IncenseTom wrote:I understand hymns, worship songs, anything 'religious in it's content' sung at Mass to be religious music.
Whereas, I understand the integral parts of the Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, etc etc) including the psalm to be liturgical music.
For everyone, not just the original poster, I would say liturgical music ought to take precedence over religious music [my emphasis]. Hymns really aren't important so it's no use worrying over people in the parish liking this or that because you'll never keep them all happy.
Focusing on singing THE mass rather than singing AT mass would be my idea of doing what's 'correct'.
Perhaps we would be better off using the Universa Laus distinctions between religious music, sacred music, church music, liturgical music and Christian ritual music.
Religious music: any music born of a religious sentiment or composed from the starting-point of a religiously-inspired text. "Religious music is the broadest possible definition of a general relationship between music and organized religion. It does not matter which religion is in question. Some would say that it does not matter if no particular religion is involved; it is the generally religious flavour that counts."
Sacred music: “Sacred music” is equally a general notion in the same sort of line as [“religious music” and “church music”], but here we can see that the aim is to establish a clear boundary with “profane” music. "The term originated in a document by (Lutheran) Michael Praetorius in 1614, and did not become part of the Catholic Church’s vocabulary until the end of the 18th / beginning of the 19th centuries, where it served to underpin a desire for “purity” and a generally conservative agenda. It is normally used in a geographically very limited sense, and takes no account of the fact that the notion of the sacred belongs to the whole of humanity, even pagans, and is not limited to Christianity."
Church music: “Church music” is close to “religious music” but, by specifying the place where this music is normally performed, the term includes connotations of volume of space and atmosphere (fullness, solemnity, etc). Benjamin Britten's church operas, for example, would come into this category. Music designed to be sung in church, but not during a liturgy.
Liturgical music: “Liturgical music” turns our minds towards the use of music in the course of a celebration, and emphasizes the functional link between musical art and liturgy, at the same time distancing itself from an exclusively aesthetic conception of music In other words, music
which is designed for use during a liturgy, but does not yet talk about a tight relationship between the elements of the rite and the music used. "We could say that a great deal of music is designed to be used in a liturgical context, but it may not necessarily grow out of the liturgy as an integral part of it – it may indeed be imposed on the liturgy or inserted into it without due regard for what the rite is trying to do."
Ritual music: "Ritual music" translates and underlines the deep union that we are seeking between a particular kind of music and the rite for which it has been composed, or selected, or performed. In other words, music which grows out of the ritual (not imposed on it) and fits the ritual like a glove.
So, while singing the Mass rather than singing at Mass is undoubtedly correct, some of the proponents of this mean "singing the propers of the Mass in the Roman Missal or Roman Gradual", and singing them to chant-like music. Three points about this:
(a) these are no longer the proper chants as they once were in the past. For example, the chants in the Graduale Simplex are just as proper, whether in Latin or English, and GIRM has other "proper" options too.
(b) the antiphon texts in the Roman Missal are not necessariy designed for singing themselves, as we have discussed here ad naus. They are there to remind us to
sing something at these points, and if there is no singing to recite these texts.
(c) there is a whole debate waiting to be had about whether the Gregorian chant idiom in its pure form can actually put people off participating in liturgy. At the very least, sensitive handling is required (see, for example, the work of the nuns of Stanbrook Abbey and John Ainslie's
English Proper Chants). We are unfortunately already in an age where the use of Latin and English chant antiphons is perceived as liturgical music snobbery, perhaps because proponents of this idiom tend to insist on it to the exclusion of everything else, regardless of whether the people can sing/understand it or not. Statements such as "We
have to sing the Latin Introit and Communion chants because this is the only authentic music of the Church and because that is what the Church requires us to do" are unhelpful as well as completely inaccurate.
