I have a feeling that this thread is probably a reaction to a comment I made in another thread. I did not mean to offend anyone by that comment, so if anyone is offended please accept my apology.
"Folk Group" has become the term in widespread use to refer to any group of musicians who do not use an organ and specialise in recent church music. This usage is unfortunate, folk musicians don't like it because the music has little to do with what musicologists call folk music, and the members of such groups don't like the sixties connotations it carries.
All that said, the name does not really matter. There are two important things that I feel, if adopted by all these groups, would help to push their acceptance with congregations.
Firstly, the standard of musicianship needed is at least as high as that required of organists and part singing choirs. Anyone can't just start a "folk" group. As pointed out by someone above, the ability to read music is essential. Stories about musicians who cannot read music are newsworthy on the "man bites dog" principle. As a trumpet/cornet/flugel player I very much appreciated the remark about clarinetists above. The group leader/ rehearsal master needs to do his/her homework, and you need to rehearse until the music is fit for public airing. All this applies to organists., etc just as much. I don't appreciate being asked to sight read and transpose a high descant in public.
Secondly, the music must be chosen with a lot of care. The hymnbook publishers seem to be reluctant to drop items. The filter of time hasn't really cut in yet on "modern" material. As a result some hymn books have a thousand items to choose from. Please choose carefully. Read the words aloud without the music. If they are not inspiring without music, they may well not do anything for your congregation with music. A protestant minister suggested to me what he called the anagram test. To do this you go through the word changing all references to "God" to "dog". If singing about the dog in the terms the author intended for God is not ridiculous, then perhaps the words don't say much. In the extreme, in some cases you won't find any substitutions to make. Then play the music without the words. What emotions does it stir in you? If those emotions do not match the words then reconsider. Play the music differently, of drop it.
My final thought is not to get bogged down by the style of music you personally like. You may be a fan of baroque or blues but if something else fits the liturgy better, play the something else.
Folk Group
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
How much wisdom, Nazard - I only wish you could have a word with our PP who memorably announced to a meting of our Liturgy Committee: "I've had six parishes, and the choirs never needed to practice."
Going back a bit, however, to Sidvicius's observation about the organ, "wot is held in high steam by the powers that be", no-one seems to have picked up on the fact that singing accompanied by organ is the "native" style of the celebration of the Mass in the Roman Rite. Maybe it's a bit archaic to our contemporary ears, but then the celebrant and his attendants will appear in elaborate garb not often seen in street or workplace these days, and the altar will be lit by a somewhat outmoded form of illumination, and we accept all this without demur - it's part
of the ceremonial - yet the music makes us all itchy. I wonder why this is.
(Incidentally, while trying to track down a quotation describing the organ as having "pride of place" or being "pre-eminent" or some such form of words, I looked up "organ" in the joint index to GIRM and CTM only to find somewhat cryptically "see Musical Instruments". So I did a word search for "Organ" and then just for the sake of it for "choir" (yes, I know . . but I'm the kind of person that finds drying paint too over-stimulating). As a result of this exercise, if I can work out how to do it, I'm going to start a new thread called "So why do we hate choirs then?" - hope to meet you there.)
And if anyone knows where I read that bit about the organ (maybe "Liturgicam Authenticam"?) I'd be glad to know.
Going back a bit, however, to Sidvicius's observation about the organ, "wot is held in high steam by the powers that be", no-one seems to have picked up on the fact that singing accompanied by organ is the "native" style of the celebration of the Mass in the Roman Rite. Maybe it's a bit archaic to our contemporary ears, but then the celebrant and his attendants will appear in elaborate garb not often seen in street or workplace these days, and the altar will be lit by a somewhat outmoded form of illumination, and we accept all this without demur - it's part
of the ceremonial - yet the music makes us all itchy. I wonder why this is.
(Incidentally, while trying to track down a quotation describing the organ as having "pride of place" or being "pre-eminent" or some such form of words, I looked up "organ" in the joint index to GIRM and CTM only to find somewhat cryptically "see Musical Instruments". So I did a word search for "Organ" and then just for the sake of it for "choir" (yes, I know . . but I'm the kind of person that finds drying paint too over-stimulating). As a result of this exercise, if I can work out how to do it, I'm going to start a new thread called "So why do we hate choirs then?" - hope to meet you there.)
And if anyone knows where I read that bit about the organ (maybe "Liturgicam Authenticam"?) I'd be glad to know.
quaeritor wrote:And if anyone knows where I read that bit about the organ (maybe "Liturgicam Authenticam"?) I'd be glad to know.
Hello Quaeritor, it's from Sacrosanctum Concilium (120), which I'm sure you and almost everyone round here will know is the Vatican II document on the Liturgy:
In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument that adds a wonderful splendour to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up the spirit to God and higher things.
M.
-
nazard
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:08 am
- Parish / Diocese: Clifton
- Location: Muddiest Somerset
quaeritor wrote:singing accompanied by organ is the "native" style of the celebration of the Mass in the Roman Rite.
I think the native style for music is unison singing with no accompaniment, using the "Graduale Romanum" and similar volumes. All other music came along much later. Organs were pretty primitive until about the fifteenth century, so probably only played the melody at first anyway. There are plenty of references to the serpent being used to support the choir, presumably a euphemism for keeping then together in time and pitch. I don't suppose the fundamental problems have changed much over the years.
If you want to do the same thing now, a baritone horn, euphonium, baritone sax or bassoon all make a good substitute for a serpent. Mind you, I've always fancied a go on serpent, if anyone has one to spare...
