That this once vibrant church finally closed in 2011 says a lot....

Peter can be SO funny. I think it's called "a trenchant wit" when one refers to rotting corpses.

Schubert's "Ave Maria" was forbidden.

Should have never been allowed

What about the Bach-Gounoud (sp?)?

Carol,

I think the Bach-Gounod is also outside the lines, but I'm not positive.

Bach is a good composer (but not Catholic).
Gounod is a good composer, but this piece has soaring soloist lines, almost as if it were designed for the stage, rather than the Mass.

Although I agree they can be overdone, soaring solo lines are typical and characteristic of certain periods of music. It is also true that interminable, and sometimes insufferable, melismas are characteristic of another period. Polyphony can get tedious when the same phrases or words are repeated incessantly like the "Song That Does Not End," leading one to conclude that piece should have ended some minutes ago.

Music is not perfect. Like any other medium, you often get the bad along with the good.

It was a racket to be sure. However, another racket has taken its place with the big 3 or so publishers being the villains.

[self edited]

The book, CATHOLIC CHURCH MUSIC by Paul Hume (1956), is a must read to get a sense of the state of music at mass in America before Vat II. In it, I am fairly certain, Hume mentions the many "approved" lists at the time. Mediocrity, poor taste, and poor practice were rampant in the pre Vat II church as it is now. Even though there were "white" lists, they were often ignored. As for the Schubert Ave Maria, I think the main objection was that Schubert's text was not the actual "Hail Mary". Paul Hume, by the way, was the famous music critic of the Washington Post who wrote a scathing review of Margaret Truman's singing at a broadcast concert from Detroit. Her father, President Harry Truman, was outraged at Paul's review. The President wrote an angry letter to Paul with a veiled threat of a physical violence if they ever met. He not only wrote the letter, he found a stamp on his desk and mailed it personally. When the letter was published, it made national headlines. Jeffrey Quick, I do not have a copy of the Detroit "white" list, but I remember seeing it.

Mediocrity, poor taste,

Mother Dear, O Pray for Me
Bring Flowers of the Rarest
O Sacred Heart All Burning

Bring flowers is a May crowning hymn. I have never used, nor heard it used, for anything else. The tallest kid in the class gets to crown the statue.

Shubert... another on the list that isn't appropriate for liturgy. Yes, Mozart is on the same list along with Beethoven. Is there any composer from that era that belongs?

Honestly? I would say not much. The more traditional and sensitive choral works of Bach might be well-suited to the liturgy, but several of his works (especially for the organ) can at times stray off into the realm of bombastic overstimulation, which is not good for church music.

But I've never once heard a Mozart or Beethoven piece that I felt really belonged in church. Maybe I haven't heard enough of their repertoire to judge, but it seems that every "sacred" work I have heard by them (and many other composers of that era) have just sounded like secular symphony music with sacred texts added in. That would be fine if it were music for public gatherings or civic events (like parades, holiday celebrations, inauguration days, the coronation of a monarch, etc.), but it's not music well-suited for the sacred liturgy. It is music for the concert hall or open air bandstand. It is not liturgical music.

That's how I feel about orchestral masses, as well as overly busy pipe organ music. These kinds of compositions draw far too much attention to themselves, and away from the sacred mysteries being performed at the altar. They compete with the actual liturgy itself for people's attention and consideration.

'But I've never once heard a Mozart or Beethoven piece that I felt really belonged in church'
What about Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus which (when performed well) is one of the most intensely devotional pieces I can think of.

You know he was kidding, right?

And yes, some polyphony can get really tiresome when it goes on too long and obscures the text with melody lines.

Why did I bother with purple, I wonder? My point is that if one takes seriously the whine that Mozart's Requiem must be excluded from the temple because it might remind someone of opera, you'd better be very concerned about how much weight to give this.

With regard to Mozart, I remember one of my music professors at college talking a little bit about how he thought there was a slightly different character to Mozart's sacred works. Given that we did choral/orchestral masses periodically at the university church (most notably an annual Requiem Mass on Nov. 2), I assume he is a fan of orchestral Masses, and was probably arguing that there is a truly "sacred" character to Mozart's music written for the Liturgy. He was (is) certainly more or less is very knowledgeable about Mozart's music as a whole; I wish I could remember what he said about it.

