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...)
Monday, September 21, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
picking hymns...sigh
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!
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!
Saturday, August 15, 2009
book review
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.)
"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.)
Monday, August 10, 2009
grad school
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.
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.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
article in GIA Quarterly
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!)
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!)
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
book in the mail
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!
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!
Sunday, July 05, 2009
photographers
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!
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!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
conducting congregational chant responses
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.
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.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
three years...
I'm planning music through the summer right now, and I'm coming across the readings for August, how the whole month is the "Bread of Life" discourse that we Catholics love so much. We even get three weeks in a row of "Taste and See..."!
And with the three year cycle of readings that we have, I'm reminded that it was exactly three years ago August 3 that I started working at St. P.
How back then, Fr. and I were like accomplices discussing the music together and trying to sneak in the right amount of traditional and reverent music, but still needing to appease some people by incorporating a few (non-heretical) "contemporary" pieces so there wouldn't be too much of a hub-bub about the new music director and all of the "changes..."
And I remember how excited we (well, Father, really,) were about the Eucharistic readings and planning music for August...
wow, three years ago already...
And with the three year cycle of readings that we have, I'm reminded that it was exactly three years ago August 3 that I started working at St. P.
How back then, Fr. and I were like accomplices discussing the music together and trying to sneak in the right amount of traditional and reverent music, but still needing to appease some people by incorporating a few (non-heretical) "contemporary" pieces so there wouldn't be too much of a hub-bub about the new music director and all of the "changes..."
And I remember how excited we (well, Father, really,) were about the Eucharistic readings and planning music for August...
wow, three years ago already...
Saturday, May 16, 2009
ugh copyrights
someone at church gave me a old booklet, containing the Missa Orbis Factor (copied from the vatican edition-I know cuz I recognize the accompaniment,) as well as two other Mass settings by not-famous composers. These other two Masses are of particular interest because they are accompanied Latin for two voices, and not terrible. Not really common, but extremely useful in a church of limited resources as mine. The first of the two I did search around online and was listed in a couple places, but not actually available. The second, I could find nothing about the composer or availability. I'm sure they're both photocopies of something, I don't know what, but the booklet contains no other references.
My question comes up in that I would like to make these available for others, which is becoming easier and easier to do with resources such as cpdl.org. But as it is, having no information about the composers or when they were written or public domain (I think the first died in 1973,) I can't exactly do that.
And so, they will have to remain in my own personal archives, for my own secretive distribution at a to-be-determined necessary time in the future, when I only have two singers and need a nice Latin Mass setting!
(oh, and I'm not being terribly specific about exactly which pieces they are cuz I certainly wouldn't want the copyright police to come after me for having illegally copied music in my possession!) :-P
My question comes up in that I would like to make these available for others, which is becoming easier and easier to do with resources such as cpdl.org. But as it is, having no information about the composers or when they were written or public domain (I think the first died in 1973,) I can't exactly do that.
And so, they will have to remain in my own personal archives, for my own secretive distribution at a to-be-determined necessary time in the future, when I only have two singers and need a nice Latin Mass setting!
(oh, and I'm not being terribly specific about exactly which pieces they are cuz I certainly wouldn't want the copyright police to come after me for having illegally copied music in my possession!) :-P
Friday, May 01, 2009
The beauty of no electricity
As seems to happen about once a year out in the sticks, there was a series of storms and last Sunday morning St. P was without power.
After my initial freak-out, I realized that this would be a good opportunity to make the best of. I know from experience that Mass without electricity is...beautiful. We are...going back to our roots. The way people lived for thousands of years. (Minus the manually pumped organ bellows :-P )
I knew that the 10:30 Mass with the full choir was particularly an opportunity to make the most of.
Here's the basic program as done:
Entrance Antiphon as usual (English simple Psalm tone) It only would have been more perfect with incense...
Psalm: from Respond and Acclaim, a decent but short arrangement. I sang from the ambo the verses alone, and the choir sang 4-part harmony in the choir loft on the refrain
Alleluia
The Head that Was Once Crowned With Thorns (to the tune Morning Song, I used two handbells, on the tonic and the 7th [flat cuz it's a minor key] where appropriate.)
Sanctus: chanted English
Mem accl: chanted English (psalm tone)
Agnus Dei: chanted Latin
Communion: Communion chant as usual
At the Lamb's High Feast (melody only)
Regina Caeli (this is an awesome 3-part SSA arrangement in the St. Pius X hymnal, my ladies learned it last year, and I had run over it with them last week and taught some of the new members...not knowing how much we would NEED an a capella piece this week!) It was particularly beautiful and received many encouraging and positive comments
Closing: Jesus Christ is Risen Today (melody only, first two verses HA)
all a capella unless noted. It works quite well, especially having the men in the choir. As a matter of fact, I'm sure it makes the congregation sing more; they're like, "oh yeah, we're supposed to be singing here..."
Even though it wasn't really dark, everything down to the candles on the altar were just even more beautiful than usual. No humming of the organ or the fans...every noise is even more noticeable. Silence is beautiful. It reminds you of the sacred. Where else is there silence?
After my initial freak-out, I realized that this would be a good opportunity to make the best of. I know from experience that Mass without electricity is...beautiful. We are...going back to our roots. The way people lived for thousands of years. (Minus the manually pumped organ bellows :-P )
I knew that the 10:30 Mass with the full choir was particularly an opportunity to make the most of.
Here's the basic program as done:
Entrance Antiphon as usual (English simple Psalm tone) It only would have been more perfect with incense...
Psalm: from Respond and Acclaim, a decent but short arrangement. I sang from the ambo the verses alone, and the choir sang 4-part harmony in the choir loft on the refrain
Alleluia
The Head that Was Once Crowned With Thorns (to the tune Morning Song, I used two handbells, on the tonic and the 7th [flat cuz it's a minor key] where appropriate.)
Sanctus: chanted English
Mem accl: chanted English (psalm tone)
Agnus Dei: chanted Latin
Communion: Communion chant as usual
At the Lamb's High Feast (melody only)
Regina Caeli (this is an awesome 3-part SSA arrangement in the St. Pius X hymnal, my ladies learned it last year, and I had run over it with them last week and taught some of the new members...not knowing how much we would NEED an a capella piece this week!) It was particularly beautiful and received many encouraging and positive comments
Closing: Jesus Christ is Risen Today (melody only, first two verses HA)
all a capella unless noted. It works quite well, especially having the men in the choir. As a matter of fact, I'm sure it makes the congregation sing more; they're like, "oh yeah, we're supposed to be singing here..."
Even though it wasn't really dark, everything down to the candles on the altar were just even more beautiful than usual. No humming of the organ or the fans...every noise is even more noticeable. Silence is beautiful. It reminds you of the sacred. Where else is there silence?
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
the historical development of recent Catholic liturgical and musical documents
In addition to my usual interest in all things liturgical and musical, I have recently decided that I am going to back to grad school, to the University of Michigan for a Master of Music in Church Music.
I was originally reluctant to do so because one of the things I wanted to study in particular is the general topic of liturgy and music and practical application to Catholic parishes, and I would not really get to do that as much as I want at a public university.
However, it seems that I will have the option to do some independent study to fulfill some elective credits in this area, so I have already begun to note books and articles which could serve as scholarly resources on this topic.
An interesting one that I noted recently appears in the most recent issue of the GIA Quarterly (Spring 2009,) an article by Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, on the recent liturgical document, "Sing to the Lord."
In it, he summarizes several official documents from the past century, including their successful (or not) implementation, and the general history of the "liturgical renewal" and active participation.
(He also references a couple times his most recent book from 2007-which I would love to read particularly in my graduate studies, "Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform," rather pricey and long [at least 500 pages,] but it is all online on googlebooks.)
I find Fr. Ruff particularly interesting, since he was instrumental in my initial introduction to Gregorian Chant.
Several years ago, I started singing in a small schola (that only lasted in that form for a school year,) at St. T, and since our director had taken an intensive course in semiology from Fr. Ruff, she directed us from the Graduale Triplex and the ancient neumes. She spoke highly of him, and I learned a bit about that method of interpreting chant, long before I ever knew anything about the Old Solemnes style!
I had the opportunity to very briefly introduce myself to him at a conference a few summers ago, and after I told him my connection to him, he laughed and said, "So you're kind of like my granddaughter?!"
Anyhow, the more immersed I become in these Catholic cultural/liturgical/musical/opinionated style wars, especially after reading his article I think that he has got something right. He brings up some of my unanswerable questions, but mostly I love that he admits and discusses the difficulties of implementing this idealistic liturgy that the "ultra-traddies" push for--and even whether or not their interpretation of what "the Church says" is actually what the church asks! (In one of the footnotes-which I almost missed, but that was probably partly his intention ;-) he mentions "Msgr. Schuler's misinterpretation of Musicam Sacram regarding the polyphonic Mass ordinary," discussed in his book on p. 533-535. tee hee.)
He brings up several other issues, which are just fascinating to me. He begins to provide an explanation for why Vatican II seems to have been so badly interpreted and implemented (regarding Sacrosanctum Concilium,) by saying, "As revolutionary as the liturgical constitution was, it is marked throughout by a certain balance between tradition and innovation. Some consider this uneasy balance to be a political compromise between the many competing positions of the bishops, or even an incoherent bringing together of contradictory positions. Perhaps this feature of the constitution explains the existence of such divergent positions in the years since Vatican II..."
Another favorite issue of mine that he plainly discusses, is just "HOW pastorally feasible is it to give primacy to traditional repertoires?" Perhaps another should-be-obvious reason why SC did not receive faithful implementation.
He also states earlier, "It is rather difficult to stimulate congregational singing in Latin." This sentence is so key, but the traditionalists simply will not admit that this is a problem, but I have found from my own personal experience that IT'S TRUE! Even people who consider themselves "liturgically-conservative Catholics," while the don't mind and even enjoy listening to someone else sing in Latin, they simply do not want to sing it themselves! WHY? and then why does the Church tell us they should? I think Fr. Ruff might have some of the answers, but I'm beginning to be skeptical about other camps which will remain nameless. (like, places and people who don't seem to live in the real world, with real Catholics sitting in the pews...)
hmmm hmm so much to learn and study, so little time...
I was originally reluctant to do so because one of the things I wanted to study in particular is the general topic of liturgy and music and practical application to Catholic parishes, and I would not really get to do that as much as I want at a public university.
However, it seems that I will have the option to do some independent study to fulfill some elective credits in this area, so I have already begun to note books and articles which could serve as scholarly resources on this topic.
An interesting one that I noted recently appears in the most recent issue of the GIA Quarterly (Spring 2009,) an article by Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, on the recent liturgical document, "Sing to the Lord."
In it, he summarizes several official documents from the past century, including their successful (or not) implementation, and the general history of the "liturgical renewal" and active participation.
(He also references a couple times his most recent book from 2007-which I would love to read particularly in my graduate studies, "Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform," rather pricey and long [at least 500 pages,] but it is all online on googlebooks.)
I find Fr. Ruff particularly interesting, since he was instrumental in my initial introduction to Gregorian Chant.
Several years ago, I started singing in a small schola (that only lasted in that form for a school year,) at St. T, and since our director had taken an intensive course in semiology from Fr. Ruff, she directed us from the Graduale Triplex and the ancient neumes. She spoke highly of him, and I learned a bit about that method of interpreting chant, long before I ever knew anything about the Old Solemnes style!
I had the opportunity to very briefly introduce myself to him at a conference a few summers ago, and after I told him my connection to him, he laughed and said, "So you're kind of like my granddaughter?!"
Anyhow, the more immersed I become in these Catholic cultural/liturgical/musical/opinionated style wars, especially after reading his article I think that he has got something right. He brings up some of my unanswerable questions, but mostly I love that he admits and discusses the difficulties of implementing this idealistic liturgy that the "ultra-traddies" push for--and even whether or not their interpretation of what "the Church says" is actually what the church asks! (In one of the footnotes-which I almost missed, but that was probably partly his intention ;-) he mentions "Msgr. Schuler's misinterpretation of Musicam Sacram regarding the polyphonic Mass ordinary," discussed in his book on p. 533-535. tee hee.)
He brings up several other issues, which are just fascinating to me. He begins to provide an explanation for why Vatican II seems to have been so badly interpreted and implemented (regarding Sacrosanctum Concilium,) by saying, "As revolutionary as the liturgical constitution was, it is marked throughout by a certain balance between tradition and innovation. Some consider this uneasy balance to be a political compromise between the many competing positions of the bishops, or even an incoherent bringing together of contradictory positions. Perhaps this feature of the constitution explains the existence of such divergent positions in the years since Vatican II..."
Another favorite issue of mine that he plainly discusses, is just "HOW pastorally feasible is it to give primacy to traditional repertoires?" Perhaps another should-be-obvious reason why SC did not receive faithful implementation.
He also states earlier, "It is rather difficult to stimulate congregational singing in Latin." This sentence is so key, but the traditionalists simply will not admit that this is a problem, but I have found from my own personal experience that IT'S TRUE! Even people who consider themselves "liturgically-conservative Catholics," while the don't mind and even enjoy listening to someone else sing in Latin, they simply do not want to sing it themselves! WHY? and then why does the Church tell us they should? I think Fr. Ruff might have some of the answers, but I'm beginning to be skeptical about other camps which will remain nameless. (like, places and people who don't seem to live in the real world, with real Catholics sitting in the pews...)
hmmm hmm so much to learn and study, so little time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)