I agree with you wholeheartedly on the issue of excellence in the church. In fact, I recently met with my pastor about this very topic. However, I do know of at least one Bible college whose standard is on par with that of your master-classmen. Although I have only a passing familiarity with the piano, I was privileged to witness several of my peers under the tutelage of the incomparable Dr. Ken Mays. He is truly a genius and he instilled in his students a love for the craft, and more importantly, a love for the creator of their talents.

Respectfully,
Matt
Graduate: The Master's College

Matt:

A couple of things.

First, my criticism is not, in this case, of individual students and teachers. I don’t deny that there are exceptional people. (That’s “in this case”: it’s true I don’t stint in my criticism of many blowhards of extremely limited skill who have set the low tone for sacred music within evangelicalism. I believe we can never do good works until we repent of bad works.)

I had a conversation a long time ago with Parkening and he was speaking of his time with Segovia. He volunteered the observation—while we were speaking casually of a “best guitarist in the world”—that there might be some kid in some out-of-the-way state who might be better. I thought it was an interesting comment. I think it’s fair. (And this was coming from the guy I thought was the best living guitarist in the world.)

I don’t mean to suggest that the best will only be found at Curtis or Juilliard or the Royal Academy of Music. But here you are talking about individuals. My post, as with the general conversation on the blog, is not lamenting the total absence of skilled individuals but a crippling, and decadent, attitude toward art, criticism and aesthetic judgment.

Clearly all Bible colleges and Christian universities are not as bad as some Bible colleges and Christian universities. But taken on the whole, taken as representative of the church culture we have, I still say that we have nothing close to a Curtis. Here you have an institution directed originally by giants like Leopold Stokowski and Josef Hofmann. To me that is staggering.

Take a look at some of the notable Curtis alumni: http://www.curtis.edu/html/20200.shtml.

The excellence we should be pursuing will not come from a few exceptional students and some gifted teachers. Curtis has put its money where its mouth is. It knows jewels from junk.

Second, I am sympathetic to your view, but I cannot escape the conclusion that exceptional students and gifted teachers cannot dig us out of this hole. As Eliot said, there is a social function in poetry. I firmly believe there is a social function in piety and worship. If the people you mention were twice as good as they are, they could still not deliver our church out of its fascination with pop slop.

That’s not to knock the exceptions: I have said before, I don’t think we could get out of this hole even if Bach, Milton and Eliot came back to teach us. It’s not a matter of having a remnant that loves beauty, goodness and truth; it’s necessary that we have a fellowship of saints that lives like those things matter.

Interesting masterclasses--been there, done that, and miss them terribly. This all reminds me of someone now gone who used to pointedly distinguish between musicians and instrumentalists or singers. :)

The Christian educational institutions with which I am familiar do not attempt to approach the depth of music study offered by the Curtis Institute–for most, if not all, that is neither their design nor intent. Actually, I am reminded of that repeatedly when I have the opportunity to accompany an oboist friend and Curtis alumnus. Of course, it is hard to be teaching reverence for that which is noble and permanent and beautiful when one places classical music on par with profane dramas and values showmanship and entertainment over musicianship.

Today over lunch the kids and I were studying one of Professor Greenberg’s lectures on the fundamentals of music, and he demonstrated at the piano several ways of conveying a particular idea, noting why certain ways of playing conveyed the idea beautifully while others failed miserably. With this still fresh on my mind, I was struck by what you said about not being able to properly speak about God at the piano if we have not learned to express ourselves at the piano–very challenging. (On a side note, I guess Professor Greenberg didn’t realize that music cannot convey AN idea at all–it’s all bound up in our subjective cultural feelings, don’cha know, or so argues SI’s blog today.)

I am just beginning to understand what you mean by your statement, "It’s not a matter of having a remnant that loves beauty, goodness and truth; it’s necessary that we have a fellowship of saints that lives like those things matter." My job now is teaching my children why these things matter, so help me God.

HS,

Oh, you mean this unintelligible drivel? http://sharperiron.org/2008/09/15/weary-of-the-worship-wars/

The good doctor sounds downright emergent with his humble "I know some music is better then others, but I don't trust my judgment" routine.

