Thanks! I guess I was never able to see the distinction. I will make sure to bring this up with a canon lawyer I have met.

There are no doubt more recent documents (I am no expert of the Church's teaching), but probably even the 1958 instruction De musica sacra sections 54 and 55 applies here:

...music which inspires its hearers with religious sentiments, and even devotion, and yet, because of its special character cannot be used in liturgical functions, is nevertheless worthy of high esteem, and ought to be cultivated...

...if [...] the local Ordinary judges that a concert of religious music might be advantageous for the spiritual welfare of the faithful, he may permit a concert of this kind to be held in a church...

Practicing is not explicitly mentionned, but I guess that goes without saying; whether it be for a concert planned in that church or not.

Bach Preludes and Fugues were written to be played. As is all the other music he composed for performance on the organ.

They are neither sacred nor secular.

Palestrina's dissonance is hardly accidental. Or are we about to argue taste?

Richard,

I must find a way to express, therefore, what I mean. In Palestrina, dissonance is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Fugues are orderly by their nature, it seems to me, and therefore more suited to the order of the Mass. The purely emotional stuff is not well suited to Mass.

Does that make more sense?

Let's just say that I've yet to be impressed by an algorithm for "suitability".

Are works specifically composed for the EF by Krenek and Messiaen more suspect stylistically than the mildly-spiced triads of Glass or Paart's Anglican service music? (I'd actually accept any of the 4, though I admit to stacking the deck a little here.)

Chris,

I think that, while some modern music is indeed inappropriate, the era as a whole is no more or less sacred or "emotional" (in your words) than any other. As composers like Messiaen show, a modern compositional language can be adapted to serve a very sacred purpose.

I would think the Romantic era would be where more fingers are pointed. (Not that I would.)

What a hilarious question! Why in the world would you consider a fugue "secular music"?

With a little contortion, I can see one problem with JSB fugues. But you really don't want to know what sometimes happens to 'sacred' music.

<<gets out charitable-words dictionary>>

Ha! For years, I've utilized the exact opposite kind of book - my the-sore-us.

>> (3) Music that is entirely inappropriate to be played in a church at all. When you're talking about organ music, that third category is quite small.
...
well, maybe until recent years.

(3) Music that is entirely inappropriate to be played in a church at all. When you're talking about organ music, that third category is quite small.

well, maybe until recent years.

Heard (from a reliable source) of an organist - reasonably talented - who in a fit of pique played a variation on a Lady Gaga piece for the postlude at the church he was getting ready to leave. He was upset about something and wanted to make a point... although it's hard to imagine what point he actually proved.

Not hearsay, I remember the monks of Ealing Abbey processing out to improvisations on 'Colonel Bogey'. This was in the early fifties, before the theme was used in the film 'Bridge on the River Kwai'. I saw no sign that the monks had noticed.

The Renaissance imitative vocal tradition is the Gold Standard for non-chant sacred music. The fugal tradition grew out of that Renaissance imitative tradition (e.g. ricercars and instrumental motets), so in a way it has a claim to be more suited to sacred use than other forms.

I would say that most organ music, by virtue of being written for an instrument in a church, is by default suitable to a church. In our cathedral wedding and concert guidelines, though, I warn that organ music that quotes well-known secular melodies (such as broadway or movie soundtrack themes) will not be allowed.

I would also argue that unresolved, unremitting dissonance does not fit well with a Catholic eschatology, since we believe that all the dissonance, pain, and tension of existence will in fact be resolved. Does that mean everything has to end with a consonant triad in a PAC? Certainly not. But grating 20th and 21st century music with no telos or hope doesn't belong in churches, in my opinion. I don't accept that something is a good choice for church simply because the composer gave it an extra-musical title about the "sublimely scented oils of mystical union with the trinity" or something. Some extremely Catholic-titled music risks sharing in Mark Twain's assessment of Wagner: "His music is much better than it sounds!"

That's also why I prefer the Saint-Sulpice school of organ improvisation to the Notre Dame school (speaking of the current titular organists). While I can admire the technique at Notre Dame, I often wonder if the crashing waves of dissonance are a good match for the entrance procession at Mass.

My organ teacher (Lutheran) told me that, on her last Sunday as organist for a certain church, she played for postlude a Bach chorale on "In peace and joy I now depart".

It is not acceptable to play (or sing) obviously secular music that can be recognized in the church - unless the building is locked and no one is in the church who might intend to pray.

