Gather Us In...and Out the Back Door!

I haven't been to church in more than a decade and I have no plans to return. So I truly have no stake in what kind of music is played there. It could be hip-hop klezmer for all I care.

But when I used to go to church, I liked the folky music. Classical composers are wonderful, but why the hate for the acoustic guitar?

Timbo, I'm with you.

There is something inherently more spiritual about blowing wind off the top of pipes than plucking strings across a soundboard? And if so, where does that leave the harp and the piano?

Don't look for this crowd to make sense. They want to take the Church back to a (mostly imaginary) state of bliss circa 1950. Inconveniently for that point of view, those of us who were actually there in 1950 testify that everything was not marvelous then. However, we're old now (and hence unreliable) and better yet, we'll be gone soon, so the younger people will be able to indulge their fantasies without limit.

Come on, Susan, do you really think Andrew Sullivan wants to take the Church back to the 1950s? I learned about this from his site, where he cited it approvingly. It's about aesthetics. The Episcopal Church is way liberal, but still has better aesthetic taste than latter-day American Catholicism. Aesthetics won't save your soul, but they are important.

Oh, whatever. This is just more traditionalist fetishizing of the past. Get a blog-life.

I'm going to celebrate this news by listening to some Faure later.

Susan and Timbo, I think you misunderstand. I've nothing against the guitar as an instrument, and I'm sure others who share my musical tastes would agree that it can be used to create lovely music. Unfortunately, the use of badly tuned guitars to highlight the schlocky, ill-written, lyrically infantile compositions of the latter half of the twentieth century's liturgical music, many of which seem to have been written by people who thought that a Rogers and Hammerstein musical represented the highest pinnacle of human musical achievement and attempted to imitate this style in their own compositions, sadly falling just short of utter failure to do so, has given me, and people like me, a bit of a distaste for guitar music at Mass.

Liturgical music is supposed to be about worshiping God, not endlessly celebrating Us In Our Specialness. I'm so thankful that Pope Benedict XVI not only understands this, but intends to make a return to the true notion of sacred music a priority in his papacy.

"There's nothing "relevant" about schlocky religious music that's sounds like it was written by Simon & Garfunkel. On a bad day."

Sure there is. Just not to you. I'd argue there's nothing relevant about Faure, even though I find it beautiful. I'd argue there's nothing relevant about chanting, even thought I find it spiritual. Of course, I already attend mass. The question is what is relevant to the unchurched, not the crumudgeons alread in the pews.

Erin, you hit the nail on the head.

I celebrated first with C. V. Stanford's wonderful Te Deum in B flat, and I now have Haydn's grinning Te Deum, which has some almost jazz-like rhythms, going.

"The question is what is relevant to the unchurched, not the crumudgeons alread in the pews."

Not in the least, Daniel. Once again, liturgical music is about worship, not evangelization. It is neither necessary nor desirable to alter the Church's liturgy to pander to those who don't ordinarily go to church.

i liturgical music is about worship, not evangelization."

I'd argue it is about both. If you don't evangelize during worship, then you are chanting alone.

"It is neither necessary nor desirable to alter the Church's liturgy to pander to those who don't ordinarily go to church."

Works for those relevant Pentecostals. Seems to work in the Evangelcials mega churches. We shifted to singing songs in English to attract more people. Hymnody has always been about the music of the people, not the elites.

I agree, Erin. The important thing about liturgy is that it's something you enter into, rather than something trying desperately to get your attention. As Catholics, we reach out to the unchurched, not in the liturgy, but in the traditional method that has been perfected over centuries -- arguing over drinks.

Check the Dominican constitutions, it's all right there.

No Daniel, you are wrong. The liturgy is for the Church. That's why the Catechumens were dismissed in the early Church before the Eucharist because they had not yet been fully initiated into the mysteries.

I am a Catholic, not a Pentecostal or Evangelical and the historic liturgy is my spiritual lifeblood.

But I really love "On Eagle's Wings" and "Be Not Afraid". :-)

Many of these songs are actually based on Psalms (!), so I'm not sure whether the schlocky lyrics criticism is appropriately, unless one feels that way about the source material as well. :-)

On a more serious note, Erin says something that I have to rebut: "It is neither necessary nor desirable to alter the Church's liturgy to pander to those who don't ordinarily go to church."

My understanding of the Church's history may be flawed, but I was taught that certain feast days and saints days were thoughtfully selected to symbolically "align" with festivals of the religions that Christianity was supplanting (eg. Christmas and the winter solstice). I don't feel that, if this is true, it de-legitimizes Christianity at all. I see it rather as proof that the Fathers of the Church were good leaders and creative in finding ways to assimilate more people into the faith.

If we can accept that the Fathers of the Church found it suitable to employ this creativity around feast days, is it really that terrible for the Church to continue making attempts (admittedly some maybe more successful than others) to use the creativity of the faithful and its leadership in finding new ways to reach people?

In different ways, maybe, and certainly different levels of artistry, but is it really that much harder to find God in "Kumbaya"? This comes, btw, from a music lover who truly believes that the connection between God and man was working pretty transparently when Handel wrote the music for "Messiah".

As a proudly "unchurched" person, I don't care what you're listening to in on Sunday. But an outsider's perspective might be helpful.

I agree that you don't want to pander to the lowest common musical denominator.

But, Erin and others, I won't subscribe to the idea that seems to hide behind your posts: that the best music ever written was written 300 years ago; that the human race will never match that accomplishment nor produce anything of even remotely comparable aesthetic value; that we must sing the same songs in the same way forever and ever. With respect, what a depressing view.

And yet, very fitting for this crowd -- the past is to be revered and reclaimed; the present and the future are degraded and aesthetically barren.

Also, this is elitism pure and simple. The music of classical composers enjoys its status today not necessarily on aesthetic grounds, but because its the music of wealthy elites. They run most cultural institutions, so they're able to promote their preferred music and establish it as "good." But I'd rather hear music that was intended to be accessible and personal, even it it occasionally veers into folky treacle.

