In 1948 CPH published an “Anthology of Sacred Music – Chorale Preludes by Masters of the XVII and XVIII Centuries” selected and edited by Buszin.  It is the Foreword of this volume that I’d like to share with you.  First, it provides insight into what CPH was publishing at that time.  Second, it gives some guidance for parish musicians today.  Third, it will provide a segue into another piece I’ll be posting in a few days.

——-

The music world today is making wide use of the chorale preludes written by the Lutheran masters of the 17th and 18th centuries. We are convinced that this is not merely a passing fad, but rather an indication of the rapid rise of musical standards in America and a recognition of the superiority of this music for worship purposes. From a purely musical point of view one may rightfully refer to the chorale preludes of the Lutheran masters as tone poems in miniature; from a liturgical and ecclesiastical point of view, however, they are more than tone poems, for their real purpose, as intended by their composers, was to incite people to worship and to create an atmosphere of worship in services of worship.

On the whole, a more uplifting atmosphere has been maintained in the services of worship conducted by church bodies which recognize the values of a well-ordered and dignified liturgical service of worship. Nevertheless, while the music used in these churches may have been churchly, it was often not the best worship music available. Thus in the Lutheran Church it was soon discovered that not the compositions of the great Lutheran masters, but the works of the rather inferior nineteenth and twentieth century composers were used. This music did not militate at all times against good taste; it was, on the whole, churchly, but it was at the same time quite uninspiring; it was not written by composers who possessed the genius, skill, talents, and spirit of men like Walther, Pachelbel, Buxtehude, Zachow, various members of the Bach family, and others. In fact, the music of the really great Lutheran masters was quite unknown to Lutheran church musicians until recent times, and there are still many serving as organists who are not acquainted with their real great heritage.

The present collection has been prepared and published not only to acquaint organists with works by the Lutheran masters, but also to encourage organists to use music of this type in services of worship. Since it is the intention of the editor to prepare for this series a volume which will include only works by Johann Sebastian Bach, compositions by this great master have not been included in the present volume. It is hopes that thereby attention will be called to the undeniable and important fact that the musical heritage of the Lutheran Church in particular, and of the Christian Church in general, is great even without the works of the greatest composer of organ music the world has ever known.

. . .

It is important, of course, that these preludes be played in the spirit in which they were written and in the spirit of a beautiful and dignified service of worship. This spirit, however, I am unable to communicate to others through the medium of words, numbers, or other signs. The spirit of music is intangible and will come to those who wholeheartedly dedicate themselves, their ability, and their musical talent to the Giver of every good and perfect gift. From Him will come the spirit of consecration and genuine musical understanding.

– Walter E. Buszin

Thanks for reading Walter Buszin on the Lutheran Masters.

If you take only one thing away from the discussion, I think this should be it:

Gregorian chant lets the text of scripture and its quiet power shine through without forcing an emotion on it. (paraphrased from my listening notes)

A few years back I acquired a long out-of-print volume of Introits for the one-year lectionary set to Gregorian chant tones (edited by Walter Buszin and published by CPH in 1942).  Buszin provided these reasons for the use of Gregorian chant (referring specifically to the Introits, but logically extrapolating to chant in general):

1. They are truly liturgical in character.
2. They are simple and may be sung by any type of church choir and be transposed to other keys.
3. They are churchly, giving prominence to the text and relegating the music to the background.
4. They are undramatic and objective and yet possess great beauty.
5. They have stood the test of time and have become a part of the Lutheran heritage.

Whether you choose to explore Gregorian chant further, it does make you think how music affects and has the potential to overpower the text.

More info about Gregorian chant from a Lutheran perspective can be found at the Lutheran Liturgical Prayer Brotherhood website.  Dr. Mayes also edited the Brotherhood Prayer Book.

Thanks for reading Gregorian Chant in Worship.

Schalk’s premise is that while Bach is often considered the culmination of Lutheran church music in the 18th century, there was a period of 150 years before Bach that paved the way for the climate that he encountered. In other words, Bach did not just arrive on the scene and say “I have arrived.”

Schalk reviews the life and musical works of seven influential Lutheran musicians in the 150 years after the Reformation.

• Johann Walter: First Cantor of the Lutheran Church
• Georg Rhau: Printer of Early Reformation Music
• Hans Leo Hassler: Herald of the Transition to the “New Style”
• Michael Praetorius: Conservator of the Chorale
• Johann Hermann Schein” Cantor of St. Thomas, Leipzig
• Samuel Scheidt: Musician of Halle
• Heinrich Schuetz: Tone Poet of Saxony

While I knew a little bit about Walter, Rhau, and Schuetz, it was enlightening to understand their background and the roots of Lutheran music and see the kinds of music they composed. For example, during the Thirty Years War Schuetz’s compositions became simpler — just a couple vocal parts, several instruments, and basso continuo to account for more limited musical resources and financial support.

From a practical standpoint, Schalk suggests that examining these Lutheran composers and their theological ideas “may well be the first step to approaching more realistically and faithfully the problems and questions which continue to vex the musical and liturgical life of today’s church” (12). His conclusions show that they still have something to teach us — even if their music has been forgotten by many in the church.

