« Looking for Mercy | Main | Humanitas Forum Next Week »
April 01, 2008
Tavener not Taverner
Mr. Grano shared with me this link to a review of an overlooked John Tavener recording, which will, strangely enough, amuse.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 01:31 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e551a3a4fe8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tavener not Taverner:
Comments
It was strange enough. And it did amuse! But I think I'll see my "taverner" before I listen to Tavener (Hey Al! I need a tall one!)
Posted by: Bill R | Apr 1, 2008 1:58:11 PM
April Fool?
Posted by: Kathy Hanneman | Apr 1, 2008 3:16:43 PM
April Fool?
Posted by: Kathy Hanneman | Apr 1, 2008 3:17:03 PM
Hah!
Posted by: DGP | Apr 1, 2008 3:24:10 PM
It most certainly must be an "April Fool" posting!
"Untunable organ"?
Posted by: Jim Kushiner | Apr 1, 2008 4:22:46 PM
It is an April Fool's posting, though "Classics Today" is a serious (and worthwhile) online classical CD review site. I do wonder if "Bitten" insteasd of "Britten" was deliberate or the result of too hasty proofreading after use of a spell-checker.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Apr 1, 2008 4:40:26 PM
Do read the liner notes on the right of that page. :-)
Tina Turner and Charlotte Church are part of the choir.
Posted by: labrialumn | Apr 1, 2008 5:28:24 PM
Yes, each of the reviews on the right is of like nature. :-)
Posted by: labrialumn | Apr 1, 2008 5:49:35 PM
It's a pity that Tavener left the Orthodox Church a couple of years back--and now regularly disparages it--for some vague sort of monotheism. Even though Orthodox spirituality has attracted many composers, there are few that have completely conformed to Church tradition in their work. Arvo Part has written music for non-Orthodox groups, and Sofia Gubaidulina has made a number of troubling statements.
I once heard someone argue that Christianity was chosen by the Soviet avant-garde more as a way to rebel against the system than as a truth to dedicate oneself to utterly.
Posted by: Orthodox new music fan | Apr 1, 2008 7:12:09 PM
>>>I do wonder if "Bitten" insteasd of "Britten" was deliberate or the result of too hasty proofreading after use of a spell-checker.<<<
Since "Benjamin Bitten" is accompanied by "Henry Pucell" you can cease your wondering.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | Apr 1, 2008 7:47:19 PM
Orthodox New Music Fan, do you have a source for that?
Because according to this news story, from less than a year ago, Tavener *hasn't* left the Orthodox Church:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/arts/music/17whit.html
Oh, and Touchstone, *PLEASE* quit posting people's e-mail addresses. Don't we all get enough spam as it is?
Posted by: Kyralessa | Apr 1, 2008 8:23:41 PM
Didn't you think Minas Tirith was a dead giveaway?
AMDG, Janet
Posted by: Janet | Apr 1, 2008 8:26:35 PM
The NYT reported less than a year ago that rumors of Tavener's departure from Christianity were false.
Posted by: Matthias | Apr 1, 2008 10:17:28 PM
UK newspapers reported otherwise. In one interview with IIRC the Independent, the composer said that he no longer regularly attends services. That, doing settings from the Quran, and contemplating writing an opera based on the life of Krishna show that he has fallen away from the Church even if he still gives lip service to Orthodox spirituality.
Posted by: Orthodox new music fan | Apr 2, 2008 2:25:27 AM
>>>UK newspapers reported otherwise. In one interview with IIRC the Independent, the composer said that he no longer regularly attends services.<<<
Oh, gee! This puts him in the same basket as the vast majority of cradle Orthodox (think the churches of Greece, or even Astoria (Queens) are full every Sunday?). If you are willing say that all those people have departed the Orthodox faith, I'll grant your point.
>>>That, doing settings from the Quran, and contemplating writing an opera based on the life of Krishna show that he has fallen away from the Church even if he still gives lip service to Orthodox spirituality.<<<
So you are saying that an Orthodox composer can only write liturgical music, an Orthodox painter can only write icons, and as for Orthodox sculpters, Anathema sit?
You need a lesson in Byzantine music and art. There was a whole secular world living side-by-side with the world of the Church, and it produced its own secular masterpieces (in a direct continuation of the classical pagan tradition). Those same artists also devoted their talents to the Church, were devoted to the Orthodox faith. Would you consider a Byzantine artist who wrote an ode based on the Illiad, or a mosacist who laid a floor with a scene from the Odyssey to have departed the Orthodox faith?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 2, 2008 4:59:50 AM
Mr. Koehl asks, "So you are saying that an Orthodox composer can only write liturgical music, an Orthodox painter can only write icons, and as for Orthodox sculpters, Anathema sit?"
