At least when it comes to Gregorian chant, I would argue that its "inapplicability" to multiple cultures is a benefit more than anything. It both allows for a universal musical language of the Church and a clear detachment from anything secular.

To this list of "preferred-by-default" music I would add all of the composers who were influenced heavily by, or based their music directly on, chant: Durufle, Schroeder, Bach and his contemporaries in the North German school (albeit Luther's modified versions of chant melodies), Brahms (organ works), Franck and some of his students, Bruckner, and the great 16th-century polyphonists. Although they utilized elements from their time, they were all solidly rooted in the Church's music as their foundation.

There is as little of an issue with a 21st-century Asian, African, or popular North American composer building their church music on chant, as there is as much of an issue with using Verdi's Requiem, K-pop, or a psalm tone accompanied by African drumming/ a taiko ensemble in Mass.

I view the people pushing the "multicultural music" angle as merely using the idea of "multiculturalism" to push their preferred secular music into the Church and/or to attack Gregorian and Gregorian-derived music. It's nothing more than a red herring.

Where this gets dicey is music such as Mozart's Masses where, although there is a clear religious spirit, there is undeniable evidence of musical language lifted directly from secular compositions. That is where the debate should be held, in my mind.

At least when it comes to Gregorian chant, I would argue that its "inapplicability" to multiple cultures is a benefit more than anything. It both allows for a universal musical language of the Church and a clear detachment from anything secular.

I view the people pushing the "multicultural music" angle as merely using the idea of "multiculturalism" to push their preferred secular music into the Church and/or to attack Gregorian and Gregorian-derived music. It's nothing more than a red herring.

Where this gets dicey is music such as Mozart's Masses where, although there is a clear religious spirit, there is undeniable evidence of musical language lifted directly from secular compositions. That is where the debate should be held, in my mind.

very clear and astute observations that rise above the PC

music is a garment, a garment of the soul. Just as there is appropriate costume for a variety of occasions in our lives, there is appropriate, and preferential, musical costume for Christian worship.

Nice analogy!

I have it.
It is an invaluable resource.

dad29

Yes, but "the Popes SAY THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER..." !

that is THE POINT!

The church has been very clear about its directives on sacred music, but we all like sheep keep going astray... over and over and over.

MJO... been there... done that...

True, tomjaw - however, the issue of conscience enters in when a person knows right from wrong, yet knows that he will be shot for not following orders, but whose conscience requires him not to follow them and he pays the penalty, as some saintly few did. Then there were those who gladly followed orders and at their trials were defiantly unrepentant to the bitter end.

purple=MAYBE

Maybe every parish has a pope.

Maybe every parish has a pope.

It's not like the GIRM is meant to generally apply to every parish, regardless of what nation or situation it's in. That'd be silly!

The statement is more accurate if it's *descriptive* - given a choice, I believe "No Music" would be preferred by the PIPs over any other musical choice....

The one whose words I quoted would say, indeed said, that vernacular chant was the first step, and then as the liturgical text is "inculturated" under the guidance of the local Church and bishop, further musical adoption according to the culture goes along with it. Plainsong (and polyphony) therefore cannot be a goal. In an established cultural setting (ahem, English Canada) it would be unnecessary to move away from accessible "cultural" music and towards Gregorian chant or vernacular chant. And quite wrong to push or insist, for there are no grounds to prefer the latter.

Well admittedly my history of Gregorian chant is a bit shaky but:

For several millenia there was no question or conception of anything else, Nothing else existed or was 'thinkable'.

Several millennia? Well, maybe one millenium give or take a couple of hundred years. Gregorian chant is a modernist (couldn't resist sneaking in that word!) 10th century or thereabouts invention that grew out of many influences such as Old Roman and Gallican chant to name a couple.

Then it sort of went into a slow decline, until revived by Solesmes in the late 19th century.

One could almost say that what has pride of place in the Church is Solesmes chant, or rather the Solesmes interpretation of Gregorian chant. And I say that as a practitioner of it and as oblate of a monastery of the Solesmes Congregation.

I still prefer it though, to anything else out there at the moment.

Ora

Scholars often speculate based on what they do know, but the speculations can be totally inaccurate. In other words, sometimes they overreach. Gregory the Great might not even recognize what is called chant today. I suspect he wouldn't.

Yes, several millenia!