Excuse me passengers, we are 40,000 feet above the Pacific, and we have lost the starboard engine. The pilot knows that he ought to trim the controls and increase the thrust on the port engine, but he just doesn't trust himself anymore. He knows others have tried this, and it didn't come out pretty. Excuse me, you with the obvious uncorrectable vision impairment, could please come up to the cockpit and give us a hand?

And he teaches pastors!!! Imagine if Delta trained pilots with this sort of touchy-feely humility.

Homines libenter quod volunt credunt.

Indeed, stultorum infinitus est numerus.

How do you balance the drive to improve with the practicality of a worship service? For example, were a person to walk into a church and be put in the role of advising a music committee or help develop the worship team/program etc. what would/should they do? You walk into a situation where you have a group of musicians at your disposal with varying levels of ability. Do you draw a line along the lines of auditions and toss out (gently) those who aren't yet prepared? I suppose there might be a faint hope that there are those in the congregation who are better able to play but aren't inclined to come alongside the current regime. And then there are those you would probably like to attract...

I'm just wondering out loud about how I can influence or help steer back on track in my local situation. Presuming that we are training a generation down the road to be our betters, how do we handle the situation we find ourselves in in the mean time? I'm wondering if holding my nose is the best I can hope for.

Yah, this goes to my main point.

I sympathize with Matt: there really are some talented people, and individual talent has an essential place. It’s just that we require more.

And in the link already mentioned [comment #4] we have a screaming example of what the problem is. We do not have people competent in criticism; instead we have people doing jitney cultural anthropology.

As Walter Pater once said, “Man, that’s just crazy talk!”

We have a gazillion people paying lip service to “regional and generational diversity”. That is nothing but a smokescreen. I personally think it is also dishonest. Try turning in a bad paper and telling the professor all about generational diversity. See if you get an A.

It’s as though I were to try to whittle a violin bow out of a broom handle. A representative of the American Federation of Violin and Bow Makers tells me it’s a useless piece of rubbish and I wasted a perfectly good broomstick. So then I excuse it by calling it “…more after the French school of bowmaking”.

Sorry to repeat this, folks, but we cannot get better until we can define “good”.

I am simply saying that I am not in the place to make that decision for others to the point that I criticize their choices, call into question their spiritual integrity, or claim to know whether God accepts their worship.

And I am simply saying the people who have the courage to admit they are not in a place to decide for others should sit quietly and listen to those who are in a place to decide for all of us.

This is just philistinism posing as generosity.

I would add that most small churches would be better off just simply sticking with congregational hymn-singing, if they have nothing better to offer. This is what our church has done, with a few rare specials. The average church does not have much talent at all, no exceptions,and I believe this is the best solution for the present. Perhaps the next generation will be not only be able to define "good," but play and sing "good."

In the meantime, I will show my aspiring eight-year old pianist these videos and continue to encourage him to excel for God's glory. Thanks for the link.

Remonres:

That is a tough thing to do. And the lessons I learned in that attempt are part of what drives me to my present belief.

First of all, as much as I don’t like the idea, and as strenuously as I would argue against the idea, I am a gnat’s whisker away from making WLJ’s position the law of the land. [And I realize WLJ is not saying that.] I don’t—in principle—concede that only congregational singing, choral numbers and occasional special music belong in church, and I can’t concede the point because of the richness of the Christian liturgy. It contradicts the notion with a thousand counter-examples.

But.

Until we can arrive at a shared appreciation of what is good and what is acceptable, I’m driven to conclude that that should be our practical remedy. As Mom said, “Put the toys away until you learn how to play with them properly.”

Specifically, I would definitely institute some sort of audition. Church should be a place of worship, not a place for warm-up bands and wannabes who can’t get gigs elsewhere. If good music can be an aid to worship, then certainly bad music can be an obstacle.

Church is not a place for aspiring performers with proud parents.

Where one sets the level of competence, I think, depends in large part on the skill of the worship leader or minister of music (or whatever you call him). It seems to me that if you have a competent musician at the top, he can fit the talents to the requirements of the service. If all you have is a recorder choir, you’ll need a director who can put the sheet music on the stands. If you have skilled musicians here and marginal musicians there, it’s not likely you will find helpful scores in a publisher’s catalog.

