"reverent" is an equally misused buzzword. It should vanish from your vocabulary.

One reverent is worth a hundred vibrants.

The word reverent in a job description reeks of possibilities while vibrant reeks...just reeks.

The really, really misused buzzword, beyond all others is BUZZWORD. It will be gone faster than vibrant.

Let's all rip apart francis's sacred now. Or his sacred cow, whichever comes first.

The church requires sacred music for her liturgies... not vibrant or any other buzzard... just sacred.

Sacred is worthless, too.

People are reverent, not music. Things are sacred, not music.

If you have something to say about music, say it. Don't couch it in worthless nonspeak.

When someone tells me they want "reverent" music, I automatically know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

People are reverent, not music. Things are sacred, not music.

Well, yes and no. This actually raises thought on some interesting perspectives.
Reverent: people may be reverent or irreverent. Music (and other arts) may or may not contribute to this reverence, which is, perhaps we can agree, a sense of and profound respect for the sacred, the holy. This, however, may or may not be a mere matter of perception: abstractly, music may be said to be non-referential. But in human experiece, shall we say experientially or associatively, there can be little doubt that music A is reverent in that it fosters reverence and is not disturbing of the contemplative faculties, while music B may indeed disturb (sometimes intentionally) any sort of reverent disposition. Vaughan Williams' G-Minor mass could certainly be said to contribute to as well as portray and represent reverence. Ditto chant, whether it be joyfully ecstatic or still and prayerful. We may, then, agree that music A is fit for sacred precincts and conducive to the varieties of emotion and intellectual disposition which are desired by the worshipping, reverent, person. Conversely, we can probably each think of music that would fit into the music B category, which has no religious reference, intent or usefulness and may, in fact, be either accidentally or purposefully anti-religious. Music A is a moral postitive, while music B is a moral negative. Then, there is music C, such as opera, Broadway, symphony, chamber music, etc., which having healthy entertainment value and possibly being intellectually stimulating, is morally neutral. A capacity to compliment the reverent soul, then, can be said to make some music reverent, even iconic. (Another matter, into which I shant delve, are those species of 'religious music' which are actually intellectually, creatively, and artistically absent of any genuine spiritual value and appeal only to a shallow religiosity. Such music could not be considered reverent.)

Sacred: I would assert that music is a thing (though an aural thing), and can, therefore, be sacred or not, depending on its reverential (see above) qualities. A Tallis mass, a Taverner votive antiphon, a Poulenc motet may all be sacred because of their purpose, their high creative value, their inherent exclusivity for naught but the worship of the All Holy. This makes them as sacred as a holy icon, a vestment, a liturgical book, and other things set aside for holy activities. The one thing that music lacks that other things used on the altar and in liturgy have is that it doesn't seem to have occured to anyone to bless it! But for that, it is as sacred as any blessed item in the church. So, we speak, and rightly so, of Sacred Music. Sacred Music is not just music that happens to be performed at liturgy, it is sacred because of its artistic value as a gift from God, and its function as a sacred item, a sacred thing in worship. (Though yet another matter, into which also I shant delve, are those species of music used in worship which the spiritually discerning soul should know better than to permit because they are antithetcal to reverence [see above] and unworthy of the House of God.)

(As for 'reverent tempo', I must agree with Gavin that this is an absurd locution. Considering that reverence in music is contingent upon its capacity to foster the disposition appropriate to a given prayerful or liturgical act, a reverent tempo could be slow, fast, vigourous or calm, depending entirely on the text, the lectionary, the theme of the day, the liturgical season or whatnot. There is no such thing as a reverent tempo! A 'reverent' tempo for the 'Hallelujah Chorus', then, would be one that reverences what that chorus is about and contributes to the disposition appropriate for the assimilation of its message!)

now I wonder if the person was thinking...hmm should the drumset go on the epistle side or the gospel side?

I can think of another place they can put it. ;-)

Yes, I would say that to state that music cannot possess a reverent or sacred quality nor any opposites of them is to understate the importance of the music in the liturgy. It states that it does not matter what music you have in the liturgy and begs the following question: what is the purpose of music in the liturgy? This question has of course been answered by Holy Mother Church herself, yet her answer continues to go unheeded. She had indeed also told us what music should be done in the liturgy, yet her answer continues to go unheeded. We must make a clear distinction between what is acceptable in the liturgy and what is not. To say that music isn't reverent or sacred, and cannot possess those qualities while other objects and people can is to reduce the importance of music in the liturgy. Music is extremely important in the liturgy and should be treated as such. In many ways, music has influenced the changing atmosphere in our liturgy; more so than the objects, and definitely at the will of some people with good intentions.

I would assert that music is a thing (though an aural thing), and can, therefore, be sacred or not, depending on its reverential (see above) qualities.

Unless I recall badly (always possible), "sacred" music must also utilize text of the Mass Ordinary or Proper, or OT/NT text. I would add that it should be written for use during the Mass to distinguish it from, e.g., Brahms' Requiem.

IOW, I agree with your statement--but would add those qualifiers.

The thing is, when I see adjectives thrown about, I invariably think that is exactly what the subject under discussion isn't.

Studies said to have used "the most stringent academic standards" didn't. Not-for-(taxable)-profit corporations that claim to be doing "vitally important work" aren't.

A former, superb music director moved on to a hippy college. When he brought his choir to his old parish, the flyer promised "raucous percussion," which turned out to be too dweeby stoners with no rhythm smacking some part or other of djembes.

If you feel you have to advertise what you are, it's often what you aren't. It can at best be described as an aspirational claim.

Kenneth

STR = 9
CON = 12
DEX = 8
INT =15
WIS = 11
CHA = 16

I think that's pretty charismatic