alan29 wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2024 2:46 pm
Our settings are vehicles to enable the cantor/psalmist to get the words across as directly as possible.
This is very close to the ' music being the handmaid of the liturgy' idea expressed by Pius X in his Motu Proprio 'Tra Le Sollecitudini' of 1903 and repeated officially ever since. This, of course, was a direct reaction against operatic styles of singing current in many churches at that time, especially in Rome! Personally I hate this style of singing - especially if it has a heavy vibrato and ''swooping' up to and away from notes. However If it promotes religious understanding for others I cannot see why one should object. My dislike is merely an expression of musical taste, which is subjective.
The trouble with the 'handmaid of the liturgy' line though is that it makes music redundant. If text is complete in itself why add music? Yet with psalms we know this was not so. Biblical accounts show that text and music were prepared in conjunction with one another - and dancing is mentioned too! These can be congruent; but often there is an inherent tension between the two. At the very least music emphasises certain aspects of meaning at the expense of others; and it can also add meanings not present in the text alone. This has huge positive potential; but it can also be dangerous, hence repeated campaigns to make music simply a vehicle to convey text. Yet this does not solve the problem; for an anodyne setting drains text of meaning, in the same way as happens when a reader declaims in a flat colourless monotone. Besides, if you do this you cramp musicians, preventing them from using God given talents to the full. Musicians are in effect being told to 'bury their talent in the ground'. The reality should be that they have equal opportunity to use their gifts in the same way as other groups.
The true answer is that musicians master the technicalities of their craft, as this enables them to respond to text in an utterly controlled way. Musically they should then achieve exactly what they set out to do. Yet simultaneously they also need a clear understanding of the liturgical context in which those talents are being used. The extent of musical knowledge though makes it impossible to master that liturgical context in detail; and usually all they need is a basic liturgical understanding. They should not use detailed liturgical analysis to evade the demands of technical musical study.
If we think about it the same points apply to linguistic specialists. They too are simply one part of a liturgical whole. Liturgy is a combination of different elements - text, music, gesture, vestments and other objects etc. Linguists aim to master their craft to the same extent as musicians and other groups manage theirs. Note too that accurate translation and 'poetic' manipulation of language are different but overlapping skills. So, like musicians, they cannot achieve a full result if they concentrate on words alone. If then they are dealing with texts that are going to be combined with music, linguists need some musical understanding. In the same way as musicians are expected to pay attention to the nature of text linguists should listen to what the former have to say. When musicians (rightly or wrongly) think this is not happening you get complaints of the sort that have been seen on this thread. When musicians barge ahead without regard for other liturgical components you get the reaction of Pius X. This was the genius of the Bible de Jerusalem project in the 1950s when it came to psalmody. Linguistic scholars really did consult with musicians - led by Joseph Gelineau - about how things should be done. The result was probably the first psalm translation since ancient Hebrew times that took music properly into account. Inevitably this must have produced textual distortions that a linguist solely concerned with literal accuracy might blanch at; but this brings one back to the point that the original psalm texts and their music were created together.
