.

(The following is based on this post)

I might not have properly understand the context of this question:

source thread and post

Why doesn't the SSPX write new traditional-sounding hymns?

Because on the surface, it would seem that there are some who think that there is a need for a whole new generation of hymns that are somehow more relevant for our times than the ones we already have, most of which you hardly ever hear anymore.

Why would anyone in the Church, including but not limited to the Society of St. Pius X, need to write "new" hymns!?

This question, quoted above, ignores these four facts:

1)  The literature and archives of the Catholic repertoire of hymns is enormous.  

2)  The hymnals that SSPX chapels use in their pews (a standard hymnal in the pew was compiled under the direction and approval of +W) is only vaguely representative of the variety and size of that repertoire.

3)  The vast majority of Catholic hymns (outside of Gregorian Chant) are not generally, if ever, sung in SSPX chapels.

4)  While it is not impossible to compose traditional-sounding hymns that are actually "new," it is a lot more difficult than it might seem, and there is an abiding inclination to modernize, that most pressingly influences the art of composition, whereas a primary reliance on the already vast storehouse of existing hyms is a much more prudent approach than trying to yet increase this already-huge edifice of existing music.


   Therefore,
     Based on these four facts, in order to increase the variety and horizons of musical selections in any SSPX chapel, what is needed is not "new" hymns "written" (composed is the proper term) but already-existing hymns introduced gradually since it takes a long time to learn familiarity with good literature.  

One might be prone to say that popular music becomes popular for the reason that it is easy to pick up and fast to learn and it therefore is representative of how the listener feels and is therefore relevant and 'meaningful' to experience.  (The word, 'experience' was one of JPII's favorite words, because he was a phenomenologist.)

I would reply that it has always been Catholic doctrine that the Faith teaches us we must fight against our fallen nature, and do penance.  This comes to us from the Apostles, and it is disputed by protestants (they say there is no merit in 'works' even while they're wont to 'sacrifice' materially to build their own economic wealth, which would be then "where their heart is").  There are rewards along the way for doing so, but the doing of penance is something that we must decide to do because it is not what our human nature would have us do, for if we rely on our human nature to dictate our actions and outlook toward music, for example, we would end up with paganism.  We would have Bluegrass-mass or Rock-mass or Crosby-Stills-and-Nash-mass.  What's wrong with that? If you'd like an example of "new" compositions performed in the context of liturgical proceedings, you need look no further than the recent 'canonization' mass in Rome this past Quasimodo Sunday.  (Yes, they read the Introit that you see in your TLM missal, which begins with "Quasi modo geniti infantes..." and they read it in Latin!)  The music throughout was a MIX of the old and the very new.  In fact, the way they did it (especially the "ALLELUIAS"), it had a redundant aspect.  This redundancy aspect is reminiscent to me of the refrain we heard at Vat.II, which they said was "the spirit of Vatican II" (even though it would be better described as the unclean spirit of Vat.II), by which many things were jettisoned out of the Barque of Peter as if the ship were in distress and cargo had to be thrown overboard to save the ship from danger!  They said we had to read "the signs of the times."

And the "signs of the times" and the unclean spirit of Vat.II mandated the wholesale REMOVAL of "useless repetition."  What fell under the banner of "useless repetition?"  Well, that would be things like:

~  The thrice repeated Kyrie eleison -- which was shortened to twice. (It's no longer "Kyrie eleison, Kyrie eleison, Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Christe eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison, Kyrie eleison, Kyrie eleison."   Now, they sing "Kyrie eleison, Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison, Kyrie eleison."  And they doggedly assert that this is somehow less redundant.)

~  You very rarely, if ever, hear the Litany of the Saints at most NovusOrdo parishes anymore.  However, it was part of the Newcanonization Hybrid Newmass.  And it was done in Latin.  While they managed to avoid the dragged-out tempo somewhat in the Litany, it could have been a little better, IMHO.  It's a delicate trick to know how to pace this prayer without making the alternating voices step on each other, which would sound not so good in a large square like Bernini's at the Vatican.

