Reverend Father,

My experience suggests that Catholic youth (like youth elsewhere) yearn for what isn't a waste of time. If they can get the same milquetoast information from the culture as from a sermon, they're likely to tune it out. If they've been told (by word, or by example) that Mass is somehow about them, and if they've bought that lie, they may get exhausted because they're suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Those who haven't bought the lie, but see that what they're frequently offered (musically) as not of enduring value are willing to see chant as part of the solution.... but they may not be aware of the existence of (or permission to use) chant.

Additionally, if their only exposure to chant is Advent and Lent, or the Requiem's Ordinary, they're likely to conclude that chant is all somber (not sober) and depressing. Imagine the experience of the students I taught a class to, several years ago... when I sang for them other parts of the repertoire!

jclangfo, I'm in the 20-30 age group. I'm in college and plan a lot of the music for my Newman Center. Myself and the other musicians (mostly other students with a couple others mixed in) overwhelmingly prefer traditional music. The other students seem to be fairly supportive of traditional music. This is especially true among the daily mass attendees. I haven't gotten any negative feedback. I have had some questions on why we do what we do, but the questioner generally responds positively to my answers.

Greetings, Father -

I have one book that I would recommend heartily to you. It is -

Music and Morals: A Theiological Appraisal of the Moral and Psychological Effects of Music.
Author: Basil Cole, OP
Publisher: Alba House, New York
ISBN: 0-8189-0669-X
It can probably be had from Amazon

To that I will echo some of the above comments and would have this to add -

It is of vital importance that you engage a musician of impeccable credentials and a gift not only with adult choirs, but an ability to relate to children of all ages and to imbue in them a love of the Church's historic chant, choral repertory, hymnody, and liturgy. It is often heard that the children in this area or that parish have acquired a great love of chant, etc., whilst those in another place have acquired the same love and enthusiasm for less desirable forms of so-called 'contemporary music'. Both sets of children, no matter their learned and taught taste, generally expect their music to be 'well performed'.

I say 'learned' because that is the crux and fundamental factor that determines into which group children will fall. Children (perhaps the majority of them) come to us knowing little or nothing about the Church's music - they know only what they are taught. If they are taught by a person who is skilled in forming their minds to the love of chant and choral music, and hymnody they will grow up loving those things and looking the other way when confronted with music of a very different genres and spiritual worth that mimic the styles of pop musicians, entertainers and such and haven't the vaguest resemblance to our heritage of Church music and its modern heirs. So, there are two very generalised camps into which our children may grow. Some will say that 'children and youth want "contemporary music" done well'. If that is true it is because they have so formed the minds of their students and implied or outright taught them to frown upon chant and other historic church music. The same is true of those children and youth who love chant, choral music, and hymnody. They love these things because they have been taught to love them by a skilled teacher who has instilled this love in them. It is, therefore, not tenable to say or imply that all children want chant, etc., or that all children and youth only want what is somewhat presumptuously referred to as 'Glory and Praise'. All (or perhaps most) children 'want' and value what they have been lovingly taught.

It is the teacher and the teaching that are the most important elements in deciding with which camp one's youth will identify. It is not 'all children, or "today's children" like A, or that they all like B. They don't, and nobody should presume to say that they do. They like what they have been taught by a teacher whom they love and respect. If you want your children to love chant, choral music, and hymnody you should find a highly skilled and credentialed teacher who will teach them those things. They are not born liking chant or 'contemporary music'. They like what their respected and beloved teachers have taught them. Be very, very careful in choosing their teacher.

Hierarchy is a reality that permeates all of creation, from the lowest insect or weed, to the loveliest of flowers and intelligent animals - even the elements of the cosmos and the building blocks of all matter, organic or other. Catholics, of all people, know that hierarchy is a condition of relationships in the Church, and of the Church's relationship to God. Hierarchy is definitive of all creation, human or Godly, and music, like art and literature, is no exception. All music is not equal - in spiritual worth, aesthetic value, aedification of the person, or in the development of intellectual and moral fibre - not to mention its contribution to human progress, civilisation, and heritage. Pop and various entertainment genres with 'sacred' texts are not by any stretch of the imagination equal to Bach, the renaissance masters, Gregorian chant, traditional hymnody with its highly literate texts and theological depth, and modern masters who write serious church music and are the true heirs of the masters of yesteryear.

