Well, this is the slippery slope, isn't it.

I really wish that the Holy See would put its foot down and insist that almost all music is suitable for the personal edification and enjoyment of the faithful in their private lives but that the Church has her own "language" of music, that is, chant and chant-based polyphony, followed closely by music clearly recognized as high art. Anything else is simply unacceptable. Period, thanks for all the hard work GIA, OCP, WLP, etc., but we'll take it from here.

On a side note, I've often held that as such Gregorian chant really can't be classified as "music" apart from being a series of pitches, precisely because it is the handmaid of the text and that it somehow (perhaps in ways we can't truly understand) transcends the vanities connected with all other music. Once folk start using words like "upbeat" and "joyful", they've completely lost any sense of the connection of the text to the liturgy, and rather are replacing a highly transcendental encounter with the Holy with a purely sensate, emotional one.

This subject is a particularly raw one for me, as this "temporary advisory committee", formed in the shadow of a vacant pastorate for our parish, talks a good game about "liturgical appropriateness" etc., with respect to the music, but still really doesn't understand what they're talking about. There are still folk on the committee who want to see "relevant music" used to ensure the "young people" will come to church and be engaged, and squirm at the notion of using Gregorian chant as anything other than "one of several options available". I guess I must continuously quote von Balthasar, Bux, Benedict XVI, Pius X, Pius XII, etc., ad nauseum until they get the picture.

Sorry G, you're up against a tough issue, and one that we're all with you on.

I question using staying power as an example of a qualifier in artistic value. I assume you mean the staying power in the popular practice? I would remind you of existing conditions in churches today were lack of trained musicians or eager amateurs are the sole decision makers and performers in liturgical music in many a parish. Of course Mass of Creation and things similar are going to have staying power, for the simple fact that they can be executed by the simplest of amateur musicians.

I don't think recognizing some music as high art is nebulous at all. For me that is an agnostic way of approaching the subject. It is not all relative. That would be like saying truth is relative, which we as Catholics believe it is not. Maybe someone can remember this better,but I have often heard Dr. Marht and others I know talk of quality of form to be a major factor in recognizing quality music.
I think another factor in staying power of some music that may be questionable is emotional attachment of music in popular practice. I think this has a lot to do with the larger scope of formation. If you are looking to go to mass for the uplifting and good vibes you receive , you are seeking the effects and not the effector. Granted, we all want to feel consolations from time to time and some music offers that. If all you are fed is emotionally charged music without much substance of form or text. Then, Sappy music begets Sappy theology. Sentimental music begets a sentimental faith and the reverse.( i believe Cardinal Ratizinger metions this in Spirit of the Liturgy)
Music has an emotional effect. We cannot dispute this.
If it is a choice of text or tune, I say neither. Both should be a good fit.
Music in worship must be servant to the Word.
That's my soap box. I know it's nothing new.
I say if we have better formation in faith, we will have less of these problems and more open dialogue not based on emotional reactions to things, but a clear understanding of what our faith asks of us.

I've encountered the words/music debate for well over 40 years now. My predecessor at the church thought that if the words were good then any music was appropriate. Unfortunately, beautiful words coupled with Haugen/Haas/Joncas type music sometimes made the words sound silly and out of place. On the other hand, some very trite words coupled with music of a sacred character didn't work very well either. It seems to be a judgement call and can even be a no-win situation. Whatever I do may lead to criticism from someone. So I do try for sacred texts in noble language set to music with a sacred character. However, I think one of the posters was correct that the Vatican could clear up many problems by being more specific as to what is and isn't allowed.

Back when I started working as a musician in the Church (mid '9os) it was all the rage to start mass out with the Gathering Song. We were emphasizing the liturgical act of the assembly gathering and the idea of an Entrance Rite kind of fell by the wayside (we were, after all, busy de-emphasizing the role of the priest and lifting up the concept of the primacy of the assembly at mass). I think your committee members are still stuck in that mindset. (Let's all sing a rousing chorus of XXXXXX to get us all warmed up for mass....) You might want to invite them to re-evaluate the idea of Entrance Rite and then check out and discuss why the church chose the particular antiphon text for that day for THAT action. I was very surprised at the reaction in my parish the first time we used 16th century polyphony for an entrance rite. I expected a lot of flack, but they didn't seem to miss singing Gather Us In at all. Of course, it's a good idea beforehand to make sure there's something of an Entrance Rite left at your church for the people to participate in. Give them a sense of the sacred (maybe even incense!) and they will HAPPILY make the switch was my experience.