'...was aiming at art...'

What a nice thing to say about someone who missed the mark. Yes, he was aiming in the right direction. Perhaps he should have studied Howells and Britten a little more closely. And, while I don't agree with my esteemed friend, Gregory Hamilton, that P was a master musician, he seems rather in a class by himself. I have sung several of his things that were, really, pretty good, if not outright good. Mostly, though, he is disappointing - sort of like some of Willan's less-than-admirable stuff that he churned out for his publishers. (However, Willan really was a master!)

Kathy, I know you are being optimistic and positive and everything, but this just doesn't quite do it for me.

Let me put it this way. Many parishes have taken what can only be considered a low road. Not to mention names, but think of how the folk group led to the contemporary ensemble which is leading to the praise band. It's the Mass With the Friendly Soundtrack.

But some (probably fewer) parishes took the high road, played organ literature, developed serious SATB choirs, trained children to sing quality music.

It's the second group that will be willing to accept chant and polyphony.

Previous award recipients include: Virgil Thomson, Ned Rorem, Daniel Pinkham, Samuel Adler, Dominick Argento, William Albright, Conrad Susa, Emma Lou Diemer, Dan Locklair, William Bolcom, Alice Parker, Carl Schalk, Margaret Sandresky, Stephen Paulus, Craig Phillips, and Libby Larsen.

Father, as admirable a rally that may be, such honoraria are bestowed for a wide variety of achievements. The above litany, as you and any knowledgeable choral director/composer would know, is a disparate group itself. How would you account for the inclusion of the lovely Alice Parker of great respect with or without Robert Shaw, among the dialectic of Thomson, Rorem, Pinkham, Argento, Diemer or Paulus, all of whom worked very different sides of the compositional streets? Apples, oranges, and loquats.
Again, lux aeterna to Richard Proulx. His legacy will still be in play for a hundred years or more.

American Guild of Organists

IMHO, they don't have a clue about Musica Sacra in the RC tradition. Maybe individuals within the org understand, but to me they are more Unitarian in thought and theology.

melo:

yes, i believe we agree more than most. good to know you!

as for likelihood of achievement, i heartily and with great enthusiasm invite the rest of musicdom to get on with it! thanks for being a part.

I don't think we'll get anywhere helpful by dogpiling the AGO, any more than dogpiling Proulx.

Francis, I see now why we are talking past one another. You are talking about your personal journey, while I'm talking about the American church music scene at large. So apples and oranges. If we want to get biographical, I've played guitar, tambourine, bass (upright and electric), recorder (soprano and alto), and marimba at Mass, and have sung many a descant that would do Mary Travers one better.

But I don't make the decisions. Priests make the decisions. Usually, whatever priests sang as seminarians is "normal" church music. That's what they ask for in their parishes. But--something can shake up that normal a little: ordinations. Over the past three decades, in many situations, priests have come from their standard pablum parishes to the cathedral and have heard the tympani and whatever, and have been awakened to the possibility that there is something more than they'd bargained for.

It's that "something more" that leaves a door open for the Reform of the Reform.

Charles,

I seem to recall that you agreed not to pick these ludicrous fights anymore.

This is not a fight, it's a discussion about a critical aspect of what was, what is and where is going, sacred music, and it is a passionate subject to be sure.

The likes of Haugen and Proulx (as figureheads of their craft) during the emerging VII music scene, WERE the model that each camp looked to for leadership. Well, that is ending if it has not ended. The grass roots are springing up, strong and sturdy, and the weeds will remain but be dealt with in the end.

I am not dogpiling, Kathy. I am calling a spade a spade. I am spayding the dogs, not piling them. :). And that goes for both the confused leaders of sacred music and the AGO. I was a member of both. Experience is the best teacher and informer.

I speak my mind here mainly for upcoming and aspiring musicians who are seeking clarity about what sacred music is about. Perhaps my words will help one or two of them to find the right path instead of running after butterflies that appear in the field and wind up going off a cliff.