You ask if one should gently nudge to one side those who are not yet ready. It seems to me that that is not an ideal way to train church musicians. There will come a point at which you must find something marginal performers can handle. This is the hard work we avoid. We don’t train, we don’t equip in the NT sense of the term; we just try to implement a commercially appealing sound.

But again, this gets back to the larger problem. There are church choirs who are capable, with skilled coaching, to perform even some of the choral works of Rachmaninoff. The obstacle is the audience. It will not tolerate it. It does not want the good that is within reach, it wants a show of the sort the church cannot produce.

That is why I insist that the way out is not just to improve the performer’s ability, it has to raise the expectations of the congregation as to what is fitting. And you need a congregation who can be led by someone who actually knows something.

I think there are subtle ways we could improve the situation. Take one example I’ve mentioned before: put the musicians out of sight! I facetiously tell people that the musicians should be put in a place where they can perform in their underwear. But try to hide the musicians in today’s churches and you’d better have your resumé back from Kinko's.

Again, the three most important words in aesthetics are: judgment, judgment, and judgment. I believe this is where it starts.

I facetiously tell people that the musicians should be put in a place where they can perform in their underwear.

Is your point anywhere near that of Dever and CHBC who tend to steer clear of the "special music" sort of Sunday bulletin entries?

I've puzzled over whether this crypto-musicianship can be pulled of in all situations given the characteristics of the acoustics belonging to particular instruments. The classical guitar is one such example. One could argue that the intimacy of such an instrument makes it a better parlor/salon performer than a concert hall/church auditorium performer.

There was this red bearded gentleman who played his violin in our church once in a great while (he didn't play often enough, or so I thought). I remember that his repertoire seemed deceptively simple, but his intonation and phrasing were better than I'd heard by any other church-performin' violinist. I had heard him play much more difficult pieces in non-church settings, but in church I got the impression that he believed simplicity to be the better part of piety.

Is there a need to demonstrate humility and simplicity to foster worshipful piety? If so, what do we make of the red priest?

So sorry for rambling.

I’ve never been to CHBC so I can’t really say.

Actually, it’s not just acoustics, sometimes it’s the shape of the hall. You must work with what you have, and no doubt there are obstacles. You can meet in a cathedral or you can meet in a storefront. But as onerous as some of those conditions are, I still think any way we can find to stop putting on shows is a step in the right direction.

I don’t think we can make that step.

Humility and simplicity are always virtues and are never out of place in the church, but it is mostly a question of the worshipers. Vivaldi ministered to people who knew what music was for; we do not. And it wasn’t just him. Listen to some of these snippets:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bach-Album/dp/B000001GD3/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1221704458&sr=1-1

We’ve been cut off from this with inverted snobbery and bumpkin piety.

I have visited CHBC once, and from what I understand they do not have special music because they wish to focus on corporate worship. They base this on the regulative principle of worship that Calvin and the Puritans emphasized.

I don't necessarily agree, although I respect their tradition. Our church has shied away from specials because we had the problem of anyone and everyone getting up to sing and everyone "amening" and thinking it was a blessing, no matter how awful it was, since it had obviously come from their heart. It has been so much better this way and only the best hymns are chosen, which has been beneficial to those that grew up on revival and gospel songs.

Is art music even necessary within a church? It sounds like CHBC is on the right track. A church choir (a good one, that is) can perform Mendelssohn's Elijah well - but is art music within the local church a should or an ought?

Well, so as not to infer too much from WLJ’s comment or from CHBC’s policy, I didn’t respond to yesterday’s comment. Maybe after today’s, I will.

I think there is an ambiguity here that needs some reflection. As I say, for the purpose of reform I can see a curtailing of what we’ve come to call “special music”. If that’s the price we have to pay, I’m willing to pull out my wallet.

Things are that bad.

But having said that, I do think we need to be careful about an unstated assumption here. I personally do not see “special music” as antithetical to “corporate worship”. In fact I think this is one of the problems: I suspect we don’t have a category in our minds for a corporate worship in a liturgy we don’t actively participate in.

This is part of my reason for my last comment to ex libris. We don’t have Gabrielli’s or Vivaldi’s or Bach’s audience; we tossed that out like a candy wrapper. Now we seem to be left with the working assumption that, say for instance, we are worshiping corporately when the assembly reads a biblical text but we are not worshiping corporately when an individual reader does.