I shall qualify my assertion as to 'several millenia'. What I had in mind when I wrote that was that there was so-called 'Gregorian' chant in various dialects, and various states of purity and degeneracy from its precursors in Jewish temple and the early church up until fairly modern times. No other musical language was used or thought of in Christian worship until after the Second Vatican Council. I will qualify this assertion even further, namely, to take note of the development of organum (which very likely was a much earlier development than is ordinarily thought) and sacred polyphony. It is worthy of note that these last named developments, though they were not profane music, yet were met with various degrees of contempt and indignation by many churchmen and a few popes, bishops, and saints (St Aelred of Reivaulx, for one).

Of course, there were 'secular' genres throughout these millenia, but their likeness did not influence the ritual music of the Church - unless, of course, one wishes to point out the use of hocket and such, late mediaeval encrustations onto chant, such as motet and clausula, and late mediaeval-early renaissance parody masses, followed by the operatic masses of the baroque era. It is notable that not a few churchmen railed against these idioms' invasion of sacred precincts. Still, it was chant, in one state of abuse or another, that remained the ritual music of the Church, and remained the root from which all western music grew.

In all the above there is no street music, field music, tavern music, or other popular genres making their presence felt within hallowed walls. There remained a clear distinction between the Church's ritual musical genres and those of the profane world. This music was for two millenia plainsong complemented by the finest of choral and organ musical craftsmanship of the day.

The post-Vatican Two era is unique in the Church's history in being an age in which bald adaptations of street music and popular idioms were dragged, unvarnished, into the worship of the Church, all but displacing the historic ritual chant and choral music. The intense rivalry between musical idioms which we are experiencing today would not have been possible, nay, would have been undreamed of, and, therefore, literally unthinkable in past eras - because there existed a civilisational consensus (more, really, than consensus, more, I should think, like an intuitive grasp) as to what did and did not belong in church, what was and was not ritual music. That consensus was shattered by design in the wake of Vatican Two - in impious opposition to what the council directed - and preferred for the Roman rite.
________________________________________________

Charles' comment above is probably correct. Scholarly speculations can be wide of the mark. However, they are undoubtledly nearer the mark than renditions which are not informed by scholarship. He is also correct in that Gregory the Great would likely not recognise most modern chant - certainly not that of the so-called (Old) Solesmes Method. He would likely come nearer to smiling upon the chant of Marcel Perez than the most precious 'Solesmes' chant at a CMAA colloquium. And, Charles is right in that we can never know exactly how chant (or any other music) sounded 'in its day'. But, the scholars inevitably will come closer to the mark than those who sneer at them.

But, the scholars inevitably will come closer to the mark than those who sneer at them.

We hope, but scholars have biases, too. I suspect that if we were to approach "authentic" chant, we would throw all our Solesmes books in the trash. Maybe Bach editions, too. His contemporaries mentioned his slow and stately organ playing but lively playing on other keyboards. Truthfully, we will never know, but at least we have the advantage of accounts by Bach contemporaries who actually heard him. Not so with St. Gregory.

Until you are told to stop because it isn't accessible to the faithful and they don't sing along.

Dad29, the problem with that is no one will let you try, because “it’s chant.”

Dad,

How does the pastor manage to annoy people by using money?

Chris, I thought I was clear. The moneyed parishioners use money as a weapon.

And yes, Charles, *some* Chant is usually not a problem (we are speaking of OF here) for most PIPs. I don't think doing "all-Chant" for OF Masses is helpful, nor prudent. The only question is who dislikes it the most: the PIPs or the priest.

Just a pinch on incense to the emperor?

Incense can serve several functions. It can be an act of worship, but it can also be used to mitigate unpleasant odors.

It seems to me that if you celebrate the liturgy in a more or less monastic way, like one might find at a Benedictine abbey, then there is very little 'you' in the liturgy. One opens the book and chants the chant of that liturgy. Or perhaps, in some context, the Mass(es) or Office might be said in private. But still, you open the book, and you read.

All other music is an elaboration or substitution on that foundation, based on the choices of the celebrant or other people involved. [The result may be beautiful or offensive, and may be more or less obedient to the guidelines of the Magisterium, but that's not the point at the moment]. But leaving that aside, it seems to me that the very act of choosing, as opposed to 'following' (as it were) creates a different relationship between man and liturgy.

This distinction (between choiceless an choice-laden) seems to me an interesting one.