Panic?

Then panacea!

My take on...

Sacred Music that Serves the Word of God
from the interview on Zenit with

Father Samuel Weber on Sacred Music Institute
conducted by Annamarie Adkins

Dear Friends and inadvertent readers,

In the interest of not wasting your time, I have edited the whole interview in order to more speedily address issues of my concern. For the unedited interview, go to (Zenit.org). I will select portions of Fr. Weber's responses and indicate those by using blue to color those portions. My responses will then be noted in red.

ST. LOUIS, Missouri, JULY 4, 2008 Parish music directors -- and congregations -- in the Archdiocese of St. Louis soon will benefit from Archbishop Raymond Burke’s recent initiative: The Institute for Sacred Music.Archbishop Burke, who has since been named to head the Apostolic Signature, the Church's supreme court, appointed Benedictine Father Samuel Weber as the first director of the new institute earlier this year.
Father Weber is a professor in the divinity school of Wake Forest University in North Carolina and also a monk of the St. Meinrad Archabbey in Indiana.

Q: Is there a difference between sacred music and religious music?

Father Weber: Although the two terms are often used interchangeably, we can make a distinction. Sacred music, properly speaking, is music that is united to a sacred text -- especially psalms and other scriptural texts and texts of the Mass, such as the Introit, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc., and it includes certain traditional hymns that are -- or have been -- part of the official liturgical books.The authority of the Church must confirm all the liturgical texts; these sacred words are not to be altered in setting them to music.All sacred music is “religious music,” obviously. But religious music would encompass everything from classic hymns to contemporary songs with a religious theme in a wide variety of styles and varying quality. Not all religious music is suitable for sacred worship, certainly.

The following statement of Fr. Weber’s I find the least problematic in terms of implications. On the other hand, in terms of applications, that’s a whole other can of worms….

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of competent authority -- i.e., the bishop or the Holy See -- to determine the suitability of all religious music for sacred worship, even though parish musicians will usually choose the music for a parish Mass and other liturgical celebrations.

Both halves of this statement’s equation are, on face value, valid. I, for one, would love to hear my bishop, any of my former bishops or anyone else’s, pipe in now and then about the status quo of worship and music in their sees. However, this presumes that such a bishop is actually a competent authority in the realm of sacred music and, because of Weber premises to follow, music in general; enough so to determine a”music’s” suitability. One might counter that bishops lacking that competency should retain the services of staff such as Fr. Weber who do possess the requisite knowledge to inform the “authority.” But, as we have seen over the decades, that hasn’t worked out all that well either. Just ask Archbishop Wuerl.

All Church musicians need to be able to make truly informed choices about appropriate music for use in the liturgy, based on authentic Church teaching. This is not always easy, nor is the choice simply a matter of taste.

Again, this statement rings very true, but “authentic Church teaching” also endorses and, in fact, encourages and fosters the creation of contemporary sacred art in service to the liturgy and edification of the faithful. As I recall, document statements do not directly specify any artistic (not literary) parameters contemporary artists must adhere to in the promulgation of those new works. However, it seems that there is a clear crescendo of voices who have intuited from the “pride of place” assignment to chant and polyphony, that those documents meant to, or should have, gone further towards clarifying that such parameters are implicit, and that “new music” must have obvious DNA and tendons connecting its forms to the music native to the Roman Rites.

Q: Many complain about popular or secular forms of music creeping into the liturgy, but this has been a perennial problem for the Church. What causes this recurring problem, and how have the great renaissances in sacred music such as those fostered by Palestrina and Pope St. Pius X turned the tide?

Father Weber: Yes, you could say that the concern about secular -- or frankly anti-Christian -- musical styles supplanting sacred music in worship is perennial -- though it may manifest itself differently in different cultures and historical periods.

I’d be interested in knowing if Fr. Weber would notice any resemblance between his acknowledgement that there are, in fact, “frankly anti-Christian musical styles” and the former Senator Jos. McCarthy speechwriter cum preacher, Billy James Hargis whose mantra in the formative era of popular rock music decried that “rock and roll sapped the moral fiber of the young, unwittingly achieving the goals of the revolutionary left.”? (S. Turner, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE BEATLES, Westminster John Knox Press)

For example, in early centuries, all music other than chanting was strictly forbidden by Church authorities, because use of musical instruments had strongly pagan associations.

I have already allowed that Fr. Weber is employing a casual, easily digestible dialectic in the interview. But this statement, based upon the psalms alone (which he later cites,) shouts out for citation and evidence. What early centuries, exactly forbade instruments? Those of the Medieval, those of the post-resurrection Churches particularly when they spread throughout the Grecian peninsulas and isles and into North Africa and eastward into what is now Armenia? If modern musicology has made such declarations with proof positive, I haven’t heard of it yet. And, if that’s so, please someone tell me so. But I really suspect that the omission of such citations would undermine his premise that there is documented evidence of a formal ban upon instrumental music at service that originated in an already well-institutionalized Church, whose very existence, out of necessity, demanded the formation of a universal culture both in worship and theology. But I am yet and still wondering if Fr. Weber would acknowledge the also-documented reality that not only the organ, but instrumental ensembles were at regular use doubling the voice parts of late Renaissance motets and service music in Venice and elsewhere? And this implies, despite this occurring after the Council of Trent and the Palestrinian myth that polyphony could co-exist with chant as the official “voice” of the Church, that some other competent authorities in Venice officially endorsed the Gabrielli’s mode of polyphonic “orchestration.” If Fr. Weber can imply, others should be granted that privilege as well.

In the 19th century, the style of opera had so greatly influenced Church music that Pope St. Pius X warned strongly against this “profane” music, and forbade composing music imitating operatic styles. He initiated the 20th Century Liturgical Movement by his 1903 document, “Tra le Sollecitudini.”

In particular he encouraged Gregorian chant, which he (Pope Pius X) said in the third paragraph of the document, “has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music,” thus “it is fully legitimate to lay down the following rule: The more closely a composition for Church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.”It was Pope Pius X, also, who coined the phrase “active participation” of the people. And he also said in paragraph five of the document that “modern music is also admitted to the Church, since it, too, furnishes compositions of such excellence, sobriety and gravity, that they are in no way unworthy of the liturgical functions.”

Well, we now get to Fr. Weber’s first substantive citation. And despite my inclination to fundamentally agree in principle with that Holy Father and Fr. Weber, the papal utterance that chant “has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music” is not a dogmatic, inerrant pronunciation of fact. Its truth does bubble up from real belief and practice that Tradition subsequently codifies. But there were hundreds of courts of the princes of the Church throughout humanist Europe that testify that chant was not so highly regarded, and in fact, discarded. And Piux X’s motu proprio was primarily directed at such “courts” in his own geographical region. In simple terms, Fr. Weber, like many, are perfectly willing to hang their hats solely upon what “he said,” rather than a more thorough analysis of the Church’s musical geneaology.

After the Second Vatican Council it was the pop and folk style music of the late 1960s and 1970s that dominated newly composed music for worship -- Catholic and Protestant. Despite the Constitution on the Liturgy’s emphasis on the “pride of place” for Gregorian chant in the liturgy, the council’s teaching was ignored, and chant virtually disappeared. The reasons for this are many and complex. But one major element was plain confusion and misunderstanding. The liturgical reform following the Council was astoundingly rapid, and serious upheavals in the secular world of those times also affected the anti-authoritarian mood within the Church. This was played out dramatically in the liturgy. Changes were made precipitously with too little consultation with the bishops...

The present “renaissance” in liturgical music we are now seeing is in large part due to Pope Benedict XVI and his many scholarly works on the subject even before he became pope.The historic heritage of sacred music, then, always serves as an indispensable teacher and model of what best serves the celebration of sacred worship, and leads worshipers to greater holiness. Just a reminder that this is premised upon the “he said” philosophies of Piux X, which I do not dispute. But this “heritage of sacred music” glaringly omits those forms which were quite dispensable and controversial models” of what best serves the celebration of sacred worship. My own experiences “in the fields” for nearly four decades also compels me to wonder how anyone, Fr. Weber included, can unequivocally determine that alone which can lead “worshippers to greater holiness.”

(Part 2)
In Part 2 of this interview with ZENIT, Father Weber discusses why he thinks chant is "the song that [God] wants to hear from our lips and our hearts."

