The real compositional problem, as I see it, is that there is no specific 'style' of today, and hence no real need for new music. In the past we needed new music because the style changed: anyone who played High Baroque Masses in Beethoven's Vienna was 'old fashioned'. -- The exceptions to this general rule are the works Mozart and Palestrina. But even the so-called 'Palestrina Style' of 18th century Vienna could not possibly be mistaken for authentic music of the High Renaissance, it is very obviously Classical in its manner.

Today we have the problem of Tra le Sollicitudine and Sacrosanctum Concillium: High Renaissance Polyphony is extolled as second only to Gregorian Chant, and other types of modern music are "tolerated". And, let's face it, with Classical Polyphony given the status of the unofficial official music of the Roman Rite, why compose new music? Surely there's enough Isaac, Palestrina, Byrd and Lassus to go 'round. We don't need new music, especially when we don't have a style of our time, and since most new liturgical compositions (mine especially) are really only a kind of Neo-Fuxian Pastiche, and most don't go beyond the realm of gebrauchsmusik.

[NB: this post is much edited.]

The problem, as I see it, is that we live in a culture that does not value contemporary music. Having been bombarded with deconstructionist "art" since the beginning of the 20th Cent., many lay people (referring here to non-musicians) are wary of any music written by a composer who died after 1908, let alone someone who is still alive. Musicians probably shy away from contemporary music in worship because they want to avoid complaints about the 'harshness', the 'dissonances', etc. of modern musical language. Even someone as tame as Britten is feared by people. We program old music because people know it, and are accustomed to it; because it's harmless: it doesn't make them think, at least not too much. People are unwilling to progress beyond I-IV-V-I.

[NB: My reference to I., P., B., and L., above was primarily regarding Propers Cycles (or individual settings), not Mass Ordinaries.]

There is another repertoire that the church has handed us--classical polyphony. As an ideal, I don't wish Palestrina etc. to be pervasive throughout the church; what I wish is that the liturgy should be expressed through music that is beautiful and sacred. Chant, first of all does that, but so does Palestrina.

We need the work of folks like Dr. Mahrt to retain the treasure to study and love and upon which we will build.

I can name that corrected tune in three words: Father. George. Rutler.
Mahrt and his predecessors who had to keep the boat from listing during the perfect storm of 66-71 have done their work. And there's likely lotsa CMAA/NPM/free floating capable choirmasters that could Palestrina weekly.
But all it takes is a Dolan, a Chaput (most unfortunate, had high hopes), a Cupich or Wuerl to set an example for not only their charges, but for clergy everywhere who look upon the Mass as essentially a commodity that has to fit into their notion of time and content. Where have you gone, Joseph Ratzinger, the people turn their thirsting souls to you....?

This is really a problem with the N.O., You are only ever 1 week away from the clown mass. You can build up a choir and sing Palestrina each week, you can build up a group of Altar boys to serve, you can order the sanctuary so it looks like part of a church, etc. But the new Parish priest can come in and sweep it all away, and still be using the same Missal / Lectionary etc.

I mean... technically a bishop could assign a crazy priest to say the TLM and he could do crazy things at the EF too.

Crazy things at the E.F., but then it would not be the E.F. There is very little room for 'change' without breaking the Rubrics.

Fair enough. For what it's worth, most of the 'clownish' things that I've seen in the context of the NO were also contrary to the prescribed rubrics (limp as they may be) for the NO.

Professor, you have addressed ecclesial princes, prime movers of sacred liturgy world-wide, legions of musicians of all abilities, and most importantly been able to share your gospel with the good people of St. Anne's in Palo Alto for decades.
But to my point above, unless "we" succeed in getting the serious, focused and interested attention of the body of bishops in this country about reawakening the sleeping giant that Christ's Church, HRCC, through the vitality and mystery of the true Mass of the Ages, we cannot help our own shepherds and captains towards true leadership. Is there no path other than the hodge podge liturgies that attend modern ordinations (LA should be interesting), world youth days, and papal visitations?
At times I am dismayed thinking that the RCC has devolved into one pathetic paper push institution. And, if there's even a shred of truth in that resignation, then we are just re-arranging deck chairs, and it took a while for the Titanic to sink, but sink she did. I need to see the bow of the USS Hope on the horizon.

Fair enough. For what it's worth, most of the 'clownish' things that I've seen in the context of the NO were also contrary to the prescribed rubrics (limp as they may be) for the NO.