No, secular art has long coexisted with Orthodox art, and once Christianity had vanquished paganism it could appropriate its symbols for cultural use. However, art glorifying present traditions which are currently standing against Orthodoxy, like Islam or the worship of Krishna, is un-Christian. Tradition tells us we are engaged in a constant spiritual war against false religions, and there's no exemption for artistic reasons. Do you think it is Christian to write hymns to the false gods of your enemy?
Posted by: Orthodox new music fan | Apr 2, 2008 7:10:31 AM
And Mr. Koehl, people in Orthodox countries (and, to a lesser extent, their diasporas) are considered Orthodox even without church attendence because Orthodox rulers may decide the affiliation of their subjects and because their family has an Orthodoxy heritage that they are obligated to preserve. With this composer, on the other hand, he converted, eventually saw he didn't like it (and has condemned people who are obedient to the Church as "too strict") and left. It's hard to see how in this case a person could still be called Orthodox when there's nothing holding him in the Church.
Posted by: Orthodox new music fan | Apr 2, 2008 7:14:03 AM
And finally (and I ask that the moderator concatenate my three comments into one), there is a tradition inside Orthodoxy that, although secular art exists, hymn-writers and iconographers should concentrate only on religious art. The icon-painting monks in the Orthodoxy country in which I reside, for example, are completely forbidden from possessing secular art. Now, when composers are writing art music instead of specifically liturgical material, as the Soviet avant-garde and Tavener, Orthodox references alternate with abstract music. However, the ideal is certainly to dedicate oneself entirely to Church output.
Posted by: Orthodox new music fan | Apr 2, 2008 7:18:12 AM
>>>Tradition tells us we are engaged in a constant spiritual war against false religions, and there's no exemption for artistic reasons.<<<
Then, of course, you condemn the great artists of the Orthodox past, for contrary to your assertion, it was quite a long time indeed before paganism became a quaint custom of the past, yet Byzantine Christian artists did not shy away from it. But there has always been a tension in Eastern Christianity between Athens and Jerusalem, one which was very much alive in the time of Basil the Great, hence his letter, "Advice to Young Men", which had to lay out explicit reasons why it was proper for young Christian men to study rhetoric, the classics and Greek philsophy. Obviously, there were many who agreed with the Western Father Tertullian that Athens hath nothing to do with Jerusalem, and good, right-minded Christians only focused on Christian writing, Christian art, and Christian music--as if nothing of value came into the world prior to the incarnation (in which case, why venerate the Prophets and the Fathers of the Old Testament? Are we treading into the mire of Marcionism here?). In the end, Orthodoxy decided to prize equally the humanism of a Photios the Great and the monastic rigor of an Ignatios Neos. Holding opposites in tension is the classic hallmark of the Orthodox mind.
>>>And Mr. Koehl, people in Orthodox countries (and, to a lesser extent, their diasporas) are considered Orthodox even without church attendence because Orthodox rulers may decide the affiliation of their subjects and because their family has an Orthodoxy heritage that they are obligated to preserve.<<<
I've never been a big fan of "cultiural" Christianity, whether Western or Eastern. Orthodox is as Orthodox does, and I have seen and heard things from cradle Orthodox that have led me to question whether they had even the slightest idea of what Orthodoxy really is, other than neat ethnic food and clerics in fancy dress. Orthodoxy as a form of ethnic identity can lead to all sorts of abominations, of which no better example can be found that Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens proclaiming that "Orthodoxy is Hellenism!", which of course, would have staggered and appalled the Cappodocian Fathers.
>>>With this composer, on the other hand, he converted, eventually saw he didn't like it (and has condemned people who are obedient to the Church as "too strict") and left. It's hard to see how in this case a person could still be called Orthodox when there's nothing holding him in the Church.<<<
Again, the Church teaches us about the dangers of trying to look into the souls of others. As Tavener has made no official renunciation of his Orthodox faith, it is presumptuous of you to declare him outside the pale--you do not have that competence.
>>>With this composer, on the other hand, he converted, eventually saw he didn't like it (and has condemned people who are obedient to the Church as "too strict") and left.<<<
Again, it is not clear that his has "left"--that is your spin on the situation. Regarding the condemnation of people who are obedient to the Church as "too strict", I would have to have specifics. I've heard the most arrant nonsense come from the mouths of people who claim to speak "for the Church" (usually their name is prefaced by the titles "Reader" or "Monk") that have nothing to do with the Tradition, and everything to do with they own idiosyncratic slant on what it means to be Orthodox, which again would probably appall the Fathers. Apply that same standard, and I suppose you would end up stating that a great many of Orthodoxy's current leaders and theologians are likewise "outside".
