Multi culturalism

[oopsorganist]

Humour me. I am trying to be constructive.

We have not had a good discussion about inclusion recently. Is this because we are all caught up in Recession worries and woes and the new translation?
Has anyone had any good experiences recently in providing music that is inclusive and multi cultural? Planning for the community in which parishes serve? That kind of thing.

[dmu3tem]

Really good to hear this. Multiculturalism enables us to borrow, mix and match music (and other religious things) from a wider variety of traditions; the process of borrowing and adapting is part of one's continuous development technically and spiritually as new 'tools' are added to one's resources; in the process a given community has the opportunity to develop its own style and sense of identity.

That being said there are two things to observe:

[1] One can try to 'mix and match' too many things too quickly.

[2] When one thinks of multiculturalism one tends (or maybe it is just me) to think it is 'all' about ethnicity, and especially ethnicity in an urban context. The 'cultures' that tend to be forgotten in a conscious sense are these:

[a] The culture of the white middle class/suburbia.

[b] 'British' or perhaps 'English', 'Welsh', Scottish', 'Irish' (is it right always to view this as 'Celtic'?) or - nearer to home - 'Northern English', Lancastrian, Yorkshire or the culture of other regions (including different parts of the 'South'. Does London have a distinct culture (or perhaps a set of different cultures)?

[c] The cultures associated with the 'middle aged' or the 'old'. It is worth remembering that in terms of age these are the largest components of the population - not the young!

[d] The culture of the white working class - still a significant force in places like Burnley. Their tensions with Asian communities in the same town have been well reported at times on the national media - if only because of the rise of the National Front in such towns.

We therefore need to ask what, if anything, defines these cultures? For example does the church music 'culture' of 'old' and 'middle aged' middle class whites in a rural area at the Anglican Church where I play the organ 'simply' mean block four part harmony hymns from 'Hymns Ancient and Modern'? If we say it is, are we denying their potential for development and change on their own terms rather than (or in addition to) resorting to resources from ethnic and other traditions?

I have become more conscious of these factors partly because I live in a predominantly rural area, but mainly because the new vicar we now have is trying to introduce a more 'popular' ambiance to the services but seems instinctively to be thinking in terms of the cultures of an inner-city ethnic area where an appeal to 'youth' makes some sense.

That being said, no part of the country - even rural areas - is without at least the beginnings of a significant ethnic presence. For example about five years ago a family of Tamils took over the running of the local shop at my mother's prosperous suburban village in 'rural' Buckinghamshire!

[oopsorganist]

That is interesting and food for thought Thomas. Yes, we have been preoccupied with multi culturalism in terms of ethnicity for a number of years, mainly I hope and think, because of the legislation towards Equality of Opportunity that has been part of the development of our society over the last whatever years.
And in fact British culture is not necessarily Shakespeare or Anglican hymns or roast beeef in some parts of the county - it is "Hello" and (fails to name any popular musicians) and frozen pizza in many areas.

That does not get us far really.
Or is could.
Do we plan for proper churchiness for the widest audience all bands and cultures or
open the door for the Word by communicating directly with people in a way that they are easily able to access.
Well that is interesting.

[Hare]

Just an observation - I attend mass, and sometimes get asked to play the organ, wnen at our holiday home in SW France, an area with a large resident English population. There are a significant number of English (speaking) mass attenders there. No concession is made to them in the masses........

[alan29]

I am quite possibly wrong, but I was under the impression that one of the strands of thought driving the current re-think on the liturgy was that there was only one acceptable liturgical culture in the Latin church. That is certainly the way that it sometimes comes across.

[oopsorganist]

Well yes.
But where the words of the Mass are universal the music is not. The choice of music is huge - from none at all to well, plainsong to whatever is sung in far away lands.

It is this thing about culture that vexes me. Thomas has had me thinking about it as I cooked the tea. I blame him because the washing up is not done yet.

I worry that the church is sliding into a cultural activity bag. You get funding for culture but not for faith or mission. You can get charged business rates by the council because that is the bag they put chrisitians in when they hire a hall or premises for worship or prayer.
You can get a grant from Heritage Lottery for refurbishing the historic fabrics of churches and church attachments. Heritage industry you see. And this will slide away the church because in the end it will be for tourists and not for congregations.
Which is why I think that to provide stately Victorian hymns as everyday Mass fare is sliding that way. I always tell Mr Oops that we are the greatest re- enactment society of all time.

I add data collection. It is the new multi culturalism. If we collected data - maybe dates that hynms were written in musical planning - would we find a correlation between Farrell and Haugen and Walker and Inwood and more active or affluent parishes and outdated Victorian style hymns in poorer parishes. I just wonder. I have not thought this through. Might go do the washing up as I ponder to myself.