I perhaps did not really make my thoughts clear...

When I see a Mass advertised as a TLM / E.F., I have a very good idea what to expect.
i.e. No Girl Altar servers, no Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, no rock / pop music, no folk Hymns, very little if any vernacular, etc. O.K. there will be the odd exception but anything crazy will see the listing of the Mass removed from the lists, someone will blog about it, it won't usually last. It is always easier to have a N.O. Mass instead.

The N.O. is different, we can go from church to church and find completely different services, some will follow the Rubrics to the letter others will not bother. This flexible approach we would describe as a flaw, but those that created the Mass saw it as a feature. The limits of what is permissible are vague, the example of Pope, Cardinal, Bishop etc. has a much greater effect, than the letter of the Rubrics. We have less idea what we are going to get.

In the E.F. I can always appeal to the Rubrics they are an intrinsic part of the Rite. In the N.O. the rubrics appear to be flexible.

I see again and again on this forum threads about the problem of what music to use in the N.O. We can't appeal in many cases to the rubrics, history, legislation. So often it is the case of what the priest 'likes', or what the more vocal in the parish 'like'.

I admire those here that do so much for the cause of Church Music within the N.O. it is really great what has, and can be achieved. But I am really glad that I do not have those problems (including the topic of this thread), and I am more than happy with the TLM.

I mean... technically a bishop could assign a crazy priest to say the TLM and he could do crazy things at the EF too.

As far as music goes, bad EF priests don't "do" crazy. They do nothing. (i.e. the Low Mass.)

I have nothing against the Low Mass, don't get my wrong, but the mentality of sticking in Low Mass mode, with as little music as possible - just get through mass and get it over with involving as little exertion as possible - if you ask me, that utilitarian mindset is almost a more insidious form of Modernism than the regrettable tripe of M. Haugen and the Banana Splits at mass. Because we want it fast, we want it now, we want it over with.

Okay, here beginneth a rant: a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of arranging music for a TLM in my diocese - a fairly rare occasion, and it's been a while since it's happened in my hometown, so I wanted to make it a very special occasion. Palestrina's Missa Aeterna, full Gregorian propers, motets by Mozart and Schubert - we practiced for months, and we did a none too shabby job of it. I usually try to keep music pretty simple, but this was a special occasion, so I thought my utmost for His highest.

What comments did my fellow coordinators have?

-"Mass was too long - It was 45 minutes before the Gospel was even read (it wasn't - it was 18)."
-"We never got to sing (untrue as well, since I included music for opening/closing hymns and the Credo)
-"You should've put music for the ordinary parts in the bulletin so everyone could sing. (Yeah, as well as instructions for where S,A,T, & B congregants we supposed to sit.)"
-"Mass was too much like a concert."

This last one gets me. These same people are always telling me to slow down, take in life, enjoy the moment. Yet with them, it's either 'congregation must always participate' or absolute silence. It doesn't always have to be silent for a person to be reflective at Mass.

Mass isn't about us. Mass is not primarily pedagogical, although it's a wonderful side effect. Mass is about giving due praise and adoration to God to the best of our abilities.

I apologize. Here endeth the rant. But I am about burnt out about the reductionist worldview, in either EF or OF.

These same people are always telling me to slow down, take in life, enjoy the moment.

With fermented beverage in hand to promote sharp retention of all aspects.

...45 minutes?'

Actually, I would eliminate it altogether!

I think that the reality of most parish churches would be to have a polyphonic mass setting once a month (or on major feasts) never and then to use simpler settings something awful and inappropriatefor most other masses all the time.

Edited for accuracy.

I recognise the humour in Adam's remark. It also may seem to represent reality. But, what if, just 'what if', instead of the 'musicans' and 'pastors' that they have, the people had real musicians and pastors. The people, who (and this is not meant disparagingly!) by and large have little knowledge or expectations of church music except the examples with which they are presented, would, of course, like polyphony, etc., if that were what was being presented to them by most choirmasters and pastors. Put more briefly, one may have certitude that people would like 'good stuff' if that was what was done in the majority of places and desired by most pastors. The people do not demand the junk they are presented with. Adam is, of course, correct in stating what he does. But, we should recognise that this situation exists because of the pitiful leadership of 'musicians' and 'pastors'.