That's it. And nothing more.

Which makes us especially pleased that you have an organ at home to play it on.

Precious stones, such as rubies, emeralds, or less precious ones, such as lapis or turquoise, are amongst the rarest and loveliest artifacts of human art. They are inherently neither sacred or secular, but by their rarity and beauty, are often elected to grace chalices, reliquaries, monstrances, gospel book covers, and more - even vestments are adorned with such natural stones and woven with cloth of gold. The same may be said of gold, silver, and other precious metals; or the stone and wood which are fashioned into works of human art. Then, there is architecture, which is graced with monstrous gargoyles, carvings of humourous choirmen or crotchety abbots on choir stalls, and no end of carving and statuary that isn't exactly inherently 'sacred' in character. Why, in the Sistine Chapel itself Michaelangelo thinks nothing of painting a serpent devouring the balls of a wicked pope - right near the altar! How unholy and crude can one get?

The same is true of art, sculpture, and (now we get to the topic at hand) music. There is no reason that a 'non-sacred' example of music should not be played in a sacred concert or recital as long as it has no specifically secular or profane dedication or reference. Thus, the organ music of Bach, Franck, or Howells, et al., is certainly fitting to be offered in sacred concert, if not at liturgy itself. It is akin to bringing a precious stone or a fine carving, the craftsmanship and rarity of any music or object can rightly be brought in and offered to God - because it is beautiful and worthy. and is the rare 'work of human hands'. Alain's Le jardin suspendu comes to mind as a not 'sacred' work of musical art. But, so long as it does not reflect a purely secular or profane nature, it is appropriate to bring it into the courts of the Lord and 'show it to God', perform it for him and his assembled people - as an example of precious and holy human musical craftsmanship - musical cloth of gold which is more precious than precious stones - sound woven into fine art worthy of the Lord's house and his people. All here is said with this qualification: that taste, grace, and common sense will inform as to what is appropriate for liturgy as opposed to a sacred concert-recital.

KINGSFOLD descends from a very old Irish folk tune, but neither that nor the setting of "Star of the County Down" (late 19th century) to this tune makes it so secular that it is inappropriate for use as a hymn.

More glaring might be THAXTED, by Gustav Holst, which is extracted from the Jupiter movement of the famous tone poem "The Planets" - unabashedly secular in origin, but turned into a hymn tune. Does that make it a non-religious tune or a secular tune? I think not.

Or, how about GREENSLEEVES ("What Child is this")?

One could go on, but I think you get my drift.

My previous pastor semi-seriously asked me to play the Lady Gaga fugue as a postlude one Sunday. I felt very conflicted when I refused.

I would (if I still possessed such authority/power, which I've not had in many years) at a Mass where Christmas carols are being used as hymns (which is most places), but with the right text, not the simplified one with the static refrain. I don't have much of an issue with tunes that don't have their fons et origo in sacred music as such; it's more of an issue of avoiding tunes that yet retain too much of a profane association. YMMV.

I have played greensleves many many times... God forgive my ignorance... but hymns were expected in the place of GC, so, I conceded to play hymns and got quite good at it to the point where... well... another story for another day.

Meanwhile... don't think I will be playing hymns any more at any Mass.

In another thread, MJO had observed that in many cases the association of music originally secular to sacred music, was something that changed over long periods of time. Among several examples, he mentioned the Lassus Mass on Je ne mange poinct de porcq.

Most auditors would not think of the lyrics of the original song when hearing "What Child is This" (one of my favorite carols), although they might be vaguely familiar that the tune is based on Greensleeves. Most auditors would not think of the original text (which is significantly less edifying than the Ordinary) Je ne mange poinct de porcq on hearing the Mass by Lassus.

On the other hand, most people would (I think), associate the common tune of Joyful, Joyful with Beethoven's 9th.

As with so many things, we all have our own individual lines in the sand. From my perspective, the Church has not been remotely hesitant to take even pagan symbols and concepts and sanctify them to present the truths of the Faith in a more digestible way. I guess my own personal line is where I believe people will most likely fall in terms of association. If the association is with the secular rather than the sacred, check back with me in another 150 years. :)

Just to be clear, being EF, we don't sing hymns at Mass (perhaps at a Low Mass, but those are less commonly sung.) :)

We sing "Greensleeves" once a year on Epiphany. That's it.