Hank Stuever wrote last week about the state of music in the Catholic Church. The older Catholics want to hold on to contemporary music and the younger Catholics want to reinstate traditional music:
Imagine a bizarro world where all the 25-year-olds want Mozart and all the 60-year-olds want adult-contemporary. The kids think the adults are too wild. The backlash against “Kumbaya Catholicism” has anyone under 40 allegedly clamoring for the Tridentine Mass in Latin, while the old folks are most sentimental about Casual Sunday (even more rockin’, the Saturday vigil Mass), and still cling to what’s evolved from the lite-rock guitar liturgies of the 1970s. The result, for most parishes, has been decades of Masses in which no one is entirely satisfied, and very few enjoy the music enough to sing along.
This conflict is, of course, not new, although the younger audience arguing against modernism presents an interesting twist.
For the older crowd, guitar music is the tradition. It’s what they have heard Sunday after Sunday. It is as familiar as “The Old Rugged Cross” was to my parents’ generation. People find comfort in the familiar, not necessarily in a bad way, but frequently as recognition that something has served them well over the years. Particular music may have helped them over particularly difficult hurdles.
Arguing the traditionalists’ case can be difficult. We don’t know which hymns Paul and Silas sang in prison or how many revolutions church music may have encountered before producing the oldest surviving manuscripts. We can go back to our favorite point in history and stop, arguing for the traditions of 19th-century hymnody or the ars nova or the rock masses of 1970. Or we can go back as far as the evidence takes us. But either way the process is incomplete.
Tradition, however, is inescapable. When we throw one tradition overboard, we institute another. There is a long tradition of importing secular and popular forms of music into worship and calling it new. Turning the folk songs of the 60s into the liturgy of the 70s was merely a continuation of that process.
Which raises the real question: what makes music sacred?
I don’t intend to answer that question today for lots of reasons, one being that I don’t have a quick answer and another being that I don’t have time to write a long one. But it is a question that I would like to address in this blog over time.
Let’s ask an easier question instead. Why are young people today looking to music of the past rather than trying to import their own pop styles into worship? The answer seems to be, at least in part, that they don’t have their own pop styles. We could teach the history of the 20th century through the pop music that gave voice, for better or worse, to every social whim and cultural upheaval. But young people today share music primarily in the technological sense. Music does not give them a common voice; they all have their individualized playlists. Many listen to the music of their parents and grandparents, something my generation shunned. The Beatles are still famous, and my teenage daughter listens to Frank Sinatra.
Something has gone missing.
Back to the Catholics, when I see a controversy like the present one, I find comfort in the fact that there is a place for Kumbaya Catholics, a place for praise-chorus Protestants, and a different place for me. Variety in styles of worship enables me to indulge my own musical preferences, which seem to be very much in the minority.
I am concerned, however, that the next wave of new music to be imported into the church will not be a new pop style, or a return to ancient chant or Sacred Harp song books. No, I am concerned that my own preference for allowing people to have whatever music they prefer will be taken to its logical conclusion by the techno-savvy youth whose iPods have disconnected them from the societal and cultural aspects of music. Somebody, if he hasn’t already, is about to individualize worship in a radical way by passing out personal listening devices with the bulletins. Instead of announcing Hymn 243 to the congregation, the Pastor will suggest that we all put on our headsets for three minutes of personal contemplation. The church will adopt the same fallacious answer we have for everything these days – that it’s just a matter of personal taste.
There will be some great heresy in this, and that is why we need to answer the real question: what makes music sacred?
April 21st, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Music, Religion |
no comments
Aliza Shvarts, you have your 15 minutes of fame. I hope it lasts a lot a longer. I sympathize with those who think we should stop talking about you and send you back into permanent obscurity by the quickest route, but I would rather see you immortalized.
Your goals at this point are probably achieved. You proved yourself a first-class provocateur. Some faculty at Yale must have taught you that an artist and a provocateur are the same thing, that an artist’s job is to stir controversy, to make us think, right? Well, you sparked a national conversation. It isn’t the conversation you said you wanted about women’s issues or the ambiguity of your body or whatever. It’s a conversation primarily about you. And that’s really what this is all about, isn’t it?
Let’s keep the conversation going just a while longer.
Some will take you to task on the utter depravity of your project. (Even as a hoax, that criticism still holds.) But you actually unified both sides of the abortion debate. Now that’s quite an achievement! So what if they’re unified in condemning you? You helped us all find common ground, and for that you should be rewarded.
Others will blame Yale for teaching you such sophomoric ideas about art. It’s hard to argue with that, but Yale is teaching the same prevalent philosophy that you find in most universities. You articulated it well: “Art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity.” Art has always been a potent political tool, so why not make it just political and yoke it to the fight against heteronormativity?