For the OP: https://news.gallup.com/poll/208529/sermon-content-appeals-churchgoers.aspx

I'm 32 and have been on this board since possibly my teens.

While I am not as liturgically conservative as most on this board, I prefer organ and chant to piano, guitar, rock band, etc. I do think there is a place for contemporary music, but it must be appropriate for the Mass, and should be of an appropriate quality.

I think you will find a lot more young people on this site than you expect. And I think young people are sick of being force fed bad music.

I am 31, and while anecdotal, what I have observed is the following:

Anyone my age or younger who is still going to mass is doing so volitionally as no parents can force them anymore. 90%+ of the time, they are seeking to be grounded in tradition, or are certainly very sympathetic to it. Any parish in the area that has any whiff of tradition tends to draw the younger families.

Described as a trope above, I squarely fit into the category of someone who grew up on a 100% GIA diet, at a rather large parish with multiple choirs, trained cantors, and two organists. The program was, and is, very good. That said, I still felt like I had been robbed of my inheritance the first time I attended a traditional liturgy. I was quite angry, in fact. I was blown away the first time I attended a Christmas Eve mass that was adorned with a Palestrina mass setting. I was honestly dumbfounded; I didn't even know parishes did this type of music anymore. I thought it was squarely the provenance of special ensembles located in Britain for secular concerts. I had no idea it was even an option as I had never once, in 25 years of being a catholic experienced it. It was—to put it mildly—a revelation.

A lot of the issue I've encountered in my own ministry with shifting music to the more traditional (with increasing inclusion of chant) has been the "why though?". "What's wrong with the music we have now?" Curiously, even my predominantly baby boomer choir is very open to the change whenever I take time to talk about the tradition of a particular style, or, increasingly, discuss the profound text of the propers, which, apart from the eldest schola members who grew up in the old rite, has been completely unknown until now. We had a very productive discussion about Rorate cæli desuper for instance. Anyone who is even nominally aware of the state of modern catholicism will suddenly be taken aback by the phrase, "Jerusalem is a wasteland". You won't find that line in any hymn, but it is so laden with meaning and profundity that it begs to be sung. So, oddly, it is the texts, and only secondarily the music that has resulted in increasing buy-in from my choir. I've also made public appeals to my parish by making little speeches before mass at various times; "this chant has been sung for hundreds of years and was composed by St. Thomas Aquinas himself!" sort of thing.

There are a group of younger music ministers in my area (all under 40; most early-to-mid 30's, predominantly MM trained). As best I can tell, to the last one we are trying to reincorporate traditional music in our programs. I suspect that with the higher level of training, not only are their personal proclivities toward tradition showing through, but also their training to assess that the traditional polyphony, for instance, is objectively better music, and of a higher compositional and liturgical caliber than most of what is published by GIA and OCP. [If anyone feels compelled to argue this last point, I'd politely suggest this is not the thread and I'm sure there are 10's of previous threads dealing with this exact issue.]

I can also report that I have received the most wonderful and surprising feedback from the most unlikely of faces. I particularly hear from people who visit our parish for the first time who notice a(n apparently) staunch difference from the music at their own parishes. They are always grateful for our music and most of them mention the chanting as specifically touching them.

I've been told among other things:
"it just feels so holy!"
"I really felt like I could pray while you were singing."
"It's very peaceful!"
"I could just tell that you put a lot of effort into the music and that it's very important; it really made an impression upon me"
"It's really different than what I'm used to hearing but strangely I really liked it."
etc. etc. I even had one woman who was totally unfamiliar with chant ask me if I had made recordings that she could buy. She was so touched she wanted to listen to more outside of mass. If that's not a testament to the power of traditional music, I don't know what is.

So I know that even if a few grey hairs don't understand it, the traditional chanting and motets ARE making a difference and impression upon many people—often those whom I'd least expect. I should mention, however, that it has taken 2.5 years to get to chanting all of the propers (almost exclusively in English), and prior to covid, that was alongside other hymnody. So it hasn't been a total bull in a china shop situation.

Serviam, Bobby, others,

I'm not 20-something, since my eldest son is now 24, but my experience with my own children and other young people mostly squares with what you've described.

Jackson,
Sometimes "learned" is, in spite of itself, rejected. The daughter of the folk-group leaders (25 years ago) who joined my young-persons choir was overjoyed that we didn't sing what she called "Swing Through the Mountains".

That’s the most common comment for me too.

