There's a certain irony in secular choirs or musicians performing sacred music in an actual church, except not during an actual religious ritual. I went to one historic church that had a lovely organ concert on Saturday evening. But on Sunday morning they had the drums and electric guitars...

At least in one church that frequently has concerts they always remove (there's another word...) the Blessed Sacrament before hand. But if you have to remove Our Lord for a concert, does that not perhaps suggest it would be better to hold the concert in the community center or theater?

Thanks be to God I was born at a very confusing time...

Charles, why is the Coronation Mass dreaded?
I remain quite surprised at the animosity toward Mozart on this forum. He was the greatest of all Catholic composers!

I am not a Mozart fan to begin with, although some of his "darker" works composed toward the end of his life I tend to like more than his court music. The music he wrote for his aristocratic employers is, to my ear, rather prissy and affected. Probably accurate to say that reflected the time period.

The Coronation Mass was written for the coronation of Francis II as Holy Roman Emperor. I find it to be a concert rather than worship and it is completely over-done and extravagant. Perhaps Pius X raised objections to that kind of music better than I can.

The "Ave Verum" is what I pull out when too many choristers are out of town or didn't come to practice. They can sing that one in their sleep.

Mozart was a composer of stage music and, as I mentioned, court music. He did not write, for any practical purpose, anything for organ. I find most of his music not suitable for church and even more dreaded, is that horrid, "Exsultate Jubilate" with chirps, runs, leaps, yodels, and in my area, a few screeches that get thrown in whether by design or accident.

Of course, neither Beethoven's ninth, nor his Missa Solemnis, nor Mozart's (nor Haydn's and a few others') masses should be heard inside a church - at least not for liturgy, though the 'concert masses' may well be performed as part of a sacred concert in a church. I would aver that Monteverdi was the last composer to leave us masses that were appropriate to be sung at mass, that had a truly ritualistic character or aesthetic. (That's not counting RVW's masterpiece.)

As for the fully profane (but ingenious) ninth - well it doesn't belong in church, but I should rather hear it in a church than what is, on average, heard in our churches, whether for mass or not.

Oh, no, Francis!
Singing or performing Beethoven in Christ Cathedral (nee 'The Crystal Cathedral') would be to profane and cheapen Beethoven.
Beethoven deserves better - far better.

should be heard inside a church - at least not for liturgy

Don't tell ma bois at the Institute that! :)

With all due respect, many of you are missing Kevin's initial point. The issue is not strictly secular vs. sacred in concert; my understanding is that concerts presented in churches may include secular music so long as the content is not in conflict with the sacred. That means, for instance, that a string quartet playing a concert of all absolute music would be fine. The issue here is that Beethoven's 9th is texted, and the text is basically the ultimate paean to secular humanism. They may get away with it, given that many people connect the tune with the hymn "Joyful Joyful," but that just means that they are saying it's OK for people not to pay attention to the words. The piece was also performed at an outdoor Mass in New York during a visit from Benedict, and I thought it was odd then, too.

Your tune is Alleluia and is often paired with 'Alleluia, Sing to Jesus', etc.
It is a very good tune for those who are beginning to get tired of Hyfrydol.
It occurs several times in the 1940.

WHY WHY do you all wish to relegate music INTENDED for the mass to the concert hall? the Masses that Mozart wrote were for the MASS. Are you all kowtowing to some post-conciliar scree about "appropriate" music for church? Frankly your views sadden me, and seen very small minded! I will NEVER give up on the mission to restore the glorious music written for the Mass to the Mass. Y'all can go any play your protestant hymns.

I find Haydn masses more useful, and I like them. Mozart is primarily a stage composer and it shows. He's a bit over-the-top for church, not that he wrote all that much for church to begin with.

Their purely musical art is equal to Palestrina's as the highest achievement of motivic economy...

Preparing obsessively as I have been for our parish's Assumption Mass, for which the Ordinary will be K.317, I was struck by this exact point while humming the soprano solo melody from the Kyrie...

Palestrina was a true master, but he never wrote a tune like that. New and beautiful ways to develop and deploy melody had arisen in the two centuries intervening him and Mozart, and we should be unafraid to employ them in the worship of God, for which they were crafted and written.

For some reason, this thread has become a commentary on the musical style of Beethoven. He is one of the greatest composers to have ever lived. I've played plenty of Beethoven myself. I was once part of a concert in a Catholic cathedral that did his Meeresstille und glückliche Fahrt, which is not sacred but appropriate in a church. That doesn't change the fact that the TEXT of Beethoven's 9th is inappropriate in a sacred setting.

