While trudging through the discouragingly difficult syntax of Syriac poetry this morning, I began listening to the King's College Choir of Cambridge production of the Mass of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, one of my favorite recordings of Gregorian chant. While listening to this recording, I was reminded of all that I truly love about the pre-schism Western Rite. In a word, it is the aesthetic of the pre-schism Western Church that I love. The sweet melodies of Gregorian plainsong bring it all back to me. After listening to rather copious amounts of liturgical chant the past few days on Ancient Faith Radio, I think Gregorian plainsong is perhaps my favorite among styles of chant. Some (but certainly not all) Russian chant, while very beautiful, often becomes too ornate and artsy, given the influence of later Western music. While the Divine Liturgies of Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky are beautiful to listen to, in the words of iconographer Vladislov Andrejev, they are not "iconic" of the Orthodox tradition. Some Russian choral arrangements of Orthodox liturgical pieces are so complex as to be almost impossible for an average parish choir to sing, and even more impossible for the congregation to join in singing with (which is, of course, the purpose of having a parish choir: to lead the congregation). Byzantine chant, on the other hand, avoids much of the temptations of Russian music in that it is wholly different than any form of secular music. There is no four-part harmony or counterpoint to allow the composer or arranger to add his or her "artistic expression." Liturgical music is not "art," per se, but rather an icon of the worship and theology of the Church, and as such, it should be devoid of humanistic artistic expression. While Byzantine chant accomplishes this, to Western ears, it is often dissonant and even jarring. While some, like myself, eventually get used to the melodies of Byzantine chant and even grow to love them, most westerners remain culturally alienated from it. Gregorian plainsong, then is, in my opinion, a wonderful alternative for Westerners, having the iconic simplicity of Byzantine chant, yet with tonal melodies that are pleasing to the Western ear.
This aesthetic of the pre-schism Western tradition is broader than liturgical music, but extends throughout the visual and auricular liturgical expressions, be it the vestments, architecture, the the Liturgy and Daily Office, and even the Western iconographic tradition (before the Renaissance). It is this aesthetic expressing the Western Orthodox tradition that has nourished countless Western saints unto salvation, saints such as St. Benedict, St. Bede, St. Patrick, and others. It is because of these saints that we know that at least in their time, the Western liturgical tradition was Orthodox, divinely inspired, and profitable for salvation.
Whether it is in our own day, is a matter of serious debate among the Orthodox. Saints and sinners alike have added their voice to the debate, and only time will tell who is right. I often remind people that, at least in my opinion, the Orthodox Western right is still in a "beta" stage, if you will excuse the computer analogy. There is still much work to be done by our clergy to standardize and Western Rite. As all things regarding the Church, these decisions and actions are not made overnight, but take time as our bishops discern the Holy Spirit and "rightly divide the word of truth." It is in this state of development that the Orthodox Western Rite may leave some, including myself, with an uneasy feeling at certain points, points where the aesthetic described above is obscured. Of course, this is a subjective judgment, and not at all worthy of being a standard. Yet, when the magnificent Gregorian plainsong is substituted for Willin or Marbeck, and acapella voices are substituted for organs, my sense of the aesthetic that originally brought me to Orthodoxy is obscured. This is not merely a Western Rite phenomenon. As I explained above, some Russian liturgical music suffers from the same ill effects, and organs are not unknown in the Greek churches. Again, why are they bad, in my opinion? Because they are not iconic. We know the difference between a Byzantine icon and De Vinci's Last Supper. But, as even the history of the iconographic tradition demonstrates, that distinction is often obscured. Thankfully, God still works his grace in spite of it, and men and women are saved, but it is not ideal.
