Well, there's heap more theological content in a Gregorian jubilus than the devices* appropriated in the "Alleluia" construct of the original piece cited as an expression of Easter joy. It's not cranky curmudgeons railing against young whippersnappers, it's more of an honest look at the ?' s of inspired composition. For example, having conducted and heard ten's of performances of the Lauridsen "O magnum..." at state festivals and elsewhere (under Salamunovich no less) I feel yet compelled to say that Frank LaRocca's setting represents a clearer, more powerful Catholic ethos, as undoubtedly does the Victoria, the Poulenc and others I've done. I have no doubt that the "experience" of the Whitacre setting will fail to measure as a stand-alone listening expression. Perhaps, like the Thompson, its interminable length is a hindrance. I rather think that the "every thing thrown in, including the kitchen sink" aural cornucopia works against Whitacre's economy. I don't (obviously) feel that about my earlier mentioned Barber's "Adagio" as that is a masterful exposition of a pure musical idea fully and powerfully explored in good measure. I'm not saying Whitacre cannot craft such works. But others close to the Whitacre/Lauridsen/Part Venn diagram interface seem oblivious to the scarcity of their muses' inspired contributions.

*One device being repeated near quotes of Lauridsen chord clusters and melodic fragments.

It is, indeed!
Why, good music is good music, objectively, ontologically, categorically, regardless of how it is perceived by a subject hearer. N'est ce pas!

Ah, a subject near and dear to my heard: weeds and flowers. Turns out, some erstwhile weeds are not weeds but treasured things. (Like the goldenrod in my fairly shady side yard - courtesy of a bird, there's no way I would have been able to plant that directly, but from one plant a flock has grown. It's not invasive here.)

Regarding the note-cluster composers: yes, I have to say my personal experience as a chorister became "another etude drilling us in sweetly singing parallel minor seconds in tune with no vibrato . . . (snore) . . . may I have some Byrd, PLEASE?!!!!!." (And I will confess that, lovely as Mozart's AVC is, a contrary part of me (I inherited contrariness from several lines, I believe) will think, oh well, another opportunity to sing Byrd (or Josquin) is wasted.)

All that said, I suspect that people respond to some of the fine-art secular/sacred works complained of here because they evoke what our movie scores and other liminal associations indicate are "luminous" or "numinous" associations. The place in the sensory heart has been prepared to receive them this way. And that's the challenge. Chant can be reduced to that, too. Choosing the uplift musical room of the day and all that.

I think one of the greatest difficulties in putting together music for Catholic worship, is the fact that there is no longer anything resembling a Catholic culture. Oh sure, some have tried to re-establish what was once musically and ritually universal in the Church. They are few and far between and the successes they have enjoyed are not widespread in U.S. Catholicism.

Then there is the political side of "sacred" music. What to do if a dog of a piece happens to be the pastor's favorite that he looks forward to hearing every year? If you like your job, it does pay to keep the pastor happy. There will continue to be the affluent and prominent whose tastes have a higher priority than those of others.

Catholic worship? The factions seemingly can't even agree on what that is. I know of no leaders strong enough to settle that one.

I am referring to what was "universal" in the sense of common practice in the U.S. before Vatican II. There was an agreed on "patrimony" of sorts with directives, music and educational publications to support it. Until the late 60s there was a weekly high Latin mass in the church where I work. Obviously, that is all gone now.

Mind you, I don't think that experiential reality is a credible rationalization to kick the norm to the curb, but I do think it needs to be taken into account in comprehending the current state of things, and, eventually, discerning where we need to be led.

We have little or no leadership in any real sense of the word. We have hacks and politicians roaming the world seeking adulation. We can't be led by the current crop of "leaders."

...I think dull, uninteresting music...


MJO: "This is a preposterously and incredibly subjective statement.
Define dull, with strict objectivity.
Methinks that you may be confusing your own perceptions with the music itself."

MJO, you are the one who just said "for me, such an inappropriate example would be Handel's 'Hallelujah', some of the more lengthy English anthems, and, certainly, pieces that were conceived of as 'concert' pieces."

Which statement is admittedly completely subjective. I responded with a query as to what makes the Hallelujah chorus (as music) objectively unsuitable for the liturgy, along with any and all oratorio movements, or any piece that was ever conceived of as a "concert piece". And I've not seen an answer yet.

Interestingly, although I did not give any examples (aside from Ravanello), you bristle at my suggestion that dull, uninteresting music is unsuitable for the liturgy. So can I take it that you are a proponent of dull, uninspired music as the most suitable for liturgical use? Or do you think that there is no way to make a judgment about the dull, uninspired-ness of a particular piece?

