James MacMillan on his Mass setting for the pope

Just yesterday I said to my grad liturgical music class that I thought I would email James MacMillan to ask what he now thought of the papal Masses in the UK, looking back from the distance of a month. MacMillian composed a Mass setting for congregation and choir which stimulated vigorous discussion. My class tracked the controversy and studied the Mass setting, so they looked forward to MacMillan’s response to my email. This morning, before I got my email sent out, an email from MacMillan arrived with a link to the article he just penned,  “How trendy ‘liturgists tried to stop my Mass being performed for the pope.”

This excerpt will give you a sense of MacMillan’s snappy writing:

There is a different “sound” to the new setting, which perhaps owes something to my love of chant, traditional hymnody and authentic folk music, and nothing at all to the St. Louis Jesuits and all the other dumbed-down, sentimental bubble-gum music which has been shoved down our throats for the last few decades in the Catholic Church.

awr

Other Voices

Please leave a reply.

Comments

30 responses to “James MacMillan on his Mass setting for the pope”

  1. Alan Hommerding

    I absolutely love his term “cod-Celticness” (from the soundtracks of Lord of the Rings and Braveheart) and fully intend to use it as much as possible! (Much better than the mixed linguistic metaphor of “faux Celtic” that I had been using.)
    I encountered this article yesterday, and hoped that PrayTell would share it. Thanks!

    Reply
  2. Philip Endean SJ

    I react against the tone of this article. OK: James MacMillan is a seriously good composer, a Catholic, and a Scot; and it was surely a nice idea to give the Pope something special, and the best we had. But what he came out with was not all that singable; and there was surely a lot to be said, precisely because we were talking about a special occasion, for having something which would have been reasonably familiar for congregational use. Had I been anywhere near a liturgy committee for the visit, I’d have been pretty hesitant about commissioning anything congregational–something choral, like MacM’s very successful TU ES PETRUS would have been another matter. I find MacMillan’s wholesale rubbishing of what has been produced in the last forty years (however bad many pieces may be) inappropriate, and unworthy of a serious artist. There are delicate balances to be struck between quality and accessibility. This sort of polemic all over the Torygraph (for now Damian Thompson is also, if rather predictably, blowing it up) does not help us.

    Reply
    1. Linda Reid

      “I find MacMillan’s wholesale rubbishing of what has been produced in the last forty years (however bad many pieces may be) inappropriate, and unworthy of a serious artist.”

      I am so glad someone said this! It was the 1st
      thing I thought when I read the article!
      It was just incredibly rude and offensive
      to the many other wonderful composers who offer their work to the people of God!

      Reply
    2. Leo Connor

      I wonder if you found Robert Blair Kaiser’s speech, archived here on Pray Tell, to be poor in tone as well?

      Reply
  3. C Henry Edwards

    ” . . . and all the other dumbed-down, sentimental bubble-gum music which has been shoved down our throats for the last few decades in the Catholic Church.”

    As the Scotch-Irish of my native Appalachia say, this is telling it like it is, with the bark off.

    Thus–ignoring the pre/Vatican II liturgical movement’s goal of getting rid of the four-hymn sandwich that had infested the old low Mass–we have continued to sing non-liturgical songs at Mass instead of sing the Mass itself.

    Reply
    1. Sean Whelan

      Yup, rude, crass and far from charitable. Perhaps Mr. MacMillan could learn the virtue of humility from some of our “bubble gum” composers.

      Reply
      1. Gregg Smith

        Absolutely. Well said.

  4. Christopher Douglas

    I, too, wondered if Mr. MacMillan’s remarks would be posted here, and I am glad to see that they are. His setting is indeed singable, and it requires a talented organist who can lead by his manner of playing and who understands the nexus, if that is the right word, of restraint and intensity, through subtle phrasing and forward motion. (A shrieking ‘cantor’ will ruin it.)

    Now, I hope that Fr. Rutler’s recent First Things piece on the new translation will be posted here as well. The community-is-everything crowd and the neo-antiquarians who post here would have a field day, and I would enjoy observing such an event.

