The challenge implied in this theme suggested an investigation worthy to be called a symphony. The data point at best to a sonata in three movements, and if this group fails to do something about it, it will dwindle to a little sonatina.

The first movement, the recital of musical offerings in the ministerial training program, can be so rapid that it represents our Allegro Vivace. St. Louis offers Hymnology, Liturgics, and Chanting; Springfield combines Liturgics and Hymnology in a 2-hour course; a few of the preparatory schools offer Introduction to Music; and all list in the array of their extracurricular activities some sort of musical activities, such as chorus, glee club, piano club, music appreciation, even history of sacred music, music of the liturgies, ear training, harmony, or applied music.

The second movement ought to do honor to the theme of the first. In this case, however, the only possible treatment was a Scherzo, for in reality, if we take these offerings seriously, it’s a joke. We are still victims of the conviction that our synodical high school students can carry five and more units per year while the college and seminary students are exposed to twenty-one to twenty-six semester hours. In addition to this, they require one semester hour or three periods per week in physical education and are invited, motivated, or forced to take music on top of it all. Nor are we over the assumption that we have a select group of students and that dormitory students can study so much more and better than those residing at home. The report of a recent survey does not support these assumptions. On the contrary, certain expressions indicate that all is not well on our loaded curricular front. For instance:

German: The most charitable interpretation of these scores would be to designate the German instruction as unsatisfactory. . . . It may be assumed that the institutions employ the wrong methods. P. 128 (1943).

Latin: The results of the 1942 test are equally as disappointing as they are in German. . . . If the scores of these tests are a trustworthy measure of student accomplishment in Latin, we assuredly cannot continue to refer to the training at our institutions as "classical." . . . A specific analysis of the reasons underlying this poor performance must be left to others. P. 130 (1943).

Greek: If this test is a reliable and valid measure of the students’ ability in Greek, then it must be concluded that at only several preparatory schools were the students satisfactorily trained in Greek. . . . In the final analysis it seems most likely that the poor performance should be ascribed to ineffective instructional procedures and wrong study techniques (joint preparation in dormitory rooms with one student translating for the group, and the looking up of forms distributed among the group—interlinear translation). P. 133 (1943).

Add to these loads sufficient music instruction to maintain our Lutheran heritage, and the lamentation must be increased. In view of the already overcrowded curriculum, it would be humorous if not ridiculous to lay great weight on the extracurricular activities now being offered. In addition it must be said that the schools which have the most extended curricula in music charge the student extra for the courses, nor are these courses specifically designed to perpetuate the Lutheran heritage.

If enough language professors read the Aug. ’44 Fortune on the development in language teaching in the Army, "Science Comes to Languages," p. 133, we may find room to put in some Lutheran music. There is no more value in trying to squeeze in music into the absurd curriculum as now constructed than to pour wine into a jug already filled with vinegar and turpentine.

The beacon light of hope for the preservation of our musical heritage in our synodical institutions lies in the Curriculum for Teachers’ Colleges. While the synodical Curriculum for Junior Colleges and Theological Seminaries devotes less than half a page to music (p. 68), the Curriculum for Teachers’ Colleges offers a complete statement of aims and objectives for the four fields in music, pp. 90 to 106, including the courses offered in each field. A comparison of these statements will demonstrate the two points of view:

Cf. a) p.68 vs. b) 90–99.

We have tried to show that the true cause for sidetracking music in the preparatory schools is curricular in nature. We are not reflecting upon the persons or the procedures employed in fostering music. We must recognize that to maintain our Lutheran heritage, we need more than superficial acquaintance. While the extracurricular activities now used may in many cases tend to promote abiding appreciations and incentives for study, in others it may breed a self-sufficiency, which has in many cases proved disastrous. Unless we choose to be so credulous as to believe that we can alter the course of curricular thought in the entire program of ministerial training, we must of necessity look to our teachers’ colleges for our solution within the sphere of synodical institutions.

Even as in the securing of certificates for teaching our teachers’ colleges have proved their value, so may they serve as centers for intensive training in church music. On the one hand, there is the problem of adequate equipment. Our teachers’ colleges have it and are in a position to augment it as their use is increased. On the other hand, there is the question of faculty competence. Our teachers’ colleges have gone far in the direction of securing competent instructors and have in their summer sessions paved the way for using visiting instructors in areas of their specialization. As in the case of securing teaching certificates, so may it be in the future with further training in music. Seminary students are not averse to attending courses at our teachers’ colleges. Even as the courses in education have proved profitable, so the courses in music will be found designed to perpetuate that heritage of which Lutherans are proud.

We believe, furthermore, that the technique of group instruction in music may well be incorporated in the preparatory schools and in the seminaries. This will give guidance to such as are capable and offer a minimum also to all. It is certainly not facetious to state the claim that hymnology is of sufficient importance in understanding church history and theology to warrant a place on the seminary curriculum. Why this should be offered only intermittently or be attached as a rider to liturgics is not easily explained. Pressure should be made to bear on the seminaries to correct this, since our pastors select the hymns and frequently determine long-range policies in Lutheran practice. Furthermore, if we shall look to our pastors as the responsible leaders in our services, they must have a more adequate appreciation of the history of sacred music. It is difficult even to imagine them to be effective in this matter without an insight into the theory of music and vocal technique. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Even the Levites divided their functions. An appreciation of the magnitude of each phase of music would tend to cause pastors to look for and to appreciate adequately trained church musicians.

We recommend, therefore, (1) that the synodical Curriculum for Preparatory Schools and Seminaries be restudied with reference to student load and proper regard for the Lutheran heritage in music; (2) that the teachers’ colleges be encouraged to expand their offerings in this area; (3) that opportunity be given to ministerial students who are interested and competent in education and music to spend some time at the teachers’ colleges to obtain such training.

From The Musical Heritage of the Lutheran Church, Volume I (Valparaiso, Ind.: Valparaiso University, 1945). Reprinted by permission of Valparaiso University.

For personal use only.