I was listening to a movement from Benjamin Britten's War Requiem just now, and I remembered that I played in a concert performance of Karl Jenkins' "L'Homme Arme, a Mass for Peace".
The Title L'Homme Arme" is French and means the Armed Man. There are two applications of this that I can see. Most certainly, in terms of musical history, early pieces of music, and I mean those of the medieval and renaissance periods, regularly based works on pre existing compositions. This is the original sense of a parody in that they were all parodies but it implied no sense of mockery at all. The Armed Man was a French popular song at the time and many composers built masses at time that around that tune. Mr Jenkins is merely adding to this ancient and venerable tradition.
But I suspect that his intention is to contrast the military cast of the tune the Armed Man with his impassioned cry for peace, hence his subtitle and my reason for writing this.
It was a cry for peace, and impassioned one in a work that I found at times beautiful and deeply moving. I will never forget the Benedictus with its cello solo of pure ecstasy underneath which I poured out all the passion I could at the time with a solid and rich bottom D pedal note. But to whom was the cry being made?
"God," one might say. But which one? If a God really exists this makes all the difference imaginable; and if there is no God then the very exercise is futile. They are merely crying to the empty ether and no rational answer will ever come. It is or at least should be a truism that people do not become peace loving by hearing music, so serenading the violence is a total waste of effort.
When the religions are theist, by which I mean that the God in question actually involves himself or claim to involve himself in the creation by way of answering prayer requests, - in contrast with what I might call Deist religions - which God is supplicated is crucial. And to try and cover all bases by adulterating a catholic mass with prayers to another God is utter blasphemy.
I mean in this instance the second movement of this Mass for Peace in which a Muslim
Muzzein made his call to prayer, the ritual oration that issues from minarets and their modern equivalents five time a day. I was deeply discomforted and had I the zeal of my convictions I may have walked out. But I did not.
Not only that but this Mass had no Credo. If Jenkins knew what a mass was he knew what a credo was. But he chose not to incorporate one.
So the Mass was a limp cry of the unbelieving to the empty ether, believing nothing it achieved nothing real other than hoping desperately against hope that something might come of it. And something did, but nothing of real value. Secular modern men might shed a tear or tow and think they are thoroughly good people for being so moved. This was a piece of catharsis which lasted all of a few minutes and would have no bearing on how they lived their lives the next day.
I commented on this work as I know it rather well, having performed it as a musician. But this is what such performance arts "for peace" boil down to.
Some time ago I heard a peace on my concert programme. All I remember was that it had famous rock singers in it. It was some kind of classical rock crossover, not that I necessarily disapprove for the Jenkins was one also. But the only other thing I remember was that it cried to every god imaginable. This was utterly tragic and I dissolved in tears. This I all modern men can do when they seek to get spiritual. It was not a cry for or of hope but, being with no basis in hope at all, an expression of despair masquerading as the contrary
The Britten Requiem mention of which I started this piece with also committed blasphemy by adding to the text as regards the story, which I am my brethren take to be literal history. When Abraham was told not to sacrifice his son the poet I think it was Wilfrid Owen, took over the narrative "But Abraham would not, and half the seed of Europe perished one by one.
And why are we Christians offended by this? Such antics as this are jeering at the only thing, or only One who will give anyone true peace. But at least we are not obliged to slaughter anyone who blasphemes in this way. Vengeance for that and all other evil belongs to God and God only and He will repay after He has exhausted, due to the defiant unbelief of men refusing his amnesty, all other avenues.
Everyone wants peace and they pray for it, some even to the Christian God, Himself but overall no one will acknowledge that not only is war sin but their own combatitive response to violence against them is sin as well. thus they will not repent.
As there is no peace for the wicked, as scripture says, and as righteousness in Christ is the only way to peace they will pray and sing and supplicate in vain.
Not because God has no answer to the thing but because we refuse this and seek peace on our terms, a magical intervention whereby the inner violence of men's hearts is not addressed at all.
If we want peace we seek the only God in Christ, and only through Christ do we seek Him, and not only that but we seek to repent of our sins genuinely rather than some token gesture or a dismissive ignoring of the whole business by lame appeals to the "love" of God. There is a love of God but it is through this that He would lead us to repent, and is not a substitute for repentance. Rather this repentance, which gift of grace I discovered in my darkest extremity years ago and which is still outworking, is the highest expression of God loving us there is.
But the tragedy of it is that the huge majority will not do so, nor even seek it, for it is written and demonstrably true that "strait - ie small- is the gate and narrow the way ands few there are who find it." And if Christians think they have found this way then let us all realize that few are called many are chosen.
He is rich in mercy to lead all who come to him to repentance but without repentance, which is not luxuriating in fear or guilt, far from it, there is nothing.