Naturally, we decide to turn off computers and phones for the weekend, right after I start this post! It's always interesting where these things go. I think Fr. Krisman's original comment is interesting, although it seemed a bit defensive (are you still following this thread, Father?). My post was not a potshot at any particular publisher - rather, it had to do with a general culture which assumes that anything set down on a page in an octavo is a "composition" worthy of the name. Along with the idea that only the intention of the composer is important, and that any discussion of technical skill and "craft" is irrelevant in sacred music. Along with the idea that chord progressions from the singer-songwriter idiom can be transferred wholesale to keyboard and choir with absolutely no thought to the tradition of voice-leading. It's true, one of the prime offenders, where all of the above is concerned, is the GIA Celebration series of "octavos" - sloppily over-orchestrated versions of the singer-songwriter idiom greatest hits. But in fairness, all major publishers I've seen have similar publications. And in fairness to Fr. Krisman, things that are published here at the forum are often less than stellar. I will even mention a name - the Richard Rice Simple Choral Gradual, in which, although the voice-leading is correct, the level of musical inspiration is...Simply...not acceptable in my book. All apologies to R. Rice - I know he is a fine musician and this collection was consciously far, far, on the side of Simplicity for practical purposes. Just so far on that side that personally I cannot bring myself to use it in any music program I've led. I will now hide in a bunker to avoid the digital rotten fruit being thrown at my head.

As far as the Proulx discussion, one thing that frankly worries me about the CMAA is a myopia about fine music-making and efforts that have not come from within the CMAA "camp" or "inner circle" if you will. In the past year and a half I presented at the CMAA conference at St Agnes in the Twin Cities, and attended the Conference of Roman Catholic Cathedral Musicians also in the TC. It worries me that the CMAA is not more conversant with the work that was done at Cathedrals in America after the council - in many cases a desperate attempt to salvage the treasury and stand out as an island of sanity in the flood of terrible music. And Proulx was one of the big names in that effort, for decades before CMAA was a true influence in the music scene the way it is today. Many efforts the CMAA seems to think it invented out of hopeless chaos were already underway at least at certain visionary Cathedrals. The CMAA would do well to study more efforts outside of Schuler and his circle (as admirable as those efforts may be).

Jared, you are absolutely correct about the "oasis'" (plural) of cathedral and parishes that kept the sacred music candles lit in the windows during foggy decades. I inasmuch provided a litany above of only a few names, predominantly GIA-published composers besides Proulx, that provided excellence as far back as the seventies beyond Peloquin and Proulx. For the record, I have lauded the legacy of Proulx at least twice in this thread. I don't think there is necessarily a true myopia in the CMAA mindset. Even tho' Fr. Schuler's legacy is still alive, particularly with the likes and talent of Buchholz, Professor Mahrt has not been hide-bound to chant/Palestrina/Victoria et al ever in his half-century's tenure. And for every Kevin Allen motet he's probably prepared, he has also likely a Lauridsen or Taverner programmed along the way. As far as Richard Rice is concerned, The SCP, not unlike Bartlett's SEP, ought to be regarded as a stepping stone that enables the recovery of sound choral praxis in Catholic churches. His other Choral Communio collection must be lauded as the fine art next step for recovering and restoring the choir to its rightful office in the liturgy.

It worries me that the CMAA is not more conversant with the work that was done at Cathedrals in America after the council - in many cases a desperate attempt to salvage the treasury and stand out as an island of sanity in the flood of terrible music. And Proulx was one of the big names in that effort, for decades before CMAA was a true influence in the music scene the way it is today. Many efforts the CMAA seems to think it invented out of hopeless chaos were already underway at least at certain visionary Cathedrals. The CMAA would do well to study more efforts outside of Schuler and his circle (as admirable as those efforts may be).

Jared, thank you for saying what I have been trying to get across above.

Richard Rice SCG:

We haven't practiced in three weeks because of snow and ice. I passed out SCG communion chants each Sunday and the choir read them at sight. They couldn't have done that with anything more difficult.

Digital rotten fruit: Oh, come on! If I bother to throw anything I will make sure it is something that will hurt when it hits. Otherwise, it's not worth the energy expenditure. LOL.