>>>And finally (and I ask that the moderator concatenate my three comments into one), there is a tradition inside Orthodoxy that, although secular art exists, hymn-writers and iconographers should concentrate only on religious art. <<<
A tradition rather recent in its development, and generally honored more in the breach. Of course, throughout history the majority of iconographers and musicians working in the Orthodox Tradition have been monks. But this has not been the case for the last couple of centuries, at least. I suppose, then, that we would have to discard the music of Bortniansky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Kedrov, Tchaikovskiy and a host of others (note that I left off Rachmaninov) who worked in the Tradition, wrote some of the greatest liturgical music ever sung in an Orthodox Church, and yet had plenty of time left over for secular works.
Bortniansky's popular hymn, "Kol Slaven", beloved of Slavic Orthodox Christians everywhere (and at one time the de facto national anthem of Russia) was actually written as a Masonic hymn, later adopted with Christian lyrics. Make of that what you will.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 2, 2008 8:12:19 AM
>>what Orthodoxy really is, other than neat ethnic food and clerics in fancy dress
Hey! Don't knock ethnic food and fancy dresses! People have converted for less.
Posted by: DGP | Apr 2, 2008 8:58:02 AM
>>>Hey! Don't knock ethnic food and fancy dresses! People have converted for less.<<<
To quote George from Seinfeld (in an episode I have never seen): "It's the hats! I love those hats!"
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 2, 2008 9:15:19 AM
>>>To quote George from Seinfeld (in an episode I have never seen): "It's the hats! I love those hats!"<<<
That is a great episode, but it wasn't really the hats that induced George to explore Orthodoxy. He had a much more important and serious consideration. . . . He was trying to impress a chick.
Posted by: GL | Apr 2, 2008 10:26:58 AM
Mr. Koehl, here is one statement by Tavener that shows that whatever his beliefs are now, they cannot be understood as Christian:
"For instance, I'm writing a huge 'Lament for Jerusalem' that uses Islamic, Christian, and Jewish texts. I do feel that music cannot be exclusive, neither can religion be exclusive anymore."
I am no Old Calendar schismatic holed up in the mountains. I have worshipped in mainstream Orthodox churches in three continents, both in Orthodox countries and in newly missionized lands, and I have always heard statements like Tavener's here condemned as the vilest of heresies.
Posted by: Orthodox new music fan | Apr 2, 2008 1:33:39 PM
>>>"For instance, I'm writing a huge 'Lament for Jerusalem' that uses Islamic, Christian, and Jewish texts. I do feel that music cannot be exclusive, neither can religion be exclusive anymore."<<<
I read the entire interview, and frankly, I don't see what you see. I do think you are guilty of cherry-picking.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 2, 2008 2:25:13 PM
>>>That is a great episode, but it wasn't really the hats that induced George to explore Orthodoxy. He had a much more important and serious consideration. . . . He was trying to impress a chick.<<<
I confess that impressing chicks is the best of all reasons to get religion. My problem, however, is I have never actually seen an episode of Seinfeld. I grew up with people just like that back in Brooklyn, and frankly, I did not like spending time with them in person, so why spend time with them on television?
Now, if you want a great spoof of an Orthodox wedding, look at Latka and Simka's wedding from Taxi.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 2, 2008 2:27:53 PM
here is one statement by Tavener that shows that whatever his beliefs are now, they cannot be understood as Christian:...
Do you suppose any Orthodox bishop would, upon reading an interview like this by someone under his authority, excommunicate the offender without trial? I don't. I can, just, imagine Mr. Tavener's priest or bishop calling him up and saying, "maybe we should have a chat some time."
I'm happy that God in His wisdom has not seen fit to make Orthodox Music Fan a bishop.
Posted by: Matthias | Apr 2, 2008 2:49:32 PM
"I can, just, imagine Mr. Tavener's priest or bishop calling him up and saying, "maybe we should have a chat some time."
However, his spiritual mother did try to warn him away from his interest in other religions. It is the falling out with her that led to the disparaging remarks he began to make to the UK press about Orthodoxy.
Posted by: Orthodox new music fan | Apr 2, 2008 3:18:50 PM
>>>However, his spiritual mother did try to warn him away from his interest in other religions. <<<
I wonder if she would say the same to St. John of Damascus?
>>>It is the falling out with her that led to the disparaging remarks he began to make to the UK press about Orthodoxy.<<<
Perhaps you should give us an example of a disparaging remark. And don't choose this one from the interview you linked above:
"The fact that I converted through the Russian arm is not really important. I think that's a fault of Orthodoxy--they get terribly tied up with their own branch. If they can't even embrace their brothers, how on earth will they embrace other religions? I think that's a modern fault of Orthodoxy."
