Joy

reading music

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:06:00 +0000

every once in a while, I sit down at the organ at Mass (it's usually on a Saturday,) and I look at the music in front of me, and I think, "omg, what if I can't remember what all these notes mean?!"
So I just put my hands down and start playing, and it always comes out fine.

I was reminded on this, cuz a couple Mondays ago, after not practicing all weekend, I sat down at the organ to get ready for my lesson, and it really was like I had forgotten how to play the organ! argh.

but wouldn't that be funny? like, if in the middle of Mass I go to play this hymn that I've played a million times, and I just *can't remember* what all of these notes mean?!
haha...that would be hilarious. (not.)

more on veils

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:26:00 +0000

I haven't thought much about this lately, but Fr. Z is blogging about it.

I do strongly dislike the lacey veils, as many have pointed out, "they really don't cover much of anything..."

Here's a look that I DO love:

(I just spent a few minutes trying to figure out how to wrap it like that--it seems to me that it requires a very very long scarf; it seems wrapped around her neck several time.)

but that is...classy. and modest.

plus, this all becomes even more appealing in this freezing cold weather!

those opinions about music...

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:51:00 +0000

I had a strange conversation after Mass on the Immaculate Conception.
I'll try to summarize it, and then I will proceed to analyze it-was I obnoxious? was he obnoxious? why did I feel so weird afterwards?

So after Mass, this guy who I have never seen before, and after our conversation I have to assume this is the first time he has been at St. P, about my age, comes up to the choir loft, someone points me out (I was talking to someone else.)
the first thing he says is, "Did you know you did the Gloria way to fast?" (It was the usual Latin Gloria that we just taught at the beginning of November.)
Being quite surprised and taken off guard, I responded, "according to who?"
then he said something about "all the religious orders...when I was in seminary we did it much slower..."
I can't remember the order of the rest of the conversation, but it was cordial and back-and-forth, at some point I began to explain that "no, I don't sing chant according the old Solemnes style, but rather more like Cardine, based more on the text." I also at some point started to explain that it's impossible to say chant is sung in "this or that way" at any given point in history because we really just don't know, and it certainly has been sung in different ways at different time and places, and of course I am well aware it is a controversy. He didn't really seem to want to have *discussions* about either of those points, he kind of interrupted me when I went of on either of those tangents, but he *did* modify what he was saying by adding "In my opinion..." to what he kept saying about how fast it was (once he realized that I actually DO know what I am talking about, which is probably more than he knows....) He mentioned that the congregation seemed to be fumbling for the book to find where it was, like they didn't know it (cuz it was too fast,) but I quickly pointed out that we have actually only sung it for 6 weekends before Advent started and we haven't sung it for the past 2 weekends, so of course they don't know it well.
(a side note- I honestly don't expect the congregation to be comfortable with it until we have sung it for a YEAR! I am not disappointed with the progress so far! but yes, if in a year they are singing it as they are now, of course I would be disappointed and modify it somehow--perhaps slow it down, but at this point i don't think that's a problem...)
He also then mentioned that I play ALL of the hymns "too fast," at which point in my mind his opinion becomes very much discredited cuz I realize he really doesn't know what he's talking about. (I responded to that with, "uh...I very strongly disagree..." and then I tried to explain that if you can't get through a musical phrase without taking a breath, then it's too slow!)
I play the hymns too fast?! no, many other places, they are played too slow, due to poor organists who do not understand how to keep up with the natural "congregational delay."
At some point towards the end of the conversation he asked something about, "well, if the priest told you it was too fast would you change?" and i said, "of course, but he greatly respects my musical opinion, and I dont think he would ever tell me that." and then he said something about, "just wanted to see how much the people around here respect the priest..." and I think that was the end. (I did realize later that he probably didnt realize that we had a visiting priest that day, one who appears slightly feeble and old, so perhaps he perceived that as something which I would take advantage of and disrespect or not obey the priest somehow.

a few thoughts: I believe that due to this young fellow, the conversation got off to a bad start. you don't come to a church for the very first time, and say to the music director, "you are doing this WRONG." (He seems to hold his opinions so strongly, I can see myself being like that in some situations, but he doesnt realize how much he *doesn't* know, so he is convinced that his opinion-probably based on many experiences but nonetheless probably neglecting any sort of studying of the topic, but really...)

a much better start would have been, "you know, it seemed to me that the Gloria was quite a bit faster than anywhere else that I've ever been...do you think that may contribute to why the people didn't seem to sing it very heartily? did you know you do it relatively fast?"
and I would have been put in the mindset for a much more enjoyable conversation!

anyhow, I am glad that he altered his statements to opinions, once he realized that I actually know quite a bit about what I am talking about and have thought about it a great deal.
I mean, I would LOVE to hear if other people thought this...but he is the first time that anyone has told me i do things way too fast! otherwise, all I hear every weekend are many wonderful comments!

why can traddies be like this?
something to do with, "don't mess with my worship of God when I am convinced that it is supposed to be done *exactly* this way..."

but seriously, listen, dude, come to this church for 6 weeks in a row, THEN you can tell me what you have really observed!

