What Kinds of Music Should We Be Using at Mass?
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 12. 2023
- A lecture delivered in Steubenville, Ohio, on September 30, 2023, before an audience mostly made up of Franciscan University students and faculty. The Q&A period is also included here. Questions were written on cards, so I read the question before answering it.
Precis: "In order to address sacred music, we first have to speak about music. Most of the mistakes people make when it comes to music for the liturgy stem from their lack of understanding of the art of music itself and why it’s important to exercise discernment in its regard. The first part of my talk will therefore be about good music versus bad music, or we could say, more modestly, better versus worse music. The second part will then turn to the kinds of music suitable and unsuitable for the Holy Mass."
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Dr. Kwasniewski's Substack "Tradition & Sanity"
traditionsanity.substack.com/
Dr. K's personal website
www.peterkwasniewski.com/
Dr. K’s Facebook page
ProfKwasniewski
Dr. K's composer website
cantabodomino.com/
Dr. K's publishing house Os Justi Press
osjustipress.com/
Dr. K's SoundCloud page
/ drkwasniewski
Dr. K's Spotify page
open.spotify.com/show/4W9oDUB... - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Brilliant point about the rarity of 3/4 time in our myopic musical modernity.
This was an amazing talk! Thank you! As a parish musician for now 49 years, I heartily concur with your assessment that a return to Catholic sacred music has to be grass roots. There are so many years of poor music in the average parish that no amount top down decrees will fix the problem.
Well said!
When I tell some that the intangible things in the TLM- the chant, the ritual gestures, the symbolic truth woven into everything - moved my soul to conversion more than any word or rational argument, I get strange looks from NO Catholics. The TLM speaks to the heart through these means, in a way that is outside of the rational.
Dr. Kwasniewski, thank you for all you do to champion the improvement of music at the Holy Mass. My son is 16 years old and a sophomore at a Catholic high school here in Virginia. You met him when you gave a talk recently in Virginia. If you go to his CZcams channel 'Mr. Roy Wulf', you can see a video of a presentation he did earlier this week about his love for Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony. He does a very soft sell of traditional music though, as there are still many who resist traditional music in favor of the modern liturgical music that started in the 1970s or those who applaud, for example, the techno music played at World Youth Day. He is part of a grass-roots movement. -- Doug Wulf
This talk by Dr.Peter K. should be a Church Document and must have a wide circulation in the Catholic Church.
When in discussions with family or friends re: Liturgy and liturgical music and facing the usual objections to the TLM, I ask them if they were standing at the foot of the Cross, would they be singing a guitar and drum hootenanny?! What do they imagine their frame of mind and posture would be?
Such a noble talk. Traditional music, chant and Latin are the surest means of salvation. Attend the Latin Mass.
Hi Peter, excellent talk.
Somewhat off topic, but do you know of Tom Holland? He has some interesting ideas about the enduring role of Christianity in western societies & the causes of secularism. He recently said in an interview that atheism is the natural consequence of Protestantism. In that particular interview he didn't elaborate on that comment, but it seems his opinion is that secularism arose from a purging of the transcendent from within Christianity itself. When I heard that talk, I thought of the Novus Ordo and how it purged elements of the 'vertical dimension' of the divine liturgy. I'd love to hear or read your commentary on Tom Holland's ideas.
Spider-Man?
Yes, he is exactly right about that.
I have often thought the same thing as Tom Holland, whom I have never heard of, unfortunately. Truly, I’m not trying to supersede him, and I am referring specifically to the idea that Protestantism leads to atheism, or at least to agnosticism. Protestantism is loose and relaxed; it does not insist on certain dogmas. And if Protestantism did not begin by being loose and relaxed (speaking here of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, for example) it becomes loose and relaxed more and more as the centuries pass, until we arrive at Unitarianism. Since they say there are about 40,000 sects, there may well be some beyond Unitarianism, but my point is illustrated by what happened at a Unitarian Universalist church in the city whereby currently live. Over a period of several years, I watched as this church went from having several hundred families attending every week, to zero. The church stands alone and abandoned on Sunday mornings, as well as all week. And why? Because, a former worshiper told me, one of their teachings was that weekly attendance was not required or even encouraged, so people took that teaching to heart, and soon no one attended, ever.
@whathappening5323 You are a bit of a parrot quoting hearsay, Take 40,000 sects, and quote 40,000 mission or faith statements that don't have common denominators that are common to most of those so-called 40000 churches. You try to belittle one to support one who has a dark history. You would need to prove that 40000 sects have different mission statements to make that argument stick.
You may be able to prove that with possible fifty-plus churches that do not use catholic dogma. but 40000 no way.
The RCC sacramental faith statement that is common to all catholic Churchs does not necessarily prove because that statement is common to all RCCs that prove its integrity.RCC history proves otherwise. Its Dogma has always been the point of contention and has cost too many innocent lives to be ignored.
RCC's own endorsement of its integrity is not open tobe question and has no rivals in that regard. They probably will go down in history as one of the biggest religious hoaxes ever played on mankind. Concerning religious dogma and paraphernalia, it has no rivals.
