Ed's talk: a survey on music and religion

Monday, July 14, 2008

a survey on music and religion

Music has had, from earliest times, a very strong relationship to religion and the sacred. There is no doubt that it was used to direct the human mind to whichever gods and goddesses were being worshiped in any given civilization or pre-civilization.

But from those earliest times, the function of religion has remained unchanged, that is, to pray or cajole the reigning deity into listening to various supplications and, when those supplications are heeded, to thank and praise the deity and when they are not, to say it is "the deity's will". This function is often supported musically, perhaps from the earliest days with chant or chantlike phrases.

As music has become more sophisticated (notice, I don't use the term "improved"!), the means of support have also become more sophisticated. But, in my opinion, religion has pretty much remained unaltered despite the change of names for the deities. Christianity, for example, is largely based on earlier pagan faiths with various attributes of Jesus or Mary shared by many other gods or heroes from earlier times. Many have thought this was one of the "geniuses" of Christianity, that is, to base it's beliefs on those which existed earlier so as to make its followers as comfortable as possible with its "new" dogmas.

Many of the composers who wrote sacred music were undoubtedly quite devout like Johann Sebastian Bach (at least this is the majority opinion!) and Joseph Haydn, but in the time of the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph the Second
, (reigned 1765-90) there was also a strong Masonic influence, most notable in the output of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-91).

Mozart was also influenced by Moses Mendelssohn,
(1729-86) as was Schubert later on. Schubert set some of the Psalms in Mendelssohn's German translations though he also set one in the original Hebrew (Psalm 92)! (Moses was the grandfather of the composers Felix and Fanny but, starting with Abraham their father who was the son of Moses, the family were converts to Lutheranism!)

It is interesting that Schubert (1797-1828) was a friend of Salomon Sulzer the cantor and later composer of "Shir Tsiyyon" ("Songs of Zion") and equally interesting was that he never, in his Christian Mass settings, set the Credo complete, always leaving out the words to do with the belief in the "Holy and Apostolic Church". (They have often been added in later editions.) Beethoven too, at least in his Missa Solemnis in D, tended to suppress these words under the louder statements of "Credo" ("I believe"). (I don't remember how he deals with this in the earlier Mass in C.)

As the size and scope of musical settings of liturgical texts increased in the 19th Century along with the text alterations, these were less tenable as church settings and became essentially concert pieces even with the occasional performance in a church where "the tail is really wagging the dog" so to speak.

At the height of the Romantic "gigantic" period there are the Requiem Mass settings by Berlioz and Verdi, two outspoken atheists and the much more modest Fauré Requiem whose text is not set completely. (
Fauré's own opinions on religion are unknown, to me at least, but he was notably anti-clerical, understandably, due to his day-to-day often fraught dealings with the clergy.) All of these are rarely done in a church setting but are often used as memorial and commemorative works.

As was the Brahms Requiem which is not a liturgical setting but based on a selection of texts from the (German) Luther Bible and whose composer also seemed to be pretty much a non-believer but with an interest in scripture. Though born a Lutheran, Brahms essentially traveled in Jewish circles. His contemporary, Anton Bruckner (a sort of "Holy Fool") was a devout Catholic as was Liszt, of course, who famously took minor orders. (Liszt is, I discovered, a great favorite of Catholic nuns equally for reasons of his "naughty" life as for the more "saintly" aspects of his biography.)

In the 20th and 21st Centuries, composers of religious music had varying backgrounds. Igor Stravinsky was Russian-Orthodox even if he left the church for a time. Francis Poulenc was a devout Roman Catholic, as was Olivier Messiaen.

The English tradition of religious music of the 19th and early 20th centuries tells quite a different story. George Frideric Handel was, of course, an immigrant from Germany and his influence on English music in the eighteenth century was quite extensive. But it was Felix Mendelssohn who, with his two oratorios "Elijah" and "St. Paul" and his visit to Windsor Castle when Victoria and Albert were in residence, really cast a pall on English music for many years. (Prince Albert was not only a great admirer of these works but wrote some music in the same style influencing others to do the same, mostly to their detriment.)

One need only think of the output of the non-Savoy Sir Arthur Sullivan and others such as William Sterndale Bennett and Sir John Stainer to apprehend the lack of vitality of English music, sacred and secular, of this period.

It took an Edward Elgar to revive sacred music at the turn of the twentieth century. The Cantata "The Light of Life" (1896) was rather uneven but the vitality was there and it was followed in 1899-1900 by "The Dream of Gerontius" (On part of the poem by Cardinal Newman which I find an especially cloying one in which the angelic folk in heaven are listening carefully to the rituals on earth for some reason or other, but the music makes it work.), "The Apostles" (02-03) and finally "The Kingdom" (01-06). During this time, Elgar gradually lost his faith and, after his religious period, wrote the well-known overtures, symphonies and concertos.