I would further edit the above quote as follows -

'I think that the reality of most nearly all parish churches would be to have a polyphonic setting once a month (or on major feasts) never as often as their pastor wanted it providing that that represented cultural reality and pastoral wishes in the majority of Catholic churches.

(In other words, the people really do not huddle and decide that they want junk. Their 'pastors' and 'musician' decide that for them. It beggars belief how very, very little a great, great many of our clergy think of 'their' people.

I'd like to interject a smidgeon of "work in progress" perspective to the original concern Jarod raises. I purchased copies of Richard R's "manuscript" of a new SATB setting of "De Angelis" and we've been reading through it the last two weeks. It is a compelling and challenging setting. But as we went through the Sanctus to Agnus (it is in Latin) what I had speculated about its usage at our schola Mass (NO) was made evident- it really belongs in the TLM. And that's precisely what Richard does in VA. Ergo, the issue of time expended to accommodate any true "choral" Mass isn't really valid, it does have to revert to how best does a setting serve the particular attributes of ritual action (ars celebrandi) that a celebrant exercises. To further that, despite anecdotal histories of occasional insertions of a choral Mass in the NO or even regularly scheduled Sunday Masses (as per Msgr. Schuler), for a parish/pastor to introduce such to an established congregation and schedule could be pastorally inappropriate if you follow my reasoning. So the alternative might be not to concertize such a setting, but schedule a Mass outside of the weekly schedules that will have all the ritual elements necessary to which a choral Mass would serve and compliment.

Perhaps we should stop using polyphonic Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus and Agnus movements altogether, and revive the genre of the Kyie-Gloria only "Missa Brevis" of Baroque Lutherandom? (And this is NOT purple: I'm serious!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91I6pupoGc

Nm... Went to youtube

Jared, Charles here.
Like Rich Skirpan, I'm really a choral conductor/composer first, and chanter/accompanist second, so what I'm picking up is that our nomenclature regarding the "constitution" of a "Choral Mass" may not be the same. As a choral person, in 45 years I've never accepted the dismissive or diminishing role of the choir's function at service. There has been a number of shifts in modality of performance that have relegated choirs to what amounts as a "life support system" to mitigate FCAP. I loathe that devolution. Yes, choirs do provide the best (as opposed to the Mr. Caruso mic'd up cantor crap we'll endure next week) backbone for congregational singing, but not at the diminution of forcing capable singers away from SATB (or whatever voicing) to unison as the standard. So, that's why, to me, the Jernberg is the MR3 poster child for a fairly fulfilling choral and congregational setting, similar in a way to how I regarded Proulx's Oecumenica sans Gloria, and a few others such as Schiavone's Holy Family. I think this latter Mass, as modest as it is, however shows that choir singing in alternatim with the congregation is a still viable model for composition that is not all that much been used since MR3. What do you think?

One strategy that I've seen used successfully is to 'teach' the congregation the ordinaries by having the choir sing the congregation's part in unison with the congregation, for a couple of weeks. Subsequently, the choir sings polyphony and the congregation sings its part. Though evidence sometimes suggests otherwise, the congregation, as a whole, is not stupid. The people can pick these things up pretty quickly and participate.

A well-written ordinary, prayed by a congregation that 'knows its part' and sings it, with the choir singing its part as SATB, can be a beautiful thing. There are many forms of participatio. This is one that everybody can easily appreciate as both prayerful and beautiful.

Yes, this is the way the wind is blowing. And we music directors have to be savvy about that.
Still, the wind changes pretty regularly. So we needn't chase it but rather sway with it.

'Who in their [sic] right mind....'

Ahem! Let's be honest. Who, in his right mind, would not object to having a choir sing a polyphonic Credo these days?
It's the unfortunate assumptions of aversion to quite sane practices like this that are deeply disappointing. I say this with some reserve because I do prefer that the ordinary be kept as the domain of the congregation, and that it be sung in plain chant or an accompanied mass of Willan-like quality. That one would balk, though, at such a credo is very disturbing. That one would consider this to be 'right minded' is alarming.

While the N.O. is liturgically different, and that more, shall I say 'audience' participation is expected. But just because the N.O. is a sequential confection, does not mean that polyphonic Ordinaries are impossible in that setting. If the Parish Priest is supportive, and the congregation is expecting a full Sung Mass, polyphonic Ordinaries are possible, as can be seen from the list of London posted here, http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/151733#Comment_151733

I do not see why in Parishes that have multiple Masses on a Sunday that one of these could not have a Polyphonic Ordinary. Why does every N.O. Mass have to be either a Low Mass or a Low Mass with Hymns?