Q: Why did the Second Vatican Council state that Gregorian chant should be given "pride of place" in the Church's liturgy?
Father Weber: The Second Vatican Council's constitution on the liturgy, "Sacrosanctum Concilium," as well as numerous statements of the Popes and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM], teach us that Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony -- that is, sacred music sung in harmony -- such as compositions of Palestrina, are to enjoy "pride of place" in sacred worship.
This means that chant is not only to be in common use in the liturgy, but it is also to provide examples and inspirations for new compositions.
The reason for this is to assure a genuine organic development in the sacred music Catholics experience in worship -- in continuity with the Church's history, and transcending limitations of time and cultures.
Understanding and appreciating this universality in Catholic music for worship might be seen as one facet of the obedience of faith.

Now we’re seeing the incisors of Fr. Weber’s argument: “I have proven the contention that chant fulfills all of the criteria for authentic worship according to the Roman Rite. Now, we must implement the reforms that will correct the mistakes that were tacitly allowed in former centuries, not just the twentieth. To accomplish that, the Faithful must accept the discipline of “obedience of faith.” Again, I don’t have a library at hand as I type, and I suspect that this term that Fr. Weber uses might be a rhetorical contrivance made in good faith. But at first blush, faith as a veritable human expression comes after a personal revelation or epiphany in the supremacy and benevolence of I AM. I don’t recall anyone declaring that human free will (though obviously not always a good thing) is quashed and subjugated by the Almighty before that individual decision to believe according to faith., thus laying the way for the submission and yielding to the blessing of believing, having not seen and touched Christ’s wounds. Our faith is accepted and embraced in mystery. And upon that mystery we human believers then tend to apply the disciplines necessary to express, nurture and perpetually cultivate that faith. And that also necessitates obedience to many things. But Fr. Weber’s employing of this term, “obedience of faith,” seems another convenient deus ex machina that merely says, yet again: we’re all gonna chant, and we’re all gonna like it, like it or not.”

We need to remember, of course, that the Council teaches under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God is telling us both how he wants to be worshiped, and what best serves the religious needs of those gathered for sacred rites.

Now we have the “good” Vox Dei!” Is this the same Holy Spirit of Vatican II that Blessed John XXIII acknowledged, or the smoke of Satan that Pope Paul XI brooded over? God, Himself, whom scripture occasionally mentions that his concerns about worship are less about how, than why we worship, is telling us (via “Tra le sollectudini”) actually HOW He wants to be worshiped. My mind moves to King David’s elegant muse (The Lord is my shepherd, there is nothing I shall want….) and am somewhat amused that the Lord of all universes “wants” for anything. He loves, that I know. He loves me, I know that as well. He loves me to love Him, that I know. If that means He wants me to love Him, I can live with that. That he wants me to express my reciprocal yet lesser love for Him through praising him only through the virtues of chant (in any language) seems to require a huge leap of faith. Maybe that’s Fr. Weber’s self-fulfilling logic. Or maybe I'm just blowing smoke? Who knows?

Before all else, worship is about God. It is the duty of the creature to know, love and serve the Creator, and to render to God the service of prayer, praise and thanksgiving that is his due...
Historically, Gregorian chant is in direct, organic development with ancient cantilation -- chanting -- patterns of the psalms in temple and synagogue. This was the background and experience of the first Christians. So our chanting today is in direct relationship with theirs.
One can see, then, that when we sing the chant, we are truly "in connection" with our fathers and mothers in the faith.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph heard and sang many of these patterns of sacred chant in synagogue and temple worship. The apostles, the martyrs, the great saints whose witness continues to inspire us today, were all nourished on these traditions of sacred chanting.
Even the saints and blesseds of our own day -- Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, St. Pio of Pietrelcina, St. Gianna Beretta Molla, for example -- all sang, heard and knew the chant and the traditions of sacred music inspired by the chant.
They were formed in this "school of sacred music" that is the chant, and, to borrow a phrase from St. Athanasius, the "gymnasium of spiritual exercises" that is the Psalter -- the Psalms of David.
I think, too, of my grandparents and parents, so many beloved family members, teachers and friends, who have gone before us "marked with the sign of faith."
How they loved the sacred chants, and passed them on to me with piety, devotion and reverence. What an opportunity to participate in the Communion of Saints. What could be richer or more spiritually satisfying?
Gregorian chant serves the word of God. It has no other purpose than to draw us to the sacred text, especially the Psalms, and to enable us to treasure God's word ever more deeply in our hearts.
It is entirely free of anything that is contrary to the faith, free of purely human agendas or experiences that lead us away from God's will and plan for us. To use the language of our computer age: The chant is "safe and secure." No viruses can enter.

I would have commented about this declaration, but Todd Flowerday has already voiced similar concerns in his post of today at “Catholic Sensibility.”

Q: Benedict XVI has given a number of speeches discussing the importance of preserving the Church's heritage of sacred music, and a number of documents have been issued by the Holy See calling the universal Church back to that grand tradition, yet little seems to have changed on the ground. Why is there resistance to what should be seen as a form of Vatican II's concept of "ressourcement," that is, return to the sources?
Father Weber: Perhaps it is not so much resistance as a lack of communication and ineffective teaching that stalled things.
Pope Benedict is tireless in his teaching -- even before he became Pope -- for example, "A New Song for the Lord." An accomplished musician himself, he fully understands the power of music on the human heart, thus the central role of music in the liturgy.
Clearly, part of our task is to help "get the word out." I think we can already see many positive results of the recent actions of the Holy See concerning the liturgy.
For one thing, there is a growing interest among Catholic people in reviving their immensely rich heritage of music and art, and a real desire for greater beauty, reverence and solemnity in worship. By all means, yes! Hear, hear…..huzzahs……damn skippy!
But when there is actual resistance? In the end, I believe that this comes down to the perpetual struggle between good and evil. God is constantly giving us all the grace we need to know, love and serve him.
But we are tempted by the devil, and suffer under the effects of original sin, so we sometimes make choices that, sadly, draw us away from God our Creator, and even extinguish the fire of love in our hearts.

I’m hearing Tiny Tim in the distance of time, singing “Tiptoe through the tulips….” It could be Rudy Vallee, hard to tell. Anyway, is this the pastoral face of the faces of the farcical organization, the Society for the Moratorium Upon Haugen, Haas, Joncas et al showing? Is it deplorable to suggest that many bereaved folks show unimpeachable evidence that the singing of “Be Not Afraid” or “On Eagles’ Wings” alongside that of In Paradisum at a funeral Mass drew their souls closer to God? Or should I just gently refuse their testimonies of the past, and gingerly steer them away from these musical and poetical buoys that they call for in the future? Do the angels weep or wag their fingers when a funeral congregation sings “Be still my soul’ or “Shall we gather at the river?”
It is the duty of all the pastors -- that God in his love has given us -- to call people back to that which will bring us true peace and blessedness. With great wisdom, over the centuries the popes, the Councils, have understood the importance of sacred music, art, architecture and ritual in the spiritual formation of the human person.
As a result, they have never ceased to teach us about the care that must be exercised in cultivating all sacred arts that serve divine worship.
Now it is our job to receive this teaching and implement it in our lives for our spiritual good...
It's encouraging to know that many people who are discovering chant for the first time are so strongly attracted by its beauty and solemnity that they want to become a part of its revival.
Speaking from experience, I would agree that Gregorian chant may require a greater discipline, more attention and sacrifice of time and energy in order to "make it happen" in our parishes.
But difficulty is not a real impediment.
In our American society we greatly value sports. I'm a Green Bay Packers fan myself, rabid, actually. I'm really grateful to the Packers for all the hours they spend in practice and preparation for their games. All the sacrifices they make. It's worth it.
The payoff is really something awesome. We, the fans, would settle for no less. Doesn't this same expectation apply to the things of God? It really isn't that hard to understand, is it?

No, Fr. Weber, to disciplined and accomplished musicians it’s our bread and butter. When I taught choral music in the public schools I dubbed our daily rehearsals as “hitting the sleds” that would lead to the payoff, if not on the stage, then in the rehearsal room. But does that maxim of “practice and preparation” also apply to all other forms of sacred and liturgical music performance? And were that systematically called for and supported, would we find ourselves longing for “just the chant, please.”?
St. Augustine taught the people of Hippo: "Cantare amantis est." Singing is characteristic of a lover. If the supreme love is, as we believe, between Christ, the Bridegroom, and the Church, his Bride -- can any effort be spared to express this love in true beauty? Is any sacrifice too much?
We don't have to guess at the song. This tremendous Lover of ours tells us the song that he wants to hear from our lips and our hearts.

Not all of us have been guessing, it has to be said. We have deliberated, we have practiced, we have separated the wheat from the chaff. The Lover does require a song from us. But in song, just like in all of Creation, in the beginning was the Word. The music followed.
This is our Catholic faith. What more need be said? Let us begin!
Just a moment, Father. I know this is another can of worms, but I can’t let this commentary pass without observing that your interview remarks reflect an absolute Western POV that subsumes enculturation, and presumptively makes it “less than or second class” by its direct omission from the body of your argument. And yes, I’m aware that Latin is alive, universal and all-inclusive. In principle and here and there in far flung places, in practice.

