I intend this article for Catholics, and hope that you read it with the great earnestness required of such a pivotal subject regarding our faith.
Did John Paul the Second want rock or pop music in our Churches? Certainly, he showed great joy at the love and outpouring he received at various public rallies and Masses.
If any image of the late-great John Paul II has come to the forefront since his passing into glory, it is the image of a "people's champion" in Papal garb. And he certainly was that, make no mistake.
Yet such imagery, as well as the frequent misinterpretation of the dictates of the Second Vatican Council, have been used as a Devilish (yes, capital D) opportunity to rob our generation of Catholics of the true aesthetic riches of our faith.
Most of us, stepping into Churches, find ourselves the victims of the "creative thinking" of the 60's as opposed to the teachings of the Church we claim to believe in. Some Catholics are now entering their gray years without having any idea of what a Church is supposed to SOUND like.
Personally, as a cradle Catholic, I had no idea what Palestrina or Sacred Polyphony sounded like until I heard it in a college-level Music History Course. I didn't hear Chant -- sung live -- until my mid-20's. I didn't see a Mass done with an actual MASS composition until also in my mid-20's. What a sad, bitterly sad commentary on what our Churches have become!
John Paul the Second, despite his love of popular forms of faith expression, did not want our Churches to sound like rock concerts. He did not want the top-40 music from Christian radio played during Communion, nor did he approve of bad choirs and poorly-written "songs" echoing pathetically from the Choir loft.
Nor did the previous Popes. Nor does our current Pope. Such expressions, while fine outside of Church, are simply not worthy of the sacrifice of the Mass, nor can they stand on equal footing with the music already present in the deposit of the faith.
This is why Pope Benedict has banned such music from the Vatican. Yup: banned.
It may be a bitter pill for many to swallow, but so is most truth. Read it and weep, from JP2's own hand:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2003/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20031203_musica-sacra_en.html
Now don't get me wrong: popular Christian songs and forms of devotion and "praise" played a great part in my own reversion story. Yet, technically speaking, they cannot fully express Sacredness using melodic formulas and musical forms reserved for hip-shaking rock concerts or dance halls. It simply doesn't work, any more than placing Chant music inside of a rave is anything but cheap appropriation -- or pure vulgarity.
In my own life, I remain a great fan of rock and heavy metal music. This being said, I recognize that it cannot be held in the same light of spiritual quality as the music written in the accepted spiritual forms. This is not an opinion of mine, nor is it some misguided dogma: it's a doctrine, and one which I must humbly accept (whether I like it or not.)
Read, for instance, to what JP2 writes in this excerpt from the above linked document:
"The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple"[33]. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it. Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy[34].
To give another example: anyone who has given up television for a while comes to know a simple truth: television is generally loud, vulgar, patronizing, numbing, and quite often very bad for the soul. Not only that, but it is a waste of time.
Anyone who has taken a silent retreat has been forced to confront the multiplicity of noise in his/her head. In such cases, one comes face-to-face with a startling fact of life: much like food, in art, we become what we consume.
Nor would Andy Warhol's work belong next to an Altar any more than a modern billboard.
As a Catholic, you may despair at such news, you may feel the urge to rebel. Yet remember that you do so at the expense of many great living artists -- as well as the Church's own wishes.
Or, as I'll tell people often enough: "If you'd rather hear top-40 expressions over Palestrina in your Mass, it's not an issue of differing opinion. It's a personal problem which needs to be corrected, no different than the many other things we struggle with in our faith walk."
Encourage your Priests to become educated on the right kinds of art and music -- pressure them to improve the quality of sights and sounds at your Church. If you can sing, then do it! If you're in a position to donate, then nothing bring about change more than a financially-endowed bullish reformer. The change is trickling in, and you can make it a much-needed torrent.
Lastly, if you happen to live anywhere near Chicago, do yourself the favor of hearing and seeing Mass at St. John Cantius, on the Near-north side, this Christmas Eve. The choral concert begins at 11, while the Mass-proper begins at Midnight. It is, quite simply, the way a Mass is meant to be. (http://www.cantius.org)
As a Buddhist professor once told me: "If you make your Churches beautiful, then people will come of their own accord."
The 1960's popular experimentation has failed, and devastatingly so. We turn again to the Magisterium, seeking guidance in forms both ancient and new...
I'm providing three links to help you start the journey. The first is a blog detailing the Sacred Music revival in the Church -- the right-hand-side has several fascinating Papal writings on the subject. The second is the Church Music Association of America. The third is the group I work with, the wonderful Foundation for Sacred Arts.
http://authenticupdate.blogspot.com/2008/02/tim-mcdonnel-speaks-to-priests-and.html
http://www.musicasacra.com/
http://thesacredarts.org/
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
"Shall we reinstate Slavery, then?"
