Bartok need not apply?
  • MBWMBW
    Posts: 175
    Reading the thread on the (admittedly off-putting) prize winning composition from Spain http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/13062/winner-of-6th-fernando-rielo-international-prize-for-musica-sacra#Item_17 I wondered about the role of forward thinking (but not radical) classical music of the 20th and 21st centuries in our current celebration of the Mass. I am referring to both congregational and choral music.

    I would argue that, while some musical styles of the last 116 years are difficult or impossible to use at Mass, many more styles could be used than are used. We do have talented composers writing artfully in a contemporary/renaissance polyphonic style but we have few composers writing in the more approachable "modern" styles. I am thinking here, for example, of the stylistic density of composers like Bartok, Milhaud, Villa-Lobos or even Vaughan-Williams. Some of the best sacred music of the 20th century came from Duruflé and Distler. Other bits from Martin and Messiaen. Where are their descendants? To put it another way: I like the Busto Ave Maria as much as the next person but are we to have to be satisfied with this mere sweetness going forward?

    Why so few descendants of Bartok et al writing for the Catholic church? I think one obvious answer is that serious composition in advanced styles was completely blocked by the heavy handed, folksy implementation of the CSL. There was some excitement among composers like Langlais, Heiller and Nin-Culmell, but their visions of a renewed liturgy utilizing music like theirs were not fulfilled. I would say that, since around 1970, serious composers who do not write in what I refer to as the contemporary/renaissance style have given up on Catholic music. (Or I could say that they have been given up on.) And even the cont/ren composers have, as we know, limited reach in today's Catholic musical climate.

    A second answer is that, before Vat II there were few musicians employed in the Catholic church who could adequately address challenging compositions. One area where Catholic music is stronger today that it was before VII is in the numbers of good musicians who are employed full time (or substantial part time). Of course, it must be admitted that these qualified musicians have to program music to please their bosses. This certainly tamps down most spirit of thoughtful innovation (or adventure!).

    A third, and quite daunting, answer is that the climate in the church is merely the climate of the prevailing culture. The high choral art is in trouble as is the standard symphonic and operatic literature. By the way, what are we liturgical choral persons to make of Pentatonics? (The group, not the scales!) All choral music is not dead, but is ours dying?

    Those who have managed to navigate this ramble so far are to be pitied congratulated. I would be very interested in reading opinions on the following questions:
    1. Should we be limiting ourselves to chant, renaissance polyphony, contemporary/renaissance polyphony and other safe tonal music? If so, why and if not, why not.
    2. What can and should we be doing to expand the stylistic range of our repertoire for congregations and choirs? Are we content to let the music we have now "do all the talking"? Is something more needed both for now and for the future? What are you now using that expands the choral vocabulary of contemporary Catholic worship?

    I don't pretend to have the answers to these questions. I do, however, believe that new organic (continuous) syntheses and innovations in musical style are needed. I believe that whatever the new style(s) turn out to be, they will need to be wed to a way of doing liturgy that speaks more powerfully to many more people than our liturgies do today.
    Thanked by 3doneill CHGiffen irishtenor
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    One of the problems with "classical" music is that it has lost contact with and relevance to ordinary people. Certainly, musicians can get together and congratulate each other on their use of new styles, but much of that music is truly unlistenable. I can appreciate Tournemire and Langlais, but my congregation detests both of them.

    The audience for "classical" music has shrunk in my lifetime. A symphony orchestra 200 miles away nearly lost its new building a few years ago because concert receipts were not adequate to pay the loans. A major bank stepped in and saved the day which was fortunate.

    Some have argued, and written books on, the bankruptcy of forms into which newer "classical" music molds itself. True? I don't know and it is hard to say. I think it could be said that new does not always equal good. However, I suspect writing music for Catholic worship is not any road to success or riches. In the old days, at least, musicians could get paid adequately and live on their wages.
  • Protasius
    Posts: 468
    There might also be the problem that we are so seldom exposed to the more modern styles of music. I can still remember the first time I heard Messiaen's Apparition de l'Eglise eternelle, and I couldn't stand it. I heard it a second time recently, and though it is not my preferred style of music, it has a certain appeal by now. This slowly growing acquaintance with more modern style can hardly develop, if we don't hear it more or less regularly.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    I can still remember the first time I heard Messiaen's Apparition de l'Eglise eternelle, and I couldn't stand it....


    I still can't stand it for any extended period. A little of it goes a long way. LOL.
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    For context: I am a classically trained musician. I briefly played in a chamber group that played very contemporary music, a little of which I'd call 'quite good', some of which I would call 'generally listenable', and much of which I would be happy never to hear again (a wish that will probably come true).

    My personal musical tastes run the gamut from Baroque to 20th century classical to jazz to Radiohead.

