Appropriate musical style?

[presbyter]

Recent Roman documents are raising the question, yet again, about sacred music being somehow distinctive in style from that in the secular sphere and it even having universal qualities. What do you think?

[Benevenio]

sacred music... distinctive in style from that in the secular sphere... having universal qualities.

There is nothing about music that makes it sacred. It is the texts that set the sacred from the profane. Rome also talks about the beauty of hte Chant - surely this lies in the eye (or ear) of the beholder? Augustine warns against being seduced, the beauty of the music distracting us from the beauty of God.

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy calls us to full, conscious and active participation, so presumably, music which draws us to love God with all our heart and all our mind and all our soul should be considered to be of the highest quality. It may be that this music is such that we sit and listen, but (arguably) more often it should make us want to sing, to dance with the Lord of the Dance. Snoopy said that it is hard to be unhappy when your feet are dancing. Looking around many parishes, feet are firmly nailed to the floor!

Liturgy is the fount and summit of our Christian life; yet without people, surely Liturgy ceases to exist? So the Church needs to encourgage itself, build itself. If we don't seek out the new, if we don't encourage the creativity of our text writers and composers, if we allow only set texts and a 'one-size-fits-all' style, if the Holy Spirit is not allowed to move and shake us, what kind of Church do we have? Not one assembling at the fount and summit, but at the drain and canyon.

Music in the Liturgy has many uses - John Bell lists a dozen reasons to sing. Among them is education. We can learn passages of Scripture through repetition in song; we can take the song home (and we're more likely to do that than we are to go home repeating words from Father's Homily, aren't we?). Music has the power to effect change in our emotions - and as such we need to be aware, in our planning, to avoid manipulating the mood through the music. Music which best underlays the text - supporting what is being proclaimed - that is the best sacred music. It ought not be limited to one style or form; nor can you argue that what works in Rome will work in Japan... or in Kenya... or in England... or even what works stylistically in my parish will work in the neighbouring parish.

So, what qualities should we look for in our music? Management Courses define quality as "fit for purpose". If you accept that, then the music that is of quality is that which effectively serves an assembly in its Liturgy. Stylistically, this may be Chant... or Blues... or Rock... or Rap... It will be however that assembly feels most comfortable expressing itself, both linguistically and musically. The expression of the Divine, through the Scriptures, is not something that speaks to us on only one level and our response to the Scriptures is not something which we can limit to one musical style. We need to read, to internalise, meditate, pray the Scriptures and then the music will flow from where we are. As we live in Christ, our music will change - Newman said that growth is the only evidence of life. How we sing this Advent will not be how we sing in three year's time. We will have grown; so should our music.

BTW, Joseph Gelineau is of the opinion that there is a sacred voice, and that we should use a sacred voice when celebrating the Liturgy. Not so sure that I agree with him!

[Benevenio]

These are the principles of Sacrosanctum concilium:
(Summarised by Angela McCarthy Australian Academy of Liturgy.)

• the integral nature of music within the sacred liturgy (112)
• active participation of the faithful in the rites through singing (113)
• the increasing use of the vernacular(I 13)
• the fostering of the treasure of sacred music (114)
• the importance of the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, Catholic institutions and schools (115)
• the acknowledgement of Gregorian chant as having a distinctive place (116)
• the encouragement of the people's own religious songs (118)
• the importance attached to other musical traditions in parts of the world (119)
• the use of other musical instruments other than the pipe organ
• the encouragement for composers to increase the store of musical treasures with text drawn from holy Scripture and from liturgical sources (121)

If composers are to increase the store of musical treasures, if musical traditions from around the world are important, if the people's own song is to be encouraged, how can Rome limit the style?

[Benevenio]

AND another thing!

If we take the Scripture as the basis for our music, perhaps ps100 is a reflection of what the musical qualities shiould be: Make a joyful noise to the Lord, or, in another translation, Shout your joy to the Lord. Noise and shouting aren't usually associated with sacred music and our Liturgy...

Your call!

[presbyter]

There is nothing about music that makes it sacred. It is the texts that set the sacred from the profane.