Elgar's contemporary Sir Hubert Parry was, despite "Jerusalem", "Blest Pair of Sirens" and the "Songs of Farewell", a non-believer.
Ralph Vaughan Williams was a self-described "Christian agnostic". (His great uncle was Charles Darwin and the other side of the family were the non-comformist Wedgwoods so this is understandable.)

And oddly enough, not only did RVW edit the 1906 English Hymnal but he wrote a fair amount of sacred music including the "mostly sacred" Cantata "Hodie" with an odd setting of a poem by Thomas Hardy "The Oxen" showing his more skeptical side. In his Mass in G minor he, incidentally, omitted the same words as Schubert but grudgingly added them to the bass part only when the proof reader mentioned it.

Frederick Delius was an atheist and wrote an atheist "Mass of Life" and a similar Requiem. Gustav Holst was more into Eastern mysticism than Christianity though he did set the gnostic "Hymn of Jesus" and other Christian texts.

Among the French, Debussy wrote an early cantata "L'enfant prodigue", "La demoiselle élue" on a French translation of the poem by Christina Rossetti and "Le martyre de Saint Sébastien" with Gabriele d'Annunzio for Ida Rubinstein the dancer but these are not really religious. Ravel wrote no real sacred settings, at least that have survived, except for the Jewish Aramaic song for voice and piano, "Kaddish".

As we can see, those composers who set music to liturgical or sacred texts, had varying degrees of religious beliefs or lack of them but, one thing is clear: it is not necessary to be a believer to write sacred music!







Labels:

7 Comments:

At July 14, 2008 at 1:24 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Atheists and believers are equally children of God, so the church is right to allow non believers to contribute. PTL

 
At July 14, 2008 at 1:52 PM , Blogger Ed said...

Hi Feyd,

I really doubt that atheists or even agnostics would consider themselves "children of God" but I agree that the church is right to allow them to contribute since they have contributed so much. Without them, sacred music would be much the poorer.

 
At July 15, 2008 at 3:55 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's no doubt that "sacred" music has played a powerful propagandistic role throughout history. But is all religion a matter of propaganda, of compelling people to believe through subtle and overt means of persuasion?

I think there is a certain human spirituality that may find expression through art independently of any prodding from outside religious authority. "Spirituality" is a vexingly vague term, but if we can use it in a poetic sense, I think non-believers and believers alike can appreciate the fact that one's compassionate feelings about one's fellow man, the world, and the universe may be expressed in musical form without necessarily having any ties to theological dogma. Might we describe this as a species of "natural religion"?

It is true that music sponsored by religious authority can become stylistically constrained, even formulaic, and that creativity is thus stifled. But the example of Messiaen certainly demonstrates that one's religious beliefs and the willingness to try new things aren't always mutually exclusive.

"New," on the other hand, isn't always better. There's no denying the fact that much music of the past century has failed, after many decades, to resonate with musically informed audiences. Atonal styles, indeed, seem to have found their most enduring place in horror, psychodramatic, and action/adventure movie music--not in the concert hall, where only a few such scores (e.g., the Berg Violin Concerto, with its quasi-triadic structures, reference to Bach's "Es ist genug," and dedication "to the memory of an angel") have managed to hold their own after a century of non-tonal experimentalism.

Sometimes the "old" can actually stimulate fresh perspectives. The Renaissance was, indeed, a rebirth of Classical learning, and gave rise to the "new" genre of opera. What's more, it took considerable ingenuity to use Gregorian chant in the "new" polyphonic styles emerging in the late Middle Ages that had such a powerful influence on Renaissance composers.

I emphatically agree with your statement that "it is not necessary to be a believer to write sacred music!" It cannot be assumed that all sacred music is "divinely inspired" because so much of it was written by composers who either were atheistic, agnostic, or otherwise at odds with religious authority. How many visitors to the Vatican, for that matter, realize what a treasury of non-Christian art is housed in its museums and embellishes its very walls and ceilings? The Vatican profits handsomely by charging admission to its museums chock full of "Pagan" antiquities and visual references, and this may raise as much of an ethical problem for some pious visitors as it does for those who are ill at ease about non-beiieving composers writing music of a religious caste.

This is a fascinating topic, and I am glad to see it discussed here.

--Joseph Dillon Ford

P.S. Google still doesn't accept my password, so I must post "anonymously."