My main thing is the link chant has with the past. ...to sing something that every generation for a 1000 years has been singing... it’s genuinely transcendent—in the literal and figurative senses.

In Europe I went to mass in a church that was (then) 987 years old. I did the math during the sermon and I almost quaked with wonder. Not only does my heart desire to worship in such spaces, it desires to worship the same way, to be a living link with the “past”.

I’ve seen what modernism has done to the church (and it ain’t good!) which is why I seek to restore as much of our heritage as I can. I suspect the sentiment is similar for many other young people, which is why TLM communities are thriving.

Put another way, since truth is truth is truth is truth, I believe that what was good for the church and for souls 1000 years ago is just as good for our souls today. (And most likely better than what we would seek to concoct.)

I agree anecdotally, but there's no good data, because nobody who is a trained social scientist has done a methodologically rigorous study.

Thanks everyone!! I think it should be stated that the purpose of returning to chant and more traditional practices is not MERELY to appeal to this or that audience. We MUST seek to respect the integrity of the liturgy and the Church's official teachings on the liturgy. Folk music etc. doesn't fit the form of the liturgy neither in its organic development nor its official teaching. My purpose is not primarily to attract young adults, but to glorify God through the liturgy that the Church has reverently handed on. If we do that, we will speak to the hearts of any person of good will. I mean seriously, who can argue with replacing modern artistic expressions (which point to themselves and us) with singing the Scriptures in a pure and humble manner? Chant is like our Blessed Mother-pure, humble, a servant to the Word, etc. The objective case for liturgical changes needs to be first and foremost. With that in mind, my hope in asking the question is simply to help older generations understand the appeal that chant and many traditional liturgical practices seem to have to Catholic young adults.

I have seen that happen as well on a smaller scale, in one case. The pastor could probably have kept most of the congregation if he had implemented the changes over the space of two or three or four years instead of...a handful of weeks.

I have also seen the opposite happen, sadly - a thriving sacred music program with chant, polyphony, and classic hymns unilaterally cancelled all of a sudden, and not because of lack of demand.

The only person I know who has done any research in this area in Dr. J Shaw,
http://www.lmschairman.org/search/label/Young people
http://www.lmschairman.org/search/label/Chant
and
https://lms.org.uk/statistics

Joseph Shaw is a good man. He is not, however, a social scientist, and while he makes reference to such, this is an example of what we want to avoid.

A rigorous study is one that can pass peer review and not be mistaken for ideological fluff, ideally one directed by a pair of researches, one who has a bit of a personal interest (at least, as a practicing, traditionally-minded Catholic) and one who has only professional interest, e.g. as a sociologist who studies religious practice in the USA. Before being published, such a study could be presented to liberals who wouldn't ever profess the Apostle's Creed without a mental reservation but are still fascinated by Catholicism just as much as it could be presented to the Society of Catholic Social Scientists.

Peer review is of course fraught, but at the end of the day, I think that interested Catholic social scientists should do a good job and not worry about that, nor should they worry about proving their anecdotes correct.

Father:

I have a suggestion: Why don't you ask the teens and twenty-somethings in your parish about music in the liturgy?

I get that the church is not a democracy run by opinion polling. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least check from time to time to make sure the message is getting across.

If you ask the question, you can then have a dialogue about what liturgy means and why you believe that certain music is more suited to the liturgy than others. You can also find out what their beliefs are as well. And if those beliefs are wrong or ill-formed, you can take appropriate measures to correct that.

One of the reasons to be Catholic is that we are part of a communion of saints (and the not so saintly) which has produced great art, great music, and great thought all to the greater glory of God. If we fail to communicate that, we betray who we are and hobble our efforts at evangelization.

Be careful doing a three card Monty from "there are young people want it" to "all/most young people want it." If you try that, it may kill your credibility if it's not proved in fact.

Francis,

Based on what exists in most parishes (and I'm not in most parishes) is it reasonable to posit why they will never believe that the Church asks for chant above all?

who are "they" in your last post?

I've gotten behind on responding to this thread! I'm happy to see so much discussion. I wanted to reply to a few points:

Anyone my age or younger who is still going to mass is doing so volitionally as no parents can force them anymore. 90%+ of the time, they are seeking to be grounded in tradition, or are certainly very sympathetic to it.

When I started college and began going to mass at the Newman Center where I am now, I was introduced to chant. I love the feeling of transcendence that comes with singing chant. It is so unlike anything else we hear. I feel immediately connected to the divine when I either sing or hear chant sung at mass (either in English or Latin).

