Yay....the Vernacular

[Cam42]

[quote name='aloha918' date='Apr 12 2005, 09:14 AM']ill have to hear it to believe it.........j/k

i am sure he is good, but if he likes to sing......he shouldnt like organs.....they drown out the singers at mass.....at least the one at my church does.......it is insane how loud it is......the piano is much nicer, so is the guitar.......much more pleasent than a lound constant pitch that sounds like a whale........ [/quote]
In case you really don't believe that I can sing.....

[url="http://www.giamusic.com/sacred_music/excerpts.html"]GIA's Music Excerpts[/url]; I am the male lead in the ensemble in:

"As the Deer" (Psalms 42/43)
from As the Deer
Michael Joncas
CD-421 or CS-421

which is about 3/4 the way down the page. This was written for the UST Liturgical Choir in 1997. Incidentally, about 80% of the choral music recorded for Fr. Joncas, Haugan, and Haas is done by my choir. It is part of the gig, when the composers are alumni of the choir.

For all of this, I can tell you that belonging to this choir was one of the highlights my time at UST. I am still close to the choir director and while I disagree with his musical style (and he is well aware of it), he taught me alot about church music.

"Blest Are They"
"You Are Mine"
"Penitential Rite: Kyrie Eleison"
"We Give You Thanks"
"All Are Welcome"
"We Are Many Parts"


And others are what I sang in college. As I grew in my knowledge of music, I started to move away from this kind of music. And eventually I came to the position that I am at now.

So, listen if you like, but know that I don't necessarily think that these are appropriate for the Liturgy. I have actually challenged Joncas, Haguan and Haas on their Liturgical positions. After I had my "ephiphany" about church music, I actually asked Fr. Joncas how could he start a song on a dissident 7th? (That is how "On Eagle's Wings" starts, btw.) If nothing else, I have gumption.

But I am very versed in music.

Cam

[Nicole8223]

Those are the songs that drive most people crazy. It is completely not the style of music I would suggest a guitarist use to lead worship.

Sidenote: The organ in our church has two HUGE speakers to amplify itself. When I have played there, I use the same speakers as the organ for a guitar.

[Cam42]

[quote]Those are the songs that drive most people crazy.[/quote]

But that is the music that is being put forward right now. Those are songs from GIA, the leading church music publisher of the Vatican Council II era. Suprising isn't it.

You and I actually agree with that statement. It is great praise and worship music, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is appropriate for the Mass. Some of it is, but most of it isn't.

We need to look to the Vatican Council II documents and preceding to get our lead.

Cam

[Jaime]

Ok so let's finally answer the question? How praytell did the pipe organ become the star instrument of the Mass? Back when pipe organs were da bomb, the pastor of a parish would hire a composer. He wouldn’t just play, he would write music for the Mass. (Check out Bach, that was his main gig)

Ok so let’s make up a mythical composer...Nicole. So Ms Nicole gets hired by Father Camilam to compose all the music for the parish. And hey Ms Nicole look at the fine cathedral we just built. It should stand for hundreds of years as a wondrous place of worship.

So Nicole checks out the fab new church. Now as an accomplished composer, she is skilled in many instruments and is certainly competent in more. She walks into the church to see this amazing structure of marble, glass and stone. She sees a huge dome at the top of this majestic Cathedral. She’s in awe of the beauty and splendor when she says to herself “Man the acoustics in here are gonna smell of elderberries”.

See Cammy, with music acoustics are everything. So you have this structure entirely built of stone marble and glass (not to mention LOTS of open space) and you know that sound is just going to bounce around forever. There is nothing to absorb it! So what’s Kelly gonna do? “Aha” she thinks, “I will need to compose music for instruments that can sustain notes indefinitely. Stringed instruments with bows will work...But I need something I can play without other people… “

“Eureka” Nicole shouts “ I will write music for the calliope!!” So she went down to the carnival and borrowed the calliope for a day. Unfortunately she also had to bring in the rest of the merry go round and she started to think the horses might be a distraction on Sunday.

“NO WAIT” she cries, “Better yet, the pipe organ!!”

