What’s Wrong with Catholic Liturgical Music in the U.S. Today? « The Recovering Choir Director

What’s Wrong with Catholic Liturgical Music in the U.S. Today?

This is the first section [in RTF generic word processor format] of “A Mission for the Music Department at Boston College”, a report written in 1992 by Prof. Peter Jeffery, a chant specialist at Princeton University, with support from the B.C. Jesuit Institute. He indexes liturgical music into five broad classes;

Sacred Music
Inspired Art
Pastoral Music
The “Folk” Mass
“Hymns and Spiritual Songs”

and creates subclasses for subgenres.

As far as his classification goes, I think he does a good job. At least, it’s a lot better classification than the tired and false dichotomy of “traditional/contemporary”. Moreover, as an academic report it’s necessarily free from the acid contained in, say, Thomas Day’s Why Catholics Can’t Sing (not to say that everything in that book is acid).

There’s a lot more to it. Read. Comment.

Posted 07.17.2003
by Aristotle Esguerra
6 comments.
Filed under: Relevant Reading.

6 Comments

Catholic World News reports on positive action for good music at the colloquium sponsored by the CMAA.

JAT
07.18.2003 @ 3:15 pm #

So, when can we expect subsequent section, bubbula?

very interesting
07.19.2003 @ 11:19 pm #

Whenever the good professor decides to post it on his site, if ever, I guess.

Aristotle A. Esguerra
07.19.2003 @ 11:30 pm #

I’ve given the five categories the following terms, which are clearer to me:

1. sacred-sounding
2. beautiful
3. singable
4. pop
5. traditional

When I select music, I’m going to apply these criteria in the following order:

3. singable
1. sacred-sounding
2. beautiful
5. traditional
(not pop!)

Interestingly, 5 usually implies 1 and 3, which is why I end up picking traditional hymns all of the time.

Jon Aquino
07.26.2003 @ 1:18 pm #

After all this time, I’ve finally gotten around to reading this document.

I don’t subscribe myself to a particular view. There are times where I found myself agreeing with every single view, and yet I agree with them to the extent that I do not find a single contradiction.

Take the Pope’s favorite hymn: Silent Night (as revealed to us in New York City when he visited in 1996). Here’s a song that is clearly a beautiful melody (2), but the words stand out front and center (1). People know the song and are able to sing along with it (3). It was written on guitar when the organ broke down (4), and yet is a 19th century hymn (5). No contradiction on all five points, folks.

I disagreed with his sentiment “For in fact many if not most cultures do make a traditional distinction between music for worship and music for other purposes.” He makes this statement without backing it up. Furthermore, the distinction (from my limited framework) is lyrical-based, and not merely musical, provided that the musical aspect reflects the culture that is in the pews.

I also felt he short-changed the current Contemporary Praise and Worship scene (which he calls “Contemporary Gospel” and limits it falsely to just “Amy Grant” songs). Considering his stumblings in this area (it’s not merely the “folk” music of the Protestant church, as he describes folk in #4), it’s most likely due to his inexperience in the genre. He was probably speaking of himself when he shared of others being “simply ignorant of the Protestant repertory.”

I guess I’m waiting for that document to come out to comment on. If I were to write the document, I would suggest a blended mass, using “Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs”, that is, traditional chant, popular hymns, and praise and worship choruses. Organ optional.

Nick

Nick Kleszczewski
07.31.2003 @ 3:05 pm #

Maybe this is a little late (only 5 years or so), but I really enjoyed the article and thought it was extremely thought-provoking. Thanks for sharing it.

Joseph the Worker
10.12.2008 @ 5:42 pm #

« Previous: New blogs and an update

Next: One year ago today »