Since you ask, I use the word "dull" as a counterpart to one classic component of aesthetic judgment (from the three markers of beauty - unity, variety, intensity [or 'brilliance']. Dull is the antithesis of "intense, or brilliant". And I do think there are ways to judge dullness. For example, simple range (in modal writing, each polyphonic line should make use of the full scale with some regularity). So one judgment is a piece that does not make full use of the range available in a particular mode or key. A piece with a very limited range throughout is likely to be dull. Connected to this judgment is the management of high points - as Schoenberg tells even the beginning composer in harmonic exercises, try not to have multiple repeats of the highest note, as it becomes repetitive and devalues any melodic interest that would come from reaching a high point. Combine these two judgments, and you get one of the real hallmarks of dullness - a piece with a limited range that also features multiple repetitions of its unimaginative mid-level high point. This kind of writing, unless we are on a campaign to encourage people to give up all hope of goodness in this life, should be avoided liturgically.

We can judge from a harmonic standpoint as well: does the composer make good use of the range of harmony available in a particular key and/or stylistic tradition (i.e., one cannot fault Palestrina for failing to use Q flat 7th chord clusters with added sharp 15ths in his modal writing)? If an entire composition only uses a few chords, this can be a warning sign.

OR, if there is no sense of consonance-dissonance-resolution (however this is defined in a particular language). All-consonant music is usually extremely dull.

This is just in the realm of harmony and melody. There is also form, and there is also rhythm, and there is dynamic level and articulation.

I could go on, but I think that's a good start. MJO - you are arguing for objective aesthetic judgment, which I agree is a real possibility. You need to consider the aesthetic judgment, not just of mechanical craftsmanship (i.e. counterpoint, proper use of instruments and voices, etc.), but of "dullness vs. brilliance".

I'd offer that colloquiums in the future might benefit by adding panel/presenter seminars on choral composition techniques and types. Doesn't have to be pedantic deconstruction of species counterpoint, Schenkerian and other analysis schemes, or figured bass examples, but a sort of musicological explanation of what to listen for off the page. YMMV

I will list my objections to the use of Oratorio excerpts in the parish where I am DM, some are specific, some will be more universal, perfectly aware that I will probably come off sounding like the Fathers of Trent who wanted to ban all polyphony simply to eliminate the worst examples.

1) Unlike the Sacred Cantatas, Masses, and Vespers of Bach, Buxtehude, Vivaldi, Handel, Scarlatti, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, et al., which were intended for liturgical use, English Oratorio, as developed by Handel, and later perfected by Haydn and Mendelssohn, is an non-staged, dramatic work, to be performed in a theater for entertainment, by professional musicians, listened to by a paying audience. (Messiah, for example, being composed for a concert at the King's Theatre in Dublin.)

2) Messiah excepted, oratorio texts are not scriptural, but poetic texts styled after the operatic libretti of the time, this is also true of the non-scriptural sections of Bach Passions - though the Passions are more (for me) in the category of Cantatas, being composed for liturgical use.

3) The music, solo music in particular, is there to draw attention to itself and the quality of the soloists, since these would have been the same musicians that Handel used in his Operas. The Arias, particularly the Da Capos like "Rejoice" and "He shall feed his flock", are completely unsuited to the liturgy, and draw attention to the singers. And often the choruses, too, are not very liturgical, particularly when one gets out of Messiah and into works like Judas Maccabaeus, Saul, and Israel in Egypt;

which is why,

4) I have prohibited all performances of Choruses from Oratorios in order to prohibit the performaces of arias from Oratorios. When I took the position there were a number of people who had traditionally performed solos at different times during the year -- things like the Franck "Panis", the Schubert "Ave", and so on -- and some newer people who wanted to sing things from Messiah. I decided that it was time to get rid of oratorios after the entire communion was taken up on one Palm Sunday by "He was despised and rejected".

As I have said, I am more lenient with Cantatas and Motets (and, to a certain extent, Passionsmusik) movements since they were composed for liturgical use, albeit in the Lutheran Church. I don't think it would be reasonable, for example, to forbid the use of "Zion hort die wachter singen" from Wachet Auf, or the opening Chorale from Jesu meine freude.

I realize that this might seem drastic to some people, but it is a thing of mine. While I would not prohibit a liturgical presentation of, say, Haydn's Harmoniemesse, I would never present a chorus from The Creation during Mass. During a Sacred Concert, certainly, but not at Mass.

…does the composer make good use of the range of harmony available in a particular key and/or stylistic tradition (i.e., one cannot fault Palestrina...

But Jarad, doesn't every piece make its own 'stylistic tradition'? I find Stravinsky's Bogoroditse far from dull in spite of multiple high notes and the restriction of each voice to four or five (six for the basses) notes.

van Gogh's painting of a cottage and Kinkade's

Kinkade cottages themselves are legion.
https://thomaskinkade.com/art-genre/cottages/

(and, do we not know that those who prefer the latter are legion!).

Wow. One in twenty.
https://youtu.be/loWLMmcQBr0

I meant to add, on the subject of provenance, just how much of our choral repertoire originates in the Eucharistic liturgy, if we are brutally honest? Not the hymns, Protestant or Catholic. Not necessarily the motets (which were arguably meant for use at the end of Mass). Not even things like "O Sacrum Convivium" in any setting (which is a Vespers antiphon). For that matter, not "O Magnum Mysterium" either. We are left with Mass settings - which may or may not be helpful in the post-VII liturgy :), the Graduale Romanum, and polyphonic settings of the proper chants. How many of us actually base our entire choral repertoire purely on Eucharistic Liturgy texts, set to music for use in the liturgy?