I've got a soft spot in my heart for the kind of folky, acoustic guitar church music of my youth. Perhaps it's just nostalgia. Or maybe it's because the woman who played guitar in my church was really hot.

But, Erin and others, I won't subscribe to the idea that seems to hide behind your posts: that the best music ever written was written 300 years ago; that the human race will never match that accomplishment nor produce anything of even remotely comparable aesthetic value; that we must sing the same songs in the same way forever and ever. With respect, what a depressing view.

Agreed. Good thing that isn't what we're arguing. Rather, the point is, there's a received tradition of faith and practice. That tradition is to be "held fast" to. Something either is in continuity with that tradition or it is not (see what the current pope has to say about the "hermeneutic of continuity" vs. "hermeneutic of rupture"). Something doesn't have to be written 300 years ago to fit in with that tradition, and something doesn't have to be written today in order to be absolutely unfitting.

There's lots going on here; we don't train church singers the way we used to, we don't train composers the way we used to, we don't EMPLOY singers and composers the way we used to, we don't build churches (or buildings in general) using the same acoustic standards we used to, and the thing is, we don't have to, thanks to the handy-dandy microphone. If congregational singing is the point, then that boat has been thoroughly missed--Thomas Day, in _Why Catholics Can't Sing_, suggests that nothing is less conducive to congregational singing than amplification; the voice of the cantor will always be above everybody else's, telling them they need to listen rather than sing. Thus, ironically, in a time of unprecedented literacy, we probably have fewer people around right now who can read a Liber Usualis and know what they're doing than ever before (assuming they can even find a Liber).

Richard

Or, in other words, what Richard Barrett said. :)

What's so funny about the "elitist" canard is where the pressure for this awful music comes from. Find the poorest, most illiterate and stinky person in the parish and that will not be the person agitating to hear about awakening from a slumber and building a city of God. Instead it will be a wealthy suburban Boomer who has for some reason identified schlock as the people's music.

For them it's some sort of political thing. Singing bad music is their last chance to stick it to the man, I guess. Which is odd, since they are the man.

I have no opinion on the choice of music for worship services, but I do think this particular blog entry is unfortunately titled.

Richard, Assistant Village Idiot had a good post yesterday that touches on some of your points. An excerpt:

"We are quite spoiled, all of us in America, in what we expect when we come into church. A small congregation like mine will not sing powerfully and well – by the world’s standards – even if we were devote hours a week to musical training and rehearsal. Yet our ears expect that power and that quality. Few churches, even large ones with well-trained choirs, eschew all amplification. We are concert-trained, and headphone-trained. It gives us the impression, whether we like it or no, that our singing is a poor and weak thing unless we have a great many of us together or electronic amplification. To unconsciously conclude that we are spiritually weak and ineffective hardly seems a stretch.

Singing in worship is now different from nearly all other singing. A hundred years ago, the singing one did at home, church, and school, or at festivals, pubs, and parties was not that different a musical experience, though the choice of music would be different in each. Worship singing did not stand out as qualitatively different. It was just singing. Piano volume and familiarity of the songs covered a lot of ills in all those situations, and there was an important result: people participated much less self-consciously than now. The energetic and pentecostal-style churches hold up a higher level of participation and flat-out gusto, but even with those, cut the power to the amplification sometime and see how suddenly reserved and uncomfortable everyone is.

We have become dependent on quality, amplification, and niche style. We didn’t have to – we have the same genes and the same scriptures as our ancestors – but it is easy to see what a natural result this is. We stood on ladders and now even tall people look like midgets."

No, indeed, we did not have to, and we still don't. Sometimes when I was a kid, my mother would play the piano, and she and I would sing hymns at home just for fun. The whole family would go sing Christmas carols up and down the block on a night a few days before Christmas. (Does anybody do that anymore?) At church, it never occurred to me to do anything other than sing the hymns and canticles with gusto.

Happily, my parish has no amplification of the music, a very good Moeller organ with a brilliant young organist, a talented (if small) choir that knows the traditional Anglican canon cold, and a congregation that likes to sing. No praise band, no cantor, no amplification -- no problem.

SVS,

It's interesting the gloss that Karl Rahner put on those passages in his VII commentary.

Basically he interpreted those passages as saying that old music should be preserved, but NOT in the new liturgy (which requires an entirely new music), that choirs should ONLY be in cathedrals, and so on. (I get that from Why Catholics Can't Sing, by the way)

This spirit was continued in the US church document Music in Catholic Worship, which says that "the musical settings of the past are usually not helpful models for composing truly liturgical pieces today."

If you're wondering where the disconnect between VII and its full implementation began, you can start there.

Erin, you should start your own blog (or maybe you already have one and I just don't know about it).

I'd second everything Erin and Richard have written, and I'd like to ask (in the spirit of a beer and pizza style comment and in a generous spirit of friendliness): can't we agree, at the very least, that the music in most hymnals in Catholic churches today really sucks? If nothing else? I mean, c'mon. :) Forget theology, forget churchiness, forget solemnity, forget liturgy, forget the order of service. Can't we just admit that so many of these hymns are just lame lame lame? That it's not about preferring Bach or whomever else or Gregorian Chant? Can't we just admit that, if anything is objective in this crazy world of ours, that this stuff is objectively lame? I mean, really? Who likes On Eagle's Wings?

Tis a Gift?

Really?

Really?

Eating another bite of pizza...now.

"I hate these Catholic progressive vs. Catholic trad/conservative arguments, because if you're not on one side, you're assumed to be on the other. There are a lot of, dare I say it, un-Christian assumptions about fellow Catholics in this thread so far."

One assumption is that this thread is about progressive vs. trad.