• All were musicians highly trained in their art and craft.
• All were musicians involved, in varying degrees, in the secular musical life of their day.
• All–with the exception of Johann Walter and Georg Rhau–were musicians who wrestled in various ways with the challenges and implications of a “new” musical style for the church.
• All were musicians who found the liturgy and the worship of God’s people to be the most natural and appropriate context for the greater part of their music.
• All of these musicians were influential teachers. (181-183)

What was immediately striking to me in this volume was Schalk’s dedication to Walter Buszin and Paul Bunjes. In Buszin’s biography published by the Good Shepherd Institute, it is noted that Buszin had hoped to publish a collection of eleven essays on the significant composers of the “Golden Age” of Lutheranism from 1524 to 1750 — a collection that bears a resemblance of sorts to Schalk’s book (they would have five composers in common). While CPH had initially agreed with the idea, they abandoned it fearing insufficient sales. CPH — there’s still time to finish the project.

Even though CPH never published the book, it is still possible, by using the Buszin bibliography, to nearly recreate the collection that Buszin envisioned (10 of the 11 articles). With the help of my local library’s interlibrary loan department and some article archives on the Good Shepherd Institute’s website, I was able to acquire all the articles EXCEPT for the one on Heinrich Schuetz, which is unpublished. If anyone happens to have a copy of it, I’d love to add it to my collection.

To sum it all up: It’s a worthwhile experience to study the early Lutheran musicians and their understanding of church music. This could certainly be an opportunity for reflection in our own day.

Thanks for reading Pre-Bach: Shaping the Tradition.

The following selection has resonated with me over the weekend.   Buszin reminds us that the musical aptitude is not as important as the musical and theological attitudes of the church musician.

The work of communicating the Gospel should emanate, therefore, not only from the pulpit, the cathedral, and the classroom, but also from the organ and the choir loft.  All unite to serve and disseminate the Word.  The task of the organist, choirmaster, and cantor has in many respects the same purpose as that of the preacher, the missionary, the teacher of religion, and the professor of theology.  Even for this reason great care should be exercised by congregations in selecting and appointing their choirmasters and organists.  It is more important that the church musician have the mind of the church, possess the necessary liturgical knowledge, and give unquestioned evidence of a salutary approach to the problems of Christian (Lutheran) worship than that he be an organist and/or choirmaster of superior ability. (Theology and Church Music as Bearers and Interpreters of the Verbum Dei – Walter Buszin)

Thanks for reading Buszin on Church Musicians.

Over the last two weeks I have been reading “Music for the Church: The Life and Work of Walter E. Buszin” by Kirby L. Koriath with 10 essays by Walter E. Buszin. As a brief summary, Buszin (1899-1973) was a Lutheran theologian, church musician, music editor, hymnologist, teacher, and liturgical scholar whose scholarly output is quite amazing. In some respects his work was more widely known outside of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) despite being a professor at Concordia Seminary, music editor at Concordia Publishing House, and being on the Synod’s Commission on Worship, Liturgics, and Hymnology for 26 years.

This book presents today’s generation of pastors and church musicians with wise counsel on church music and liturgy. Buszin’s life shows a “mission of restoration and renewal in Lutheran church music and worship” (pg 27). He was deeply concerned that his church, the Lutheran church, had abandoned its fine heritage and replaced it with an unworthy and substandard successor. His life and words are still timely because he dealt with many of the same issues we encounter today – quality of hymnody, liturgy, choral and instrumental music.

As I read the book, I realized how I, as a church musician, have been shaped by Buszin without really knowing it. Buszin promoted the use of the chorale in hymnody, choral music, and organ music and seemed to be instrumental in bringing the sacred works of the “Golden Age of Lutheran Music” (16th – 18th centuries) to light. Besides relying extensively on this era of music for my weekly service playing, I have been shaped by my favorite modern Lutheran composers who write music on the chorales — Benjamin Culli, Kevin Hildebrand, Jeffrey Blersch, Kenneth Kosche, John Behnke, Michael Burkhardt, and Paul Manz. And finally, the Organist Workshops and Good Shepherd Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary introduced me to the thoughts of Buszin and helped me better understand and live my vocation as a church musician.

I hope that I might reflect, if only a glimmer, the passion that Buszin had for Lutheran church music and worship.

Thanks for reading Walter E. Buszin – Wise Counsel for Today.

Why do I bring this up? I recently received a list of “favorite” hymns that several people would like to sing more often. These two, among other similar hymns, were on the list. At least “I Have Decided to Follow Jesus” didn’t make the cut. I’m still puzzled about “The Church in the Wildwood” — I had never heard of it before and the lyrics are incredibly weak.

The quality and content of these hymns are in stark contrast to those like the Hymn of the Day for Ash Wednesday – From depths of woe, I cry to thee (LSB 607). Why would Lutherans (of all people) not want to embrace the rich heritage of Lutheran hymnody? I’m making a broad generality — I know there are many Lutherans that genuinely do care about our hymnody and what we sing.

Over the last day I have been reading an essay by Walter Buszin entitled “Organ Music for the Liturgical Service” which was included in the Buszin biography “Music for the Church: The Life and Work of Walter E. Buszin” published by the Good Shepherd Institute. He had this to say about hymnody (understand this was published almost 60 years ago in 1950):

The Pietists and Rationalists of later years were as unfriendly to the great chorales of the 16th and 17th centuries as are those of our own day who prefer sugarcoated and sentimental 19th century hymnody to the truly great hymns of the Church. (Page 159)

This comment could be extrapolated to our own day in 2008 – those who prefer the sugarcoated and sentimental 20th century (and now 21st century) hymnody to the truly great hymns of the Church. Why? What draws people to desire these “fluffy” (for lack of a better word) hymns and songs? Why aren’t people flocking and embracing Lutheran hymnody that is Christ centered, cross focused, and proclaims the gifts that God continually gives/serves to us through Word and Sacrament?

Thanks for reading "Favorite" Hymns.