In many of the comments here, and to some extent in Mahrt's responses to me in Sacred Music, I see an argument I think I can fairly summarize this way:

The great Choral Ordinaries are fantastic sacred music, and an enormous part of the Church's treasury of sacred music. Therefore, it is wrong to say that we should no longer use them liturgically.

And I feel that I have to keep repeating that I agree wholeheartedly with the first half of the argument. But I do not see that the second half logically or necessarily follows from the first. Music is not necessarily suitable for the liturgy merely because it is sacred; nor is it necessarily suitable merely because it is fantastic (i.e.: well-crafted); nor is it suitable merely because it is both sacred and well-crafted. There is a missing consideration here: to be liturgically suitable, music needs to be excellent and sacred, AND fit with the structure of the liturgy, AND fulfill the Church's broad musical ideals and specific directives.

I believe that the argument I've summarized above springs in some ways from a defensive mentality proponents of excellent liturgical music have (for good reason) fallen into since the council. We've been attacked for decades merely for wanting music to be sacred and well-crafted. Therefore, any criticism of excellent sacred music (such as choral ordinaries) naturally provokes a defensive response. What I am trying to do in my articles is move beyond that defensive approach. I think that, thanks to people like William Mahrt and organizations like the CMAA we have now reached a better place for dialogue. We certainly have many more parishes and Cathedrals with tradition-minded musicians and pastors in charge, even than we had ten years ago. Building on that foundation, I am asking a more forward-looking question: "given that music should be excellent and sacred, WHICH excellent sacred music is the best goal for the faithful pastor and church musician?" In order to mature as musicians (and I would add, in order for the CMAA to stay at the forefront of liturgical music as an organization), we need to be able to discuss this question in a measured, informed, calm way. It is intellectually unsatisfying to simply proclaim that "the liturgy deserves great music!" We know that much already. The question is, what models most closely fulfill all considerations (musical quality, textual quality, liturgical integration, fidelity to the documents). Which parts of the treasury are most helpful? What types of things are we most in need of, from composers?

Musicam Sacram itself calls for this discussion in article 53: "As regards the heritage that has been handed down those parts which correspond to the needs of the renewed liturgy should first be brought to light. Competent experts in this field must then carefully consider whether other parts can be adapted to the same needs. As for those pieces which do not correspond to the nature of the liturgy or cannot be harmonized with the pastoral celebration of the liturgy—they may be profitably transferred to popular devotions, especially to celebrations of the word of God."

I will repeat that I have no desire to stop people from doing choral ordinaries (not that I could anyway!). BUT, looking at all the facts, I don't see the choral ordinary as the best way forward. That doesn't mean choral ordinaries are "bad" or unsuitable.

For an open discussion of choral ordinaries, it seems reasonable to distinguish between different styles within that genre. They can be incredibly different in length, for example.

And I have to openly wonder how many people who criticize the use of a choral ordinary have significant experience praying with a variety of these sung prayers.

When, for example, the question is asked about ordinaries composed without a Credo in such a way that an assumption seems to be that because a Credo wasn't composed for many masses it somehow means that a polyphonic Credo is extravagant or unseemly, we have the problem of people seemingly wanting to belittle or negate a liturgical practice with which they are simply unfamiliar.

(Hmmm. How's that for a long sentence?)

"What keeps me scratching my head is, how are we supposed to regard the treasury of sacred music as a true treasure, and then say that the choral ordinary- especially the classical polyphonic ordinary- shouldn't be offered as fitting praise to God? Why would music of this kind- routinely upheld as fitting praise and part of the treasury of sacred music- be condidered unsuitable?"

THIS!

In the post-Benedict XVI era, I don't think there will be much enthusiasm expressed by both prelates and pastors to maximize their ars celebrandi which enables us to respond rightly.

Don't give up too quickly! Most (not all) priests that I've seen who are under the age of 50 are quite a bit more liturgically sensible than those who are over 50. Their understanding of ars celebrandi is much more 'conservative,' and that is more than half the battle.

Their biggest problem is their congregations, or perhaps the fear they have of the few but loud Aging Hippie types who sometimes control a good deal of $$.