The Glory Days

[JW]

Despite all the work to restore liturgical music to participation by all, there are still many who believe that music has no place in our parishes. Although they are sympathetic to the 60's/70's liturgical reforms, they want a spoken Mass and certainly don't want to sing. The Church has to reach out to such people and not alienate them.

Here are some extracts from a letter in this week's Tablet "It is too often assumed that music is essential to worship... I... actually prefer a Mass where I can understand all the words, undistorted or paraphrased, spoken well in a language I understand... The Mass is not a concert"

We are indeed a broad church and I'm looking forward to reading the replies in next week's Tablet.

[musicus]

Enough of this bickering - please take it somewhere else.

I will remove any further posts that are off-topic.

The topic is set out in Nick Baty's original post, and it not about chant.

This saddens and dissapoints me, musicus. One of the remarkable things about this comment board is its encouragement of reasoned, informed discussion, and discouragement of personal attack. Your occasional interventions have supported that ethos, and my comments on this thread have, I hope, been reasoned and informed (though I am happy for others to disgree with my conclusions). Another contributor, however, has over a period of time made a number of personal attacks against those with whom he disagrees, both on and off the board, without any attempt to justify them with facts or reference to the individuals' arguments. That was happening yet again on this thread, and the extent of my 'bickering' was to point this out, and to give examples when the individual denied it.

As for your threat to remove any further posts on chant (and presumably, by extension, polyphony) - well, Nick has made this difficult for you by continuing the discussion. Nor is that unreasonable of him. The new music of the the 'Glory Days' cannot fruitfuly be discussed in isolation from the traditional music it was designed to replace or supplement, and which was given such prominence by the Council from which it drew its vision. Nick's own criticism of the younger, more traditional Catholic musicians who apparently aren't very interested in that vision illustrates the point nicely.

I will refrain, out of respect for your judgement, from responding to Nick's latest post. I must, however, out of respect for the Comment Board's stated aims and constraints, ask you to consider the reasonableness of that judgement, and the worrying problem that I have alluded to above.

My use of the word "bickering" was by no means intended to refer solely to Northern Tenor.

Moderators do not issue "threats", they give fair warnings in accordance with the forum rules. If that "dissapoints" [sic] then I will live with it.

In so far as Nick's original post can and has led to a much wider discussion, I will temper my judgement and say that the topic is not primarily about the chant. There! that should allow full, free and courteous debate. Make Newman and Kingsley your models

I would hope that the SSG's perspective on the chant is well-known by now: we - and none more so than myself - love and cherish it; we want to foster its continued use when appropriate, whether by scholas, choirs or assemblies. It should hold its place, primus inter pares, alongside and in balance and harmony with all the other apt and beautiful music that has been composed for the liturgy, including the best of those works from the latter end of the 20th century to which Nick and others have referred.

[Nick Baty]

I will refrain, out of respect for your judgement, from responding to Nick's latest post.

While it's nice not to be opposed, there is no reason for the debate the end.
But I will fight the assembly's corner to the death – and beyond.

[NorthernTenor]

My use of the word "bickering" was by no means intended to refer solely to Northern Tenor. Moderators do not issue "threats", they give fair warnings in accordance with the forum rules.

I didn't suggest it did, Musicus. It's not unreasonable for me to take exception to the moral equivalence you suggest between one who persistently insults rather than argues, sometimes in a libellous way, and one who points out that this is not an appropriate way to go about things, either here or generally. That's what's disappointing, Musicus. In its own way, it borders on the kind of behaviour that you've previously criticised in SC, and in doing so goes beyond the "fair warning" requirements of the moderator's role.

In so far as Nick's original post can and has led to a much wider discussion, I will temper my judgement and say that the topic is not primarily about the chant. There! that should allow full, free and courteous debate. Make Newman and Kingsley your models

I will, Musicus. Newman was polite but persistent in his criticism of Kingsley's unjustified accusations about his moral character, and that of other Catholics. I will endeavour to follow his example. I trust you will, too .

I would hope that the SSG's perspective on the chant is well-known by now: we - and none more so than myself - love and cherish it; we want to foster its continued use when appropriate, whether by scholas, choirs or assemblies. It should hold its place, primus inter pares, alongside and in balance and harmony with all the other apt and beautiful music that has been composed for the liturgy, including the best of those works from the latter end of the 20th century to which Nick and others have referred.

