BBC Radio 3 The Choir

[Merseysider]

I'm simply highlighting the standards of much music composed for the church since 60's,

We would all agree that been much dross.

and I think my post makes that clear enough.

No it doesn't – it implies that Inwod [sic], Farrell, Walker and Jones are incapable composers.

look at real composers that can write for orchestras and catholic congregations and organs, pianos etc etc

I think you will find Inwood, Walker and Tamblyn fall into this category. Paul Inwood is a summa cum laude graduate of the Royal Academy of Music. I think I'm right in believing him to be a former chorister of Westminster Cathedral. Professor Bill Tamblyn has only recently retired from a lifetime of teaching music, the last 20+ years as head of Colchester School of Music.

Arvo Part (have a look yourself)

I did – nothing there my congregation could grapple with.

gregorain chant isn't a bad place to start for congregational music

No, it isn't. But if you can persuade you congregation to sing it then well done. If you can get them to sing it with a smile on their faces then you can polish your halo.

And when you have cleared our churches of music that many of our congregations sing so well, what will you do next? When, a week on Friday, many of us are singing Paul Inwood's Processional Song of the Cross, what will you be using?

[mcb]

What I'm saying is look at real composers that can write for orchestras and catholic congregations and organs, pianos etc etc Good catholic examples are Mr MacMillan (hence the thread), Arvo Part (have a look yourself), Colin Mawby.
Mind you, gregorain chant isn't a bad place to start for congregational music, isn't that where the church says we should base ourselves anyway post VII.

Fair enough, there's no disputing that the chant provides a model for what liturgical music should be like, both in musical form and in what it can achieve for a singing assembly. But there's also no mistaking the fact that chant for the most part really isn't music for the assembly, but for the choir. Witness the fact that in the decades (that's all) in which the Church tried out the (novelty) idea that the people should join in singing the chant it really led only to a very slender repertoire - Missa de Angelis/Credo III/Pater Noster plus chants for devotions.

So I'd certainly agree we can advocate it as a starting point. But where does it lead, if not to music that is accessible enough for a singing congregation to engage with? That's the essence of music in the Thomas More Group mould, and the basis of the musical purist's objection to it - it's simple enough to be unchallenging for the trained musician. Is that really a problem?

Thanks for the examples of worthier models for congregational music. Should Arvo Pärt really be on the list? I know a few things by him, and none which involve the assembly. Can't imagine everyone joining in the chorus of, er, Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi. J MacM has indeed written a couple of Mass settings that follow liturgical norms in involving the assembly in the appropriate places; and Colin Mawby of course has a substantial output. The liturgical music of both is arguably a bit more elevated, perhaps, and a bit more strait-laced than the (admirable) composers you've included on your black list, but decidedly from the same planet as them, rather than the one inhabited by Palestrina et al.

I'd rate the best of the output of the composers you find so disagreeable as worthy offshoots of the chant tradition - simple memorable prayerful melodies that plant themselves in the hearts of the singing assembly and serve as authentic embodiments of communal prayer. They may not be Radio 3 material, but what's that got to do with anything?

M.

[Gabriel]

What I have heard of the programme and seen of the playlist on the website 'The Choir' was poorly researched if it was intended to give picture of choral music in the Catholic Church. At least for England and Wales.

If it were to give a broader picture what might have been included?

I would have like to heard some Taize - Berthier. For many this is/was a way into singing in parts and has been an important influence in our understanding of how music contributes to liturgy.

Some Colin Mawby - Psalm 150 an early example of a responsorial psalm setting and popular still as a 'showpiece' for parish choirs.

'There is something holy here', or 'Salisbury Alleluia' or 'Out of Darkness' by Walker.

Anything else?

Gabriel

[polycarp]

So interesting. In my last post (on the chant based settings forum) I suggested that the Church is moving on and so should some of you. Whilst I won't say anything too obnoxious about those "composers" who seem able to turn twee jingles into cash in the name of 'inclusive liturgy', I feel some points need clarification.
1) Qualifications, impeccable or otherwise, are meaningless if composers turn out music that would simply not be acceptable at school, let alone the Royal Academy of Music. (I speak as a recent graduate).
However appropriate, memorable or smile-inducing, banal music based on cycles of fifths and predictable harmonic progressions is hardly worthy of the Eucharist. This is not real composition. Consider the fact that they are happy to churn the stuff out - we're not talking about prolific composition here, just formulaic jingle-mongering.