    Setting aside whether contemporary classical styles are appropriate for use as sacred music, the most significant obstacles, I think, are (1) the lack of interest in investing in excellent music within the vast majority of Catholic churches and (2) the lack of interest in hearing it. (These two reasons are connected, of course.)

    To my knowledge, there are around 10 parishioners (excluding the DM/organist) in my parish who are active as musicians and could play Bartok (on their given instrument) if asked (not that we are being asked). I have hung up my instrument in favor of singing in the choir and serving as cantor. The other 9 attend Saturday Vigil and work in Protestant parishes on Sunday. And my goodness! We are actually very well off, musically speaking, in our parish. Our congregation not only puts up with, but seems to appreciate, chanted propers, good choral music, etc. But honestly, Bartok? They would revolt. (I quite like Bartok, for the record.)
  • Richard R.
    Posts: 776
    "One area where Catholic music is stronger today that it was before VII is in the numbers of good musicians who are employed full time (or substantial part time)."

    I'm sorry. In what ideal Catholic universe is this true? Here is my perspective, based on 30 years experience:

    1) Even assuming there are more musically trained music directors employed, I would argue that their choral resources — professionally trained, competent, even musically literate singers — have probably diminished, and are certainly spread thinner.

    2) Supporting a program that could mount the likes of Durufle on a regular basis would tax even the most prestigious church choir, at least in the U.S. For one thing, the commitment to regular rehearsal has been in steady decline, and absorbing such repertoire on a Sunday morning warm-up is (I will say this definitively) impossible.

    3) Any church choir that could aspire to the sort of programming you suggest, say, one motet's worth of a Sunday, would most likely be shirking its other liturgical duties. Inevitably, the one big motet is regarded as "our real music"; everything else is auxiliary at best. Maybe that works if you're Presbyterian. But a Catholic choir, especially one dedicated in any degree to regular Propers, cannot throw the chant together in the inevitable 10 minutes of left-over rehearsal time.

    4) Never mind the push-back from nave and sanctuary alike.

    That's my (bitter, disillusioned) perspective. Now, for heaven's sake, go out and prove me wrong.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Jeffrey Quick
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Can we identify any contemporary settings from composers of this rank?

    I can only think of two: Arvo Part's Berliner Messe, composed for the annual Katholikentag convention in Germany; and a setting James MacMillan composed for a papal visitl.

  • JaredOstermann
    Posts: 488
    I'm currently working through Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony, and I think he has many important insights in this regard. I know that modern academic music theorists like to pooh-pooh his opinions and ramblings, but to me his thinking about the history of music is just as valuable as his exercises. And what value or beauty have modern academic theorists offered to the world, precisely? What genius have they nurtured and trained?

    Some ideas from Schoenberg that are at the least interesting:

    1 - western music seems to have been derived from the overtone series of single notes, with the result that the order (and relative strength) of overtones is central to form and harmony (e.g. the fifth is the strongest non-tonic overtone). In other words, the idea that all notes are not equal is central to western music, and seems to be based in the physical nature of sound. Interesting that Schoenberg, of all people, takes such pains to explore this idea!

    2 - dissonance arises from careful venturing away from consonance, and is carefully managed (both for the singer's ease and listener's psychology) by return to consonance.

    3 - singability is at the heart of western music, affecting leaps (and even allowable leaps should be managed - for example, two fourths in the same direction result in a dissonance vs. the first note, and should be avoided) and consonance/dissonance.

    There is much more, of course, but I find it fascinating that Schoenberg has so much insight into the combination of performer/listener psychology and the role this might have played in developing Western music. Of course, Schoenberg thought all of this and still chose to move beyond traditional understandings.

    My takeaway is that the modern composer disregards things like consonance/dissonance, singability, and hierarchy of tones at his/her own risk. There seems to be a reason music took the path it did, and we cannot simply invent our own realities, with no regard for the physical reality of sound or its performance/experience by the human person. I would say that composers who do not take this all into account need not apply to Catholic liturgy.

    At the same time, I believe it is possible to take the "natural law" if you will, of music into account without being slavishly neo-a particular style. We just sang the Arvo Part Beatitudes (amateur choir) for communion at All Saints. While it is certainly very challenging, it also takes consonance/dissonance and singability into account, and thus is relevant for human beings.
    Thanked by 3ZacPB189 CHGiffen MBW
  • francis
    Posts: 10,825
    The theological difference between the NO and the TLM bring much to reflect upon in this vein.

    The TLM assumes GC, polyphony and chant that are based in the idiom of the chant. That means that the harmonic structure of the music overall is that which tends toward the support of the text.

    The NO probably allows for more innovation in the styles (types, genres, etc.) of music that is incorporated. It certainly has no history, so everything seems to be 'fair game'.