[nazard]

I am always a little sceptical about multiculturalism because people have a tendency to pick and choose which cultures are acceptable and which are not. So in a nameless parish I know, "Siyahamba" is acceptable whereas "Adoro te devote" and "Arglwydd yn arwain" are not. Personally I'm happy with all three. I suggest selecting music without regard to its age or origin provided that it is fit for purpose both liturgically (it fits in where it is placed) and practically (the musicians/assembly can cope).

It can get to sound very silly if you mix in too many odd bits with no coherent unity.

[Nick Baty]

...would we find a correlation between Farrell and Haugen and Walker and Inwood and more active or affluent parishes and outdated Victorian style hymns in poorer parishes.

And is this to do with educational/cultural opportunities and outlook? The economic make-up of the assembly can define the resources available. Educational background can determine knowledge gathering. I use the word "can" deliberately.

....people have a tendency to pick and choose which cultures are acceptable and which are not...

Quite!

[alan29]

To go back to my point, I thought that chant and polyphony were now being put forward as the model and exemplar of music for the liturgy. If that isn't a mono-culture, I don't know what is.

[Gwyn]

Polyphony seems to have minadered into most cultures.

Memo to self, research the history of chant.

[musicus]

I think a very specific (and therefore non-universal) style of polyphony is implied by 'chant and polyphony', Gwyn.

[Gwyn]

Ah, gottcha.

And just look how I've spelled meander. Tut-tut! Shame on me.

Gwyn.

[nazard]

To go back to my point, I thought that chant and polyphony were now being put forward as the model and exemplar of music for the liturgy. If that isn't a mono-culture, I don't know what is.

I believe that chant and polyphony have been put forward as the model and exemplar for some hundreds of years now. I think that the present push for them is a reminder to us all that this remains the case. In our parish this is important, since our pp bans chant and polyphony on his own personal authority, which no doubt derives from the deeper magic from before the dawn of time, or something like that.

[alan29]

To go back to my point, I thought that chant and polyphony were now being put forward as the model and exemplar of music for the liturgy. If that isn't a mono-culture, I don't know what is.

I believe that chant and polyphony have been put forward as the model and exemplar for some hundreds of years now. I think that the present push for them is a reminder to us all that this remains the case. In our parish this is important, since our pp bans chant and polyphony on his own personal authority, which no doubt derives from the deeper magic from before the dawn of time, or something like that.

Thats not being multi-cultural, its just uncultured.

[oopsorganist]

I had to look polyphony up. It is many voices working together according to one definition. So should work out OK. But most of us don't sing in parts if that is what is meant by polyphony. It is a lost skill and something most people that I encounter cannot do now. Sadly.
But back to music choices.
I googled Victorian hymns and found this on Jesus4u.co.uk

Before the Victorian age, singing in Anglican churches was performed by 'West Gallery Musicians'. In rural churches they performed anthems, accompanied by a variety of instruments, while in towns organs were used. The sung and said parts of the services were divorced and hymn books were unknown. Gallery Musicians, who performed in inns, were criticised for their lack of reverence; amusing accounts of misbehaviour are found in Hardy and George Eliot. For 100 years before the Victorian age non-conformist congregations had sung hymns which flowed from the pens of Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley who is thought to have written more than 6500.
.....
Early in the 19th Century attempts were made by Church of England clergymen to introduce hymn singing in order to improve singing in services, notably F.W. Faber, William How, Frederick Oakley and John Ellerton, all hymn writers. Choirs in robes and surplices were introduced and the use of organs became universal by the end of the Century. Over 1200 hymn books, and an estimated 400,000 hymns, were produced between 1837 and 1901. By far the most influential collection was Hymns Ancient and Modern (First Edition 1860)........
Victorian hymns have recently suffered criticism for militarism, xenophobia and 'political incorrectness'. Inevitably, many have fallen by the wayside for those reasons but such criticism is not always justified. Baring-Gould's Onward Christian soldiers (333), for example, refers only to "marching as to war", the use of military language being metaphorical, reflecting numerous Biblical references. Mrs. Alexander's All things......

So I pose the question - when we choose to promote mainly these kind of Hymns, as opposed to more recent songs and compositions are we using music from another culture? And is this culture and the theology they promote useful to Catholics today? Are we going through the same kind of period that the Anglican church reacted to nearly 200 years ago and do we still support the same unequal society that the Victorians lived in?

It is not that I do not like old hymns, I really do. I am just wondering online if multi culturalism is defeated by such music choices as described by Thomas.