If you get a chance, make a little video so we can get an idea of it too. Thanks.

Intentionality?

Without intending the slightest insincerity, I think that is just fine for those people of that culture. I have heard many, many times, people of my culture sing Palestrina, Howells, Tallis and chant, Bach, Handel, Anglican chant and hymns with the same spirit. One should shy very far away from suggesting that some other culture's particular music is, sui generis, more heartfelt, authentically human, or spiritual than ours. Nor would I give the music you heard to my choir or congregation on the basis that it was inherently more spiritual than that of their own heritage. This is a very common error. It is just copying someone else and not being ourselves. I remember when, as a youth, I first heard the Missa Luba: I thought, 'goodness, we don't sound like that!'. No, we don't sound like that: we sound like us, which is just as good. You might have been similarly moved by the singing at some evangelical church, a black church, etc.,.... because you hadn't heard it before.

No need to 're-think'.... just appreciate in context.
Gavin said it: 'intentionality'.

CGZ -
Probably some of both; but, probably more of the former than the latter.
The 'universal language of the Church' is one which I love. I also think that it should be used in all inter-cultural situations (my views about pastiche masses are well known, if not well-agreed-with).
At the same time, I am equally thankful that I (we) can worship in my (our) own language, which is equally beautiful, and which I love somewhat more.

(We are, though, in 100% agreement about the performers whom you name above! As for the composers you name, I should never put Widor in the same sentence with Bach... but others might.... and you did.)

Jackson, would you mind explaining the thrust of your first comment? As I read Mad Dan's notion of "Maybe I need to rethink things" he's just acknowledging a new encounter, which has sparked within him a need to re-examine his perspectives and understanding.

Maybe just hand them the texts of the propers/ordinary (in English or Latin or whatever language they speak) and see what they come up with, melodically/harmonically. Or teach them a few Gregorian ordinaries, but then let them modify the melodies and harmonize as seems natural to them. Presto, inculturation.

Melo -
The thrust of my first comment?
I did believe Mat Dan was very excited and at some level very favourably impressed with a first encounter with the cultural expressiveness of Pacific Islanders. I meant to affirm his appreciation of that encounter, while offering the seasoned observation that such encounters and their attendant emotional responses should not at all reflect negatively on the validity of our own culture and its music. As I intimated, I have often observed such encounters resulting in a negative reassessment of one's own culture and a (mis-)perceived need to change it to be more like the other one. There is much antipathy these days towards the European heritage in music and liturgy which is shared by, probably, most of us on this forum. One is constantly hearing (even from those of European heritage!) about how this and that is so 'Euro-centric' and would be of little interest in this or that part of the globe. I find this pell-mell abondonment of our own heritage to be un-called for, extremely perplexing - and, offensive. Perhaps I have made a mountain out of a mole hill; I hope not. I appreciate and share Dan's experience of another cultural expression; but, in appreciating it, I see no implied need to rethink my own - only to treasure it more.

I had a similar experience to Mad Dan when I attended an Antiochian Orthodox mission in rural Michigan. They met in a tiny conference center (almost a shack), which they had transformed into a beautiful traditional church. (HINT: THE MOST HELPFUL COMPONENT WAS THAT THE ELECTRIC LIGHTS WERE VERY LOW!!) I was AMAZED at how the congregation sang with such vigor, volume, and emotion. Here was a small group of farmers, many uneducated, singing ancient chants in English, Greek, and what I assume was Arabic. The 20 or so of them outsang any Catholic congregation of thousands I've ever heard.

When I moved to the Detroit area, I had to experience this again, so I attended a large Greek Orthodox church, assuming I would see more of the same. I was wrong. In the pews (!!!!) of this huge structure were people disconnected from the liturgy. Women attended to private devotions, while their husbands actually reclined in the pews, reading the local newspaper! The music was a sole chanter, who rattled off the chants in a monotone with a clear apathy in his tone. (I feel that many Orthodox chanters chant too quickly, but the effect is one of excitement and vigor, where this just had a "get it done with" quality.) What a disappointment that was!

Intentionality. Nearly everyone at the Mission was a convert, most from the same parish as the convert pastor. They all wanted to be there and wanted the liturgy to be that way. I suspect it is the same with the Pacific Islander parish - they have sought out and created a community which reflects their culture and values. Most parishes, however, have congregations which are attending because of family history or geography. No one has any reason to be at this church rather than not spending the effort to be elsewhere.

We might prefer the intentional parishes, but that isn't to denigrate the average parish. We just shouldn't be surprised when they don't share the same enthusiasm for music or ritual as parishes where EVERYONE attends out of enthusiasm for ritual or music.