(on another note-it is looking very likely that I will get to do a rather interesting internship next semester--will write about that in another entry...)

The subjection of music TO the liturgy

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:10:00 +0000

Protestants are often baffled about why Catholics don't sing all the verses to the hymns. This is usually attributed to Catholics just wanting to "fulfill their Sunday obligation" and get out of there as fast as possible...but I think it is a bit more deeper than that, and even theological.

It is something like this topic that I would someday like to study for something like a doctoral dissertation (ha-if I ever get there. but then again, 2 years ago I NEVER thought I would even be working on my masters...)

But I will try to summarize my (unofficial) thoughts up to this point on this topic:

Catholics have Propers, a prescribed set of texts for every Mass, that can be sung.
but they don't HAVE to be sung.
Mass is perfectly legitimate if the propers are not sung. In fact, if there is no singing at all.
Most Protestants cannot imagine a worship service without singing.
But Catholics come to Mass for more than just to hear a sermon or to sing.
(a sermon is not even essential at a Catholic Mass.)
Catholics come to Mass to witness a Holy Sacrifice, or, at the very least, the high-point of Mass for some of the less-well-informed, but still good-intentioned is, "to receive Communion."
(although, that in itself is certainly not essential to have a Mass-other than for the priest.)
that's why many Catholics walk out the door right after Communion-that's the whole reason they are there.
I am saying all of this to make the point that Catholics come to church for an entirely different REASON than Protestants.
(even, say, Lutherans. While communion is very important for them, I suspect most of the them would be horrified to come to church and neither sing nor hear a sermon.)
Going back to what I said about the propers--they exist FIRST as texts, THEN as melodies (translation issues aside...)
If you've ever witnessed an Extraordinary Form Mass, from the viewpoint of a musician, you would have been struck by how little what the choir is singing has to do with what the priest is doing.
At most places (Gloria, Agnus Dei...) the choir is just singing away while the priest is doing...whatever he's doing. (this exists in the Ordinary Form still with the Agnus Dei, "let's just keep singing verses until the priest is ready with the Host...")
I *think* but I'm not sure, that the Church views this as the ideal--the whole action is never really *supposed* to stop and wait for the music, although it does usually in the Ordinary Form.

And that is what I would like to study more. Read the documents, observe... when-if ever-is the action of the Mass supposed to wait for the singing to be finished?

choosing music

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:29:00 +0000

yes, I know that I've written on this before, but this is with a slightly different twist.

So if you read my blog regularly, you know how frustrated I am with the idea of "choosing music" for Mass.

Most people just look at the "theme" of the day, or the readings, and try to find hymns that "match" them.
However, we have been given texts, called the "propers" for the opening, offertory, and communion (and other places,) which most people take no consideration of, and just fill those spaces with whatever they feel like.

If you subscribe to one of the big publishers quarterly magazines, they give a list of song suggestions for all of the places in the Mass, based on the readings or "theme" of the Mass, so that we don't have to look that up ourselves (completely neglecting, however, the role of the Propers...)

For a couple of weird reasons, I've been getting one of these subscriptions for free for the past 3 years (since I've been at St. P,) but I think they've caught me, so they've sent me a bill (which I haven't paid,) so they've stopped sending me the subscription. (fair enough.)

I've reached a point where I'm going to see if I can "survive" without a "Mass-planning guide."

Recently, I have been looking first at the Propers to find hymns that match *them* (very frustrating, since we have very few songs that are, "have mercy on me, Oh God, forgive me, I've sinned..." which seems to be the bulk of the Propers, but, oh well, that is a discussion for another day...) then when I find that I can't really find any of those, I look at my music-planning-guide, and discover that really only a couple of their suggested hymns are appropriate, and of those 3, 2 of them are suggested for 3 consecutive weeks in either direction, so I then do a bit more detective work including looking at the readings myself and trying to think of hymns, looking at the scriptural index's and seeing if they match the propers or the readings, then I might go to a website like canticanova.com to see if they have any suggestions I haven't thought of for a particular Sunday, then if I still have open spaces, I'll pick more of a general hymn like "Praise to the Lord."