What is the conclusion of the matter? I simply wish to express a bit of sympathy with those who are critical of the Western Rite. I understand these criticisms, and believe that they are valid points to be made. However, I urge patience among those who are quick to dismiss the Western Rite as I truly believe from experience, that there is something truly worth reviving in the Western tradition, something iconic that accurately and beautifully reflects the glory of our God as does the Eastern tradition. Instead of opposing the saints and bishops who have worked to establish the Orthodox Western Rite, let us pray with them and for them, that the Western Rite may continue to mature and grow in accordance with the inspiration and grace of the Holy Spirit.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don’t think a lot of the criticisms of the Western Rite (which ought to be distinguished in some important ways from the liturgical practices of the West prior to 1054) have to do with its lack of beauty, but with its artificiality. I don’t believe one can be principally opposed to historical-critical “restorations” of the Liturgy and also for the active, artificial construction of a liturgical form by way of the same methods (though, perhaps, with less precision and a lot more synthesizing). It’s also difficult to take the Western Rite “movement” at face-value because a lot of the justifications for it are so flimsy. The absolute worst thing I can think of for the liturgical life of the Church is to “Protestantize” it by endorsing—on any level—the view that worship ought to be evangelical rather than eschatological. It’s fascinating to see a growing backlash amongst certain segments of the Evangelical base that worship has been turned into a 45-minute advertisement to hold an audience rather than an opening for full participation in the Body of Christ. Now, setting aside the fact that I wholeheartedly do not believe any form of worship outside of the Church can ever lead to that full participation, the fact that Evangelicals and other Protestants see a great lack in their liturgical form on the basis of constant reworkings for the wrong reasons ought to signal caution to Orthodox—well-meaning though they might be—who wish to do the same thing.
I am not blind to the objections to some of the points I have made above. Yes, the Western Rite does have a historic base even though, truthfully, what is now promoted as the Western Rite here is more of a hodgepodge than its proponents like to admit. And yes, the Western Rite may be able to be more than an “advertisement” to hold an audience for 45 minutes, but then again, the Church already has a liturgical form that does just that. As far as aesthetics go, I am leery to use that as a basis for much of anything in the Church’s practice except, of course, in ruling out practices and forms that are chaotic, confusing, or distracting. (Then again, ruling on that requires a differentiated line of analysis that may never touch on aesthetics.) Just because it “sounds nice” doesn’t mean we should do it.
Also, I am consistently puzzled by your assessment of Slavic liturgical music. Using the products of late nineteenth and early twentieth century professional composers as an example of why Russian music is too “difficult” doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me; it makes even less sense given that Rachmaninoff’s liturgical music was eschewed by the Russian Church. Also, as I have pointed out to you before, there is no concrete need for four-part harmony in Slavic music. It can be done without it, and, in fact, done well. There is a 600+ year history of Slavic liturgical music that is free of any “Western” invasions, and such music is becoming increasingly available and utilized today. Pointing out that “some” liturgical arrangements cannot be properly performed by “most” parish choirs doesn’t say anything unless of course there were “no” arrangements otherwise available. But there are. And as best as I can tell, they are being used frequently enough to the point where I can walk into most “Slavic-style” parishes in the U.S. and hear active congregational singing of the fixed parts of the service.
What do you mean that Byzantine music avoids the “temptations” of Russian music? If you mean the complexity, that’s odd given how difficult it is for most “Westerners” to properly engage in the Byzantine melodies. Yes, they may not lend themselves to the sort of “artistry” that Russian liturgical music did, though the common history of both bespeaks forms that were anything but secular or, for that matter, open to the kind of alterations that would come only in the most recent centuries. As for “cultural alienation,” that point also has limited purchase for the simple fact that everything new is “alien” to some degree. Byzantine melodies were just as alien to Slavic ears 1,000 years ago as they may be to our own (though probably less so given the great deal of heterogeneity and availability in the West). The Slavs took the Byzantine music and ran in their own direction, augmenting and expanding upon it over many, many centuries. Could we not do that here? Look at the work of Holy Transfiguration Monastery and their Menaion. There is a clear cut example of trying to open the Byzantine melodies up to Western ears and, more importantly, to fit our own language with them. While that is certainly not an alteration, it does lay the groundwork for a continued participation in what some might call the “core” liturgical music of Orthodoxy—a participation which may lead to the development of an authentic “Western Orthodox” expression rooted in the system furnished by the Church centuries ago.
I understand your affinity for Western Rite Orthodoxy. I’m not out to change your mind or convert Western Riters. At the same time, I am a little puzzled by your repeated attempts to hold up the Russian Church as an example of “bad” in relation to the Western Rite, especially when your assessment of the “bad” doesn’t even come close to covering the very broad, very rich, and very diverse traditions found within Russian Orthodoxy. No, I don’t believe you are trying to just shoot snot rockets at the Slavs or even be uncharitable. But I would encourage you to expand your vision a little bit, or, at least, past your experiences in one “Russian-style” parish and its musical form. I would be the first to agree with you that there are some real difficulties out there with liturgical music today and how the whole of a congregation (not just the choir) relates to them. I am certainly all for using “easy” melodies, “basic” arrangements, and actively involving the congregation. My point of dispute with you is that I sincerely believe all of this can be found within the Slavic Church tradition.
