In music an enormous amount of compositions and a great deal of musical materials have been arranged for and now are available to “music-hungry Americans.” Much of it emanates from Europe, and in the fields of Lutheran church music, from Germany. Lutheran church music has become an extremely exportable item as far as the German publishers and record manufacturers are concerned. This interest in Lutheran church music is only part of a general interest Americans have shown in music, and in the last three decades particularly in the music of the baroque and preclassical eras.

Many barriers exist between Lutheran church music since the Reformation and the time of Johann Sebastian Bach and that of our present 20th century. Our world has become totally different — not only all our artistic, our intellectual habits and expressions have changed, but also many of our spiritual and religious habits and expressions.

Conspicuous and natural ties have always existed between the tradition and heritage of the Lutheran Church abroad and the music making within the worship service and in the homes of Lutherans over here. The best known is the chorale and the music of Bach. The way in which Bach and his music were remembered and his work was cultivated in the United States is, with all its ups and downs, symbolic. From the Clarence Eddys and Wilhelm Middelschultes to E. Power Biggs and his Sunday morning recitals; to the appearances of distinguished organists from abroad, such as Dupré and Bonnet, we have an essential phase of Bach and church music in the American milieu. Of these older monuments erected to Bach in this country, that provided by the Bethlehem Festival is perhaps the most noteworthy. Still another facet of this appreciation of church music and Bach is reflected in the repertory of our large American Symphony orchestras and in the choral groups such as Hugh Ross’s Schola Cantorum, the Robert Shaw Chorale, and the Saint Olaf Choir. Only a decade or so ago new adventures were entered upon with the radio performances by Alfred Wallenstein of Bach and other Lutheran church music. And then there still is the Bach Aria Group under the direction of William Scheide.

It is not mere coincidence that the 20th-century restoration of Lutheran church music commenced with the revival of Bach. However, this is only a repetition of events because the same revival of Bach had brought about that same restoration of much, if not of all, Protestant music in Europe in the 19th century. During the romantic period the old staunch centers of Protestant church music, Saxony, Prussia, and Württemberg, became more and more troubled over the function of music in the divine service. They became aware of the great contrast between Pietism, which wanted to be “spiritual” and possibly was more sensitive than the older orthodoxy, and orthodoxy itself. Attempts at giving musical distinction to holy worship failed. When it became practically hopeless, Bach began to be recognized as the last great cultivator of religious music in our sense. The state of contemporary religious music had fallen into a much-discussed state of decay. Lack of unity instead of the traditional order of worship was common, and it took some time until ecclesiastical and music life were renewed and revived. Once they were revived, the greatness of Bach established itself firmly. In America, too, Bach was regarded as the one composer who gave impetus to a new awareness in Protestant church music. And with this came a rediscovery of other musicians from the time of the Reformation to Bach and the unearthing of a vast repertory of Lutheran church music.

I submit that the wakening interest in music since the Reformation and up to Bach’s death on the part of Americans is to a large extent traceable to the arrival here of émigrés from Nazidom in the middle of the thirties. The émigrés were either “practical” musicians or scholars, but primarily they were “humanistically” educated and had acquired their background of learning from European universities. Whereas at that time in the early thirties very little consideration was given to music in the liberal-arts educational program of American colleges and universities, now in most colleges and universities of America music is granted a status that equals that of literature for its intellectual as well as for its expressive values.

To bring about a change such as this within a short quarter of a century, there had to be a great deal of controversy and there still is. These controversies have not jeopardized general progress, but have focused attention on the issues of music and on what it means in our daily life. Now in 1961 we offer a pretty well-balanced musical education in this country, which in many ways excels that of other civilized countries. Practical music serves more and more as a means of approach to the literature and to aesthetic values as such, and it is continually scrutinized in formal courses.

In this growing interrelationship of practical and academic music, the entire realm of Lutheran church music played a role of which Lutherans are not always conscious. The evidence is in the surge of interest in the so-called monumental works, in the Monumenta and Documenta Musicologica. The reissues of the Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Oesterreich and the Denkmäler, Deutscher Tonkunst has been most gratifying. On the other hand, there have been the Bärenreiter and other editions of Rhau, Sweelinck, Scheidt, Schein, Buxtehude, Schütz, and many others. What is more significant is that the younger generation actually uses this material.

Another important fact — very important, sociologically speaking —is the interest of musical amateurs in works originally conceived for the church. We think of the wonderful influence of Mr. Henry S. Drinker of Philadelphia who, singing Bach for Bach’s sake with a group of friends, eventually published Bach’s vocal works in his own excellent translations and, in doing so, established the Association of American Choruses, permitting members to rent any number of copies needed at a nominal figure.

Another phase we should consider is that of recordings and their American collectors. Much of this music is performed with exaggerated dynamics, with all sorts of improper effects, with misshapen phraseologies, with thickened textures, and sometimes they even turn out to be nothing short of involuntary travesties. On the other hand, we are not without the ever-present pedants who insist that because style should be a reality in music, we should no longer concern ourselves with any old music as long as it is not played on old instruments. Again we must remember that it is the spiritual value which matters in the end. I said at one time in the Little Bach Book published by the Valparaiso University Press, “The playing of Bach’s piano works cannot be made dependent upon the number of harpsichords or clavichords available, and to insist, as some scholars do, on the exclusive use of reconstructed instruments seems questionable counsel even in Europe and more so in this country.” I think that in the 11 years that have gone by I have not changed my opinion a bit. We must do the best we can do under the circumstances surrounding our life.

Singing and music making cannot be replaced with anything. The direct experience which it communicates is not communicable through broadcasting or through recording. Because of that, the youth movement often has opposed canned music altogether. We should not bemoan the fact and see in the canned music our competition and an enemy. Interpretation is all-important. The record gives us the possibility to record authentic interpretation. This is a benefit attendant not only to old music but with respect to contemporary music, which frequently can be recorded under the very guidance of the composer.

Perhaps even more gratifying is that Lutheran church music of today, seen as a movement, has not confined itself to the revival and rediscovery of the old, but has groomed, at least in Germany, its own remarkable composers. These composers have been inspired by their work for the church and have given us excellent and in part truly outstanding music. I am thinking of Hugo Distler, Ernst Pepping, Siegfried Reda, and others, who serve best as witnesses to the fact that a powerful Lutheran church music of today is certainly on its way. Their great work is a testimony to the fact that the tide of faith is running strong again and that unbelief is beginning to ebb. Surely we do not need music to believe, but we have come to recognize that the music of the past and of today has been able to tell us about God and our Savior in a language which brings us nearer to faith and contributes to our better understanding of the eternal spiritual values of the world, of love, of trust, and of hope. That they do so is no coincidence with respect to the old masters. Music and faith to most of them were inseparable.

Let us remember — and I am saying this not to close on a timely note, but out of deep conviction —that no matter how beautifully we render Lutheran music of the past, we shall kill its spirit in today’s world if we fail to keep alive that which is equally important: the way of life fostered by our American ancestors. We must uphold our arts as a basis of democracy. We need to preserve our democracy, the heritage that has been handed on to us from our forefathers and that we in turn are obliged to pass on to our children.

New York City, N. Y.

From The Musical Heritage of the Church, Volume VI (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1963). Copyright Concordia Publishing House. Printed by permission. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of Concordia Publishing House.