So, I think I'm now ready to make the break with my music planning guides.

I have obtained a completely blank notebook, and will now attempt to do most of the grunt work on my own!

I see dead people...

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:07:00 +0000

no, I mean, seriously, I do! Like a lot!

(a little lighter entry than I've been writing lately...)

Well, ok, so whenever we have a funeral, the casket is put right beside/underneath the choir loft stairs, so even though I try not to, I can't help but looking right into the face of the deceased as I'm walking down the stairs!

(As I'm looking down and watching the steps so as not to trip, as the stairs curve around, the person is right in my view, below me and just a little to the left.)

It's just a little... weird.
Dead people look weird.
I'm not sure I'll ever get used to them. I know the idea that the funeral home people (or whoever dresses 'em up,) is to make them look like they're sleeping, but they're still always kind of...pale, like I know they have makeup on.

What a weird job I had. I never knew that "not being able to avoid looking at dead people regularly" was in the job description for "church music director."

what can the bishop really know?!

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:45:00 +0000

Recently, St. P's had our "parish visitation" by the bishop, (which every bishop is supposed to do for all of his parish's, but apparently not many do.)

He attended all of our weekend Masses, checked the sacramental records, the parish seal, etc, and met with all of the staff and some of the council's.

But I was just struck; what can he really tell from everything that he saw and heard from us?
He can see some figures and say, "well, Mass attendance is down slightly from 2005, and baptisms and marriages are way down."
But with that which he sees on paper, and he even sees what we are trying to do in our Sunday Masses (more latin, ad orientem, etc) what does he really know about us? I mean, the *point* of the visitation is for us to be able to explain those figures which seem slightly discrepant--I was even able to mention to him in the staff meeting a little bit of the craziness; while we may have slightly less attendance than we did a few years ago, that is partly explainable through the general collapse of the economy in the area, we also have most of our parishioners traveling a good distance to come here. But WHY? what do they come here for? Why do most of them drive past several other churches to come here? (Fr. G also was able to explain a little that he has been taking a bit stricter approach with who gets married here and what-not, of course as a moral necessity.)

(I was, however, a little bit afraid to actually point out the even more amazing fact to the bishop, that when he sees "our attendance is slightly down from 5 years ago," that the actual turnoever, has been, I would estimate, that at LEAST 75% of Mass attending parishioners are new from 5 years ago! That means that's actual turnover on top of everything else! (I'm not quite sure what he would have made of that... I did mention that some people had left because of some of the liturgical changes we have been making, and he said something like, "oh, and of course you realize that's not a good thing?" well duh, I do hope I didn't sound like I thought it was a good thing...)

But my thoughts about, "what does the bishop actually know about us?" were brought up again today. We had actually quite a beautiful Mass, the choir sang well, they hymns were excellent, and it was very sacred-feeling, and there was even a little bit more Latin than usual. I can imagine the average Joe off the street would have been rather shaken up at witnessing it. BUT, I heard afterwards that a visiting [ex?-parishioner?] was NOT happy about it, and clearly expressed her feelings. And will likely write a letter of complaint to the bishop, blah blah...
Yes, of course I'm sad about all of these people who have left and are so upset and everything, and I wish they would come back, and at least TRY to be more open to these changes we are making, but even if they are unable to do so, then I wish that they would REALIZE what is going on... THEY can go to ANY OTHER CATHOLIC CHURCH PRACTICALLY IN THE WHOLE WORLD and have a completely English, banal, facing-the-people, singing schmaltzy folk-songs Mass, but here...for ONE church out of a hundred, we have done something which people cannot get anywhere else within driving distance.

Of course I want these people to stay and experience this...ineffableness! the grandeur! What beautiful worship is supposed to be like! But, if they can't, then...please. Could they leave us alone? And let us do what the Church prescribes to be done, and they go to the next-door neighbor church where they can get their dose of trite and commonplace worship...and just let us worship how we KNOW we must?

I'm sorry, I know, it was a strange twist of fate (?) that put Fr. G in one of the most "progressive" parishes in the diocese, just filling a spot, where everyone decided right away that they hated him, and then he hired me... And this church happens to still have beautiful architecture and an intact high altar... and so I am very sorry for any people who may feel like their "home parish" has been taken over by "traditionalists," but... tell me please, with the historical events out of our control of the past 5 years, how could it have happened any differently?

(I'm going to do a very terrible thing, since I really have to run right now, and just click "publish post" without reading any of the terrible things which I may have mistakenly written...sigh)

a change in time

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:30:00 +0000

(I wish I had a few more facts for this entry, like names and dates, but I don't, so here goes...)

outside of St. P's, there are two memorials to different pastors of the parish right next the the church.

