Paul,

Gregorian (and other) Church chant was neglected durign the 17th and 18th centuries, and the Benedictine Order was reduced to a few thousand members by 1805 after the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. There was a discontinuity in performance, scholarship, etc. -- no "authentic" tradition to preserve. That is why Solesmes set out to recreate one, with the interesting but ultimately quite erroneous premise that there was a single authentic tradition to discover. In fact, the Middle Ages was (to quote James Joyce's characterization of the Church) "Here comes everybody," with many different chant traditions that changed continuously. Research of 20th century scholars such as Leo Treitler, one of my teachers at CUNY, helped bring to light this kaleidoscope of chant traditions. The Holy Roman Empire was more of a concept than a reality both in politics and culture, and the Romantic idea of a unified Christendom prior to modernity was idealized, to say the least.

That said, the Church requires chant for liturgical purposes and has to make a choice among many alternatives, which is what people did during the Middle Ages without bothering too much about "authenticity." The truly medieval way to do things is to make best out of the materials at hand.

What tonal polyphony contributed over and above chant is a different matter; it is not simply the servant of the liturgy, but the companion of the liturgy: capable of arousing a religious state better than the best sermon, as the pope wrote in "The Spirit of the Liturgy."

'MA, tonal as opposed to modal because tonality provides for harmonic as well as linear goals, so that goal-oriented motion can be prolonged over far longer time spans. Modal music (except for pseudo-modal usages, e.g. "Phrygian" in the very tonal Brahms 4th or the Heiliger Dankgesang of the Beethoven Op. 132) almost always is found in short forms. Tonality as practiced by Bach and after actually subsumes the modes. The Gradus is an abstract exercise rather than actual music.'

Thanks for the reply, Mr. Goldman. I understand that tonality can generally be prolonged over far longer time spans (jazz composers might have a good claim to the contrary), and that that is one advantage to the system. And its true that modal music is almost always found in shorter forms, which is why it works so well in the sacred liturgy. While the Gradus may be comprised of sequential exercises in species counterpoint, I would disagree that it is entirely abstract. (My copy is in my work office, and I am quite intrigued to get to work today and refresh my memory.) It seems to me most of the exercises were lifted out of Palestrina's work. And Palestrina- indeed all the early masters- were composing modal counterpoint. Perhaps they began pointing to tonality, and tonality evolved through the developing convention of polyphony, but these masters were rooted in modality.

Though it is a bit tangential to the topic, I am interested in the training of composers as concerns modality. I find the melodic vocabulary of composers familiar with modality to be more lush and complex, consequently less motivic. It is a fascinating study to compare Hadyn, Mozart, and Beethoven's melodies, for example. Though they worked together, and M and B studied with H, B studied counterpoint with Albrechtsberger, who apparently was one of the first composer/teachers to restructure the Gradus, changing the exercises from modal to tonal.

So from Beethoven through the early twentieth century, the majority of composers came to be trained in tonal counterpoint. The flowering of harmony led to, in general, a reduction of melody in favor of motivic writing. I think this was a great loss to melody in general. Is it any coincidence that after Wagner pushed the limits of tonal harmony we see composers reaching back to the modes and other scales to find melodic interest again?

JEFFREY TUCKER, alert! :)

Ultimately, my hunch is that chant and polyphony based on it has a great influence on composers. When chant was in decline, so was the element of melody in much composition. One can argue that composers were exploring the new ideas in harmony and rhythm, and breaking from the Church as in inspiration for art and life. But I speculate that those who were not exposed to modality, living (hearing chant) or through exercises, did not have the same melodic resources and were to some extent forced to explore harmony, then rhythm.

Now we are in an age where chant is in revival. Tonality alone seems to have nearly (or to some, completely) exhausted its limits. The great 5-1 is behind us and we are looking for something new and beautiful. Classical composers who are rediscovering modal music and free rhythm have a larger, richer palette with which to use. To the extent that the Church now cultivates its own treasure in Gregorian chant, she has the potential to positively influence the general direction of music once more.

Yet another wonderful potential of chant, and its daughter, modal polyphony.

Ben Dunlap writes, "Given the respectability of First Things..."

I, for one, will concede no such thing. I think it is a Theocon rant.

Good stuff, here.

Wow.

Mr Goldman writes:

Francis,
The pope is used to the use of classical music in the liturgy per South German Catholic tradition. Everyone else, in my view, is missing something quite wonderful. One doesn't have to be a Catholic (and I surely am not) to admire it and understand the benefits of which Benedict writes.

Which is why I had included this in my post.

Is there an absolute clear line of delineation? Not this side of heaven as you can see by the confusion about what belongs and what doesn't, but I prefer to lean toward what is absolutely clear.

The music may be 'something quite wonderful', but it is not the chant and SQW is not a stipulation for what admits it to the body of sacred music. He is the Pope, but that does not discount or change the authoritative writings and documents on sacred music that have been passed down through the centuries. I see it as something that contributed to his personal taste based on local musical tradition but that has nothing to do with clarifying an objective stance on Roman Catholic Sacred Music. (Even PBXVI himself warns us about offenses against the hermeneutic of continuity.)

In all of our documents on sacred music I would bet money that Mozart is never mentioned (however operatic styles are) and in almost all of them the chant is always awarded the highest regard in terms of music most befitting our liturgical rite. I would also bet money that you can probably find Palestrina mentioned in some documents. In my mind he is definitely a composer of music sacred while Mozart penned religious music in a popular style.

One doesn't have to be a Catholic (even though I surely am) to admire it (the chant, regardless of a particular school of thought) and understand the benefits of which Benedict and many of our other Popes have written!

Mr Goldman

do you by any chance like opera?

Dad29, I'm aware of St. Agnes in St. Paul, which has a long tradition -- where are orchestral masses celebrated in Milwaukee?

Francis,
I like many operas, especially by Mozart and Verdi. The closest thing to an opera that overlaps with worship are the Bach Passions, which of course were written to be performed in churches with extensive congregational participation. If I could take one work of music to a desert island it would be the Matthew Passion.

Sad to say, Mr. G., only at the Symphony's concerts these days.

Last one I know of that was done for a Mass was at the dedication of a suburban church back in the mid-1980's. I cannot say that was the ONLY one in the last 20 years, but it is rare, indeed.

However, up to the late 1960's there were a number of them in various parish churches--usually for Christmas or Easter, or some other special occasion. We're a bit more frugal down here than are our brothers in St. Paul.

To the topic of orchestral Masses that the Pope favors. Personally I find the 18th-century style a bit too concerned with formal procedures and fugues to be useful as liturgical music today, except for the truly grand occasion. As much as I am suspicious of the operatic styles of 17th century music, the lengths of those settings are more manageable and do have very strong text-music relationships. The Cecilians understood that chant and polyphony fit the Roman Rite better than anything else, even if their attempts to fashion it anew were not successful. I hope there will be a new age of modern writing that, like the Renaissance settings, are tied to the chant but reflect the style of our own time.