It's about that lame (_!_) music that sux! Heck-far, gimme Barry Manilow singing Mandy if you must, but for the love of all that's good, get RID of that shinola that gets spewed forth that someone insists is music.

The problem isn't guitars or contemporary music. There's nothing wrong with contemporary Christian music per se. I mean, I even like some of it. Even some of the stuff in the Gather hymnal. But a lot of it is crap, just crap. It's just so gawdawful. "Gather Us In" just makes me want to hurl!!! "City of God" likewise. But some of the modern psalm music is quite good, in my opinion. "Eagles Wings" is at least based on Psalm 91 and isn't all that bad.

There's also old fashioned church music which is schlocky, too. I mean, really, "Mary we crown thee with blossoms today" that's pretty schlocky too.

Pretty much I find if one avoids Haugen and Haas, one will avoid 90% of the crappy modern church music that is out there.

She was a Protestant charismatic, and her parish is largely Hispanic, which (around here at least) generally means heavily influenced by the charismatic movement. So there's lots of hand-holding, arm-lifting, etc.: things that drive me nuts, too, but which she's used to and which are usual in her parish. It doesn't make her a tradition-hater, or in any way place her on one "side" of the endless internecine Catholic squabbles: but people feel free to assume it does.

Frankly I don't mind if someone else wants to hold hands with a willing pewmate, or lift up their arms, or whatever--though I did resent being instructed by a priest once that we *must* all hold hands with out neighbors, and when I didn't, the guy next to me refused my hand at the Sign of Peace.

Why do you hate it, if nobody's forcing you? Haven't you noticed that there are people on this thread prepared to hate fellow Catholics as a crowd of tradition fetishizers bamboozled by an imaginary past, just because they strongly dislike most of the contemporary hymnody they encounter at Mass? Doesn't your reaction to her preference for holding hands in a parish that does that seem a little overly intense?

I suppose if the churches were to replace the contemporary songs with really beautiful and well-executed Gregorian chant or Bach chorales, I might be a little more excited about this. However, given the resources most parishes have these days, I'm not sure that replacing off-key singing out of the contemporary hymnal with off-key singing from the traditional hymnal is any big news. At least some of the contemporary songs are kind of catchy.

Actually, American parishes have it good, all considering. When I was in South Asia, the hymns there in the Catholic churches tended to be tuneless dirges that seemed like they had been left over from the Victorian era of the British Raj, only now with keyboard accompaniment. And that's not mentioning the Christmas service I went to where the order of the mass was sung to the tune of well-known Christmas carols. You do *not* sing "Kyrie Eleison" to the tune of "O come all ye faithful." No no no.

"But, Erin and others, I won't subscribe to the idea that seems to hide behind your posts: that the best music ever written was written 300 years ago; that the human race will never match that accomplishment nor produce anything of even remotely comparable aesthetic value". Timbo

You don't subscribe to it, but it's nonetheless true. BTW, "Gregorian chant was organized, codified, and notated mainly in the Frankish lands of western and central Europe during the 9th and 10th centuries, with later additions and redactions, but the texts and many of the melodies have antecedents going back several centuries earlier." Wikipedia.

The human race, Timbo, will never match that accomplishment. That's because Gregorian chant's inestimable aesthetic value is surpassed by the value of its function--to facilitate prayer and meditation. You will never again see its equal in Mass accompaniment.

That said, I'll bet Erin and others of our ilk will join me in my opinion that Silent Night, played professionally and softly on an acoustic guitar after Communion at Christmas Eve Mass, is hard to beat.

Hello! I am working musician (played on the Vegas Strip, in NYC; did background strings for CDs; and recently returned from an EU/UK tour, also doing background strings for a pop musician). During my doctorate (which is in classical performance) I played accompaniment to the "Catholic crap music" y'all are bashing, each week at Mass for the 3 years I was at school.

In my humble opinion, you guys are pretty harsh! It's not just Te Deum vs Tedium! Those contemporary-type songs can sound pretty good, if the people performing know what they're doing. Our church pianist was *awesome* and I truly believe we did justice to what you consider "crap," and made it worship.

The church I wish I could love (awesome homilies) exhibits what turns the contemporary stuff into a slovenly mess. Everything that Erin criticized in her post was true! Instead of mocking them, though, I tried to deconstruct the situation.

This "easy listening" 70s type of music (from before I was even born) is notoriously difficult to translate to a congregational format. There is no "hook" for people to latch on to.

I mean, you need to have a simple and catchy melody (in an amenable "open" key) using basic chords and an unstoppable rhythm. The contemporary stuff is more "free" in regards to rhythm and uses keys that are not idiomatic. That makes it hard to follow and harder to pick up the melody. (And using a guitar to lead doesn't help tighten up the rhythm and pitch of a large ensemble.) "Easy listening" actually makes for difficult perfomance.

So the poor congregation is behind the 8-ball. Plus, no prior rehearsal, no choice in the songs, stuck with some guy with an out-of-tune guitar, singing easy-listening from 70s. No wonder they're torked off!

Palestrina, Lassus, Byrd, Tallis = complete awesomenesss. But in those days, there were totally different parameters. They had the highest-trained singers and musicians at their disposal, plus lots of rehearsal. That was their JOB! (And the congregation did not sing along, at least from what I remember in Ren. Music History ;) ) That's a luxurious perspective, compared to today's composers.

So, I don't think Haugen & Co. are anti-Papists thinking, Hmm, how can we write crap songs that will destroy the Mass and make people hate on us? They were from a different generation (the one that dug Barry Manilow), trying to cross-over to a genre that just isn't a good match for a congregation.

Thanks for considering my perspective,
Violachick

Boy, is this a fun thread.

Let me just throw in this: it's not a traditional vs. progressive thing. That's basically over Catholic teachings on sex. This is about the Eucharist, not Holy Orders or Marriage.

Which is why you find Andrew Sullivan on Benedict XVI's side on music, and plenty of Charismatic Catholics on the side of guitars and tambourines.