The first one is a plaque to a pastor from (I think?) around the turn of the 20th century (1900?) or so; it is attached to a statue of Jesus, like the Sacred Heart or something.

The second one is actually the grave of a pastor from the 1970's; it has a (not very attractive) bronze picture/engraving of him on a flat tombstone (I think there might also be like a prayer or some words or something, but I can't remember.)

If you think about it for a moment, the contrast is striking, and very telling.

100 years ago, to memorialize and honor someone, you put up a statue of Jesus.
In the 1980's, to memorialize someone, you put up a statue of...them.

who am i?! (a little rant)

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:52:00 +0000

what credentials do I have? like seriously...

a bit of rambling,
I was talking to one of my teachers, and my teacher was talking about a few of the other students, "well, so-and-so is quite a bit older than you, and this other student so-and-so has been working in churches for years, and so-and-so is really experienced in these kind of things we are talking about..."

I'm not entirely sure, but it almost seemed like my teacher was questioning my (just recently expressed loudly) opinions on a couple of things, and the mention of the other students in comparison was to have me listen to their experience.

but as I think about it..well, who the heck am i? what right do i have to any opinions about organ music and church music?

well, even though I'm "only" in my mid-20s, I've been doing music in churches for the past 10 years, and believe me, I've run the line-up from charismatic praise-and-worship music, rock bands (with drums and everything), total folk-groups with just me and a few guitars, standard organ music (think: modern day Catholic, in which I hardly cared about proper texts or rules or anything like that, while playing all the "latest " Haugen/Haas,) playing organ for a Tridentine Mass, to playing in my current situation with hymns, english and latin chants.

I don't have experience? Yes, some people have more than I do, and certainly in years, but I do feel like I have intimately known all of the musical/liturgical experiences which I HAVE had...so don't sniff your nose at me, cuz I'm not sure I even know of anyone else who has had anywhere near my broad range of experience, especially in that short amount of time!

(maybe I'm just being prideful and i really dont know anything...if so, forgive me...)

my 300th post

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:37:00 +0000

an interesting article (containing many interesting comments from a side of the fence that I rarely ever listen to,) a website I would never otherwise look at, and a writer that I might occasionally read.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/next-generation-catholic-leaders

Catholic churches hiring Catholics

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:22:00 +0000

a question was posed on my favorite forum about whether it is ok for a church to specify that they want to only hire someone of their own denomination. Sadly, the discussion got rather emotionally out of control, but I do think that I have some very helpful thoughts to contribute, that I want to re-post here.

But shouldn't "be a practicing Catholic" be one of *many* helpful qualifications for a job? If people of similar qualifications were applying for a job at an Episcopal church, wouldn't the person who had been Episcopal (and attending Episcopal services) for their whole life be more experienced and knowledgeable about little details about various services? And I would be interested in hearing if anyone disagreed with the idea that someone who was born and raised and still a practicing member of a particular denomination would have a *personal* attachment to the church that would make them more devoted and attached to their job, compared to someone who had the *exact same* qualifications otherwise?

But of course if it were just one qualification among many, you ought to hire someone with superior keyboard/conducting/people skills over someone who was "just" a Catholic but lacking in other musical areas.

So is the question, can one make ANY assumptions about a possible future employee based on whether they are applying in a church of which they are already a theologically-agreeing member?

If *I* were a church in the position of hiring someone, I would certainly hire someone who was that denomination over someone who wasn't (with the same qualifications,) because I would have to assume that the person of that denomination had better reasons for wanting to work there. (and for the same reasons I think it is very appropriate and permissible to ask.) What I mean by that is, I could safely assume that the person of that denomination wanted to work there because, as I mentioned above, they probably have a personal attachment to that particular church, BUT I would have to wonder about the person not of the denomination: why do they want to work in my church? Isn't it "just a job" for them? WHY do they care about making the music in my denomination better? --Since I cannot think of another reason off the top of my head, I am very curious to hear people's reasons who are not Catholic for wanting to work in the Catholic church (other than, it happened to be open when I was looking for a job and the pay is ok, etc.)

I can say all of this because of my own personal views on my current job-- I view it as a vocation, a calling. I'm not working just for a salary. I'm working to make the music of the RC church as best as it can be. I would probably do this even if there was no money in it for me. I do this precisely because I believe that the fullness of the truth is found in the RC church, and therefore I should give it everything I have. How could a similarly-qualified non-practicing-Catholic have as much dedication to their job as I will to mine? (I really think it would be helpful to this conversation to hear any reasons.) And if there aren't any, then of course a church should hire someone belonging to it's denomination.

