Fr. Robert Skeris on why the chant movement failed in the US during the interwar years:
"The chant became too precious and difficult to perform because of the theories of interpretation. Too often choirs imitated rather than learned the chants. School children in the Midwest sometimes sounded like members of a French choir instead of the children of immigrants from eastern Europe. Parish choirs found it too difficult to achieve the special effects demanded by the experts, and the result, unfortunately, was a reluctance to use chant, especially in parochial choirs and in congregations The chant was intended to be the song of the people, but unfortunately it became an art form whose rendition was beyond the abilities of all except the specially trained."("A Chronicle of the Reform," in Cum Angelis Canere: Essays on Sacred Music and Pastoral Liturgy in Honour of Richard J. Schuler. Robert A. Skeris, ed., St. Paul MN: Catholic Church Music Associates, 1990, Appendix—6, pp. 349-419, with this quotation from p. 355).
Peace, Paul.
What should have been an easy liturgical reform also became difficult due to the peculiar American approach to "cultured" music. Strong leadership from the bishops or a music publisher might have lassoed the efforts of teaching and introducing plainsong. But we didn't have that. I think the pre-Vatican II attitude of the Mass being a compulsory exercise in rubrics and obligation hurt it badly. Not to mention the Catholic minimalist approach: what is the least I have to do to satisfy my obligations? If the Mass doesn't need music, why bother? The attitude of not wanting to bother to bring one's best to God in worship probably killed chant reform in North America as much as music infighting.
"Strong leadership from the bishops or a music publisher might have lassoed the efforts of teaching and introducing plainsong."
Todd, you are probably right. We did not have that. Was it lack of education or incomplete formation? Probably that and more, including the other causes you mentioned.
I suppose it is easy and idealistic to project backward onto history a rosy picture of what a proper implementation of chant would have looked and sounded like. But what you say makes a lot of sense - the fertile ground was just not there for such a widespread foundation for chant.
As a result, in the whirlwind of change following the Council, musicians naturally gravitated to those forms of music they knew best.
I once worked, in a professional setting, with a trained musician - a classical guitarist - who considered himself a liturgical musician. Yet when I asked him to help me better understand the modal structure of plainchant, he was almost completely at a loss. He said he studied it in an undergrad course in medieval music, but that was it. Maybe better music education would help the situation.
Peace, Paul.
I've worked with many professional musicians, and many of them "seem" to have gaps. Not being conservatory-trained, I wouldn't know how this happens, but I guess they just specialize. In directing my own musical education, I focused on theory instead of performance, so maybe my self-taught background is a bit more eclectic than some.
Generalizing from my personal experience, contemporary musicians tend to be more open to other styles and forms. Sadly, I know some classical musicians who don't understand or appreciate jazz. But I've known many folk (real folk music) and jazz musicians who appreciate and patronize classical music.
So better music ed? Yes, I'd agree. But exposure be a person in conservatory or wherever would be good. Ideally, the Church would provide more of this exposure.
[i] I think the pre-Vatican II attitude of the Mass being a compulsory exercise in rubrics and obligation hurt it badly. [/i]
I think you are probably right (I wasn't there, to know for sure,) but NOT as badly as the general sixties attitude that NOTHING is cumpulsory, except that you do what "feels good." And I think that attitude that I can do anything I want from many liturgist and priests has hurt in another way; that many lay people got the not so far off impression that the people in charge at their parishes were just making it up as they went along. And if it was just the whim of the moment, of one person, rather than something of universal and timeless standing embraced by the whole Church, then it can't be all that important, and we can just ignore it, whether it's the new posture we asked to adopt or the banjo music we're asked to sing or the baptisms that are now taking place at mass instead of on a Sunday afternoon with just the immediate family the way "we've ALWAYS done it."
[i] the Catholic minimalist approach: what is the least I have to do to satisfy my obligations?[/i]
Whoops - you mean like random songs, the fourth option, rather than the Propers? An interesting point for you to make (I read your blog, too.)
[i]Sadly, I know some classical musicians who don't understand or appreciate jazz. But I've known many folk (real folk music) and jazz musicians who appreciate and patronize classical music.[/i]
Yes, and I know some folk and jazz musicians who don't understand or appreciate serious music, (not "classical," we're talking about Baroque and Romantice, and neo-classical and minimalist and...) But I've know many serious (real serious music) musicians who appreciate and patronize bluegrass and alternative and ethnic and fusion and folk and cool jazz and dixieland and...
You get the point.
There's ignorance and erudition among devotees of all styles.
In general though, within church music circles, the overwhelming number of musicians who are knowledgeabe about and familiar with and talented in both the sacro-pop and traditional (whether old or newly composed,) sides of current liturgical music strive for the latter.
Peace, Marge.
"but NOT as badly as the general sixties attitude that NOTHING is cumpulsory, except that you do what "feels good.""
Hmm, I remember the attitude in my Catholic school that peace and love were compulsory. I also remember still wearing ties and blazers well into the mid-70's. While it is true that some questionable things were done away with in the 60's, I think it was hardly a cesspool for chaos as you suggest.
I've known very competent and professional church people over thirty years. And yes, I saw many teachers and ministry staff members, priests included, who were badly out of their element, faking their professional way. Can either of us say it was an expected percentage one would find in any walk of life (my contention) or rampant through the system (in which case, you would have needed a lot more experience than a handful of parishes).
" ... the baptisms that are now taking place at mass instead of on a Sunday afternoon with just the immediate family the way "we've ALWAYS done it.""
