James MacMillan’s message to Archbishop-elect Vincent Nichols: “Catholic congregational music a laughing stock”
Bess Twiston Davies of The Times compiled a collection of statements from Britain’s more prominent Catholics to Vincent Nichols, Archbishop-elect of Westminster. Among those individuals who contributed was Scottish composer James MacMillan, who has been featured on this blog in the past. His statement, which appears on page 2 of the Times article, is reproduced below in full (footnotes, links, and emphases added):
The new Archbishop will no doubt be aware of a widespread anxiety in the Church, stretching from the Pope himself right down into the pews, that there are problems with the liturgy. Vatican II gave clear guidelines that Catholic tradition should be maintained and nurtured in the new rite.[1] Liturgical “activists” have used the vacuum after the Council to push their own agenda of de-poeticisation, de-sacralisation, and a general dumbing down of the Church’s sacred praise. Pope Benedict is determined to confront the problem. The faithful are fed up with sloppy practice, inappropriate, terrible music and the gradual drift away from Catholic standards in the liturgy.[2] My hope is that Archbishop Nichols will give a clear lead in the pursuit of profundity in liturgy. This means a recognition that there were terrible mistakes made in the past few decades that have made new Catholic congregational music a laughing stock.
Damian Thompson of the Telegraph’s Holy Smoke blog has more detail on this, other background on the liturgical music situation in the U.K., and reader response.
Notes:
- See Second Vatican Council, Constitution on the Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963). Accessed May 19, 2009. For instructions specific to music, see Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction on Music in the Liturgy Musicam Sacram (1967). Accessed May 19, 2009. [↩]
- “We abandoned the organic living process of growth over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, preface to Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (French edition). [↩]
8 Responses to “James MacMillan’s message to Archbishop-elect Vincent Nichols: “Catholic congregational music a laughing stock””
Comments (Leave a Comment)
Leave a Comment
Follow CantemusDomino
![[SMMMHDH]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/smmmhdh.png){kind=small}
![[Listed on blogs4God]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/blogs4god.png){kind=small}
![[Valid XHTML 1.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/xhtml10.png){kind=small}
![[Valid CSS 2.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/css.png){kind=small}
MacMillan has a way with words, doesn’t he?
Good music good; bad music bad: I think I got the gist of his comment. [If you only got the gist, I wonder if you're missing the rest.]
They say that the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one! There are an ever increasing number of Bishops and clergy who are able to admit the mistakes that have been made regarding music, and the solution is presenting itself to them, needing little else but their example and leadership.
I think a better summary of the “gist” of his statement would be “THIS music good (chant, polyphony and the musical patrimony of the Catholic faith)…THAT music bad (Haas, Haugen et al…). Good music is always good, bad music is always bad….the trick is to be able to tell one from the other.
Even when the issue is settled (I’m “guessing” by Advent 2011…Hey! what a coincidence…Isn’t that when the new English translation is introduced…Hmmm?) there will be those who will keep beating the drum (tambourine?) for the continuation of crappy music at Mass.
For some, I’d say it boils down to music I like: good, and music I dislike: bad. And Jeffrey, you seem to be missing the most important part of the equation. You and Ari (or even I) are unable to be music directors in hundreds of thousands of faith communities simultaneously. The fact is that chant, polyphony, and patrimony performed by untrained musicians can be quite bad. Having great music on the podium is no guarantee of success.
It’s the mark of a certain narcissism (and I say this respect for James MacMillan, whom I greatly admire as a composer) to assume one’s own worldview is always and everywhere the standard for What is Good and Beautiful. Sadly, it boils down to personal taste, rather than a genuine regard for music-leaders-other-than-me and what we can do to raise the bar for the good of the entire Church.
Todd…
I would agree with you on many points you make here….however I don’t think that the solution is to settle for what you can get. So… make the music that is the ideal the normative music for the liturgy. Nurture it and work from that ideal to accommodate those places where there is less talent available. If a totally sung Mass isn’t possible, then work with those parts that can be done and put some effort towards eventually accomplishing those parts that are more difficult. A musician that is incapable of chanting a psalm-Tone proper is not likely to do too well on anything out of Breaking Bread either, so that argument goes nowhere. A musician that is capable of professionally pulling off the latest Steve Warner hit can probably make their way through a Chant proper with sufficient skill. All it takes is a desire to do so, and that’s where the problem is.
Thanks for the reply, Jeffrey. I would certainly agree: I would shudder to have to settle for less. In some circumstances, such as having a funeral choir consisting of mostly aging retirees, I’ve had to realize that striving for a similar level of excellence I would expect from a Sunday choir is just unreasonable. More than that, such a choir might suffer from a gradual debilitation as voices weaken and some members resign or die. And yet, I found the same choir very open and able to sing basic chants. I was able to present this as good music and work them past “Sister’s super-slow approach to plainsong.” If people have no desire for chant, I suspect it’s more about judging the music as poor based on personal experience.
We all share the lens of how we ourselves work in the churches we serve. You and I and James MacMillan probably share a huge repertoire of contemporary songs that will never get a hearing in our pews. We might differ with inherited repertoire: what we might be inclined to discard immediately or other stuff we’re willing to gradually retire. Some time ago, someone challenged me on how much of the Glory & Praise repertoire I thought would last, and that I thought was decent to good. Consider that if you are where I think you are, the farthest apart we are in evaluating the oeuvre is 4%.
I’m not sure I find Dr MacMillan’s tone really helpful. Untrained musicians are likely not to give him much notice, or if they do, it’s under a headline “Snobby Composer Trashes Mod Hymnody.” He may not be the man to come to a parish, and spend months and years steering an impoverished community to beauty and quality. It’s really a lot harder than knowing and programming excellent repertoire. But I don’t have to tell you and Ari this.
I would differ with Mr. McMillan only in terming contemporary Roman Catholic liturgical music as a “laughingstock”. I would say instead that such music is no laughing matter at all. It is such a tragedy that makes the angels weep.
The views of Mr. McMillan definitely speak the sentiments of most Catholics around the world. “The faithful are fed up with sloppy practice, inappropriate, terrible music and the gradual drift away from Catholic standards in the liturgy.” Same is true in the Philippines. We hope and pray that more bishops and priests become more focused on renewing the faithful by renewing our orientation and attitude when worshiping the Lord.