Because that one is true in spades.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 2, 2008 3:42:00 PM
> I wonder if she would say the same to St. John of Damascus?
St. John of Damascus' goal was to understand his Muslim neighbours in order to convince them of the error of their ways and adopt Christianity. John Tavener's goal is to ensure an "I'm okay, you're okay" religious tolerance.
Here's some more troubling Tavener statements.
From a 2004 interview: "I like going to church less and less. It strikes me now that all religions are as senile as one another. But I do pray within my heart all the time."
Can you honestly say that not liking to go to Church and considering Christianity not the Truth but as "senile" is a valid expression of Orthodoxy?
Then there's the programme notes that Tavener wrote for his blasphemous Koran setting: "The pow-wow drum of the American Indians represents Shiva’s dream, as the Tibetan Temple Bowls, Gongs and Tam Tam represent the Divine Breath, which connects the Sigh of Sadness and Compassion of the Primordial Being"
It's clear that Tavener relates to Orthodoxy in about the same way that the proprieters of Bridge Building Icons did, as exotic Eastern spirituality that he continues to dip into the complement his interest in other religions.
Posted by: Orthodox new music fan | Apr 2, 2008 3:55:00 PM
>>>"I like going to church less and less. It strikes me now that all religions are as senile as one another. But I do pray within my heart all the time."<<<
Would it surprise you to learn that Alexander Schmemann, in his journals, said much the same thing? But wait! Didn't he also disparage Orthodoxy by calling it "the right Church with the wrong people"? As for myself, there have been extended periods when going to Church was an extremely painful, unpleasant experience for me, precisely because of the attitudes of the clergy and hierarchs of my Church, and the damage they inflicted upon it.
>>>Can you honestly say that not liking to go to Church and considering Christianity not the Truth but as "senile" is a valid expression of Orthodoxy?<<<
I've been in some parishes where senile would be the most charitable thing you can say. And again, I call your attention to Alexander Schmemann, and particularly his "Introduction to Liturgical Theology" and "For the Life of the World", in which he says much the same thing. There are too many traditionalists within Orthodoxy, who mistake immobilism for Tradition.
>>>Then there's the programme notes that Tavener wrote for his blasphemous Koran setting: "The pow-wow drum of the American Indians represents Shiva’s dream, as the Tibetan Temple Bowls, Gongs and Tam Tam represent the Divine Breath, which connects the Sigh of Sadness and Compassion of the Primordial Being"<<<
You're not only excessively literal, you're also a narrow-minded prig. Orthodoxy teaches that the Church possesses the fullness of truth, but also that, to the extent other faiths and philosophies also possess elements of truth, they do so as a reflection of the fullness of truth that is within the Church. Thus, the Church has never limited itself to works that originated within the Church for inspiration: the very theology of the Orthodox Church is permeated with the concepts and vocabulary of pagan Greek philosophy; the icons of the Orthodox Church derive from the encaustic portraiture of the Egyptian pagans; the music of the Orthodox Church traces its origins to the pagan court music of the Roman Emperors, to the religious music of the pagan temples (and of course, to the Jewish synagogue). Wherever there is truth, it is a reflection of God's grace, and therefore fair game for the Christian to appropriate and baptize for the glory of God.
>>.It's clear that Tavener relates to Orthodoxy in about the same way that the proprieters of Bridge Building Icons did, as exotic Eastern spirituality that he continues to dip into the complement his interest in other religions.<<<
Was, then, John of Damascus to be condemned for his interest in Islam? Just wondering.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 2, 2008 5:58:40 PM
Since fools rush in where angels fear to tread, I (as a non-Orthodox Christian) will rashly trespass in the current debate. (I wrote this at about 3:00 pm before the subsequent comments appeared, but only had time to post it now. I don't think the terms of the debate have substantially changed to a degree thatrequires any major amendment.)
The following article seems to have the most detailed handle on Tavener’s current religious convictions:
http://music.guardian.co.uk/classical/story/0,,2100151,00.html
In brief, he has not formally abandoned Orthodoxy, but he seems to have a rather unfortunate syncretistic understanding of what is compatible with the practice of the Christian faith, and the types of influences or elements from non-Christian religions he can or cannot incorporate into that, which goes beyond purely aesthetic components.
It seems to me that Stuart and “ONMF” are talking past one another. E.g., it is true as ONMF says that there is “a tradition inside Orthodoxy that, although secular art exists, hymn-writers and iconographers should concentrate only on religious art” and that “the ideal is certainly to dedicate oneself entirely to Church output.” However, Tavener is not an Orthodox hymn-writer by vocation; he is instead a composer of music who is Orthodox by formal profession and happens to compose (among other works) pieces with Orthodox religious texts. As such, he is not restricted in the way that a hymn-writer is.