***The following is an excerpt from a recent debate between two prominent politicians. Congressman Smith is a noted liberal, while Senator James is a prominent Secular Humanist.***
Congressman Smith: "Shall we reinstate slavery, then? Is that really what you're suggesting?"
Senator James: "Absolutely! It's my distinct opinion, Congressman Smith, that abolitionism inflicts upon my rights as an American consumer. After all, if you don't want slaves, then don't own one!"
CS: "Well, that's purely ridiculous. You are actually seeking to enslave other human beings? You have no right to do that to other people!"
SJ: "Their being "people," Mr. Smith, and therefore afforded Constitutional rights, is merely your opinion. Despite the outward appearances and biological viability, I tend to believe them to be no more than animals."
CS: "But how can you say that? Just look at them! They're human!"
SJ: "It's no more than your opinion vs. mine, and America provides us both with the right to our opinion, does it not?"
CS: "That's ludicrous!"
SJ: "No more, sir, than your position on abortion."
CS: "Well, that's a hot topic of great debate. Women must have a choice."
SJ: "And I want my choice of slaves, then. If you choose to parse and label humanity for your own convenience, than I shall do the same."
Moderator: "Clearly we have reached the limit of this topic. Let's move on to sexual ethics. Senator James, you've been accused of pedophilia for your alleged involvement with a seventeen year old girl. How do you plead?"
SJ: "Well, sir, first of all, there was no intercourse involved.. And if there was, what of it? She's as adult a girl as I've known, intellectually stronger than most women I know."
CS: "I can't believe my ears. First you argue in favor of slavery, and now for pedophilia?"
SJ: "Why is it pedophilia? She is a sexually viable woman, mature enough to make her own decisions. If two such consenting adults decide to be together, what business is it of yours?"
CS: "But she's not an adult! She's only seventeen!"
JS: "Now you're quibbling with legal labels, sir. Such a law is a gross generalization, and cannot apply to all young women. After all, great kings and nobles of the past have had wives who were barely old enough to qualify as teenagers!"
CS: "But that is not our American standard! We know better than to do such things! It's simply wrong!"
SJ: "Stay out of my bedroom, Congressman."
CS: "What you are doing is clearly wrong, and such thinking is very dangerous."
SJ: "Oh really, Congressman? What about natural law? What about God's implied viewpoint on the issue?"
CS: "Such things do not concern me, Senator James. I'm merely concerned about upholding the law."
SJ: "As am I, Congressman. In this case, I call your laws subjective and immoral. I feel that if the social standard be the only one, then your beliefs are infringing upon my beliefs. The Constitution urges me to oppose immoral leadership!"
CS: "Yet what you are doing continues to be illegal."
SJ: "If you choose to apply subjective labels to what is -- or is not -- carnally acceptable in this nation, then I will do the same. I hereby propose an amendment to redefine marriage as being possible between a man and a woman as young as fifteen. In doing so, I not only liberate young women, but follow in the tradition of our ancestors. I also challenge the dominant hegemony, who I feel wrongly assert their sexual morality upon the rest of us!"
CS: "That's absurd!"
SJ: "Is it, Congressman? How about your own husband in Massachusetts? How is such an alternative lifestyle legally possible?"
CS: "That is unfair. We are two consenting adults, living a peaceful and agreeable life together. It is our right to do so."
SJ: "Well, then you and I disagree on the legal meaning of the word "marriage." In which case, I would also like to disagree on the legal meaning of the word "adult," as so many States already do. I will take my seventeen year-old mistress to Georgia, where we shall be legally bound, despite your bigoted and heterophobic protests."
CS: "You're bordering on the ludicrous, Senator James."
SJ: "Am I? I've only used your own logic and beliefs under a different pretense... If your way of looking at the world is the correct one, then it makes no difference that we disagree, even on such fundamental issues..."
***
I of course in no way support slavery or pedophilia, but have merely tried to make a point that so many otherwise intelligent people seem so unwilling to grasp: there ARE objective standards to consider when human rights come into play. They are the objective standards of the natural law invoked by the very same document that justified American Independence. If morality is merely a social dictate, then anything can ultimately become legal if enough people support it.
There is a reason that the opening statement by Senator James is absurd, and it has nothing to do with your personal opinion.