I readily admit SCG is simplistic, but it is useful and serves a purpose. Rice has written better since along with many other fine compositions. I tried getting my choir to sing some of the Weber chants, which I like considerably. They rebelled saying they do enough chant already and don't want to do any more. Move on to plan "B."

I think there is plenty of good music out there from a number of sources. It isn't the lack of music that causes so much U.S. church music to be bad, it is the lack of will to do anything better. Now that's genuinely rotten fruit!

Francis,

No one is "espousing" anything. We're talking about historical realities that worked towards--guess what--pipe organs. Gregorian chant. Polyphony.

They are normal in ex-Proulx-type programs.

Kathy

OK.

That's good.

I am just no longer putting up with doing something different, even if it's a LITTLE different. I am working to bring back the cause.

Kathy

hmmm.... I don't know him. I hope that is good.

I'm writing my dissertation on a disagreement that Thomas Aquinas had with him. On this particular question, Peter seems to have skipped over a few important steps in order to be somewhat absolutist :)

One of St Thomas's arguments is a famous Latin saying, which I know only in English. "That which is received is received according to the mode of the receiver." So the giver of a gift--when God gives, for example--has to be aware of the receiver's ability to receive the gift. God gives gifts at times and in ways that we can receive them, and if we are not yet ready, makes us ready. In other words, in this particular example, St Thomas's theology is more process-oriented than Peter Lombard's.

Here's St.Thomas's article from the Summa T. Let me know if you want more!

(The objections reflect Peter Lombard's writings.)

Article 2. Whether charity is something created in the soul?

Objection 1. It would seem that charity is not something created in thesoul. For Augustine says (De Trin. viii, 7): "He that loveth his neighbor, consequently, loveth love itself." Now God is love. Therefore it follows that he loves God in the first place. Again he says (De Trin. xv, 17): "It was said:God is Charity, even as it was said: God is a Spirit." Therefore charity is not something created in the soul, but is God Himself.

Objection 2. Further, God is the life of the soul spiritually just as the soulis the life of the body, according to Deuteronomy 30:20: "He is thy life." Now the soul by itself quickens the body. Therefore God quickens the soulby Himself. But He quickens it by charity, according to 1 John 3:14: "Weknow that we have passed from death to life, because we love thebrethren." Therefore God is charity itself.

Objection 3. Further, no created thing is of infinite power; on the contrary every creature is vanity. But charity is not vanity, indeed it is opposed to vanity; and it is of infinite power, since it brings the human soul to theinfinite good. Therefore charity is not something created in the soul.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 10): "By charity I mean the movement of the soul towards the enjoyment of God for His own sake." But a movement of the soul is something created in the soul. Therefore charity is something created in the soul.

I answer that, The Master looks thoroughly into this question in 17 of the First Book, and concludes that charity is not something created in thesoul, but is the Holy Ghost Himself dwelling in the mind. Nor does he mean to say that this movement of love whereby we love God is the Holy Ghost Himself, but that this movement is from the Holy Ghost without any intermediary habit, whereas other virtuous acts are from the Holy Ghostby means of the habits of other virtues, for instance the habit of faith orhope or of some other virtue: and this he said on account of the excellence of charity.But if we consider the matter aright, this would be, on the contrary, detrimental to charity. For when the Holy Ghost moves the human mindthe movement of charity does not proceed from this motion in such a way that the human mind be merely moved, without being the principle of this movement, as when a body is moved by some extrinsic motive power. For this is contrary to the nature of a voluntary act, whose principle needs to be in itself, as stated above (I-II, 6, 1): so that it would follow that to love is not a voluntary act, which involves a contradiction, since love, of its verynature, implies an act of the will.Likewise, neither can it be said that the Holy Ghost moves the will in such a way to the act of loving, as though the will were an instrument, for an instrument, though it be a principle of action, nevertheless has not the power to act or not to act, for then again the act would cease to bevoluntary and meritorious, whereas it has been stated above (I-II, 114, 4) that the love of charity is the root of merit: and, given that the will is moved by the Holy Ghost to the act of love, it is necessary that the willalso should be the efficient cause of that act.Now no act is perfectly produced by an active power, unless it be connatural to that power of reason of some form which is the principle of that action. Wherefore God, Who moves all things to their due ends, bestowed on each thing the form whereby it is inclined to the end appointed to it by Him; and in this way He "ordereth all things sweetly" (Wisdom 8:1). But it is evident that the act of charity surpasses the natureof the power of the will, so that, therefore, unless some form be superadded to the natural power, inclining it to the act of love, this sameact would be less perfect than the natural acts and the acts of the other powers; nor would it be easy and pleasurable to perform. And this is evidently untrue, since no virtue has such a strong inclination to its act ascharity has, nor does any virtue perform its act with so great pleasure. Therefore it is most necessary that, for us to perform the act of charity, there should be in us some habitual form superadded to the naturalpower, inclining that power to the act of charity, and causing it to act with ease and pleasure.