ONMF thus also confuses “ideal,” in the sense of a particular vocation more highly valued than others, with “ideal” in the sense of a goal which every believer should strive to attain. I.e., the monastic life of dedication to constant prayer is an ideal in the former sense; but all are not called to it in the latter sense, since if everyone ceased secular labor (e.g. farming, weaving, carpentry, etc.) all would soon perish due to lack of food, clothing, and shelter.
Thus, Stuart is quite correct regarding the value of the secular arts, and their commendation by the patristic fathers. But where he in turn talks past ONMF is in dismissing rather than addressing the latter’s concerns about the influences that Tavener is incorporating into his music. A composer who professes to be an Orthodox (or orthodox) Christian is clearly acting contrary to his faith in composing works utilizing Muslim names for the Triune God, and/or Hindu terms to address the Theotokos. This is not at all the same thing as what the patristic fathers were commending as a “spoiling of the Egyptians” in studying secular arts. The object of such study is to sanctify the secular, not to secularize the sacred. Christians must actively avoid those aspects of the secular, or of false religions, that are clearly incompatible with the Christian faith.
Similarly, Stuart is right not to take stock in “cultural Christianity” by e.g. ethnic identification (which in the American melting pot assumes the form of a paper-thin veneer of generic “evangelical” Protestantism.) But that same criteria applies equally well to personal professions of faith. While one cannot and should not presume to judge the ultimate fate of Tavener’s soul, one should not be very impressed with his profession of Orthodoxy when that is coupled with statements of belief contrary to very basic Christian principles -- statements that in some instances would appear to go considerably beyond the idiosyncratic and arbitrary standards of any particular parish “reader.”
Back to your food fight! :-)
Posted by: James A. Altena | Apr 2, 2008 8:12:14 PM
>>ONMF thus also confuses “ideal,” in the sense of a particular vocation more highly valued than others, with “ideal” in the sense of a goal which every believer should strive to attain. I.e., the monastic life of dedication to constant prayer is an ideal in the former sense; but all are not called to it in the latter sense, since if everyone ceased secular labor (e.g. farming, weaving, carpentry, etc.) all would soon perish due to lack of food, clothing, and shelter.
I don't really have a dog in this fight. (Or is it "a dog in this race?" I can't remember.) However, my limited reading of Greek Christianity suggests to me that the above argument sounds distinctly Latin.
Posted by: DGP | Apr 2, 2008 8:34:49 PM
Mr. New Music Fan,
Apart from the question of which viewpoint on John Tavener's current religious convictions is correct--and there seems to be reasonable doubt on either side--what are you so worked up about that you keep going on about this? Let Mr. Tavener look to his soul, and you look to yours. God will judge; don't put yourself in God's place. If you have concerns for Mr. Tavener's soul, it might be more effective to write him a letter than to publicly gossip about him.
Posted by: Kyralessa | Apr 2, 2008 10:16:52 PM
Kyralessa, my original point was merely that it is a real shame that the composers who are most widely known for using Orthodox spirituality in their works are yet not truly representative of the Church.
Noting the heresies in Tavener's work is not "publicly gossiping about him." It is warning people away from a music that might initially appealing, but which is ultimately dangerous, because it distorts the Christian faith. To use Bridge Building Icons example again, back in 2005 I met a couple of people who thought that Orthodoxy was cool with other religions' gods and prayers because of Robert Lenz's distortions. From Tavener's work, people are getting the very wrong impression that the Orthodox Church is okay with reading the Qu'ran for spiritual benefit and using Krishna as a moral exemplar instead of Christ alone.
Mr. Koehl may pride himself on his considerable book learning of Orthodox history, but his vision of how Orthodoxy coexists with other religions has been denounced by nearly every priest I've heard deliver a sermon.
Posted by: Orthodox new music fan | Apr 3, 2008 12:33:49 AM
Fr. DGP,
My point which you question is simply one of logic -- it is not particularly "Latin."
And one of the early monastic fathers (I forget which one) aptly observed that the sing of the true monastic is calloused hands -- a life spent in labor for others, rather than using devotion to prayer as an excuse to shirk labor. That too relates to the distinction between the two senses of "ideal."
Posted by: James A. Altena | Apr 3, 2008 4:46:44 AM
>>My point which you question is simply one of logic -- it is not particularly "Latin."
The Greeks should speak for themselves, but I have reason to believe the presumption that there are different ideals for each vocation represents more of a Latin approach, beginning with Gregory the Great and developing over the centuries. (To pick up an argument from another thread, it is this presumption which played a role in the 6th-century Latin transition from the ordination of married, continent men to unmarried celibates.) The Greeks seem to be more comfortable with the notion of a universal ideal of which everyone falls short.