Interesting choice here, and one you would be hard-pressed to argue in light of the whole of Catholic tradition.
"Whoops - you mean like random songs, the fourth option, rather than the Propers? An interesting point for you to make (I read your blog, too.)"
Thanks for reading my blog, Marge. And whoops, no, I don't mean random songs. I mean treating holy day and Sunday Masses as low Masses in spite of Vatican II suggesting we need to bring our very best to all of them. And I mean listless involvement of the laity. You, my friend, don't strike me as a liturgical wallflower. I hope you're involved at your parish, and you'd certainly be welcome as an active voice in mine.
"There's ignorance and erudition among devotees of all styles."
True. But church musicians cannot afford such opinions and expect to be successful in their ministry.
Though I have a child's and adolescent's eye memory of the late 60's and 70's, I cannot say my experience matches those who suggest it was all gloomy watching musical tradition circle the drain. I recognize my first two parishes were exceptional for moving outside the four-hymn sandwich. Most likely, the Church was mostly wholly in between your worst-case scenario and my idealistic experience. I remember the focus in these parishes being on praying the Mass, implementing the Council, involving people in liturgical ministry, and encouraging people with a sense of optimism for the future.
And getting back to thread, there simply were no chant resources available to mainstream parish musicians in the 70's. Sure the Vatican had published its chant collections around 1973-75, but with no history of chant in mainstream parishes, and no leadership on its implementation, these works were doomed to obscurity until far later. I think the full embrace of the vernacular also hurt chant. For most musicians, Latin and plainsong were a wedded whole. Renewal of chant had a lot of hurdles, and there's no sense in stooping to conspiracy theories.
"but NOT as badly as the general sixties attitude that NOTHING is cumpulsory, except that you do what "feels good.""
Hmm, I remember the attitude in my Catholic school that peace and love were compulsory.
ME TALKING HERE: So that guy, who was it? can't remember, who said that he came not to bring peace, but a sword, he was off base, wa he?
Anyway, love and peace fit my paradigm -- they DO feel good.
But only the former is part of the Christian ethos.
But please don't pretend you don't know I mean.
The time of "necessary experimentation" seems to have been taken as a license by many in the Church to do whatever they wanted even if the good of the Church DIDN'T demand the change.
And there were those who put their own preferences an agendae on an equal footing with the norms of Church practice -- I know a priest who didn't find out until AFTER ordination, it was never touched on in his seminary formation, that there was such a think as the General Instruction.
His current pastor even NOW tells him, oh, that hand washing thing, "we don't do that here."
I know people hired as music directors who were handed a hymnal accompaniment book by the pastor/boss, as if that contained everything anyone could need to know to plan the music for a liturgy -- what? there are RUBRICS that affect my choice? the text of the mass is actually specified?
" ... the baptisms that are now taking place at mass instead of on a Sunday afternoon with just the immediate family the way "we've ALWAYS done it.""
Interesting choice here, and one you would be hard-pressed to argue in light of the whole of Catholic tradition.
ME AGAIN: That was my point, it is a glorious and theologically sound practice, to make the Rites of Initiation a corporate function, of the parish, of the Body of Christ as a WHOLE. But because so much extraneous crap (and I do mean crap,) has been foisted upon people, many are not in a position to differentiate between the good and normative, and the, shall we say, "whimsical?"
So much is merely a reflection of the personal piety of whoever plans the liturgy/music/sacraments that the parts that are NOT seem to be equally trivial and frivolous.
I have seen people walk out of mass all over the country because of baptism. first communion, etc. things that "make OUR mass too long." And I don't believe that everyone else hasn't seen this.
How is the average person to know that that those longwinded baptism that keep me from getting my communion and getting home to the football game on TV are not on a par with the ribbon dancers that interupted the liturgy the week before, or the staged dramatic reading that will replace the Gospel next week?
We make it easy for them to ignore and walk out on them all.
And yes, I am involved.
Just now I cannot seem to convince our parish movers and shakers (a, to me, good mix of laity and clergy, trained and PIPs,) that a time when we are making changes mandated by the GIRM and the recent R. S. is the worst possible time to make changes peculiar to our own parish, that are, essentially the whims, albeit well intentioned and revernt whims, of the particular commitees.
Okay, so the flagon is out and everything at the offertory needs to be re-"choreographed," -- is this a good time to also start a mandatory pre-liturgy prayer service for the EMs? It's like trying to sneak a blank check into a pile of legal papers you'r getting someone to sign.
Someone will check up, go back to the real documents, some genuine authority, and will see that one item is bogus, and then they will start to assume it's all probably bogus.
Peace, Marge.
I know exactly what you're talking about, but I don't put much stock in proof-texting the Scriptures. Christ also gave the gift of peace to the disciples after his Resurrection. Human reality of failure in love and peace doesn't mean we have the license to throw up our hands in frustration and do otherwise. Even if we fail at love and peace, we are bound by baptism to keep trying.
While I have no doubt that your formative experiences in liturgy were laced through (as you report) with aberrations, that is not true of all Catholics. At some point we have to get over our historical scarring at the hands of whomever and move on. Being a victim, even a liturgical victim, does not give one license to relive and make others relive purgation at every opportunity.
On the other hand, if you were a former or present parishioner, we might have something specific to discuss. Lacking that, this is just an interesting he said-she said with theological overtones. Until we move off square one, there's not that much more going on.