When did they go - and why?

When, probably sometime in 19th century ... Why, because the principal sources of income and reputation ceased to be the churches. It varied from country to country and regional tradition, of course - as well as individual choice. Bruckner became an academician, but never completely abandoned sacred music. Wagner pretty much ignored sacred music in his composing - but then he had a huge ego. In England, composers wrote sacred music and music for the church well into the 20th century. France was more varied - even in Paris.

Pärts work and Stravinsky's is great. Abandoning Latin caused many to wander off....why compose music for english texts that are not locked in to the tradition.

I have a band/wind ensemble background — which preceded my love of sacred music — and as such, I really loved David Maslanka's "Mass."

Since then, my own understanding of the "real" Mass grown, and now it would be difficult for me to listen to the Maslanka setting. I still love his music, and as a musician and music listener I guess I can still conceive of the Mass as a purely musical structure (like, say, sonata form) through which composers can be expressive.

But I know now that that's not really what the Mass is about.

Whitacre: Great stuff. Love, love, love it.

Not sure if I'd want to hear a Mass setting from him. Although I may be mistaken, I'm afraid I'd only hear Whitacre, and not the Mass.

From my peanut gallery...
What/Who ordains someone a "Great Composer?"
Chuck Giffen is a great composer in my book.
So am I, in my book. Someday my Mendelssohn will come(?)
During JSB's time, apparently Telemann was Da Bomb, hmmmmm.
Can we get a little less laudatory about the Whitacre's, Lauridsen's, Part's,etc., as most of their genre, however geniused, lies well outside the abilities of 99.99999% of cathedral RCCchoirs, not to mention their muse likely stems from the aesthetic rather than the sacral?
Can we get a little more laudatory about Richard Rice, Kevin Allen, Francis Koerber, Jeffrey Quick, Frank LaRocca, Leo Nestor, Tom Savoy, etc., whose muse lies in the very heart of Love incarnate?
When John Corigliano or Adams does a James MacMillan, give me a ringy.

And, no, I didn't wake up on the wrong side of the bed today...

Well said, Charles.

Follow the money.
Patronage follows two tracks, both necessary: support of composers, and support of performers. You can commission all the works you want to, but unless you have performers of full artistic capability (i.e., PROFESSIONALS), composers are not going to write what they can, because they'll be worried about anything beyond the ordinary. With capable performers, you are going to have some good music written, particularly by choirmasters, but you aren't going to be able to attract the top composers, because they're working on music for which they're being paid.

Separating the issues can be difficult. The spirit that supports artistic independence outside of social function is the same spirit disestablishing the churches. But let's look at some case studies. The French church was disestablished in 1906. Most of the major French composers of the 19th c. wrote at least some church music. in the 20th century, you have Poulenc, and that's about it (Messiaen didn't really write liturgical music.) Consider the sad state of Vierne's Mass; after disestablishment, he was never able to mount a performance. On the other hand, you have the Church of England, with paid layclerks, which has a solid tradition of sacred music to this day. In North America, the one recognized master of sacred music (Healey Willan) was an Englishman transplanted into an English-like environment. (The runner up might be Leo Sowerby, who also worked for the Episcopals) And who is the candidate for American Catholic master? Pietro Yon? He had one of the major gigs in the country, and is almost forgotten today.

In addition, there's a musicological bias at work, Because church music has been marginalized, any composer working primarily for the church is ipso facto not a Great Composer. And Great Composers create new compositional technologies, which are not necessarily desirable in the church. Sacred music hasn't led overall musical development since about 1500.

Another example: Rheinberger. He's underrated because his orchestral music, while solid, is not as amazing as some other music of its time. Yet increasingly I see him as "the" sacred composer of the 19th c.; sacred music was central to his work in a way which it was not for Bruckner (possibly for Gounod, though we think of him as an opera composer)`

Looking at contemporary Catholic music, there are a number of ecological problems. One is the transitoriness (and copyright status) of text. The new translation is a vast improvement, but the change of translation is itself discouraging; who's to say we won't have something else in 40 years? The average parish hears fare that is simple, tasteless and above all short. And above all, our original problem: no money. God bless Tom Monaghan and all he has done for Catholic education, but we need a Monaghan for music. And whoever that is has to seed the musical ecology in such a way that institutions will become self-supporting, because he and his money will not be there forever.

As for the shoutout, Charles, you are too kind... my music is still All About Me, but now more and more often about my relationship to God, and sometimes in that process perhaps I accidentally forget myself and remember Him...

Insights are easy. Walking is hard.

Everything said so far certainly rings sad but true to me.

I had a similar experience to Adam's with being a composition major: extreme bias and marginilization. This is because music has become the end of the means as the enlightenment put man in the center where God should (and used to) be. We were all about who could outdo who in tickling who's ears. Whoville is extremely small but they scream very loud. "Milton's" Paradise Lost, so to speak.

