I'm starting with an unanswered question from another blog, and I chose this one because I got my degree in Vocal Music Education:
This is an older debate than many people realize. Legend has it that back during the Council of Trent, the church fathers were debating whether or not polyphony should be allowed in churches, or if the only music to be allowed would be chant. In defense of polyphony, the composer Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina penned the Missa Papae Marcelli (Pope Marcellus Mass), and thereby so impressed the bishops and Pope that they allowed polyphony to remain. [More recent scholarship suggests that the Missa was actually composed 10 years earlier, but it's still a great story!]
To answer the question, though, there are several points to be made/ discussed.
First, it must be understood that music is essentially an amplifier of sentiment and or idea, and as such, can actually be quite powerful--> and therefore, quite dangerous. The best of music can stir our soul and transport us to the heavens. The worst can leave us drowning in the rotting muck of hell. And, naturally then, it can leave us every place in between. Just because the lyrics might be about God doesn't mean it should be in a Church.
Second, some people have problems with a lot of the more contemporary lyrics. Several years ago there was a trend to have the congregation singing about God in the first person, which is not exactly humble. Likewise, a lot of the songs are not actually about God, but about how great we are as a community--Go Us! The focus in a lot of contemporary "hymns" is not God, it is I, we, us, when it ought to be God, or at least people in heaven, like Mary. Singing in praise of Us! is, well, weird at best.
Third, not all "sacred music", strangely enough, is meant for a mass setting. Verdi's Requiem Mass was intended as a concert piece, not to be such as an actual mass. It's too big, too hardcore for an actual mass, and Verdi knew it, maybe even made it so on purpose.
This third point is a very important one: Some music is better in a concert setting, even if it's got religious lyrics. A lot of contemporary "praise music" falls into this category, I think. It's great to listen to in the car, or to go to a concert to hear and sing along with. For instance, I'm a huge U2 fan, and they did a rendition of Psalm 40 called (du-uh) "40." It's a lovely little piece, but I don't think it should ever be used as the Psalm for Mass, no matter how well written. Not because of who wrote it, but because it does not lend itself toward communal singing, such as a psalm for Mass should.
And here is another important point-- music to be used in a Mass needs to balance between two sometimes opposing requirements: First, to inspire and move our spirits and hearts toward heaven and second, to be singable. To be singable for the average person means that one cannot be too complicated in terms of melodies, chords or rhythms (this rhythmic requirement knocks out most contemporary music). However, simplify too much and you get schmaltz and saccharin-sweet lullabies.
My church choir has actually found a way to maintain this balance effectively-- some things are congregational, some are just for the choir. Usually, it is divided as such:
Prelude--Choir
Processional-Congregation
All mass parts--Congregation
Offertory--Choir
Communion--Congregation
Communion Meditation--Choir
Recessional--Congregation
Postlude--Choir
This way, the congregation as a whole gets in a good bit of singing, and the more advanced music is still incorporated by the choir (And we sing a lot of the more classical pieces, which satisfies us music buffs.)
Now, to be sure that I've answered the questions:
are hymns thought of as a form of prayer?
Yes. In fact, to qualify as a hymn, I would think it would need to fulfill the requirements of prayer. Which would be: an address or meditation from us toward God. Therefore, something that went along the lines of "We are awesome! We are amazingly cool! How wonderful are we!" is not a hymn, because it is not a prayer. However, if it does fulfill the requirements for prayer, then yes, it most certainly counts as prayer.
why does the church seem to frown on modern music in the church?
It's not that the church frowns on modern music as such-- it's that the church frowns on bad music, and unfortunately, a lot of modern church music falls into this category. From songs with unrealistic ranges, to painfully awkward rhythms, or insulting lyrics . . . a lot of modern "church" music falls into un-singable. I didn't realize how hard it was to sing a lot of this until I began to cantor, and I've found that about 75% of what I have to lead has ranges that challenge even my trained voice, going from chest voice to mid-voice to head voice all in one verse!
[Now granted, one of my favorite "modern" songs is guilty of this very thing. I have a secret love of "On Eagle's Wings." To be honest, it's nearly impossible to cantor. Starts off a bit high for a congregation-- the "You who dwell in the shadow of the Lord" always sounds reedy-- and then the refrain dips way too low for a congregation-- "And he shall raise you up. . ." always makes me sound like a teen-aged boy trying to ask out a crush. It's simply not well written for congregations-- but like cheap chocolate, I just can't get enough.]
If it's all about worship, why isn't this form also considered sacred?
Look, I've been known to be able to pick out deep theological and philosophical meanings from episodes of DragonBall Z --> but that doesn't mean that I should write a hagiography of Vegeta, Prince of Saiya-jins (much though this nerd is tempted). For something to be sacred, it's not enough to be about God. U2's "40" is about God, but I wouldn't consider it sacred, fangirl though I am. Likewise, not everything that transports one person will work on most people. I might be moved by the music of Evanescence, Flyleaf, or Thousand Foot Krutch. . . (2 out of 3 are considered "Christian Rock"), but that does not make it sacred. There are many people that hear the strumming of guitars and are not inspired toward God, but rather toward the destruction of the instruments.
I think, to be sacred, it must inspire most listeners, most of the time. This is why most people consider the works by John Rutter to be sacred, while the work of Bono and The Edge, eh, not so much.
Also, worship is necessarily all about God. Therefore, sacred music is never about us. Lyrics matter.
Now, this does not mean that there is no good, modern, sacred music. I think there's just as much as ever-- I believe, however, that there's proportionately more not-so-good, and so the good stuff tends to get lost or drowned out. There's a lot of good music being written for choirs (Martin Lauridsen's "O Magnum Mysterium" still gives me goosebumps after several years of singing it), and there are some things being written in other styles that are excellent as well--from a jazz Mass I heard performed by a jazz band and singing ensemble in New Orleans, to a lot of the arrangements of spirituals that are becoming standards. But, the problem is, most of this is being written for musicians, people who can take the time to rehearse and learn things a little more complicated and interesting. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to write for congregations well, and so very difficult to find. The "classics" became such because they withstood the test of time. We can't come up with an entire year's worth of classics in the space of half a century--so if we want modern (as in, post-Vatican II) music, we're stuck with music still in the testing process.
In the end, friend, it comes down to not simply your taste and abilities, but the taste of the majority and the abilities of the average. This means then, that the appropriateness of a song may vary from place to place. Folk hymns from one part of the world don't always translate well into other cultures. But, sometimes they do. So, a lot of what decides the use of a certain song should be the abilities of the congregation. Most people can get "Siyahumba". "Betelehemu", on the other hand, probably not. But when taken over the average of the Catholic Church across the whole world-- I think the "oldies" are the easiest to sing well.
Well, that's what I think, anyway. I hope I've answered the question, and I invite discussion and differences of opinion, of course. ^_^
"A hymn is the praise of God with song; a song is the exultation of the mind dwelling on eternal things, bursting forth in the voice."
-Thomas Aquinas
Just wondering- are hymns thought of as a form of prayer? On the similar note, why does the church seem to frown on modern music in the church. If it's all about worship, why isn't this form also considered sacred? There definately is something about hearing the traditional hymns with which we all grew-up, but I also appreciate the more contemporary musical liturgy as at our Sunday evening service.