Oh friends, not these tones!
Rather, let us raise our voices in more pleasing
And more joyful sounds!
Joy! (Joy!)
Joy! (Joy!)

Joy, beautiful spark of divinity
Daughter of Elysium
We enter, drunk with fire
Into your sanctuary, heavenly (daughter)!
Your magic reunites
What custom strictly divided
All men become brothers
Where your gentle wing rests

Whoever has had the great fortune
To be a friend's friend
Whoever has won a devoted wife
Join in our jubilation!
Indeed, whoever can call even one soul
His own on this earth!
And whoever was never able to, must creep
Tearfully away from this band!

Joy all creatures drink
At the breasts of nature;
All good, all bad
Follow her trail of roses
Kisses she gave us, and wine
A friend, proved in death;
Pleasure was given to the worm
And the cherub stands before God
Before God!

Glad, as His suns fly
Through the Heaven's glorious design
Run, brothers, your path
Joyful, as a hero to victory

Be embraced, millions!
This kiss for the whole world!
Brothers, above the starry canopy
Must a loving Father dwell
Do you bow down, millions?
Do you sense the Creator, world?
Seek Him beyond the starry canopy!
Beyond the stars must He dwell

Be embraced, you millions!
This kiss for the whole world!
Brothers, beyond the star-canopy
Must a loving Father dwell
Be embraced
This kiss for the whole world!
Joy, beautiful spark of divinity
Daughter of Elysium
Joy, beautiful spark of divinity
Divinity!

I wasn't necessarily referring to you, Incardination. Unfortunately, there are some on this forum who do not have such a moderate opinion and continue to disparage the greats.

I still fail to see the major issue with the text. It is obviously not liturgical, but I do not see anything blatantly profane.

While Rossini was indeed a genius of tunes, his output was predominantly aimed at what we would now consider low-brow forms of entertainment that are not particularly transcendent. He could (and did) create much greater music at times with his gift. I was using it as an example of music that directly references ideas that would not be welcome in a church.

I don't see any kind of overt issue like that in the Ninth.

Furthermore:

I think we need to separate devices that clearly have no place in a church (eg. loud unpitched percussion instruments) and devices that form part of a musical language that can be used for sacred or secular purposes (eg. occasional solos, instrumental support). We must not disparage Mozart for writing like Mozart, or Schubert like Schubert, as we would not disparage Monteverdi for writing like Monteverdi. And Monteverdi's sacred music shares many of the essential musical characteristics of his secular music - after all, it is his personal musical language which is in play.

Mozart transferred with few modifications the (wholly successful and idiomatic) method of vocal writing he used for his operas into his church music, that much is true; but there is no sense in reinventing the wheel. Onto that foundation he layered fugal technique, imitative entry, and other traditionally "sacred" techniques resulting in a new musical language. It may be criticized (in the missae solemnes most of all) for being overly elaborate, perhaps, and inappropriate for an average Sunday Mass (that is where the missae breves come in), but it's not intrinsically operatic just because Mozart is writing like Mozart.

Otherwise, Bach organ music should be banished from churches everywhere because he employs devices like the French overture with clearly operatic origins. But nobody would seriously consider such a proposal because it would mean the loss of much that is liturgically appropriate and musically excellent from the repertoire. I propose that we treat the other masters with the same regard.

1. Verdi's Requiem is clearly not designed for liturgical use, first and foremost; whereas all of Mozart's Masses were intended for some sort of liturgy, whether average or royal. It is also a work that clearly projects an inappropriately personal perspective, somewhat like Faure's Requiem (which is a masterwork in its own right, but not a liturgical one); Mozart's very ethos drove him to construct more "objective" renderings of the Ordinary.

2. I would only draw the solemnis/brevis distinction rather than the distinction you made. The breves would be suitable for just about any Mass, with the solemnes reserved for more important solemnities or occasions.

3. I think every decent composer outside of the Cecilians or other composers of liturgical Gebrauchsmusik wrote for an ecumenical audience; that is, their work succeeds both on the purely liturgical and the purely musical aspect. If John Rutter were some sort of terrible composer whose music slotted perfectly into liturgy but was hated by the public, that wouldn't make it more suited for Mass. If we take the court of public opinion as meaning anything, then Rutter's music is both well-liked and (theoretically) suitable for liturgy, and I see no issue with that. Gregorian chant and Renaissance polyphony, the most highly prized forms of art in the Church's treasury, are also immensely popular with modern listeners outside of a liturgical context. Obviously that merely makes them fine art, and not inappropriate.