1,000 apologies for my longwindedness. And, as always, I ask you humbly to take my criticisms with the best possible construction. I’m not looking for a fight—just offering the “dissenting” opinion.
Gabriel, thanks for the comment. I was waiting for it. :)
Your point about the "artificial reconstruction" of the WR is valid and deserves more thought, especially in the case of the more Anglican style. I have a terrible time with the daily office used for it as it is a synthesis of various services of the daily office and not a complete office. (Although this was done by the Anglicans, not the Orthodox). I am not sure how "artificial" it is, though. Aside from the epiclesis and the pre-communion prayer of St. John Chrysostom, it is largely untouched.
I am not sure that "evangelical" and "eschatological" have to be mutually exclusive. I believe the WR liturgies to be just as eschatological as their ER counterparts. They are worshiping with this in mind, with their salvation and communion with Christ as the telos of the liturgy. They simply desire to do it in the Western tradition, which they believe to be a valid one. We are very familiar with the "evangelical" value of the ER liturgy from the history of St. Vladimir, etc., so it is certainly not wrong to say "come and see." Rather, I think this is the best way for the average lay person to engage in evangelism. I do not believe that the reason for having the WR is purely evangelical in nature, as I understand you to be indicating. The WR is not an "advertisement" so to speak, for Orthodoxy. I see it more as the Church (or at least the Antiochians and ROCOR) granting the desire for people to worship in their native tradition, which happens to be Western. If this allows more people to make the jump over to Orthodoxy where they would not have otherwise for "cultural reasons" then, thanks be to God.
Essentially, what I am hearing from you and others is: everything is as it should be, so we should not try to change it. If the WR died, it did so by the providence of the Holy Spirit, so we should not try to resurrect it.
Now, if this is an accurate assessment, then I would add that it is definitely a valid argument to make. While saints, bishops, and patriarchs have worked to resurrect the WR, it may in fact not be the will of God. I think only time will tell. I don't think the ER is "unusable" in a Western context. I love it, even prefer it (I can only go to a WR parish for a few Sundays before I begin to long to hear the ER again).
And yes, you are right - aesthetics alone are not a valid reason for the WR to exist. However, I believe the Western aesthetic to be conducive to that same eschatological aim that the ER has. Aesthetics to play an important role, East or West. When I see the WR aesthetic, I recognize that it leads to that same telos as the ER. Of course, that is my subjective opinion.
Regarding my comments of the Slavic tradition, I think you have misunderstood a bit by no fault of yours. Actually, I prefer the Slavic rite to any other. After hanging out with the Antiochians all summer, I can definitely say that it was good to get back to CTS. I like the Obikhod tones we do. I like most of our material for the Liturgy.
My comments about the "temptations" of Russian music are not meant to be extended over the entire 1100 years or so of the Russian tradition. Truthfully, my grasp of the history of that tradition is small, indeed, though I am learning. However, so much of what I generally hear, for example, when I turn on Ancient Faith Radio, or when I hear recordings of Russian choir - what is passed of as "Russian" liturgical music, I find to be too "artistic" and unsuitable for the parish. I want to hear more Znamenny chant, more Carpatho-Russian, and such. Again, I like what we do at CTS (heck, I direct it half the time).
At the end of the day, I mean not to poopoo any of the various ER traditions, but only to point out that they have "issues" which need to be addressed and are being addressed, and that, when I see the WR tradition done properly, I see the value of it, and believe it to be worth working to establish in Orthodoxy. It is not so much a logical argument for the WR or a thesis by which it ought to be established, but merely a subjective observation.
When I step back and observe the WR, I see something good, something divine, something Orthodox, though I believe it is a work in progress that is yet to reach full maturity.
Questions of "ought" and "validity" and such, I will leave to those better able to make those decisions.
Thanks again for the comment - I appreciate your point of view.
Post a Comment