I love contemporary music not because it replaces the tradition of the Church, but because it expresses the tradition of the Church. The experience of transcendence I experience from contemporary music draws me closer to God and is an experience that I personally feel much more strongly from a particularly genre of contemporary music than I do from chant. The genre that speaks to me the most is praise and worship. There are many beautiful praise and worship songs that set the texts of Scripture or otherwise expound our faith as Catholics.

Each genre of liturgical music has its own way of communicating transcendence and sacredness. Most people on this message board are most familiar with how chant does this. I'm not as familiar with chant, but I would attempt to describe the sacred sound of chant as being derived from using different modes, having a certain harmonic structure, synergy between the type of singing and the organ, and having a subtle rhythm but not a meter as to be able to set any text seamlessly.

Praise and worship has its own particular strategy for achieving a sacred sound. Praise and worship derives its sacred sound primarily by using complex chords that have a mysterious or ethereal sound to them, such as sus2, sus4, maj7, 9/11/13 extensions, and inversions such as C/E or C/G. Praise and worship songs, the good ones at least, will build a chord progression that uses these tools to reach a point of tension and then resolve to the tonic, and then repeat. Additionally, praise and worship songs will mimic the effect of organ in chant of having having certain sounds sustained over long periods of time. A common compositional technique in praise and worship is to construct chord progressions that have one of their notes in common for several chords in a row. And when there is a fuller ensemble, there are various instrumental techniques to mimic the organ, such as putting sustain on guitar so it will produce a continuous sound rather one that sounds and then exponentially decays.

To illustrate, check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBqPXvP6aso&ab_channel=EssentialWorship
The chord progression for this song is really cool, which you can see here:
https://praisecharts.com/songs/details/7438/christ-is-risen-sheet-music/chords

Folk music also has its way of communicating transcendence and sacredness. However, in my opinion, the style of folk promoted by OCP/GIA is very difficult to achieve a transcendent and sacred sound with, and as a result much of the post-Vatican II Catholic liturgical music was neither transcendent nor sacred, even to those who have learned how folk styles communicate these things. In my opinion, if you go and listen to the original recordings of the St. Louis Jesuits, you can hear how they were trying to make sacred folk. However, a de-evolution occurred where incompetent parish music programs could not get a sacred sound out of these compositions, and then GIA/OCP descended into publishing contemporary music where there was not even an attempt made at being sacred - to the point where such genres as liturgical jazz were being unironically promoted.

Compare the de-evolution outlined above to what was actually called for by Vatican II:

Adapting sacred music for those regions which possess a musical tradition of their own, especially mission areas, will require a very specialized preparation by the experts. It will be a question in fact of how to harmonize the sense of the sacred with the spirit, traditions and characteristic expressions proper to each of these peoples. Those who work in this field should have a sufficient knowledge both of the liturgy and musical tradition of the Church, and of the language, popular songs and other characteristic expressions of the people for whose benefit they are working.

The above is paragraph 61 from Musicam Sacram. My opinion is the tragedy after Vatican II is that instead of taking the elements of the popular music in our own culture and learning how to make a sacred sound out of them, we just took the popular music and put sacred (sometimes pseudo-sacred) words to them. I think that we've finally turned things around with praise and worship music, which is the first fully-developed attempt to make a sacred genre of music out of the elements common to the music in our culture.

In response to the comments above about coming from a contemporary music program and then experiencing the sacredness of chant for the first time, I've also had many people come into my choirs from more traditional backgrounds and be impressed by experiencing the sacredness of praise and worship for the first time. This can go both ways.

I suspect that with the higher level of training, not only are their personal proclivities toward tradition showing through, but also their training to assess that the traditional polyphony, for instance, is objectively better music, and of a higher compositional and liturgical caliber than most of what is published by GIA and OCP. [If anyone feels compelled to argue this last point, I'd politely suggest this is not the thread and I'm sure there are 10's of previous threads dealing with this exact issue.]