~  During Paschal Time alleluias are traditionally repeated, in some places said twice and in other places three times.  Generally, the NovusOrdo reduces that to once in most cases and in very few two alleluias.  At this Newcanonization Hybrid Newmass, Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia" was used in more than one spot, and being sung by the choir in their overly S-L-O-W tempo, it seemed to drag on and on.

~  In the Confiteor (which was omitted in the Newcanonization Hybrid Newmass, since the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were omitted, and in place of the NovusOrdo 'introductory rites' there was the Newcanonization ceremony itself, after which they jumped directly into the Kyrie - Kyrie - Christe - Christe - Kyrie - Kyrie) it has "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa."  While this has been returned to many NovusOrdo liturgies during the past year or two -- which has been curiously the same two years that +F has been juggling politics and expelling good priests --  it was nevertheless omitted in the Newcanonization Hybrid Newmass.  



This is the overall impression I received, but I suppose it could be explained that they had to slow down the tempo of music because of the effects of the large square and the sound system at St. Peter's.

I would counter that the pop music after the ceremony was over was played through the same sound system and they didn't have to slow that down.  

After all that, consider too, the effect of the tempo and alternating voices on the sound that listener's heard going down the street that extends from Bernini's Square, and is visible in many of the camera angles.  The Pope rode in his popemobile down that street, greeting the pilgrims at the very end of the 3-hour ceremony.  Those people would have been hearing something of the proceedings too, and if the tempo was too fast, it would have sounded to them like a lot of MUSH, and perhaps feedback or reverberations.


In any event, there is a LOT more to music than the number of repetitions and the tempo (speed) of the music.  I just focused on these two things here, because they are most easily described and most readily understood by everyone, even those who do not relate well to discussions on the key signatures, dynamics, tone quality, pronunciation, instrumental accompaniment, antiphonal practice, phrasing, melody and harmony inherent in all of music.


.

I was actually trying to bring up the topic of

Holding to what you know -- what is certain -- in a lifeboat situation
VS
Going back to the 1950's and then MOVING ON in terms of developing theology, dogma, liturgy, etc.

The latter can only be done by the PROPER authorities in Rome, once they are restored.

Are you sure you're not CMRI?  First you describe the CMRI seminary today but say this is what the SSPX seminary was years ago.  Now, you're saying that we should not be inventing new theology as the SSPX does, as do many on this forum, in order to maintain the Prime Directive (i.e., sedevacantism is evil) which is precisely the teaching of the CMRI today.

The CMRI is often criticized for being too liberal.  They won't reject the Mass of Pope Pius XII.  The won't condemn all una cuм Masses.  They won't condemn certain organ transplants.  Why?  Pope Pius XII was a true pope, not everyone fully understands the sedevacantist thesis, and the issue of organ transplantation (and the issue of "brain death") were issues that were still open upon the vacancy of the papal chair.  

The CMRI maintains that they simply do not have the AUTHORITY to move on in these and other issues, while the anti-sedevacantists seem to think that everything must continue to be updated and developed.  

I agree with you:  This is the time for a life boat not for moving on.

Obviously all the hymns we have today were created at some point.

But I don't think we could do a good job of creating new ones today. For one thing, everyone should know that an artist soaks up the essence and tendencies of his age and puts it into anything he creates.

It's very hard to rise above the age and culture you belong to.

It's really funny you'd mention that because I was going to say the same thing, maybe word-for-word.  But I stuck to supporting statements instead.  But you have a very valid conclusion, "It's very hard to rise above the age and culture you belong to."  It's almost impossible, really.  How can you by an act of will, be a product of something OTHER than the age where you came from?  Tarzan??  But he wouldn't be by an act of will, because it just happened to him (in fiction).  

Actually, there have been a few cases like Tarzan, and anthropologists etc. have made studies of them, without much to show for it.  The subjects were very confused and withdrawn, and difficult to understand, and unwilling to share their thoughts.  That doesn't make for much in GREAT CREATIVITY.  

For the human creature to be creative, he has to have a lot of security and fortitude and confidence.  There is a fine balance of ambiance that makes it possible for real genius to come alive.