Yet, looking at it a second time, the entire debate is absurd, because it merely hinges on opinions and legal quibbling. America has worked, up until now, because our laws and viewpoints had a deeper source. We abandon the source at our peril, risking that the above discussion become a political reality...
Congressman Smith: "Shall we reinstate slavery, then? Is that really what you're suggesting?"
Senator James: "Absolutely! It's my distinct opinion, Congressman Smith, that abolitionism inflicts upon my rights as an American consumer. After all, if you don't want slaves, then don't own one!"
CS: "Well, that's purely ridiculous. You are actually seeking to enslave other human beings? You have no right to do that to other people!"
SJ: "Their being "people," Mr. Smith, and therefore afforded Constitutional rights, is merely your opinion. Despite the outward appearances and biological viability, I tend to believe them to be no more than animals."
CS: "But how can you say that? Just look at them! They're human!"
SJ: "It's no more than your opinion vs. mine, and America provides us both with the right to our opinion, does it not?"
CS: "That's ludicrous!"
SJ: "No more, sir, than your position on abortion."
CS: "Well, that's a hot topic of great debate. Women must have a choice."
SJ: "And I want my choice of slaves, then. If you choose to parse and label humanity for your own convenience, than I shall do the same."
Moderator: "Clearly we have reached the limit of this topic. Let's move on to sexual ethics. Senator James, you've been accused of pedophilia for your alleged involvement with a seventeen year old girl. How do you plead?"
SJ: "Well, sir, first of all, there was no intercourse involved.. And if there was, what of it? She's as adult a girl as I've known, intellectually stronger than most women I know."
CS: "I can't believe my ears. First you argue in favor of slavery, and now for pedophilia?"
SJ: "Why is it pedophilia? She is a sexually viable woman, mature enough to make her own decisions. If two such consenting adults decide to be together, what business is it of yours?"
CS: "But she's not an adult! She's only seventeen!"
JS: "Now you're quibbling with legal labels, sir. Such a law is a gross generalization, and cannot apply to all young women. After all, great kings and nobles of the past have had wives who were barely old enough to qualify as teenagers!"
CS: "But that is not our American standard! We know better than to do such things! It's simply wrong!"
SJ: "Stay out of my bedroom, Congressman."
CS: "What you are doing is clearly wrong, and such thinking is very dangerous."
SJ: "Oh really, Congressman? What about natural law? What about God's implied viewpoint on the issue?"
CS: "Such things do not concern me, Senator James. I'm merely concerned about upholding the law."
SJ: "As am I, Congressman. In this case, I call your laws subjective and immoral. I feel that if the social standard be the only one, then your beliefs are infringing upon my beliefs. The Constitution urges me to oppose immoral leadership!"
CS: "Yet what you are doing continues to be illegal."
SJ: "If you choose to apply subjective labels to what is -- or is not -- carnally acceptable in this nation, then I will do the same. I hereby propose an amendment to redefine marriage as being possible between a man and a woman as young as fifteen. In doing so, I not only liberate young women, but follow in the tradition of our ancestors. I also challenge the dominant hegemony, who I feel wrongly assert their sexual morality upon the rest of us!"
CS: "That's absurd!"
SJ: "Is it, Congressman? How about your own husband in Massachusetts? How is such an alternative lifestyle legally possible?"
CS: "That is unfair. We are two consenting adults, living a peaceful and agreeable life together. It is our right to do so."
SJ: "Well, then you and I disagree on the legal meaning of the word "marriage." In which case, I would also like to disagree on the legal meaning of the word "adult," as so many States already do. I will take my seventeen year-old mistress to Georgia, where we shall be legally bound, despite your bigoted and heterophobic protests."
CS: "You're bordering on the ludicrous, Senator James."
SJ: "Am I? I've only used your own logic and beliefs under a different pretense... If your way of looking at the world is the correct one, then it makes no difference that we disagree, even on such fundamental issues..."
***
I of course in no way support slavery or pedophilia, but have merely tried to make a point that so many otherwise intelligent people seem so unwilling to grasp: there ARE objective standards to consider when human rights come into play. They are the objective standards of the natural law invoked by the very same document that justified American Independence. If morality is merely a social dictate, then anything can ultimately become legal if enough people support it.
There is a reason that the opening statement by Senator James is absurd, and it has nothing to do with your personal opinion.
Yet, looking at it a second time, the entire debate is absurd, because it merely hinges on opinions and legal quibbling. America has worked, up until now, because our laws and viewpoints had a deeper source. We abandon the source at our peril, risking that the above discussion become a political reality...
Friday, November 28, 2008
America, God, and the Necessity of Natural Law
Church and state, so much hate...
Recently in an online debate concerning Prop-8, I suggested -- without stating my own thoughts on the issue -- that both sides, regardless of belief, should examine both prevalent scientific research on the topic, as well as the common-sense conclusions of Natural Law, before agreeing to legislate one way or the other. Two of the numerous vitriolic responses were telling:
"You need to keep your archaic religious beliefs out of this."
--and--
"Take your Natural Law and go live in the forest -- you'll be more comfortable there."
Ouch. But funny, considering -- in the first case -- that I had never brought religion into the issue, and -- in the second case -- that this person clearly did not know what Natural Law is.
It occurs to me that in order to justify the existence of the American experiment, both God and the Natural Law must be assumed as a measuring stick. You are free to be an atheist, of course, but you cannot request that "God be removed from the public sphere" without burning both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as well.
The foundation of the American experiment, and the very justification of our revolution, stems from Natural Law. (For those unfamiliar, a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law)
For instance, take the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence:
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
"Laws of Nature, and Nature's God," you say?
How, in a public debate free of any mention of God, could the resulting relativistic morass agree that any truths are "self-evident?" The answer is simple: they couldn't. Nor would any self-respecting liberal agree that the last sentence above invalidates abortion-on-demand, but that's another debate.
And now we move to the first amendment of the Constitution, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redres of grievances.
The phrase "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the document. Our Founding Fathers assumed that religious belief -- as a key forming element of every educated man's conscience -- would enter into the public debate. This is not to say that Congress should -- or even can -- debate theology. It is to say that the very human dignity which our elected representatives are sworn to uphold and consider cannot be fully justified outside of the theistic realm. End of story. No absolute truth, such as human dignity or freedom, is ultimately possible without an absolute referrant. To see the alternative, I refer you to the "people's" French revolution, or the experiments of 20th century communism.
You are free to believe whatever you want, but you must acknowledge certain basic facts about the American experiment, or become party to its unraveling.
You may not believe in God, or you may not be sure of what you believe... but be glad that other brave men of belief have made your disbelief a safe and legal possibility.
Natural Law is part of the Foundation of America, and we have no right to eliminate her source, nor to pass laws which go contrary to her common-sense dictates.
Don't like it? Move to China and have your relativism.
Recently in an online debate concerning Prop-8, I suggested -- without stating my own thoughts on the issue -- that both sides, regardless of belief, should examine both prevalent scientific research on the topic, as well as the common-sense conclusions of Natural Law, before agreeing to legislate one way or the other. Two of the numerous vitriolic responses were telling:
"You need to keep your archaic religious beliefs out of this."
--and--
"Take your Natural Law and go live in the forest -- you'll be more comfortable there."
Ouch. But funny, considering -- in the first case -- that I had never brought religion into the issue, and -- in the second case -- that this person clearly did not know what Natural Law is.
It occurs to me that in order to justify the existence of the American experiment, both God and the Natural Law must be assumed as a measuring stick. You are free to be an atheist, of course, but you cannot request that "God be removed from the public sphere" without burning both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as well.
The foundation of the American experiment, and the very justification of our revolution, stems from Natural Law. (For those unfamiliar, a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law)
For instance, take the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence:
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
"Laws of Nature, and Nature's God," you say?
How, in a public debate free of any mention of God, could the resulting relativistic morass agree that any truths are "self-evident?" The answer is simple: they couldn't. Nor would any self-respecting liberal agree that the last sentence above invalidates abortion-on-demand, but that's another debate.
And now we move to the first amendment of the Constitution, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redres of grievances.
The phrase "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the document. Our Founding Fathers assumed that religious belief -- as a key forming element of every educated man's conscience -- would enter into the public debate. This is not to say that Congress should -- or even can -- debate theology. It is to say that the very human dignity which our elected representatives are sworn to uphold and consider cannot be fully justified outside of the theistic realm. End of story. No absolute truth, such as human dignity or freedom, is ultimately possible without an absolute referrant. To see the alternative, I refer you to the "people's" French revolution, or the experiments of 20th century communism.
You are free to believe whatever you want, but you must acknowledge certain basic facts about the American experiment, or become party to its unraveling.
You may not believe in God, or you may not be sure of what you believe... but be glad that other brave men of belief have made your disbelief a safe and legal possibility.
Natural Law is part of the Foundation of America, and we have no right to eliminate her source, nor to pass laws which go contrary to her common-sense dictates.
Don't like it? Move to China and have your relativism.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Being Nice.
I am eternally thankful for my courageous friends.
For every mercy I have received in life, none have been greater than those which have helped to correct or curb whatever fatal flaws I may have. Some friends have courageously plucked me up and chastised me for whatever stupidity I might be engaging in. Others have lived by an example so powerful that I could not help but be impressed -- and inspired to emulate. (It's an ongoing process...)
Some I have met in the flesh -- others have spoken to me through the decades (or the ages) via great books and wise words and beautiful music.
One truth rings out at me daily: that I am my brother's keeper. Had others not believed this simple truth, I'd be in a much sorrier state in life, be it my moral life or professional career. If they had the courage to live this creed on my behalf, then I would be a coward to do otherwise.
I recently lost a friend. This person chose to remove their person from my life because I happen to state "contentious" opinions in a written forum. Despite every kindness and patience I had shown this person in reality, they found my "crazy" and "illogical" opinions on such issues as abortion to be too much to deal with (even though we never once debated them personally.) They had to "remove such negativity" from their lives.
In sorrowing over this lost friendship, I was reminded by a friend that "anger is often the first response to truth." In listening to a talk by Fr. Corapi today -- a great warrior in his own right -- I was reminded that "I am my brother's keeper." Fr. Corapi reminded me that losing a friendship is not as painful as losing self-respect, or as painful as sitting idly by why insanity reigns, or as painful as losing my very soul.
Why do I blog? Well, partly -- and to be honest -- it helps relieve inner frustrations, all while getting the creative juices flowing for composition. Before blogging existed, I had saved many pages of commentaries, all necessary venting before the deeper expression. (Yes, for better or worse, I've been critiquing society and writing commentaries since the first grade.)
Yet I've discovered that such simple public postings go much deeper. We all have particularly keen abilities and viewpoints, "angles on truth" if you will. We have them in order to share them, and in sharing them, I have found immense blessings in return.
What is our greatest calling in life? To be our brother's keeper. C.S. Lewis reminds us that there are only two paths in life -- that to eternal glory, or eternal horror. Our every interaction with another person, be it trivial or otherwise, pushes them in one of two directions. When all is said and done, even those straddling the fence will be blown in only one direction. (Think of that the next time you cut somebody off in busy traffic!)
It is a painful reality, and one that we all sense in some level of our being. Some embrace it and live accordingly, others run and deny for as long as they have breath. Yet one thing has become clear to me:
Being nice -- or "tolerant" -- earns no points in eternity. Absolutely none.
Martin Luther King Jr wasn't "nice" or tolerant. He was a brilliant firebrand. Gandhi may have been passive, but he wasn't tolerant -- he fought evil with the fierce fire of peace. None of the great preachers or prophets were "nice guys."
In fact, as Father Corapi reminds us, most Churches would send a modern-day Jesus Christ into sensitivity training. In seeking to emulate the greats -- as we should -- we soon learn that niceness and tolerance don't go very far. Only goodness reigns, and goodness can be difficult.
Our initial brushes with Truth (capital T) reveal a cold, hard reality. There is no tolerance for "interpretations," no room for semantics, no expectations of niceness. There is only the necessity for change, the need to let go, and, in the end, only...
Joy.
A friend once reminded me that "nice guys don't go to heaven. But good men do." Being "good" necessarily entails that you live courageously (even when you're afraid), and virtually guaruntees that you'll ruffle some feathers along the way. Do it anyways, and trust in posterity to correct the collateral damage.
When I write, I don't do it to ruffle feathers, or to express egotism, or to alienate friends. I do it to humbly pass along the wisdom which has found itself at my doorstep, the very same wisdom that I struggle daily to accumulate into my very flawed life. If there is fire to my words, it is because I also do it in defiance of an age where opinion has trumped reason, while belief is eroniously held to be a private matter.
I do it because I am my brother's keeper, whether I like it or not.
For every mercy I have received in life, none have been greater than those which have helped to correct or curb whatever fatal flaws I may have. Some friends have courageously plucked me up and chastised me for whatever stupidity I might be engaging in. Others have lived by an example so powerful that I could not help but be impressed -- and inspired to emulate. (It's an ongoing process...)
Some I have met in the flesh -- others have spoken to me through the decades (or the ages) via great books and wise words and beautiful music.
One truth rings out at me daily: that I am my brother's keeper. Had others not believed this simple truth, I'd be in a much sorrier state in life, be it my moral life or professional career. If they had the courage to live this creed on my behalf, then I would be a coward to do otherwise.