2) There is something in the air. Unlike several of the well meaning posters on this forum, a growing number of catholics believe that music that is both rooted in catholic liturgy and musical tradition and aesthetically valuable should be welcomed in the church. This is in evidence in letters to the Tablet, the Catholic Herald and in the number of people signing up to music workshops at Westminster Cathedral. In terms of the real 'music world', the Catholic Church has been a joke for long enough.

3) Cardinal Arinze signaled this on Saturday at his talk at Westminster Cathedral. He and his Congregation are amplifying their call for a return to Gregorian Chant. Like it or not, this is the bedrock of catholic sacred music. It is ludicrous that whilst people are happy to croon the Sanctus from the Gathering Mass they can't sing the missal tone responses to the Mass. The changes are being rung all over the world - sorry some of you seem to have missed this. Oh, sorry - you'd need to be in touch with the real world to know this.

4) Participation is essential and the Vat II affirmation of this is superb. The role of church musicians, including all who post here, is to help the faithful participate through GOOD music. YOU must guide them. By shutting your eyes (ears) to the inadequacy of mass-produced music you are undernourishing those to whom you claim to minister.

5) Last point to clarify - Plainsong has no ego in that it has no composer as such but more importantly, it sounds like plainsong - the liturgical music of a young church. It can't have any other associations and so is the perfect music for the liturgy (not to the exclusion of all else). The music I'm complaining about sounds like bad folk music, pop music, children's music or whatever other influence is at its core.

[Merseysider]

if composers turn out music that would simply not be acceptable at school, let alone the Royal Academy of Music.

I so remember being refused a place on the composition course at music college. Reason? I write tunes. The guy in the year above me (who gained a First) produced a piece in which the performers hit each other on the head with balloons.

music based on cycles of fifths and predictable harmonic progressions is hardly worthy of the Eucharist. This is not real composition.

Well that cuts out chunks of Mozart and swathes of Vivaldi.

a growing number of catholics...evidence in letters to the Tablet, the Catholic Herald...

Catholic Herald sells around 10,000 copies a week, Catholic Times around 15,000 – not sure of the Tablet's ABC figures. So huge numbers of people to worry about there.

In terms of the real 'music world', the Catholic Church has been a joke for long enough.

Please define terms.

It is ludicrous that whilst people are happy to croon the Sanctus from the Gathering Mass they can't sing the missal tone responses to the Mass.

Because...? Why....?

The changes are being rung all over the world - you'd need to be in touch with the real world to know this.

True. I'm in outer space – sorry, edge of Liverpool in an ordinary parish full of ordinary people...they won't be very happy about joining the real world if that means Latin and chant. I'll have a word and see what I can do.

Plainsong...is the perfect music for the liturgy.

So I must now start learning Latin, and chant and, several years in the future return to my parish and tell them "Sorry, got it wrong. This is what we should be singing...." G'arn! Yer 'avin' a laff.

It's all total *beep* really. So I, and others like me, leave the parishes we are working in, allowing Polycarp and others to come in and do their stuff. Two points: 1) Where are all these plainchant specialists coming from – will there be enough to go round? You see, I'm currently working across three parishes. 2) Are you really going to persuade our assembly to drop Unless A Grain of Wheat in favour of a Latin introit which they may or may not understand. I reckon some of you would get your heads kicked in – ritually, not literally, you understand.

[oopsorganist]

hey
wait for me!

I have only just discovered Inwood! I love this modern music which has words that people can understand, relate to and apply to their daily living. A bit of twentieth century language!

If you want some good choral singable music then there is Wild Goose and the Iona Community. Which is inclusive and addresses concerns of this century, bridges cultures and races.
Catholic meaning universal.

Deny me my moderns..... and they are my only hope to getting some singing going in our church..... I am left with Victoriana..... I don't want to ride on ride on in majesty. To even older tunes. Some loved, some not so loved.

