Yay....the Vernacular

[Jaime]

Ok first of all, the guitar is awesome.

Second of all, you have yet to demonstrate how choice of organ was not subjective.

[Jaime]

Camster, why aren't you golfing?

[Cam42]

I had to change the tee time to accomodate the guy I was planning on playing with. We are going out after the Masters is over....he is a Tiger fan. blah, blah, blah......Go DiMarco!!!!! (I know this is a long shot)

Cam

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 10 2005, 02:24 PM'] Ok first of all, the guitar is awesome.

Second of all, you have yet to demonstrate how choice of organ was not subjective. [/quote]
No, tradition says that the organ has pride of place....there are documents that speak to that. This tradition is true whether I think that the organ is awesome or not.

While the guitar may be awesome, it is not a sacred instrument. My earlier documentation shows that. Don't get me wrong....Richie Sambora and Stevie Vai are awesome, but I don't think that anyone will say that they are as awesome as say, Mozart and Beethoven.

Cam

[Jaime]

Yes tradition proclaims that organ has pride of place. And its true that preferences for guitar, piano, etc are subjective.

However tradition does not assert that the fact that the organ has pride of place for (or not) subjective reasons. Nor does tradition proclaim that these other instruments are to be considered profane.

If the organ has pride of place primarily for subjective reasons, than I would assert that tradition is open to growth and expansion.

[journeyman]

Is it just a folk story that Silent Night was written for guitar because the organ was broken?

I didn't think the instrument determined the sacredness of music, I thought it was the composition/arrangement . . . certainly some instruments are more identified with sacred music, and I'm sure (being non-musical) there are some instruments that will never be identified with sacred music (if I were to play Handel's Messiah on the kazoo, no one would deem it any version of prayer)

Wouldn't the utility of the organ be that in large basilica type churches it had the ability to project throughout the entire building . . . with smaller, "single room" sanctuaryies, is there a need for that much musical muscle?

[Cam42]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Apr 10 2005, 04:19 PM'] Is it just a folk story that Silent Night was written for guitar because the organ was broken?

I didn't think the instrument determined the sacredness of music, I thought it was the composition/arrangement . . . certainly some instruments are more identified with sacred music, and I'm sure (being non-musical) there are some instruments that will never be identified with sacred music (if I were to play Handel's Messiah on the kazoo, no one would deem it any version of prayer)

Wouldn't the utility of the organ be that in large basilica type churches it had the ability to project throughout the entire building . . . with smaller, "single room" sanctuaryies, is there a need for that much musical muscle? [/quote]
I am glad that you have brought up Stille Nacht. I was trying not to use that example, however, you have....so I will.

The Stille Nacht was most likely used as a postlude. It was not used during the Mass itself. There is proof for this in the history given by Bill Egan. He says,
[quote]“As the two men, backed by the choir, stood in front of the main altar in St. Nicholas Church and sang Stille Nacht! Heilige Nacht! for the first time, they could hardly imagine the impact their composition would have on the world. They were just trying to get through a difficult situation by providing music for Midnight Mass.” [/quote]

As the two men, backed by the choir, stood in front of the main altar in St. Nicholas Church...

If they stood in front of the main altar, would that not get in the way of the entrance, the offertory, the Communion, or the recession? It would.

The Mass did not have hymns as we know them. The structure was as follows: Prelude.....the Mass....Postlude. The prelude and the postlude are not part of the Liturgy. They are at best para-liturgical.

There was a prelude.....the priest would then process in to Psalm 42 (asperges) the Mass would then commence.....there would be no hymnody at Holy Communion....the priest would finish Mass....come out for the last Gospel....postlude.

Cam

[Cam42]

One of the points I have been trying to get across is that as far as instrumentation goes, the teaching of the Church is that the organ has pride of place. However, the human voice is the authoritative instrument. The reason for the organ is that it most sussinctly imulates the voice of man.

In a smaller space, chant should be the basis....and instrumentation would not be needed at all.

Cam

[Jaime]

[quote]The reason for the organ is that it most sussinctly imulates the voice of man.[/quote]

This is your assertion or Church doctrine? Not the interpretation of doctrine by very knowledgeable musicians but actual doctrine.

[Cam42]

No, actually that was a reply to journeyman.

[God Conquers]

What about shredding an electric guitar? I think it imitates falsetto even better than an organ.