It seems to me that the Song of Moses, the Magnificat or Psalm 140 lend themselves especially well to the sort of performance we now take as problematic.

I think art music does belong in the church in the same way art belonged in the Temple. I would despise the notion that what we do in the salon or concert hall rises to the heights of human expression and what happens in the chapel is a mundane activity that exists only for “audience participation”.

Again, I only make the distinction here. As a practical matter we have to stop the bleeding. No argument there. If we cannot find a way to make “special music” into “corporate worship”, the one thing we know is that we can’t afford the damage it is now doing.

Just a related thought - I think it is sometimes helpful to consider composers' intentions. There is sacred music composed for the concert hall and sacred music composed for the sanctuary. Usually, I find it helpful to respect those intentions, although not to be legalistic about it. (Bach knew this distinction well.) Therefore, Mendelssohn's Elijah, a large, grand oratorio written for the concert hall is best kept for the concert hall, in my opinion. Nevertheless, there is much art music that is written for the sanctuary and even some concert music that can be used/adapted for the sanctuary.

Moreover, as a classically trained tenor, I find little desire for my services in the local church, here in Southern California, when it comes to performing any music of an artistic nature. When I am asked to sing, I am usually asked to sing some big "Steve Green" number (entertaining). Rather, I try to keep it simple and give the most thoughtful performance of a hymn that I can, a la Dean Wilder. Thus far, that has worked best, though it is very limiting-20 years of voice coaching down the drain. It appears the church culture can't handle or rejects any more than that. Consequently, I'm left with no where to go but the concert hall.

Paul Salamunovich, the world renowned former director of the Los Angeles Master Chorale, once asked during a rehearsal, "Why do we have to pay $30 a ticket to hear good Christian music, when it should be free every Sunday?" As you can see, I have never forgotten that question. Music is culture. The questions then is, from which culture does our church music come from?

Well, exactly so. One begins by noting the purpose of the thing and using it accordingly. By not abusing it. As it stands we have several generations now firmly committed to a venerated bumpkin tradition. We have violinists who think they are Fritz Kreisler, pianists who think they are Anton Rubinstein, guitarists who think they are Eric Clapton….

Some church ladies think that our worship is aided by their inserting poorly-executed snippets from the Transcendental Etudes. It has come to be a very irritating joke.

For what it’s worth, your effort was not wasted any more than Isaiah’s preaching was wasted. Our hayseed popes will be held accountable.

Christian music will once again be free and regular once we repent and are converted.

"Now we seem to be left with the working assumption that, say for instance, we are worshiping corporately when the assembly reads a Biblical text but we are not worshiping corporately when an individual reader does."

This is an interesting thought, but I would like to distinguish just a little. I wonder, does not the hearing of the Word of God and the hearing of music affect us in different ways? The Word of God is God speaking to us through the text - the authoritative revelation of Himself; whereas, music is the expression of praise through voice or instrument. In other words, when we hear God's Word read, whether by an individual or by an assembly, we are still hearing God speak, but when we hear an individual sing or play they are giving utterance to the way the truth and beauty of God has affected them. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me to be two different things.

That doesn't mean you have to eliminate "special music." I agree with you, Dissidens, that it has its place in church(except that all churches are not able to do so). There is a way to participate in it as a listener: by acknowledging the truth and beauty of God as it is being expressed by the individual singer or player, because the truth and beauty of God has hopefully affected you also. However, when an assembly sings together, all our able to give utterance to the praise and joy in their hearts and unite through song.

Perhaps this is why churches like CHBC prefer the Puritan tradition. I guess I'm just trying to understand what the Puritans were thinking. I'm loathe to criticize men that I respect and admire so much, though I realize that they were excessive in some ways.

Well clearly there is a distinction to be made between Revelation, which has the imprimatur of the Holy Spirit, and the offerings of man, which are always open to criticism. But I’m not trying to equate the two, I’m just pointing out that both can be abused, and the distinguishing factors are not between what is done individually and what is done as a congregation. It is the human heart that corrupts both.

Emergents have shown us that.

The heart can abuse itself with Scripture as easily as it can with entertainment. It is not as though a choral or congregational number is sanctified in a way that “special music” isn’t. Yours is a distinction worth making, but I don’t believe it helps us over the first hurdle: worship as entertainment.