So good. Can't put into words how helpful this is. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
I should think Tchaikovsky would be too 'Romantic' for Mass.
For sure. I was only talking about music for leisure listening outside of Mass.
Is Les Miserables Opera good music?
Overall it's not too bad. Some of it is of higher quality than other parts. Definitely superior to most of today's popular music.
Does 12-tone music (for example) have a legitimate place in the Western 'canon'?
No, it is a fundamental aberration, contrary to the laws of sound and harmony.
@@DrKwasniewski Thank you, sir. I appreciate your analysis.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Mr. Kwasniewski simply doesn't know much about popular music. Some of it is like what he describes. But the characterisation of it as "primitive" and "sensual" is absurd when you are talking about the late Beatles era, or the music of Yes. Some of Yes's music, for instance, is more challenging and sophisticated than some of classical music's simpler pieces. It isn't a few classical musicians who would find Yes very challenging to perform.
Now of course, I am not suggesting this music for the liturgy. But it does disturb the premise a little.
If you take a look at my book "Good Music, Sacred Music, and Silence," you'll see that I discuss various genres of popular music at greater length and explain exactly what aspects of them are problematic. I note, in passing, that I spent years listening to prog rock bands such as Gentle Giant, King Crimson, ELP, Yes, plus bands like Rush, The Police, Van Halen, and more. I actually know what I'm talking about.
If you were going to regard Yes as unsophisticated then, those years of listening weren’t very attentive ones.
Again, I am not suggesting this music at mass. My tastes run very conservative, to the point that I’d much prefer Gregorian Chant take over than any renaissance of polyphony.
But I doubt very much there can be a successful argument that prog rock lacks sophistication. Quite the contrary, it is often a little bit too self indulgent in showing off the sophistication of the instrumentalists.
I find it hard to accept the use of Organs in the TLM. It was never acceptable in the first 15 centuries of the Church to use musical instruments in Mass. The only acceptable instrument was the one created by God: the human voice.
Their usage was only allowed (and even then, only as an exception, as accompaniment to the Choir) in the XXth century by Pius X. And yet it is hard to find TLMs that do not use them, or that even only use them as accompaniment. Most use them on their own, leading the Melodies, and even olaying Protestant tunes (Jesus Bleibet Meine Freude, for example).
Not to mention, of course, the complete deviation of musical development when one considers liturgical music from the XVIth Century onwards in contrast to the Middle Ages and Earlier.
The same could be said for what was always considered Sacred Art (Icons) and how they got replaced by grotesque, hyper-realistic and naturalistic renaissance and baroqur art that has no symbolic depth to it, only religious themes, that has no clarity and that has the materialistic goal of being pure copies of material reality, like proto-photographies. And yet you'll be hard pressed to find any TLM parish that doesn't use such baroque pieces, and that harkons back to medieval iconographic tradition, which is authentic Christian Art, in accordance with the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
In these regards, the Eastern Churches have preserved themselves much better than our Catholic Church. Up until the Middle Ages there was a common equivalence between Eastern and Western artistic forms, but with the start of Modernity (in the artistic field, the Renaissance) the Latin West has started to gradually deviate more and more into an ever increasing humanism in its art in the form of naturalism, and also an ever increasing sentimentalism in exchange for symbolism. Everything the (Pseudo-) Orthodox Christians say about Icons can be perfectly applied to Medieval Latin Art as well, but not to any Western "iconography" ever since the Renaissance. For reference, see Vladimir Lossky's book The Meaning of Icons, or for an abridged take, see the section on icons of a Byzantine prayer book called "Byzantine Daily Worship", or even what people like Johnathan Pageau have to say about the topic (his interview with Pints with Aquinas is a good introduction), and then compare anything said there with Medieval Art scholarship. Not to mention, of course, as I already alluded to, that post-Medieval Western art doesn't even adhere to the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and yet Catholics are oblivious to this.
I think it's amusing how most TLM enthusiasts complain about post-Vatican II innovations, yet they don't realise how Vatican II is only the culmination of about 500 years of a humanistic spirit of innovation encroaching ever more into Christianity and the mentality of the Chrstian people and in all of its forms of worship. Baroque art is not what we've received from our earliest Fathers, naturalistic art is not appropriate for liturgical use (nor are musical instruments) but modern innovations. The ceiling Sistine Chapel for instance, considered a "triumph of Christian art", would be an aberration and borderline sacrilegious to an XIth Century Christian, as it is in truth only a product of a Humanistic, Materialistic and ultimately anti-traditional and anti-christian spirit.