It’s not your fault that Yale forgot to teach aesthetics. (Aesthetics, Aliza, is the former method of judging art based on notions of beauty, but it has been thoroughly discredited.) In the secular, post-modern world, there is nothing higher than our contemplative intellect, nothing greater than ourselves, so provoking thought is clearly the most art can do.
Besides, it’s so liberating and self-affirming to say something outrageous, watch the conservatives go berserk, and prove that they have no regard for art or the First Amendment. Academia will circle the wagons.
Robert M. O’Neil, a free-speech expert at the University of Virginia, agreed that displaying the Yale student’s artwork is about freedom of expression. “Art departments have always been and must remain shelters for creativity which sometimes offends and often challenges,” said Mr. O’Neil, director of the university’s Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. But he also acknowledged that such a message “doesn’t usually go down terribly well with people in the outside world.”
No, I commend you for learning all that Yale taught you, and learning it very well indeed. All of academia can be proud, even if the outside world isn’t. You are their progeny, their hope, their little chicken come home to roost. Your faculty approved this project, didn’t they? If they had some qualms about it, surely those brave souls would have said so.
Simply put, Aliza, your little project achieves near perfection, cobbling together all the modern ideals (provocation, politicization, your bodily functions, gender consciousness, profanity and degradation) while avoiding the pitfalls of the past (beauty, coherence, aspiration, transcendence). It deserves an A++.
For creating art that perfectly embodies these ideals, I propose that such art from henceforth bear you name. Shvarts!
When we go to the Erfurt Opera and see Verdi staged at Ground Zero with naked cast, we should all nod knowingly and say, “Now that’s Shvarts.”
When we see a film at the San Francisco Art Institute of animals beaten over the head with sledge hammers, we can think about the artist’s all-important message and know that we have had a true Shvartistic experience.
When they trample Old Glory at the University of Maine, or a student defecates in public, we can commend the Shvarts Department for preserving a “shelter of creativity” and free expression.
We can even send our daughters to study Liberal Shvarts at Randolph College, knowing that the college’s idea of broadening horizons includes a field trip to the bordello. (The bordello used to be part of the “outside world,” but it has been brought into the university as the laboratory of Women’s Studies.)
“Shvarts” can stand for all projects like yours, Aliza, so overloaded with politics and ideology that the art gets squeezed out entirely. It will mean, quite literally in your case, the miscarriage of art.
Clarity is your gift to us all, and for that I hope your name will forever remind us that when you remove goodness and beauty from the Arts, you are left merely with Shvarts.
April 19th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Education, Politics |
3 comments
The news this week is all about the Pope. There are the usual news stories and commentaries suggesting what the Pope should do and how should alter his message to gain more popularity. I have no advice for the Pope, just a hope that he will continue to restore the historic liturgy and the Latin Rite.
It is also Friday, and this blog takes seriously its mandate to promote responsible leisure. While doing my weekly research on martinis, I came across this item from April 12, 2005:
Prophecy Points to Olive Pope
[T]he next Pope will be the “Olive” Pope, according to a 12th century prophecy that foresees just two remaining pontificates before the end of the world.
The often-cited – and contested – prediction is attributed to St Malachy, an Irish archbishop recognised by members of the church for his ability to read the future and who was canonised more than 800 years ago.
St Malachy was said to have had a vision during a trip to Rome around 1139 of the remaining 112 Popes before the Last Judgment, the time when the Bible says God separates the wicked from the righteous at the end of time.
The next Pope will be number 111 on that list and is described in the text as the “Glory of the Olive.”
The week after this story appeared, Pope Benedict was elected.
Malachy-watchers had long speculated the “Olive” Pope would come from the Order of Saint Benedict, a branch of which is known as the Olivetans.
One person who commented 
on this story suggested that the Olive Pope would naturally be followed by the Martini Pope. Wikipedia describes Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini as a Latin Rite Prelate, but it appears that Cardinal Martini is past the age at which he could become Pope. Oh, well.
It’s all potential fodder for conservation over libations. Drink up! There’s only one more Pope to go.
(Image by Ken30684 - Creative Commons)
April 18th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Leisure, Religion |
no comments
Certain cultural issues unavoidably come to the fore in an election year as people try to figure out which candidate best represents their interests and their values. One of the candidates recently caused a stir by characterizing small-town voters as bitter and suggesting that, since their economic interests have not been represented, they cling to cultural issues.
Larry M. Bartels argues that the opposite is true:
Small-town people of modest means and limited education are not fixated on cultural issues. Rather, it is affluent, college-educated people living in cities and suburbs who are most exercised by guns and religion. In contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the elites.