[Also, a side question after my main point- Wouldn't (or shouldn't) a Catholic school ask if someone was Catholic, and consider them a more appropriate teacher EVEN if they were teaching a non-religious subject? If so, why? Would the same reasons apply to a MD?]

organ music suggestions

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:18:00 +0000

I can't believe that I'm actually asking this here... I'm almost afraid for the responses!

I just reached a funny point where I am about to finish a couple of big pieces (I think) a little faster than either myself or my teacher expected. And my teacher said yesterday, "so, what should we have you learn next..."
So I have a couple suggestions I can get from the music library...but I'm looking for more!

Any ideas?

I especially love pieces I can use as postludes (toccatas, etc, but I'm really not super good, so like Widor's is probably about the hardest level I'd be able to use right now, plus I'd rather have shorter pieces cuz it only takes about 2 minutes for the church to clear out!)
or else pieces that can be used as preludes. And I mean real stuff, like, I've got loads or crap that I can noodle around with and not even practice, but any suggestions of some *real repertoire* that I'd have to work at but sounds great and would be perfect as a prelude?

Erasmus on church music

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:25:00 +0000

I just came across a quote from Erasmus while reading for my Renaissance Music class,

"We have brought into sacred edifices a certain elaborate and theatrical music, a confused interplay of diverse sounds, such as I do not believe was ever heard in Greek or Roman theaters. Straight trumpets, curved trumpets, pipes, and sambucas resound everywhere, and vie with human voices...People flock to church as to a theater for aural delight."

interesting.
so many churches today seem to be trying for the equivalent of "elaborate and theatrical music," and yet to these churches people do not seem to be "flocking..."

pandora

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:13:00 +0000

I do love pandora.com, the internet radio station where you can listen to songs of a particular style and rate them to create a station that you completely like.
It has every song categorized with such things as "a large chorus" or "major-key tonality."
However, one characterization that amuses me that it lacks is what the topic of the lyrics is.
One of the stations that I have created which I enjoy listening to, I have labeled "classical religious," and I rate songs so as to exclude all non-choral and non-religious pieces, as well as those I simply don't enjoy.
But the part that amuses me is that I am sure that I thoroughly CONFUSE the station when I say I "like" a Handel oratorio, but then "dislike" a secular piece by him with all of the exact same characterizations! (the station must think I am really really picky...too bad it has no idea why!) :-P

photographers part...?

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:43:00 +0000

I was playing for a wedding at another church on Saturday, and as I was walking downstairs to the piano up front during the vows, I heard a little high-pitched, "tweedle-dee" from the organ.
Apparently, the photographer sat on the organ while trying to get a good picture. oops.
(ok, not quite that bad. She really just bumped a couple of the top keys with her fanny.)
but still, seriously. Try to be a little more careful!

I wish I had a photographic memory...

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:06:00 +0000

so I've read all of these church documents, once or twice, and I know it says somewhere, you know, such and such a thing about what we should or shouldn't do, but you know, whenever I really need that knowledge, I can't remember where it's from, and then I'm just spouting off show-off-y nonsense!

It happened recently, that a priest was visiting, and I sort of wanted him to sing the "Through him..." part, so we could sing the Amen, and he was kind of like, "oh I probably won't..." Which was fine, and so we didn't sing it.

but... I wish that at times like those I could explain myself a little better, and then when they're like, "huh? what are you talking about?" I could be like, "well, in such-and-such a document it says..."

I think I'm afraid of even beginning those conversations unless I am fully prepared in advance. Because otherwise I know that I will end up saying something like, "well, uh, I know that somewhere it says something about why it's important for the priest to sing certain parts..." And yeah, like, no one is going to listen to that.

But is it pride? either that I want to be able to show off my knowledge, or that I don't want to be embarrassed if I can't properly quote something? hm. no...rather, just that I want to be able to make a proper case for my point, really, I want to have things done *right!*

just ramblings, I don't really have time to go into more detail, I'm off to bed. Don't read into that too much, either; no, I'm not off to change the world and prove everyone wrong at every possible opportunity! I'm just thinking...

oh yes, I know I've hardly been blogging lately...

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:08:00 +0000

I can't even begin to describe how weird I feel on Sunday mornings. It is the morning that I wake up the earliest in the whole week, and precisely because it is a Sunday and I know that no one else is awake that I feel absolutely blah.

I mean, not even blah. The point of this whole post is to say how weird I feel. It's the one time during my week when I absolutely HATE my life. From 6:40-7:40 am-ish. I wake up and I think, "argh..." and then as the morning continues and I realize how dark and lonely everything is, I think, "why the heck am I doing this?! I hate my job!"

