During my college years, my primary professor would often use the term "stylistic framework." We were talking about jazz piano styles, how differently we would accompany a Count Basie tune than a Coltrane tune, how the same approach (even within the same overarching genre) is not appropriate in all situations. Could be the same melody, same chord progression, whatever ... but the context might determine that something ought to be different. We ought to observe the Stylistic Framework in which our music would be constructed.

Working on the organ accompaniments for the Parish Book of Psalms, something about this particular antiphon (or the particular coffee) got me experimenting this morning. Studying in the genre I did, these sorts of comparisons are old-hat. Heck, with the Simple English Propers accompaniments, the early drafts were FAR different than the final product.

I thought this psalm a striking example of the conflicting liturgical styles we encounter in the average American parish, and how much the harmonic approach affects what is going on. Listen to the audio and see how drastically the same melody changes in a different harmonic context. I imagine two entirely different sanctuaries in these.


Here is how I hear these:
-The melody, by itself, is beautiful. Rising and falling naturally, with a rhythmic and melodic cadence perfectly aligned to the pattern of speech. Singing this is simply an elevated form of speaking it.
-The first harmonization follows these natural rhythms and underpins the natural modality of the melody. It supports the text, and (unless you're an a capella purist) enhances the melody by supporting [not distracting from] it.
-The second harmonization creates a forced metrical feel and the insistence on creative chromaticism distracts from the melody. The voice leading is at times smooth, at times disparate in favor of "functional" harmony - an external construct imposed upon the music. The piece becomes something quite different than its a capella conception. The Stylistic Framework dominates and transforms it into something new. Whether that's good or bad is up to taste, but its certainly different with and without the accompaniment. If you're a fan of this style, its lacking when sung a capella. If you're of the a capella or "First Framework" leaning, its ruined by the accompaniment.

An enthusiastic "contemporary worship leader" might see it as:
(and I've heard directors give such over-the-top praise to some schmaltzy passages before)
-An exciting modern approach, incorporating independent melodic movement within the inner voices, rich with suspensions and rhythmic independence. Liberal use of inversions and dramatic chromaticism that returns to a functional cadence just as the line comes to its end. Cohesively encompassing centuries of harmonic approaches in a brief micrcosm of ETCETCETC

And all I was really trying to do was RUIN the piece.


What I find interesting in this is that the latter assessment of the Second Framework is what so many will ascribe to the quality or worthiness of music. As its sarcastic composer, I forced its components. But as a proponent of "contemporary" worship, one might impose this on an unsuspecting parish choir, speaking down to those who couldn't keep up with the lingo. "This is good because it has THIS and THAT abstract concept which you do not personally comprehend, and now that I have built this smokescreen of expertise in the field, you'll trust my opinion on what's good or bad, what's suitable and what's inappropriate." The theoretical assessment of the music determines its quality, rather than the inherent beauty in the sound of the music itself.


There was a point to this before it started getting rant-y.

Oh yeah. Just interesting how much the accompaniment can frame a piece.

Stylistic Framework. Dig?