Nothing at all but the farce which will continue to play itself out to the bitter end
The Title L'Homme Arme" is French and means the Armed Man. There are two applications of this that I can see. Most certainly, in terms of musical history, early pieces of music, and I mean those of the medieval and renaissance periods, regularly based works on pre existing compositions. This is the original sense of a parody in that they were all parodies but it implied no sense of mockery at all. The Armed Man was a French popular song at the time and many composers built masses at time that around that tune. Mr Jenkins is merely adding to this ancient and venerable tradition.
But I suspect that his intention is to contrast the military cast of the tune the Armed Man with his impassioned cry for peace, hence his subtitle and my reason for writing this.
It was a cry for peace, and impassioned one in a work that I found at times beautiful and deeply moving. I will never forget the Benedictus with its cello solo of pure ecstasy underneath which I poured out all the passion I could at the time with a solid and rich bottom D pedal note. But to whom was the cry being made?
"God," one might say. But which one? If a God really exists this makes all the difference imaginable; and if there is no God then the very exercise is futile. They are merely crying to the empty ether and no rational answer will ever come. It is or at least should be a truism that people do not become peace loving by hearing music, so serenading the violence is a total waste of effort.
When the religions are theist, by which I mean that the God in question actually involves himself or claim to involve himself in the creation by way of answering prayer requests, - in contrast with what I might call Deist religions - which God is supplicated is crucial. And to try and cover all bases by adulterating a catholic mass with prayers to another God is utter blasphemy.
I mean in this instance the second movement of this Mass for Peace in which a Muslim
Muzzein made his call to prayer, the ritual oration that issues from minarets and their modern equivalents five time a day. I was deeply discomforted and had I the zeal of my convictions I may have walked out. But I did not.
Not only that but this Mass had no Credo. If Jenkins knew what a mass was he knew what a credo was. But he chose not to incorporate one.
So the Mass was a limp cry of the unbelieving to the empty ether, believing nothing it achieved nothing real other than hoping desperately against hope that something might come of it. And something did, but nothing of real value. Secular modern men might shed a tear or tow and think they are thoroughly good people for being so moved. This was a piece of catharsis which lasted all of a few minutes and would have no bearing on how they lived their lives the next day.
I commented on this work as I know it rather well, having performed it as a musician. But this is what such performance arts "for peace" boil down to.
Some time ago I heard a peace on my concert programme. All I remember was that it had famous rock singers in it. It was some kind of classical rock crossover, not that I necessarily disapprove for the Jenkins was one also. But the only other thing I remember was that it cried to every god imaginable. This was utterly tragic and I dissolved in tears. This I all modern men can do when they seek to get spiritual. It was not a cry for or of hope but, being with no basis in hope at all, an expression of despair masquerading as the contrary
The Britten Requiem mention of which I started this piece with also committed blasphemy by adding to the text as regards the story, which I am my brethren take to be literal history. When Abraham was told not to sacrifice his son the poet I think it was Wilfrid Owen, took over the narrative "But Abraham would not, and half the seed of Europe perished one by one.
And why are we Christians offended by this? Such antics as this are jeering at the only thing, or only One who will give anyone true peace. But at least we are not obliged to slaughter anyone who blasphemes in this way. Vengeance for that and all other evil belongs to God and God only and He will repay after He has exhausted, due to the defiant unbelief of men refusing his amnesty, all other avenues.
Everyone wants peace and they pray for it, some even to the Christian God, Himself but overall no one will acknowledge that not only is war sin but their own combatitive response to violence against them is sin as well. thus they will not repent.
As there is no peace for the wicked, as scripture says, and as righteousness in Christ is the only way to peace they will pray and sing and supplicate in vain.
Not because God has no answer to the thing but because we refuse this and seek peace on our terms, a magical intervention whereby the inner violence of men's hearts is not addressed at all.
If we want peace we seek the only God in Christ, and only through Christ do we seek Him, and not only that but we seek to repent of our sins genuinely rather than some token gesture or a dismissive ignoring of the whole business by lame appeals to the "love" of God. There is a love of God but it is through this that He would lead us to repent, and is not a substitute for repentance. Rather this repentance, which gift of grace I discovered in my darkest extremity years ago and which is still outworking, is the highest expression of God loving us there is.
But the tragedy of it is that the huge majority will not do so, nor even seek it, for it is written and demonstrably true that "strait - ie small- is the gate and narrow the way ands few there are who find it." And if Christians think they have found this way then let us all realize that few are called many are chosen.
He is rich in mercy to lead all who come to him to repentance but without repentance, which is not luxuriating in fear or guilt, far from it, there is nothing.
Nothing at all but the farce which will continue to play itself out to the bitter end
No comments:
Post a Comment
You can disagree with me, even spiritedly. But keep it civil as I am the one hurt by cruelty. I must protect myself from nastiness and will block or ban users if I must. And it would help if you offered reasons for your disagreements. If they are good I may respect you. If they are sound I may even change my mind