4. When we have people writing posts like

Mozart and Beethoven were the Supreme Modernists of the serious music world of their day. Their compositions are the epitome of popular music of their century. They dominate the concert hall, even today, and that is as far as their reach should extend... Beethoven BELONGS in the Crystal Cathedral... it represents everything the Crystal Cathedral represents... everything except Roman Catholicism.

I think it illustrates my point quite well. We're on the lookout for some sort of universal boogeyman to tar a whole group of compositions, and the Enlightenment comes under attack. While there may be much of the Enlightenment in the ways which Mozart and (especially) Beethoven approached the act of music-making or the role of the artist in society, I don't think it necessarily translates into the score itself. The Waldstein sonata was as avant-garde as Stockhausen was last century, but that in and of itself does not affect our appraisal of the score today.

Case in point: The St. Louis Jesuits grew out of the same post-modernist, anti-establishment culture as French composer Pierre Villette (who studied at the same time as Boulez). Yet obviously one is perfectly acceptable in Mass and one is blatantly inappropriate. And you can't claim that Villette didn't use 20th-century musical elements in his music.

I'll accept that, Jackson. But I still don't see anything that is directly anathema to the Church any more than your average secular part-song.

For the record, I am generally against all secular music being performed in Church; but I see no reason to allow Bernstein or Weill but not Beethoven.

Yes, absolutely - which is why I remain saddened that Beethoven never properly adapted his idiom to church as did many other composers. The Missa Solemnis is a personal statement of faith more than anything truly universal as a proper Ordinary (no pun intended) should be.

With his knowledge of counterpoint, I'm sure he could have come up with a masterpiece. Regretfully, the ornery master had other plans.

...eccentric interpretation....gospel context!

Do you really mean this?
In the 'context' in which I spoke above the brotherhood of man in Enlightenment thought and Schiller's poem has nothing to do with the Gospel.
It is thoroughly humanistic and Pelagian.
To repeat: it seems to me that 'there is nothing that remotely speaks to Christian faith or any spiritual life' in the context and intent of Schiller's poem.

To be blunt...my comment was not about Beethoven en generale or even a commentary on Beethoven's music. To be sure, I love Beethoven and regularly listen and play some of the piano sonatas and also listen to the string quartets. A statue of him sits on my home desk.

My comment was the nexus of the Beethoven 9 in a church. The text is Schiller, who represents the height of Enlightenment thinking and philosophy. The Church and the Enlightenment don't necessarily mix very well. Who cares what Schiller thought about the Church or Christ or anything remotely connected to Christianity? I do.

Of course, who thinks about that stuff anymore? After all, it's got a great tune and everybody knows it. So it's perfect in a church. Who cares about theology or philosophy anymore. Its too hard and we have to think. We don't want to do that. Give us that song associated with the EU and a paean to ourselves.

To put it rather blithely...it's the text. That's the problem.

and for the record, I do neither Fair Phyllis or Corelli in my place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5bxJarVVk0

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Laudate Dominum

I am afraid some of my aging singers are closer to Florence Foster than to the operatic greats. I have had to simplify a bit over time.

Sorry MJO if I seem to be erecting straw men or rather letting stray things jump off the screen and startle me. Leaving aside Ps. 133 and such dangerous notions as brotherhood for the narrow context, I don't really believe you're deaf to Schiller, let alone Beethoven, knowing you to be not immune to the fleshpots of De Gringy. If the former are not part of "any spiritual life", does that leave … corporeal life?

@Tomjaw, I think there is a decided difference between (respectfully) suggesting that not everything that Pius X promulgated regarding music applies to us currently on the one hand, and belligerently advocating that Pius X had it all wrong and didn't know anything about sacred music on the other (an opinion I've seen expressed). Saints have certainly made mistakes from time to time. I think it is fair to say that we probably make many more in our own capacity. Pius X deserves our utmost respect based on his position and his sanctity - even when we might say that circumstances are different today than they were in 1900 for certain aspects of his regulations.

What I find ironic is that there have been posts that have been far more critical of Pius X than this particular post has been critical of Beethoven or Mozart - and yet this one has prompted the impassioned discussion. I believe we have to be careful of casually dismissing instructions and writings of someone like Pius X, and certainly avoid disrespect when discussing anyone of his stature. THAT is my point.

..

I consider Mozart and Beethoven to be advocates of modernism... and for that reason alone, their works should not be performed in a Catholic Church... concert or not.