Well, dear Reader and hopefully still-Friend, you have it. The extemporaneous reflections (you could tell, right?) of this aging artifact of the Music Wars Era, post WWII episode. Please take any, all and your best shots at my "take." For there's not a one of us that can't use a little more schoolin', now and then.

'Til then, vaya con Dios,
Carlitos

© Innovative Media, Inc.

Once again, my friend Dr. Lyn recently provided a challenge with a Letterman "top ten" list, versus meme, posting:
What are-

A. The top ten worst things clergy have done according your own liturgical world and history.

and

B. The top ten worst things musicians/liturgists have done (same criteria.)

I'd like to respond to the challenge by offering my list B first:
1. Purposefully remain ignorant, entrenched and defensive concerning matters of their own personal, life-long responsibilities to learn, comprehend and apply to their own duties the vast, extraordinary treasure of wisdom and experience that informs us all about that which we call sacred and liturgical music.

2. View their "position" as a leader of sung worship through the rose-colored glasses that affirms their own self worth as a performer, as if the choir stalls or the psalmist's podium provides them the ideal venue to display their talent to an ever appreciative, yet captive "audience."

3. Rationalize many of their decisions and performance modalities by maintaining an attitude that shouts "I'm singing/playing for God, His Glory and Honor! I don't give a rip about whatever the rest of you think!"

4. Force-feed their own political agendae, vis-a-vis, the "Music Wars," upon any and all with whom they interact, rather than from a starting point of humility.

5. Failed to consciously link their choices and efforts to the larger continuums, not the least of which is the nearly 2000 year traditions of Christian/Catholic worship. But most musicians of this (and past) eras likely cannot declare definitively that they actively researched the practices of their predecessors at each of their often many assignments, whether their immediate forbear or those of generations removed. They likely have nor want to have a clue as to whether what they do at "my place" is at all connected to the next neighbor parish, the diocese, the region. And, worst of all, they don't even consider their own place in the continuum to come; "am I laying a solid foundation of repertoire and liturgical catechesis for those who will follow my time?"

6. A vast majority have relinquished their solemn duty to be arbiters of what constitutes "the finest and best art" for sacred and liturgical use to the commercial publishers, their comrades in the guilds that depend upon the viability of publisher economies, and the consumerist culture that underlies it all in the guise of the "superstar" liturgical "composers." Conventions and congresses that sponsor vast marketplaces of the latest product, as well as commission such composers via contests to compete for this year's "Theme Song" or "Mass setting" subconsciously lull many musicians into such complacency. Let someone else do the heavy lifting, that's why they're paid the big bucks.

7. Failed to maintain the highest of performance ideals and standards for themselves. Many in the field, even those acclaimed by the public as "masters," can barely sight-read or even read standard music at all. Many vocalists rely upon skills that became apparent to them at a certain age, but who have never sought to improve them or to practice them as age and other debilitations onset in their lives. Guitarists who "came of age" with 6 chords a-strumming have, by and large, failed to even recognize the demands placed upon them by their own beloved prophets, the St. Louis Jesuits, to hone their skills in many varied ways. And so on. And if these are our leaders, what must the choristers and instrumentalists in their care be modeling?

8. Failed to acquire any sense of need to understand aesthetics: why are some Psalters artistically superior to others? If I am required by my clerical superior to use OCP's "Respond and Acclaim," how can I insure that the performance of those settings is more than perfunctory, even if some are banal or pedantic? How can I tell if a new hymn or song and its text is not only suitable, but intrinsically desireable to add to a parish repertoire, OFF THE PAGE of the sheet music or hymnal, without benefit of hearing its recording on a CD or download?

9. Failed to keep long tenures in one parish assignment due to not having distinguished their abilities in all areas of their job responsibilities to the parish as a whole, not just to the merry-go-round of pastoral re-assignments, or to the greener pastures of more money or less hassles in the next parish around the bend.
10. Forgotten the Christ of Matthew 25, the Christ who challenges his flock to build the Kingdom here and now, the Christ who demands we accept the cross or help others with theirs, and the Christ who asks us to be better Christians tomorrow than we are today.

Charles A List

1. Being intellectually dishonest in many of their liturgical philosophies, dealings and decisions.


2. Being ethically dishonest in many of their liturgical philosophies, dealings and decisions.


3. Being spiritually dishonest in many of their liturgical philosophies, dealings and decisions.


4. Purposefully remain ignorant, entrenched and defensive concerning matters of their own personal, life-long responsibilities to learn, comprehend and apply to their own duties the vast, extraordinary treasure of wisdom and experience that informs us all about that which we call sacred and liturgical music. (Where have we heard that before....?)


5. Defaulting to the prevailing authority of the Roman Collar, even if it contradicts veritable Roman canon, so as to end contention towards their favored outcome.

6. Being transparently lazy with their preparation and execution of liturgical duties.


7. Eschewing their daily and lifelong profession to be alter Christi should it negatively affect their ability to realize the achievement of their personal legacies (I built this church! I cleaned up this parish's financial morass! I kept my youthful profile and vigor! I got my Mercedes Benz!)


8. Being "there" for people; in their offices, answering the call from the hospital in the middle of each night, not counting time in front of a computer monitor reading Catholic gossip as honest work in the fields of the Lord, showing up at as many parish functions and operations as they can on a regular basis (O, I can't just pop onto the school campus any ol' time, what with the scandals and all....), etc.


9. Not being transparent; telling untruths to concerned folks with the presumed aura of immunity to correction when being confronted with such dishonesty.


10. Making life decisions that contravene their clerical vows, ala a "I can have my cake, and eat it too" mentality.

Courtesy of Jason at Christus Vincit via Lyn, Organic Chemist, Queen of Memes.

Take Five

List your top five favorite musical artists.

a. The Beatles
b. Frank Sinatra
c. My wife, Wendy
d. Bela Fleck
e. Kurt Elling

List your top five favorite songs from each artist.
a1. In My Life
a2. Yesterday
a3. Come Together
a4. She’s Leaving Home
a5. Strawberry Fields

b1. I’ve Got You Under My Skin
b2. Luck, Be a Lady Tonight
b3. Night and Day
b4. Come Fly With Me
b5. The Lady is a Tramp

c1. Five Spanish Songs-de Fallo
c2. Laudate Dominum- Mozart
c3. Ave Maria- Schubert
c4. One Hand, One Heart-Bernstein
c5. When I am Laid- Purcell

d1. Early Reflection/Bach/The Ballad of Jed Clampett
d2. Stomping Grounds
d3. Big Country
d4. Wave (Jobim)
d5. Ode To Earl

e1. Resolution- (Coltrane)
e2. Man in the Air
e3. Leaving Again-In the Wee Small Hours
e4. Body And Soul
e5. Not While I’m Around (Sondheim)

The Five People I Tag are:

1. Jeffrey Tucker (NLM/Musica Sacram)
2. Todd Flowerday (Catholic Sensibility)
3. Arlene Oost Zimmer (CMAA/MS)
4. Ron (mmnstra at RPInet)
5. The Carolina Cannonball (The Crescat)

Dismissal Singing Woes?

Found this floating on the Web.
Click the image for a larger version.

This meme was thrust upon me from Lyn Francisco at the Organ-ic Chemist Blog. She prefaced the following questions with a query as to whether I was self-aware of my "strange duck" persona?

1. Put yourself in Ahhh-nold's place. What would be the next great piece of legislation you would introduce to the State Legislature?

Upon and after secession from the U.S., I would then mandate, ahem, through legislation und za brute force off my biceps, the nationalization of all corporations whose interests directly affect the energy, information, environmental, transportation, medical, scientific and educational infrastructures of the state. I vood zen renegotiate all trade contracts mit za U.S. and all uhzer economeese und guvuhnmentz for za vellfayuh off mein fellow Kahlifahnians or Eurekians.

2. What would be your ideal gig?

Being a successful busker in both Glasgow and Edinburgh.

3. You are commissioned by Pope Benedict XVI to compose a new Mass that would reflect the new English translation, that would be debuted in Rome. What would you present?

I would just retrofit the already butchered ICEL revision into the so-called "St. Louis Jesuit Mass Setting" inwhich I would set in retrograde and inversion backwards, as if viewed in a mirror. So, the end of the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) would be the beginning of the Kyrie eleison (Lord, have mercy.) That would represent a true reflection of any English translation, one would think.