    (Please spare me the uncharitable remarks about Mr. MacMillan’s alleged lack of charity.)

    Reply
  5. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
    Anthony Ruff, OSB

    Christopher Douglas,

    “Community” is less than everything for you, I gather. How much less? Is it nothing? Or, if it is something, how would you describe it? Just curious.

    awr

    Reply
    1. Christopher Douglas

      Fr. Anthony, you’re a riot. (compliment intended.) I love your dry, “I gather,” and “I susupect,” remarks.

      Thank you for asking about my beliefs on the importance of “community.” I do believe it vitally important, but not in the way that many (straw man, I know) spirit-of-VII, leftish types do.

      A friend of mine in a 12-step program says that they define “fellowship” as the state of having lived a common experience. (“God grant ME–not us–the serenity…”

      “Whom shall we send and who will go for us? Here am I, Lord, send me.” or “I believe in God,,,,” I like a community that is a bunch of I’s, not we, who share a common experience and mission. To be a part of that community I don’t have to sing the Sanctus or recite the responses or hear the Canon. And yet, I feel a stronger sense of community at my Sunday TLM, and the luncheon that follows, than I ever have at the Novus Ordo stuff I’ve been subject to and where I’ve been practically forced to do things out of some misguided sense of community.

      I want to get to heaven and take as many I’s with me as I can.

      And I want to sing with them, “Thou, O God, art praised in Sion,” not “Someone is saying nice things about you in heaven, God.”

      Reply
      1. Leo Connor

        I think “On Eagles Wings” is very difficult to sing.

  6. Jeffrey Herbert

    Yup, rude, crass and far from charitable. Perhaps Mr. MacMillan could learn the virtue of humility from some of our “bubble gum” composers.

    And exactly which composers would be examples of “humility”? I think his assesment is honest, to say the least, even if perhaps uncharitable. I wonder how charitable it is to allow mediocrity to pass for excellence.

    As Wagner once said to Meyerbeer… “I heard your latest opera and am considering setting it to music…”
    .

    Reply
    1. Sean Whelan

      I hold up Marty Haugen as one example. I have met him many times and been edified by his humbleness. He has said he only composes music, what becomes of it is up to the people. Even in the face of extreme vitriol and hatred spewed his way by “good” Catholics, he has the wisdom to say his salvation does not depend on what music he wrote. I would far rather support someone like Haugen – who does write solid music (I’m fairly certain his “Storrington Mass” will be the first new setting I’ll use) than someone who not only speaks ill of current composers, but goes so far as to single one out by name. If you want to offer concrete, constructive criticism, fine. But for so many people here to go on about all this mediocrity and what not… foolish.

      Reply
  7. Lynn Thomas

    “Dumbed-down, sentimental bubble-gum music” can be applied to a decent fraction of pre-VII stuff, too. Likewise “Obscure, pedantic, and too full of itself”.

    I, too, take exception to the tone of the article. Mr. MacMillan has his own stylistic preferences, but that doesn’t automatically mean that other styles are not valid. I wonder how hard it would be to find a sample of folks who simply cannot stand _his_ stuff, for example. Wholesale trashing of entire blocks of work as objectively terrible is really not likely to sway me to ‘your’ point of view.

    Reply
    1. John Drake

      Lynn, I’m not sure it’s a question of “validity”, but “worthiness”.

      Take a look and listen here

      http://www.kencanedo.com/Podcasts.html

      for a little dose of “liturgical” music which is clearly unworthy of Catholic worship.

      Reply
      1. Sean Whelan

        How did you determine it is unworthy?

      2. John Drake

        By listening to it.

  8. Dismas Bede

    I wonder how Benedict XVI feels (or would feel) knowing that he was a player in the “performance” of “my” (Mr. MacMillan’s) Mass. I’m betting that all along he thought he would be gathering with the faithful of Britain to share with/lead them in the celebration of the Church’s prayer. From wherever it comes, Mr. MacMillan deserves a double slice of the proverbial “humble pie,” since there isn’t, to my awareness, one for arrogance.

