Talk:Contemporary Catholic liturgical music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Should this page be expanded? deleted? renamed?

I expanded this page a bit. I also added some material to the St. Louis Jesuits regarding the controversies about this music.

The fact that this music has become so widespread in American Catholic churches is certainly encyclopedic. (I have lived in suburbs of Los Angeles, Seattle, and the Bay Area, and I'd say that over the past decade more than half the music I have heard at Mass has been from this crowd). And the controversy over this kind of music seems important enough to be in the encyclopedia as well.

But where should this information go? The danger of Wikipedia is that someone will write a paragraph about this controversy on the Dan Schutte page, and someone else will write a paragraph about it in the St. Louis Jesuits article, and someone else will write a very different thing on the Marty Haugen page. I suggest that the major issues should be consolidated on one page.

To me, the major issues are:

  • the fact that this music has partially replaced the older music (and is this just in the suburbs? or is rural America also singing these songs?)
  • the fact that liturgical 'liberals' and 'conservatives' have strong opinions on whether this is good
  • the connections (if any) to the Liturgical Movement, Vatican II, and the Novus Ordo Mass
  • and maybe some generational issues (the composers are all baby boomers, many of them born around 1950)

But where should this page be? Should it be on the St. Louis Jesuits page where it is now? That seems wrong, since that page is not about this music in general but only about certain composers. Should it be on this page? Probably, but I think this page is misnamed, because I don't believe that the term hymnody includes anything but hymns, and these songs are not hymns.

Suggestions? - Lawrence King 07:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A concrete proposal

So far, no one has replied to my original comments above. So I will make a specific proposal. If no one objects, I will make edits based on the following three principles:

1. This page should have its title changed from "Contemporary Catholic hymnody" to "Contemporary Catholic liturgical music".

2. This page should contain information about the contemporary disputes regarding this music -- whether it is appropriate to the liturgy, whether it is singable, etc. Obviously this isn't a forum for individual opinions, but the fact that the "music wars" or "liturgical wars" often involve debate about this music is itself encyclopedic.

3. Everything about the "music wars" that currently appears on the Dan Schutte, Marty Haugen, and St. Louis Jesuits pages will be moved to this article, because all of the comments on those pages actually apply to this whole genre, not just to one composer.

4. In the future, if someone adds material about the "music wars" to an individual page, it will be moved to this page (unless it clearly refers to a single composer's work).

Objections? Agreements? Comments? - Lawrence King 02:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreement, since this issue is not specific to either the group St. Louis Jesuits nor the individual composers. And you are completely right, the liturgical controversy inspired by these songs is completely encyclopedic; it just needs to be discussed in a centralized location. -Fsotrain09 03:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is very well done. Clear and fair to the competing views. Time to scour up some sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.46.238 (talk • contribs)

This is a biased article and needs to be written in a neutral format to meet Wikipedia's standards. Facts based by verifiable sources would be most welcome. This article also primarily pertains to this idiom of music in the United States, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia covering the entire planet. Christopher McGilton 04:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Now that this material has been centralized in this article, we need to find references. Without those, many of the statements, especially about the "music war", sound either NPOV or downright ORish. -Fsotrain09 15:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, I'm unsure of the practical limits of no-original-research. One of the points in this article is that the blogosphere has a lot of debate about this; does the blogosphere count as an encylopedic source, or as raw data? If it's just raw data, then an attempt to "summarize" this data is arguably original research! So I think the NPOV criteria is the more important of the two, although both are important.
FWIW, I don't have enough spare time to round up all the citations needed.... - Lawrence King 22:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Alleluia

... was written by the late Fintan O'Carroll. There's an edition published by GIA just in his name, under the title "the Irish Alleluia". Christopher Walker's contribution was the verses adapted from the Te Deum. So I've suggested Laudate Dominum as Walker's best known piece. Is that right? There's a case for Because the Lord is my Shepherd or Veni Sancte Spiritus, I guess.C0pernicus 23:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that we will never know for sure unless we can find a giant survey of the most commonly sung songs in parishes in the English-speaking world. But probably "Veni Sancte Spiritus" would be a confusing choice, because I've heard the chanted version of that far more often than I've heard the modern version. - Lawrence King 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "blurb" on each composer's page

(This is continuing a discussion that began at User talk:Lifeindfastlane.)

Currently, each individual composer of contemporary Catholic liturgical music has the following blurb on their Wikipedia article:

Controversial aspects of his [or her] music
Main article: Contemporary Catholic liturgical music
[Name] 's music, along with that of several other musicians who compose music in the same or similar styles, is commonly used in the Mass and other Catholic liturgies today throughout the English-speaking world. The style of this music, along with its widespread use, engenders strong feelings both for and against this music. For many years there has been a lot of controversy regarding the quality of this music and regarding its suitability for Catholic liturgies.

The question has arisen -- more than once -- of whether this blurb should be revised. The specific issues are:

  1. Is it NPOV?
  2. Is it too long?
  3. Does it distort the articles to have this blurb there? User:Lifeindfastlane argued that this is especially a problem when the article on a composer is itself very short, because then this huge blurb about "controversy" tends to dominate the article.

Hopefully we can work out a better, and clearer, and shorter, text that makes all parties happy. And it should probably become an actual template, so that it can be centrally edited instead of having to retype it on each person's page. — Lawrence King (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this?

His [or Her, Their] music in contemporary Catholic culture
[Name] is one of many musicians who compose "modern" music for the Mass and other Catholic liturgies today. For information on this music in general, as well as the controversies that have sometimes surrounded it, see Contemporary Catholic liturgical music.

It's shorter and perhaps a bit less jarring. Reactions? — Lawrence King (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


My concern with the shorter version would be that we are to avoid refering to other articles explicitly, as in "See here for more information". It is a guideline, and therefore not as binding as NPOV and no original research, but if we can find a way to be neutral, "unoriginal" and avoid self-reference, that would be best. --Fsotrain09 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Would it be more acceptable if we didn't make an explicit reference to the other article, but instead chose a suitable phrase (possibly one wordsmithed for this purpose) to link to the article? --Mwalimu59 01:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


How about this?

His [or Her, Their] music in contemporary Catholic culture
[Name] is one of many musicians who compose contemporary Catholic liturgical music. This music has enjoyed widespread success throughout the English speaking world. There have also been a number of controversies surrounding this music.

The first sentence places the composer in a wider context, with a link to the CCLM page. The second sentence points out the success of this music in general. The third sentence mentions the controversies, with a link to the "controversy" section of the CCLM page. — Lawrence King (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

An afterthought.... Is "controversies" really the best word? Or should we refer to "disputes surrounding this music", or "disagreements surrounding this music"? — Lawrence King (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done this task. — Lawrence King (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of discussion of "aesthetic deficiency" in controversy section

Should it perhaps be mentioned that some do indeed like the prospect of contemporary music at Mass, but from composers less influenced by popular music (e.g. Arvo Part, Richard Proulx). Some direct discussion of the Snowbird Statement would be most appropriate.

[edit] Logical error in discussion of congregation-focused music

Those who appreciate "we-focussed" music point out that that Sacrosanctum Concilium recognized that Christ "is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings."

This statement is a non sequitur. The quotation from Sacrosanctum Concilium, and, for that matter, the entire constitution on the sacred liturgy, does not address the question of music that praises the congregation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.46.238 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)