    The other difference with the introduction of modern music (i.e., Messiaen and others) is that the music becomes a disconnect from the ability to 'sing' it. Some composers, less. (Barber, Durafle, etc.)

    As a composer, my style is that which is rooted in chant and traditional harmony, although I do include some modern harmonic structures that utilize dissonance and scales that wander away from strict key centers.

    Bach did this often in almost a perfectly balanced way. However, when he wrote music for 'church' it seems to me it was quite tame compared to his other contrapuntal writing which tended to find unusual harmonic progressions.

    Messiean developed his own scales completely foreign to the modes and tonalities of the church. Is that good? I have severe doubts. Do I like to listen to some of his works? At times, but rarely, and NOT during a liturgy.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Slight adjustment needed, minor complaint: The thread title is irksome to me as I highly regard the legacy of Bartok, and furthermore consign him to the pantheon of composers whose last name starts with B.
    That said, if you refashion the title to "Bartok Poseurs (sorry, Proulx) need not apply," I'd live with that.
    Richard C, I think there are substantially more such composers than you name. Gorecki and Pendercki are just two examples. The thing is, once a masterwork is employed as liturgical it really isn't all that much different than other such works from the Renaissance to the Romantic eras. Congregational-specific participation (performing audience) is set aside. Some folks get annoyed about that.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • RomanticStringsRomanticStrings
    Posts: 339
    Just last week I was reminded of my affection for Hindemith. He has a strong sense of consonance/dissonance, and his deeply contrapuntal style, in its hierarchy of interval and harmony, allows for the use of the full twelve tones while retaining tonality.

    I was curious if he'd written a Mass, and lo-and-behold he did! It is very modern, but seems to mold its ethos from the Renaissance. Would it work in a liturgical context? I am not sure (Jared Ostermann's objections aside).

    I then wrote a brief pseudo-Hindemith Communion antiphon (RM) motet for the Baptism of the Lord (with an eye to seeing if it could be done by my Mass choir). I am curious, if it works out, how it will be taken. I would probably pair it with a piece much more familiar and palatable to the congregation.

    Thus, this is a timely post for me. The absence of modern art music styles in the liturgy was curious to me, though I see why, on a practical and historical level, it is so.
    Thanked by 1MBW
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 1,023
    There's always this.

    Contemporary, not jarring, liturgically usable superb, and sheds wonderful new light on an ancient text.

    I think it's happening.

    But, most importantly, it's using modern styles and tools (and judiciously, dissonance in new ways), to paint the text, which is obvious Lauridsen's foremost concern.

    I think it's also worth considering (and the less self-conscious about liturgy your parish is, the truer this is) that, for the most part, the people in the pews are, as Fr. Rossini describes them in the Preface to the Liturgical Organist, "earnest, simple people."
  • francis
    Posts: 10,825
    JUST MY OPINION... (and I know I will have to duck and run) but Lauridsen is B grade music (static - no harmonic movement or progression or depth). This piece popped up after the O Magnum... I can listen to this forever.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRwhkBAeheM
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 1,023
    francis,

    I don't disagree about the static quality of his music; but I do think that is his point, in a way.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Our community chamber chorus just sang three Lauridsen madrigals last Saturday night. Having retired from scholastic choral teaching I haven't really had any motivation for eleven years to explore his catalog. I fully understand francis' reservations, as I've long thought there's a sort of Bacharach ethos to his compositional vocabulary and constructs, one also shared by Whitacre IMO. It's not bereft of inspiration/innovation. It's just Lauridsen. One doesn't say that something's "just" Bach or Beethoven. I'd choose Frank LaRocca's "O magnum..." anyday over Morty's. But then I'd also have to weigh whether Frank's setting could be bested in a particular circumstance than Victoria or Poulenc. I think I'm going to look up my old Norwegian go-to, Trond Kverno.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Richard C, I think there are substantially more such composers than you name. Gorecki and Pendercki are just two examples.

    Thanks for mentioning those: I figured there must be more examples than what I could cite offhand.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,799
    Hindemith may also have anticipated the rise of the piano accompanied cantor with his cycle of Gospel motets for the church year (only PD in Canada, but allow yourself a peak at the table of contents). Here's Cum natus esset on Youtube.
  • ViolaViola
    Posts: 411
    Listen to this by Sir James Macmillan (mentioned a few posts above)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I00HNlpo_Tg

    It's a motet called 'Think of how God loves you', written,I think, for the baptism of his granddaughter. Accessible (our choir managed it) and beautiful.

    You would need to copy and paste, sorry, because I haven't worked out how to insert videos. And for more about this leading composer's approach to church music see

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/author/jmacmillan/
    Thanked by 1MBW
  • ViolaViola
    Posts: 411
    Oh, the video inserted itself..............................
Add a Comment