And this is how the pipe organ became the sacred instrument with its own rite. Bad acoustics demand that music be slower. This eliminates a bunch of instruments by virtue of your environment. Its origins were logical without theological support. It just made sense to use it.

Since there were external influences to the choice of organ, there is subjectivity to that choice.

[Cam42]

And thus tradition is born. What do we see happening over the next millinea or so? We see that the organ and music attributed it become the harbinger of faith. It gains pride of place because it is what is most proper. Once this ceases to be a tradition and becomes a Tradition, it has to be held in highest esteem.

Now, as music evolves and yes, it evolves, we see the introduction of other types of instrumentation. However, these instruments are not rooted in profanity. In other words, they are suitable for use in the sacred.

But who decides that, asks Nicole. Father Camilam answers that with this statement, "The Church."

She says, "Wait a minute, why can't we use the guitar? I like the guitar and I think that it is appropriate."

Father Camilam answers that, "The Church teaches us that Tradition is an accurate part of the auspice of the Church and she will teach us as to what is proper and what is not."

Nicole says, "I don't like that, I want to use the guitar, there are some really nice pieces for guitar."

Father Camilam says, "Well, it isn't up to you and me. The Church teaches that if we can't teach the faithful to sing Gregorian Chant (which we should be able to, precisely because you are well versed in music), then we will use the organ. Because that is what the Church teaches through various documentation. It has pride of place and should be used in place of chant."

Nicole says, "OK, I will assent my will to the Church and learn why I am doing so. What do I need to read?"

And so the conversation goes. Assention of the will. It isn't subjective, it is objective. The Church teaches us and we are to accept it. If we weren't then why support other disciplines like say......celibacy?

Cam

[aloha918]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 12 2005, 01:48 PM']
Hmmmm.....do you need to amplify an organ by artificial means?  And in most parish churches do you need to amplify the choir's voice?  However, even in the smallest of parish churches do you need to amplify the guitar?  Unless you are in the Florence Chapel at UST, I would say thatmost of the time you do. 

As a matter of fact, I have sung many, many times at the 4th largest Cathedral in the US and we have never had to use amplification of either the organ or the choir.  However, the guitar needs to be amplified.....seems a little false to me.

Cam [/quote]
God help us all!......

are you insane?..........a good guitar cost upwards aroung 6...7 hundred....with a pick up in it....(Obviously you can go higher than that)....a good solid amp....maybe around the same....obviously these are very general prices.......

now lets see how much an organ costs....and this is not being general.....these are actual costs..........

the one in my church......$800,000......o and by the way another $100,000 to install the thing.......which, by the way, is larger than my house.......

ok you are right in sying that the organ doesnt need to be amplified......but i think your arguement is completely messed up......i dont think that you can have really any come back to this at all......but miracles do happen......

we are called to feed the hungrey....give to the poor.......etc.

perhaps the guitar is the more prudent idea......the more selfless idea.....the more loving choice...........and to me that would be sacred!......

when i ask my self the ever corny phrase....."what would Jesus do?"......i think that he would go for the guitar..............and play stairway to heaven...(that was just a joke....please do not reply thinking that i was serious)......

even with the choir situation....it depends how big your choir is.......the one at my church is amplified through the PA....and i go to a pretty big church.....to set this up probablly takes 5 to 10 minutes.....i would know because i help out with it......

and all of this seems a little TRUE to me......

Aloha......

Edited April 13, 2005 by aloha918

[scardella]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 12 2005, 08:34 PM'] And thus tradition is born. What do we see happening over the next millinea or so? We see that the organ and music attributed it become the harbinger of faith. It gains pride of place because it is what is most proper. Once this ceases to be a tradition and becomes a Tradition, it has to be held in highest esteem. [/quote]
errrmm...
Last I checked, Tradition (big T) has to do with Revelation and Truths of the faith. As such, it doesn't change. As traditional as the organ is, it is definitely not Tradition. There's nothing in Jesus' teaching that has a whit to do with specific instrumentation.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where they reject a particular musical instrument as unfit for worship.

I am also unclear as to what makes an instrument sacred or profane. As far as I can tell from what has been said, it seems that a practical decision for the organ turned into "well, that's what we've always used" tradition over the years of its use.