But of course I don't hate my job! Every other hour of the week I love it and I feel SO blessed!

But I think the strangest things, like about how I just want to die because life is so horrible and dark!

And sometimes (like this morning,) it lasts even longer, even until 8 or 9 am until I start to fully wake up. I play through the first Mass, just like,...totally....blah.

But really, the problem? Wintertime. Waking up without a single fleck of light in the sky. Oh it's awful. And I guess I should compare myself to other more normal working people, who wake up that early *every morning* of the work week, but, I just can't help but thinking, "woe is me...boo hoo..."

and so that is what this entry is about!

It's a Brand New Day =/= Bring Flowers of the Rarest

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:09:00 +0000

I started this discussion:

http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2400

and I cracked up when I read (approximately) the 75th comment, mentioning "It's a Brand New Day..."

That song was a bit of a joke back during college with some of my friends...they discovered it and kind of liked it, but I think still recognized the silliness of it.

So they made this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMcGaxHDDNM

(a little bit of my double life...)

picking hymns...sigh

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:01:00 +0000

once again, here I go...picking hymns for Mass. I used to think that was one of the best parts of my job, and people still ask me if I "get to pick the songs," but now that I look at the Proper texts for the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion for every week, and I try to pick songs that match those, I'm frustrated and struck by how different the feeling is behind all of the options for hymns, compared to, for instance, the Introit.

Maybe it's just the texts for this upcoming time of the year, but almost all of the entrance antiphon texts fall along the lines of, "Have mercy on me, O God, I call upon you, have mercy on me..."

How many of our hymns even remotely have that as an idea?!
ugh.

All of the protestant hymns that I use are just "praise, praise, praise," and the contemporary Catholic shmaltz (which I try to avoid using but is the other half of the hymnal,) is just "everyone is welcome, we love everyone..."

well, there is a time and a place for both of those...but for the first 1,950 years of the Roman Catholic church, it wasn't most of the opening texts of the Holy Mass!

book review

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:06:00 +0000

I'm reading a pretty interesting book right now (trying to stuff it all in before I get too busy with grad school...)
"The Signs of the Times--Understanding the Church Since Vatican II"
yes. exactly what I want to understand.

It's a compilation of short writings/essays by Fr. Richard Gilsdorf, who passed away before the book was put together, I've never heard of him until now, and he requested Patrick Beno to put his writings together.

I like reading it, because it is kind of chronological, and you can sort of see what was going through the mind of a devout, obedient, and very smart priest from Vatican II onward.

For example, he starts off with an article on "unity," and how not everyone can be right: there must logically be rights and wrongs. (Not relativism.) Particularly as they relate to different Christian denominations. You can see where this is going as it relates to both the questions of ecumenism that V II brought up, as well as growing disobedience within the church.

He then continues with an article on the tension that was particularly increasing within the church at that time. "Salvation lies in huddling close to and embracing Christ in faith, hope, and love..." yeah! it's actually pretty simple!

He continues on with many shorter essays, surprisingly readable (the editor had a warning that they might not be that easy to read in the beginning,) for example, the one I'm reading at the moment is on the terminology "People of God" rather than "Family of God" which was proposed at V II. While he discusses that "Family of God" is quite theologically accurate, "Since the Council (and contrary to its spirit), we have seen a corrosive attempt to interpret "People" in a way strictly equated to some transient form or purely human political society."
Oh yes, a political society. That does seem to be a pretty accurate summary...

"We see Machiavellian maneuvering for positions...and the aping of the secular in a direction exactly counter to that of the Incarnation."
And I'm only 82 pages into this 500+ page book, and every chapter is filled with quotable gems like that!

While you can see how all of the widely varied topics do tie into the atmosphere of the past 40 years, the book is broad enough that I think most Catholics interested at all in "wtf happened" would find this a good read. (It's not all so strictly discussing the actual problems of interpretation of the Council.)

grad school

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:00:00 +0000

Can't remember if I've told my blog yet that I'm heading to grad school in the fall. (Well, not really heading, rather, I'll be continuing all of my duties as Music Director as well as teaching my 15+ piano students.) I shall be busy...

I will be attending the great U of M to attain the degree "Master of Church Music." An excellent sounding title for a resume. And I don't have to give a memorized recital!

however, I wish that the program had slightly more emphasis on the Catholic liturgical aspect (it's more of an "ecumenical" program.) I've been allowed by my professor/adviser to pursue options I may have to incorporate more of this. I thought originally that I had a bunch of "elective" credits available, but I actually don't. So, that makes extra classes or studies...extra work. Which I don't exactly want. So, I'm open to any ideas.

