What We Have Lost (And Maybe Getting Back): Decent Music

I have no musical training.  My friend Father Justin once said I have a "good natural instrument," but I think he was just trying to be nice.  Nevertheless, I make a point to sing all of the songs in Church--active participation in the Liturgy and all that.  So, I feel qualified to pass judgment on the music that is the staple of most Catholic Masses.  And the judgment is simple--it's mostly terrible.

I am certainly not the first person to complain about the music, but this is my blog so I will vent.  The music is terrible for two reasons.  First, much of it is bizarrely hard to sing.  Take for example the "old" standard "On Eagle's Wings."  Now, I have a soft spot in my heart for this song, but it is very tough for men to sing, since so much of it is in the high registers.  Don't believe me?  Listen to this rendition, focusing on the ends of the verses.


Now, these guys are exactly Andrea Bocelli, but there are giving it the old college try, and the song is not doing them any favors.  There are other hymns with weird time changes and other odd flourishes that make it hard to follow along unless you really read music and know what you are doing.  And, almost by definition, the people in the congregation don't know what they are doing.

The other terrible thing about some of the hymns is that they range from insipid, to theologically dubious, to full-on heretical.  My personal pet peeve is the song "Gather Us In," which has the following verse:

Not in the dark of buildings confining
Not in some Heaven light-years away
But here in this place, the new light is shining
Now is the Kingdom, Now is the Day

In other words, don't go to Church, and don't worry about Heaven, because you are already in Heaven, I guess.  This song should be banned from Catholic Masses.  Equally bad is the weirdly self-congratulatory "Anthem":

We are called, We are chosen
We are Christ for one another
We are promised to tomorrow
While we are for Him today
We are sign, We are wonder
We are sower, We are seed
We are harvest, We are hunger
We are question, We are creed

At a certain point, you sort of get the feeling the songwriter just picked words that rhymed without a thought to the meaning, like a bad rap song (what does "We are creed" mean?).  Last Ash Wednesday, someone pointed out to me the dubious theology underlying the song "Ashes," which you will probably hear in every Catholic Church on that day.  It contains the lines "we rise again from ashes, to create ourselves anew" (really? how do we do that?) and "an offering of ashes, an offering to you" (to whom? to God? Why are we offering God ashes?)

In a year, we are going to get a new translation of the Mass, along with a renewed emphasis on Gregorian Chant in English.  The general consensus is that this will discourage participation in the Mass, but I think that's wrong.  The great secret of chant is that you can fake your way through it without knowing what you are doing or how to sing and it still sounds OK.  I spent an entire year faking my way through chant as a Dominican, and no one knew the difference.  It's much, much easier to sing than "On Eagle's Wings."

Plus, when it is done by people who know what they are doing, its really great.  Here's a small choir at a Church in Jackson, Mississippi


If they can do it, everyone can do it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jesus Doesn't Care if You Masturbate, and Other Provocations

Image
1.  A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled upon this post on the Patheos Catholic channel .  In it, a young woman named Marina S. Olsen began what she promised is a series of posts discussing sexual sins, and she begins with masturbation.  To call the post alarmist would not do it justice--even in the heyday of the drug scares in the 80s, an anti-drug ad that adopted this tone would be seen as over-the-top.   But something struck me in reading her post--Ms. Olsen believes, with an apparently unshakable conviction, that what the Catholic Church has to say about masturbation is true.  Actually, that's not quite right--she takes as a given  that what the Church says about masturbation is true.  It is noticeable that at no point does she try to do the Dr. Greg trick, which is to justify her opposition to masturbation on the basis of ostensibly neutral or scientific grounds .  No, her thesis is that people despair about masturbation because masturbation is going to result in those folks
Read more

Another Theology of the Body, Part VI--A Theological Exploration of the Clitoris

I was introduced to The Body's Grace by Frank from Letters to the Catholic Right in this post , where he quotes Williams saying: It puts the question which is also raised for some kinds of moralist by the existence of the clitoris in women; something whose function is joy. If the creator were quite so instrumentalist in ‘his’ attitude to sexuality, these hints of prodigality and redundancy in the way the whole thing works might cause us to worry about whether he was, after all, in full rational control of it. But if God made us for joy…? I want to talk about the first part of that quote here, regarding the clitoris.  I am not aware of any theology that has been done on the clitoris, but there should be.  As Williams alludes to, the existence and nature of the clitoris is a theological "problem," especially if you want to hold on to traditional Christian sexual morality.  It is especially problematic if you want to hold that sexuality needs to be understood through the
Read more

Holy Sex!--Part 3.3 Getting Down to Business, Part II

Chapter 12 is about foreplay.  Most everyone acknowledges that foreplay is good, and this chapter is no exception.  Popcak makes the interesting but seemingly effective choice to break foreplay down into the various senses.  So, for example, under seeing he discusses things like wearing lingerie, under smell he suggests to use scented candles, etc.  There is nothing revolutionary or earthshaking here, but the suggestions are solid and reasonable. He also provides an unambiguous defense of oral sex.  Some might be puzzled as to why oral sex needs defending, but the traditional position of the Church opposed oral sex--hence the reason it was traditionally grouped with anal sex under the heading of "sodomy."  So, Popcak is stepping out a bit on a limb here, and he deserves his kudos for that.  He also makes clear that oral sex goes both ways, subject only to the One Rule.  Good on him for recognizing the needs of the ladies in this realm. I could see how his constant use of
Read more