[scardella]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 12 2005, 08:34 PM'] Now, as music evolves and yes, it evolves, we see the introduction of other types of instrumentation. However, these instruments are not rooted in profanity. In other words, they are suitable for use in the sacred. [/quote]
As always, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Weren't organs used during the "bread and circuses"? That's the games, gladiator fights, etc during the Roman times. That sounds like it's profane (not sacred) to me. Only later was it brought into use for worship.

Also, if music evolves and we see other types of instrumentation, then what's the big deal with introducing guitars? We use Greek philosophy, which is certainly pre-Christian. We "baptized" pagan holidays by celebrating things from Jesus' life at the same times of the year, eg Christmas. So, I repeat, what's wrong with the Church using a musical instrument that was originally used for secular music?

[scardella]

Just FYI, I found this on Wikipedia:

[quote]Pipe organs date back to classical antiquity. Early organs were often hydraulic; the inventor most often credited is Ctesibius of Alexandria, an engineer of the 3rd century BC, who created an instrument called the hydraulis. The hydraulis was common in the Roman Empire, and was capable of being immensely loud; this instrument was used in games, circuses, amphitheatres, and processions. Characteristics of this instrument have been inferred from mosaics, paintings, literary references and partial remains, but knowledge of details of its construction remain sketchy, and almost nothing is known of the actual music it played.[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' date='Apr 12 2005, 11:23 PM'] errrmm...
Last I checked, Tradition (big T) has to do with Revelation and Truths of the faith. As such, it doesn't change. As traditional as the organ is, it is definitely not Tradition. There's nothing in Jesus' teaching that has a whit to do with specific instrumentation.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where they reject a particular musical instrument as unfit for worship.

I am also unclear as to what makes an instrument sacred or profane. As far as I can tell from what has been said, it seems that a practical decision for the organ turned into "well, that's what we've always used" tradition over the years of its use. [/quote]
Not necessarily....Tradition isn't necessarily biblical. The Bible is Tradition, but the bible is not mentioned anywhere in scripture.

There are two legs to the Church. Scripture and Tradition. Many of the Traditions of the Church start as traditions, but become Tradition. It's how things work.

A couple of great examples of this...the Summa Theologica and the recent encyclical Ut Unum Sint.

Both are clarifications and teachings of the Church that are applied by Tradition, but not necessarily Scripture. Scripture supports part of it, but then again the documentation that I have given includes scripture as well.

[quote]I am also unclear as to what makes an instrument sacred or profane.[/quote]

And this is the crux of all of this. We have lost the sense of the Sacred. We can't for the most part distinguish between the two. That is why the conversation. This is bigger than the organ v. guitar issue, as they are only one facet of this whole issue that is prevading the life of the Church.

Here are some articles:
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/ArticleText/Index/2/SubIndex/17/ArticleIndex/32"]What is Sacred Music?[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/ArticleText/Index/65/SubIndex/115/ArticleIndex/34"]Catholic Practices and Recapturing the Sacred (John Haas is not David Haas)[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/ArticleText/Index/100/SubIndex/103/ArticleIndex/35"]Participation[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/ArticleText/Index/65/SubIndex/113/ArticleIndex/39"]Humanism and the Sacred[/url]

The last article is important.
[quote]The problems of sacred music today do not lie in selection of repertory or the encouraging of congregational participation. The disputes over Latin and the vernacular, the choir, the use of various instruments besides the organ are not the essential points.The problems are not musical; these, musicians could solve. It is not a question of composers or performers or even of money to encourage them. The problem is one of Faith, as it is in every other area of the Church today - Catholic education, religious vocations, celibacy for the clergy, birth control, or the authority of the Holy Father. (Msgr. Richard Schuler, Humanism and the Sacred; Sacred Music, Winter 1969)[/quote]

This quote is the crux of my argument. Like I said, guitars v. organs are only a means and the easiest to see, but this issue is much, much deeper.

Cam

N.B. The articles are not very long....don't worry.

