I seem to remember singing liturgical music by the likes of Tippett, Britten, Max Davies etc in various university/church/cathedral choirs. All of it for the Anglican liturgy and none of it congregational. And none of it any sort of a pastiche. There is plenty of stuff out there written by "proper" composers.
The real problem for we jobbing catholic musicians is that we operate in a different kind of arena where most of the music is congregational and therefore needs to be diatonic and rhythmically regular. I guess the same constraints apply even when we have a choir. Seems to me that the result is going to be a pretty diluted version of pre 20th century music and a long way from what many would consider "modern."
Can Sacred Music be modern, but non-secular?
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
-
TimSharrock
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 1:19 pm
- Location: Altrincham
Re: Can Sacred Music be modern, but non-secular?
Here are some random reactions of my own - not necessarily consistent or coherent.
[1] Definitions of 'Sacred' vary from person to person and from time to time (Just look at the differences between Benedict XIV's 'Annus Qui' of the C18th and Pius X's Motu Proprio of 1903, especially as regards the use of instruments). Sacred functions also vary enormously. For example music for a church parade will obviously be different from music used in a devotional retreat.
[2] Today's 'modern' becomes tomorrow's 'traditional'.
[3] 'Contemporary Music' in certain quarters means music that was being promoted by academic institutions as 'modern' in the 1960s and 1970s i.e. often atonal (system devised in the 1920s!), stuff by Stockhausen etc. In the late 1990s at York University I used to enjoy irritating the music staff there by pointing out that the 'latest' Classical music was stuff by Taverner and Part (i.e. modern tonal) and by remarking that Elgar's stock had never been higher with the Classical music listening public.
[4] Should we not distinguish between composers today who write in a 'Classical' style and popular musicians - their stuff is 'modern' too? Or is it really? Are there significant 'stylistic/technical' differences between popular music of the 2010s and those of the 1980s? Is the Popular Music scene as prone as the Classical scene to 'throwbacks' to earlier styles cf. the enduring popularity of the Beatles and other groups.
[5] The St Thomas More style that emerged in the 1970s and early 1980s was characterised by significant technical innovation in the selection and deployment of particular types of instruments and combinations of singers. Has the style continued to develop technically in the 2000s (e.g. in the Psallitte project) or is it now carrying on with existing formulae and perhaps even 'retreating' from innovative use of classical instruments alongside voices and keyboards? Is this attitude enshrined in the Directions for Composers issued by the Bishops Conference Office (e.g. the idea that choirs should fill out the sound of the congregation, that instrumental descants should embellish church music).
[6] 'Style' is, in itself, neutral. It only acquires significance from the meanings we attach to it. In other words any association we make between a particular style and possible 'sacred' connotations is highly subjective (and can change).
[7] 'Style' in large measure is determined by compositional technique. 'Style' can also be a compound of several different techniques. If we are to innovate - and therefore produce really new music (as opposed to pastiche) - then we need to do everything possible to expand our range of technical compositional tools.
[8] Technical innovation most often occurs in a context that requires greater precision and technical expertise on the part of performing musicians. Hence the reluctance of 'modern' Classical composers to write congregational stuff - as pointed out above. Or is this just lazy-mindedness? Theoretically it should be possible to devise original technical approaches for congregational music, as the St Thomas More composers demonstrated in the 1970s and 1980s. I myself have experimented with compounds of 'straightforward' music for congregations to sing with technically more demanding stuff for specialist musicians (especially instrumentalists). Note that such compounds can be 'vertical' and 'horizontal': vertical in the sense that a 'simple' congregational line is encapsulated with more complex sounds produced by specialists; horizontal as in the case of Responsorial Psalms or Gospel Acclamations - 'simple' refrain vs 'complex' verses for skilled cantors, choirs and instrumentalists etc.
[9] 'Style' overlaps with, but can also be distinct from, originality. You can compose a piece of entirely 'original' music within the perameters of a very 'old-fashioned' style. Likewise you can use really 'new' techniques but produce something that lacks 'originality'.
[10] Given that religious music is often highly functional - especially in the context of services - this can mean that 'originality' stands at a discount in certain religious circles. Some people prefer music to be anodyne and bland in a religious context so that it does not intrude too much on religious thought/action. Personally I find most Gelineau psalmody and a lot of Palestrina falls into this category - is this why Palestrina is so often held up as a suitable role model for sacred music? The counter argument suggests that, if music is a language, then it can 'express' religious thought and therefore it does not have to be bland or anodyne but, as with any other aspect of religion, should have real intellectual and emotional depth, intensity and originality.