Gregorian chant is from the time of Gregory. Jesus did not sing it. In fact, as far as I can remember, not that I pay such great attention, I can't think of any time Jesus sang or expressed an opinion on what to do. He said "Do this is memory of me" we are told and that was in Hebrew I guess. Why plump for music from the Early Church? Just to make the point that we have been here longest? Pointing back to traditions from the Early Middle Ages is not a smart way to go. It is just plain silly. Some of the psalm tones sound pretty silly too if in the wrong hands. Like in that film with Charlton Heston, is it "The Omega Man"?.

Where on earth are we going with this idea of a separate Catholic musical identity? We need music for the 21st century and it has to appeal to the broadest cross section of peoples because otherwise we make a church which excludes.

But you can send "All that I am" and "Fill my house unto the fullest" to room 101 if you wish. On Good Friday we will be singing "The Old Rugged Cross", and maybe "Oh Sacred Head" because I dare not push our congregation onto anything unfamiliar when I plan to try Psalms sung at the Vigil. Even then they will pretend that they don't know them.


You can tell a Catholic by the way they open the hymn book on the right page and then mime.

[docmattc]

However appropriate, memorable or smile-inducing, banal music based on cycles of fifths and predictable harmonic progressions is hardly worthy of the Eucharist. This is not real composition.

I may have no music theory at all, but surely predictable progressions are what makes a tune singable, and in order to get the congregation to sing (as we are required to do for the acclamations) they are best helped by a tune which goes exactly where you think its going to go.
A composition is worthy of the Eucharist in this sense because it enables the congregation to praise God though it, not because its clever use of intervals impresses the Lord.
Such singable music does not have to be banal.

High ideals from the Royal College of Music are great, but here on the coal face we're amateurs trying our best to encourage congregations who think they have no musical ability to participate.

[Tsume Tsuyu]

......they are best helped by a tune which goes exactly where you think its going to go.
A composition is worthy of the Eucharist in this sense because it enables the congregation to praise God though it, not because its clever use of intervals impresses the Lord.

Well said, doc!

Such singable music does not have to be banal.

Quite!

High ideals from the Royal College of Music are great, but here on the coal face we're amateurs trying our best to encourage congregations who think they have no musical ability to participate.

Exactly!

How about those who are amateurs working at the coal face stepping down and the Polycarps of this world stepping up to take their places? I wonder how many churches would be left bereft of any music at all because there simply aren't enough professionals willing to do the job for love.

Oh, sorry - you'd need to be in touch with the real world to know this.

As far as I'm concerned, the 'real world' is my parish.

[contrabordun]

:roll: So interesting. In my last post (on the chant based settings forum)

Your collective comments reveal what a bunch of prehistoric, out-of-touch, saddos you are

Leaving aside the irony of somebody who wishes us to return to "the music of a young church" (by which is apparently meant the thousand year old music of a church that was a thousand years old when it was written) using "prehistoric" and "out-of-touch" as terms of criticism, is this comment supposed to be taken seriously as a contribution to a serious debate about what liturgical music should be in the 21st century? In a Christian Church? Whatever happened to "love one another"?

What happens in the Cathedrals is almost irrelevant to what happens in Parishes. I've argued this against Merseysider, who thinks that Cathedrals should be more like Parishes, so I feel justified in arguing it against Polycarp, who apparently thinks that a few hundred(?) people going to workshops in Westminster and a few dozen(?) letters to the press is going to change anything. Whether P likes it or not, there is no prospect of the Church in this country in the foreseeable future being able to pay qualified professionals to lead its music at Parish (i.e., where most of us are) level. Therefore, again whether you like it or not, what happens in the vast majority of Catholic Churches will depend upon well-meaning and more or less able amateurs.

(Perhaps a moment to remind ourselves of some basic etymology ... amateur=person doing it for the love of it).

If you don't like what's happening, and you really want it to change, (rather than just being abusive on a website, which may be fun but doesn't achieve anything) you'll have to learn some manners, because the funny thing about amateurs is that if you call them saddos, they don't have a lightbulb moment and change the habits of a lifetime, they walk away from the situation, leaving yet another church one step further away the competent provision of some kind of musical programme.