(a few nights ago, I had the perfect opportunity to speak with the music professor at the local seminary...but, silly me, I didn't say anything! I think it's cuz I am afraid the conversation would go something like,
"hi Doctor, I'm going to be attending grad school in the fall...do you have any ideas of how I might incorporate some more liturgical aspects into my studies?"
"hmmm...not off the bat...what were you thinking of?"
"well, maybe I could do some extra research or take one of your classes?" (and then? as I've mentioned, I don't really have any available credits, unless I really want to do extra work...)
"ummm...not really...")
the end.

article in GIA Quarterly

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:23:00 +0000

by Virgil Funk

in the Summer 2009 issue, "On This Issue: Musical Leftovers"

sort of a summary, and my inevitable thoughts:

He describes what happened to the music in the Roman Catholic liturgy during the 1960s, and how it applies today. (basically this decade is currently the question of my life...but as in, "wtf happened?!")

He connects it to the social movements of the times, "the inspiration for their music was...the protest style of music (Dylan) now transformed into a 'commercial' version." (and he is able to state it so bluntly...how on earth was that ever supposed to be a GOOD thing?!)

He quotes Ratzinger (from "Communio" 13, no. 4) and how Ratzinger critiques "this developmental dynamic and its effect on a community's theology..." as in, this sense of protest and rebellion is going to affect the music at Mass. (and he STILL thinks that could possibly be a good thing?! good grief!) of course the result of that is going to be terrible theology!

Somehow he moves on to discuss composers writing new songs, contrasted with the fixed repertoire in the old hymnals and chant books. Once again he ties it together with a totally true statement of a horrible ridiculous fact, as if it's supposed to be a good thing, "apart from much older repertoire, there is no free music...church music is a commercial enterprise..." He goes on to list some of the reasons-one of being the Vatican and its translators copyrighting the texts. Sad, but true.

Continuing to claim (perhaps truly, but I don't know enough specific history,) that the roots of this are from the protest movements, he then goes on to mention Humanae Vitae. Absolutely fascinating in my opinion. I believe its (40th?) anniversary has recently occurred, and so I have read a couple articles recently on "what happened that fateful summer" at CUA when a bunch of priests were secretly gathered to then publicly voice their disapproval of the document...without ever having read it, and without being given a chance to discuss it. (The only thing that matters is that the Church doesn't permit artificial birth control...not that the reasons matter or anything, and there is certainly no possibility that the Church might actually have some good facts or arguments about why not! We certainly wouldn't want to read them!) And how the atmosphere of the era-as well as subtle, smaller, previous rebellions by bishops and priests-had made RIPE for the outright rebellion among bishops, priests, and down through the laypeople, that followed. (I could write my doctoral dissertation on that. Just amazing. a side note.)

(insignificant note: this is then the only article I have ever read where the "continued on page..." leads to a previous page. Space filling, I suppose.)

On the last page, he implies that "fallen-away" Catholics "fell away" due to their protest groups dissolving in the 1980s. No consideration to the possibility that they were "falling away" throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s, as they saw what they thought was their church being taken over by various forms of "protest groups"... (It would be interesting to see a serious study, somehow but I'm not sure how, analyzing exactly when- if it was at a single time- the most number of Catholics "fell away." And why was it?)

He begins to close the article with a list of, "So what remains of the '60s in today's liturgy," as if they are good things:
-"A strong Catholic music publishing industry" -- bad in that it has a complete monopoly on what Catholics sing. Good if you want to have Catholics singing the same thing in every parish. Good in that we now have an easy and existing system set up to distribute good music...just whenever the "for-profit" publishers ever decide there is a market for it. (not to mention that there is already loads of excellent free music, written by the masters from over the centuries online already! Oh wait, maybe that's why the publishers don't want that to become too available-they know that would put them out of business!) And of course bad if (and since) this music publishing industry uses its monopoly to distribute cheap and chintzy versions of folk or popular music for use in the Liturgy...
-"a residue of protest-style musical forms" --he has previously described this as traditional folk-music: easy to sing, and easy to remember, as well as attempting to stir up emotion and forming an identity within "the group." Not good if you know that none of those are or should be the goals of music during Mass.
-"and a belief that God exists or is present when the music produces cohesion of the group." Could be interpreted in different ways. Yes, we worship corporately, BUT, we also worship individually. And more importantly, worship has NOTHING to do with the "us" or "me." That is the main theological error of the Catholic "progressivists." Too much emphasis on the "WE" of "We are the Body of Christ," rather than "Christ." And of course God exists and is present whether or not there is any cohesion of the group! He's present Really and Truly simply through the Eucharist! (oh...wait...most "progressivists" don't believe that...hmm..it's all starting to make sense now...)