Bartels demonstrates that small-town people with limited education are much more likely to trust the government than their cosmopolitan counterparts. In recent elections, issues like abortion and church attendance had a negligible effect on small-town voting as compared to urban voting.
It is true that American voters attach significantly more weight to social issues than they did 20 years ago. It is also true that church attendance has become a stronger predictor of voting behavior. But both of those changes are concentrated primarily among people who are affluent and well educated, not among the working class.
Having left the city a few years ago to live in a rural setting, I can attest that cultural traditions are alive and well out here. Since the traditions are mostly not being threatened or taken away, people have no need to “cling” to them (as in “resist separation”). People out here still leave their cars, and even their stores, unlocked; they pray publicly and unapologetically before the ball game; and they are prepared to defend themselves because they know there is only one Sheriff’s patrol car covering the entire county.
April 17th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Politics |
no comments
Alicia Keys said in a Blender Magazine interview, “‘Gangsta rap’ was a ploy to convince black people to kill each other.”
Well, as seems to happen so often these days, her statement was misinterpreted. Or maybe she just didn’t say it as well as she should have. So here’s the explanation via MSNBC:
My comments about ‘gangsta rap’ were in no way trying to suggest that the government is responsible for creating this genre of rap music,” Keys said in a statement issued by J Records. “The point that I was trying to make was that the term was oversloganized by some of the media causing reactions that were not always positive. Many of the ‘gangsta rap’ lyrics articulate the problems of the artists’ experiences and I think all of us, including our leaders, could be doing more to address these problems including drugs, gang violence, crime, and other related social issues.
What are we to make of this? Keys seems to agree that the violence and misogyny lauded in gangsta rap are a problem. She does not retract her contention that it leads black people to kill each other; she merely concedes that the government didn’t create the genre. Then who is responsible? Not the artists themselves, who are merely articulating the problems of their experiences. No, it’s now the fault of “some in the media” who “oversloganized” the genre. She doesn’t explain just what form this oversloganization takes or how it leads to murder.
Keys hides behind the bland assertion that we all need to do more. The government has been trying to combat drugs, crime, poverty, and gangs for quite some time. You can argue with the methods and their effectiveness. Private organizations, churches, community groups, schools, individuals, even “some in the media,” all have a history of working on these problems with mixed results. Gangsta rappers, however, continue to glorify drugs, misogyny, violence and other assorted crimes while contending that they are merely articulating the problem. Is it too much to ask that the rappers themselves take some responsibility for the havoc they incite?
The AK-47 pendant Keys wears, by the way, is in no way meant to have a political or negative connotation. It’s just an acronym for Alicia Keys and a metaphor for “killing ‘em dead on stage.” Kind of like a slogan.
April 16th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Music |
no comments
A recent study reveals that religion contributes more than £2.1 billion to the economy of the United Kingdom. Via Cranmer:
The report was commissioned by voluntary sector bodies working with the Welsh Assembly, who assessed the financial worth of faith communities in relation to welfare provision, youth work, marriage preparation, bereavement counselling, employment training, faith tourism, alcohol and drug awareness, personal finance and community building use. Faith communities are also strongly involved in local cultural and sporting activities – including music (choral singing tops the list), football, and exercise and fitness classes.
That’s a rather narrow measure of how religion contributes to economic activity. Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) took a more expansive view, arguing that the economic success of the West was due in significant part to the virtues instilled by Protestantism: hard work, rationalism, individual responsibility, etc. By that measure, the U.K. study’s calculation is a bit low.
April 15th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Religion |
no comments
Many bloggers have noted the Erfurt Opera’s Mickey Mouse production of Verdi’s A Masked Ball – all noting its setting (Ground Zero), its naked cast, its ludicrous premise, and its moral bankruptcy.
Some directors have an artistic vision that is discernable in the performance, but Johann Kresnik has to explain his. Without his quote to the press that it’s all about America’s oppression of the underclass, we would be left scratching our heads as to what Verdi, Mickey Mouse, Hitler in drag, and 9/11 have to do with each other. The answer, despite Kresnik’s howling madness, is nothing. But it makes sense in Kresnik’s mind and that’s apparently good enough for the Erfurt Opera.
Opera Chic said it quite succinctly:
Well before this operatic fiasco, we were offered a glimpse of Kresnik’s guiding aesthetic:
The most frequent themes of his work are fascism, sexuality, violence, outsiders, suicide and sickness.
In fairness to Kresnik, Verdi also addressed those themes (with the exception of fascism) in his operas. In fairness to Verdi, he addressed them artistically, without desecrating the graves of innocents and hectoring his audience. There is a difference between sickness and violence and the artistic portrayal of sickness and violence. That’s why Verdi’s works will still be performed long after Kresnik is forgotten.
