Others have been using the Palestrina-style of composition long before this article came out. Is it "authentic"? What does that even mean?

I would characterize the Deplace fugue as parody. Deplace is a craftsman who has a thorough understanding of Bach’s musical language, but the piece does an injustice both to the pink panther and to Bach - the essence of the pink panther theme is its jazziness, now lost in the fugue; the essence of the Bach style is its nobility and seriousness, now lost because now all we can think of is a cartoon cat and the hijinks of Clouseau.

Rotem is doing something different, which is expanding the baroque repertoire.
That’s what is weird.

Often, we are mislead by the term "early music." Obviously Rotem is not composing early music, in the sense that he is 33 years old (at the time of writing; although that allows for a different interpretation of that phrase: he is writing his early music, as opposed to his late music, when he is 70).

But when we speak of style or language, he is writing in the style of that music, though it is distinctly not in the style of the milieu of composition. But he is also not writing the music now that he would have written had he been alive in the early Baroque.

If he were to "innovate" within the Baroque now, it would be considered a violation, because he is not influencing the middle Baroque composers. But if he is innovating in the Baroque style, in a way that was not already done way back when, perhaps he can influence modern composers.

That's the biggest conceptual issue of writing in earlier styles - what constitutes development, and who is willing to attempt it when historically that process has already concluded.

Oh ok, I didn’t look at any of his other music. He definitely has a complete grasp of the baroque musical language, which is something I can’t say of myself about any musical period...

This is, actually, a fascinating subject. I have always remarked to people who took issue with the age or period of music, or art, or anything else, that if they had not heard it before it was 'new' to them. I think that it is a gross judgment upon our patrimony from the past to label it in such a way as to make it out of place, or have 'museum' status on the basis of its age or place of origin in history. The wondrous thing about great music and art, architecture, and literature is that they are, indeed, fresh throughout history, that they communicate to us and have a moral and intellectual dimension which spans all of human history and every culture. What is our heritage is neither new nor old - it is, simply universal in time and space. The patina of age does not erase inherent virtues, but, rather, enhances them. And, they are always so fresh that we in our time may, if we so choose, create new works in their ageless languages and mediums.

As to those who might compose in an antique style, their work is without question new and old at the same time. When I was a youth I had absorbed all the Mozart symphonies and those of Beethoven, not to mention the music of Bach. I had absorbed the style and spirit of them to such a degree that I often found myself spontaneously 'composing' in my head original works that were identical in musical language to the works of those who had inspired them. Were these 'compositions' new, or old? Were they genuine, or fake? They most certainly were genuine creations which grew from the seed of the XVIIIth century. The musical language of the XVIIIth century was my language!

Is the Old Church English of the Ordinariate genuine, even though it was formed some hundreds of years ago. Yes, it is. It is a living and spiritual vehicle for worship which will never be aged. It is for the ages. It is our, everyone's, heritage. While it is 'old' it is also new. It will always be new. And writing new things with it is not aping an aged tongue any more than new writings in Latin are anything other than new, the use of that which has a living and developing continuum throughout the ages.

Those who complain about Bach, et al., being 'old' should never allow themselves to read Dickens, or Shakespeare, or Thomas Aquinas, or the Gospel according to St John, or visit Mont-St-Michel or the Parthenon, or view the works of da Vinci or van Gogh, etc, etc. - because these are all OLD - and, being OLD, they have nothing to say to us, nor is anyone who composes, writes, paints, or builds in their language any more than a copycat of OLD stuff. (Don't believe it.)

Kudos to Jackson and Richard for their comments that reflect in many ways my own feelings and approach over the years - going all the way back over 60 years to when I was in high school trying to learn and emulate the style of Bruckner's symphonic composing, until Antal Dorati advised me that I would be better off studying the Haydn and Mozart quartets. Although I remained very much a Bruckner disciple, having new worlds opened to me meant everything, especially going back to the Renaissance and early Baroque eras, as well as forward into the mid to late 20th century (and, I suppose, even into the 21st century, since I like to think or delude myself that I am still learning).

Bach narrowly edged out Beethoven but both placed well behind "traditional". Perhaps the contents says a little about the state of Catholic music in 1977.

Musical language is intimately tied to the artistic movements and artistic ethos of a given era.
Organum and chant evoke thatch roofs and chainmail, tapestries and longbows, keeps and illuminated manuscripts. Dvorak and Tchaikovsky evoke papered walls and plush carpets, hoop skirts and tail coats, salons and landscapes. Big band evokes low-backed couches and large wooden radio sets, evening dresses and kakki uniforms, cigarette holders and movie stars.

We can sample historicities from any past era and find something that speaks to us from each because there are timeless characteristics of the human condition. But outside of the Christian cult, which worships an eternal God, it seems to me odd to create art in a decidedly anachronistic style.
I would be regarded as odd if I dressed as Robin Hood, Hercule Poirot, or Benny
Goodman. We can divorce music from its original environment because we have to play it today to make it come to life. I think we miss a lot of what the music was meant to imply because we no longer live in the world of the musics writing.


However I agree on JS Bach - he was an anomaly even in his own era. His music is not characteristic of the baroque era or of any era. The more you study his output, the more you understand why he is the greatest musical genius of the modern world.

saying what “should be written” sounds rather Soviet.
I think musucal features that mesh with our environment are minimalism, tunefulness, dissonant harmonies, assumetry, and rock or pop style beat/rhythm.
In orchestral music, I think the music of John Williams fits the era well. His best numbers are melody driven, there are harmonic areas that are post romantic, and he captures an American flavor in the informality and jauntiness of melody and rhythm.

In church music, a few contemporary compositions spring to mind (obviously rock music and beat are out here).
1. Buchholz mass of st Francis - melody driven, tuneful. It’s respectful but written with a contemporary sense of melody as tune.
2. Charles Giffen’s mass in A. Harmonically it’s high church English and influenced by neo-modalism, but there is an asymmetry to the falling melodic figure (it moves around in the measure) that highlights its contemporary composition.
3. I was going to list Jernbergs mass if st Philip Neri, but upon relistening, I realized that it’s not minimalist or dissonant. So here endeth my examples.

I might suggest that the use of so-called anachronistic styles in modern liturgical composition is largely a response to the functional aspect of church music, rather than its art, per se. Musicians tend not to like the idea of functionalism, but to the extent that modern worship makes specific demands (new texts, new parameters regarding congregational singing, new ideas of liturgical time compared to the older forms, etc.), musicians, and especially composers, must approach new contributions to the liturgical repertoire from a functional point of view. This can be done while maintaining artistic standards, old or new, but never with the goal of anything like pure artistic expression.

Pure art proves itself in relation to what has come before, but is ultimately the ethos of an individual (sometimes communalized in a "school"). On the contrary, functional art must subject itself to an ethos outside the individual -- a necessary act of humility, in the service of the liturgy. In my opinion, the only thing that ties modern art music to "something/someone unchanging and eternal" is our shared humanity and our more-or-less shared history. Church music, on the other hand, must be tied to the unchanging and eternal character of Christian worship and the faith it expresses. In the greatest composers of church music, the two impulses may struggle, but will never contradict.