And while at the beginning of the article, I wasn't even sure which direction Funk leaned, I can only quote the ridiculousness of the last sentences,
"As the institutional authorities attempt to reassert control over the text and musical shape of the dialogue between the altar and the rest of the assembly ('And with your spirit' set to one tune found in the Roman Missal), the urge to protest arises. The leftovers from the 1960s that still shape our singing may begin to touch your smoldering resistance."

Good grief...talk about an aging hippie... I have smoldering resistance? (sorry Fr. Funk, I think that's only your generation...and you're on your way out! My generation actually believes in obedience!)

book in the mail

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:02:00 +0000

As I have mentioned before, I was lucky to have in my choir loft a copy of the "Pius X hymnal organ accompaniment" book. I have often used it's chant accompaniments for improvisations, and a few of the easier (2 part) latin motets.
I have not been able to find anywhere online, either then or since, another copy of this, or heard of anyone else who has one.
I also have in my choir loft a choir book of the "St. Gregory Hymnal." A week or so ago, I decided to do a search for the organ accompaniment edition online, to see if anyone has reprinted it (the choir edition is not very useful without,) and lo and behold it has been available through the Newmann Press since 2000! So, I purchased a copy, and it came in the mail today and I am quite excited to skim through it, examining the organ parts, and possibilities of new hymns or things for the choir to sing!

photographers

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:25:00 +0000

did I ever mention how much I despise photographers at weddings?

at my most recent wedding, the photographer asked if it was ok to stand right by me (the organ is in the center of the choir loft-an ideal place to take pictures from.) and I said ok if she didnt flash (a parish policy which the bride was supposed to have told her.) she seemed surprised, took one picture without flash, didnt seem pleased with it, then flashed away... *flash* *flash* click *flash* ugh so obnoxious to ANYone trying to enjoy the ceremony. Not only did she scoot as close to me as possible (definitely inside my personal space bubble on the organ bench,) but then by leaning over she accidentally bumped down some paper that I had sitting on the loft railing! (oops... good thing it just landed on the co-photographer below...) in the middle of the wedding!

I also just don't understand the amount of money that people find necessary to spend on a photographer at their wedding. like, what, are you really going to forget that you got married? And after the first year of marriage, who EVER actually pulls out their book of wedding photos? Can't you just get some friend with a steady hand and a decent camera to take a bunch of pictures? (Better yet, the friend will *know* all of the important relatives/friends whose pictures ought to be taken!)

Once I had agreed to play for a friends wedding (on piano) for my standard fee, (and I understand, piano players are a dime a dozen...but still, I charge the same for my time doesn't matter what instrument!) then she later apologetically told me that she had had a misunderstanding with her fiance about the bugdet and couldnt afford me. Well, fine, I totally understand...
HOWEVER... let me guess that they were spending a couple thousand dollars on a photographer! Which is really more lasting? The photos which only a few people will see, then they will be shoved in a closet for the next 50 years? (really, when we look at old photographs, of, say, our grandparents weddings, who really cares about anything except the picture of the bride and groom?!) Or is the music more lasting, that *every*one will hear and enjoy or not!
(don't misread me, in this particular situation, they did get a very fine but not professional piano player who did an excellent job, and so I am glad they saved money and certainly do not hold it against them, I am just pointing out the irony, that I suspect is regularly repeated at weddings.)

Also, I think that photographers are the absolute worst culprit of dis-respect at Mass, as in they have NO idea of what is sacred. Guess what? You don't need to snap 20 million pictures of the priest reading the Gospel! He's just STANDING THERE! Let us enjoy the moment!

conducting congregational chant responses

noreply@blogger.com (Mara Joy) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:35:00 +0000

golly, it's been a while since I've written here...

I know I wrote something, I can't remember what for, where I kind of criticized another choir director for attempting to "direct/cut-off" the chant responses (think: "A-me-n" or "and also with you.")

But now I realize my error. I am not sure, but I think that my congregation/choir might be getting slower and slower.
"A-me-n." is gradually becoming "A-mehhhhhhh-nnnnnnnnn..."
you get the point.

Fr. G mentioned this to the congregation once a few months ago, but I don't think most of my choir member culprits were paying attention, or really knew what he was referring to in musical terms.

And whenever I am rehearsing with them I forget to mention this small point: Don't "drag out" any of your responses! If the choir is quick and to the point, the congregation will follow. I think.

So, perhaps I should try conducting. A quick, "A-" then" meh" then a clear cut-off on "n."

we shall see.