Jaime Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Annual income per family in Venezuela $2800 Find me a reed organ that doesn't need to be imported or the realistic price triples Corn statement still makes sense
jmjtina Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 how about a keyboard that you program to sound like an organ? cam and jam, I always love reading your posts.
Cam42 Posted April 16, 2005 Author Posted April 16, 2005 [quote name='jmjtina' date='Apr 15 2005, 10:59 PM'] how about a keyboard that you program to sound like an organ? cam and jam, I always love reading your posts. [/quote] Nope, the sound has to be authentic...synthesizers don't work.... Sorry. It is in the documentation that I provided earlier. Cam
Cam42 Posted April 16, 2005 Author Posted April 16, 2005 [quote]Annual income per family in Venezuela $2800[/quote] So....I am talking about a D-O-N-A-T-I-O-N. Last time I checked many Americans will donate more than $5000 to a pet show.....so why not use that to get an organ into a church? Incidentally, in 2002, the average income in the US was about $37,000 according to Bereau of Labor Statistics....yet we can figure out a way to put millions into our churches....why can't they? Are they somehow less capable? And if they are, doesn't that mean that our charity (see above about donations) would mean even more? So, how about we start finding ways to empower them and show the dignity that they are capable of.....buying (or accepting) a reed organ for $5000, is not irresponsible. No more so than a person making $37,000 buying a $500,000 home. Gee...corresponding isn't it. Cam N.B. I am sure St. Whoever's parish who raises the 5 grand can come up with another 5 hundo to get the shipping and tariff paid for, don'tcha think? I do.
argent_paladin Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 Well, as Cam said before, small chapels and churches don't need organs. And the last time I checked, the human voice is the cheapest, most versitile instrument known. Any church that is too large for an a cappella choir is likely large enough to buy an organ. And the undercurrent of your response is related to one of the most common criticisms of the Catholic Church: Why doesn't it sell all its stuff and give it to the poor? The Vatican, when asked about this concerning the Vatican Museum replied that the art belonged to all of humanity and thus couldn't be sold. I always respond that the poor deserve beauty as much as the rich. Churches should be beautiful and that beauty is accessable to all. It also reflects the intentions of the donors. They want to give the gift of beauty to their community. From my experience, wealth doesn't necessarily correlate with beauty. There are many churches in poor districts in Mexico that have beautiful churches, with statues, icons and beautiful altars and organs. And there are wealthy American parishes in unadorned buildings, with million-dollar soundsystems, wall-to-wall carpeting and air conditioning but no beauty. Organs were common in many cultures and times that compared to today are poverty-stricken. The people who helped build Notre Dame or Rhiems Cathedrals lived short, brutal, hard lives. Even the wealthy, by our standards, were poor. Yet they contributed out of their poverty to something lasting and beautiful.
Cam42 Posted April 16, 2005 Author Posted April 16, 2005 [quote name='argent_paladin' date='Apr 16 2005, 03:27 AM'] Well, as Cam said before, small chapels and churches don't need organs. And the last time I checked, the human voice is the cheapest, most versitile instrument known. Any church that is too large for an a cappella choir is likely large enough to buy an organ. And the undercurrent of your response is related to one of the most common criticisms of the Catholic Church: Why doesn't it sell all its stuff and give it to the poor? The Vatican, when asked about this concerning the Vatican Museum replied that the art belonged to all of humanity and thus couldn't be sold. I always respond that the poor deserve beauty as much as the rich. Churches should be beautiful and that beauty is accessable to all. It also reflects the intentions of the donors. They want to give the gift of beauty to their community. From my experience, wealth doesn't necessarily correlate with beauty. There are many churches in poor districts in Mexico that have beautiful churches, with statues, icons and beautiful altars and organs. And there are wealthy American parishes in unadorned buildings, with million-dollar soundsystems, wall-to-wall carpeting and air conditioning but no beauty. Organs were common in many cultures and times that compared to today are poverty-stricken. The people who helped build Notre Dame or Rhiems Cathedrals lived short, brutal, hard lives. Even the wealthy, by our standards, were poor. Yet they contributed out of their poverty to something lasting and beautiful. [/quote] I agree with you, argent. I said as much earlier when I said: [quote]In lieu of not being able to teach the congregation to sing Gregorian Chant. Why can't we teach the faithful Gregorian Chant? Is that unreasonable? No. We are commanded by the Church to know the responses in Latin, therefore learning Gregorian Chant would help facilitate that. Instrumentation, including the organ, plays second fiddle to the human voice. Why can't we teach them Gregorian Chant?[/quote] However, hot stuff and others won't answer that question. [quote]I always respond that the poor deserve beauty as much as the rich. Churches should be beautiful and that beauty is accessable to all.[/quote] Abso-friggin-loutely. Hence my statement: [quote]Yeah, but I am not expecting them to put in a $1.5 millon organ, but there is nothing preventing them to donate and get a $5,000 reed organ. I don't think that is unreasonable at all.[/quote] Here in the US, as you know, we are willing to spend billions on aid to Russia and China, but as soon as I say something like, "Hey Catholics...let's donate to help third world countries have a liturgy that is beautiful and in keeping with Roman Tradition...." I get..."oh that's great, "Got any corn, no?" I am not talking about humanitarian aid, I am talking about dontating to the Church. They will get the humanitarian aid, I don't doubt that....I am talking about something totally different. How many charities does the average American give to? More than one....So, why can't Catholics give to humanitarian aid AND to help outfit the churches that need things to make the Liturgy more beautiful....? I think that they can. Cam