I recently lost a friend. This person chose to remove their person from my life because I happen to state "contentious" opinions in a written forum. Despite every kindness and patience I had shown this person in reality, they found my "crazy" and "illogical" opinions on such issues as abortion to be too much to deal with (even though we never once debated them personally.) They had to "remove such negativity" from their lives.
In sorrowing over this lost friendship, I was reminded by a friend that "anger is often the first response to truth." In listening to a talk by Fr. Corapi today -- a great warrior in his own right -- I was reminded that "I am my brother's keeper." Fr. Corapi reminded me that losing a friendship is not as painful as losing self-respect, or as painful as sitting idly by why insanity reigns, or as painful as losing my very soul.
Why do I blog? Well, partly -- and to be honest -- it helps relieve inner frustrations, all while getting the creative juices flowing for composition. Before blogging existed, I had saved many pages of commentaries, all necessary venting before the deeper expression. (Yes, for better or worse, I've been critiquing society and writing commentaries since the first grade.)
Yet I've discovered that such simple public postings go much deeper. We all have particularly keen abilities and viewpoints, "angles on truth" if you will. We have them in order to share them, and in sharing them, I have found immense blessings in return.
What is our greatest calling in life? To be our brother's keeper. C.S. Lewis reminds us that there are only two paths in life -- that to eternal glory, or eternal horror. Our every interaction with another person, be it trivial or otherwise, pushes them in one of two directions. When all is said and done, even those straddling the fence will be blown in only one direction. (Think of that the next time you cut somebody off in busy traffic!)
It is a painful reality, and one that we all sense in some level of our being. Some embrace it and live accordingly, others run and deny for as long as they have breath. Yet one thing has become clear to me:
Being nice -- or "tolerant" -- earns no points in eternity. Absolutely none.
Martin Luther King Jr wasn't "nice" or tolerant. He was a brilliant firebrand. Gandhi may have been passive, but he wasn't tolerant -- he fought evil with the fierce fire of peace. None of the great preachers or prophets were "nice guys."
In fact, as Father Corapi reminds us, most Churches would send a modern-day Jesus Christ into sensitivity training. In seeking to emulate the greats -- as we should -- we soon learn that niceness and tolerance don't go very far. Only goodness reigns, and goodness can be difficult.
Our initial brushes with Truth (capital T) reveal a cold, hard reality. There is no tolerance for "interpretations," no room for semantics, no expectations of niceness. There is only the necessity for change, the need to let go, and, in the end, only...
Joy.
A friend once reminded me that "nice guys don't go to heaven. But good men do." Being "good" necessarily entails that you live courageously (even when you're afraid), and virtually guaruntees that you'll ruffle some feathers along the way. Do it anyways, and trust in posterity to correct the collateral damage.
When I write, I don't do it to ruffle feathers, or to express egotism, or to alienate friends. I do it to humbly pass along the wisdom which has found itself at my doorstep, the very same wisdom that I struggle daily to accumulate into my very flawed life. If there is fire to my words, it is because I also do it in defiance of an age where opinion has trumped reason, while belief is eroniously held to be a private matter.
I do it because I am my brother's keeper, whether I like it or not.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Was Modern Music a Slavic Age?
(Warning: potentially contentious statement later in this article...)
Last month's issue of Classical FM magazine dealt beautifully with the subject of modern Russian music. Reading over the roster of names -- many of whom did their work in the 20th century -- got me to thinking:
Which nation or geographic region had the greatest effect on the course of 20th century music?
While this may seem like a loaded question, music history texts have no problem pointing to various eras where styles and trends were dominated by Italy, France, or Germany. Indeed, the Germans seem to take the crown historically, providing us with more geniuses from the Classical era than any other nation.
It was a supremacy they fought hard to keep. Arnold Schoenberg predicted -- with the typical Tuetonic flair of that unfortunate era -- that he had "discovered something that will guarantee the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years." (Thankfully both him and that other Aryan supremacist war-mongering occultist intellectual dictator were both wrong in their grand predictions. You could call me bitter, but I'm not exxagerating.)
I will celebrate this 11/11 -- the 90th anniversary of Polish independence from her less-friendly neighbors -- by making a potentially contentious statement:
Where music is concerned, the 20th century was a Slavic Century. While I know this is a personally biased statement, it nevertheless has great historical weight. I firmly believe that when leveled in the perspective of (non-Boulezian) history (assuming certain racial stereotypes in music are perhaps dulled or forgotten), students will one day learn about the powerful Slavic turn of 20th century music.