Der Spiegel describes the sacrifice of Verdi to Marx:
By the time Kresnik is finished with his radical remodelling of “A Masked Ball,” little will be left of Verdi’s story of love, jealousy and reconciliation. This production, assures Kresnik, whose Marxist background is well known, is intended to be dramatic political commentary.
Victor Davis Hanson, as usual, doesn’t mince words:
The last time German opera producers wished to be “provocative,” radical Islamists simply shut down their fun with an ultimatum—stop or else. And the home of 80 million and the world’s third largest economy of course caved. But this time they got smarter and are now staging Verdi’s A Masked Ball on a set of the World Trade Center ruins, with insulting anti-American characters. Two queries: why do they assume that a few death threats from their beheading jihadist enemies are far more worrisome than losing the good will of millions of their tolerant American allies?; and, two, why do German leftists always put Hitler moustaches on those who saved them from their own home-grown Hitler?
Maus-Merryjest at LiveJournal writes:
“The victims of Capitalism?” Kresnik must mean anyone who is within earshot as he does not only laugh but squeal his way to the bank, cashing in on the superfluous controversy stirred up by his sad excuse of an artistic attempt. Unless, of course, anti-capitalistic Kresnik isn’t charging anything for his ‘ideological stance’ which would mean he is consistent with what he wishes to espouse.
The Weekly Standard Blog has this from Jaime Sneider:
The absurdity of the situation is apparently lost on the director, who candidly describes his work as “a populist critique of modern American society.” Has opera ever been a populist enterprise? Does the director honestly expect the disenfranchised will hear, let alone act on, his call to arms? Which brings me to one final point: isn’t a lecture from Germany about human rights still a century or two premature?
Globe and Mail asks the question that has puzzled musicologists for decades:
What’s Verdi without naked old mouseketeers?
There is hope for the future. CaroNome, “the world’s first ever teenage-opera-singing-ballerina-blogger,” finds it “ridiculous,” “atrocious,” and “disgusting.”
The Pink Flamingo, obviously an authority on bad taste, spotted Kresnik right away. She rebuts his assertion that you have to do something outrageous to sell tickets, suggesting “No, one only has to stage an opera that is well sung.” (But that would be a performance of Verdi, and this is a performance of Kresnik.)
The Kraalspace concedes Kresnik’s originality:
“Novelty.” Well, I guess someone’s got to be the first one to do the stupidest opera staging in the world, so you could call that a “novelty” if you like. I’m guessing that the rest of humanity isn’t too envious of the man who holds that title.
Even Milblogs, like Mudville Gazette and Barking Moonbat, picked up on the story.
April 14th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Music |
one comment
Malcolm Arnold (1921-2006) is probably best known for his film score to “Bridge on the River Kwai.” In addition to his numerous film scores (more than 100), Arnold wrote 9 symphonies, solo concertos, orchestral dances, and chamber works. Professor Carol has a new podcast on Arnold’s music.
Arnold deserves some credit for writing music that people wanted to hear in an era consumed by the avant garde. Professor Carol explains:
The goal of avant garde composers was to stretch the listening experience. . . . Whether audiences would embrace the new developments or not was of secondary concern. The results were painfully obvious, especially in retrospect. Classical audiences fled. The average listener found little in most new music to guide his ear. Listening became more of an intellectual exercise than an emotional pleasure.
Arnold’s wife Isobel said:
The critics used to either dismiss him or not bother to show up at the concerts where his music was being played. If his music was in the second half, they would leave at the interval.
Despite the critics’ opinion, Arnold lived to see virtually all of his music recorded and selling well. It seems that critical acclaim is gradually coming around as well.
April 14th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Music |
no comments
Andrew McCarthy and Roger Kimball hosted a conference over the weekend called “Free Speech in the Age of Jihad.” The follow-up report is worth reading. Kimball concludes:
Western democratic society . . . is rooted in a particular vision of what Aristotle called “the good for man.” The question is: Do we, as a society, still have confidence in the animating values of the vision? Do we possess the requisite will to defend them? Or was the French philosopher Jean François Revel right when he said that “Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it”?
April 13th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Politics |
no comments
A California lawmaker wants to increase the tax on beer by 1500%.
San Jose Democratic Assemblyman Jim Beall made the proposal.
“The people who use alcohol should pay for part of the cost to society, just like we’ve accepted that concept with tobacco,” Beall said.
The costs to society from beer consumption, however, arise from the abuse of alcohol, not mere consumption. Beall is a freshman in the legislature. I predict a short political career.
“No animal ever invented anything so bad as drunkenness – or so good as drink.” G.K. Chesterton.
Photo by dr_sponge
April 12th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Leisure, Politics |
no comments
