Religious Music with instruments

Alonso_Castillo said:

Some texts tell of Pope Saint Vitalianus to be the one who introduxed Organ in Liturgy about 660

Click to expand...

Which texts would they be?

prodromos said:

Which texts would they be?

Click to expand...

I did find some stuff that does support that it was introduced then, but it was not widespread even in the West at that time, and that does not provide any support for his initial very leading question, that the East forbids instrumental music (which we don't). there is a big difference in discouraged and forbidden.

posting videos of African Catholic music is not debate or discussion. please stop trying to use our debate forum as a springboard for you to espouse Catholicism

Ramsey Abbey in England had an organ in the late 900s, according to the Vita Oswaldi.

we have no theological issue with instruments, Alonso was trying to start trouble.

Indeed, there are western rite Orthodox churches that have organs. It's just not part of the Byzantine or Slavic traditions. In Byzantium, organs were used at sporting events and were not associated with sacred music.

Anglican style responsorial chanting with a quiet organ accompanying it can be great stuff. I'm not so fond of hymns with blaring organs.

I think a practical reason to discourage instruments is that people don't know where to stop. Instead of voices praising the Lord, they invariably (over time) become musical concerts.

rusmeister said:

I think a practical reason to discourage instruments is that people don't know where to stop. Instead of voices praising the Lord, they invariably (over time) become musical concerts.

Click to expand...

and they often become more carnal and sensual as well.

That 'performance' aspect can get into churches without musical instruments, too, though. We don't use any melody-producing instruments in my church (things like the cymbal and the triangle, which are only meant to be used sparingly anyway, aren't really considered 'instruments' so much as time-keepers, so that people can keep the rhythm and cadence of the chant), yet the first question that Coptic friends of mine who had never been to the church in NM asked after I first started attending there was "How is abouna's voice?" I mean, I guess you wouldn't want someone who is so poor as to be distracting, or doesn't know the melodies at all, or whatever...but I still thought it was odd. Years later, when I was at one of our monasteries on the east coast, one of the people there mentioned that you must be careful not to get trapped in that attitude, since it can make people self-conscious so that they're focusing more on making it sound nice, and then they're not really praying anymore. I could see that, as I have observed that those who really know how to pray often don't have the best voices from a technical point of view, because they are older and so the passage of time has narrowed their range, but they do have the much more important years of experience informing what they are saying. You can tell when you meet someone who has been in the church all of their life that they have internalized the words of the prayer, versus someone who is newer or perhaps has a more surface-level understanding of what they are saying and doing.

Here is as much as the grasping folk who control CS Lewis's legacy $$$$$$ will allow us to share freely:

"
C. S. Lewis on Church Music



Musical Taste

There are two musical situations on which I think we can be confident that a blessing rests. One is where a priest or an organist, himself a man of trained and delicate taste, humbly and charitably sacrifices his own (aesthetically right) desires and gives the people humbler and coarser fare than he would wish, in a belief (even, as it may be, the erroneous belief) that he can thus bring them to God. The other is where the stupid and unmusical layman humbly and patiently, and above all silently, listens to music which he cannot, or cannot fully, appreciate, in the belief that it somehow glorifies God, and that if it does not edify him this must be his own defect. Neither such a High Brow nor such a Low Brow can be far out of the way. To both, Church Music will have been a means of grace; not the music they have liked, but the music they have disliked. They have both offered, sacrificed, their taste in the fullest sense. But where the opposite situation arises, where the musician is filled with the pride of skill or the virus of emulation and looks with contempt on the unappreciative congregation, or where the unmusical, complacently entrenched in their own ignorance and conservatism, look with the restless and resentful hostility of an inferiority complex on all who would try to improve their taste – there, we may be sure, all that both offer is unblessed and the spirit that moves them is not the Holy Ghost.

Musical Intention

It seems to me that we must define rather carefully the way, or ways, in which music can glorify God. There is … a sense in which all natural agents, even inanimate ones, glorify God continually by revealing the powers He has given them. And in that sense we, as natural agents, do the same. On that level our wicked actions, in so far as they exhibit our skill and strength, may be said to glorify Good, as well as our good actions. An excellently performed piece of music, as natural operation which reveals in a very high degree the peculiar powers given to man, will thus always glorify God whatever the intention of the performers may be. But that is a kind of glorifying which we share with the ‘dragons and great deeps’, with the ‘frost and snows’. What is looked for in us, as men, is another kind of glorifying, which depends on intention. How easy or how hard it may be for a whole choir to preserve that intention through all the discussions and decisions, all the corrections and the disappointments, all the temptations to pride, rivalry and ambition, which precede the performance of a great work, I (naturally) do not know. But it is on the intention that all depends. When it succeeds, I think the performers are the most enviable of men; privileged while mortals to honor God like angels and, for a few golden moments, to see spirit and flesh, delight and labour, skill and worship, the natural and the supernatural, all fused into that unity they would have had before the Fall."

...

With all due respect, All4Christ, that's an awful lot of assumptions to put on to a post whose thesis was summed up in the very first sentence, and I'm not here as a guest to get into arguments with regulars over what they've read into my posts, so I'm not interested in where this conversation appears to be going.

dzheremi said:

That's an awful lot of assumptions to put on to a post whose thesis was summed up in the very first sentence, and I'm not here as a guest to get into arguments with regulars over what they've read into my posts, so I'm not interested in where this conversation appears to be going.