[Cam42]

[quote name='aloha918' date='Apr 12 2005, 08:34 PM'] God help us all!......

are you insane?..........a good guitar cost upwards aroung 6...7 hundred....with a pick up in it....(Obviously you can go higher than that)....a good solid amp....maybe around the same....obviously these are very general prices.......

now lets see how much an organ costs....and this is not being general.....these are actual costs..........

the one in my church......$800,000......o and by the way another $100,000 to install the thing.......which, by the way, is larger than my house.......

ok you are right in sying that the organ doesnt need to be amplified......but i think your arguement is completely messed up......i dont think that you can have really any come back to this at all......but miracles do happen......

we are called to feed the hungrey....give to the poor.......etc.

perhaps the guitar is the more prudent idea......the more selfless idea.....the more loving choice...........and to me that would be sacred!......

when i ask my self the ever corny phrase....."what would Jesus do?"......i think that he would go for the guitar..............and play stairway to heaven...(that was just a joke....please do not reply thinking that i was serious)......

even with the choir situation....it depends how big your choir is.......the one at my church is amplified through the PA....and i go to a pretty big church.....to set this up probablly takes 5 to 10 minutes.....i would know because i help out with it......

and all of this seems a little TRUE to me......

Aloha...... [/quote]
We cannot simply say that this is better because this is cheaper. That is a naive argument. The Church has a need for those things that are beautiful and if an investment is made in, say, an organ, then they will have it for a long time and it will pay for itself....unless of course they don't use it because they are too busy using guitars.

Incidentally, most churches that install organs today get the money from an endowment....not that this matters much. Or they raise the money themselves, but those parishes also ususally have big pockets anyway.

Cam

[aloha918]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 13 2005, 08:10 AM'] We cannot simply say that this is better because this is cheaper.  That is a naive argument.  The Church has a need for those things that are beautiful and if an investment is made in, say, an organ, then they will have it for a long time and it will pay for itself....unless of course they don't use it because they are too busy using guitars.

Incidentally, most churches that install organs today get the money from an endowment....not that this matters much.  Or they raise the money themselves, but those parishes also ususally have big pockets anyway.

Cam [/quote]
yeah ok.......that was an arguement specifically to your statement before.......ya know the one about how guitars need amps and other things...making them not as practical.....blah blah blah.......

i was certainly not stating that we should use guitars for mass becasue they are cheaper.......i was refering to your statement....and that alone.......because i thought that was a naive argument that YOU were making.......

plus i think a big problem with this whole "raising money for an organ thing".....is that most of the people who donate wouldn't donate if it was for a really good cause like......sending money to Africa to help them with supoplies......so obvioulsy i am not a big fan of "raising money for an organ"....because they really dont sound that great......i would much sooner have a piano......anyday.....

i think you were side stepping the argument becasue you knew you were wrong.....

Edited April 13, 2005 by aloha918

[Cam42]

[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/243"]De Musica Sacra[/url]

Key points....

[quote]b) The difference between sacred, and secular music must be taken into consideration. Some musical instruments, such as the classic organ, are naturally appropriate for sacred music; others, such as string instruments which are played with a bow, are easily adapted to liturgical use. [b]But there are some instruments which, by common estimation, are so associated with secular music that they are not at all adaptable for sacred use. (DMS no. 60b)[/b][/quote]

I think that this starts to speak to your issue, as well, scardella.

[quote]The principal musical instrument for solemn liturgical ceremonies of the Latin Church has been and remains the classic pipe organ. (DMS no. 61)[/quote]

[quote]An organ destined for liturgical use, even if small, should be designed according to the norms of organ building, and be equipped with the type of pipes suitable for sacred use. Before it is to be used it should be properly blessed, and as a sacred object, receive proper care. (DMS no. 62)[/quote]

That speaks to the organ in the circus maximus argument.

[quote]Other instruments besides the organ, especially the smaller bowed instruments, may be used during the liturgical functions, particularly on days of greater solemnity. These may be used together with the organ or without it, for instrumental numbers of for accompanying the singing. However, the following rules derived from the principles stated above (no.60) are to strictly observed:

a) the instruments are truly suitable for sacred use;

b) they are to be played with such seriousness, and religious devotion that every suggestion of raucous secular music is avoided, and the devotion of the faithful is fostered;

c) the director, organist, and other instrumentalists should be well trained in instrumental techniques, and the laws of sacred music. (DMS no. 68)[/quote]

As I have also said all along, organs are not the only instruments that can be used, but it does say DMS does say that other instruments can be used. Notice that it is bowed instruments that are mentioned, not all stringed instruments.