It's easy to 'be part of a growing body of opinion', to write a letter to The Tablet, The Herald - even to post to this forum. Running the music in any parish (let alone 3), week in week out year after year demands a rather different level of dedication and if you're going to criticise what's done, at least have some respect (even if you can't summon up any Christian love) for that commitment. You might even consider going and doing it yourself for ten or fifteen years in 'the real world' (i.e., OUTSIDE the hallowed portals of the RAM and those Cathedrals lucky enough to be able to employ professionals) before abusing people whose views might just have been shaped by their experience of what can be done in the real world.

I've just finished listening to That Broadcast. It didn't seem to me especially controversial, although it has clearly raised a few hackles around here - which is fine and probably a good thing. But, as I've said several times before, why do we waste so much energy bickering when the real enemy is the total indifference of the punter in the pew to music of any kind at all (except insofar as it undesirably lengthens the mass)?

[musicus]

Well said, contrabordun!
Further contributions to 'a serious debate about what liturgical music should be in the 21st century' are welcome here. Please leave your bad manners and arrogance at the door.

[Merseysider]

When I read the calm, balanced postings of TT and Contrabordun, I so regret my hot-headed input. But the pro-am thing is not a valid argument.

People like Prof Bill Tamblyn do not become amateurs by opting to work in parish situations, by choosing to meet people where they are at and growing with them. Bill has always been a pro – whether conducting his college choir and orchestra, directing worship on Radio 3 or encouraging his amateur parish choirs. Was a he a professional composer when writing Vigil Mass or only when editing Rachmaninov's Vespers for Boosey and Hawkes?

I've argued this against Merseysider, who thinks that Cathedrals should be more like Parishes...

I actually believe that cathedrals should be leading the way, showing parishes what they can do.

there is no prospect of the Church in this country in the foreseeable future being able to pay qualified professionals to lead its music at parish level.

And I know quite a few parishes which would not employ "professional" who promulgate some of the ideas on this forum.

You might even consider going and doing it yourself for ten or fifteen years in 'the real world'

Celebrated my 32nd anniversary on March 20th!

[contrabordun]

though I would add, that for my money, James MacMillan's contributions seemed much more widely relevant than Martin Baker's.

[oopsorganist]

Thank you all for the debate.

I was just thinking in the bath about Gregorian chant and plainsong which I am not sure is the same thing, and also about bad folk music.

Every society/culture has it's chants which mark it out and define it. This is true of ancient cultures and ancient rituals and religions. Also of modern day society at times of mass gathering. Like the call of the Muslim to prayer and the battle war cry of Maori people and the songs sung at Elland Road. I am not sure where this is going so bear with me. It is not a sophisticated thing. It is not sophisticated music and in the West we have developed more complex structures and harmonies for our music than were known and used in early history. Our ears cannot enjoy it because we have heard Beethoven.

Second point against going backwards. The music of the early Christians was what? Made by groups of religious living in monasteries and such. Quite vulnerable at some periods. Not sure about what when where but imagine that it was a male dominated occupation. Gregorian chant to me is a simple male kind of music. Not sure where I am going here. Seems to be some way connected to the above defining chant thingy.

Third point. In the days before the church organ was normal up to the 15th 16th century or later it was the norm for people in a church to bring along what they had to make music with. Pipes and tabours and lutes and fiddles and drums in the minstrels gallery. We could just as well go back to this point in time. Except that in this time singing in harmony was just something everyone could do, to while away the time and it was the norm.

I am onto bad folk music here. This is truly a matter of taste. What is bad folk music? Is it aboriginal stuff? Or the Watersons family singing in Norfolk accents? Or long ballads on crackly recordings? Or modern song writers like Jezz Lowe? Or the local folk club with people joining in or having a go? Or blue grass? Or Ukrainian choirs? Or Kodaly? Or Scottish music? Or Irish? Is it listening to the accordion being played while 6 middle aged ladies dress up in Victorian costume and act out ancient customs? Or Bob Dylan? Style or performer? Amateur or professional? Now Country and Western, mmm, not sure about that but a lot of people like it. How about Negro Spirituals, are they bad folk music? What about Gospel style music, is that bad? It belongs to the people yes? It is related to the culturally defining ritual chants. So when people advocate old men's plainsong over trad. or contemporary low folk music what is really rejected is participation and inclusion.