If I may be a little more direct, the goal of Art should not be too be "good" on its own, just as Bach music is good, according to what human reason is capable of recognising as good. That is humanism. Art should be the image of imaterial realities, and therefore only symbolic depth should determine its quality. Bach can never be good as the O Antiphons are good, as talented a musician Bach may be, because while exceeding in musical complexity, its composition lacks any symbolism, and therefore reference to higher realities. Similarly, a Michelangelo piece could never be good as, for example, the Salus Populi Romani is good, as complex and intricate it may be. I should also add, as an interesting consideration, that the Archeiropoieta, the divinely created or inspired pieces of sacred art (icons), like Our Lady of Guadalupe, are never naturalistic or hyper-complex like the above mentioned works, as its quality is not determined by its complexity, but they are always similar to Medieval and Early Christian art, that is, dripping in symbolic meaning.
Considering what was said, I must say that it seems your consideration of music and art in general is wholly profane, and not determined by the Sacred and Supra-Rational, but by what human reason by itself is capable of discerning in nature as orderly, which is the definition of Naturalism and goes against the first 14 centuries of Christian Civilization and Tradition. It might be useful to remind you that "Western Civilization" is not good by itself, and indeed such civilization stopped being Christian by the advent of Modernity in the 14th or 15th century. A Western Civilization that is profane and secular should not be cherished, nor should the profane art produced by it, as much as human reason might deem it "good", as it is hollow of any sacred meaning; in fact, what seems to be ignored by Catholic art scholars today, is that post-medieval art exist only on the basis of perpetually denying and seeking to distance itself or outdo what came prior to it, Medieval Art, as something "antiquated" etc. , a prefigurement of the same spirit of innovation that would lead Vatican II to deny all of its Liturgical heritage. Catholics should only cherish the fruits of a Catholic Civilization, that is medieval civilization par excellence.
What you have said about most "worship" music today being "religiously themed pop songs" could be perfectly applied to all post-Medieval art: nothing but profane, naturalistic works in their form with religious themes, as opposed to icons, which are sacred not only in content but in form as well.
Also, you seem to have been unaware in the talk of the fact that Christian Tradition, for most of its history, has prohibited the use of any musical instruments in liturgical settings, which makes the so-called "Traditional" Latin Masses, along with the full usage of profane Renaissance and Baroque art in their churches, not traditional at all except for the liturgy itself that is used (the Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Great).
I appreciate that you have taken the time to write out all these thoughts.
Nevertheless, I disagree with most of what you say here.
My reasons for doing so are spelled out at length in my book "Good Music, Sacred Music, and Silence: Three Gifts of God for Liturgy and for Life."
www.amazon.com/Good-Music-Sacred-Silence-Liturgy/dp/1505122287/
@@DrKwasniewski I'm sure you do. Ultimately, it is a divergence of world views. A divergence between two world views that are completely incompatible and cannot be reconciled. That is the Traditional point of view vs. the Modern point of view or, putting it in other words, the Sacred point of view vs. the Profane one. More specifically, a divergence in respect to the purpose of art itself.
My point with this, ultimately, is to show that your point of view is incompatible with the Traditional (in other words, medieval) Christian point of view in regards to Sacred Art, and therefore incompatible with the doctrine and praxis of all pre-modern Christian Art, which comprises most of the Church's history (its first 14 centuries at least). Moreover, it would be hard to argue that the Renaissance and the Baroque period are authentic expressions of our tradition, as they only came to be as a (sometimes explicit) denial, rejection of the artistic forms that were handed down through tradition to them, that is the medieval ones, cutting themselves off from the thread of authentic traditional transmission (interestingly, what we call "Gothic Style" has that name thanks to Renaissance authors, in their characteristic ignorance, considering medieval art "barbaric", ie. of a supposed "gothic" influence which made them call it as such; all the symbolic depth they were blind to with their materialistic/naturalistic eyes is what made them consider authentic traditional art as something "unsophisticated" or "crude"). That should allow for some consideration, for those with the good will to do it.
As my last considerations regarding music specifically, I'll leave below some links to albums from Marcel Peres' Ensemble Organum that faithfully exemplify what medieval liturgical music sounded like, in other words, what normal and authentic Christian liturgical music is supposed to sound like (far from any innovations of renaissant or baroque, ergo anti-traditional character):
czcams.com/play/OLAK5uy_k_rNOyDTBynqmfhPUIyNh_MVEaoh7wfK8.html
czcams.com/play/OLAK5uy_ms_n8rUaZvR-p-9VmxC1cExNziGptH-NQ.html
czcams.com/play/OLAK5uy_n3bZZFnZvPcxVWURN8qmpDCX3CQcEN76I.html
czcams.com/play/OLAK5uy_nczCFh1g4VwTFu4kCd9kR9lm75Se8EYZs.html
czcams.com/play/OLAK5uy_kZdH4-DvH173dr3QjJjWBD3-AgkXJLEjQ.html
Still, I maintain my recommendation to explore Vladimir Lossky's book, as well as to dive deep into Eastern Christian and Medieval conceptions of art to get a better understanding of the issue at hand.
No music. None. Period.
Heaven will have music
Music has always had a place in worship, back to the Israelites. Who taught us music, if not the angels in the imitation of Heaven?
Clear enough that praise music should be excluded from our beautiful Mass, but what about those Protestant hymns…
Low Mass.