When people started playing piano chords with their left hand.

It's a shame Shoenberg gave up music at once.

OK... well he did abandon harmony at one point... did he ever return?

I much prefer Berg to Schoenberg.

""I certainly had no feeling for harmony, and Schoenberg thought that that would make it impossible for me to write music. He said, 'You'll come to a wall you won't be able to get through.' So I said, 'I'll beat my head against that wall.' " --John Cage

We're not used to absolutes like that. Today I was Tweeting with a percussionist friend who had claimed that "rhythms" was the longest word in English without a true vowel, and I mentioned the late ethnomusicologist William Malm. Dr. Malm had the freshman "ear-cleaning" intro to music history course at University of Michigan, and he told us on the first day of class that we would learn how to spell "rhythm", because if we misspelled it on a test, we would fail the test. My friend opined that this was rude (he used an earthier term), and I pointed out that it worked, and if a person is incapable of spelling a basic term in their field, they should be weeded early. Friend expressed sympathy for dyslexics, and I opined that dyslexics were probably few and far between at U-M 40 years ago.

Publishers' rejection letters weed out a lot of such inferior stuff although, unfortunately, not all of it, not by a long shot.

They also weed out the best in order to find the middle (mediocrity) so they can run a business selling to the largest constituents who will send them money, and kowtow to many of the amateurs who sit on the organ benches (well, these days piano benches). Art, good art, has nothing to do with money, at least in terms of finding and promoting the exceptional as it appears on the horizon.

Publishers (a certain bunch of them) do not "weed out" the inferior. Time and good musician do, tried and true. Much of what is published today is just weeds; most of it, and that includes the 900 pound gorillas. The good music that is time tried comes to the top like the cream, and those publishers who know a good thing stick with it.

I offered my music for free for most of my life. Why? Because publishers couldn't sell it. My compositions were rejected by a number of the publishers, MAINLY because it was too unmarketable. I still offer pieces for free (see latest post, "Psalms for Holy Week" on this forum).

In a hundred years, let's see what rises to the top as cream.

(David Andrew - glad you are back on the forum.)

RichardMix ... a MUSICAL piece by Shoenberg! How about that! Thanks for sharing.

I think your little potshot aimed at those composers offering their work free of charge here was truly unnecessary.

My bad, David. If you took my words to be a "little potshot," I must not have made myself clear.

I regularly find it necessary to correct or entirely rewrite chord progressions in music published by one of the publishing houses to which you refer.

A generalization such as this says absolutely nothing. If you "regularly" find it necessary to do such rewrites, it should not be difficult for you to give five or ten or more citations of what you rewrote.

Much of what passes for and is published as "church music" is little more than a confused noise or the musical equivalent of shabby chic.

Another generalization ultimately signifying nothing.

Fr. Krisman... you really don't want us to point out the bad voice leading... do you? I avoid all the new hymn harmonizations by most of the publishers today and fall back to the 1940 or before. Some are acceptable, but they are far and few between.

I go to the extreme and paste the new words (when I have to use the hymnal in the pew) onto the old settings. Thank God for my Macintosh, Sibelius and InDesign.

Here is a setting I did a few hours ago. The harmonies are from the NOH.

Fr. Krisman

How much do you pay per hour to fix harmonies... or better yet, represent better ones altogether? Unfortunately, I think the hitch would be I would not want to lend my harmonies to the poor theological texts.

That sounds like a copout.
He called you out. You'll lose credibility if you don't deliver.
I believe you, but I'd like to see some proof...

Adam: Is this a comment about my last comment?

Two better solutions:

...and fixer upper with notations (knocking on 'Wood') Double thirds aren't a crime in some spots, but that one hurts!

Felipe:

In which version?

In the fixer upper? No, there is an eighth note in the tenor which 'staggers' the crime.

Having used Ritual Song for 15 or so years, I still detest the Proulx hymn harmonizations and replace them with earlier and more standard arrangements. I know he was considered something of either a prophet or saint in Chicago, but his discordant arrangements tend to make it more difficult for the congregation to sing. On top of that, they are just plain ugly. That hymnal caused one veteran musician in my area to say, "I can't believe what they have done to 'Holy God..." I don't use the GIA harmonization, but appreciate that someone had to really work at it to screw up "Grosser Gott..." Those supposedly "new and fresh" harmonizations rarely live up to the standards from the older hymnals. BTW, "Holy God..." is not a Proulx thing. Someone else did that arrangement. Even when hymn arrangements may be original or authentic, why use them if they depart from what your congregation knows and will sing?