Jared, I answer that if one compares Mozart to J. Ch. Bach one can find abundant deficiencies in symmetry of phrase lengths; if one doesn't regard that as a fault then it seems there's a problem with measuring by stylistic yardsticks. Not that I don't wish you all the best of luck in inventing an objective stick with which to beat the music that is beneath mention!

Well, obviously it depends on the size of the muffin tins. Wait, did you say we could put it though a blender?

doesn't every piece make its own 'stylistic tradition'?

Kathy and other Thomists, how does this compare with angels and species?

I've never objected to things being 'off-topic' -
it's what happens in normal conversations and is often quite interesting.

But.... muffins???

Er, um, Adam?
How is this germane?
Are there recto tono muffins?

Arrghhh!
Why of course!
You'd think I'd have figured that out.

Actually, I think that the Lydian mode muffins are the best.
Though there is something to be said for the Hypo-Blueberry ones.

There is no set of rules that would be 100% accurate. None whatsoever. And I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

Ditto!
(It's time we muffled this topic.)

Just because a blueberry muffin is 'good' doesn't mean it should be on the altar of a liturgy... nor tacos for that matter, although, sometimes we is just eatin crackers when the rubrics are disregarded. Mozart wrote 'nice' music, but it doesn't belong in the liturgy along with many other nice, great, wonderful, beautiful, fantastically spiffy works.

All muffins aside...

The point of the aesthetic judgment is not to attempt to say with 100% accuracy that a certain piece is excellent (or even harder, "beautiful"). The point is to have a frame of reference - certain objective components of music to discuss (e.g. management of high points, harmony, counterpoint, etc.) so that we can have a conversation about the music itself without simply falling back on personal preference.

As far as liturgical suitability, even after the musical judgment (which will always be heavily a cultural construct and carry a fair amount of subjectivity) one must also consider the liturgical context, and the cultural context of a particular parish. At any rate, for all of these reasons I dislike seeing simplistic, blanket condemnations of particular pieces; condemnations that are frankly just personal preference writ large. We have to do better than that in the field of church music if we want to have any impact.

ClergetK: Actually, I would certainly be permitted to do so by my pastor (who this year commended my Graduale Offertory and Communio and asked me to add the Introit as well). But even in this enviable case, only the chant schola can immediately implement "pure" liturgical music. The larger adult choir, which provides music for most high feast days, certainly cannot tackle polyphonic Renaissance propers (and the Renaissance propers are the only significant polyphonic proper repertoire). So - I can either tell them all to go home, and sing nothing but chant, or build a repertoire that works for the choir, is excellent, and fits as closely as I can manage with the official texts. This is why, to me, the most important thing for us all to be talking about is "how to manage success". Not having a plan for success is a classic way to fail as a business. We have increasing numbers of people who, like me, have resources and a mandate for excellence from the pastor. The question is "what should we do with that opportunity?" Which, again, is why I am so much more interested in positive assessment of repertoire rather than picking on pieces we dislike.

A BIG consideration is how much money the parish is willing to spend. Most anything can be done if the funding is there for resources. For many of us, the practical often wins out over the ideal.

Translation: priorities are in a different place. The parish/priest would rather spend money on something other than music. The priest is less concerned with reaching an ideal situation with the music than he is with other items. Music is secondary at best, and often times much farther down on the list of priorities. So, we are treated in such a manner: secondary to everyone else by nature of what we do. We are no more than entertainers. Again, the practical wins out.

FWIW, I was curious since I hadn't heard of Whitacre before- I listened to Alleluia, which is quite lovely, and then I read up on him and watched a q&a session he recorded. I think the following from his blog is what needs to be considered:

I’m not an atheist, but I’m not a Christian either, and for my entire career I have resisted setting texts that could be used in a liturgical context. After spending the 2010 Michelmas term in Cambridge (Sidney Sussex College), though, singing with Dr. David Skinner and his marvelous Chapel Choir, I began to see the deep wisdom in the liturgical service. I found myself suddenly open to the history and the beauty of the poetry, and it was the single word Alleluia, ‘praise God’, that most enchanted me. It seemed the perfect fit for the music of my wind symphony work October, which to me is a simple and humble meditation on the glory of Autumn.

Even after finding himself "enchanted" by the word Alleluia, the piece he composed has nothing to do with praising God, but with praising Autumn. "Resisting" seems a pretty strong word with regard to how one wants their compositions used.

And, what Clerget said about physique....there's that, too ;-)

I feel like I heard something somewhere about a veil in a temple being torn in two

Yes, you did.

That happened so that the Spirit could fill the world--not the reverse.

Ah, the slippery slope of moral relativism.

Exactly not my point.

My actual point is that the best way to know what should go in a muffin is to spend a lot of time studying the world's better muffin producers, and eating high quality muffins. And also to have been educated in a system that trains people to understand and intelligently answer abstract philosophical questions like "What is the essence of a muffin?"

As it happens, the secret of muffins in Boston was revealed today.