Failing that, I'd set the new text revisions to the best hits of Frank Sinatra. Like "Glory on high and on earth lotsa peace" using "I've got you under my skin." Kind of like "L'homme arme" parody type of deal. Imagine the "Lamb of God" to "When I was seventeen, it was a very good year." And so forth.

4. Okay. Back to California. If California were to fall into the sea tomorrow, and if God commissioned you to escape in an ark, who and what would you take with you?

It's not a matter of if, Lyn, but a matter of when. But if God commissioned me, I'd first want to know the value of the commission in Euros, and keep pressing for points and bonuses for exotic species and celebrities and the like. God would easily tire of me, let Wendy take the gig and I'd get swallowed by a great white or tangled in the seaweeds off Monterey, and hopefully wake up in Purgatory. But if pressed into service (yeah, like I AM's gonna let me off the hook) I'd take Wendy, my kids, grandkids, Helen Mirren and Charlize Theron, you and Jason Pennington, my cat Plunkett and Wendy's cat Butterfly, the foremost genetic scientist who could clone the cats in perpetuity, Russell Crowe and Kevin Spacey as escorts and dinner companions to Helen and Charlize, one of my carbon fiber guitars as they float and are impenatrible to sharp objects such as swordfish, knives and bullets, all the estate bottled and reserved wines from the Napa Valley/Central Coast regions, happy cows who'll magically produce whatever frommage compliments the bottle brought up from the galley, a Bible with serious commentary, a GPS (that no one on board would have the foggiest idea how to use, but the satellites would still be "up there"), a Me n Ed's pizza parlor where all the staff made twice union wage, and took pride in their crusts, a baker who knows bruschetta, and the Dale Warland Singers, sans Dale Warland 'cause I want to conduct them. That's pretty much it.

5. If California were to secede from the U.S., would you follow, or would you staunchly stick with the U.S.?

Are you kidding me? We have Magic Mountain, Fisherman's Wharf, the Golden Gate, Yosemite, Graumann's Chinese Theatre, Pinks, Clint Eastwood, aforementioned wineries, cool cars everywhere, lots of prisons for people who torque me and Arnold off, a few pristine beaches and coastlines left, great forests and ranges, and Nordstroms.

Stick with the U.S.? I'm real cozy with the IRS, the federal judicial system, the ATF and the two party system of electoral politics. What happened to the Whigs, the Know-nothings and the Bull Mooses anyway? Nope, I figure we can run the new republic of Eurekaland just like Fox and American Idol. We can dial everything in. I would, however, deport anyone who imports, prepares or consumes sushi to Nevada, Arizona or New Mexico with one way visas.

Now, I would pass onto the following mandate from Lyn to these folks: Tyler from RPInet, Jeffrey Tucker from Musica Sacra, Todd from Catholic Sensibility, and the Carolina Cannonball from The Crescat. Go to "Organ-ic Chemist" blog, follow the rules, comment here if you want and I'll dream up your five questions and forward them to you.

The following is a compilation of three responses I made in other blog comboxes regarding the Papal Mass at Nationals' Stadium in D.C.

Katherine, a very well known poster from various lists offered the following in the RPInet Listserve:

"Just back from the Mass. I was spiritually rewarded by every minute of it."

To which I felt compelled to respond:

Katherine, mon ami, I know you choose your words very carefully, which I truly respect. There is no reason to doubt or call to question what you said above.This being a thread concerned with liturgical music in general, and the music at service of this specific Mass, I have no reason, from your words, to believe you endorse the "spectacle" and cavalcading potpourri of "showpieces" that, IMO, was a gilded cage that kept the flight of grace and the Holy Spirit captive to egoism on the part of many.What saddens me most is that at Vespers the Holy Father was integral as both a figurehead, and more importantly as a humble worshipper sharing in the heavenly dialogue. But at this "event" at the stadium, he was as celebrant, mostly a spectator. Concessions, whether sublime and unspoken, or deftly articulated between the archdiocese and young Marini, were made. The Holy Father conceded to spoken orations despite his known proclivities and love of sung prayer. The Lessons and Gospel's proclamations were slathered in bravado and hubris, not humility.I've, myself, strayed from the music, but when you conclude the psalm with a cadence that is only more ambiguous than Sondheim because it lacks Sondheim's expertise and surety, and whose text calls clearly, obviously for consonance, not an Ives'ian "Unanswered Question," then the rest of the lineup is pretty much doomed. Communion was anything but. Some elsewhere have almost applauded Haugen's MoC acclamations simply by contrast to the Lead Zepplins of the litany of "aren't we so PC and cool" Communion pieces. I don't buy that either, as the lag time between invocations by Benedict to the fanfare of brass introductions works against whatever austere simplicity MoC intrinsically has.AMERICAN IDOL as it has evolved, has more integrity than the truly baroque monstrosity that this Mass's musical repertoire contained.But what do I know? I'm just a working stiff in a rural outpost on the Left Coast.I do know that I wish the crypt of the Basilica could've held thousands of regular faithful beyond the American princes, so that they could have sung and heard that music which is undeniably Roman Catholic.With respect,Charles

Among the hundreds of combox critiques and observations at the New Liturgical Movement, Jeffrey Tucker's first post regarding the musical performances unleashed a veritable Pandora's Box of charges and counter-charges that all but declared this event the last trumpet blast before a liturgical Armageddon. Among the mix of venom, bile, reason and reaction, one post by the ever-practical Richard Rice (if my instincts are correct as to his identity) struck me as particularly cogent. I augmented his post as follows:

Richard R (Rice?) hit the nailhead squarely. Our sewing circle here can banter 'til hell freezes over about how every macro and microcosmic aspect of the DC "spectacle" edifies their own philosophical perspective on what constitutes proper, much less licit liturgy. So what?The seemingly purposeful detachment of our bishops (hence to their priests) from serious engagement collegially as how to address equally serious issues of worship practice in their local sees is the real disaster.Yesterday's stadium Mass was certainly a "Hindenburg." But what political entity's hubris mandated the engineering of such an innovative and symbolic spectacle?Lotsa hubris yesterday evident throughout. Hubris is not in any way, shape or form to be found integrally in music. It can be found in both composer and performer, and then made manifest in their music. Sure. What was evidently missing yesterday was true humility from whomever served as architects of that brokedown, baroque, monstrous musical palace. And that lack of humility was heartbreaking, because as Richard R aptly states, it diminishes authentic worship to the status of mere ceremony. And many of us live that heartbreak daily as we try ever so often, with ingenuity, charity and deference, to engage our parish pastors to enter into dialogues concerning the "hows" of our worship. Only to find more indifference and disengagement.

In Jeffrey Tucker's second commentary post on the music for this event, he was describing his perception of the different economies at play that likely spawned the harbinger of doom for post-conciliar, American worship music standards. But he couldn't resist this little barb, which is found ever so often on the largely traditional boards spoken by many who still are regaled in the luxuries of youth and distance from the evil, egocentric, perpetual adolescent "baby boomers."-

"It must be said: they're old and unteachable."

Poor boy, he couldn't see that it wasn't a fastball down the middle, but a slider, and swung away anyway....

Jeffrey, with all respect, why do you believe it necessary to use stereotypes to fortify a contention of yours? Yes, there is a problem of attitude and education. And I agree (see my post in your earlier thread) that humility among our ranks, both as musical leadership and certainly as Catholics, must remain evident in our ongoing duties. And I agree that a majority of designated leaders of music in parishes and perhaps even cathedrals aren't interested in these truly progressive ideals being realized. But it ought NOT be said that such are "old and unteachable."I'm not taking personal umbrage at that. It simply isn't the whole truth.If you want to offer a general characterization of the modern, Catholic music director (which won't be much different than those in earlier eras I suspect) you can cite the somewhat trained (degreed) musician who trots from parish to parish every few years, demonstrates little interest in either the musical or spiritual formation and improvement of his/her volunteer personnel, who resigns themselves to whatever repertoire a predecessor or hymn product was in place as they arrived, who has little interest in engaging their pastor/employer with issues that are "difficult" so as not to be a provocateur, and so forth.I'm really sickened by a sort of common notion that this whole melange of a mess often gets laid at the feet of so-called "aging hippies."When in doubt, just refer to Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

After viewing the balance of liturgies during the Holy Father's visit, I'll take some time before posting again on this subject. In the meanwhile, I'm mindful of something Todd Flowerday posted prior to the visit that basically suggested we all cool our jets (like that was gonna happen) and don't get all exorcized by the hoopla attendant to these mega shows, and make sure we tend our own gardens in the meanwhile.