Of course, you can find strains of both perspectives in both theological languages -- the Latins sometimes emphasizing the universal ideal (the higher-value ideal you described) and Greeks sometimes calling attention to the practicality of secular life. Nonetheless, one may still discern differences in their approach.
>>And one of the early monastic fathers (I forget which one) aptly observed that the sing of the true monastic is calloused hands -- a life spent in labor for others, rather than using devotion to prayer as an excuse to shirk labor. That too relates to the distinction between the two senses of "ideal."
That's good advice also in Latin: "Ora et labora." But it doesn't help to discount ONMF's dissatisfaction with Tavener, as ONMF remains free to argue that Tavener's dabbling in worldly music falls short of the ideal ONMF has set out for him.
Posted by: DGP | Apr 3, 2008 5:35:45 AM
OMF wrote: "my original point was merely that it is a real shame that the composers who are most widely known for using Orthodox spirituality in their works are yet not truly representative of the Church."
Contrast that with your first statement on the subject: "It's a pity that Tavener left the Orthodox Church a couple of years back." (emphasis mine)
You simply stated as a fact that Tavener LEFT the church. He didn't.
If you had really just stated that his works aren't truly representative of the church, you'd probably get little argument here - certainly none for me. I agree that JT is a poor spokesman for the church. But that is quite a different judgment from pronouncing excommunication on him.
Posted by: Matthias | Apr 3, 2008 9:15:33 AM
>>>St. John of Damascus' goal was to understand his Muslim neighbours in order to convince them of the error of their ways and adopt Christianity. John Tavener's goal is to ensure an "I'm okay, you're okay" religious tolerance.<<<
Saint John also advocated peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Christians. He did not actively proselytize them.
>>>Kyralessa, my original point was merely that it is a real shame that the composers who are most widely known for using Orthodox spirituality in their works are yet not truly representative of the Church.<<<
Well, as I said, if that's your criterion, it's not just Tavener with whom you have a problem but almost every Russian and Greek composer of liturgical music since the 18th century.
>>>Mr. Koehl may pride himself on his considerable book learning of Orthodox history, but his vision of how Orthodoxy coexists with other religions has been denounced by nearly every priest I've heard deliver a sermon.<<<
I'll have to mention that to Kyr Kallistos next time I see him. I think my other Orthodox spiritual father, Vladyka Vsevolod of Blessed Memory will also be surprised to hear this. Both of them worked from the assumption that while we know where the Church is, we cannot say with certainty where it is not.
And, as Matthias points out:
>>>If you had really just stated that his works aren't truly representative of the church, you'd probably get little argument here - certainly none for me. I agree that JT is a poor spokesman for the church. But that is quite a different judgment from pronouncing excommunication on him.<<<
Indeed, I would agree with that statement. Because, in effect, I think that almost all Orthodox liturgical music composed in the last two centuries is not truly representative of the Church, whose leading composers should be "Trad." and "Anon." Each particular Orthodox Church has its own organic chant tradition, chants which were not, for the most part composed, which were not elaborately polyphonic, and which were intended to be sung congregationally and not by a trained choir. For that reason, much as I love the various Russian composers who produced such beautiful settings of the Liturgy from the 18th through the 20th centuries, I really don't think it proper that they be used liturgically because they are (many of them) operatic and secular in nature and cannot be sung by untrained voices. On that basis, I would not want Tavener's setting of the Divine Liturgy sung in church, any more than I would want Rachmaninoff's. Neither is truly suitable, and not because of the syncretistic influences on their compositions, but because their compositions run contrary to the true liturgical consciousness of the Church.
Apparently, much of the Orthodox Church agrees with me, since there has been a resurgence of interest in plainchant and congregational singing, particularly in the United States, Canada, Australia and the UK. The pan-Orthodox group "Chant", for instance, has traveling workshops for cantors who move around the country teaching parishes how to sing. The same phenomenon seems to be happening in Russia, where the rapprochement with the Old Ritualists has led to rediscovery of the various chant styles of the pre-Nikonian Russian Church, preserved by the Old Ritualists as if in a seed bank.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 3, 2008 10:13:14 AM
Fr. DGP,
I am not concerned with whether an approach is Greek or Latin, only with whether or not it is true, since truth is universal and not bound by language or culture.
And as for "ONMF's dissatisfaction with Tavener," I addressed and defended one aspect of it, and did not discount it.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Apr 3, 2008 5:44:07 PM
Stuart,
I will be so bold as to question your assertion that the compositions of e.g. Rachmaninov "run contrary to the true liturgical consciousness of the Church" simply "because they are (many of them) operatic and secular in nature and cannot be sung by untrained voices." That is simply a non sequitur. By that sort of reasoning, one should similarly only have ikons and church furnishings that can be painted, woven, carved, and hammered out by any ordinary member of the congregation. Vocations and diversities of gifts include the offering to the church of excellence as well as the ordinary. That goes as much for musical composition and singing as for writing ikons, or the painting, weaving, carving and forging of church furnishings, utensils, and vestments.