ahhh but I do feel compelled to argue this point! if the mods want to snuff this out then more power to them, but to make this quick: I don't think it's feasible to argue that an entire style of music is objectively superior to another style of music. If you evaluate the quality of praise and worship based on the criteria of Gregorian Chant, well, it won't score very well, but that's basically a circular argument. As outlined above, praise and worship uses a different strategy to achieve its sacred sound, so the compositional tactics they are using aren't directly comparable. If you go to some more neutral criterion such as compositional complexity, the best praise and worship songs can go toe-to-toe with the best Gregorian Chants. However, they'll be complex in different ways. If you go through a gregorian chant and a praise and worship song (provided you've chosen quality exemplars of both) and assign chords, the complexity will be similar, but the types of chord progressions will be really different. Praise and worship will have more complex rhythm, while chant will be more complex in other ways. In fact, the more I've learned about music theory, the less convinced I've become of claims of superiority of Western classical music, in all its forms. There's lots of cool stuff in Western classical music, but there are also many complex and unique ideas that come from the blending of African and European musical traditions to create the musical genres of the USA. How African polyrhythm developed into the rhythms of blues, jazz, rock, and Gospel is particularly intriguing. And these uniquely American genres of music are the starting material in the effort to take the culture of our country and build something sacred out of it. GIA/OCP, as I've argued above, have largely done a poor job in this effort, but I dispute the claim that this has anything to do with the objective superiority of a given genre of music.

In all honesty and fairness, many Catholics haven't been taught nor experienced beautiful and appropriate music at Mass. Look how many parishes turned "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel" into a dirge during the past four weeks or sang that awful contemporization by Steve Angrisano: "Come, Come, Emmanuel".

When most priests try to chant prayers at Mass, it sounds awful. Be honest. They need coaching. When most parishes try to sing Tantum Ergo and O Salutaris Hostia at Benediction, it drags and is off key. Be honest. Or consider that a lot of parishes that attempt the ICEL chants or the Jubilate Deo Latin chants in Advent and Lent have a mic'd-up soprano cantor leading it who adds amplified warbling vibrato to every note. That's the vast majority of Catholics' experience of chant. No wonder so many hate it: what they've heard sounds awful, and I'd hate it too. But they think that's what chant is instead of realizing that they've heard chant sung incompetently.

Bishops and pastors need to put resources into liturgical and musical training. Until they equip more people to provide beautiful music at Mass, the music will continue to be awful in so many places. It's not a matter of forcing a parish and musicians to do what they aren't ready for or aren't able to sing well; that will be a disaster. It's a matter of training leaders of music who have open minds or putting competent musicians in place who can skillfully lead the parish in a new direction gradually.

For example, here's what I've done since August at a Breaking Bread parish that had previously not experienced chant:
1. I started chanting solo the Communion antiphon from Fr. Weber's The Proper of the Mass (either option i or ii, so the people hear an authentic, neumatic or melismatic chant melody instead of just a psalm tone), including a verse or two, starting when the priest receives the Sacrament until the choir has received Communion. Yes, we have indoor worship and choirs in our state.
2. After the choir has received Communion, the choir sings a cappella one of four Latin chants that I taught them: Ave Verum Corpus, Adoro te Devote, Ubi Caritas et Amor, or Jesu Dulcis Memoria. (Some of those I have cut so that the chant doesn't last more than 90 seconds.) When I introduced a new chant at Mass, we sang it for four consecutive weeks to give the congregation a chance to hear it repeatedly. Now we rotate among those four, and I hear congregants singing along. I think four brief Latin chants is a reasonable repertoire for now in order to give the parish ample opportunity to gain confidence singing them and to learn to sing them by frequent repetition.
3. Then we sing an OCP Communion song until the vessels have been purified.

So for five months, every week at Mass the beginning of Communion has been heavy with an experience of chant, which I think is an excellent place for introducing chant at Mass. I found it's a place I could add chant without taking away anything that the parish likes to sing: after all, we still sing an OCP song towards the end of Communion and during the purification of vessels.

I have had no complaints about it. None. To the contrary: people have remarked resoundingly that chant helps them pray better at that moment, and they love it. I think that's amazing in a parish that had never sung chant at Mass previously. I have succeeded in establishing a new paradigm for Communion music in which chant is expected and appreciated.

I think it's important that I haven't overreached. My formula has been that every Mass will have: the chants previously described at the start of Communion, 1-3 quality traditional hymns, and 1-3 quality OCP hymns, depending on what fits best with the readings or the liturgical season. So at every Mass there will be something to suit anyone's musical taste. Something for everyone, while moving in the direction of chant and sacred music.

During Advent we chanted the ICEL Holy, Memorial Acclamation, Amen and Lamb of God a cappella. That was another gradual step and was also received well. We'll sing those again during Lent.