[journeyman]

always happy to serve as a straight man . . .

Is there a different standard for prelude/postlude? Is there some basis for the difference? As a "goer" and not a "doer" I think I'm at Mass as soon as I walk through the door . . . I may not be "actively" engaged in the liturgy of the Mass the minute I get there, but I do think of myself as "at" Mass.

Using, as an example, the music played before/after a wedding Mass (virtually the only scenario where I have seen the prelude/postlude)(sorry, in our small parish, the choir is still practicing until right before Mass begins), would it be inappropriate to have secular music not played on an organ? (I'm assuming a certain level of discretion, so "Born to Be Wild" is not one of the selections)

[Cam42]

[quote]Is there a different standard for prelude/postlude?[/quote]

Yes. The music need not be liturgical.

The prelude/postlude is para-liturgical, therefore as long as it is tasteful for the setting and responsive to the fact the Blessed Sacrament is present, I have no problem with the guitar being used.

However, liturgical music is a different matter altogether.

Cam

[Cam42]

Referring back to Ms. Carroll, when is this proper? The congregation should rightly sing a capella if the organ is not possible. She asks a question that has been glossed over, so I will ask it. “So why do we have electric keyboards, jazz and rock groups and an abundance of guitars instead of the pipe organ or a good pipe organ facsimile?”

My answer...."music ministry” has become more important than the participatio actuosa of the faithful. “Music ministry” would rather hold court in the front of the church than allow for the congregation to sing.

What can an organ do that a guitar can’t? Ms. Carroll rightly asserts, “The pipe organ is not only powerful and authoritative because of its depth and volume, but because it mimics the human voice, a fact alluded to by Pope Saint Pius X. That is, air is pumped through pipes (organ pipe/human windpipe) via a wind chest (lungs and diaphragm) and follows a nice straight path out the round opening (pipe opening/human mouth). This means that, like a singer, a pipe organ can actually breathe.”

“A well-trained organist will lift his or her hands at the end of each phrase, resulting in an obvious silence and a clear indication to the congregation that they can all breathe together at that spot. Strummed guitars, drums, and other percussive instruments cannot do that. And again, the organ can provide several lines of music simultaneously: melody, harmony, descant, etc. While playing, an organist is a whirl of hand and foot activity.”

Another thought about this.....People are drawn to art. If they are taught that there is ineastimable worth in Sacred Music, perhaps they will come to understand and enjoy traditional hymnody and music.

Many Popes, authoritative liturgists and musicologists agree that the music of the Liturgy should be vertical in sacredness, not horizontal. The music is a prayer and not simply a communal bonding agent.

If Gregorian chant and organ are to be the common instruments, why is this statement in Sacrosanctum Concilium ignored?
[quote]“Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.” (SC 22 §3)[/quote]

Mons. Richard Schuler, one of the foremost musicologists of our day says:
[quote]“To give an answer to the question, “What is sacred music?,” we must answer that it is the great treasury of music, written over the ages by the greatest composers for use in the sung liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, beginning with the Gregorian melodies and continuing on through the polyphonic pieces of the middle ages and the renaissance, up to the orchestral settings of the last three centuries and into our own time; it is simple for the singing congregation and more elaborate as the degree of musicianship increases. Pope Pius XII in his encyclical, Musicae sacrae disciplina, beautifully summarized the role of sacred music."[/quote]

He goes on to say:
[quote]“Thus, at the instance and under the sponsorship of the Church, sacred music, through the course of centuries, has traversed a long road by which, though sometimes slowly and laboriously, it has finally reached the heights: from the simple and natural Gregorian modes, which are, moreover, quite perfect in their kind, to great and even magnificent works of art which not only human voices, but also the organ and other musical instruments embellish, adorn and amplify almost endlessly. Just as this progress in the art of music shows clearly how dear to the heart of the Church it was to make divine worship more resplendent and appealing to Christian peoples, so too it made clear why the Church also must, from time to time, impose a check lest its proper purposes be exceeded and lest, along with the true progress, an element profane and alien to divine worship creep into sacred music and corrupt it."[/quote]

That is telling.

Cam

[God Conquers]

I'd say that the ONLY importance of "music ministry" being excellent is to encourage more participation from the faithful. If it is designed at a parish just to be a good show that would be awful.

A good music ministry, regardless of instrumentation, should be conducive to the paricipation of the entire congregation.