Well, all I can say is that, until recently, I was a big classical music lover. Then, I spent about 15 months at a monastery, where only chant is sung (and occasionally organ used). Now, although I think I could enjoy classical music under the right circumstances on occasion, I have no interest in anything but chant.

I must say though, for me, I think it goes deeper than "changed musical preferences;" I think there is something going on deep in my soul and mind that is causing a certain revulsion to pretty much everything.

I always liked chant - still do. I wouldn't want to listen to it exclusively, since there are plenty of great musical compositions out there besides chant. I find chant, and nearly everything else, can become tedious when overdone. Does chant affect me positively or negatively? Positively when sung well, negatively when not. Some days, you just can't beat silence.

Can't speak to Alteration Of State....but I can say that after conducting a Chant-only choir for 5 years it became painfully clear that Chant really IS the ideal. All the rest (whether good music or not) sort of clutters up the Mass.

And yes, Charles: occasional meaningful silence is very desirable!

This has been a topic of interest to me as well. Any links to actual research would be most appreciated. I'd love to develop a course on this topic--but not much time for research.

I'm currently reading: All Shook Up: Music, Passion, and Politics by Carson Holloway.

I've read Music and Morals: A Theological Appraisal of the Moral and Psychological Effects of Music by Basil Cole

And then this video by Dr. John Cuddeback - Music & the Soul: Restoring or Destroying the Inner Man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhZGU_joFzQ

And to the OP's question. I have been listening to Chant quite a bit for the last year and it has had a bit of the same effect in terms of other music but not nearly as dramatic. I do clearly notice displacement - just listening to a lot more chant and a lot less of other music right now. But that is not the same as producing a revulsion for other music (but like I said I notice a bit of less "sympathy" with other music.

May I go out on a limb and remind us all, that truly great music and its composer-creators almost always based their compositions on the principles, structures and melodies of plainsong chant. Almost all of lower baser profane music is not based on any of these aspects of plainsong chant.

It is a source of great frustration to me that many pastors, especial of Protestant churches, support and promote profane music and yet profess to teach traditional conservative values and biblical orthodoxy. Although many of them seem to be sincere and learned, they are grossly, even tremendously ignorant and unaware of the horrific danger that such profane music is having on their flock. In addition to the destructive physiological influence such music has, it also subconsciously brainwashes and spiritually corrupts.

To me, is it no wonder that the states of profound decay of societies and civilizations are in the mess and on the slippery slope to hell; sheep being pied pipered right into their own damnation while shouting Alleluias and Amens!

Music IS more powerful than any sermon, advertisement or campaign, more powerful and longer lasting in the minds, hearts and souls than what most people can begin to understand or grasp. One day in heaven we will learn, I think, that all along Satan didn't have to work so hard at corrupting and leading so many to hell. All he need do is shine his light on the stages set before us while hypnotically seducing us with the power of music - the wrong music!

based their compositions on the principles, structures and melodies of plainsong chant.

Are you able to expand on this a bit? Some here would argue that Mozart did no such thing.....nor did Beethoven.

I'm in agreement with your thesis but on a limited basis: that is that The Greats prioritized text, letting the music illuminate it, usually with excellent results. See, e.g., Brahms' Ein Deutsches Requiem.

Mozart (I believe, if my memory is accurate) did say something to the effect that chant was the basis for all that had followed it. I seem to recall similar expressions by Beethoven, and even (ha!) Liszt, and several moderns. Trying, however, to divine any practical trace of such a sentiment in their music would yield very poor results. One often hears this in music history classes and, of course, chant symposia, but again, the evidence which would validate it is sparse. Most music of the post-renaissance epoch has little or no reference to chant. The only music, with rare exceptions, being written today with a chant reference or cf would be works for organ intended for ritual or sacred concert use.

