Can Sacred Music be modern, but non-secular?

[AntoineDaniel]

Here is a video that features truly modern Sacred music:

http://www.ccwatershed.org/video/24232534/?return_url=/projects/

I would contend that this is "modern, but Sacred."

I would be glad for any other thoughts.

There are other examples of his works at this site:

http://www.ccwatershed.org/choir/

[NorthernTenor]

How do you define "modern" and "non-secular", Antoine?

[Calum Cille]

St Ambrose's hymns were sung to a triple time meter which was known for its popularity and the meter itself ultimately descends from pagan culture. Can sacred music be ancient but secular?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aEjwQe5E0Y
http://www.tenoresdibitti.com/cenniengl.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgRGXWX9xlo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AERcu1Vt-k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOgLiD-NKPk

I find this an interesting question from a Gaelic point of view. Even pre-Vatican II, Scottish Gaelic liturgical material was structurally and stylistically similar to forms of popular secular, even pagan, Gaelic song except dance songs and work songs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysIIwU33xjM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8eq_caO2B0

Scottish Gaelic musical culture makes occasional use of a custom of singing the same items (even working songs) both with a beat and without (free rhythm). Since Vatican II, the beat has entered the Catholic liturgy at slow to medium tempos. I used a fast 4/4 pop pace for a couple of items for didactic purposes (especially with children) which are eventually sung to free rhythm and a waltz tempo, but there seems little general appetite amongst Gaelic Catholic hymn writers in Scotland to apply the 4/4 150BPM pop approach in the liturgy.

Should the bishops care about the detail of this issue for modern liturgy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0

[Southern Comfort]

Here is a video that features truly modern Sacred music:

http://www.ccwatershed.org/video/24232534/?return_url=/projects/

I would contend that this is "modern, but Sacred."

I would be glad for any other thoughts.

There are other examples of his works at this site:

http://www.ccwatershed.org/choir/

Well, the first link gives us something that sounds similar to one of those Tallis motets in six or seven parts, but isn't. Not modern, to my ears. Recent, yes, but not modern in the same way that someone like Arvo Pårt would be. Sacred is an adjective which Universa Laus Document I implies is not sufficiently precise to be useful.

The second link shows us that the composer is writing in a pseudo-Lassus/Palestrina/Tallis style but with none of the craft that those composers had. Plenty of industry in terms of quantity of output, but the strange part-writing and resulting dissonances to me seem not so much modern as mildly incompetent. I do not have the impression that the conflicts in the part-writing have been arrived at deliberately, with the aim of creating particular sounds, but accidentally. And the music often sags where the composer is not capable of creating the "joins", and gives the impression of a succession of contrapuntal mini-exercises or "points" which have been rather unconvincingly stitched together. This seems especially true in the "simpler" pieces.

Music which sounds like the masters of the past certainly appeals to those who like to listen, especially when performed by skilled singers, but when you examine the compositional technique more closely it becomes very irritating to the trained musician. I'm reminded of those brothers in the Taizé community who continue to write in the style of Berthier but who have had none of his musical training. They break all the elementary rules of harmony, not deliberately but through ignorance of them. The results sound superficially like Berthier, but with none of his inspiration and certain none of his technique.

Enjoyed the audio clip with the male alto hitting top F#s without too much effort.....

Thank you, Antoine/Jeff, for bringing this music to our attention. It has been fascinating to examine.

[johnquinn39]

My thoughts on this are that this type of music is pastiche. (Pastiche can, of course, be a noble art).

This is pseudo-polyphony and psuedo-plainsong, not really modern - although some is appealing.

Is it in any way sacred? - I'm not sure. Does any of this stuff really carry the weight of the texts?

[NorthernTenor]

Quite how anyone can rush to discussion & judgement without a definition of terms from the source of the question - or in the absence of it an examination of what they might be – beats me.

[johnquinn39]

NT - I merely offered my thoughts - which is what Antoine asked for.

There was no rush!

[NorthernTenor]

NT - I merely offered my thoughts - which is what Antoine asked for.

There was no rush!