Musical composition requires immense creativity.  And to compose a good hymn is likewise most taxing.  And to compose one that is appropriate for Mass is even HARDER to do.  Now, after all that, try composing one that could have been written 200 years ago.  Try to compose an entirely different hymn comparable to Adeste Fideles or Stille Nacht.  

GOOD LUCK!

Today, for example, artists would strive for photographic perfection. Even that is a bias (or "accent" if you will) if you look at it objectively. It's because we live in an age of TV and movies, and people expect art to be "photorealistic" to be "good". Art has not always been judged that way, however.

I would agree in some narrow venues, but look at the state of the fine arts today, and how little attention is paid to artists unless they produce "abstract" work.  A whole exhibit of canvas panels with various textures of stucco troweling on them -- give me a break!  

But the same thing has happened to music.  John Cage.  Why would an audience pay to go hear music that sounds like a printing press running?  They tried to deconstruct the rules of music and then re-build them from the ground floor, and so, one of the products you can observe is the Schola's part of the Victimae paschali laudes in the Newcanonization audio track.  (They don't let you see the musicians.  I have personal experience singing on those same steps for such a Papal event, for JPII.)

Anyhow, for the record, my point was that they *shouldn't* create new hymns today.

Oh.  Well then, my dream came true.  I misunderstood the question!!  HAHAHAHA

I was actually trying to bring up the topic of

Holding to what you know -- what is certain -- in a lifeboat situation

VS

Going back to the 1950's and then MOVING ON
in terms of developing theology, dogma, liturgy, etc.

The latter can only be done by the PROPER authorities in Rome, once they are restored.

Oh, boy, once they are restored.  Another dream to hang on to.  I know too many wet blanket types who are convinced that the authorities in Rome will never be restored.  ETC., &c. etc.

But I don't agree with them.  I hang on to the hope that they will be one day.

Quote from: Matthew

I was actually trying to bring up the topic of

Holding to what you know -- what is certain -- in a lifeboat situation
VS
Going back to the 1950's and then MOVING ON in terms of developing theology, dogma, liturgy, etc.

The latter can only be done by the PROPER authorities in Rome, once they are restored.

Are you sure you're not CMRI?  First you describe the CMRI seminary today but say this is what the SSPX seminary was years ago.  Now, you're saying that we should not be inventing new theology as the SSPX does, as do many on this forum, in order to maintain the Prime Directive (i.e., sedevacantism is evil) which is precisely the teaching of the CMRI today.

I think the topic is music and not theology, really.  They're related but not directly.

The CMRI is often criticized for being too liberal.  They won't reject the Mass of Pope Pius XII.  The won't condemn all una cuм Masses.  They won't condemn certain organ transplants.  Why?  Pope Pius XII was a true pope, not everyone fully understands the sedevacantist thesis, and the issue of organ transplantation (and the issue of "brain death") were issues that were still open upon the vacancy of the papal chair.  

The CMRI maintains that they simply do not have the AUTHORITY to move on in these and other issues, while the anti-sedevacantists seem to think that everything must continue to be updated and developed.  

I agree with you:  This is the time for a life boat not for moving on.

It seems to me that the Resistance and the CMRI should be able to agree in regards to conserving our musical patrimony and treasure.  I've heard CMRI music selections that are unusual so I figure they must have access to an archive of seldom-heard compositions.  

It seems to me that music has the power to be a major part of the restoration because when it's done well it can make for an essential backdrop for the liturgical action.  Those who are capable of making it beautiful have an obligation to provide that for Mass if possible.  And the perfect place to start is with Gregorian Chant, properly sung, and a variety of Latin hymns in one or two parts, perhaps three, and in special cases, four or even more parts.  (by "part" I mean soprano, alto, tenor, bass, etc.) Gregorian Chant is always one part of melody, but it can have one or perhaps two ongoing Bass notes or "Ison" or "drone" notes going on in the background.  That is much more common in Eastern chant, but it can be very effective in Gregorian as well, especially in certain settings.  

I do hope that there will be a resurgence among young people to study this.


.