Personally, I found this recent series of articles on "Morality in Music" very insightful and informative. At minimum, it gives us a vocabulary, that we might speak more intelligently about those things we already intuitively know are right, or that we prefer. At this point, I wanted to drive home a few more points, using the articles as a basis, which I thought were implied but not stated explicitly.
I am stating here what I believe to be a reasoned justification for plain chant accompanied by the pipe organ as the primary expression of liturgical music, in accordance with the Second Vatical Council. Of course, others may disagree, although it's pretty tough to do so without rejecting the will of the Council Fathers, as well as the general argument that has been laid out in the series: that all music has an inherent moral quality. Thus, it can truly be said that, as with moral choices, there is music which is "good" and music which is "evil".
In the discussion of the moral quality of music, or the ability of a particular type of music to dispose the listener toward "good versus bad" moral development, it seems reasonable to return to the basic elements of music that have been discussed: pitch, dissonance and timbre, and I would add rhythm.
Pitch, in and of itself, is clearly neutral. It's pretty tough to draw any sort of conclusion about the moral quality of pitch. For example, makes no sense to try to say that A-440, or even the F# above it, are inherently good or evil. All music makes use of notes of differing pitch.
Regarding dissonance (or its inverse, consonance), we may at least begin to have a discussion. It is probably overly simplistic to claim that only perfectly consonant music can be morally good. Consonance comes in degrees, so the only truly consonant music would consist in unison and octave intervals. Consonance would come at the price of very little variation. As a result, any music that relies solely on consonance would draw very little interest indeed.
Dissonance, whether simultaneous (i.e. a chord) or serial (i.e. a melody), is a necessary part of the composition process. Since different intervals produce differing levels of dissonance, we can think of it as a palette of musical colors the composer uses. Each color might correspond to a different mood or emotion the composer is trying to evoke. Clearly, excessive use of highly dissonant intervals would give the impression of chaos, but an otherwise judicious use of dissonance seems to be a normal part of any good composition.
Timbre seems to me to be one of the main culprits in determining whether a composition can be said to exude moral goodness. The tone color of music can be anything from a gentle hum (i.e. perfect sine wave) to something which can be quite jarring (i.e. accented attack), grating (i.e. sharp-edged) or noisy (i.e. laden with stray random frequencies). Clearly, it is the sound quality that leans toward pure tones that is best suited to those forms of music that we associate with moral goodness.
Timbre is also intimately intertwined with issues of instrumentation. Surely, some instruments are purposely designed to produce purer tones. Other instruments, because of their nature, produce harsher, sharper-edged tones. It is not always so clear which category an instrument is in, because the manner in which it is played can even make a difference. In general, however, instruments can be ranked along a continuous scale, from pure to harsh sounding, indicating their relative suitability for producing music we would consider to be morally good. The categories in the following scale do have some overlap, but the list still serves to illustrate the general point.
At one end of the spectrum, there are instruments that generate sound from the movement of air at differing tuned lengths: for example, the pipe organ, recorder and flute. These are used to create music of the highest moral goodness. Other wind instruments on the next rung down are those that generate sound through the vibration of a reed, which introduces a bit of edge to the sound. Next on the scale would be brass instruments, which produce sound through a movement of air through the musician's vibrating lips. Further, we can consider stringed instruments which generate sound through smooth vibration or gentle plucking. At the bottom rung of the scale we can consider percussion instruments, which produce sound from the impact of a striking mechanism against another material, which resonates in a sound cavity. The higher end of this category would consist of melodic percussion, such as the piano; whereas the lower end would be atonal percussion, such as the snare drum. Percussive sounds, particularly the atonal variety, are constructed by a violent constriction of a multiplicity of sound waves at different simultaneous frequencies. To say the least, it strains credulity to imagine that such a cacophony of sound could convey anything of moral goodness.