This part of your reply surprises, me, Musicus, because it could be understood to imply positions I don't take. I don't question the SoSG's perspective on chant, as I'm well aware of the Society's continuing commitment to it, e.g. in the workshops it has organised, and your own statement here. Nor have I suggested that that new music shouldn't be composed or discussed - quite the contrary. I have observed that the place of chant and polyphony appears to be more honoured in the breach in most of England and Wales, and have suggested that this problem of balance may be in part due to a rigidity in post-conciliar interpretations of the role and nature of liturgical music, which haven’t always kept up with developments in the debate or benefited from the extra perspective that time gives. And yes, I suspect that excessive nostalgia for the 'Glory Days' may be, in part, a symptom of this.

Finally, thanks for your re-consideration of the boundaries of the thread. The Moderator's role is a difficult and thankless task, and despite my strong disagreement with you in this case, I'm happy to say that you usually fulfill it with a greater efficiency and lighter touch than would come naturally to many of us.

[Reginald]

From my few years at Clifton I would have to say that it's the best I've ever experienced musically, and again, sometimes just OK. I had my first real introduction to chant at Clifton with the occasional mass part and the odd introit or two from the Graduale. Likewise it was Clifton that first introduced me to the idea that you didn't have to wait for it to get into a hymn book before you could use it in Mass!

As regards the heated debate on the choral sanctus (re-writes the sentence to avoid having to say choral sancti). I was under the impression that Musicam Sacram (and yes it was released before the new missal but they surely knew what was coming, no?) stated a preference for the congregation singing the Sanctus but conceded that a choral sanctus could be used if the congregation had other opportunities for song. I'm also unsure as to whether the preferences of the Bishops Conference of E and W override the stated desire of the Church Universal that Cathedrals and basilicas should preserve the treasury of sacred polyphony - certainly they almost dismiss the idea of presider and congregation singing their various dialogues. But anyway, the point being that the rules that apply to us lesser folk don't necessarily apply to the cathedrals. Whilst Westminster is certainly no Clifton/Brentwood/Salford I've never gone Mass there and felt that I haven't had anything to sing - and it's certainly not all 'old'. NT's suggestion for the Agnus was also the favoured solution of the elder Ratzinger at Regensburg -I've a feeling that his younger brother has also advocated the practice but I'm not sure if that was before or after his election to the See of Peter.

Seemlessly back to topic - my first Sunday Mass at Clifton - what I remember most clearly was Chris Walker's St Augustine's Gloria, full choir, organ and a congregation that raised the roof. I felt like I was singing in a choir of hundreds - when was the last time any of us felt that when we weren't sat in our reserved seats?

[Nick Baty]

I was under the impression that Musicam Sacram stated a preference for the congregation singing the Sanctus but conceded that a choral sanctus could be used if the congregation had other opportunities for song.

Musicam Sacram, Par 34: …it is preferable that the Sanctus, as the concluding acclamation of the Preface, should normally be sung by the whole congregation together with the priest...

On its own enough to give some permission to do what they like. But in the light of the other documents and a small dose of pastoral application....?

[NorthernTenor]

Nick,

I'm sorry your comments still fail to address the points I raised earlier about the options we apparently have under section 34 of Musicam Sacram (which you selectively quote), the hierarchy of laws, the organic nature of Tradition and the different possible interpretations of the idea of participation. It's a more complex and subtle set of issues than was generaly understood by the radicals of thirty to forty years ago. Give it space to develop. You might even find the experience curiously liberating

[Nick Baty]

As liberating as not using a "complete" setting simply because a composer happened to place them in one book?

[NorthernTenor]

... what was that I said about avoiding the substantive points of debate? That response didn't even make sense in musicoligical terms

[NorthernTenor]

... none of this, BTW, alters my respect and sympathy for those loyal Catholic composers who have attempted to come to terms, in various ways, with the cultural upheavals of the last half century.

[Nick Baty]

The substantive part of the debate is that you use the excuse of (see earlier posts) singing a polyphonic Agnus during Communion, simply because it comes from a set you've used elsewhere in the same liturgy, regardless of the functionality of the piece.

You also suggest it's OK to take the Sanctus away from the assembly based on a line of Musicam Sacram (while accusing me of quoting selectively from the same document). Presumably this would also enable you to sing a complete "Mass" by a particular composer, regardless of the fact that there is no complete setting available by any renaissance, baroque or classical composer anyway. (Unless you've found something seriously obscure.)

