I can't put my finger on it, but something just doesn't seem right about what he's advocating. It almost seems like he'd want to throw out some of the best stuff.

Never mind - -

Am I the only one who has ever genuinely wondered how an appreciation for the gift of fine music and fine other things automatically turns one into a snob... or... or... (gasp!)... one of those... uh.... elitists?

This is not an epithet which we should be afraid of because, fundamentally, there is no logically tenable defence for the propostition that Bach et al. = snob-elitist. (Haven't we all known scads of people who love classical music and who would be nobody's candidate for 'snob'?)

This is really a very very lame and intellectually challenged put-down.
It's childish play-ground name calling.

And, what does 'appreciation for fine things is built on appreciation for other things' mean? More illogic.

I didn't like the fault-finding aspect of this particular column either. There are ways to talk about the issue without seeming to blame people.

In thinking about Msgr. Pope's experience in the seminary, it seems that he could have drawn some different conclusions from it. When seminarians were more moved by the Litany of the Saints than by a Palestrina motet, he might notice how that fact underscored the importance of the congregation's "service music". It also demonstrated the appeal of plainchant.

The point he did choose to focus on is a fair one, though, about the need to introduce more artistic music gradually, lest it seem remote and uninteresting to the congregation.

Certainly there is support in CMAA for the principle of gradualism. The Church's approach to people in many areas is catechetical and developmental. It recognizes what is good in a person's unformed thinking, habits, or attitudes and seeks to lead the person to make the next good step.

The esteemed president of our association seems to follow such an approach, speaking about even some rather bland music as "good" and referring to other music which is "better".

Oh! And now we have a new word (neo-logism if you're a snob)
Gradualism - the act of using a Gradual(e), or, the belief in spreading the practice of the music contained within it.
and
Gradualist - one who performs music from a Graduale (a Socratic corrupter of youth).

Isn't it up to us, as church musicians, to introduce our choirs and congregations to good music? My experiences are that people don't know what they truly like until they've heard a lot of it. In my parish, the thought of chant and polyphony turned many stomachs and the transition to this genre resulted in losing many parishioners and singers. As time is passing, however, and I'm not giving in, those that stayed are beginning to see the beauty and transcendence of this music. It's not snobbery....just a point of having to educate. If you provide beer and hotdogs at every meal people will love beer and hotdogs and not appreciate steak and champagne. But, if you wean them a little, they will eventually see the differences.

He sets up a false dichotomy, that the music is either Bach, Vivaldi, or it's the usual suspects that live in parishes across the country. There's a lot of ground between the two and most music directors aren't trying to go from fluff to high classical; they're just trying to get out of the fluff fever swamp to solid middle ground.

There's an old joke that goes I'd rather be governed by a hundred names randomly pulled from the Boston phone book than by the entire faculty at Harvard. Likewise, I'd love to try an experiment where I go to several secular middle schools, present a wide range of music, remove the words and have them listen to the music itself and then have them identify in what setting this music would be appropriate. I'm willing to bet they would reliably put traditional church music in church. You can hardly call someone a snob who is willing to bet on pre-teens over adults.

He could have shown them that both the litany and the motet belonged to the treasury of sacred music and each serves a valid but different function. Perhaps if he had been singing more motets all along, they would have been better prepared. We have to start where people are, but we also have to bring them along. The better should not be the enemy of the good, but neither should the good be the enemy of the better.

+1 Paul and Dr Mahrt, well said. It seems he's trying to pit the two against each other, which is completely unneeded.

IIRC, the purpose of a "sermon" (or "homily") is to educate the faithful in virtue, based on the reading(s) of the day.

So if the good Mgr. is doing what he is supposed to be doing with his preaching, is he being a bit of a 'snob' when migrating from "prohibiting adultery" to "...that means no artificial contraception"?

...which is to say, from the 'litany' of the Big 10 learned in grade school to the 'development' of the Big 10 into the polyphony of Truth?