Wednesday, May 18, 2005
"One really easy way to stick your hand into the hornet’s nest is to say something like,'We need to get back to real music in the Church and get rid of this folk stuff.'" And besides saying, "Well, yeah," I have a few other thoughts: If you still think contemporary liturgical music is "folk stuff," you don't really know your music as well as you should. Educated musicians should know the definition of folk music, and what major liturgical publishers are putting out these days is not it. On the Sacred Music website, this report:
"All who love true liturgy and its musica sacra were filled with joyful hope at the election of Pope Benedict XVI. As we followed the television broadcast of the Mass for the inauguration of his pastoral ministry, we were deeply moved by the Holy Father's celebration of the Holy Sacrifice, and his sermon. But as the Mass continued, we were increasingly disappointed by its musical features."
It wasn't "folk music," but by all reports, the commentator thought it far inferior to the kind of music he or she could produce. Which leads me to my point today.
Good musicians are very picky about their art. They should be. When I listen to jazz, I'm generally pleased with what I hear. When I listen to popular music, I find more to criticize: the lyrics and arrangements mostly. On the rare occasion I attend Mass outside my parish, I try to take off my critic's hat and pray. But I have definite ideas about what other people could have done better. I tend to be more gentle on this point. I have colleagues who know they could do a better job than anyone else, and they're not afraid to tell you so.
Many St Bloggers complain and whine about church music, but only one regularly posts what happens each Sunday, and I'm not even sure he actually has programmed or played the music. We church musicians all know colleagues who might turn up their noses at some of our liturgical repertoire. It's all well and good to complain about the state of liturgical music, but the tenor of complaint works against any attempts at positive examples.
So pardon my suspicion of the glee over the coming liturgical housecleaning from Benedict XVI. There are reasons why it won't happen and the onus will remain where it should: with the parish musician. This is not about adherence to the Church's treasure of plainsong. Often it's a matter of taste. More often it's about good music in the eyes of the critic. Many weaker musicians honestly believe they offer good music for the Sunday liturgy. Many parishioners agree. One of two things might be going on here: either the music might be pretty decent or it's not. In either case, good examples reinforced over years, if not decades, might eventually turn the tide. What kind of good examples? Glad you asked:
1. Recordings of good parish choirs singing good music. This would be a diocesan responsibility, I think, to promote it. But any good parish music ministry should think about recording their best efforts for posterity and for the experienc eof doing so, if nothing else.
2. Concerts of good sacred music. Shared responsibility, parish and diocese.
3. Music education for anyone in music ministry who wants it. Shared again: dioceses to provide it, parishes to sponsor and encourage it.
4. Mentoring for new music ministers. Professional responsibility of church musicians. Teaching students at a conservatory doesn't count unless the students are already in active ministry at a parish. Also must include non-conservatory musicians, even for music professors.
It's my conceited opinion as a church musician that a person lacks the qualifications to criticize the liturgical music other people do unless and until he or she actually has actually given good example through these steps, especially number 4.
What do the folks say?