MJ - Dylan?! Would that we were singing Dylan instead of that Glory and Praise drivel. A few verses of "Gather Us In" makes me need to run home and listen to "Idiot Wind"

Amen, brother.

Erin's expressed very well that there's something in Bach (and in Handel, as another example), where one can almost intuit where the music is going to go even as one is in wonder at where one is being transported. Nicely said, Erin.

That said, I cannot agree completely on the lack of merit in modern music. Richard Strauss' 4 Last Songs, Wagner's Prelude to the 3rd act of "Tristan und Isolde" -- this is rapturous music that challenges the ear in a way the Baroque does not, but it takes me to thrilling strange places my own ear would never have found itself. I do a lot of my best meditation to the 4th of the 4 Last Songs. Suggest music lovers not familiar with that work check it out, particularly the Jessye Norman recording if you can find it.

My final thought on this topic: there is a lot of bitterness and sneering being expressed toward these hymns, beyond just a mere statement of dislike. Hope these resentments don't carry over to the people that like the music you hate so much, and hope they will be lifted from you and don't follow you to church on Sundays. Peace.

Inconveniently for that point of view, those of us who were actually there in 1950 testify that everything was not marvelous then. However, we're old now (and hence unreliable) and better yet, we'll be gone soon, so the younger people will be able to indulge their fantasies without limit.

Gee, Susan, I guess my parents and many of their friends and contemporaries of my acquaintance must all be figments of my imagination then, because they were all there in 1950 and would go back in a heartbeat.

Seeing people invoke the aesthetics of the Episcopal Church in this discussion made me laugh. I grew up Episcopalian, and one of the things I could count on every Sunday was my father turning to me in the pew to express his opinion that the hymn we had just sung was 'the tune the old cow died to.' As he grew deafer this comment grew louder, and became a source of amusement to those around us.

I never liked having my worship disturbed by it, though, and when I read the bit in Screwtape Letters about the old woman who doesn't think she is a glutton because all she wants is a *well-made* cup of tea and a teensy bit of *really crisp* toast, I immediately connected the two. I make it a spiritual discipline to not let my own preferences about worship style interfere with what I am there to do. (Not that this makes me an easygoing congregant - I make up for it in letting my personal theology get in the way). I've been in churches that hugged, danced, held hands, made arcane ritual or non-ritual gestures at unexpected moments, anointed one another with oil, passed around lighted candles, and sang everything under the sun, and had good worship experiences in all of them; it is actually enjoyable to stop thinking about what I like and why I like it, and just react to what's going on around me.

As for 'Gather Us In,' I heard it for the first time at a nun's funeral this summer and thought it was great. But any time I get to sing with the School Sisters in their chapel, it is a treat - they are such good singers, and the acoustics are tremendous.

I'm with Pat Browne. Chill out, people. Ya'll are just too fussy. If a piece of music is garbage like you say, it won't last. Every age has had more than its share of the inane, the overly trendy, and the fluffy, and somehow we've survived. I will admit to a personal antipathy to "Gather Us In," but it only lasts a few minutes, and then we go on. It's hard for me to imagine that there aren't a lot of opportunities for worship being missed what with all this critiquing going on. But then, I'm just a low Protestant preacher, and probably just don't get what all the kerfluffle is about. But, then again, I can't for the life of me imagine why I would want to. Give me my
aesthetically suspect but utterly sincere community of faith over the sort of liturgical constipation on evidence on this thread any day (especially Sunday!) of the week

Hey Erin--

I really liked what you expressed so beautifully about Bach! The word I think you are looking for, to describe the order and "knowingness" in his music is "form" (or "structure.") Bach was such a genius at this!

If you take apart and analyze any of Bach's works, they are perfectly proportioned --like a great work of architechture or the Fibonacci Sequence-- yet adhering to all the "rules" of harmony, voice-leading, structure, and form.

Musical form is analogous to writing. There are "rules" to follow; grammar, punctuation, organization, etc. Some people obey this rules, but their writing is still as dry as dust. Some people throw the rules out. Sometimes it works (e.e. cummings, James Joyce), sometimes it doesn't. (It sounds like that piece your choir is working on is the musical equivalent of this!)

Bach was so cool because he obeyed the rules *and* it was so amazingly beautiful. He was the perfection of form and substance. Interestingly, during his life he wasn't any kind of a rock-star virtuoso or even recognized for his genius, but rather, he was a humble Lutheran organist who gave all the glory to God. Maybe that's why his music speaks to us. Anyway, good luck tomorrow! :)

Hi Scott in PA--

You are so right: People today are much more literate and educated than folks in the Renaissance. But singing is much less a part of today's culture than back then, I think.

I see a lot of CD-listening, music-sharing, and i-Podding, but I don't see much DIY today. My dad told me that people used to gather around a piano and sing for entertainment, but I don't see many families doing this today. It was part of the culture and that kept people's skills up to task. It would be awesome if that changed and choirs instigated a Renaissance revival. :)

Sorry for prolonging the thread. I promise I'm done!
Violachick

Hey, Violachick.

JS Bach did not so much obey the rules as write the music that we derived the rules from. In composition we learn rules so that we know when and why we want to break them.

Also, education per se has little to do with this -- it's PRACTICE and experience that is more significant. Eleventh century peasants probably sang together MUCH more often than we educated of the twenty-first. As you say, it was more integral to the culture.

Violachick, thanks! That explains exactly what I was "feeling" from a completely untrained perspective.

I love your writing analogy, too! A sister of mine likes to say that you can't have eloquence without grammar--meaning, of course, that while it's not impossible to throw aside the rules like Joyce or cummings you have to learn the rules in order to abandon them for emphasis or effect. Some modern liturgical composers seem to have learned the rules and thus to know when to suspend them, creating pieces that really are lovely; but far too many of them seem to have rejected the rules as unnecessary from the outset, the way that certain church architects rejected not merely the forms but also the principles of church architecture because their underlying vision of what "Church" is has little to nothing in common with the vision of the past.