Saint Mary’s Parish, Visalia, California
Order of Music-April 20, 2008
Fifth Sunday, Eastertide

S/Schola

E/Ensemble

Entrance: S GO MAKE OF ALL DISCIPLES (Ellacombe)
E RESUCITÓ 421 (Arguello)

Opening Rites: S Kyrie-plainsong/Schiavone “Glory to God” (Holy Family Mass)
E Kyrie/Glory to God (New Danish Amen Mass-Culbreth)

Responsorial: SE Respond & Acclaim

Gospel Accl.: S plainsong “Alleluia” sequitur
E Alleluia (New Danish Amen Mass-Culbreth)

Offertory: SE THE FAREWELL (Culbreth)

Eucharistic Accl.: S Holy Family Mass (Schiavone)
E Holy/Christ/ Amen /Lamb (New Danish Amen Mass-Culbreth)

Communion Procession: SE Antiphon: Tanto tempore
S WE HAVE BEEN TOLD (Haas)
E THE SUPPER OF THE LORD (Rosania)

Communion Anthem: S CANTATE DOMINO (Croce)
E I AM THE VINE (Hurd)

Recessional: S NOW THE GREEN BLADE RISES (Noël Nouvelet)
E GO FORTH (Manalo)

Sweet singing of the priests...

This is a response I'm cross-posting from a conversation with Gavin over at Catholic Sensibility.

I’ve never researched this, but always pondered the need to canonically prohibit the Eucharistic Prayer from being accompanied. The prevailing documents, it can be argued, generally provide for multiple options on what can be sung at specific moments, who can/should sing them, etc. We know that some of these canons have heirachical priorities as well.I’ve supposed, as have many others, that a simple rationale is that all celebrants’ singing faculties aren’t equal in quality or tessituras, and so in deference to that reality, we will just legislate that their intonations of the EP shall remain unaccompanied through the preface to the Sanctus, and either a pitch or an introduction will establish the tonality of the corporate singing, and so forth.If someone knows that this prescription or prohibition has its origins in a tradition, I’d like to know of it.

Barring that, what of those priests who can intone on key, whether they’re singing in Dorian from the Sacramentary that can be tonally linked directly to the Sanctus, or an EP preface set anew by a composer that whose musical elements are congruant throughout the whole ordinary?I’ve always read the prohibition of such accompaniment as a matter of fact, not subject to interpretation. But in my musical heart, I don’t get the “why” of that? Sure, a musically gifted celebrant can find or be provided a pitch, then chant unaccompanied and maintain the modality/tonality that leads to the next ordinary movement; but if accompaniment adds to Mahrt’s “paradigm of beauty,” why banish it?And, IMO, a celebrant singing with competent accompaniment (austere, minimal) would also lessen the notion of clericalism, in that there is a real collaboration between him, the accompanist(s) and eventually the choir and congregation.

Regarding your (Gavin's) contention that original composed settings of the preface and the EP’s relegate the celebrant to the role of a secular performer, I think that somewhat depends upon whether there is an appropriate (sacred or liturgical) melodic/harmonic/rhythmic construct that is self-evident in the setting. When you mentioned the celebrant as secular performer, my mind didn’t reference that to, say, the canon in MoC or MoL, but to Leonard Bernstein’s MASS. That _would_ be bad. That, as a first and foremost artistic work, must call forth attention unto itself.For myself, I prefer the celebrant to use the Sacramentary chants. I just also think they can be easily, modestly and yet beautifully accompanied as well. YMMV.

Consolation to all Tarheels and Bruins:I think calling the Memphis and Kansas guards, "guards," is patently false advertising.They're wraiths who swoosh around the tall forests of Hansborough and Love at velocities closeto the speed of light.

Not that this has anything to do with this post.

I'm just gonna play tag with Dear Lyn F., whose newest "Is it live, or Meme-ix" she found time to type this morning!

My username is YERTLE because of reasons I shall discuss in a public forum no way, no how!


Suffice it to say that when the going gets tough, I'm not above retreating my beak into my shell.

My name is Charles because my mother wore the pants in my family, and that's her dad's name.


My middle name is my other grandfather's Christian name; well, not chronologically Christian in origin. My paternal grandfather, according to my cousins, did possess the fearlessness to enter into the lions' den, if necessary. Patron Saint? Who else? Gregory the Great.


My journal is titled MUSICA DEI DONUM OPTIMI because it is. Well, maybe next to the concept of "woman." Thank you, God!


My friends page is called THE ORGANIC CHEMIST because she only uses the freshest ingredients when brewing up some obtuse compound by which she'll one day cure cancer!


My default userpic is a formal, "tux" head shot because it looks better than my current appearence as a goateed, porcine human homage to John Lennon, round specs an' all.


Th-th-th-that's all folks.

Who Sez April Fools’ Day’s Lost its Mystique?

The following appeared in a combox on Todd Flowerday’s CATHOLIC SENSIBLILITY and spread like ragweed spores in my hometown all over the WorldWideInterLink. I gotta admit, at first blush (which I should have known was Sutter Home Zinfandel, or something pink from a box,) that its authorship was genuine. So, ever so cautious and discreet, I entered the fray with the response below the original “Haugen” post.

Marty Haugen Says: 1 April 2008
For twenty plus years I have been told, mainly anonymously through the internet, how I have been personally responsible for destroying Roman Catholic worship. I have never responded; however, I wish to offer a few comments now.
First of all, although I am not Roman Catholic, I have a deep love and respect for and faith in the worship tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. My own hesitancy about joining the Church is not about its eucharistic theology, but rather around the unwillingness of the Church to commission, ordain and welcome all humans as Jesus did–male and female, married and unmarried, saints and sinners. I believe that the Church, God’s people and all of creation have suffered from this omission.
I do not think of my own music as central or important to Roman Catholic worship, present or future. I began writing as a parish musician; I still keep the vision that to be “catholic” is to learn and love and embrace the best of the past tradition and to welcome the “best” of what is new, as Gods speaks through all cultures and expressions (see “Lumen Gentia”). I leave it to communities and to the Holy Spirit that will (more than us, thank God) guide the future choices that will last.
I had nothing to do with the choice of “Mass of Creation” for a Papal Mass. Having said that, I believe that attacks upon Tom Stehle in his efforts to engage a congregation with what he hoped would be familiar and meaningful to them (using parts of the liturgy with currently approved texts) were unfair, un-Christian and beneath those of us who truly care about how God speaks through our Sacraments.
Marty Haugen

Charles in CenCA Says:

1 April 2008
Would that Mr. Haugen had been content to let his music speak on behalf of his personal ecclesial philosophy. To whit, I have defended the merit of texts such as “All Are Welcome” against all sorts of charges such as heterodoxy, etc. Like another poster, the de facto reality that MoC is the apparent, pre-eminent default Ordinary setting, hasn’t compelled me to use it on Sundays as well. When I happen upon pieces authored/composed by Mr. Haugen, I give them a just look through and audition just as I do whether it originated from the pen of Lassus, Lambilotte or Lauridsen- each judged upon its own intrinsic merit as I deem that to be.However, all that said, for Mr. Haugen to formally state his personal convictions that the institution (The Church Christ founded) that he has purposefully benefited financially from throughout his career, starting even as a “parish musician,” is essentially at odds and in error with Jesus Christ’s commission (as Mr. Haugen sees it) as regards Holy Orders, seems intellectually dishonest at the least, hypocritcal at the worst. Does he not receive royalties every time a publisher reprints “All Are Welcome” in their hymnal or a recording of it is sold or played on a commercial broadcast? But yet, he does not believe, in fact, that “all are welcome” in the Roman Catholic Church? Hello?Wow, two great quotes in one newsday cycle: Barack Obama wouldn’t want to see his two daughters “punished” by giving birth even though he taught them the merits of abstinence. And “I do not think of my own music as central or important to Roman Catholic worship, present or future.” Then why is Mr. Haugen also on the stump at every NPM or Pax Christi convention replete with product line? Who do they think are buying their hope, promises and product? People who are steadfast in their convictions to their God and their Church? Or those subject to cultic and populist nature of consumerism at its most marketable?Thank you, Mr. Haugen. Now I have to measure my own convictions about whether to program “All Are Welcome” ever in the future again. And if you think that’s a good thing, we’re definitely not on the same page.

Well, it was fun while it lasted. All of the following tumbleweeds were my various interactions among the greater RC BlogNebulae. Things occasionally got very Crabby-Nebulae (nod to Todd’s other avocation.)

