Msgr. Richard Schuler : "Chronicles of Narnia"
  • “The hootenanny Mass can give explicit eucharistic and christological specification to youth’s intense involvement in the movements for racial justice, for control of nuclear weapons, for the recognition of personal dignity.” (1966)

    Reflections on an article of great interest to Church musicians

  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    The present quote and several others in the post are quotations, I am sure, that Msgr. Schuler stated in order to refute.

    Concerning the matter of the Mozart Masses, it is not quite correct to say that they are merely in a secular style. There are several aspects of the classical Viennese Masses which need to be mentioned. While they make use of idioms common to operatic music, they also have characteristics unique to sacred music: 1) They are in the Latin language, an element that sets them apart as sacred; 2) They make considerable use of the fugal style, the stylus ecclesiasticus, the style inherited from classical polyphony, especially in the conclusions of the Gloria and Credo, but also elsewhere—think of the Kyrie of the Mozart Requiem, for example; 3) Operatic works make extensive use of the da capo, that is, after a contrasting section, the first section of an aria is repeated; this is never used in the Viennese classical Masses; 4) There is much presentation of the sacred text in simultaneous choral declamation, that is, the whole choir declaims the text together; this is rarely heard in opera, rather when all the characters sing in an operatic ensemble, each character sings his own text. Still, to some the presence of some operatic style may be unacceptable; the question is whether the secular style has been assimilated into a sacred entity; in the best of these works, I submit, it has.
  • Thank you, Dr. Mahrt.

    1.

    Yes, he does utterly reject and refute them --- but I am grateful he took the time to record them, because had he not done so, I would have gone to my grave believing that people were exaggerating the travesties of the 1960s.

    2.

    Regarding the Mozart Masses, I agree that I can only speak to those Masses which I (personally) have sung. I have not studied all of them. I have read your defense of the Viennese classical Masses (in your book) and I was present at the Colloquium when you made these points. I appreciate very much the points you made . . . however, to my knowledge, Msgr. Schuler, himself, never mentioned any of those points. Nor did his relative, Fr. Hogan, who wrote in defense of such Masses.

    As a matter of fact, your defense of the Viennese Masses is the strongest defense I've ever heard.

    I would be very interested to know if your friend and colleague, Msgr. Schuler, ever articulated similar points that you have brought up (use of fugal style, etc.) --- I have read an awful lot of what he wrote, but I cannot claim to have read every single article he ever penned.

    3.

    Would you agree that use of the Latin language has absolutely nothing to do with the musical style of the composition, or am I missing the boat here?
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    I believe that his commitment and defense were based upon their status as a great cultural and living liturgical heritage. This is something he had from his Tyrolian roots, as well as his experience of on-going traditions in such cities as Vienna, Munich, Budapest, etc.
  • I should probably also mention that my views on the Viennese Masses are at variance with many people I greatly respect, as I have noted in an article published a few weeks ago.

    That being said, I have played so much Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, and Haydn during my life, I do feel that I possess a fairly decent understanding of the style.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,080
    The Viennese Masses are a continuous cultural custom of a certain sphere of Europe. Parishes in the US that draw most of their parishioners from descendents of that sphere might have a claim on continuing that custom if it indeed has been a living one here. But plopping that custom down new in a place where it has not been a living legacy is not a good example of continuity.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Liam, I don't think your argument holds.

    The Polyphonic Masses are a continuous cultural custom of a certain sphere of Europe. Parishes in the US that draw most of their parishioners from descendents of that sphere might have a claim on continuing that custon if it indeed has been a living one here. But plopping that custom down new in a place where it has not been a living legacy is not a good example of continuity.

    The Gregorian Masses are a continuous cultural custom of a certain sphere of Europe...

    Neither of these were in continuing practise in the majority of Catholic parishes in this country prior to Vatican II - the application of Tra le sollicitudine in the US seems to be, for the most part, a post-Vat.II phenomenon, and then mainly in certain parts of the country.
    Thanked by 1Paul_Onnonhoaraton
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,080
    Salieri

    But Gregorian chant and polyphony are expressly held out for esteem and preservation by the Church's current documents; the Viennese Masses not so (being the subject of more conflicted commentary and reception, historically speaking). The point being one has more standing to create the Gregorian/polyphonic praxis anew in places where it never took hold; not so much the Viennese Masses without it seeming more like a other forms of inorganic, inapposite inculturation so-called.
  • Enjoy reading this thread because we sing at least 4 Orchestra Masses a year, often Mozart , Schubert et al. There are times a truly crave a polyphonic setting by Palestrina or Byrd but the Orchestra Masses are so much better than what we could be singing, I don't mind too much.
    Thanked by 1Paul_Onnonhoaraton
  • I, too, find Prof. Mahrt's reasons above most compelling.