 
At July 17, 2008 at 6:12 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ed, I can see that you don't have much use for organized religion. However, I suggest that you have brushed over ideas too lightly. For example, I challenge you to bring forward the links of the Sermon on the Mount with the pagan examples of which you speak. Consider also the story of the Good Samaritan. Jesus was a Jew - and Jews tended to scorn the Samaritans. In other words, Jesus emphasized higher concepts than ethnic identity and interests.
Next, you may have taken some editorial liberties by downgrading the faith of Gabriel Faure and Johannes Brahms. For example, Citations by Arthur Abell, who talked to Brahms, Grieg, and Max Bruch about their faith, cites Brahms' reverence for the Great Nazarene and reports that Brahms felt that his best works came when he was inspired by God. He also had disparaging things to say about the "neutrals", "the millions who live only for the here and now".
Indeed, it was not until I learned of Beethoven's belief that he had a mission from God that I could grasp how someone who lost the most precious faculty for a musician, his hearing, could go on to compose his best works. In contrast Johan Mattheson, from whose Boris Goudenow one can conclude that he was not burdened with reverence for the clergy, also had brilliant talent but composed nothing after he lost his hearing.

Frank

 
At July 17, 2008 at 9:47 AM , Blogger Ed said...

Joe wrote:

There's no doubt that "sacred" music has played a powerful propagandistic role throughout history. But is all religion a matter of propaganda, of compelling people to believe through subtle and overt means of persuasion?

I think there is a certain human spirituality that may find expression through art independently of any prodding from outside religious authority. "Spirituality" is a vexingly vague term, but if we can use it in a poetic sense, I think non-believers and believers alike can appreciate the fact that one's compassionate feelings about one's fellow man, the world, and the universe may be expressed in musical form without necessarily having any ties to theological dogma. Might we describe this as a species of "natural religion"?

Ed replies:

Yes Joe, but I don't think it's necessary to apply labels to everything. I consider myself to have a "spiritual" component depending on one's definition of "spiritual". Maybe "imaginative" would do as well?

I have known some very sincere members of every religion I have come into contact with. And I certainly, due to a friend, had contact with the American Episcopal Church for which I retain a certain affection despite their current difficulties dealing with certain matters.;-)

As you know, I wrote a Mass setting in 1972 for the Church of St. Mary the Virgin in NYC. I was agnostic then and still am.

Best,

Ed

 
At July 18, 2008 at 1:36 AM , Blogger Joe said...

Hi, Ed, Frank, Delians.

I would like to clarify my position with regard to sacred music.

It seems to me that the primary role of sacred music as it is usually understood is to provide an effective vehicle for propagating, spreading, and reinforcing ideas and information conducive to the goals and interests of religious institutions. In this sense, sacred music does, indeed, constitute "propaganda."

What ultimately matters is the truth of the ideas and information thus propagated, but in matters of faith, truth is often difficult to prove. For that matter, things once firmly believed to be true may subsequently prove false.

Galileo was tried as a heretic and placed under house arrest for challenging Church propaganda, but no one today can seriously believe, as the Church once insisted, that the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.

Absent the verification provided by demonstrable proof, opposing beliefs have often given rise to violent forms of conflict. Unfortunately, organized religion, for all the altruistic deeds of its adherents and the splendors of its music, art, and architecture, has sometimes been an agent of appalling injustice and disorder when dogma resisted fact and suppressed reason and scientific evidence.

It is indefensible to trivialize the creative cultural legacy of any organized religion. But to the extent that even the most celebrated works of art induce people to forfeit their capacity for rational thinking and to elevate mere belief above truth, they are vulnerable to reevaluation. Great art should not deaden the mind and rob it of its capacity for reasonable doubt: it should quicken perception and the human ability to ask probing questions and seek out viable answers.

People can believe whatever they want (and usually do), but facts are stubbornly resistant to personal desires and demands: the Church fathers may have ardently wished the Sun to orbit the Earth, because that would have squared with ancient doctrine, but their collective will could not alter the fact that it does not.

History has vindicated Galileo--and we can be grateful that his father Vincenzo, a learned musician and scholar, instilled in his son an intense curiosity, the capacity to challenge accepted views, and to subject his own theories to experimental proof.

http://cnx.org/content/m11934/latest/

Best regards to all,

:-)

Joe

 
At July 19, 2008 at 9:59 AM , Blogger Ed said...

Hello all,

I am really past the point of wanting to dwell on the many hypocrisies of religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular.

I only note that, ever since it "apologized" to Galileo, I'm sure the latter, wherever he is, is grateful for the apology!;-)

I think the Vatican has become very adept at apologies but I also think they have a lot of housecleaning to do in addition to those apologies. I will still not believe the fables they promugate but it would go a short way towards ameliorating their injustices of many centuries.

I think the greatest religious works of art and music make the propaganda not matter, much as in opera, the fictional or sometimes fictionalized elements are believed as long as one is involved with the opera.

In all cases, one would hope that the viewer-listener can return to some semblance of reality when it is over.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home