I still detest the Proulx hymn harmonizations and replace them with earlier and more standard arrangements

I always regarded Proulx's penchant and pretense as intended to mimic or honor Bartok, perhaps as an effort to raise some imagined need for an elevated aesthetic. The most egregious example was his (OCP) "Responsorial Mass" commissioned for SJPII's Papal Tour of the USA. The melodies of each movement were truly, nobly simple/elegant. Why he then chose to then cobble on his faux-chic clusters in the SATB/organ resulted in a Frankenstein's monster of an Ordinary. I remember it well as when I arrived at the Fresno Cathedral in 87, I had a few choristers who'd sung it in Los Angeles and thus thought it was an admirable achievement by them. I completely reset the whole Mass, keeping each melody in tact, took the choir through it, and those same singers said, "Oh, that's much better. How'd you do that?"
That is not to however say that Proulx's entire catalogue is bereft of beauty. "Jesus, lead the way" comes to mind.

PS. Fr. K, Tho' I appreciate your apology, I believe you meant every word of that caustic insult towards anyone who posts a composition here. I have published arrangements of mine with OCP which were far superior to those done by my predecessor for a mediocre songwriter. But I can tell you that with the exception of Randy DeBruyn, not a one of that editorial board which approved said collection were more competent theorists or arrangers than I. We also have national composition contest winners posting here regularly. And when someone new posts something substandard here, likely out of naivete, criticism is more often than not offered kindly. I have reviewed Ostrowski and Kwasniewski over at the Cafe quite thoroughly on occasion, and I don't think either Jeff or Peter would take umbrage if I said that not every work was a gem. But disparaging remarks such as yours could prompt folks to examine your catalogue with a critical eye just as informed as your pros at GIA. That would also be unnecessary.

While I defer to my learned colleagues re : arrangements and composition, I do not think it would be fair to dismiss his efforts tout court. It seems to me that at a critical juncture in church music history, he was among the few aiming at truly worthy musical art.

Proulx is one of the reasons we turned the corner from the road that leads to all pop, all the time.

That is not to however say that Proulx's entire catalogue is bereft of beauty. "Jesus, lead the way" comes to mind.

Concur.
However, during "his era" there were a number of very artful composers, Thomas Savoy, Ralph Verdi, Leo Nestor, Howard Hughes, even John Schiavone among others, whose work met the criterion of "beautiful" a little more directly.

I didn't like some of his music, especially his hymn harmonizations, as I have noted. Maybe the place and culture had something to do with it. I generally had negative impressions of Holy Name to begin with. The building had been vandalized far from its original architecture and decoration after the Council and had become quite ugly. The organ was hideous and sounded harsh, unpleasant, and out of place in that building. The altar looked like something that some post-conciliar Klingon artist accidentally let fall from a passing space ship. Nearly everything about the place screamed ugly, ugly, ugly! Or perhaps it screamed, new-church, new-church, new-church! ;-)

My understanding was that Proulx was an Episcopalian, not a Catholic. Maybe it's an advanced case of Haugen-phobia, but I look with suspicion on some of the non-Catholics who are producing music for Catholic worship. I tend to wonder if they have any understanding of the worship they are attempting to influence - or subvert, in Haugen's case.

It was the 80s. Does anyone remember the 80s?

Yes, and much, much more! LOL.

Kathy, I remember the 80's I rather liked the... should I call it music? I do remember enjoying it at the time, but much prefer chant now!

N.B. I really can't remember what was sung in the local parish church at the time!

Or perhaps it screamed, new-church, new-church, new-church! ;-)

My understanding was that Proulx was an Episcopalian, not a Catholic. Maybe it's an advanced case of Haugen-phobia, but I look with suspicion on some of the non-Catholics who are producing music for Catholic worship. I tend to wonder if they have any understanding of the worship they are attempting to influence - or subvert, in Haugen's case.

Spot on, CW

Was Shoenberg Catholic?

Welcome imperfect steps that lead in the right direction

My qualm is that I don't think it was the right direction.

That is how it seems to you, not how it seems to me.

If efforts were made to actually instill the authentic music of the church in workshops, publications, choir rehearsals, private teaching, establishing a schola and teaching GC, and then composing pieces that promoted the tradition (organ, not brass and timpani), then it would have been the right direction.

Was Schoenberg Catholic?

No. Born Jewish, became Lutheran in 1898, resumed Judaism in 1933.