I also believe that it is the Slavic composers who saved modern composition, at least as far as audiences are concerned. The 19th century folk-tinged rumblings of Chopin, Dvorak, and the Russian Five led to a veritable musical explosion in Central and Eastern Europe. A brief survey of names includes: Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Lutoslawski, Glazunov, Gorecki, Scriabin, Penderecki, Schnittke, Janacek, Ligeti, Gubaidulina, Part, Kurtag, Rachmaninov, Szymanowski, and of course Bartok. (This was a list off the top of my head -- feel free to add your favorites.) Then there was the mighty teacher, Nadia Boulanger -- Catholic, half-Russian, and deeply aware of both.
While western Europe blazed a trail of largely soulless music, Stravinsky (bolstered by his mentor Boulanger) brought another version of musical modernity into being. The echoes of the rite still reverberate through our concert halls and conservatories.
Where Schoenberg & Co. codified atonality and paved the way to musical modernism, it seems that it is the composers of Eastern and Central Europe -- always placing the demands of expressionism over the demands of craft -- that gave modernism a soul.
Then there are the quasi-folk musings of Janacek and Bartok, who stooped classical high-browery back to the earth, unleashing tremendous expressive possibilities which are still being explored across numerous cultures today.
A glimpse back to the Russian five may give us the roots of this cultural success. These men were concerned with music for its spiritual and expressive properties, rather than any numerical interest it might engender. They were certainly under-trained as musicians and composers (or, perhaps, unhampered by over-training?) They were humanists first, seeking an expressive nationalistic vision for their resurgent nation. They also recognized the inherent power of folk music. This began a trend which would carry through most of the following century.
I am particularly proud of Poland, where modernism both found a soul -- and a way out. Long before his neo-romantic musings, Penderecki was at the head of the avante-gard in composition. Most of us are too young to remember the extreme cultural impacts of his Threnody and St. Matthew Passion. In all fairness, we can thank the Germans for embracing -- and funding -- most of Penderecki's international successes.
In Estonia, Arvo Part began his career by writing some of the most expressive serial music ever penned, before realizing the limitations of such a musical language and withdrawing to reconsider his craft.
1976 will likely be considered a magical year in future music history texts. It was in this year that Gorecki penned his magnanimous Third Symphony. After the premiere, one member of the modernist hegemony was said to decry that "Gorecki has abandoned 200 years of musical progress with a single piece." Yet it has become the best-selling recording of modern music in history, inspiring countless composers to return to a new simplicity. (It is also the piece that saved my young compositional life.)
In that very same year, Arvo Part emerged from his long self-imposed silence with a new musical language, blending ancient religiosity with a stark modern simplicity. In the end, the very nations that either resisted abstract modernism -- or gave it a soul -- also provided composers that -- along with the American minimalists -- showed a way out of the cultural morass of modern music.
In short, it was these men who maximized the modern, while later giving us permission to dream a different musical dream. Faced with the bleakness of a secular, mathematical century, the "Kyries" and "Agnus Dei's" poured forth once more. The end of the Slavic century presented a fitting musical gift, turning our hard-headed art back to more basic human needs.
It is curious, then, and perhaps even a bit xenophobic, when music schools require German or Italian from their musicology students. Should not Polish and Russian be added to the list?
Often impossible to analyze, often too simple for academic prose, the music of the Slavic century may have more than cultural biases to overcome in order to assume a proper historical prominence.
It's still too early to say where the new century will lead us. Will it, by virtue of our continued melting-pot status, become the American century? Will the Chinese seize cultural dominance? Or will the rise of communications technology make it the first truly international era of music?
Contrary to popular belief, classical music has never been stronger or more widespread then it is now, despite the lack of (generally pessimistic) major-media coverage. Out of the political darkness of the 20th century, we've been handed a battered baton of hard-earned progress from the Slavic greats. It is a baton covered with the sweat of the politically-hounded and the blood of freedom fighters, emerging from a modern history stranger (and more brutal) than fiction. Where will we run with it?
Last month's issue of Classical FM magazine dealt beautifully with the subject of modern Russian music. Reading over the roster of names -- many of whom did their work in the 20th century -- got me to thinking:
Which nation or geographic region had the greatest effect on the course of 20th century music?
While this may seem like a loaded question, music history texts have no problem pointing to various eras where styles and trends were dominated by Italy, France, or Germany. Indeed, the Germans seem to take the crown historically, providing us with more geniuses from the Classical era than any other nation.
It was a supremacy they fought hard to keep. Arnold Schoenberg predicted -- with the typical Tuetonic flair of that unfortunate era -- that he had "discovered something that will guarantee the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years." (Thankfully both him and that other Aryan supremacist war-mongering occultist intellectual dictator were both wrong in their grand predictions. You could call me bitter, but I'm not exxagerating.)