[quote]Musical instruments which by common acception, and use are suitable only for secular music must be entirely excluded from all liturgical functions, and private devotions. (DMS no. 70)[/quote]

Amazing....but the Church is very clear. And this is why:
[quote]As everyone realizes, sacred music and sacred liturgy are so naturally inter- woven that laws cannot be made for the one without affecting the other. Indeed in the papal documents, and the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites we find materials common to both sacred music, and sacred liturgy. (Introduction, DMS)[/quote]

That is the why of it scardella.

Cam

[Cam42]

[quote]plus i think a big problem with this whole "raising money for an organ thing".....is that most of the people who donate wouldn't donate if it was for a really good cause like......sending money to Africa to help them with supoplies......so obvioulsy i am not a big fan of "raising money for an organ"....because they really dont sound that great......i would much sooner have a piano......anyday.....

i think you were side stepping the argument becasue you knew you were wrong.....[/quote]

Thankfully the Church doesn't agree with you. And incidentally, I am not sidestepping anything you are saying. I am sidestepping hot stuff, but that is on purpose. He and I have been arguing this for years and years. I know where he is going and he knows where I am going. We want to include others in our discussion. Notice who started the conversation. We are looking for other input.

The idea of foregoing our own heritage for that of another isn't necessarily a sound argument. So, the I wanna give all my money to Africa argument will not stand up. Cardinal Arinze is not in favor of your opinion, and neither am I. We have our own patrimony and we should foster that. Yes, give relief where we can, but we also need to support our own. Proper dignity given to the Liturgy cannot suffer simply because I feel and urge to give to Africa.

And thanks for your opinion on the organ. The Church doesn't agree.

Oh, I still have not given my opinion. Everything that I have stated is backed by a document from the Church. So, if I am wrong, the Church is wrong. Are you ready to go there?

Cam

[aloha918]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 13 2005, 08:36 AM']
Thankfully the Church doesn't agree with you. And incidentally, I am not sidestepping anything you are saying. I am sidestepping hot stuff, but that is on purpose. He and I have been arguing this for years and years. I know where he is going and he knows where I am going. We want to include others in our discussion. Notice who started the conversation. We are looking for other input.

The idea of foregoing our own heritage for that of another isn't necessarily a sound argument. So, the I wanna give all my money to Africa argument will not stand up. Cardinal Arinze is not in favor of your opinion, and neither am I. We have our own patrimony and we should foster that. Yes, give relief where we can, but we also need to support our own. Proper dignity given to the Liturgy cannot suffer simply because I feel and urge to give to Africa.

And thanks for your opinion on the organ. The Church doesn't agree.

Oh, I still have not given my opinion. Everything that I have stated is backed by a document from the Church. So, if I am wrong, the Church is wrong. Are you ready to go there?

Cam [/quote]
i am not saying that it is a problem for the church to raise money for an organ....what i was saying is that i think it is sad that some people will give money to an organ and not to a worthy cause......that was really all i was saying......

the money to Africa thing i dont even know if i would agree with that....actually i dont think that i would....it was just something i threw in there.....anywho

this quote that you stated was what i have been refering to in my last 3 posts.........i thought that THIS statement....and no others that you have made......was ridiculous....THIS statdment is what i thought you were side sptepping........

"Hmmmm.....do you need to amplify an organ by artificial means? And in most parish churches do you need to amplify the choir's voice? However, even in the smallest of parish churches do you need to amplify the guitar? Unless you are in the Florence Chapel at UST, I would say thatmost of the time you do.

As a matter of fact, I have sung many, many times at the 4th largest Cathedral in the US and we have never had to use amplification of either the organ or the choir. However, the guitar needs to be amplified.....seems a little false to me."

and you have been side stepping becasue you havent mentioned it since you posted it.........