This does matter. If your vision of "Church" is a place where the highest elements of art and architecture blend in a space where the principle function is the worship of God, you are going to end up with soaring lines, majestic structure, and an orientation of the congregation toward the high altar where worship becomes sacrifice on behalf of all present. But if your vision of "Church" is as a gathering space where the assembly is as much a part of the focus as the altar "table" the "presider's" chair, the lectern, etc. you're going to get a church where the congregation is split into thirds or fourths, looking at each other and at the geometric lines of the unadorned walls as often as they look toward the altar of sacrifice--especially when that altar resembles a rather nice coffee table, just a bit too tall for the purpose of serving coffee.

In the first church, true sacred music will be as soaring, majestic, and focused on the worship of God as the architecture is. In the second church, the music becomes another way for the congregation to focus on each other and on themselves, to sing about their "journey" or their "community" or some other self-focused theme, set to tunes appropriate for a bank lobby or coffee shop, both of which are faintly echoed in the architecture.

This isn't about elitism or snobbery or preferring things that are old just because they are old. This is about vision; and unfortunately the vision of what "Church" is has been sadly impoverished in the Roman Catholic Church over the last half-century or so.

It's true that Christian liturgical history provides a rich set of traditions, with many interesting origins.

Such as Justin Martyr's famous description of the liturgy, written sometime before his death in 164 A.D., the Apostolic Constitutions, the earliest know use of Latin rather than Greek in the Mass (just before 200 A.D., if I recall correctly), the Antiochene liturgy (some of which reaches back to before 400 A.D.), and the pre-Tridentine Western form of the Mass, for instance.

Interestingly, all of these early forms appear to have distinguished between the clergy and the laity, including Justin Martyr's mention that deacons distributed the Eucharist to the people (who were clearly not reclining around the "table" helping themselves, so to speak). Even though the very earliest liturgies may be lost in time, the Church's clear traditions, building on what has gone before, have not in any way changed the essential sacrificial character of the Mass, nor the sacred and mystical understanding of the Eucharist. It is unfortunate that so many have seized upon what little is known about the early days of the Church in an attempt to sever the liturgy from its ancient and venerable roots, of which the Cathedral is a clearer and more accurate representation than the coffee-house.

Re: matters of taste--I recall having seen a letter from someone who found Gustav Holst's "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" "spooky" and didn't like it for that reason.

Chuck, no straw man was intended. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, though, there is very little primary source evidence that describes in much detail the very earliest liturgies. We can extrapolate certain things from Scripture, particularly various passages in the epistles, but beyond that there's precious little actually written about the liturgy prior to Justin Martyr's famous description. A handful of scant references from documents of dubious antiquity or authorship isn't sufficient to make sweeping claims about what an early liturgy was like.

So when you say, "So early christians did face each other, they were active doers of the liturgy together with their ministers and christian altars began as tables -- not as sacrificial stones." I have to wonder what your source for this claim is, since what little we know of liturgies from some one to three hundred years after the Resurrection would seem to contradict such a claim, as would the slow organic development of the liturgy over centuries which never seems to have made an abrupt or radical departure from the liturgical tradition of the past (recent events excepted).

Just to be clear, I didn't actually say that many people are making the claim that a coffee-house represents a clearer link with tradition than a Cathedral; just that rather a lot of people in the recent past seemed to have been rather imaginative in coming up with what they think early liturgies must have been like, and then using this creative imagination to jettison whatever aspects of liturgical tradition they didn't particularly appreciate. The end result has been Vosko-esque coffee-house-druidic-temple-bank-lobby (etc.) churches with nothing particularly Catholic about them, and music whose very formlessness echoes the formless emptiness of the spaces.

Lest you think I'm merely engaging in creative imagination of my own, here is a quote from Richard Vosko's website. I apologize for the length but as linking to things is still an issue this is my only option:

"Philosophy"

"Where we worship shapes our prayer and how we pray shapes the way in which we live. Using metaphorical equations to design the worship arena my hope in any project is that the congregation will be transfigured by the very space it is helping to create or transform. I believe that places for worship become sacred when the celebrations of life-cycle events occur there. In this sense the building is designed primarily to house the assembly and its worship of God. It is not an object of devotion by itself nor is it a temple to honor the deity. The fundamental blueprint for the building is found in the memories and hopes of the community. This is why participation of the congregation in the building or renovation journey is extremely important."

"The time honored ingredients of a worthy place for worship include stories of faith, pilgrimage pathways, transforming thresholds, intimate settings for personal prayer, art work that prompts works of justice and seating plans that engage the community in the public rituals. To evoke a sense of the sacred the building must be designed with attention to detail, scale, proportion, materials, color, illumination and acoustics. All art and furnishings must be of the highest caliber afforded by the community. Sensitivity to ecological and economical factors cannot be overlooked."

"Memory and imagination are the main tools in any worship space project."

Given that Richard Vosko's influence in contemporary Catholic church design has been very, very strong, it's discouraging to notice how greatly his stated philosophy differs from the whole idea of sacred architecture as it existed in the past. It would take me a long time to go through and deconstruct the ideas in this lengthy quote and show point by point how they are different from principles of Catholic architecture, but at the very least I can note once again that the whole focus is on the gathered assembly and its acts of worship; God (or, as Vosko puts it, "the deity") is almost an afterthought.