Benevenio raises many, many points in his posts. If I may for now, just a few comments:

I think we need a fuller sense of what liturgical music is than is suggested. For sure, a well-crafted marriage of appropriate (perhaps scriptural) text and fitting melody can take us out of the secular realm and into, perhaps, a rather ill-defined area wherein there is an aura of religiosity. Such a composition may go further and move us to prayer. But even if it does, are we still not just in the realm of - for example - Oratorio ( Messiah ) or Religious Song (Cliff Richard’s recording of the Lord’s Prayer ? What makes sacred music - in a Catholic perspective - is its necessary ( integral ) bond with the liturgical rites. ( Sacrosanctum Concilium 112)

My reading of this section of the Constitution leads me to propose that outside this music’s realisation within the ritual, liturgical context, it ceases to exist as liturgical music. One may purchase a CD of William Byrd’s Masses or a CD of a setting by Bernadette Farrell. Yet to listen to those in the privacy of one’s room - even if one’s motive is to be moved to contemplative prayer - is not to engage in a liturgical action. The rites that music serves are simply absent and indeed, the listener could simply be appreciating beautiful music qua beautiful music.

Perhaps we could now argue that a universal and distinctive quality of liturgical music, setting it totally apart from the secular sphere, is this necessity of its realisation as a part of the whole of the liturgical action. Not even Grand Opera or the music of a West End show needs, of necessity, their staged, dramatic accompaniments to be appreciated. Yet, I suggest, there can be no such thing as a concert performance of a piece of liturgical music, if that music is to engage the listener/performer in its intended effect.

That same paragraph of the Constitution speaks of the ministerial function - munus ministeriale - of sacred music in the service of the Lord. Now a posting on a discussion forum hardly permits space to go into detail of what it is the Lord is doing for us in the celebration of the liturgy but I feel at least a pointer should be offered.

These are the principles of Sacrosanctum concilium:

Benevenio quotes a neat summary of paragraphs 112 to 121 (Chapter six) of the Constitution but, if I may say so, these are NOT the principles of Sacrosanctum Concilium. There are 111 other paragraphs before we get to Chapter six and I suggest the principles of the document are found in the theological chapters, particularly paragraphs 1 through 14 (and here I add a plea that church musicians please do not restrict themselves to the bits in documents that just speak about music).

Read - pray - those paragraphs before even starting to think about music and how it acts in service of the Lord. What's the Lord doing for us? How might music help Him?

I have lots more to say but not now. It’s late.

[Benevenio]

Sacrsanctum concilium: I accept that there is a lot before you get to chapter 6, and that my use of 'principles' was incorrect! We are however moving from your original question about Rome...

If we used, for example, Sir Cliff Richard's setting of the Lord's Prayer within Mass, would that be an appropriate style? Isn't that what the Vatican is asking?

[presbyter]

If we used, for example, Sir Cliff Richard's setting of the Lord's Prayer within Mass, would that be an appropriate style?

Or plainsong Latin; plainsong English; the 'Echo' setting; Chris Walker's 'Celtic' or his 1975 version ; Alan Rees' or Bevenot's chants; the Taizé 'Pater Noster'; the 'Caribbean'; Wiener's setting; the Tudor music of Robert Stone; Rimsky-Korsakov ............... to name but a few "Lord's Prayer" that have been published for RC use over the last thirty years.

With a sung Lord's Prayer, the song is itself the liturgical rite. But how does one judge the marriage of text and melody to be "appropriate" or not? I have my own thoughts on this but they will keep for a while. Someone else have a go.

(I'll try to do a little copy and paste from Church documents tomorrow so readers can grasp something of the flavour of these recent Roman documents)

[Merseysider]

Going down Tangent Boulevard for a second, if we sing the Lord's Prayer don't we end up turning the whole thing into an opera!

Think where we're at: from the rich language of the Eucharistic Prayer, punctuated with Sanctus, Acclamation, Amen. Now in the Communion Rite heading towards a deliciously melifluous Agnus... There's something about saying – rather than singing – the Lord's Prayer which adds to the texture of the celebration. You can have too much goat's cheese on your buttered asparagus (think of another analogy by substituting your own favourite food here).

Also, I work in two city churches where strangers float in and out. I would feel guilty about shutting out these occasional visitors by making it difficult for them to join in the one prayer they probably know.

End of Sermon. On Wednesday there will be Benediction and bingo!