Friday, April 22, 2005
Liturgical Muzak
A discussion hosted by The Recovering Choir Director was based on this query:
" ... what is the CantemusDomino community's general reaction when they hear the Latin chant, such as in the Entrance Antiphon? How do they respond?"
My response was:
The only time I would encounter this is when I'm on retreat, so I'd just open the monastery hymnal and sing along. I have a passable understanding of Latin so it wouldn't be a distraction in that sense.
It would be distracting if the community wasn't expected to sing the introit. I'd put that in the same basket as good liturgical dance: artistic, but not in keeping with the mainstream expectations of singing at the liturgy.
Liturgical muzak, however well done, is for concerts, not liturgy.
... which apparently was clear as mud, because Bernard Brandt asked for a clarification, "to flesh out in detail what he means, either here or in his own page. There is an ambiguity which deserves further expression."
Fair enough. But before I begin, let me point out that in seven years of blogging and message boarding, my positions regarding liturgical music should be quite clear to those who know me. The suggestion that I bear particular malice toward good liturgy is unfounded, unless one believes good liturgy can only be achieved by conformity to one's own personal taste. In which case, such a judgment on me speaks for itself.
"If his meaning is that he believes that music without understandable words is the equivalent of elevator music, and has no place in the Divine Liturgy, then I would tend to agree with him."
I would be cautious about this assessment. I do think there are times for the use of instrumental music in the liturgy. And if the words are not understood in vocal music, that falls to a matter of incompetence for the singer(s), the director, the architect, the congregation, and the pastor ... and maybe all of them.
"If his meaning is that any use of Latin would tend to be music without understanding, then I would tend to disagree with him." I think my initial post was pretty clear. Presenting unfamiliar music (Latin language or otherwise) to a singing assembly at a time when it is used to singing is a severe pastoral abuse of the liturgy. That an unknown Latin chant might be both appropriate liturgically and beautiful artistically is irrelevant. If a parish determined that singing the entrance antiphon in Latin was a value, it is the responsibility of the music director and the pastor to ensure the people have the preparation and opportunity to sing it. If that responsibility isn't taken, then those responsible have violated GIRM 47. The self-styled orthodox, were they so inclined, would complain to the Vatican about a "liturgical abuse." My reaction, were I a visitor at such a parish, would be to avoid a return visit. "If Todd means that the chant traditions of East and West are merely pretty music without meaning in themselves, then I would have to disagree entirely." I would, too. But some worshippers, even including a few of my parishioners, would acclaim the value of the music they hear at Mass as entertainment. Thanks to both technology and the ego-driven star phenomenon, Western culture reinforces this attitude strongly, especially if the music is at all skilled. Music is for listening, not singing or playing. And now, thanks to MTV, music is for watching, not just listening. Such tendencies in contemporary culture work strongly against the encouragement of music making, especially in the young. Rarer today than twenty years ago would be the person who watches MTV and decides to form his or her own band. Rarer today than a hundred years ago would be the person who listens to Bach or Debussy and decides to learn a musical instrument--it's easier to buy another cd, and who wants to invest years of practice? "To ignore either the beauty of chant in the original or the power of chant in the vernacular would be short-sighted and foolish." Agreed, with the presumption that a church musician tends to the cultivation of singing chant in the assembly as one of the highest priorities. "It could be that he does not understand that the chant traditions were in fact inspired by the angelic choirs." I would point out that all good music (and much inexperienced music) be it chant or any vocal or instrumental tradition, is a grace inspired by the Holy Spirit. Sacred music, however one views its inspiration, quality, or appropriateness for worship, is a means to an end. Music is not the object of Christian worship. Catholic church musicians must operate from the two-fold goal of Sacrosanctum Concilium: the worship of God and the sanctification of the faithful. Church musicians must be able to make important distinctions: 1. The difference between music that merely inspires and music that truly is for worship. 2. The difference between music that is done for the benefit of one's own ego and music that is done for the good of others. 3. The difference between an audience and a prayerfully engaged assembly. Everyone has a place in the choir, but good parish music leadership must test itself beyond the disciplines of music alone. Otherwise, such leadership might find a better vocation singing in the assembly at Sunday Mass and working a nine-to-five producing music for secular purposes.