Once again I return from parts unknown and unwired to find history repeating itself in my absence. My first reaction is, wow, what a bunch of sourpusses. Okay, to revise that flip comment just slightly--I do appreciate ChuckDFW's comments, and in fact, the comments of all who have posted to talk about what they love and enjoy. But, for some of the rest of you, jeez--music is supposed to be FUN. Yes! People started making music because they enjoyed it! It made them happy, it relieved their feelings of grief, it helped them remember great stories and enabled them to make fun of those who had wronged them. It's one of the stupefying achievements of the Church that it has turned music into a dutiful doctrinal statement to be warred over in theoretical terms by dogmatic curmudgeons of all stripes. Bah, I say. If y'all (on any side of this question) are so smart, quit argufying and write something people want to listen to! Go on, I dare ya! If all you can do is lecture me about what I OUGHT to like, I shall stick my fingers in my ears to avoid hearing the giant sucking sound of some diabolical principles sucking all the fun out of the known universe.

Margaret,

Just a shout-out for "Christ, We Do All Adore Thee" in DuBois' Seven Last Words. Is that not perfect simplicity? We used to sing it as the last piece in the three-hour Good Friday service. At Erin says so well, church music should always say, "look at Him" -- and the DuBois does that in a compelling way.

Also, there's SO MUCH great music from prior periods that I hope will be rediscovered as part of where B XVI sees the Catholic church going. I'm listening right now to Vorisek's Mass in B-flat, which was written in Vienna in 1824 or so. It's little known or recorded, but really magnificent (especially the fugue at Cum Sancto Spiritu).

Loudon: You're WAY, WAY off about what you say I said. I drew no such distinction.

Let's start over.

You could, for example, ask what my musical or textual criteria I used.

But maybe that's not your objective(?)

"This isn't about elitism or snobbery...'

Maybe not, but then why is there so much language that smacks of elitism and snobbery in so many posts, including Rod's initial post..."crap," "schlocky, ill-written lyrically infantile compositions," "objectively lame," "shinola that someone inists is music," "drivel." Combine that with snarky comments about "badly-tuned guitars," being played by members of the generation "that dug Barry Manilow," and all I can say is, some of you must be just so much fun to go to church with.

The above quotes are examples of the language of aesthetics, not the language of theology, and while there may be some valid arguments as to who the proper subject of worship should, in fact, be, let's not kid ourselves about what this argument is primarily about. Its about peole who think they are better than other people patting each other on the back for having such good taste, and wishing they didn't have to deal with folks who have a different idea of what constitutes good music.

MSW, if you really think this conversation is about "...peole who think they are better than other people patting each other on the back for having such good taste, and wishing they didn't have to deal with folks who have a different idea of what constitutes good music..." then please allow me to explain a bit further.

What if, when you went to a baseball game, instead of hearing the usual music come out of the organ, you heard Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor? You'd probably think such music was hideously inappropriate for a ball game, and you'd be right. What if you went to a Rolling Stones concert, only to have them announce that they'd invited John Tesh to play with them and would only be playing his music that night? What if you went to a popular night spot that was blaring "Barney's Greatest Hits" over their speakers instead of their usual beat? What if you took a special person out for a romantic evening at a very expensive and exclusive restaurant, and instead of their usual soft background music they were playing the loudest and most explicit of rap songs?

And what if, should you complain to any of these people about any of these situations, they called you a "music snob" and refused to listen to your objections?

This isn't about snobbery at all. Just as each of the situations I described above deal with the use of music inappropriate for a particular situation/venue/location, so does the conversation about sacred music deal with the problem of music inappropriate for worship. Not everything that is written to be sung or played in a church is automatically appropriate for worship, particularly at Mass. Songs which are lovely when sung at youth group meetings might be terribly out of place at a solemn funeral Mass; and just try telling a bride that she has to process down the aisle to "Gather Us In."

Erin,

I would argue that there seems to be a broad consensus about what is appropriate and expected as far as music in the venues and situations you mention (although I sure do wish they would stop playing "Sweet Caroline" at Fenway Park during the 8th inning), whereas there is no such consensus as to what is appropriate in worship settings, as the back and forth of discussions like these amply demonstrates. And then the question becomes, "Who gets to decide what is appropriate in worship," which brings me right back to the point of my earlier post, which you do not really address.

I have no problem with arguments that speak to the history of liturgy, tradition, or the theology of worship, and some of the discussion on this post has focused on those issues. But I can't stop feeling like that is just a covering for an elitist agenda, not with the liberal usage of words like "schlock," "crap," and "infantile" that pepper your posts and the posts of some of your fellow travelers. As I said, this is the language of elitist aesthetics, and contradicts all your protestations that this is not about snobbery. If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. That's all I'm saying.

Erin,

I don't see how you can use words like "infantile" in reference to other people's musical taste and then be surprised if people accuse you of adopting an air of superiority. If its not about elitism and snobbery, I once again must ask, why so much condescending snootiness? You may not mean to, but you (and others on this thread)
come off as arrogant, mean-spirited, and smug.

Since I called you on it, you have given two responses that have largely refrained from using such off-putting rhetoric, which proves that your arguments can be made without resorting to the sort of rhetoric that, if its not about elitism and personal taste, sure throws people like me off the scent.

So then, let's take a look at what you insist are the real issues being discussed here. Now, I'm a low-church Protestant, and as Richard reminded us all, that means I am basically a lost cause when it comes to understanding what constitutes "real" worship. But tell me, where did these "rules" that you talk about come from relative to the composition of sacred music?

Now, of course, these rules must be recorded somewhere in scripture...but no, not really. I think maybe Jesus might have said something about "true worshippers must worship God in spirit and in truth," but nothing about "rules" for what constitutes appropriate music for worship services. Maybe the absence of clearcut guidelines in the New Testament should give us a clue that worship forms and structures can evolve and develop over time, and not just stay stuck in 3rd of 4th century expressions.

Which brings us that thing you RC's talk so much about called "Tradition." There is a fine line between Tradition and traditionalism, and I believe that you and your friends have crossed it long ago. No doubt there is much to be learned from the past, and we ignore it at our peril and all that. But then, again, there are more than one versions of "Tradition," and perhaps, even more than one "Tradition" itself. So then, whose version of "Tradition" is going to be most authoritative?