But how is it possible for those thoughts to address Antoine's question without definition of its key terms? Its meaning is not self-evident, and in its absence respondents risk addressing Aunt Sallies, or merely stating their own likes and dislikes (as opposed to reasoning about them in the context of Antoine's question).

In other words, until Antoine defines his terms, any response to his question other than a request for clarfication is rushed!

[johnquinn39]

Okay NT - how would you define pastiche?

[NorthernTenor]

Okay NT - how would you definet pastiche?

The flip answer is "something I once had to do as a student". However, your question misses the point and should be in a thread of its own unless Antoine's clarification (assuming there is one) includes the word "pastiche"!

[Calum Cille]

With respect to music, the Roman patrimony has in practice a principle-free, laissez-faire liturgy, therefore nothing can be universally considered sacred (except by whoever it is that people have to submit published items to for approval). Discuss.

[nazard]

This thread has taken a line which I had not expected. Instead of a fundamental discussion, it has rather concentrated on criticising the example offered.

I think that although it is in widespread use, the term "Sacred Music" is misleading. I think that the main criterion should be that the words are "sacred", meaning that they convey a useful message about the faith. The music then, to be good, must support and reinforce the message of the words. I think that any type of music can do this, but only within the limitations of the emotions which that music can convey.

The word modern is also not without its problems. It was misapplied to various things in the recent past, so we got "modern art", "modern music", etc. which, as time has passed, has left these things without commonly agreed names, and so difficult to talk about. The word "New" has similar problems: "New College" dates from 1379, Newtown from the thirteenth century, Novo Mesto from 1375, and so on. You have used the term "Broadway" music in the past, which is not without its problems. I think in this case, "modern" is used to mean written recently. I think that contemporary composers can write in any style, not necessarily well, and so they can add to the treasury of Sacred Music. There are people who object to the use of styles associated with the past, but I neither understand nor sympathise with such a view. After all, J S Bach wrote in styles considered old fashioned, particularly towards the end of his life.

My feelings are that composers should carry on regardless and produce such music as they and their friends and associates think fit. If people choose to call it old fashioned, a pastiche or a caricature, then so be it. Does it really matter? I think that the limitations of the "Broadway" style have fixed us in a straight jacket from which we need to escape. A bit of floundering about trying less limiting styles may well help.

Just to show the dangers of attaching new meanings to words, consider how this is relevant to musical styles:
Broadway

[Calum Cille]

I think that although it is in widespread use, the term "Sacred Music" is misleading. I think that the main criterion should be that the words are "sacred", meaning that they convey a useful message about the faith. The music then, to be good, must support and reinforce the message of the words. I think that any type of music can do this, but only within the limitations of the emotions which that music can convey.

This principle probably works theoretically across the world of religions. I sense that the contention here relates to Catholic liturgy in particular. Is it appropriate to dance in church? Even during a responsorial psalm, while sitting?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMDKZEog7z4 Responsorial psalm at 08:20

Is it appropriate to play that music which stimulates dancing? Can Africans validly tell Europeans that the latter shouldn't customarily dance in the liturgy? Or sway from side to side? Is it appropriate to tap one's feet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rJFdmmqj_s

What happens when the two cultures meet regularly for mass in English-speaking regions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFHb8WkTHho

What happens when you don't like a restrictive aspect of your own tradition? Do you ditch all your traditional music so that the new dance music can get on with its job?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGawHNrZyUo

Or do you try to accommodate it by patching it into the new musical framework?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4eX2NogBEs

[AntoineDaniel]

I appreciate all these thoughtful replies. I will try to "collect" my thoughts and come up with something intelligent.

[John Ainslie]

We do need to do some serious thinking and discussion about how we expect music to express and facilitate liturgical worship - and the possible role of 'sacred' music performed in and for non-liturgical contexts. Then we might go on to discuss the styles that might fulfil those expectations in different cultural milieux.

I have just turned up and re-read a paper given by the late Dr Helmut Hucke, eminent German musicologist, to the combined Universa Laus / Society of Saint Gregory congress at Strawberry Hill in 1978. It's entitled 'Changing Concepts of Church Music', and still gives plenty of food of thought. If you are interested, PM me for a copy.