On the other hand and viewed in a different light, the validity of chant's fatherhood of all that followed in music history may be purchased by the incontrovertible fact that the earliest organum and polyphony, the germ of all our unique western musical patrimony, grew directly out of chant and was unthinkable except in its relationship to chant, even as an ornament of the chant; and, of course, it was this nascent polyphony, with or without a cf, from which evolved all that followed. Of course, few in history have been aware of this lineage. Who knows what Mozart meant when he uttered his famous sentiment? It isn't likely that he consciously knew about the mediaeval motet as the great-great-great...grandfather of his 'Jupiter' or Don Giovanni - or that he had ever heard of Perotin or de Machaut. And, we would be hard pressed to uncover any direct formal relationship in his music. Which, though, isn't to say that it isn't there. It is! - All western musical structures of post-mediaeval times are, consciously or unconsciously, the progeny of organum and the earliest polyphony. Perotin is looking over the shoulders of all from du Fay to Whitacre.

There's a book of short essays by Josef Pieper which is very interesting for artists/musicians. The essays were talks he gave at various events. It's called "Only the Lover Sings: Art and Contemplation". Ignatius Press, 1990.

A few snippets: "We now realize why and to what extent music plays a role in man's formation and perfection - as contribution or hindrance, and both, once again, beyond any conscious efforts toward formation, teaching, or education. We also realize here how indispensable it is to reflect on these very direct forces and influences. "

"What does matter, however, is to recognize at all (and to put in the right order!) the intimate relationship between the music made and listened to in a society on the one hand, and the inner existential condition of such a society on the other, no different today than in Plato's time!

We ourselves, however, are probably to be counted among those who, in Plato's words, see the entire realm of music as “mere amusement", while in truth that intimate relationship between music, offered or received, and inner existential ethos all the more ominously degenerates the less a proper order is attempted. The situation commonly encountered shows that not even the awareness of the possibility of such an order is present, much less a concrete notion of such an order as the ideal."

My oh my! How does one, poor and feeble, respond to such comments of learning and lofty insights. As an INFJ, all I can do is to seek out with simplicity any poor attempt to comment and pray that in my suggestions, the complexities wont be overwhelming and muddy the subject with a host of polyphonic thoughts and themes!

For to some an explanation is not necessary, and to others, no explanation is possible. Please do not misunderstand me, for I intend no sarcasm; I am a simple soul in growing closer to GOD.

However, I perhaps implied that only truly great composers created truly great music on the basis of the forms, functions, principles and every musical internal workings of plainsong. Is this not so? The more one dives into and studies chant, does it not become more and more obvious and clear that the many great composers knew plainsong well and used it as foundational building blocks in their works? How could we, lesser intellects that we are, say contrary to their words and intentions? Certainly only GOD knows their mind and thoughts and every working of their hearts when creating musical works. And if I might add, it may be that "intention" of a great composer should be also equally considered as to whether such composition might be sacred or profane.

But, I think we digress from the original thesis of this thread. It is my assertion, in my opinion, that some sounds, tones and combinations thereof, can and do indeed possess creative, wholesome and positive influence on all things. Whereas, there are some that do not! And furthermore, it is the "intention" behind the use of such that needs be considered. For example, a scalpel, in and of itself, in ways can be a beautiful thing, created by a great mind. However, its use would determine whether there was good or evil behind it.

Music is a tool, a great tool. Some ancients say GOD sang creation into being. I would like to believe this. Is it not interesting how music also plays a key role in other future events as well? (The trump of GOD, of angels, of saints singing around the throne, the singing of a new song and hymn).

I put it to you that whether composers like Mozart, Beethoven or even Stravinsky, intentionally or unintentionally used chant, that is was the Holy Spirit using them and music, in an act of creation through divine inspiration. Evil, likewise, in its demented and twisted envy of GOD, uses music through its progeny to corrupt and destroy. As I see it, the same tool, used by two actors, placed in the hands of man, for two entirely different outcomes; one intention for love through creation, the other for hate through destruction.

We would. Overtones influence the strengths & weaknesses of harmonic progression by their very existence. V-I is the strongest relationship outside the unison/octave no matter if you’re singing in Latin or Swahili.