have an innate sense of goodness by example. Even when they get to adolescence (and especially then) they will be confronted with adults who say the right things and do the wrong. and adults who struggle to put the optimal into practice, but are honest with others and treat them well. There are a few chant advocates in CMAA that would creep out the average four-year-old. It depends on who's askin'.
I also don't think we've had a long history of a separation of musical styles for worship, for prayer, and for secular purposes. I think there are Catholics who do experience and expect this. But I'm not sure you are in the majority. The bottom line is the cultivation of holiness in people through the experience of the liturgy. Not the sanctification of the means to that end.
Todd
" There are a few chant advocates in CMAA that would creep out the average four-year-old. It depends on who's askin'. "
Todd, outside of me, how would you really know that?
I been to plenty o' colloquia, no kid's ever freaked! Point o fact, little kids seem to like me, tho' one did have the innocent honesty to inform me that I'm "pudgy."
Indeed there had been a separation, for nearly 1000 years. It most likely goes back further, based on historical sources. Music notation was invented to preserve sacred music. Some the "best-of" secular music was preserved this way, too. I'll again cite the Council of Trent, at which some of the cardinals thought that too many secularisms were invading Church music…the idea of church sonatas vs. chamber sonatas in the 17th-18th century…
For me, the bottom line, if you will, is that we've blurred the line between sacred and secular, between formal and casual, these last 50 years.
"I'll again cite the Council of Trent, at which some of the cardinals thought that too many secularisms were invading Church music …"
Which proves my point. Clearly, enough musicians and lay people were pushing back against the absolute line between the sacred and secular.
Todd
Charles, I think you know I'm talking about the CMAA forum. I've stated that because of the attitudes I and others have encountered there that I would recommend my students go to Collegeville to learn chant rather than the Colloquium. And as I stated to Julie above, it's not that other people don't love and sing chant with as much devotion. It's that we withhold our "anti-devotion" from other musical forms. The via negativa, misunderstood and misapplied.
Todd
I dare say the idea of music specially dedicated to the worship of the Lord is rooted in the Bible itself:
Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord; (Eph 5:19)
Admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. (Coll 3:16)
How about this one from St. Thomas Aquinas:
Lauda Sion Salvatorem, lauda ducem et pastorem IN HYMNIS ET CANTICIS. (Corpus Christi Sequence)
Of course the line between sacred and profane gets blurred from time to time but the concept of human compositions being sanctified or hallowed for use in the liturgy probably goes back to the days of Genesis. How about the account of Cain and Abel? Some commentators suggest that Cain's sacrifice, one of the first liturgical acts, was rejected because he didn't offer his very best, something set apart and unblemished, like Abel who "brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering."
Just a thought.
No, I don't agree, Todd. First, it was a musician/ composer thing. The secularisms were the use of popular tunes (sometimes with rather profane lyrics) as cantus firmus (canti firmi? My Latin IS rusty…), the use of instruments that were also associated with popular styles, and the rather irreverent disposition of the singer, who would basically embellish the melodies so as to show off their own skills.
One result of this was that the Mass texts were obscured. The cardinals wanted a return to piety. Some advocated a return to chant only (remember, this was 500-odd years ago!). The suggestion was a plainer, a cappella style; Palestrina became the poster-boy for this movement.
The Church is human and divine. The human part "lets us down," as my parish priest recently said. We should strive to maintain the divine in all aspects of our Liturgy. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on all this.
"The bottom line is the cultivation of holiness in people through the experience of the liturgy." I like AND agree with that.
Of course I knew your perspective. But you have to admit that it's one thing to assess character from afar, especially in cyberspace, and from a personal encounter, over the phone, on a podcast debate like you had with JT, and of course live and in color at colloquium. To some degree, unless you have experienced both the St. John's event and the CMAA event, your recommendation is in the abstract, and lacking sufficient experiential information to determine your bias. There's nothing wrong with bias, unless its formed without sufficient reason.
To get things into perspective. Liturgical reformers tend to be puritanical; some bishops at the Council of Trent wanted all music banned, even Gregorian chant. Pius X was right in pushing for a return to the chant tradition, but OTT when it came to banning Haydn or Mozart. The late Masses of Haydn were written for liturgical use, as were the five splendid Masses of Hummel written for the Esterhazy court, and if you don't know them then it's not too late to learn, as they have excellent modern recordings.