Charles in CenCA Says:

1 April 2008

Dear Todd 2,I really did not regard my observation of a cognitive dissonance (if only in my mind) as a “cheap shot.”I was not amused when some of our colleagues fabricated their ersatz “Moratorium” group on H/H music. I found that extremely uncharitable and have said so on forums elsewhere consistently.I do grant that in another forum I have responded to another composer’s public polemics with what could be termed clearly “ad hominem” characterizations; but this issue clearly challenged my sense of what ethics and integrity come into play in the high stakes marketplace of “new Catholic music.”Hope this clears it up for you. If you feel I’m being morally inconsistent, I apologize.

From my confriere at RIPnet, Anne:

>> Chuck, Chuck, Chucky!! Was it really necessary to say all that? Do you think that these comments, in any way make the RC faith inviting? There are many of us born and raised Roman Catholic who believe the Church suffers because of the valid points he spoke about. VII asked us to reach out in charity in order to overcome whatever it is that divides us. Mr Haugen has inspired many Christians over the years to sing, worship and pray over the years. For this we should be grateful even if his style is not our preference. I truly don’t care how much money he is making. That’s not my concern. My concern is that we should be servants to one another to bring about the Kingdom.Actually, this whole discussion (I broke my promise to myself and jumped in)has only given me a better appreciation for the works and the person of Marty Haugen.<<

My response:

“My dear sweet Anne,I wish I could say I enjoy being dubbed “Chuck,” but I’m actually “Charlie” to those who know and love me (perhaps few and far between ;-)But “Chucky?” Anne, I’m way to old, fat and bleary-eyed to be associated (by insinuation or innocence) with a malevolent, murderous doll!
Now to the point- what it necessary? If the post was written by Mr. Haugen, yes, I felt it necessary. It’s not about “how much money.” It’s not really about “money” per se at all.It’s about the wisdom of biting a hand that feeds you. I don’t question Mr. Haugen’s morality and you darn well know I give his work the scrutiny and respect that I provide all pieces that I’m charged with employing at public worship.If the post was proffered by a Tokyo Rose, then I fully apologize to Mr. Haugen in this public forum.

Todd (of Catholic Sensibility) then respectfully offered:

“The Catholic Church as an institution does not hire musicians, and it doesn’t utilize the music they compose. Pastors, staff members, and parishioners make these choices. And in any case, their understanding of ecclesiology need not be perfect or orthodox in any sense for them to pay a musician, either by salary or royalties, who may or may not be completely orthodox. If the morality of a composer were any sort of determining factor in using that person’s music, are church musicians prepared to study biography in detail? Or are we being a tad hypocritical?
I suppose a principle strongly held might cause a person to brush up against cooperation with what they perceive as evil, wrong, misperceived, or less than a good thing. I’d suppose that abortion opponents might choose to practice tax resistance rather than cooperate with a society dedicated to the destruction of the unborn. More often, a convenient choice is made: to attempt to punish those who do not believe with full congruence.
I remain unconvinced of the philosophy of “love it or leave it,” or as the neo-orthodox would rephrase: obey or get out. It struck me as rather dumb when applied to Vietnam War protesters in the 70’s. It seems more an exercise in anger today than an exercise in logic. (Please note: I never insinuated nor portrayed such a maxim.)
As a lay person in the employ of Catholic parishes for the past twenty years, I identify far, far more with the people I serve than with the institution. My retirement portfolio is laughable. The institution contributed zero to the cost of my schooling. I think the pope, curia, bishops, and clergy make catastrophic errors in judgment almost daily. If they asked me, I’d get specific. Parishioners have confirmed my call from God, and they make serving as a liturgist fruitful, worthwhile, and a blessed opportunity.
Yet why don’t I feel I’m a hypocrite?
Because I work for the people. I don’t serve my “superiors.” My pastor can hire and fire as he wishes, giving two week’s notice or two week’s pay. The institutional Church owes me nothing and the same’s true in the opposite direction.
Marty Haugen says he differs with the institutional Church. And I say, “So what?” People are free to buy, use, sing, play, ignore, burn, or criticize his music. What I often detect from his critics is an immature sense of envy. “My compositions are better. Why aren’t I published? Why isn’t my music sing for the pope, played in parishes, or the subject of adoring fans?”
My only answer for envy is that no matter how good you are or that you think you are, nobody owes you a darn thing. Tough news, but somebody has to break it.
Or if you want to get Biblical, why do the wicked thrive and the just suffer? If you really want the answer, turn the clock back a few weeks.”

Response to Todd’s point:

Charles in CenCA Says:

2 April 2008

Dear Todd,I thank you for a reasoned response to my post. I cannot reflect and reply now as I’ve got to get ready for a very long day at the school, then staff meeting, then schola rehearsal.I trust that you understand that what I had to say was not couched in terms that would be deemed “bile.” I took great pains to articulate that I had no prejudice regarding Marty Haugen’s actual music catalogue.To be continued in charity and respect…
Then the suggestions of an April Fools’ Con had me shaking my head: “You are such a doofus.”

You know, Todd, now that a have a little down time before the next wave, I think it best to refrain from furthering the discussion between your points of contention and mine. It occurs to me that all of this based upon whether the original post from “Marty Haugen” was genuinely authored by him.I believe the discussion can continue on general principles that we’ve both shared and do not agree upon; but if my comments had their origin via a falsehood, then furthering this debate does Mr. Haugen an injustice. I hope you understand my concern.”

About this time, on The Cafeteria is Closed, Gerald had weighed in with his definitive “Marty Haugen Strikes Back” masthead. A respected poster, Ma Beck, had unfortunately confused the authorship of both Haugen’s “Gather us in” and Joncas’ “On Eagles’ Wings” which I felt compelled to set the record straight:

“ Ma Beck,I was present at the NPM National (1979, Chicago) premiere of OEW, sung by its composer, Michael Joncas (seminarian at the time, I believe) accompanying himself on the guitar with no other supporting instruments. Schutte was there as a member of the SLJ, because this performance was the NALR showcase presentation, for which I was the bass player for all NALR presenters. I was sitting right next to Joncas as he debuted the tune. Whatever y'all think of it now, it was an singularly stunning performance.Just to get the facts straight.”

If you want to check out a younger, skinnier me with the SLJ at their performance, go to:

http://www.npm.org/pastoral_music/issues/PM%20Vol%2003-5.pdf

page 46

To which poster Boots replied

“A stunning performance it may have been, but a Mass is NOT a performance.” Ma Beck concurred.

Being in an altered state (caused by my being in a "Groundhog Day" loop, pychologically) I rashly replied:

“Ma Beck and Boots,First of all, it wasn't Mass at Chicago. So, get yer contexts straight, unless you're so prejudiced that "It don't matter to me."Secondly, on a more deeper level, try to stay with me here, Mass is not a performance? Get real. If it's not a performance, to y'all who regard yerselves as thoroughbreds: then why doth the Blogosphere cup runneth over with glam shots of every canopy, fiddleback, candle arrangements, and the oh-so-austere ministerial entourages that have all their "blocking" down pat before having their own Gerald's "do the money shots?"Give me a break. And, yes, it was a lovely performance. And Joncas could likely advance an argument for or against whatever the h*ll position you think you're so knowledgeable about in a nano-second. Because he's in the vineyard, not a poseur. He's done the heavy lifting in Rome.Not even amateurs. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.”

My now confriere, Ma Beck, had the temerity to challenge my insolence:

“Maybe you misunderstood me, Captain Run-on-Sentence.I AGREE that you were at a performance. You just got done saying that.I am GLAD it wasn't a Mass.I am HAPPY you had fun.I THOUGHT I made that clear.Now where in the hell do you get off acting like you know anything about me, and being so hostile?(Re: your equating Gregorian Chant, beautiful vestments, etc., with "performance", I can't help you there. Start with "Spirit of the Liturgy.")

But, then, the grace that is and typifies Christianity spread the fog and fury of the rhetoric: Ma Beck invited me to discuss this off-line, which I appreciated and did. And, as should be expected among followers of Jesus of Nazareth, we both “got it.”
Back at the bunkhouse of the ranch, CATHOIC SENSIBILITY, April Fools’ got my full attention, and I wrote:

“You know, Todd, now that a have a little down time before the next wave, I think it best to refrain from furthering the discussion between your points of contention and mine. It occurs to me that all of this based upon whether the original post from “Marty Haugen” was genuinely authored by him.I believe the discussion can continue on general principles that we’ve both shared and do not agree upon; but if my comments had their origin via a falsehood, then furthering this debate does Mr. Haugen an injustice. I hope you understand my concern.”

As an addendum to my own moratorium, which has nothing in common with the insidious philosophy of the erzatz Moratorium on H/H to which many of my friends and peers have zealously attached their names, I clarified, as well as apologized, the tone of my post to Ma Beck and Boots in “Cafeteria.” Those exchanges shall remain in confidence as they were respectfully invited by Ma Beck, to which I respectfully responded, and to which we affirmed a consensus of opinion. (And I so admire her for her temerity as well as her recognizing the providence of her family’s membership in the roles of St. John Cantius in Chicagoland.