Rhythm can also have a profound effect on the moral goodness of a piece. At the risk of proposing something that may be difficult to substantiate by empirical evidence, I will venture to say that those forms of music having a free-flowing rhythm are associated with moral goodness (e.g. plain chant), whereas those forms with a highly structured or driving rhythm are not (e.g. pop rock).
On the one hand, plain chant is so intertwined with the sacred text that, it is almost like the melody emanates from the text itself. The free rhythmic movement of plain chant is like a gentle invitation to take a ride in a hot-air balloon, as it soars to the clouds and then comes in for a cushioned landing. In music that has a steady rhythm, on the other hand, it is the beat itself that forms the foundation, while the melody, which is attached to the text, rides over top of it. It is almost as if the repetitious nature of many, especially modern, forms of music are exerting a force; one which carries the listener along in the direction of the music, with or without consent. I visualize this instead as a freight train, whose force is too great to resist. It's almost like a violation of our God-given freedom. At least that's the way I see it.
Rock music, for example, with its heavy driving beat, has historically been a medium advocating rebellion, and closely associated with the movement for freedom from societal restraint. But I hypothesize that the same effect applies even in the Church, where highly rhythmic liturgical music implicitly attempts to further the same destructive ends. If the underlying purpose of the music is to unite the listeners in a common bond of rebellion, then a recurring rhythmic beat is the best form to accomplish that end. To me, it's almost too coincidental that, in the Church, those promoting a continual modernization of liturgical music, are the same people who advocate liturgical abuse and dissent from Church teaching. Enough said.
From the point of view of instrumentation, it seems to me that those instruments producing purer tones ought to be the ones in normal liturgical usage, for the reasons stated. That's not to say that other instruments should be entirely forbidden. Surely, arrangements for special occasions, with permission of the local ordinary, can be effective in adding solemnity to the atmosphere of worship. I am thinking, for example, where a full orchestra might be invited to "perform" at a Pontifical Mass; realizing, of course, that the focus must be on the Sacrifice, and not on the musicians or even the soloists.
In summary, I hope to have given a reasoned explanation for the regular use of the pipe organ as the primary instrument of musical accompaniment in the Mass. The pipe organ, being among the purest sounding instruments, is yet sufficiently flexible that a wide-ranging polyphonic sound is possible. The pure tone quality of the sound means that, when professional-caliber compositions are played on it, and in support of the free-flowing rhythm of plain chant, that form of melodic prayer familiar to the Church throughout her history, we have a liturgical accompaniment worthy of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and one that is suitable for the positive moral formation of its listeners. To me, this is by far the best option available for such a sublime task.
Dear Mr. Rex:
I think that your presentation of the essays on the Morality of Music has been cogent, and a good display of western Christian *philosophia perennis*. I think in particular that your rationale for the hierarchy of instruments is a particularly apt one, and one that lends itself to the Second Vatican Council's estimation in "Musicam Sacram" that the pipe organ is the pre-eminent musical instrument for Western sacred music.
Based on the presuppositions and arguments that you have presented, I believe that you could also make the case for the orchestra (woodwinds, brass, strings, and percussion) as a proper instrument for sacred music, in that it makes a subordination of all of the above named instruments with the result of a richer palette of timbre.
Nonetheless, I must point out that the Christian East has made use of the same philosophy and come up with a diametrically opposite result: that the only instrument proper to divine worship is the human voice, as it is the only traditional instrument which is capable of both *logike* and *musike*. I would appreciate your, and other peoples', thoughts regarding this.
Mr. Brandt, I agree that the human voice is indeed the primary musical instrument of the Sacred Liturgy. I would add, however, that I don't see the Eastern result as "diametrically opposite" that of the West. The organ is an instrument that breathes and vocalizes in a manner similar to the human voice. I would consider the organ more of a mechanical extension to the human voice than an accompaniment. It certainly makes possible a broader palate of sounds, which I believe makes it most suitable for worship at a higher degree of solemnity.