Even when it comes to rules about music composition, things are not as simple as you imply. For example, when you speak of the rules of music composition, I can only assume you mean rules that pertain to Western music, since African and Asian music abide by and/or bend a different set of rules.

I personally find a lot of the music that has been held up for ridicule on this thread to be unsatisfying, and I can't and won't go so far as saying that "anything goes." (I am a pastor, and while I am not in the practice of dictating that brides process to "Gather Us In," or any other piece of music, I would also not allow that same bride to process in to the strains of "(She's a) Brick House"). I am not saying that there is no room for discussion about what is appropriate or aesthetically pleasing in worship settings, but I simply find your arguments way too dismissive of anyone else's perspective. You make it sound like arriving at objectivity about all of these matters is so cut and dried, but it is not now, and it never has been, that easy.

MSW, this is the whole of my remarks in which the words "schlocky" and "infantile" appear:

"I've nothing against the guitar as an instrument, and I'm sure others who share my musical tastes would agree that it can be used to create lovely music. Unfortunately, the use of badly tuned guitars to highlight the schlocky, ill-written, lyrically infantile compositions of the latter half of the twentieth century's liturgical music, many of which seem to have been written by people who thought that a Rogers and Hammerstein musical represented the highest pinnacle of human musical achievement and attempted to imitate this style in their own compositions, sadly falling just short of utter failure to do so, has given me, and people like me, a bit of a distaste for guitar music at Mass."

How do you get from the context of those remarks to a very uncharitable accusation that I am displaying "condescending snootiness"? I wrote one paragraph of all the many paragraphs I've written on this thread in which I permitted a little of my frustration with bad contemporary music to show through. Frankly, your quick willingness to judge me for that is rather troublesome.

That aside, though, as a Catholic I'm interested in what the Catholic Church thinks, writes, and teaches about liturgical tradition, and I accept their authority over these matters. If I were not a Catholic, I doubt that I'd be overly concerned with how Catholics perceive the liturgy, including their debates about music.

"...while there may be some valid arguments as to who the proper subject of worship should, in fact, be, let's not kid ourselves about what this argument is primarily about. Its about people who think they are better than other people patting each other on the back for having such good taste, and wishing they didn't have to deal with folks who have a different idea of what constitutes good music."
Ministry of Silly Walks

That says it all, MSW. You don't seem to understand what a Catholic Mass is to us, nor, therefore, about what our Mass music should be. I don't mean to insult you (as you have tried to insult Erin), but we practicing Catholics really have had more than enough of non-Catholics and false Catholics sticking their noses in our Mass for the past forty years. We don't like what that has done to our Mass, and we just wish to be left alone in our worship. We Catholics don't have the slightest doubt about "who the proper subject of worship should, in fact, be." That statement, FROM A PASTOR, MSW, simply says it all.

And when you say to us, "I simply find your arguments way too dismissive of anyone else's perspective. You make it sound like arriving at objectivity about all of these matters is so cut and dried.", it just shows your ignorance of objectivity about our Mass. What we want our Mass music to be is, in fact, pretty much cut and dried because it is based on Catholic theology, so it doesn't matter what you think of our arguments.

Discuss these things with us all you want, but please quit insulting us. Like this, for example": "Which brings us to that thing you RC's talk so much about called "Tradition." There is a fine line between Tradition and traditionalism, and I believe that you and your friends have crossed it long ago."

I'm sure you otherwise are a very nice person and very well educated in your field, but that has no relation to the Mass or Catholicism.

Erin. Our conversation has no worth that i can discern. And you are unable to refrain from making strawman arguments.

I have no interest in responding to you further. I'm sure you'll understand.

Okay, uncle, mea culpa, etc. Erin, you are correct, and I apologize . Since you were the main person to respond to my earlier posts, I think I started lumping you together with several folks who have been contributing to this thread. As I look back, I see that,
indeed, aside from the paragraph I quoted, you have pretty much avoided some of the snarkiness that has offended me and others.

My only defense is that in my first post on the question on elitism and snobbery, I actually quoted from a number of posts written by several contributors that I felt were demonstrations of the elitism and snobbery I was arguing were the real agenda of this argument. While I was addressing you directly in subsequent posts, I was intending to refer to the general tenor of the discussion, particularly on the part of those who are arguing against the liturgical reforms of the past 50 or so years. I shouldn't hold you responsible for the cumulative weight of condescension when you are not by any means the primary offender, although I will still contend that the paragraph in question was pretty uncharitable.

Now, on to other matters. Cleveland (and others), I did not realize that this post was only for non-Roman Catholics, or for that matter, those you deem "false Catholics." I am sorry if I insulted you and other Catholics, and you can certainly feel free to ignore my posts if you wish, but I will continue to offer my opinions as I see fit, and I will kindly ask you not to tell me to shut up. I guess I thought we Christians were maybe, you know, part of the same family. But the "we" you refer to is a pretty exclusive club. Clearly there are many Roman Catholics, as well as Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox Christians, some of whom have spoken up on this thread, who do not fit into your definition of "we." That would be news to them, I am sure.

Yes, we Protestants operate out of a very different context, but I got involved in this conversation at least in part because very similar arguments are raging in many corners of the Protestant church. I pastor a church that celebrates worship in both "traditional" (or at least what passes for traditional in our low church environment) and "contemporary" (informal, free-flowing and no doubt more raucous than the folk-mass stuff that evidently drives so many of you crazy) expressions, and we have similar discussions within my congregation. And while I might wish to take back some of my more inflammatory statements, I am genuinely interested in this issue, and less convinced of my rightness than I might seem. I live and breathe the planning and celebration of worship, so, on the one hand, I have strong opinions, but on the other hand, a willingness and need to learn all I can from differing perspectives.