Also amazing is that I had ten new choir members join in the fall, including three young adults in their twenties, and they told me that the reason they joined is because of the sacredness of the music the parish and choir are now singing and the quality of performance.

So far, so good.

While the appalling treatment of the choir of Westminster Cathedral, has reached a lull, and they are singing at Mass etc. again. This letter (published on a blog) by one of our Catholic musicians may provide some relevance to the above discussion,

Sir.

In contrast to the uproar created amongst the parents of the choristers of Westminster Cathedral Choir as a result of the proposed changes to the choir school, I wish to add a more positive note.

In Catholic Churches all over the world, and for some fifty years now, the Church liturgical experts have tried to make the Mass more relevant to the beliefs and daily lives of ordinary people and that does not include plainsong and the works of William Byrd and Palestrina. During this time Catholic choirmasters have battled to save the deposit of sublime music handed down to us from antiquity. Unfortunately they are fighting a losing battle because the clergy, most of whom have been educated in post-Vatican II seminaries, have been indoctrinated with the notion that the Mass comprises the three ‘C’s: Communication, Celebration and Commitment. This is the governing principle now prevalent amongst Catholic Priests and has resulted in a transformation of Catholic culture.

Most of the beautiful music which is sung by the choir of Westminster Cathedral was definitely not written for the new English Mass and it simply isn’t good enough for the choir to be singing Missa Papae Marcelli whilst, in the sanctuary of the cathedral, the celebrants are sitting down and looking at their watches. The music and the liturgy should be in complete unity and complement one another and a visit to a sung Tridentine Mass will demonstrate how this is achieved.

Perhaps many of the faithful who attend the Cathedral services enjoy the music but the Mass is not some form of entertainment which excludes people who don’t like classical music.

The Cathedral choir had always been under threat from the liturgists who feel, rightly in my view, that in the English Mass different music is required and the choir should not be so remote from the proceedings, stuck out of sight well behind the main altar. It might be a better idea to place it at the back of the cathedral in order to lead the congregation in the communal singing.

Now that the Church has embraced the English Mass it is logical that Westminster Cathedral should also embrace the new music which emphasises the element of dialogue and communication with the faithful. A choir of such international renown is not necessarily needed for this purpose.

Yours faithfully,


Joseph Bevan LLB

A thought about praise and worship music:
- it is not choral.

Historic Christian practice is that liturgical music be centered on unison, choral singing, demonstrating our “oneness” in Christ and imitating the angels. Historic practice also dictates that the voices sing without instruments, even the term a cappella (like in the chapel) demonstrates this fact.
All the developments of “traditional” sacred music styles can be traced from these two original traits, choral and a cappella: the use of the organ as alternate “choir”, or as a wind driven support for voices; the four part choral texture of traditional hymns; the “choirs” of instruments in Gabrieli pieces; the development of harmony from the plainchant tradition.
Additionally, the witness of the Eastern Church, which still only rarely admits instruments, and the witness of various Protestant sects that, to purify their worship, forbade instruments (Calvinist psalm singers for one).

PandW music does not seem to me to be descended from the choral tradition. If anyone thinks otherwise, I’d be interested to hear the arguments.

The letter by Joseph Bevan reproduced above does make a valid point about attempting to sing during the novus ordo Mass settings of the ordinary composed for the preconciliar Mass. The quip about "celebrants sitting down and looking at their watches" is probably a sarcastic swipe at singing a Sanctus or Agnus Dei that lasts four minutes or a Gloria that lasts six or seven minutes.

In the preconciliar Mass, the ordinary was sung while the priest proceeded to quietly pray the parts of the Mass proper to him; the singing overlapped with other liturgical actions. In the novus ordo Mass, the ordinary is the only liturgical action occurring when those parts are sung; the Mass doesn't proceed until the singing has been completed. For that reason, I agree that attempting to import terribly long settings of the ordinary into the new Mass is usually ill-advised. As well, composing new ordinary settings for the new Mass that last several minutes because they imitate a preconciliar musical style of repetition and counterpoint and thus require lots of time to develop the music is usually ill-advised.

