Interesting article, especially for me, who has never had the pleasure of singing anything by Lauridsen nor knowingly heard any of his music. I do sort of like this situation, where there's a composer or author regarded as quite good but I have yet to experience. Looking forward to that magic moment (any day now) when I can sit and focus and be introduced to his works one by one.

Lauridsen's palette has, unfortunately, gained many imitators who do not necessarily do it as skillfully. Long ago I had wished that the USCCB had offered him a commission for a creative commons choral setting of the vernacular ordinary (preferably after re-translation, now done), also with parts for the people (a constraint would have been a good challenge for the composer, I think).

There are, IMNSHO, too many choral etudes masquerading as modern sacred music (ooh, see how altos and tenors can sing parallel tritones or major sevenths or minor ninths, until their noses bleed, cool...)

He, like me and every other composer includeing Part and Whitaker, bear the burden of "quoting" ourselves, but there's only so many notes in the cosmos.

Let me see ... should this read as follows?

He, like me and every other composer including Part and Whitacre, bears the burden of "quoting" himself, but there are only so many notes in the cosmos.

If so, I think I understand it now. If not, Chuck, could you please clarify it?

And your last sentence: "I would know Lauridsen just like I would know Poulence[sic] or Debussy, given the chance." I'm not sure what meaning you attach to it. But, since Poulenc and Debussy are no longer with us, yet have recognizable compositional styles, I'm wondering if you mean that you would like to be able to recognize Lauridsen's music (even if the particular piece is perhaps unknown to you) in the same way that you presumably recognize a work by Poulenc or Debussy. Is that it?

Here's an anecdote from my own experience. I still recall hearing some symphonic music on public radio a number of years ago and thinking, because I already was quite familiar with the entire symphonic output of the composer, "That sounds a bit like bad Mahler." Well, in fact it was Mahler, sort of, as reconstructed from the sketches from his unfinished 10th symphony. I had a similar reaction to the reconstructed final movement of the Bruckner 9th symphony. In each case, I could hear the master's hand in the work, but also the hand of the reconstructor making the result sound (at least to me) somewhat off.

But, principally, thank you for pointing us to the review!!

Ahhhh, thanks, Chuck ... now I understand your meaning!

Side note, Chuck. When you know which pieces of mine you'll be doing and when (and at what Masses/services), could you please let me know. Patty and I would like to let our friend there in Visalia know so that he can be sure to be there! For that matter, I'd love to be there, too, but it's not too likely this year. Best wishes to you!

As a lifelong Catholic, and a choral conductor by trade, but relatively recent practicioner of truly sacred music, I wonder why it seems like so many (not all) in the traditional vein of sacred music - and also to some extent the traditional forces in choral music at large - ignore (or at best, remain blissfully ignorant of) composers like Lauridsen for as long as they do before they suddenly make a big deal about them.

@melofluent--not Lucy but 'splainin'--when I was doing my dissertation on French choral music, I asked a French choral conductor I know if 'poo-lenk' or 'poo-lahnk' was correct. He said the former, as that was the way the family pronounced it. QED :-)

Rather like 'Rafe' Vaughan Williams...

Patricia, exactly: that was how he said it.

@melo

yes, and I knew you were already aware of its treasures, but I suspect not everyone has read my review