Lately I just roll my eyes when I see some grand EF High Mass being advertised and see that all (ok, most) of the music is orchestral or that it's all (or mostly) polyphonic, and that there will be lots of Bach-like organ music being utilized before and after and during the otherwise quiet parts. The last thing we need is people to associate the EF Mass with going to a Classical music or Baroque concert; what about advertising a grand EF Mass with limited use of anything other than simply the chants prescribed for the Mass, with Mass II or III, which is recommended for Solemnities, for the Ordinary? Polyphony is beautiful, no doubt about about it, but frankly, that is the problem - often it can be too beautiful, in my opinion, when contrasted to the the simple beauty of chant, which is the ideal sacred music. I know very, very well that polyphony is allowed to substitute for both the Propers and the Ordinary, but in my opinion, polyphony is best utilized as a "time filler" after the prescribed texts have been sung to their proper chant.

I am in perfect agreement with the poster who said

That's how I feel about orchestral masses, as well as overly busy pipe organ music. These kinds of compositions draw far too much attention to themselves, and away from the sacred mysteries being performed at the altar. They compete with the actual liturgy itself for people's attention and consideration.

That is why it is best to stick with chant, and that is why "a liturgical celebration loses none of its solemnity when accompanied solely by chant." (or whatever the exact quote is.) Another good reason to stick to chant as the majority of the choir's repertoire is so that more practice will go toward the chant. Admittedly, I would most likely be classified as an extreme chant snob (one of those that sees no point in utilizing anything other than the "old Solesmes" method, at that), but as far as my experience goes, though admittedly it is limited, even (most of) those parishes that try to utilize it sound terrible chanting - mediocre at best. Now I never was and never will be a big-time choral director - my only experience is directing the music for a Sunday EF Missa Cantata 1-2 times per month for a year-plus - but the most frustrating part of my job was getting polyphony (or polyphonic-type stuff) ready for the Masses when all I really wanted to do was make the chant as good as it could be. I would have probably lost most of the choir (which was small anyway) if I didn't teach them any polyphonic pieces.

I think people will be moved to think with the mind of the Church and to truly be immersed in the Liturgy, more by hearing the beautiful, prescribed chants than by hearing even well-executed, beautiful polyphony, and especially than by hearing even well-executed, beautiful (in their own right, not as sacred music) orchestral Masses. Not that I think no sacred music exists outside of chant - that would be blatantly disagreeing with what the Church thinks - just that chant is objectively what will move people in the way which the Church desires most for them with regards to participating in the Liturgy, as long as they are open to it over time.

But I'm sure that's where I overstep my bounds and proclaim to know better than the Church in thinking in this way, so I'm left with mostly not saying anything (except by ranting, occasionally, on forums such as these) and just dealing with, and trying to be thankful for (provided it is licit and attempt is made to actually sing true sacred music) what is used/sung.

And now I shall step off my high horse and resume my day. My apologies if I offend anyone or make them in turn roll their eyes at my extreme rigidity (I'm only sightly kidding about that "rigidity"...in my case, I'm aware that it really is that).

CharlesSA, the older I get, the more I appreciate Chant--and the more I understand your argument for 'chant-only' Masses vs. Big Gig stuff. The Big Stuff has its place--Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, dedication of a church, and of course, the choirmaster's birthday. (Maybe I kid a bit.)

But the simple-yet-profound music of Chant and how the music illuminates the text (and the ability to use limited resources) is more and more attractive. The stuff grows on you.

While certain of Mozart's Masses are...questionable for liturgical use (Coronation, Great C Minor), I would have no hesitation using many of the misse breve in small doses, particularly the D major (K. 194) and B-flat major (K. 275)

There is a noticeable difference between his secular and sacred works, I've found. And a "chant-only" approach risks ignoring much of the superlative music written for the Church in other periods. I agree with the other posters calling for balance in this regard.

Meh. We used the "Coronation" for the dedication of our new church (and the "Wie Lieblich" movement from Brahms' Requiem as the Offertory motet). Good enough for John Paul II, good enough for our parish.

Perhaps I was not clear. I do not make a case for "chant-only," but would argue that such programming is very effective. It should be used a lot more often and if you'd like that defined, how about not LESS than once/month?