The revival of ancient Orthodox chant is a welcome development (as is its parallels in Western Gregorian chant). But there is no reason why liturgical music can and should not develop in ways complex as well as simple. There is no reason that the choice of musical genres can not be "both/and" rather than "either/or." An argument that liturgical music must be limited to that which all parishioners can sing is an argument against having any music at at, since some people are tone deaf.
The truly correct reason for rejecting the use of certain religious compositions from the liturgy is not whether they can be perfomred by amateurs or professionals, but rather whether they can properly, proportionately, serve the end of increasing devotional participation. Thus, e.g., as magnificent as Beethoven's "Missa solemnis" or Verdi's "Requiem" are, they are manifestly unsuitable for use in the Western liturgy because their scale simply overwhelms the liturgy itself. Rather, one should listen to them by themselves as a different type of devotional act. by contrast, the masses of composers ranging from de Machaut to Mozart do not have this problem, even though these do require professional singers to offer them in the liturgy. Whether e.g. the "All Night Vigil" of Rachmaninov falls into the former or latter category should be decided on this basis, not on the basis of whether it can be sung by amateurs or professionals.
As my pastor Fr. Ousley once pointed out (about 20 years ago) in a lengthy and typically cogent letter to the AGO (American Guild of Organists) magazine, the idea that the value or propriety of an element in the liturgy should be judged by the ability of the average parishioner to engage overtly in the particular activity is a peculiar conceit of modern liturgists that embraces an extremely shallow and secular notion of "participation," one that inevitably reduces to the lowest common denominators of mediocrity and envy.
Thus, even though I myself do not have sufficient vocal training to e.g. sing a mass setting by Obrecht (and some tone-deaf parishioners can't even sing the simplest hymn tune), my attentive following of the Obrecht mass setting as it is being sung by a professional choir in the liturgy is a contemplative devotional act, as truly a participatory and reverent act of worship as the actual singing by the choristers. Similarly, though I as a layman cannot consecrate the gifts of bread and wine to be the Body and Blood of Christ, my attentive and prayerful silent recitation of the prayers offered by the priest at the altar is again a truly participatory and consecratory act of worship and devotion in its own right, and as necessary in its own way to the Liturgy as the prayes and actions of the priest.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Apr 3, 2008 6:22:22 PM
>>>I will be so bold as to question your assertion that the compositions of e.g. Rachmaninov "run contrary to the true liturgical consciousness of the Church" simply "because they are (many of them) operatic and secular in nature and cannot be sung by untrained voices." That is simply a non sequitur. <<<
No, James, it is not. Leitourgia is literally the work of the people, who through their voices offer the sacrifice of praise to the Holy Trinity. The music of the early Church, East and West, was monadic chant consisting of short, easily memorized measures or modes. All ancient Church music works with the cycle of eight tones or modes, and all of it was sung congregationally. The introduction of polyphony in the Middle Ages in the West and in the 16th and 17th centuries in the East roused considerable opposition (as did the introduction of mechanical instruments in the West in the 14th century).
The comparison with icons is not apt. Not all are called to the vocation of iconography; all are called to raise their voices in song.
As to why music such as Beethoven's Missa Solemnis or Verdi's Requiem (or, for that matter, Mozart's Requiem, or any of his other Masses, or any Mass by any of the great composers) is unsuitable for liturgy, you miss the point. It is not the scale that overwhelms, but the complexity and the fact that the music being played and sung has no integral liturgical role--it's just "chrome".
You see, under the rubrics of the Missae Pius V, the people (who include the chorus and the orchestra) have no liturgical role at all. What they do, what they say, what they sing has no bearing on the action at the altar, which is relegated entirely to the priest celebrant. That is why these Mass suites have propers totally unrelated to the actual liturgical calendar--because it doesn't matter.
The liturgy of the Church was meant to be sung, and sung congregationally. The rubrics demonstrate this all the way back to the 7th century. Even today, in the Ordo Paulus VI (the dreaded Novus Ordo), the sung Mass is normative. It is, just as is the case with the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, a sung or chanted dialogue between the celebrant and the people. For this to be done properly, the music must of course, be both simple and singable. Classical choral compositions are neither, no matter how pretty they are. They just don't have a place in authentic Christian worship, any more than do maudlin Irish hymns or banal contemporary praise songs.