Church organ music seems to have got really going in the sixteenth century, with most of what we now recognize being seventeenth century and later. (Organ haters love to point out that Samuel Scheidt wrote organ music) By then other instruments were well established, eg Gabrielli & Monteverdi, so the "music group" is not a new idea.
The church has a history of arguing with elements of its performers about what constitutes suitable music. The Council of Trent wrote about it, as did Pius X, and other twentieth century popes. The problem is that everything they write is so general as to be utterly unhelpful. Phrases like "Godly", "sacred", "uplifting" and "fit for its purpose" don't help much. Bach's B minor mass seems to me to be sacred and uplifting, but I wouldn't use it because it is too long for liturgy and well beyond our parish's very limited resources. Others would say it is just tedious and boring. Other people I know would like voices screaming over loud drumming and repetitive distorted guitar chords, music they would describe as "uplifting." The only part of me it uplifts is my hands, to my ears.
I think we all need to be careful to keep to repertoire which avoids extremes, keeps to the liturgical point and is within our capabilities. We can stretch ourselves and so become better musicians at practice time.
-
TimSharrock
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 1:19 pm
- Location: Altrincham
Gwyn wrote:BTW - what happened to the pic of the iguana?
It's just what we need to cheer us up at this time of year.
Sorry about the delay!
Silent Night, croak, croak
Holy Night, croak, croak
It was surprisingly effective
... I tried it in rehearsal, expecting to be vetoed by our conductor, but she liked it!
(by the way, mcb, it came from the same stall in Manchester Christmas market as young m's birthday present - has be found the whistle in the tail?)
-
TimSharrock
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 1:19 pm
- Location: Altrincham
docmattc wrote:A croaker next to a croakus! Will the wit never end? If that's a recent photo, spring is upon the other side of the pennines much earlier than on this side
15th January this year - lots of primroses out but only that one croakus, which has now fallen over after the shock of getting a frost...
That looks just like my favourite choir leader!
Couldn't possibly comment
He's a sturdy chap, isn't he? Btw, is that a baseball bat he has in his nearside front paw? That'd tame any wayward alto, (or maybe just most!)
Response from wayward alto:
the process of taming did not involve a baseball bat
Dot
Thanks for the quote, mcb - makes my point even better than I had remembered. Pace, Nazard, - I do see the force of the argument from history (don't suppose there were many 64 foot pipes in the catacombs) but how old does a tradition have to be before it can be thought of as "the tradition" ? Isn't the general thrust of the GIRM to reaffirm the ceremonial (even ritualistic) "look and feel" of the Mass that we thought of as traditional in the days of our (well, of my) youth?
-
nazard
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:08 am
- Parish / Diocese: Clifton
- Location: Muddiest Somerset
Sorry, Quaeritor, I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't use organs, gregorian chant and traditional hymns. I just don't use tradition as my argument.
I like the organ for various reasons. It has a certain atmosphere and presence about it which lets you know you are in church. This may be only a familiar association, but it is definitely there. Because of the way composers, particularly Bach, but many others too, have treated the organ, it has a repertoire of enormous dignity. It seems to be able to lead a congregation in a way which no other instrument can. Since the advent of the electric blower, it is operable by only one person to give a rich and satisfying sound which fills the biggest churches. Finally, actualy playing it gives a satisfaction matched by playing no other instrument. Anyone who has never tried to play the organ is really missing out.
I love plainsong because it brings the words it carries home to me better than any other form of music. Singing the antiphons gives mass a sense of wholeness and prayerfulness which I don't find in singing hymns.
Hymns are man's reflections on God and salvation, and I sing those happily too. They do make splendid recessionals. I like to send the congregation out to a rousing song. I would rather not use them during the mass, but other people seem to like it so I will play them. It is good to give everyone some of what they reasonably want.
Modern music has a poor reputation I think because a fair bit of it is the pairing of inane words with banal music, but I don't think we should let that put us off all of it. If you look at old hymn books you will see that all through history the majority of what gets published as contemporary material is soon dropped never to emerge again. Good material soon becomes thought of as traditional by those who don't actually know the dates of composition. You may be surprised to find how recent Woodlands, Down Ampney and Guiting Power are.
To be serious for a moment, does anyone have any good recipes for wooden iguana?
I like the organ for various reasons. It has a certain atmosphere and presence about it which lets you know you are in church. This may be only a familiar association, but it is definitely there. Because of the way composers, particularly Bach, but many others too, have treated the organ, it has a repertoire of enormous dignity. It seems to be able to lead a congregation in a way which no other instrument can. Since the advent of the electric blower, it is operable by only one person to give a rich and satisfying sound which fills the biggest churches. Finally, actualy playing it gives a satisfaction matched by playing no other instrument. Anyone who has never tried to play the organ is really missing out.
I love plainsong because it brings the words it carries home to me better than any other form of music. Singing the antiphons gives mass a sense of wholeness and prayerfulness which I don't find in singing hymns.
Hymns are man's reflections on God and salvation, and I sing those happily too. They do make splendid recessionals. I like to send the congregation out to a rousing song. I would rather not use them during the mass, but other people seem to like it so I will play them. It is good to give everyone some of what they reasonably want.
Modern music has a poor reputation I think because a fair bit of it is the pairing of inane words with banal music, but I don't think we should let that put us off all of it. If you look at old hymn books you will see that all through history the majority of what gets published as contemporary material is soon dropped never to emerge again. Good material soon becomes thought of as traditional by those who don't actually know the dates of composition. You may be surprised to find how recent Woodlands, Down Ampney and Guiting Power are.
To be serious for a moment, does anyone have any good recipes for wooden iguana?