In other words, I will continue to participate as I choose, hoping that we might be able to learn something from each other. I do not pretend to understand all the mysteries of the Mass; as a life-long Protestant, there is a lot of the Roman Catholic tradition that simply eludes me, and perhaps my ignorance has shown itself in some of my comments. I have learned a lot from reading some of the posts on this and other threads. But I do hope that I will not be dismissed because I don't happen to belong to the in-group of "real" Catholics. If that happens, so be it. It will be your loss, and mine as well. But please, don't think you will shut me up.

"Cleveland...I am sorry if I insulted you and other Catholics, and you can certainly feel free to ignore my posts if you wish, but I will continue to offer my opinions as I see fit, and I will kindly ask you not to tell me to shut up." Ministry of Silly Walks

My friend, you could not even manage to make the above half-hearted apology without adding another insult. I did not say your opinions shouldn't be posted as you see fit, and nobody told you to shut up. You sound like Rosie O'Donnell in the midst of a losing argument. What I said was: "Discuss these things with us all you want, but please quit insulting us."

Cleveland,

I don't know if I should continue this conversation, since it seems to have devolved into something personal rather than a substantive contribution to the matter at hand. If there was a way to take this offline, I certainly would. But lacking that option, I do feel a need to defend myself against your accusation that I am continually insulting you rather than simply expressing my opinions.

The part of your post that I interpreted as inviting me to shut up was not the portion you chose to include in your post. Rather, it was this statement:

"We practicing Catholics really have had more than enough of
non-Catholics and false Catholics sticking their noses in our Mass for the past forty years."

With all due respect, when I read these words, I honestly felt that I was being told to butt out and mind my own business. I don't see my response as being an insult directed towards you as much as it was a reaction to what I interpreted as your a desire for me to stop "sticking [my] nose" where it did not belong. I simply asserted my right to continue to participate in this discussion, and invited you to ignore me.

I assure you that the last thing I want to do is to insult you, other Roman Catholics, or the Roman Catholic Church as a whole, and I am sorry if my apology seemed "half-hearted." It was genuinely sincere.

This is my first time writing to a blog and I am leagally blind. so my apologies for the no-doubt many typros.

I cannot figure out what is going on in the Catholic Church at present. My friends over eighty are tuned in to EWTN daily and watch the masses in Latin when they cannot go to church. I see on the internet, including here, a wish to return to the church before 1960. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict seem to be on the same bent.

I was raised a Methodist and converted to Catholocism in the early seventies. I have since been educated in a fine Catholic college by School Sisters of Notre Dame to becaom a leader in my community and in my church. Over the past thirty-five years, I have grown and deepeded my relationship with my Lord to the point that I find I need the weekly, if not more often, worship experience with fellow believers who are also on the tough path of discipleship--radical discipleship. I also need to gather with other like-minded Christians in order to share my enthusiasm and let the joy and grace spill out of me to them. This mutual sharing of God's grace, love, and steadfastness can be done through prayer, through sharing a hug, a thought, our words, and often through song.

I lovce ALL kind of sacred music. Luckily, I attend a parish church which has grown and grown over the twenty years I have belonged. Guess what? It has grown partially through the music and through the homilies and prayers. Much of the music we usee was written by "Haugen & Haas", as well as Cary Landry, The St. Lewis Jesuits, AND music from the classic masters of yesteryear. In fact, we have several masses each weekend, with different music at most of them.

Our musicians, both classical and "folk" are excellent at their craft with piano and organ as well. I cannot say that I always sing the hymns of the 17th, 18th and 19th century with a much gusto as I do the modern. I definately do not hear or sing the old ones with the same emotion that I hear the mdoern. I can just sit at my computer and listen to "Haufen and Haas" and suddenly find myself in tears at one or another of them. Tears of joy and thanklsfulness sometimes, but mostly just tears of awe at how much God loves me--ME a simple sinner just trying to live better each day.

Maybe it is because I am poor. I am poor not by choice originally, buit due to disability. I do not yet have quite enough to pay all my necessary medical and housing needs, but hope that changes with my medicare. We'll see. However, I really like being "Poor." I don't like to beg, even of the agemcies that are supposed to help. However, I love not having any excess. If I have a little left occasionaly, I LOVE being able to send a card to someone who is going through a rough period. --Or have coffee with someone who is alone and lonely. I never seem to do much for me, but I love being able to help someone else. Mostly I do that with my time, my talents, and my love. Being free of material things makes that much easier to do.

And iot gives me time to oray, meditate, and listen to music. By myself, I will sometimes listen to chant, classical pieces written for the Church, and to modern, contemporary Catholic music. But in church, I want to hear and understand what is being said by the priest, what we say in unmiason, the scripture readings. AND the music.

Thius modern music speaks to me where I live. I ask my older friends what they did during the old Lating mass and they tell me they prayed the rosary!! That is a solitary function. Mass is a shared experience. WE are the Body of Christ, not just the priests, We were each called to discipleship, each one of us. We are also ministers through our Baptism. It should be a community event--we are to be "gatherd in." Christ gathers us in! nd--it is serious business. Mass is not entertainment. It is a chance to evaluate ourselves, To hear God's Word again and again, to witness the extrodinary event of Christ coming to feed us with his sacrificed body and blood which, because of hHis resurrection, we are now a part of--forever and ever!

Lets us try to appreciate each others different tastes and not criticise on another like this. I became a Catholic because I just could not live without Eucharist! But many of you seem to think I am not a real Catholic because I like the new music and I don't like mass in Latin.

Love in Christ,

Jan

There's nothing wrong with the post-council Catholic hymndody (note: I mentioned POST council, as in the years 1968-74 or so. After that it's a different story...).

It's just we have to hear this soft-soapy stuff EVERY Sunday. Few people actually enjoy this anyomre. It has served its full measure and it's time for the hootenany hyms to return to 1969. We can use good modern him, plus remember the good sacred ones from the past.

It's just things like Gather Us In have been shoved in our ears for 40 years. And some wonder why so many Catholics don't attend Mass.