I will celebrate this 11/11 -- the 90th anniversary of Polish independence from her less-friendly neighbors -- by making a potentially contentious statement:
Where music is concerned, the 20th century was a Slavic Century. While I know this is a personally biased statement, it nevertheless has great historical weight. I firmly believe that when leveled in the perspective of (non-Boulezian) history (assuming certain racial stereotypes in music are perhaps dulled or forgotten), students will one day learn about the powerful Slavic turn of 20th century music.
I also believe that it is the Slavic composers who saved modern composition, at least as far as audiences are concerned. The 19th century folk-tinged rumblings of Chopin, Dvorak, and the Russian Five led to a veritable musical explosion in Central and Eastern Europe. A brief survey of names includes: Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Lutoslawski, Glazunov, Gorecki, Scriabin, Penderecki, Schnittke, Janacek, Ligeti, Gubaidulina, Part, Kurtag, Rachmaninov, Szymanowski, and of course Bartok. (This was a list off the top of my head -- feel free to add your favorites.) Then there was the mighty teacher, Nadia Boulanger -- Catholic, half-Russian, and deeply aware of both.
While western Europe blazed a trail of largely soulless music, Stravinsky (bolstered by his mentor Boulanger) brought another version of musical modernity into being. The echoes of the rite still reverberate through our concert halls and conservatories.
Where Schoenberg & Co. codified atonality and paved the way to musical modernism, it seems that it is the composers of Eastern and Central Europe -- always placing the demands of expressionism over the demands of craft -- that gave modernism a soul.
Then there are the quasi-folk musings of Janacek and Bartok, who stooped classical high-browery back to the earth, unleashing tremendous expressive possibilities which are still being explored across numerous cultures today.
A glimpse back to the Russian five may give us the roots of this cultural success. These men were concerned with music for its spiritual and expressive properties, rather than any numerical interest it might engender. They were certainly under-trained as musicians and composers (or, perhaps, unhampered by over-training?) They were humanists first, seeking an expressive nationalistic vision for their resurgent nation. They also recognized the inherent power of folk music. This began a trend which would carry through most of the following century.
I am particularly proud of Poland, where modernism both found a soul -- and a way out. Long before his neo-romantic musings, Penderecki was at the head of the avante-gard in composition. Most of us are too young to remember the extreme cultural impacts of his Threnody and St. Matthew Passion. In all fairness, we can thank the Germans for embracing -- and funding -- most of Penderecki's international successes.
In Estonia, Arvo Part began his career by writing some of the most expressive serial music ever penned, before realizing the limitations of such a musical language and withdrawing to reconsider his craft.
1976 will likely be considered a magical year in future music history texts. It was in this year that Gorecki penned his magnanimous Third Symphony. After the premiere, one member of the modernist hegemony was said to decry that "Gorecki has abandoned 200 years of musical progress with a single piece." Yet it has become the best-selling recording of modern music in history, inspiring countless composers to return to a new simplicity. (It is also the piece that saved my young compositional life.)
In that very same year, Arvo Part emerged from his long self-imposed silence with a new musical language, blending ancient religiosity with a stark modern simplicity. In the end, the very nations that either resisted abstract modernism -- or gave it a soul -- also provided composers that -- along with the American minimalists -- showed a way out of the cultural morass of modern music.
In short, it was these men who maximized the modern, while later giving us permission to dream a different musical dream. Faced with the bleakness of a secular, mathematical century, the "Kyries" and "Agnus Dei's" poured forth once more. The end of the Slavic century presented a fitting musical gift, turning our hard-headed art back to more basic human needs.
It is curious, then, and perhaps even a bit xenophobic, when music schools require German or Italian from their musicology students. Should not Polish and Russian be added to the list?
Often impossible to analyze, often too simple for academic prose, the music of the Slavic century may have more than cultural biases to overcome in order to assume a proper historical prominence.
It's still too early to say where the new century will lead us. Will it, by virtue of our continued melting-pot status, become the American century? Will the Chinese seize cultural dominance? Or will the rise of communications technology make it the first truly international era of music?
Contrary to popular belief, classical music has never been stronger or more widespread then it is now, despite the lack of (generally pessimistic) major-media coverage. Out of the political darkness of the 20th century, we've been handed a battered baton of hard-earned progress from the Slavic greats. It is a baton covered with the sweat of the politically-hounded and the blood of freedom fighters, emerging from a modern history stranger (and more brutal) than fiction. Where will we run with it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
