In the commentary section of Jeffrey Tucker’s provocative post, “Catholicism Grows Up,” one of our faithful UK friends, Ian W. amplifies one of Jeffrey’s own comments, stating “Nor does a cathedral musician’s claim that all is right with the world mean that it is. One only needs to inspect the Cathedral music lists to realize this.” As much as I can understand the sentiment of Ian’s contention, I am also startled over how easily any of us might overlook the potential injury our words may let loose upon our colleagues and peers with a sardonic slight, or a disparaging word based upon a one-dimensional perspective.
I remember visiting a brand new cathedral whose exterior architectural design dismayed me upon my initial viewing. But entering the interior enabled me to re-assess the skepticism and prejudice that lurked in my mind as result of that first glance and reaction. And while taking in the whole of the “house” with interest and energy, I was able to apply a sense of understanding and empathy as I perused the previous Sunday’s worship aide and musical selections, aka “the music list.”
Who among us that has been charged with administering repertoire choices for congregational singing hasn’t had some sort of cognitive dissonance, or cosmic collision with the reality that implementing our own tastes, visions and praxes will necessitate a nascent, starting-from-scratch reformation from the disparate remnant elements of previous “shot callers?”
But what I call into question is the merit of free associating what is “wrong” by the mere inspection of “music lists” that presupposes no other criteria than those choices. Can we literally be assured that our convictions about adherence to standards of art, legislation of styles, sources of texts, primacy of options are the only factors at play for the soul(s) that make these choices daily, weekly and according to seasons? A cliché is a cliché for a reason. “All politics are local.” Now, if an informed observer such as Ian, is privy to the vagaries and specifics of the local cathedral music ministry where the weekly repertoire reflects a particularly stagnant or egregious attitude towards liturgical proprieties, I would hope that the observer would consult with local parishioners, clergy or musicians to inquire as to their assessment, rather than manifest dissatisfaction in that most catholic of manners, the ubiquitous, inarticulate complaint.
In framing this post, I originally thought it would be best to display one of my lists (we’re not a cathedral, but we would qualify as a megaparish) and then conduct an autopsy this afternoon after the fact. But as the thought came to mind, an autopsy isn’t an appropriate term to describe looking at these choices. One should forensically approach these choices as they were intended, to provide living worship from living worshippers to the One Living God.
Even among our own CMAA adherents, it is proven fact that we are all on various degrees of maturation towards the paradigm of worship practice that Dr. Mahrt and his precursors have unflaggingly championed. Think about it- even in parishes and cathedrals where the EF is offered, there are options among the forms of the ritual which require specific and sometimes different types of music, chant and polyphony to be sure, and occasionally hymns. In the OF, should a parish striving to discern RotR, directors have a panopoly of vernacular chant and proper options that weren’t even dreamt of a decade ago, not to mention the S.O.P. of whatever is in the pulp or hardbound hymnal in the pews. Furthermore, to presume that even full-time, professional and experienced directors of music have no other personal, hierarchical or other aspects that inform their weekly deliberations is unrealistic, and perhaps mean spirited if wholesale condemnation is the objective.
So, I offer my music “list” for this, the Seventh Sunday of Ordered Time for your consideration and deliberation.
Read these bones, these tea leaves, this menu and offer your snapshot of “how the world is” in just one parish in California. Your reflections will be respected, or moreso, reflect the respect the level of criticism that is provided. As we were reminded last week, speak as if “your yes means yes, and your no means no.” And I will try to remember to respond by going one more mile to understand our “failings.”
The “S” Mass is our “traditional choral” Mass, the “E” is our contemporary “ensemble” Mass.