I've heard the theory that "full and active participation" can be attained just by listening, but I don't buy into that one at all, perhaps because I've had the privilege of being brought into the faith in a parish that does sing, and sing joyfully. I'm even more blessed that my new parish follows in the same vein. "He who sings prays twice", and to hear a self-confident congregation singing the Divine Liturgy, without books, and with simple folk harmonizations, is, as Johan Gardner wrote of the Subcarpathian Rus' back in the 1920s, "an overpowering experience". Which is why the most dynamic parishes are returning to this tradition, if they did not maintain it all along.
As to your participation in the consecration of the Holy Oblation, i will only point out that the entire Eucharistic Liturgy is a single unfolding act of consecration, in which all the orders of the Church, including the people, have an essential role. This is why, in the Christian East, there is no such thing as a "private Mass", and why the new Roman missal, for all its faults, is correct in asserting that such Masses are to be avoided, that there should always be at least one layman present to sing the responses.
Reciting the prayers of the priest, by the way, is not substitute for reciting the prayers and responses which are rightfully assigned to the people. There are three types of prayers in a Eucharistic liturgy: those said by the priest on his own behalf; those said by the priest on behalf of the people (to which the people must give their assent by their Amen), and those which are either said by the people, or by the people together with the priest. The Divine Liturgy or the Holy Mass are sacred dramas, hieretical dances in which all participate. The point tends to get lost for those whose churches are locked into the rigidity of the pew: the tendency is to think of the priest as the performer and the people as the audience. But in reality, the celebrant, his assistants, and all the people together are the performers, and God is the true audience.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 3, 2008 7:41:36 PM
Well Stuart, we disagree, and you are wrong. The comparison with ikons is quite apt; liturgy as "the work of the people" does not mean no differentiation in offering of gifts, or vocations, or degree of complexity or participation, with regards to music. The Mozart masses (except for the Requiem) in fact work very well in a liturgical context, so you are the one who misses the point. (Especially since you don't deal at all with the mass settings from de Machaut to Monteverdi, which require far smaller forces than e.g. Mozart -- typically only five to eight singers -- but are arguably far more difficult to execute). If you don't "buy into" active participation via listening, and subscribe to the notion that Fr. Ousley properly describes as shallow, that's your problem. You miscontrue my point about reciting prayers with the priest (e.g., I never confined it to only those prayers, as opposed to specifically congregational prayers). Bring up Pius V to me -- an Anglican who enjoys the full congregational participation offered by the Book of Common Prayer -- is utterly irrelevant. Etc., etc.
As I said, the choice does not need to be "either/or" -- it can and should be "both/and."
Of course, there is instead always the famed theologian Franz Bibfeldt, with his immortal work "Both/And and/or Either/Or". Those unacquainted with this remarkable theologian can consult the following:
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/9502/Feb95Bibfeldt.html
{Jerald Brauer was one of my professors at the U. of C., for a course on the English Reformation. My pastor, Fr. Ousley, was one of the contributors to the Bibfeldt "festschrift" volume "The Unrelieved Paradox."]
Posted by: James A. Altena | Apr 4, 2008 5:08:31 PM
>>>Well Stuart, we disagree, and you are wrong. <<<
Funny, I was going to say the same to you.
>>>If you don't "buy into" active participation via listening, and subscribe to the notion that Fr. Ousley properly describes as shallow, that's your problem. <<<
From what I have read of his works, and from your descriptions of him, Father Ousely is a saintly man and often a profound theologian, but in this, I am afraid, he is quite wrong. In fact, the Middle Ages marks a profound discontinuity in the development of Western liturgy, the time when the people were dispossessed of their patrimony and the Mass became extensively clericalized--or, to put it a different way, the moment from which Mass was something in which people participated with the celebrant, to something the priest "said" and the people "heard". It is only at that point that the people become passive observers of the liturgy, and the notion of "active participation by listening" begins to gain some adherents. But it's an innovation, James--and a departure from the patristic understanding of liturgy, which of course, was and remains normative for all Christians.
>>>Bring up Pius V to me -- an Anglican who enjoys the full congregational participation offered by the Book of Common Prayer -- is utterly irrelevant. <<<
Not at all. Deep down, you have a very medieval approach to worship.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 4, 2008 6:00:43 PM
Stuart, your last comment is simply nonsense. Once again you attempt to impose some aspect of the RC church as a universal norm on areas where it is not relevant. And the claim that I "have a very medieval approach to worship" is risible, and still another instance of your ceaseless efforts to shoehorn every Western Christian your encounter into categories that you presume to draw from the RC Church. Your overly simplistic either/or dichotomy here is precisely the problem that Fr. Ousley correctly criticized.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Apr 8, 2008 7:17:02 PM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004