The new puritans are a greater menace. They hide behind pious platitudes and pay lip service to Chant (an astonishing musical tradition in its own right, and without which western classical music could hardly exist) and other serious musical forms but have taken upon themselves to determine "what the people want" which is in their own estimation the music to which "the people" are the most exposed, which is of course the universal, commercially driven, 'pop' style.
To be clear, I'm not in favor of moving U2 or the Modern Jazz Quartet directly to worship. But I do advocate for the use of multiple genres as foundational music for worship. This is a good discussion to have, but I would prefer we have a little more clarity and a little less presumption heading into it. What I have read from Charles, and what I would expect from you, Julie, is an affirmation of where you see you and me on the same page with regard to an excellence of music at the liturgy. Once we have that, I think we can have a more constructive discussion.
Meanwhile, I'm just not seeing where our conflict lies outside of music we don't like or don't want. My preference is to build a repertoire, not delete it.
Todd
I decline to report ill-mannered behavior from the CMAA forum. I withdraw my charge, except to say that four-year-olds have good antennae for well-behaved adults. It's my stance they will favor music presented by "trusted" people, and that many children have a natural sense of good music. And let's leave it at that.
Todd
A broad caution when approaching people who seem more eager to tell you what other people are like.
There are psychological terms, accurate ones, for people who practice a degree of puritanicalism, but who are eager to apply the label to others who fit that bill less so.
I was singing chant, and nourishing a chant schola long before Jeffrey's foray into traditional music. I will point out again that JP's (and others) problem with me is that I am willing to trust the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the abilities and skills of parishioners who have other musical gifts to offer. Contemporary composers, too. The problem with me seems to be that I remain unwilling to marginalize music many of you don't like or don't deem appropriate. As long as we're honest and clear about that, I look forward to the next conversation.
Todd
I think John O is absolutely right. If you read the liturgical documents of the Church over time, you can readily see there's always been tension between the sacred and the profane; it's the Church's duty to periodically re-assess and scrutinize popular liturgical trends and get things back on track if need be.
Pope Benedict XIV in the seventeenth century was anxious to purge liturgical music of the "noise of the stage", and of "theatrical chant", "a kind of chant (that) has crept into the temple which is new, eccentric, broken up with a swing, and certainly far from religious. Artifice is sought for and the primary desire to pray and to sing is lost." Also "disorderly motets" which were described as "a mass of repeated syllables and confused voices, one could not recognize anything in that vulgar shouting. It was crude bellowing, rather than chant." (sounds like our choir rehearsals sometimes!)
The Pope's advice: "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 listen to it understand the words and be moved to devotion."
I suppose I've been pegged as someone who's not open to innovation and creativity and the voice of the Holy Spirit, and I'm sorry to hear that because it's not true.
I'll confess: what most troubles me about the LifeTeen/P&W genre is the attitude of "Here I am, Lord" (warts and all). Here I am Lord, with my guitar and my jeans and the same music I played last night at my friend's beach party—the attitude that these musicians and their novelty music must be automatically revered and respected by all, regardless of the fact that it is totally contrary to the spirit and structure of centuries of Catholic liturgical music. In other words we must automatically embrace everything these folks do because they are "young people."
Let me tell you, I encounter that same entitlement mindset with my own teens who roll out of bed on Sunday morning and expect me to be ecstatic that they are up and moving and going to church whereas I insist that put on their "Sunday best" both in dress and demeanor.
Todd, much of my frustration (and I'd guess that of many others here) is not so much the inclusion of folk, etc., music at the liturgy, but rather the marginalization or deletion (both terms you've used above) of chant and polyphony.
Absolutely good points. Let's go out for a wee dram now.