Introit: S “Lord, Your mercy in my hope…” Simple Choral Gradual/R.Rice E The American Gradual/B.Ford
Entrance: S O FATHER, ALL CREATING (Aurelia) E STAND BY ME (Kendzia)
Opening Rites: S Kyrie-plainsong/Oecumenica-Culbreth E Kyrie(Sleeth)/Dancing Day Gloria-P.Ford
Responsorial: SE Respond & Acclaim
Gospel Accl.: S plainsong “Alleluia”modeVI E Sleeth setting
Offertory: S CHRIST BEFORE US (Suo gan) E THE SUMMONS (Kelvingrove)
Eucharistic Accl.: S Oecumenica/Agnus Dei (plainsong) E Holy/Christ/ Amen /Lamb (Sleeth)
Communion Procession: S “I will tell all…” Simple Choral Gradual/R.Rice E The American Gradual/B.Ford S JESU, JOY OF OUR DESIRING (Bach arr.) E PRAYER OF ST. FRANCIS/ORACIÓN( Temple )
Communion Anthem: S PRAYER OF ST. FRANCIS (Mark Hayes arr.) E DWELLING PLACE (Foley)
Recessional: S organ postlude E IF GOD IS FOR US (Brown)
Thanks Charles, that's all well put. Thanks for the lists too, which make interesting reading. I'm all for the idea that diversity in itself is a hallmark of the truly Catholic, and I think you're upholding it well.
At the risk of sounding like a simpleton, I would like to comment that your list seems very similar to what I was doing during my last assignment as MD. It caused me some consternation, as I felt deep down that a change was necessarily coming. The substitution of chant for the ordinary, a real chant Introit, traditional hymn tunes, such as Aurelia or Nicea, instead of recently composed spiritual "songs" was a difficult but compelling choice. Certainly not completely appreciated by parishioners, it was a tough sell. I think many parishes experience this "split list". Contemporary musicians desire to hold on to their familiar repertoire, whereas we who can feel the change inherent in the reform want to advance ours.
Nothing sardonic or slighting about it, Charles, but an observation about the logic of a comment, and a suggestion that experience supports it. There’s nothing pointed about it: I've no idea which Cathedral the author of the comment works in, or the nature of his work there (perhaps you hadn't read the question that made that clear).
Your response is grounded in your experience of parish work, and up to a point I agree with you: we work from where we find ourselves. It doesn't follow that all is well or that we need to agree with those who might claim their experience makes it so. There's no need to be unnecessarily caustic, and there’s always a wrong time and place, but it isn’t desirable to avoid honest disagreement. Indeed, in the case of the commenter to whom I was responding, who’s quite capable of standing his ground, it would be patronising.
There’s also a significant difference between a parish church, no matter how big, and a Cathedral. The clergy of the Diocesan mother church have a particular responsibility to see that the texts of the liturgy are sung and that the music reflects the best traditions of the Rite. The up side of this is that the musicians should have better resources and opportunities than their fellows in the parishes. The down side is that more will be expected of them.
Point taken well, Ian. Thank you.
I think, what with all the hullabaloo presumably in the Anglophone Catholic Universe currently occupying idle minds, that the subset world of St. Blogs and its traffic is like an amusement park carousel. So many people climbing on and off of an amusement that essentially goes nowhere, and each person feels compelled to comment on whether the "ride" worked for them, each one of them having a different horse or carriage and a different perspective while going round and round in a circle. (That analogy could be a tad obtuse.)
The era of amusement park liturgy has seen its sunset. You're right in advancing that every bishop and his cathedral staff has an immediate responsibility to not only reflect the spirit and law of ritual legislation, but to take that mandate out to the parishes and enumerate a specific, prescriptive program of reforms and assistance, all respecting the resources and economy variances from church to church.
This was supposed to happen, if I recall the heavy water carriers of VII liturgical musicians, by the personnel of cathedral musicians in the seventies. That obviously failed and the Liturgical Industrial Complex filled that vacuum quite handily. IMO.
Looking at this list and it's near identity to the music selections I make for our parish (which also has these two groups), I am thinking that this is the current tactic taken by those directors who are serious about moving towards a musical vision that is consistent with the reforms (actual) of Vatican II. It is a slow and sometimes rocky road, but looking back at my preparations of 4 years ago for Lent, and my preparations this year, the movement is obvious and quite significant.
JH, it's a relief to know someone with your credibility recognizes the significance of "slow and steady" as a legitmate strategy towards restoring a RC ethos at the parish level.
I would love to tell more about recent local developments of even greater significance. Suffice it for now to say that Dr. Paul Ford's efforts, occasioned by the planting of the seed of BFW twelve years ago, may have its first vintage in a rather large field soon.
Soli Dei gloria!