NB: This was originally posted on October 6th but the "comment" section was not working. Hopefully this new post will have a working "comment" section.
___________________________________________________________
As I was exploring Choral Net to generate discussion via my Blog, I was totally distracted by today's Choral Net blog post: "C.S. Lewis & Church Music" by Thomas Vozzella.
Although the topic of my blog discussion is meant to be: Adolescent Singers, I did not want to pass the opportunity to think more critically about what Vozzella said. Therefore, I will make as second blog entry concerning Adolescent Singers at a later time.
Music in the Church has long be something that has intrigued me. Having grown up in a French Catholic Parish, I grew up with traditional French style singing during mass, in addition to other traditions of the Catholic Church. It wasn't until I was much older, and part of an English Parish in Waterloo ON, that I became aware of just how hierarchical music can be within the church, not to mention the "do's and don'ts" of music during the mass. At first I thought it was ridiculous that we couldn't sing what ever hymns we wanted (they are required to be part of the church calendar) and what really bothered me was how sparingly I was aloud to play during mass. Back home I was used to playing at every opportunity, in Waterloo I learned that the use of instruments were only to be used during certain parts of the mass and a cantor alone was meant for other parts. Over the years I have since fallen in love with there traditions of music within the mass and find I enjoy mass much less when they are not being followed. At times, I have felt poor musical choices compromise the parishioners ability to focus on the importance of the spoken word, rather than the accompanying music.
But these matters of opinion aside, what drew me to this particular blog entry was not so much what Vozzella quoted of C. S. Lewis, but what Ron Duquette said in his comment to the blog:
I have to admit that, looking at the first paragraph, I wasn't sure I was going to have any degree of agreement with Mr. Lewis. But by the end of the second full paragraph, I had to agree, as hard as it is, sometimes, to remember the REAL reason we're supposed to be doing this. It isn't a particularly popular approach, especially among musicians, to examine the intention behind the presenting of the music which should be at base in their choice of music for the Church. I have to admit, as a choir director myself, that weekly music choices often present a(n often uneasy) compromise between my personal preferences, those of the worshiping community, and the message of the day. How much of traditional hymnody should we be singing? How much "contemporary" (in the Catholic Church, too often that means music written between 1966 and 1986, or as I refer to it, the "Glory and Praise" music of the song collection of the same title) music should I include for the baby boomers in the church, who grew up with it - but who love it, and are willing to sing it? If I include truly "contemporary" music (i.e., written in the last 15-20 years), what risk is there that the congregation won't know it, and in too many instances, won't care to learn it? Do I dare take anything out of the Treasury of the Church's Music - i.e., pieces by Byrd, Tallis, Mozart, Bruckner - in the hopes that someone, somewhere, in that community might take a step closer to God by LISTENING to music which may not be in a language they can understand? What Mr. Lewis wrote so eloquently can be reduced, not necessarily well, to what I try to remind my choristers periodically: "Our job is to help one person take one step closer to God. We may not ever know when that happened, but it if does, it's what we're supposed to do." This is why I resist the description of what happens musically in any divine liturgy in the Church as being a "performance" - because that idea comes far too close to pride in self. I prefer to think of it as "presentation" - of a gift that, like those of the Magi at the Epiphany, are not necessary, but return to God what is His.
Although the topic of my blog discussion is meant to be: Adolescent Singers, I did not want to pass the opportunity to think more critically about what Vozzella said. Therefore, I will make as second blog entry concerning Adolescent Singers at a later time.
Music in the Church has long be something that has intrigued me. Having grown up in a French Catholic Parish, I grew up with traditional French style singing during mass, in addition to other traditions of the Catholic Church. It wasn't until I was much older, and part of an English Parish in Waterloo ON, that I became aware of just how hierarchical music can be within the church, not to mention the "do's and don'ts" of music during the mass. At first I thought it was ridiculous that we couldn't sing what ever hymns we wanted (they are required to be part of the church calendar) and what really bothered me was how sparingly I was aloud to play during mass. Back home I was used to playing at every opportunity, in Waterloo I learned that the use of instruments were only to be used during certain parts of the mass and a cantor alone was meant for other parts. Over the years I have since fallen in love with there traditions of music within the mass and find I enjoy mass much less when they are not being followed. At times, I have felt poor musical choices compromise the parishioners ability to focus on the importance of the spoken word, rather than the accompanying music.
But these matters of opinion aside, what drew me to this particular blog entry was not so much what Vozzella quoted of C. S. Lewis, but what Ron Duquette said in his comment to the blog:
I have to admit that, looking at the first paragraph, I wasn't sure I was going to have any degree of agreement with Mr. Lewis. But by the end of the second full paragraph, I had to agree, as hard as it is, sometimes, to remember the REAL reason we're supposed to be doing this. It isn't a particularly popular approach, especially among musicians, to examine the intention behind the presenting of the music which should be at base in their choice of music for the Church. I have to admit, as a choir director myself, that weekly music choices often present a(n often uneasy) compromise between my personal preferences, those of the worshiping community, and the message of the day. How much of traditional hymnody should we be singing? How much "contemporary" (in the Catholic Church, too often that means music written between 1966 and 1986, or as I refer to it, the "Glory and Praise" music of the song collection of the same title) music should I include for the baby boomers in the church, who grew up with it - but who love it, and are willing to sing it? If I include truly "contemporary" music (i.e., written in the last 15-20 years), what risk is there that the congregation won't know it, and in too many instances, won't care to learn it? Do I dare take anything out of the Treasury of the Church's Music - i.e., pieces by Byrd, Tallis, Mozart, Bruckner - in the hopes that someone, somewhere, in that community might take a step closer to God by LISTENING to music which may not be in a language they can understand? What Mr. Lewis wrote so eloquently can be reduced, not necessarily well, to what I try to remind my choristers periodically: "Our job is to help one person take one step closer to God. We may not ever know when that happened, but it if does, it's what we're supposed to do." This is why I resist the description of what happens musically in any divine liturgy in the Church as being a "performance" - because that idea comes far too close to pride in self. I prefer to think of it as "presentation" - of a gift that, like those of the Magi at the Epiphany, are not necessary, but return to God what is His.
This comment reminded me of Goodkin's second chapter "B is for Beauty", on which page 8 he asks: "Why are we willing to live with anything less than beautiful?" That day in class we passed around a pinecone and were asked "What is beauty to you?" and the majority of our answers were things of nature, that are not and cannot be man made.
Ron reminds his choristers:
"Our job is to help one person take one step closer to God. We may not ever know when that happened, but it if does, it's what we're supposed to do." This is why I resist the description of what happens musically in any divine liturgy in the Church as being a "performance" - because that idea comes far too close to pride in self. I prefer to think of it as "presentation" - of a gift that, like those of the Magi at the Epiphany, are not necessary, but return to God what is His.
This made me think of our job as educators. What is our job, really, and how will we ever know if we've done our best? And especially as music educators, who will most likely conducts bands/choirs that will be put on "display" at school assembly's, but is the "performance" what matters, or the "presentation" of the gift of music?