As a recent example, I offer the "Mass of the Americas", composed by Frank La Rocca and commissioned by the Archdiocese of San Francisco's Benedict XVI Institute for Sacred Music. It's a dignified composition, but it just takes too darn long to sing (or for the congregation to listen to because they'll never sing it) in the context of a novus ordo Mass. Look at the world premiere of the setting. Watch the clergy during the singing of the Sanctus:
https://youtu.be/unG7Xn7W-os?t=4650

The Sanctus lasts nearly three minutes, which isn't as long as some Sanctuses last. The clergy are shown looking around awkwardly and shuffling while the piece went on for a length and at a tempo they were not accustomed to; arguably, it lasted an unduly long time that unnecessarily delayed the liturgical action. Even Archbishop Cordileone appears uncomfortable. It illustrated Mr. Bevan's point that the new Mass is not suitable for every setting composed in a style appropriate for the preconciliar Mass.

The same Mass setting was sung during an extraordinary form Mass one year later, and it is not at all awkward in that context. Compare:
https://youtu.be/GFoj3viHXnk?t=4924

In the new Mass, the parts of the ordinary have a different role, a solitary role, than they did in the preconciliar Mass. Since they are the sole liturgical action when they are sung, they should be completed in a modest time. That doesn't mean they can't be beautiful; it does mean people shouldn't be made to endure an unduly long piece that will make many of them look at their watches, stare at the ceiling or twiddle their thumbs.

To attempt to return this thread to the original topic, I think young adults might like the Mass of the Americas setting at the EF Mass, if they attend the EF, but many would grow impatient with it at an OF Mass, even if they enjoy traditional sacred music. It's not just the style of music itself that draws people, young adults included: it's the way the music turns the Mass into beautiful sung prayer; it's the way music and ritual join in effectively celebrated liturgy. And the OF and the EF have different criteria for what works well.

MarkB - but of course if a chant setting of the Ordinary is used this timing problem is manageable.

Mark's views just above here are well and respectfully reasoned. Still, I, most Anglicans, and large numbers of Catholics, most especially Ordinariates, are quite accustomed to and appreciate settings, historical or modern, Latin or English, that take more time than what he advises. We especially have the tradition of the 'cathedral service' which always includes choral settings of the ordinary which (within 'reason', i.e., Vaughan Williams's incomparable Mass in G-minor) are not particularly time-sensitive. As far as people and clerics who would look at their watches, stare at the ceiling, or twiddle their thumbs, they are quite obviously in the wrong place for the wrong reasons and should not be allowed to rob the rest of us of a beautiful, appropriate, and deeply spiritual exercise. Our response to the mass should be that of the disciples at the Transfiguration: 'Lord, let us remain here forever'.

Mark's observations about the different roles of the ordinary in the OF vs. the EF, are of scholastic interest, have a certain validity, and are undoubtedly well-intentioned. Still, I do not see that historical settings of the ordinary are ipso facto inappropriate for the OF (see the above paragraph). The mass unfolds graciously in its own sacred time space. Those who are concerned about time, it seems to me, have different and unfortunate priorities that don't include a gracious and splendid mass. Too bad their noise is often successful in robbing the rest of us of a mass which is beautiful beyond description and knows no competition.

As for P&W music, it is all about P&W music. It's appeal is strictly emotional (there is nothing there, absolutely nothing, for the mind or the soul) and induces an adrenaline driven experience which should not be confused with a genuinely spiritual one. Those who go to mass to have an 'experience' or, like certain Protestants, to hear or sing their favourite songs, are there for the wrong reasons. Contrary to what those to whom music is music and it's all the same would have their people believe, all music is not equal in aesthetic or spiritual or moral value - and some of it, like P&W, can actually lead people astray. The above parody, supplied by Mark, really says it all.

I'm 31 years old, so I'm still a "young pup". Good music will always draw in the crowds, but being that sacred music is there to edify the liturgy, it has a special function in the temple. I've always enjoyed church music form a young age, even though my Dad tried to feed us a steady diet of country (Tim McGraw, Garth Brooks and the like etc.), I never took to it. For a while growing up I attended little chapels that said the EF mass and choirs usually sang whatever they could get out of the St. basil's, Gregory hymnal. Not until I got into my teens did I experience more ecclesiastical music on a grand scale. Since then I've been hooked in the industry and do what I can.

A good priest that is able to deliver an effective homily is a plus, and the people will be drawn to a good, holy, charismatic man, that is able to lead his flock. A good strong community is also a plus. The people can tell what is truly genuine or else they will leave. In the whole its not just about one thing or another that makes a parish grow, but its the sum of all its parts. Good spiritual experience and needs of the soul met, good art, good fellowship, and consistency are all parts that make it what it is.

That's my two cents.