Click to expand...

Ok, I'll read my post again. I've heard related arguments with additional comments I posted from others as well, and I thought I read that in your post. I apologize for any misunderstandings. I'm running on very very low sleep due to some issues I'm having and very easily could have over reacted. I will adjust my post, to avoid anything that could be a negative direction. Apologies again for any unwarranted assumptions.

ETA: yes, I did overreact. I do believe that trying to sing well is a good thing, and that having a choir that is well practiced and that stays on pitch is conducive to a prayerful environment. Some people (not necessarily you) have said that only accepting people into the choir who stay on pitch is wrong, and leads people to focus purely on technical singing and not prayer...I disagree with that statement. However, I read into your post more than was said.

I agree that people can put too much focus on the technicality of the music if one is not careful, but I would say that it is not a definitive correlation. On the other hand, there are some who believe it is their right to sing in the choir, no matter their pitch. That is also wrong, in my personal opinion. We all have our gifts, which are different from each other. A clarification - this last comment is not necessarily an argument against what you've said - just a related comment from other discussions in the past.

Hmmmm ....

What I know is that when I am in the congregation, having someone who is "off" and loud about it to boot is terribly distracting. I wish it were not so and I could focus in spite of whatever I might hear, but I'm reactive to music and so far too easily distracted when it has major flaws.

On the other hand, it is sometimes so well done it's like being in heaven, but I'm not convinced it is ONLY the skill of the choir that leads to this. I've heard essentially the same choir, week after week, for years, and only a few times has this happened in a major way, and a bit differently each time.

I enjoyed being in the congregation this week. My voice is still too scratchy, and I also had that closed-up-ear thing that makes my own voice echo in my head on one side, so there was no chance of singing today even if I could have gotten upstairs. But when I'm in the choir, the Liturgy flies by, and at least part of my focus is on trying to do a good job. I'm told I have a good voice, but I don't have confidence in that. I don't want to be thinking about myself when I sing, but I also don't want to set everyone's teeth on edge. I know this is actually a form of pride (ironically!) but not one I've been able to overcome. I fear if I did, and could accept the compliments, it would only morph into a different sort of pride - even worse.

But I love choir singing, and I just want us ALL to sound good as a group, as I think it is supposed to be. To bring glory to God, and create a proper atmosphere for worship. I just can't remove consciousness of self from that equation. Maybe I will manage to someday, with God's help.

rusmeister said:

I think a practical reason to discourage instruments is that people don't know where to stop. Instead of voices praising the Lord, they invariably (over time) become musical concerts.

Click to expand...

No, they don't. They might do so. If folk are careful, they won't.

Mockingbird0 said:

No, they don't. They might do so. If folk are careful, they won't.

Click to expand...

I think even how musical instruments have been used even in Rome disproves this point. and that is not even taking into account Martin Luther setting lyrics to bar songs of his day. so while you are right that if they are careful they will be fine, history does show otherwise.

and I remember it in my Anglo days

I have experienced horrible things. Laser light shows with $10k/month paid music-label "worship leaders", others jumping up and down on the stage and sliding around while wildly playing electric guitar ala rock star style, and on the other end of the spectrum a collection of musical instruments on a stage seemingly played by whoever wanted to go up, regardless of whether they knew how to play or not. All terribly jarring and distracting.

But - I have enjoyed congregational and choral singing with a piano or organ in the past.

Today was awesome. We started off with a choir of 4 (fortunately 1 for each part, but I hate being the only soprano!) and we made it through the Doxology. Stragglers came in, including two AWESOME sopranos I don't know, but the choir director greeted them warmly - I suspect maybe his family is visiting. But there were enough that actually followed his directions of soft, louder, rise, fall, parts when indicated, and so on ... Our choir director can lead BEAUTIFUL music when there are enough of us and we follow directions! The hymns during the Great Entrance through the Communion hymn were like being in heaven. Glory to God!

This issue seems to recur throughout Christian history. My own denomination (Plymouth Brethren) has been divided on it. I personally like my local congregation. Our eucharistic service is without instrumental accompaniment and the singing is good. Other services use a piano because it is difficult (although not impossible) to overwhelm vocal music with a piano. It is for that reason we do not use an organ. I think the Lutherans take pride in their organs because they can so easily overwhelm the singing and become the focus of the service. As much as I enjoy Bach's organ music, I would never want it in a service of worship to God.

bbbbbbb said:

This issue seems to recur throughout Christian history. My own denomination (Plymouth Brethren) has been divided on it. I personally like my local congregation. Our eucharistic service is without instrumental accompaniment and the singing is good. Other services use a piano because it is difficult (although not impossible) to overwhelm vocal music with a piano. It is for that reason we do not use an organ. I think the Lutherans take pride in their organs because they can so easily overwhelm the singing and become the focus of the service. As much as I enjoy Bach's organ music, I would never want it in a service of worship to God.

Click to expand...

Welcome to TAW and St Justin Martyr's Corner!