Reply to Objection 1. The Divine Essence Itself is charity, even as It is wisdom and goodness. Wherefore just as we are said to be good with thegoodness which is God, and wise with the wisdom which is God (since thegoodness whereby we are formally good is a participation of Divinegoodness, and the wisdom whereby we are formally wise, is a share of Divine wisdom), so too, the charity whereby formally we love our neighbor is a participation of Divine charity. For this manner of speaking is common among the Platonists, with whose doctrines Augustine was imbued; and the lack of adverting to this has been to some an occasion of error.

Reply to Objection 2. God is effectively the life both of the soul bycharity, and of the body by the soul: but formally charity is the life of thesoul, even as the soul is the life of the body. Consequently we may conclude from this that just as the soul is immediately united to the body, so is charity to the soul.

Reply to Objection 3. Charity works formally. Now the efficacy of a formdepends on the power of the agent, who instills the form, wherefore it is evident that charity is not vanity. But because it produces an infiniteeffect, since, by justifying the soul, it unites it to God, this proves theinfinity of the Divine power, which is the author of charity.

dad29... It was in 2005 and it was held at the Basilica in DC... were you there or at another?

Hey dad29 and francis, either my hearing (reading?) aid failed
and I missed something, or there are posts appearing here
and really meant for another Discussion, or worse, PM.

Something Francis said, I think.

"Did this thread ever have anything to do with Schönberg?"

It did for most of the first half dozen or so posts. Here's a different perspective.

Schoenberg did indeed know his (tonal) harmonic craft and voice writing well. While he had a lot to do with the development of 12-tone music, he retained an appreciation for tonal harmony and returned to it from time to time.

Schoenberg's second wife's brother, Rudolf Kolisch, was a composition student of his and an outstanding violinist who, because of an affliction had to learn to play the violin with hands reversed (left hand bowing, right hand on the fingerboard). Rudolf went on to found the "Vienna String Quartet" (which later became the "Kolisch Quartet" and played many Schoenberg works) and, after emigrating to the U.S., founded the Pro Arte Quartet at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

It was when I was an undergraduate at UW-Madison that I became acquainted with Rudolf. I was page turner for the Danish-born pianist, Gunnar Johansen, who was artist-in-residence there (the first ever musician as an artist-in-residence at an American university). It was in connection with some of Gunnar's courses that I got to know Rudolf, and I greatly enjoyed his reminiscences at the time (this was approximately 1960), although I no longer remember many details. But Rudolf's praise and respect for Schoenberg and his music was very high indeed.

I love the Gurrelieder, too ... all of it! And Verklaerte Nacht is quite good, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqODySSxYpc

What is interesting to me (and the reason I posted originally) is that you have someone who has consciously moved beyond common practice harmony and voice-leading. But even he would say that any composer worth his salt needs to acquire skill in that craft before finding an individual voice. As far as I know, this is what all truly great composers have said over time, and I find it sad that the entire concept of musical tradition and developed skill in a craft is so lacking much of the time in our current sacred music world.