What is the English Tradition? I read the link about Byrd which was very interesting. But I assume the English Tradition is the Anglican Tradition. And what we have in our parish is the ability to sing the songs of Wesley and also great Anglican hymns. Most people in our parish think they are Catholic hymns. Proper church music.

But the Anglicans have us beat out there with some real hearty choral singing, choir schools, paid organists and so and so on. All we have is some Latin bits and bobs which are in the books but seldom sung in our parish and Soul of my Saviour/Marian and Scared Heart type hymns. Apart from Farrell, Inwood and other modern composers.

In the Catholic church we are deskilled in music. Often less educated as a group, less affluent, less able to afford private music education. Our schools do well in poorer areas but music is not a priority. Church musicians are rare, under valued and confused. Training is limited and unprofessional and when we do get some help it is to tell us what we are doing wrong! And the congregation is the same, scared of singing a wrong note because of the significance of the rituals. Parishioners come with a range of backgrounds and then argue over what to sing. Many parishes around her just use tapes. This is not an argument for a return to older forms and tunes. How can that help? It will alienate the young. We need a balance between tradition and new careful material. It has to be simple and accessible, and inclusive. It has to mean something to each heart and mind. And it probably has to be rooted in the idioms of each particular culture. Like folk music. A tall order!

And what has happened to subsidiarity? Is this only applied to governance of matters other than Liturgy? Surely music is the one part of the Liturgy that should be located in place and people?

What do they sing in Africa? If the church is to be globally inclusive then it should not seek to impose the chants of the privileged world on the entire planet. That is really mean.

[Scholastica]

Found the discussion interesting to follow. Perhaps we would all do well to read what Pope Benedict has to say about Church music in the new catechism - published last week but yet to reach these parts so I can't give a direct quote yet ......

[peregrine]

Hello! I've been lurking here for a while and against my better instincts, thought I'd add to the debate. I've been involved in Catholic music making for some time now, having recently returned from Canada where I was, for many years, involved in the Tridentine revival in Medicine Hat, sadly leading to a parting of ways with my half-brother Dom Anton, before then setting up the Esterhazy Folk Foundation in Moose Jaw, just west of Regina - a notable event, well documented in the Candian press at the time: some of you will no doubt remember Archbishop Halpin's famous quip! (RIP)

Those were the days! I was young and foolish. Gosh, Polycarp, you remind me of myself before I saw the light. What strong and colorful views!!! But I'm sure, like me, you will eventually mature into an accomplished leader of song.

How could I not listen to the BBC R3 program after all the fuss being made here? I should nail my colours (I must get used to spelling this corectly again!) to the mast now, and say that although I think Mr Baker lends a slightly heavy edge to his comments, I am something of a fan and indeed was fortunate enough to meet him once! I was singing the rosary in Westminster Cathedral during a performance of evening prayer by the choir, many years ago when he was the associate organist. He was obviously very impressed and kept looking at me, giving me clear hand signals of encouragement. What a shame that it's only the privileged few who sing for him now that get to see those hands!!

Anyway, to get to the point! Church music has come a long way in the last forty years. My own publications are a testament to that. I'm particularly proud of my mass setting which is based on Hey Jude. We used it weekly in Moose Jaw, and there was always a great reaction from the congregation. I remember one lady asking me if she could sing along too, but I said that it was the folk group's business to worry about singing, and she should learn to appreciate the great sound system we'd installed. Some people just don't get it, do they!!!

I'm sure Mr Baker was just playing devil's advocate on the radio. Honestly, he's too nice to be a serious musician, and I bet he has a secret love of modern liturgy! And don't you love Mr MacMillan's Scottish lilt? If only people spoke like that in Canada.

Anyway, do stop this silly bickering. Those of us who know we're right don't need to prove it by shouting, do we? Let the sound system do all the work, that's what I say!!!

Perry Esterhazy (Mr)