    On the critical side of things, I have a hunch that many object to the orchestral masses not only because of stylistic elements (sounding operatic to some) but also, and perhaps moreover, because of the length of each movement.

    This is what I hear from many celebrants...

    I realize that orchestral masses are different as regards time, but the length is perceived as problematic/out of proportion in enough of the repertoire that undue length has become associated with these great works.
    Thanked by 1Paul_Onnonhoaraton
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
    Thanked by 1Paul_Onnonhoaraton
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,080
    MACW

    Indeed the Viennese Masses were designed for the old Low Mass where the clerics continued their work, as it were, while the musicians played on. It does not fit well with the OF except in places where there is such a long living cultural legacy that the fit issues of that sort are perceived less. Except that the offertory, the OF is not designed to have that parallel action but is more expressly linear (it should be remembered that the lack of such linearity in the old Low Mass was a concession, not really normative, in origin).
    Thanked by 1Paul_Onnonhoaraton
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    (it should be remembered that the lack of such linearity in the old Low Mass was a concession, not really normative, in origin).


    A feature, not a bug!
    Thanked by 2Richard Mix CHGiffen
  • I dunno, Liam.
    You seem to be forgetting the Solemn Mass and Missa Cantata in the EF. Orchestral masses were (and are) used in those settings quite often. Both allow for a good deal of parallel action.

    I have come to find excess linearity in the OF rather limiting, even overly didactic, and I haven't heard a great reason for it's preference.

    Given that the most recent council clearly reaffirmed the norm of a sung mass, flexibility is needed for practical and prayerful liturgical celebrations. Case in point: the choral Sanctus.
    Thanked by 1MHI
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,080
    Except that, in the OF, the ecclesiology of the Sanctus has been modulated: it is now a hymn of both priest and people, and is intended to illustrate the entire Body of Christ in praise (I don't quibble about a choral Sanctus on occasion, but it's clearly an exception to current norms, that's all).
  • IMO, it's still open to much debate.
    For one thing, it was long considered a hymn of both priest and people, as are all parts of the ordinary, before the council, too. So I don't see the eccesiology changing much.

    It doesn't strike me as coherent to promote our musical treasures "of inestimable value", and then to claim that some of the royal gems of said treasures should not be used. Anyone who has studied and sung polyphonic masses can attest to the Sanctus most often being the compositional jewel of the mass.

    This thread isn't about the choral Sanctus, so sorry for opening up the subject.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen MHI
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I respect, but strongly disagree with, Jeff's opinion regarding the Viennese tradition. But as long as he will not infringe upon my own ability to do them, I shall be content to leave it as a difference of opinion. Taste, even.

    Back on topic, after tangents on tangents on tangents, I think the area of post-conciliar reform is a very rich one for musicological research, in which hard-hitting research is desperately needed. Unfortunately, I don't think the time has yet come to undertake such research (indeed, the story is still being written!!), and I think it is a VERY difficult subject in which to keep objectivity. I still find the data very interesting, indeed.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I've actually begun to read the article, which is fascinating. From the first few pages, I'm inclined to strongly disagree with Schuler on many important points. But it's still interesting to see these points being made IN THE MOMENT!

    He would have been an interesting character for the forums...
  • Paul I would also like to add something to what Dr. Mahrt said in his post concerning the value of Classical Orchestral Masses. Since the early period of polyphonic music the great Cathedrals have been the concert halls of Europe. Notre Dame was a place the common man could hear beautiful awesome music. Perhaps it is not so different today. I know a number of people who have been introduced to classical music because of orchestra Masses performed at my parish and come away with an appreciation they did not have before.
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,086
    Salieri, I think you shortchange the influence of Tra le sollicitudine at the time. It didn't much affect the Cecilian parishes, as they were already doing it. But there was a lot of change (and resistance to change) in the big East Coast parishes. It pretty much ended the career of RoSewig, for instance (but RoSewig masses were in parish use in Cleveland until Vatican II.)

    Trying to figure out who did what when and fold it into a comprehensive picture is a bit of a musicological puzzle. I've been doing some poking into online newspapers, particularly the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Up to the Civil War, and esp. in Baltimore (where the action was), the go-to Mass for big festivities was the so-called "Mozart's 12th Mass". From the 1870s on, the PD reports the Christmas and Easter music at the big Catholic and Episcopal churches, and we get Weber, Haydn, Mercadante (and still the "Mozart"). Sometimes we get explicit mention of an orchestra; more often not. We get mentions of names of 2-3 singers on a particular voice part, in a context which makes it appear that this is the choir, rather than soloists. Of course, reports of Easter tell us what we might expect to hear on Easter, not on a random Sunday. I'd like to get back digging at some point, to at least be able to draw a picture for the Diocese of Cleveland.
    Thanked by 1Ruth Lapeyre
  • Jeffrey I am very interested in what you find out.