Yes, Mark, (and we've beaten both sides of the horse, conformity to modernity, a gazillion posts' worth), but the lesson that has never been clarified, by Trent, by Pius X, by VII and to some extent B16, is a nominal problem as welll as an ecclesial problem. If Trent proved anything, you cannot force compromise, coherence and continuity through edict and dictum. Were the cardinals then upset with Ockeghem's parodies, the bad practice and behavior of the scholas singing the parodies, unintellgibility, accretioned texts, wink wink melodies? What's the French cliche for "the more things change…." ((Rhetorical)
Okay, now with the world as village, the wind changes are noticed instantaneously, so the humility of chant's beauty is on display 24/7, as is the universe of polyphonic harmonies. But, unless and until the magisterium has the ganas to convince or coerce all brother bishops to get behind some specific (arggh) hermeunetic, chant, polyphony, sacropop, folk, indigenous, enculturated, praise and worship, hymns, et al will remain indistinct terms, which will be appropriated to marginalize their use for somebody who, as Todd rightly affirms, can render specific piecess from those styles with precision and authenticity that will suit and adorn the liturgy properly. YMMV
Inculturation is another one of those words that are almost meaningless because its sense is left to the subjectivity of the one using the word. This word and words such as "active participation", or "pastoral" sound good and impressive until you start applying them in a practical way to the real world, only to realise there is has been no objective foundation laid. I suppose this is where Pathos comes in as the above discussion shows.
The issue is about sacred music in the liturgy, for it is in the liturgy that heaven meets earth. The profane, the godless pop music style has no interest in the holy, which is a setting apart from the world by definition.
The Holy Spirit can certainly work through pop stuff anywhere, as He can work through any experience in one's life. He can even work on one sitting in a living room listening to pop. But the liturgy is special: it is a setting apart from the world of the community; it is meant to be holy, set apart for God.
Amen!
Excellent summation Ted. Secular progressivism has swallowed the world and civilization lives in its belly. Its mark is the leveling of everything–we are all equal and that includes God in this philosophy. You can hear it in the modern music which (even when the lyrics are technically doctrinally sound) reduces the Almighty to our buddy. Over at the Crisis site, someone barfed up the platitude, "Don't put God in a box!" But I cannot think of anything that puts God in a box more than reducing him to a jolly Santa Claus who doesn't even keep a naughty list. "Don't put God in box!" really means, "Put God in a discount bin at Wal-Mart with a hundred other tchotchkes."
Why couldn't God be found in a discount bin at Wal-Mart? Doesn't the incarnation indicate that he can show up in the most unexpected places, in the most unexpected ways. Don't put God in a box really means be prepared to encounter God at Wal-Mart, on a contentious blog, or in the person of someone you just don't like very much.
Why couldn't God be found in a discount bin at Wal-Mart?
I didn't say that or even imply that. It is one thing to propose God can be encountered in unexpected places, which I don't dispute; quite another to make liturgy trivial, mundane, cheap, and unserious which is what most attempts to make the liturgy "relevant" end up doing. Read Ted's last sentence: "The Holy Spirit can certainly work through pop stuff anywhere, as He can work through any experience in one's life. He can even work on one sitting in a living room listening to pop. But the liturgy is special: it is a setting apart from the world of the community; it is meant to be holy, set apart for God."
Part of the problem with the pop style (when used in the liturgy) is that it is performance – based, and is not easy for congregations to take part in.
I think this is the problem with plainsong and polyphony also.
However, Peter Gabriel's 'Don't give give up' is very gregorian in character.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiCRZLr9oRw
Also Yes' 'Awaken' is very similar to Herbert Howells.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98-iBpbEbNk
(Sorry, forgot the link).
What about Bob Chilcott's version of classic 60's pop hit 'Good vibrations'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrEWa5P2qPo
Anyone remenber Slik's version of 'Orbis factor'?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMUN4E7lXPc
Jeff, would you have the Church offer God the very best, or something trivial? The Church has talent and treasure at Her disposal, ultimately gifts from God. I say offer the Almighty something special, something created just for His Praise in His House. Not something you may hear in a TV commercial, etc.
Catholics like to forget that we are CATHOLIC, not just a corner, community "Christian" church, where I'm OK, and you're OK, no one's OK, but that's OK… Ignoring our history, and refusing to do our best to offer appropriate, well-done music (especially when it exists and is very easy to obtain) is tantamount to organizational suicide on the installment plan.
I fear you're locked into the "all must sing everything" model, John. Chants for the Ordinary of the Mass, from responses to the Gloria and Credo, are easy for congregations to learn – more so than much contemporary music written with communal performance in mind. Other chants are proper to the Cantor or Schola, fulfilling their liturgical function. This division of labour is in keeping with the vision and assumptions of the recent Council:
"In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy." [SC 28]