We have wonderful music at our Oratory Church..
Jeffrey,
In regard to our recent exchange at the CMAA forum, the Elenore Stump piece and William Mahrt's able response to it exemplify what I consider to be a necessary and healthy process. It is to our benefit to engage respectfully with those who hold different opinions. Not only are we forced to better our arguments, sometimes we even change our minds. I'm always suspicious of journals that avoid the acknowledgement of dissent. (Note that neither Sacred Music or Pastoral Music print letters to the editor.) It was a great issue in my opinion.
actually randolph, pastoral music does print letters to the edfitor. I myself wrote one to them that was published back in 2000
Oh I agree completely Randolph. No one wants to read a journal that seems to exist within a imaginary universe of its own creation. I was really happy about the Stump piece -- even though the entire thing was prompted as an intense response to an article I wrote. I was disappointed that she didn't like my piece but really happy about the way she went about dealing with it.
For my own part, I am not aesthetically drawn to the STL music but I'm very curious about those who are. It is a serious matter today, because those who were raised on this music is the current leadership generation in the Church. Those of us who are supportive of Gradual-based ideals need to deal with this reality.
Jeffrey,
I own Aquinas by Eleonore Stump. I've read it. Well, not all of it, but parts of it. I also own several works by Zbigniew Preisner, and they bring me comfort and joy. But, I would never expect, nor be disappointed, that they aren't played at Mass.
There's a legitimate non-liturgical venue for that type of music, but the Magisterium mandates the music it does precisely to avoid both maudlin introspection (for we Preisner fans) or over sentimentality (for the SLJ fans).
don roy,
Though I don't read every issue of Pastoral Music, I haven't seen a letters-to-the-editor section in recent years. I just assumed there was a change in policy at the magazine. If someone has the inside scoop, please pass it on.
Though letters-to-the-editor are often the most entertaining and informative portion of a magazine, they do demand added editorial responsibility. Therefore cost,and not purposeful evasion, could be the reason why they are not prominent in some church music journals.
Yes, and part of the problem, too, is that many responses come in the form of emails that are just dashed off. You have to write people back and ask them to submit something more complete, and then follow up etc. etc.. It's a big job , and only worth doing if the letters really do make a contribution. Many publications have a staffer that deals with nothing but letters. Sacred Music, well...there is a staff of zero!
Ah, but this article on "Beauty" misses the whole point, bypasses what must be the center of the argument. The question isn't, "Is this beautiful? How does it make you feel?" The question rather is, "Does this sound like church?" "Church" has a very specific sound that has been passed down through the ages, either directly through the ancient chants, or by derivation through the music such as hymn tunes, motets, polyphony and the like that descend in a direct line from chant. If you don't "like" what "church" sounds like, that's not The Church's fault. It is neither here nor there what anyone likes. "Church" sounds like "church", just like it looks like "church", smells like "church", etc. It is my job as a choirmaster to make the sound world of my parish mass do just that, sound like church. Not to "move people" or whatever, though if that sound does just that, then great. But where is it written that we're supposed to be "moved" or "drawn to God" all the time? What an unrealistic expectation.
Clint..
I'm really not being sarcastic here, and I TOTALLY AGREE with your above comments, but... did you take your anti-schizophrenic medication today? Your response to this issue seems to be a complete 180 from your response to the article on Fr. Gy and Cardinal Ratzinger.. At this point I'm not sure I understand where you stand on the whole issue of liturgical practice. If the above comment expresses your view of the need for continuity in Sacred Music, then why such a strong objection to the need for continuity in such things as liturgical posture, vestments, etc...? You seemed to be strongly in th "progressive" camp in you reply to the Ratzinger article... in any case, I apologize for the critical remark I made about you and hope to hear more about your views on Sacred Music.
P.S- What exactly do you mean by sounding "churchy"... I think I know what you mean here, but a concrete description would help make your point clearer. Do you mean "in the tradition of Gregorian Chant and Polyphony" or merely "unlike popular and secular"?
So, where do I stand on all this? Don't do anything if there's not a really good reason to, that's where I stand. I just wrote two huge paragraphs explaining that position, but this ain't my blog, LOL so I'll push the delete button and make the two illustrations I had planned a little later.
Now, on to what I mean by "churchy". In a Catholic context, that means you ask yourself, is this something that is evocative of, or at least feels appropriate for everything that is awesome and great about the Roman Church? Does this music communicate that or compromise that aural "vision" in some way? Might it even enhance or enrich that vision? How much of "me" is in this choice? How much of "me" is appropriate? Gregorian chant of course can do that, but so can much of English hymnody, and polyphony of all eras, etc. Of course y'all know this isn't just about old vs. new. Some of the Romantic composers don't leave enough breathing room in their pieces, it can be all hot and heavy all the way through and that too, as lovely as it is in the concert hall, can overwhelm a mass real fast. Some modern composers, such as the great Arvo Part, strike just the right blend of current and timeless to add to The Song as well.
There's something sad about a Catholic parish where the Gregorian repertoire is totally forgotten. I may not do Gregorian every Sunday (yet! I would love to do at least a proper or two per Sunday when my choir finally feels up to it), but I try to at least do some very often, so that my parishioners hear it.
Don't think this is a Catholic problem either, its all over the place. Methodists who don't sing John and Charles Wesley hymns, Episcopal parishes that never hear the psalms sung to Anglican Chant (which is GREAT for English texts in a Catholic context too), Presbyterians and Congregationalists who don't make metrical psalms a weekly and fixed part of Sabbathday worship, its ridiculous. Whole hunks of valuable and enriching musical tradition are falling away all over the place, and no one cares enough to do anything about it. Neither do most have the people skills and personal charisma (read: charm) to make such preservations not seem Museum-Rite or worse, not seem like attacks on misguided but intense, and intensely personal, parishioner pieties.
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