Jaime Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 You want the Gregorian chant back? That's a different debate and that debate would be latin. We're talking about the guitar here . That's why you don't get a response. $500 bucks for shipping an organ to a developing country? pulllleeaaaase
Cam42 Posted April 16, 2005 Author Posted April 16, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 16 2005, 09:59 AM'] You want the Gregorian chant back? That's a different debate and that debate would be latin. We're talking about the guitar here . That's why you don't get a response. $500 bucks for shipping an organ to a developing country? pulllleeaaaase [/quote] Gregorian Chant has always been part of this conversation....also....the point is that if one can raise $5000 which ain't all that hard, then coming up with a couple extra $$ to ship it ain't hard either. Cam
Cam42 Posted April 16, 2005 Author Posted April 16, 2005 [quote]That's a different debate and that debate would be latin. We're talking about the guitar here . That's why you don't get a response.[/quote] What is the title of this thread again? Oh yeah.....what was the first quote of this thread....per hot stuff: [quote](Cam's going to love this) Littleless this will probably confound you but the truth is. The Mass is rarely celebrated today in the venacular. The venacular of the Mass is Latin. It was the unifying language of the Church and it is sad that we do not use any of the language in our celebrations. ( Hey I used to be pretty obstinate against this one myself)[/quote] Latin.....vernacular....YAY!!!!! It has come full circle. However, Latin and Gregorian Chant are closely related to the erradication of the secular instrumentation used in the Mass. Gloria in excelsis Deo.... Cam N.B. Considering Gregorian Chant should have never left, yes.....I want it back.
Jaime Posted April 16, 2005 Posted April 16, 2005 [quote]N.B. Considering Gregorian Chant should have never left, yes.....I want it back.[/quote] Then give up your bitter hatred for the guitar at mass! No harm will come to your precious chants my friend. Just slooooowwwly back away. You've got agreement with me on latin. Hammer it into the ground if you want. You get latin back and you have your chants. I have effectively hijacked this thread to the guitar! You've even brought your girlfriend Ms Carroll into the conversation. So stop jumping around!! This isn't House of Pain.
Cam42 Posted April 16, 2005 Author Posted April 16, 2005 Git up.......Git down.....jump around.....jump around!!!!!
God Conquers Posted April 17, 2005 Posted April 17, 2005 Let's compromise and have Gregorian Chanters play guitar.
Cam42 Posted April 18, 2005 Author Posted April 18, 2005 [quote name='God Conquers' date='Apr 17 2005, 06:55 PM'] Let's compromise and have Gregorian Chanters play guitar. [/quote] Not so much.... [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/243"]De Musica Sacra[/url] is pretty clear. Cam
Jaime Posted April 18, 2005 Posted April 18, 2005 And to muddy up the waters a bit From the GIRM and more recent than Cam's Document [quote]While the organ is to be accorded pride of place, other wind, stringed, or percussion instruments may be used in liturgical services in the dioceses of the United States of America, according to longstanding local usage, provided they are truly apt for sacred use or can be rendered apt.[/quote] That would take precedence. And let's take a look at Camster's list of guitarists shall we? Bob Dylan CNSY James Taylor Cat Stevens Don McLean Poison Jackson Browne Dion John Mayer Uncle Kracker Josh Kelly Kid Rock Camster please point to the ones who use a classical guitar, acoustic guitar, 12 string and/or electric. Just curious
aloha918 Posted April 18, 2005 Posted April 18, 2005 i think that the guitar is definetly apt.......plus i really like that word
Cam42 Posted April 18, 2005 Author Posted April 18, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 18 2005, 09:20 AM'] And to muddy up the waters a bit From the GIRM and more recent than Cam's Document [quote]While the organ is to be accorded pride of place, other wind, stringed, or percussion instruments may be used in liturgical services in the dioceses of the United States of America, according to longstanding local usage, provided they are truly apt for sacred use or can be rendered apt.[/quote] That would take precedence. And let's take a look at Camster's list of guitarists shall we? Bob Dylan CNSY James Taylor Cat Stevens Don McLean Poison Jackson Browne Dion John Mayer Uncle Kracker Josh Kelly Kid Rock Camster please point to the ones who use a classical guitar, acoustic guitar, 12 string and/or electric. Just curious [/quote] Actually Himester....it doesn't.....sorry.... I don't think that 30 to 40 years is considered longstanding in a Church that is 2000 years old. Nice try. (Do I look like Littleles with that one?????)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now