<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Musician Placement in Catholic Worship

Amy's pondering it. I have more to say than might fit in a reasonably-sized comment, so let's kick off the discussion here. I think the origins and motivation of the Catholic Cantor Placement deserves more analysis. It's not going away any time soon - in fact, the determination of music groups to be placed in the front, along with their cantor, doesn't show any signs of slowing down - most church renovations/new construction feature that front position, which is just really too bad. If all it is is repositioning in the "front," then I'd agree. I do think people did give the matter a lot of thought in the 60's and 70's. Lofts were a problem for a number of practical reasons: - Sometimes the organist and choir didn't want upstart groups there. - Sometimes there wasn't room - Most old churches were wired for sound amplification in the sanctuary, so that's where groups could make use of existing technology. - Up front was also closer to members' families, and facilitated the group sitting in the pews and paying attention during the readings, the homily, etc.. And I'm sure that some people were nightclub or coffeehouse refugees and craved the attention of a Sunday morning audience in addition to what they had the night before. But that's little different from musical performing hijinx that often go on in choir lofts. Most upfront musicians in the early days after Vatican II had a significant difference from performers: they didn't get paid--sometimes the parish budget didn't even provide expenses. I've been to a couple of Masses this past year in which there was, indeed a cantor, but he (in both cases, different parishes) was in the rear, in the choir loft. Very nice, and no one in the congregation seemed to mind. If one accepts the notion that ministry implies a relationship, the American expectation might be that one would see the person. The psalmist should certainly be seen, preferably at the ambo. On hymns that everybody sings, I don't see why the music can't be announced, then led by the organ (or whatever instrument) without a singer on the mic. Granted, many parishes, including my own, are so used to a singer on mic they are actually loathe to sing the very few times they don't have a songleader. My cantors know to back off from the mic after the hymn or acclamation starts. If a congregation is trained to follow the organ rather than arm waving, then yes, they shouldn't mind not seeing a person singing the songs they know they should sing. What's missing from the discussion, however, is a frank appraisal of the rationale behind this. What contemporary Catholic music groups and cantors are attempting to emulate, it seems to me, isn't the classical Protestant structure in which the choir was, indeed, in front, but the more relaxed, mostly evangelical praise-band-group model. And why are they seeking to imitate it? Because it seems, in their eyes, to work. I think Amy misses the real reason here: good ol' fashioned American pragmatism. If you don't have enough people for a choir, use a single singer. If you can't hear the person, get them a microphone. If you don't have mic jacks anywhere but in the sanctuary, use them. If your parish and neighbors have been using altered pre-conciliar churches as models for the past decades, you imitate that when you build a new building. Trust me: we're not getting ideas from Joel Osteen or Jerry Falwell. When I arrived at my current parish, the renovation debate was raging: where will the musicians be? It was presented as a two-option deal: Go to the loft. Go up front. And all I could think of was, "What a damfool way to run a renovation!"

Go to the loft? Go up front? Which one? The obvious answer is neither one. We have a cross-shaped building, so neither the loft nor upfront provide any particular advantage. Lofts do facilitate hearing a choir because of elevation combined with being at the long end of a building. Singing around corners is another matter. The choir and cantor/songleader/psalmist are part of the assembly. They lead music when it is time to sing. Otherwise they are just plain lay people, not performers, not paid professionals, not showpieces. If the acoustics don't break the deal, a choir belongs as a part of the assembly: neither in a loft, not "up front."

In my mind, two traditional layouts are ideal for finding a middle ground that satisfies the requirements for good liturgy. On the left is the antiphonal layout. People sit on both sides of a wide aisle facing the altar, ambo, font, and one another. Put a eucharistic chapel on one end, a pipe organ on the other, leave room for lots of processions, and have at it. On the right is the most traditional liturgical layout: around a common table. Just like at the Last Supper or at the Passover table. In each case, the musicians are not banished to a loft nor are they put up on a stage. For that matter clergy are no longer on the performing stage either. It's not about individuals or groups. It's about worshipping God, and facilitating the service needed at common worship.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

The Alliance for Moderate, Liberal and Progressive Blogs

Join | List | Previous | Next