It would be far less disingenuous of you if you just admitted you'd rather hand the whole thing over to the choir.

Hang on – that's not a bad idea. Seriously, if we all followed NT's proposal, we wouldn't have to spend hours and hours planning music months ahead, assessing how the congregation is assimilating music and how the repertoire is developing because we could hand any item we liked over to the choir.

The downside for you, NT, is the second you start bending the rules, there goes your support for the promotion of plainsong.

But, on the other hand, you'd be in tune with a whole upcoming generation who couldn't give a *beep* about the liturgy as long as it sounds nice.

I think I've misquoted Blackadder III: Something about the French not caring what they do as long as they pronounce it properly

[mcb]

...if you just admitted you'd rather hand the whole thing over to the choir. Hang on – that's not a bad idea. Seriously, if we all followed NT's proposal, we wouldn't have to spend hours and hours planning music months ahead, assessing how the congregation is assimilating music and how the repertoire is developing because we could hand any item we liked over to the choir.

If we all did, maybe (though I don't quite see how it would take away the need to plan and prepare). But what's so terrible if some people in some places do it that way? There are lots of rooms in our Father's house.

[Nick Baty]

So does that mean, MCB, that I can do it too?
No, I can't – not within the Roman Rite anyway.

I don't quite see how it would take away the need to plan and prepare

Because the parameters would have gone. The functionality all but disappeared.
You could sing brand new music every week and sod any poor *beep* in the back row who can't keep up.
Or you could sing the Lourdes Hymn during communion.
It would be the beginning of the end.

[NorthernTenor]

The substantive part of the debate is that you use the excuse of (see earlier posts) singing a polyphonic Agnus during Communion, simply because it comes from a set you've used elsewhere in the same liturgy, regardless of the functionality of the piece.

That's so wrong in so many ways, Nick. To begin with, this clearly isn't the substantive part of the debate, which is about the place of the 'Glory Days' within the wider sweep of liturgical tradition, and consequently the nature of that tradition. Then again, you make unwarranted assumptions about decisions made by others who you don't know, in a parish with which, to the best of my knowledge, you're not familiar, and go on from that to a rant (wow - where did that come from?) about the youth of today that neither enlightens nor poses useful questions.

Your assertion that

it's OK to take the Sanctus away from the assembly based on a line of Musicam Sacram

both ignores the range of points that I made, and begs all sorts of questions about the nature and role of the assembly. It may be that you're used to preaching to the converted, but it would be helpful - no the least to you - if you were to move on from the Glory Days and open your mind to the debate.

Passing over your claim that I lack candour (you're not the first person on this board to make that allegation), your suggestion that we have no Renaissance mass settings that were composed as single entities is very odd indeed (cf the Byrd 3, 4 & 5 part masses, Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli etc etc etc ...).

Finally, your fixation with particular texts outside of their wider legal, liturgical and traditional contexts, which you decline to discuss, and your leap in one bound to the conclusion that if we don't unquestioningly accept your interpretation of them the Roman liturgy will come crashing down about our ears isn't a very helpful contribution to reasonable discussion of the liturgy. It is, though, alarmingly similar to the mindset of the fundamentalist friends of my youth, not to mention my traditionalist acquaintances.

I hate to say it, but your approach unnecessarily polarises debate about the liturgy, and makes it difficult to consider the lessons - positive and negative - of the period to which the thread's title refers.

[Nick Baty]

your suggestion that we have no Renaissance mass settings that were composed as single entities is very odd indeed (cf the Byrd 3, 4 & 5 part masses, Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli etc etc etc ...).

Which, if you read my post, is not what is said:

there is no complete setting available by any renaissance, baroque or classical composer anyway. (Unless you've found something seriously obscure.)

A totally different concept, unless you've found the missing Mysterium Fidei and Amen from the Five-part Mass.

and go on from that to a rant (wow - where did that come from?) about the youth of today

Yep. Because I'm a narky old *beep* who can't cope with being told what to do by kids so wet behind the ears you can smell the damp.

Worry not, NT, I announced my retirement from this strange world of liturgical music before Christmas. I have two more appointments in my diary (both this year) and thereafter I'll be gone. The youngsters (clergy and musicians) can do what they like then: But I'll certainly not be sitting silently in their congregations.