I think MJO is just saying he's "gone yellow" about leaving his remarks on the forum

Having played Pines of Rome of Respighi many times in an orchestra, I've always been impressed with the 'chant' character Pines near a Catacomb and wondered where it came from. Today, thanks to Zac, a savvy Roman on here, I finally learned where one of them came from: Sanctus IX, Gregorian. In fact, this tune is on some orchestra trombone audition lists. Now my question is, where does this snippet from the same piece in the horns come from? Is it part of a chant, or is it Respighi's own? I did this from memory, so it may not be the accurate metre, but you'll know the tune. I have used a variant of this in one my Psalm settings.

In fact, here is one of our Kyrie's for Lent with the Compline Choirs: Yes, we have a lot of people that can sing that low. jefe

Noel seems to be saying exactly that, and I think I mainly agree. We like to think of the church as the great patron of the arts, but she has usually employed Michelangelos and Palestrinas to the extent that her leaders have been able to act like other princes of the world: Dufay's masses and Lasso's motets were written for the court chapels of dukes. We can thank Archbishop Colorado for Mozart's early masses, and his desire to replace them with German hymns (see KV 343/336c) for Mozart's move to Vienna and the mature operas. Mozart is on record as a great admirer of the gregorian sursum corda, but the chant-based Requiem was written on commission. A counterexample would be Stravinsky, who could have wrangled commissions for anything he felt like setting but chose to write some of the outstanding music of the western (because he wouldn't forgo instruments) liturgy: the Mass, Canticum Sacrum in honor of St Mark, Threni (on the Lamentations), and the great Requiem Canticles, planned as his swan song (but followed by The Owl and the Pussycat).

Richard, that's kind of my point. Sure Palestrina's gig was to write for the church, so he did that. But the comments and admiration of chant from composers who could make a comfortable living without composing for the church are not part of a financial strategy. "If I say Gregorian chant is beautiful, maybe I'll finally get a big secular stipend for these other pieces"

I just think its a bit negative to reduce a nearly universal admiration for chant to its political/financial place during a long-passed period of history. Some people made a lot of money with chant based music - but Noel seems to be suggesting that money is behind the love of chant held by composers whose purses were not dependent on church employment.

It went even further than that when some monarchs created new sees so that their chapels royal were made into cathedrals.