MusicaSacra.com | Church Music Association of America: The Reform of Church Music, by Justine Bayard Ward (1906)

Thursday, September 08, 2005

The Reform of Church Music, by Justine Bayard Ward (1906)

The CMAA is pleased to offer this classic statement on behalf of Gregorian Chant: The Reform of Church Music, by Justine Bayard Ward, originally appearing in the Atlantic Monthly, April 1906.

From the article:

Modern music has two scales, or Modes. Chant has eight. It is evident that eight modes give greater variety of expression than two,—an ad­vantage for which even our modern indiscriminate use of the chromatic does not fully compensate. A mode is a manner. As in speech the speaker’s manner shades the meaning of his words, sometimes even alters it, so in music the mode, or manner, determines the character of the composi­tion. The meaning of a triad, for instance, de­pends entirely upon whether its manner be major or minor: lower the third, and its manner is sad; raise the third, and its manner is gay. Our pres­ent musical system is limited, then, to two man­ners, the major and the minor; and so Chant has the advantage of greater scope and variety. But more than this: the character of these two modern scales compels us to choose between a gayety almost frivolous on the one hand, and, on the other, a sorrow savoring of despair; neither of which emotions has any place in the Christian soul at prayer. The eight modes of the ancients, on the contrary, were devised to meet the re­quirements of prayer in an age when art was ex­clusively the servant of religion. They enabled the composer of the period to seize the subtle prayer-spirit, that elusive characteristic of Christianity, the rainbow tints of joy in suffering. Chant is joyful, but with the joy of the Cross, as distinguished from the joy of the revel. Chant is fervent, but with the passion of asceticism, as distinguished from the passion of the world. Prayer-sorrow is never despair, nor is prayer-joy ever frivolous. Chant is the artistic embodiment of this spirit; the minor idea and the major idea are so interwoven, their relation is so intimate, that to disentangle them is impossible. We are never left in sorrow, yet our joy is never without a cloud. Even in those bursts of ecstatic joy of the Easter Alleluias lurks the memory that we are still a part of earth, still in the valley of tears. Light and shadow play tantalizingly in and out, like the sun shining through a forest; glimpses of heaven caught through rifts in the clouds of the world.

We do not find in the ancient modes the same violent contrasts of mood as in the modern. They combine a solemnity, a grandeur, with the most tender and fervent devotion. Their minor tendency gives not so much the impression of sad­ness as of great solemnity and awe; their major tendency, not so much the impression of merriment as of a tender and ardent devotion. Thus we have the combination that makes true prayer: reverence in love,—the prayer that, like David’s, rises as incense before the altar.

There is something obvious about the two scales of modern music. Christianity is not ob­vious. It is a philosophy of seeming contra­dictions: joy through renunciation: happiness through suffering, triumph through failure, victory through death. These emotions are not common-place, to be neatly pigeon-holed under the head­ings, “gay” or “sad,” “major” or “minor.” No, let us use artistic discrimination in this matter: the modern scales, the modern measure, our entire musical system as it at present exists, was devised for secular uses, and is perfectly adapted thereto. But when we try to adapt this modern music to the exigencies of liturgical prayer, we simply spoil two good things: we ruin not only our prayer, but our modern music as well, for we rob this music of its own character and give nothing in its place.

posted by Church Music Association of America | 9/08/2005 10:39:00 AM

3 Comments:

Todd said...

I think the author sets up a straw man in the argument. I think post-chant musical forms *can* be poorly applied to composition. But they don't need to be.

I find a great subtlety in modal music, but there's no denying that an artistic use of harmony can supply a profundity of expression.

September 12, 2005 9:03 PM  
Michael E. Lawrence said...

While I think that Ward is owed the highest gratitude and respect for all that she did for the advancement of Gregorian Chant, I must disagree with her opinion on this subject.

Gregorian Chant is indeed the superior music of the Church, and all sacred music ought to conform to its spirit, but one does not necessarily need to use modes to convey this same spirit.

While the modal system provides a marvellous pallet of colors, the tonal system affords more than the expression of two opposites. The Baroque Doctrine of Affections is evidence of this. Certain keys carried with them particular meanings. For instance, D Major was the key of Glory, and G Major was the key of Christas Eve. There are musicians even with the equal-temperament of today, including this writer, who believe that there are coloristic differences between the various keys. Is this not a kind of varied expression?

The tonal system, in fact, came into use in order to provide a more dramatic expressio verborum, and while this was, at first, employed for secular purposes, it ought not discourage us from thinking of tonal music as fitting for sacred use. Surely, it did not discourage Monteverdi from writing his Vespers of 1610 in this new style, and incidentally, he made some spectacular use of chant in that work, which seems to prove that these two systems are not inimical to one another. (I am not saying, however, that we should harmonize chant.)

While the Baroque did have a tendency to pigeon-hole the music, there were most definitely more than two pigeon holes, and in the time since then, many composers have left to posterity some remarkably subtle and heavenly music.

None of this is to say that tonal music is superior to or more expressive, even as regards the words, than modal music, nor am I trying to assert that there is no "obvious" music today. I shall refrain from listing examples.

I do think, ultimately, that, were I forced to choose, modal music would be preferable in the sacred repertoire, for there is at least one respect in which modal music (leaving aside the issues of meter and rhythm) could be considered superior to tonal music with respect to sacred use: Modal music has a kind of "weightlessness" which more enables us to fix our minds on heavenly things. While the modes do have pitch centers, they are hardly as powerful as the pitch centers in tonal music. Tonality has a kind of gravitational pull which often keeps it more "earthbound."

September 13, 2005 2:39 PM  
Arlene Oost-Zinner said...

I'd like to add an observation in response to Michael's last paragraph. He writes:

I do think, ultimately, that, were I forced to choose, modal music would be preferable in the sacred repertoire, for there is at least one respect in which modal music (leaving aside the issues of meter and rhythm) could be considered superior to tonal music with respect to sacred use: Modal music has a kind of "weightlessness" which more enables us to fix our minds on heavenly things. While the modes do have pitch centers, they are hardly as powerful as the pitch centers in tonal music. Tonality has a kind of gravitational pull which often keeps it more "earthbound."


The very thought that tonal music is more "earthbound" and may be less suited for liturgy than chant, as Michael puts it, is a point that is not lost on nonmusicians and nonbelievers. A friend and observer who admittedly doesn't understand music theory and is illaquainted with the sacred repertoire, had this to say about gregorian chant:

"It sounds unfinished. It sounds as if it is only part of something much larger, and that it is longing to join itself with the music of some other sphere."

Very telling.

September 14, 2005 6:02 AM  

<


CMAA Announcement List:
Email:
groups.google.com