I am OK with Guilmant. He probably was the greatest organist of the 19th century. Was he the greatest composer? No, but he wasn't bad and I have found his collections of works for church, particularly the shorter pieces, useful. Given his playing ability, some of his music is actually hard to play. Aunt Maude the left-footed organist who works cheap may delight Father, but she likely wont be able to play Guilmant.

Schonbergian, I will agree that the finale to Sonata 1 is overplayed. I do really enjoy when it modulated from D Minor into D Major, though. I actually have the opposite opinion when it comes to Frank and find his works more boring that Guilmant. With the comparison to Widor, is this because Widor experimented more with harmonies and tonality where Guilmant played it more safe?

Charles, I would agree with you on the difficulty issue, but I think Aunt Maude would also have an issue with a lot of Bach, Widor, Frank or Vierne. I was thinking more when it comes to trained organists (either with college degrees or who have just spent a lot of time practicing).

With the comparison to Widor, is this because Widor experimented more with harmonies and tonality where Guilmant played it more safe?

I wouldn't call it "playing it more safe" necessarily. I feel Guilmant's vision was more constrained and that has rather little to do with his harmonic language. Widor is harmonically conservative compared to some figures in his lifetime, but wrote for the organ on a grander stage than those who came before him. Indeed, there is some Widor that is almost uncomfortably banal (finale to Symphony 6, for instance)

Some of Guilmant's motets are still known to choirs that sing Latin: e.g.
https://www.cpdl.org/wiki/images/1/14/Guilmant-Ave_verum.pdf

Whatever one’s feelings regarding Guilmant... how many organists have had an organ school named after them?

;-)

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

I have used 'practical organist' for years. It is quite practical and useful.

Hardly forgotten! Lots of people play his music - in fact, I cannot think of an organist I know who has not. Even the incomparable John Scott ...
https://youtu.be/dX3b0LRVaZY

Perhaps his music is somewhat forgotten by the public and he is only truly familiar to those who study organ in the conservatory.

But here is my two cents, so take it with a grain of salt:

Guilmant is one of my absolute favorite Catholic organist composers and, from a strictly liturgical point of view, one of the greatest of them all.

As I understand it, lots of folks give him a bad rap for being stodgy and uninspired. But that is not how I see it. Some of his pieces are very Bach and Handel inspired, sure. His merit lies not merely composing in that style, but in appropriating that style into thematic and ritual conformity with the Catholic liturgy of his day.

Furthermore, I would argue that he did contribute to making the chants of the Church to be a more central reference point for Catholic organ music of his day. Compared to Franck and Widor, you will hear much more thematic material borrowed from Gregorian Chant, which of course according to tradition and legislation is the most proper form of music for the Roman Rite.

His melodies aren’t as luscious as Mendelssohn, technical as Bach, or as ethereal as Franck. But in the context of Catholic Mass, where the organ is meant to ornament the rites and not itself become the center of attention, is this a bad thing? As he himself said, “to be expressive while remaining simple, that is the real difficulty.” It is a difficulty to make true Art, utilizing the best technique and taste have to offer, and yet still pointing away from itself. But this is exactly what I feel his music accomplishes at its best.

(I compare some organists’ dislike for Guilmant akin to choir directors dislike for Palestrina — not artsy enough. All the while missing the point that it is first and foremost intended for liturgical purposes and not meant to be the occasion of separate admiration. To make great art that has objective merit but not intended for subjective appreciation, again, is not easy.)

Not every single one of his works is a “slam dunk”, but no composer has that going for them. And I think, as is often the case, the “Great Works” are not the great works!

To conflate good, artistic music with something that is distracting has been the single biggest enemy of Catholic music ever since the Cecilians foisted ...

Ah but somewhat before then, Augustine; Confessions; Book10; Chapter 33 :(Translated by J.G. Pilkington)

Thus vacillate I between dangerous pleasure and tried soundness; being inclined rather (though I pronounce no irrevocable opinion upon the subject) to approve of the use of singing in the church, that so by the delights of the ear the weaker minds may be stimulated to a devotional frame. Yet when it happens to me to be more moved by the singing than by what is sung, I confess myself to have sinned criminally, and then I would rather not have heard the singing.

Schönbergian

In essence, I actually agree with you. Yes, (1) the Liturgy needs good music, and music doesn’t just become good/not good depending on if it used in Liturgy or not. God deserves our best. And (2) being an artistically excellent piece of music does not, in and of itself, constitute distraction from the services.

I see how my words could imply that good artistry is distracting but that is not how I meant it. All I mean to say is that I think Guilmant’s better music stays clear of some of the potential excesses that would no longer make them suitable for Liturgy. Good music, even good religious music, can still be too passionate or too busy or too avante gard to be good for liturgy.

Further, I would think of his better music as “prayerful” and “sober.” As I said, the “Great Works” of composers are often not the greatest. Guilmant is no exception— I like the Finale from his first organ sonata and his Religious March on a theme of Handel, but neither one of them are what my mind would first go to. If I may, check out these:

Strophe on Sacris Solemniis
https://youtu.be/togO8xD6X94

Two Strophes on Veni Creator Spiritus (I especially love the first one)
https://youtu.be/HaoNO3UrY28

Grand Chorus, March, Gregorian Tonality
https://youtu.be/pK9WXzYXZ4M

Communion No 2 in G Major
https://youtu.be/a0kgBZLbtYw

Lastly, I have ran across too many folks who concentrate on Renaissance choral music who think Palestrina is too rigid and stale, and that the fame he enjoys is only thanks to the myth of him saving church music from the Council of Trent with his Pope Marcellus Mass… both he and Guilmant have their critics, as well as their defenders.

I can't but draw parallels with Reger, except that Reger is better.

The sonatas are amazing. The seventh is my favorite. The second is also really good.

I've always regarded with suspicion the 'organ symphonies' and 'sonatas' that are represented on typical recital programs only by apologetic excerpts, and was rather late discovering Vierne's big works. Thanks for recommending Guilmant No. 7 Op. 89, better than what I expected. While I was enjoying, the composer at our house merely said "very good: that's not distracting at all."

Ha! When I think of too many notes I think of Franz Liszt.

MJO, my girlfriend, who is an very talented pianist, says the exact same thing.

While I love those big romantic pieces for organ, they are generally too big for liturgy in American churches. Imagine having procession lengths like in a French cathedral. French Baroque, on the other hand, breaks into shorter sections that easily fit the liturgy. I used that literature heavily.