I have no problem with unaccompanied chant for Masses of lower solemnity. In fact, I have attended Byzantine Catholic Liturgies many times. No doubt, the chant, and the reverent manner in which it is proclaimed, comes directly from heaven as well.
Peace, Paul.
You have an interesting theory well worth consideration within the larger picture. Aside from the timbre of instruments, another consideration is the ability of various instruments to lead a congregation in song. The organ is "king," not only because it is a wind instrument, but because a single player can play at such a wide range of pitches so as to support, accompany, and surround the singing of men, women, and children. (When competently played, that is.)
In the practical realm, a piano or even a guitar ensemble might be more valuable than a single flute because it can generate a wider range of sound to accompany a group of people.
In the musical realm, I wonder about your placement of unpitched percussion, as the human voice also is a percussion instrument in its use of most consonants. Without percussion, plainsong is just vowels. Nice sounds, but unless one is Hawaiian, perhaps not enough for articulation and meaning.
Granola, Todd (and Dear Mr. Rex):
I would tend to agree with Todd that the value of a pipe organ, (and analogously, piano and orchestra) is in the wider range of harmony available to it. Unless, however, the guitar quartet is of the calibre and training of, say, the Los Angeles Guitar Quartet, I would suggest dumping it. This from one who believes that the only proper guitar Mass is one which begins with John Dowland's "Lord Willoughby's Return" (or an analogous piece) for the processional.
Reluctantly, I would also agree with Todd as regards the placement of the human voice in the hierarchy you suggest, but for different reasons. In terms of structure, the human vocal apparatus more closely resembles a double-reed instrument, like the oboe, than it does the straight or transverse flute. This, together with resonance chambers of the human voice and other factors, leads to more overtones and range of timbre.
As regards the consonants, though, that portion of the vocal apparatus resembles more a *tuned* percussion instrument. Anyone who thinks otherwise should perhaps consider voice lessons, preferably from Richard Miller, or someone trained by him.
I suggest, however, that a different rationale would give primacy to the human voice, not because of the purity of the tone of the instrument, but because it is the only one which can praise God in both word and song. (Do please let's leave computers out of the picture here)
A Lo Ha:
Chiff.
Interesting thoughts. More here.
Peace, all.
It occurred to me today that church bells have no place of honor in this hierarchy. Certainly history would suggest something higher than the "fifth hell" of tuned percussion.
Another thought, more or less coming in sideways: Different languages depend more and less on consonants for articulation. For example, Germanic languages (including English) depend more on consonants for intelligibility than Romance tongues. Certain acoustics favor Latin and its daughter languages over English and other vernaculars. One cannot divorce acoustics from consideration, and some would consider the church building itself an instrument.
Also, in considering ensembles, do we rate the level of our highest "member?" Or do two guitars bring down the "average" in an otherwise all vocal group? Or would a single flute raise up the quotient for an otherwise hopeless satchel of instruments?
Thank you all for your comments on this topic. As I hinted in my original piece, this topic is not cut and dry, for many reasons. Rather, I had intended to provide some reasonable basis for understanding, accepting and restoring the Church's understanding of the nature of sacred music. It should be taken in that vein.
Recall that Pope St. Pius X in paragraph 19 of Tra le Sollecitudini said: "The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like." This instruction could come across as arbitrary, unless there were some theoretical foundation for it. I have attempted to make explicit what the Saintly Father may have intuitively implied. At least, my exposition is consonant with it.
Trying, on the other hand, to justify the use of piano or guitar, on the basis of their suitability for leading congregations, may be valid per se, but still contrary from the point of view of their ability to produce music of a sacred character. Thus they are unsuitable for a liturgical function, since Mass is not a campfire sing-along. That is the primary point I have tried to make.
Let's at least agree that they are contrary to the will of Pius X, who is quoted extensively as recently as Pope John Paul II's chirograph, and whose instruction is thus still as relevant as when it was first penned.