    Reply
  9. David Haas

    To those of you concerned about the tone and the digs at contemporary music composers in all of this… no worries. We are used to it.

    Off to chew some gum….

    Reply
    1. Gregg Smith

      Love it! David, please continue to do what you do and encourage others to do the same. I appreciate your efforts of the past years. Peace!

      Reply
    2. Christopher Douglas

      Mr. Hass, we Trads are used to digs too, although the invective hurled at us is usually much stronger. But you’re right: after a while it loses its sting.

      Reply
    3. Brad WIlson

      MacMillan is also a contemporary music composer.

      Reply
    4. Lynn Thomas

      The pink, bubble-holding sort?

      Reply
  10. Kevin Vogt

    I got a little bit of a thrill from James MacMillan’s peroration at the end the article, not because he was sticking it to composers of “bubble gum music” (music that is intentionally – or accidentally -naive or immature?), but because of the nerve it took to put something like that in print!

    I would never go down that road myself because I don’t think the music to which the piety of many people is attached was simply shoved down our throats. It has been a result of larger cultural movements involving popular music, the marginalization of “art” music, liturgical reform and societal revolution. I’ve been able to meet a couple of St. Louis Jesuits, and I’ve come to appreciate the contribution this music has made to the Church. I’m also much happier when I spend my time looking for good in people and any evidence of creativity in whatever music I encounter.

    On the other hand, I sure wouldn’t dismiss Dr. MacMillan’s critique just because of a little spit and vinegar. Does anyone think that MacMillan is simply expressing his preference for one “style” over another? Let’s get beneath the surface. “Bubble gum” means something here: music that is naive, or naive-sounding, unsophisticated, untempered, and yes, maybe even sentimental. Such music seems to aim at either the imitation of “folk” or the accessibility of “easy listening,” and hence, effortless consumption. Does this constitute a style? Hard to know, because we’re not really talking about music yet.

    Reply
  11. Lynn Thomas

    “Music is an art form whose medium is sound. Common elements of music are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture. The word derives from Greek μουσική (mousike), “(art) of the Muses.” – Wikipedia

    Not, perhaps a suitable source for an academic publication, but sufficient for this purpose. To answer your question, Kevin, yes, I do think Dr. MacMillan is simply expressing his preference for one style over another. The material in question does constitute a style [though clearly not one to your liking], since it does fulfill a plausible definition of ‘music’ and has a degree of coherence that allows it to be grouped together.

    There are many rooms in the Father’s house. Chances are really good that we won’t like the decorating in all of them. So what?

    Reply
  12. Kevin Vogt

    Thank you, Lynn, for posting the definition of music. This helps me to make my point when I say we’re not talking about music yet. We’re talking AROUND music. Give me an example of John Foley’s early music and a tune by Marty Haugen and I’ll be happy to demonstrate how they do not necessarily group together to form a coherent musical style. They may be of the same genre and serve a similar purpose, but the musical elements of style might be quite different. Now, no one has explicitly suggested that Foley’s or Haugen’s music is in the “bubble-gum” league, nor have I – and David Haas has only admitted to CHEWING gum. Nor would I know how to stylistically categorize MacMillan’s Newman Mass. But it is possible to make a critical analysis of any of this music, to learn what makes it tick, to assess where it may fall short, and to make a value judgement. Yes, a MUSICAL judgement which is supposedly in a synergistic relationship to the liturgical and pastoral judgement, but which no one in our Church appears willing or equipped to make, save for those willing to be charged with elitism. Don’t you think a professional composer and sometime professor of composition is capable of making a series of critical analyses and judgements of discrete pieces, regardless of style, lumping them into a group and slapping bubble gum all over them? MacMillan’s presentation of his judgement lacked tact, and didn’t do much to advance the ball in terms of objective critique of