Ma Beck had no need for the following, but she posted it in “Cafeteria”:

“ Everyone:I am *SO* sorry for my rude comments to Charles earlier. Thankfully, he is kind and charitable and did indeed e-mail me. I had not understood his meaning but his e-mail made perfect sense.I very much appreciate his kindness in forgiving me for my behavior.I have no idea what got into me - I am NOT like that!Sorry again for any offense I caused.”

Then the ubiquitous “Anon” chimed in: “ Ma Beck, you should know that you hit a soft spot with your logorrheic antagonist.Ad hominem attacks may be made against anybody but Fr Joncas.”

Hmmmmmmmm. The Joncas thing gave away to me a prejudiced opinion from more than a decade ago that I was a blind Michael Joncas apologist. And I found that amusing that someone could carry that mischaracterization for such a long time:

“ Dear Anon,Without looking it up, and with a nod of gratitude to my latest patron saint, Wm.F., I may indeed be dubbed "logorrheic." (I've been hoping for some sort of diagnosis for years now, thank you.) But let it be known throughout the land that I am not, nor intended to be, Ma Beck's antagonist.And you just, just, just might be surprised at how little of Fr. Joncas' actual repertoire I actually program over the course of years! But if you want to imply that I'm a sycophant of Fr. Joncas, I could do worse. From the film of "M.A.S.H."- I don't know your face, stranger, but yer voice is fermilier." Cheers, Anon.And Ma Beck, I'll welcome anything you have to say to me 8 days a week.”

So, once again, as I stated on “Cafeteria” and, I think, CMAA and RPInet, if this was a hoax to being with, and I responded (not alone) to the bait, mea maxima culpa and may it cease and desist as to do otherwise is not Christian charity towards Marty Haugen.
In truth, I hope it was a hoax. In truth, I hope the crux of the imposter’s rationale that the Catholic Church is inherently “unwelcoming” is anathema.

Brian's New Meme

What was I doing 10 years ago?
*Teaching high school choral music full time; leading music ministry half-time at my current parish. Composing music. Completing my last effort at staying physically fit which ultimately failed due to taking my first cruise ship vacation!

Five things on my "to-do" list today
*Teach 8th grade Bell Choir/7th grade Choir/ four other grades music classes.
*Prepare/score study music for schola rehearsal: Vivaldi’s CUM SANCTO SPIRITU; Victoria VENI CREATOR SPIRITUS; Tallis O LORD, GIVE THY HOLY SPIRIT.
*Compose “Music/Liturgy Report” for monthly staff meeting held at 4pm.
*Finalize repertoire choices for 3 Easter.
*Watch one of the blondes get booted from American Idol, and hopefully a new episode of Criminal Minds.

Snacks I enjoy
*Bruschetta with either jalapeno jack cheese, or even margarine.
*Triscuits
*Salted mixed nuts or mixed nut/fruit trail mix

Things I would do if I were a billionaire
*Found a conservatory and elementary/secondary church school for liturgy and sacred music education, with scholarships and satellite campuses nationwide.
*Buy my wife all the clothes she ever wants for putting up with my fat *ss.

Three of my bad habits
*Quick temper
*I interrupt people when they’re talking
*Failure to eliminate the use of Anglo Saxon expletives from daily vocabulary.

Five places I have lived
*Visalia, California (native, and back here for good)
*Oakland, California (adopted hometown, love it, miss it.)
*Concord, California
*Rodeo, California
*Richmond, CaliforniaFive jobs I've had*Library clerk
*Shipping and Receiving
*Sporting Goods/Automotive Parts Retail Manager
*Teacher at all levels, primary to collegiate
*Professional Church Musician/Composer

Now, if you've read this, you're supposed to tag five other people to post their responses in public.
Cheers,
Charles

This post is copied from a thread I started at the MSForum boards, regarding the efficacy of the current state of the Pope's chapel singers-

Realizing excessive loquaciousness has derailed me before, I will risk broaching this subject with an audacious hope (or should that be "bodacious pope"?) with Ian W's (from the Musica Sacram Forum)quote:

"I was involved in that discussion. I can only speak for myself, but my take wasn't quite how you describe things. As far as my limited experience of the Sistine choir goes, I agree with you that they're not a good advertisement for Catholic liturgical music. As you say, there's a tendency to the soloistic. Also, they have problems with intonation. But ... we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are distinct choral traditions other than the 'English' sound. It should be possible for a choir director to work within one of those traditions, to develop a balance that respects liturgy, place and resource. Any move to uniformity would not only be unnecessary; it would impoverish us all. "

As Mike knows, I like Francis, have heard the capella "live" here in the states, in my city almost a couple of decades ago. They were on "tour" in the states during Lent, if I recall as late as the week prior to Palm Sunday. They were under Msgr. Bertolucci's direction. The concert consisted solely of the Palestrina settings of the Songs of Solomon. Prior to that, my only serious consideration of them were in masters seminars where recordings, both audio and video, were used as pedagogical examples of what a choral experience should NOT consist of. "Nuff said" there.I think it telling that we, at least, can agree that this group is not a "good advertisement" for the Church. This sentiment has just the slightest amount of benign tolerance among catholic musicians, that despite themselves (and I really try to not include the singers individually in this culpability) we credit their continued contributions and efforts to their legacy as the pope's personal ensemble, replete with the legends of Josquin, Lassus, Palestrina, Allegri. And I know, Mike, you have no reason to fret over their performance practice in those eras by comparison to that of the last two centuries. If they suffered internal problems, they certainly were behavioral like every other contemporaneous choir well into the Baroque. But I digress.Ian's criticisms also seem a bit bridled and measured: "soloistic" which, of course, breeds issues with "intonation." Not mentioned was the obvious lack of solid vocal development and care the boys should receive (which I saw in living color from the front row.) I'll try to be brief here: it could be argued that the capella does not meet the basic criteria of being a choir, other than it performs only for liturgies in church. This is a grand opera chorus in cassocks and surplices, in my estimation. And yes, one may argue that type of ensemble does fall into the category of a "choral tradition." But I believe an overwhelming majority of choral scholars would regard this "choir's" product as dysfunctional in all major areas of CHORAL proficiency, no matter what western tradition nuances would color the other various regional "sounds."Would we endorse the indigenous choral tone of lowlands' Mississippi shape-note singers, or the Bulgarian Radio Women's Chorus, or Ladysmith Black Mambazo as the "baby in the bathwater" and worthy of keeping IN TACT simply because they happened to be ensconsed in five centuries of service tradition at the Vatican?I have, through 25 years of ACDA membership and convention attendance, been privileged to hear most of the finest ensembles likely assembled in history, if you measure competence by evolving scholarship keeping pace with the natural human inclination to improve upon performance in art, athletics, invention etc. The Swedish Radio Choir under Ericcson was not a final terminus; what they achieved spawned even more stunning choral ensembles. The Kings College "sound" of Sir David Willcock has yielded many progeny, and in agreement with Ian, not all identical or xerox copies of each other's tonal properties. The bold richness of the Stuttgart Kammerchor under Bernius is full bodied, vibrant but never lists toward an aural assault upon the ear. The purity of some Asian choirs, the Dale Warland Singers, Chanticleer, St. Olafs and Brigham Young University choirs is breathtaking.No one has suggested that these schools of thought (choral philosophy ala Howard Swan) move toward bland uniformity.But the irony of the notion of moving toward uniformity while discussing the Sistine Chapel Choir is too much to ignore. Their leadership's insistence upon maintaining this clearly chauvinistic approach to corporate singing is deliberately antithetic to the very concept of "uniformity," which has to be the first foundation of truly choral excellence in any genre! It is also antithetic to the successful negotiation of the two native art forms that it is called to serve: chant and polyphony, as any reasonable choral scholar understands them. (Another irony- the fete celebrating the lifelong contribution of Msgr. Bertolucci in which both he and the Holy Father pounded into the collective consciousness the dire need to return to these forms universally; well, yes, the capella under the monsignor sang all Palestrina, all the time! They just did a Gawdawful job of it!) And lastly, as long as this ensemble is not fundamentally revamped to reflect universally understood standards of choral beauty, it remains antithetical to the very principles of beauty that Cardinal Ratzinger proposed as a necessary step in returning "beauty" to sacred worship in THE SPIRIT OF THE LITURGY.I haven't googled anything prior to these thoughts, but I remember reading in someone's blog that the new Marini has plans in place to initiate such a revamping of this singularly unique ensemble. I hope sooner than later. I would love to hear precision in beauty eminating from them even if via an EWTN/CTV broadcast. Were they such a compelling choir, perhaps the commentators would then keep their traps shut during the communios.Thus endeth the rant.

As a brief prologue to my response to the commentary “The Furious Power of Music” by Fr. Anthony Manuppella in the current issue of SACRED MUSIC (Spring 2008, v.135, n.1,) I would commend Jeffrey Tucker for continuing this very important dialogue and discourse of these last two issues, that have benefited me personally through the offerings of Professors Stump and Mahrt as well as the reasoned Ms. Ballou. Fr. Anthony’s title took me aback somewhat, reminding me of the scenes in the film “Pulp Fiction” wherein the hit man Jules, as played ferociously by Samuel L. Jackson, quotes Ezekiel: “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.”
The zealous tone of Fr. Anthony’s commentary resonates with a righteous sort of menacing glare to my eyes as did those of the characters Jules was about to dispatch to perdition.
It is not the self-evident premises of the ecclesial documents that he re-iterates that are irksome to me, nor the rhetorical device of quoting an atheist’s paean that extols the unfathomable power of music. It is the cavalier, though heartfelt and not entirely untrue, insertion of code words full of innuendo and short on specific indictments, as well as stating the litany of “the usual suspects” that have smokily seeped through the stained glass window panes of post-conciliar, primarily American Catholic worship, and polluted the possibilities of a pristine, perfect atmosphere.
Here is my list of the irksome:
*Musical forms in currency today at many churches are interchangeable with lounge music.”
*For those who think narrowly, music in church is a kind of mood setter, cute but irrelevant. The more ample Catholic mind recognizes that music in church ought to act like an earthquake upon the soul, unleashing the powerful forces that make it crave intimacy with the Blessed Trinity.
*Our Catholic faith does not rest on such gauzy sweet nothings, or the musical equivalents.
*If a soul is fed on musical sap, its soul will turn to sap.
*Music at Mass should make us tremble. At least a bit.
*Man is never so intoxicated than when he is surrounded by sacred music (which immediately and ironically followed citations of criminals at bus depots being mollified by soft classical music, loud and percussive nightclub music-is that lounge music?- which produces emotional abandon to purchase liquor and give in to sexual license, and the heart-racing effect upon aficionados of John Phillip Souza’s marches!)
*Do you really feel that Kumbaya could inspire such words (as those of St. Augustine praising the Church contemporaneous’ “hymns and songs.”
*Mother Church….has felt it her grave obligation to protect (sacred music). After all, she recognizes that man’s soul hangs in the balance. If the music is wrong, the teaching of the church will be wrong, and men will go wrong….She (in this century, presumably the 100 years that span the 20th and 21st centuries) stood as a mighty wall against subjectivism and sentimentality.
Sacred music transports us beyond the stars to the throne of the Blessed Trinity. Beware of music at Mass that leaves us only Dancing with the Stars.

It’s really difficult to take all of the tentacles and emissions of this pulsating nebula of indictments in, and subject each of them to scrutiny. The filthy lucre of lounge music is certainly proffered here, there and everywhere among many parishes whose musical impoverishment likely predates the arrival of the first guitar-slinging crooners with ditto sheets of “Where have all the flowers gone.” But why give lounge music the low-lit evil eye alone? Aren’t there hordes of churches where one would swear they’d landed in Jalisco, Mexico on December 12th to the strains of mariachi and ranchera, and whose currency is measured by Pesos, Latino indeed, but not Latin? Aren’t there churches where one might expect Oktoberfest from the accordions and oompahing euphoniums? Aren’t there churches where the ukulele strums swing in concert with the lithe arms of hula dancers and slack key guitars? And how could Father forget the mother of all atrocities, the Broadway musical, which was borne from yet another T. Day identified defiler, vaudeville. Currency, whether as in commerce or as in connectivity, has never been a stranger hanging around the narthex doors throughout the last 1500 years of the Roman Church. And Mother Church has often found it indelicate and cumbersome, not to mention exponentially problematic to manage that currency, whether it be the parodies of Ockeghem or the spectacles of Classical Dom Masses in Vienna and Romantic grand opera masqued as Masses.
But Fr. Anthony rightly reaffirms the noble efforts of Pius X and most of his successors to preserve and protect the patrimony of Roman Rite music, understood commonly as those forms codified at the Council of Trent. But I think he traffics in excessive hyperbole to suggest that corrective documents such as Tra le sollectudini have, as a mighty wall, actually been a fortress keeping subjectivism, sentimentality and their vehicles, the popular hymnals and paperback missals out of the choir lofts. And the contention that such protection from centuries-old use of alius cantus (philosophical more so than practical) is a critical link in a logical progression of moral equations: “If music is wrong, the teaching is necessarily wrong, man will be led astray as their souls hang in the balance (should that soul not flee a church the moment it recognizes the opening strains of “Gather Us In.” Now, really, Father?
If provided time for more circumspection, I also believe Fr. Anthony would have not chosen the word “intoxicated” to ascribe a worshipping soul’s communion with the beauty of the chant and polyphony well performed. He proves my point by supposedly contrasting that state of being with the anesthetizing effects of classical muzak pumped into the clinical green waiting rooms of bus terminals to subdue the savage hearts present; and then the omni-irritating Europop thumping bass and electronica in the disco which, ahem, inevitably leads to chemical and biological intoxication-I’m numb, therefore I am not am, but numb. I really don’t know what to say about “Mine eyes…” or Souza marches and heart rates.
But this notion of intoxication is itself at odds with his premise of the “furious power” of sacred music to transform the soul into union with the infinite. Without deliberate, persistent and truly pastoral catechesis at the direction of every bishop through to every priest/celebrant provided every parishioner as regards the infusion of chant and polyphony (even IF in the VERNACULAR), even many “ample” Catholic minds* will likely be unable to process the paradigm shift as more than a change of musical atmosphere, thus still relegating them to “mood setters.” But instead of “cute but irrelevant, without such catechesis, we likely will have to confront charges of “pretty, but alienating.” Or “ethereal, but meaningless.” Or, as I heard from a right reverend Monsignor recently “Nice, but it doesn’t uplift me!” Gratuitous tolerance works both ways.
Speaking of ample minds recognizing that sacred music (which we have to presume from Fr. Anthony’s lexicon means that which has its roots in chant and Roman polyphony) ought to have the effect of an earthquake upon the soul- his approbation of Bishop Slattery’s contention must lead one to conclude that the use of metrical hymn texts and tunes provides a lesser magnitude tremor upon the soul. The singing of either “O God beyond all praising” or “Three Days” (text M.D. Ridge) to Holst’s Thaxted, to this soul, has the power of the caldera brewing beneath Yellowstone Park. The taking up of Lasst uns erfreuen to most its assigned texts washes over me like a tsunami and leaves me and my companion worshippers on the far side of the Red Sea, safe, renewed and prepared to give witness to the miracle of God! The majestic austerity of Crucifer ennobles this sinner to take up the yoke of Christ as well as my own crosses on my path towards my trials and sufferings. Without belaboring the point, are these not musics of “Furious Power” as implied by Fr. Anthony’s premise? And, apropos of the fact that as I write tomorrow is Good Friday, isn’t there a parallel resonance we ascribe to the text painting we find in chants such as “Videns Dominus” as is found in the spiritual “Were You There?” To tremble, indeed.
I suppose I could opt to take issue with the contentious language and propositions contained in other statements using the words “gauzy sweet nothings”…or “musical sap”…or the presumption that Kumbaya is still a hallmark of 21st century contemporary musical worship. But it’s really not necessary. In short, I found Fr. Anthony’s exhortation long on passion and “furious anger” towards general notions of laxity on the part of …. well, I’m just not sure exactly whom; and very short on specific examples and citations of actual musical forms or pieces that would sufficiently illustrate his argument. In that, his article shares a dubious similarity to the eloquent but nebulous defense of beauty apparently evident to Professor Stump in the music of the St. Louis Jesuits.
To Fr. Anthony: we get it, already. Chant and polyphony ought and hopefully shall regain principem locum obtineat universally in our Church. We’re working on it. Next time around, just say so without having to rummage around in the dustier bins of that which this particular readership (of SACRED MUSIC) have already consigned to the dumpster. But I also believe that a fundamental issue of intellectual honesty has yet to be fully deliberated in the effort to advance and restore truly sacred music in our worship- the endorsement, and that attends that, of metrical hymn texts whether from the Catholic tradition or not, and of worthy hymn or (blush) even songs that will transport them into the hearts and souls of the faithful.