In spiritual-historical terms, people like Wagner (while writing beautiful music, mind you) did horrific harm in removing it from the Church's center with the aim to birth a "total art" experience in the form he called "Gesamtkunstwerk". This was a revolution in how music and art would be employed for the future, (because music of the past was ? - when the past becomes expendable it is usually at the expense of ignorance and pride) but in truth, the Catholic liturgy was the epitome of exactly that for centuries long before RW was ever born.

The liturgy had it all at its finest: costumes (vestments), the grandest stage (sanctuary), music (the king of instruments and composers of legendary renoun), the most spectacular house (vaulted and highly decorated churches), props, (vessels and furniture), and glorious scenery (artwork in stained glass, frescos, mozaics and stonework that were created to be permanent institutions.)

But Wagner was right. The Opera and his Gesamtkunstwerk (the beginnings of "new church") was conceived, heavily patronized and then directly competed for the talent and craftmanship of humanity. Tangentially, the cinema and then TV and then the computer, came into the picture (pun intended) and many of the composers whose craft could or would be found in the church were now employed by "new church".

Now this may seem a harsh way to put it, but the proof is in the pudding, and our hollow and empty lives are a testimony to being so obsessed and inundated with the All-Media instead of the Almighty.

Ever visit Jesus during the week besides Sunday? How many people are worshipping at the tabernacle? (it does't make pretty pictures and cool sounds!) How many people come into the Church to pray, look at the artwork or listen to the organist or look at the stained glass?

Don't blame the people! The Church no longer values or employs artisans in any of the crafts. We build glorified gymnasiums, throw in a plywood floor and then carpet that because it's ugly, drag in an old upright from someones dingy basement and send Jesus to be in his "own room", as though he is just one of the wall decor in the friggin joint. We hold all kinds of events in the church, some of which require Jesus to temporarily 'move out' while we 'do our thing', (whatever that may be.) We throw sacred and beautiful books, missals and statuary in the garbage and then turn around and spend thousands of dollars a year to put newsprint in the pew so we can throw it all away in 15 weeks.. We scoff at the slightest hearing of Latin, (which is like spitting at your mother), and then we wonder where have all the flowers gone (and because our saliva is now on the "Salve" who we should even give them to?)

Composers. We're around. I think few have a clue, and fewer understand the true art of sacred music composition, and fewer still even employ it in this our New-Aged, Heavily Staged, Guitar Screaming Jesus-Worship-Brigade. So, cry me a... and let's all gather at the... river. He just keeps rolling along. The three men I admire most: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, caught the last train for the coast the day the music died.

FNJ, Charles, RR, KA, JO and all of you who I only know through this "computernacle", it's certainly good to know all of you for sure! Let's continue to spend our life on music that plays ands sings into eternity. I daresay we won't be singing Wagner OR Don McClean when we join in with those awesome six-winged wonders.

serva fidem

Thanks for your insight, francis.

Kudos, MJO.

CHG... Glad to have you on this board. I admired your music which I downloaded from CDPL years ago. I have your Creator of the Stars and Parce Domine with Psalm 51 in my permanent choral library, and I only maintain a handful of modern composers.

MaryAnn Carr Wilson

Well, it might have been a push and pull event, but the Church in general is hostile toward artists. Once in a while you will find a haven, but the birds will come in and devour it soon enough. I am proof of it as I have many stories to tell, but I will hold them till the final day.

Run from fame as though it were the death of you.

"Fame is a very fickle thing in the music world. Who wants it?"
I do! I do! But yes, it is fickle. At my age, I've set my sights lower, to subcultural fame. If one of my pieces gets done with any regularity after my demise, it will be more than I have any right to.

I don't think the Church is hostile to artists. But I think there's always been a dynamic tension between what artists want and what the Church wants of artists, and in that tension the greatest art has been made. The artists want total freedom and unlimited resources; the Church wants economy and Tradition. Music that moves too far from the core tradition doesn't get done, or (as now) if it's economical and crowd-pleasing, it makes its way. But music that ONLY fits Tradition without expanding and building on it doesn't survive. The Church is the tail on the compositional kite.

?>>The artists want total freedom and unlimited resources;

This is why I say few understand. This is not the attitude appropriate to creating a healthy relationship with the Church. This is not music at the service of the liturgy. This is partly WHY unnecessary tension exists and partly why artists become marginalized."

It is, however, the attitude of the artist, as opposed to the hack. It's the job of the CATHOLIC artist to put that impulse under spiritual control. But I think it's necessary.

">>But music that ONLY fits Tradition without expanding and building on it doesn't survive.

This is simply not true. Excellent sacred music survives all. Polyphony and GC are permanent fixtures in the Church."

E.g....most of the music of the Caecilian movement.

">>The Church is the tail on the compositional kite.

If you are saying the church keeps music facing up, well, I agree and so it should be. Are you saying something different?"

Not really...but it's that stabilization that allows the kite to go higher.