    Reply
  13. Kevin Vogt

    contemporary Catholic worship music (and I include in this group MacMillan’s compositions and my own). The problem with music criticism (or lack there of) in the Church is that all judgements are framed in terms of stylistic analysis. As your response demonstrates, this is indefensible today. “Each piece of music stands on its own terms.” Fine, then let’s get at it and talk about all of those musical elements in the wikipedia definition. Those are the criteria that I apply to choosing music for my parish, and I’ll bet those are the criteria behind James M. snarky conclusion to his article. My point is that there is more involved than personal preference. Do you think you know mine? When I drive around in my car I listen to Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash. God, I love that country outlaw stuff. I wouldn’t do it in Church, but it certainly holds up to all my lofty musical criteria. I’ll bet Dr. McMillan wouldn’t dare call my faves “bubble gum” music.

    Reply
  14. Lynn Thomas

    Kevin,

    I will grant that he should be capable of such a series of critical analyses, but I’m not into slapping bubble gum or anything else all over them. The crucial word in your comment following that question is ‘objective’. I can’t get that word and the act – even rhetorical – of slapping bubble gum about, into the same conceptual space. Name-calling just doesn’t work for me. If he’d said “I think it’s bubble gum…”, that’s different.

    I don’t have any idea of your preference in music. Perhaps you’re right about James M’s using your criteria, or something similar, before writing his snarky conclusion. I don’t think you are, but it’s possible. Still, to me it reads like a stylistic preference.

    You refer to a musical judgment and describe it as being in relationship to the liturgical and pastoral judgment, but don’t take it any further. Would you please? The musical judgment part, I mean. This is an honest request, with no snark at all. What might make a particular work suitable or not for liturgical use? Here I think I have in mind only the tune, as it seems to me that words can be altered pretty easily and deserve separate treatment. Right now I would be disinclined to reject entire categories of music as utterly unsuitable for liturgy – even, for instance rap. I don’t think it would work in my parish, but that doesn’t mean none of it it would ever work anywhere, for any parish. If there’s a rule to universally qualify or…

    Reply
  15. Kevin Vogt

    “You take the high road, and I’ll take the low road,” and who’ll get to Scotland before whom?

    OK, you win. Things musical and aesthetic are not really that cut and dried for me either; I was mostly reacting to what I perceived to be a kind of relativism that seems unable to distinguish between the excellent and the sometimes mediocre. I also feel empathy for MacMillan in the less-than-ideal process of the commissioning of his Mass, at the same time realizing that the history of ecclesiastical restriction of artists has resulted in isolated instances of great sacred art as well as a galaxy of mediocrity. Perhaps it has always been this way. But I know this doesn’t really get to the heart of anything.

    The literary critic Stanley Fish has written that we needn’t worry too much about falling down the slippery slope into radical relativism. This is a position that we can only entertain, he says, but never occupy, because we all live in a temporal and spatial situation. There is a transcendent objective Reality, to be sure, but to have a point of view in our temporal and spatial reality is to believe momentarily that our point of view is objectively true. Those who share a point of view, Fish says, are part of an interpretive community who share a history and a set of experiences. (I have a hunch you’re resonating strongly with this, Lynn.)

    The point of dialogue and communication, then, is to expand the interpretive community,…

    Reply
  16. Kevin Vogt

    not only “entertaining” the validity of differing points of view, but finding a way to reframe history and to share experience so that consensus grows (rather than polarization!). Sure, appealing to the deposit of faith, tradition and obedience can save us a lot of time, but consensus must be renewed in every age.

    This new way of communicating (blogging) has many of the characteristics of e-mail, e.g. presumed familiarity, ease of transmitting incomplete or undisciplined thoughts. Time will tell whether or not this modality contributes to or hinders the growth of the interpretive community.

    Your honest request for more detail and texture regarding musical judgement is worthy of its own thread, I think. I’m going to see what I can do to make a serious contribution to that discussion.

    Thank you, Lynn, for calling me back to the high road. Let’s get to Scotland together. It would be great to meet Dr. MacMillan there and really find out what he’s about.

    Reply

Posted

in

by

Other Voices

Tags:

,

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading