Music for Worship--Insights Worth Knowing

Sure, this guy posts what informed Church musicians know.

(Note carefully the words "informed" and "musicians," which restrict the universe to a small number, as opposed to the Folk Singers, Head-Bangers, and banner-makers so often hired because they played an instrument in their yout' and took "Liturgy Studies 101" at some college...or even acquired a degree in "Liturgy".)

In Sacramentum Caritatis (2007) he [Pope Benedict] states clearly:

"Consequently everything -- texts, music, execution -- ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons." (SC)

The implications of this passage can be easily glossed over, but a careful look demonstrates a very clear vision of the three structural elements of music in the liturgy – text, music, execution. It is also quite specific in noting that these three distinct elements – the text, the musical style and the actual “sound” (execution) ought to “correspond”, or be related to, the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the specific liturgical season.

About 25 years ago, I attended a brief Choral Directing workshop led by Roger Wagner. There were about 100 church choir directors in attendance. At one point during the exercise, Wagner asked the assembled folks 'how many of them had sung Bach's B Minor Mass?' A few hands were raised. He then asked how many had sung 'Beethoven's Missa Solemnis?' A few hands went up. 'Any Bach Passion'? A few hands went up.

Roger, never known for his tact, then asked those choir directors 'how they could possibly have that function (choir director) if they did NOT know such literature...'

That's to help you, dear reader, understand the difference between the Liturgeists (referred to above) and actual musicians.

But it gets worse.

If one wished to really, really embarass the "choir directors" or "liturgy directors" in this Archdiocese, one could ask "How many of you have sung an Introit from the Graduale? A Communio?"

Hell, I wonder how many of them could simply pronounce the Latin, never mind sing the piece...

End digression.

So what's the upshot of the linked post?

Apparently, the Bishops meeting in Baltimore in November of 2006 did not make the connection between the concept of specified texts and liturgical tradition, and so did not submit a list of specified texts, but rather a set of guidelines to be used by Bishops in whose Diocese music is published to evaluate the suitability of songs written and published for use in the Mass. This was clearly not the intention of Liturgiam Authenticam, and is most likely the reason that the “Directory for Music in the Liturgy” will not receive approval from the Holy See.

Next,

...the question of the musical style to be used comes to the forefront. Here there is historic precedent in force. The primary criticism of much “contemporary liturgical music” in use today is it’s reliance on stylisms and idiomatic conventions of popular, theatrical and Broadway music.
...the incursion of such theatrical stylings into the music of the liturgy has brought about a disconnect between the music and the rest of the liturgy, effectively destroying the organic structure of the liturgy itself, and relegating music to its current exterior role in worship.

Which relegation is specifically wrong by virtue of the Vatican II document on the Liturgy, which states that 'music is an integral part of the Liturgy.

OH, yeah, there's a lot of work to be done...