[11] A church music that 'stands still' and does not meet the (often unspoken - and changing) aspirations and needs of Christians can easily become redundant. This does not necessarily mean that the music has to be 'modern'. As noted above people may want to turn their backs on the 'modern' and take refuge in the past (as often happened in the nineteenth century) - so 'up to date' music might simply be something very 'traditional'. Note too that not everyone wants the same thing - we are supposed to be a 'multicultural' society.
[12] OR, should church music be a subvariety of 'Jesus Christ, the same, yesterday, today and for ever'? In other words is there such a thing as an 'absolute standard' of church music congruent with something called the 'absolute truth' of Christian faith? If so, church music should not respond to 'market forces'. There should be a 'take it or leave it' attitude. Those - like Pius X - who argue that the quality of church music should be measured by how closely it corresponds to plainchant come pretty close to this position. Note in particular the huge variety of interpretations of plainchant.
[1] Definitions of 'Sacred' vary from person to person and from time to time (Just look at the differences between Benedict XIV's 'Annus Qui' of the C18th and Pius X's Motu Proprio of 1903, especially as regards the use of instruments). Sacred functions also vary enormously. For example music for a church parade will obviously be different from music used in a devotional retreat.
[2] Today's 'modern' becomes tomorrow's 'traditional'.
[3] 'Contemporary Music' in certain quarters means music that was being promoted by academic institutions as 'modern' in the 1960s and 1970s i.e. often atonal (system devised in the 1920s!), stuff by Stockhausen etc. In the late 1990s at York University I used to enjoy irritating the music staff there by pointing out that the 'latest' Classical music was stuff by Taverner and Part (i.e. modern tonal) and by remarking that Elgar's stock had never been higher with the Classical music listening public.
[4] Should we not distinguish between composers today who write in a 'Classical' style and popular musicians - their stuff is 'modern' too? Or is it really? Are there significant 'stylistic/technical' differences between popular music of the 2010s and those of the 1980s? Is the Popular Music scene as prone as the Classical scene to 'throwbacks' to earlier styles cf. the enduring popularity of the Beatles and other groups.
[5] The St Thomas More style that emerged in the 1970s and early 1980s was characterised by significant technical innovation in the selection and deployment of particular types of instruments and combinations of singers. Has the style continued to develop technically in the 2000s (e.g. in the Psallitte project) or is it now carrying on with existing formulae and perhaps even 'retreating' from innovative use of classical instruments alongside voices and keyboards? Is this attitude enshrined in the Directions for Composers issued by the Bishops Conference Office (e.g. the idea that choirs should fill out the sound of the congregation, that instrumental descants should embellish church music).
[6] 'Style' is, in itself, neutral. It only acquires significance from the meanings we attach to it. In other words any association we make between a particular style and possible 'sacred' connotations is highly subjective (and can change).
[7] 'Style' in large measure is determined by compositional technique. 'Style' can also be a compound of several different techniques. If we are to innovate - and therefore produce really new music (as opposed to pastiche) - then we need to do everything possible to expand our range of technical compositional tools.
[8] Technical innovation most often occurs in a context that requires greater precision and technical expertise on the part of performing musicians. Hence the reluctance of 'modern' Classical composers to write congregational stuff - as pointed out above. Or is this just lazy-mindedness? Theoretically it should be possible to devise original technical approaches for congregational music, as the St Thomas More composers demonstrated in the 1970s and 1980s. I myself have experimented with compounds of 'straightforward' music for congregations to sing with technically more demanding stuff for specialist musicians (especially instrumentalists). Note that such compounds can be 'vertical' and 'horizontal': vertical in the sense that a 'simple' congregational line is encapsulated with more complex sounds produced by specialists; horizontal as in the case of Responsorial Psalms or Gospel Acclamations - 'simple' refrain vs 'complex' verses for skilled cantors, choirs and instrumentalists etc.
[9] 'Style' overlaps with, but can also be distinct from, originality. You can compose a piece of entirely 'original' music within the perameters of a very 'old-fashioned' style. Likewise you can use really 'new' techniques but produce something that lacks 'originality'.
[10] Given that religious music is often highly functional - especially in the context of services - this can mean that 'originality' stands at a discount in certain religious circles. Some people prefer music to be anodyne and bland in a religious context so that it does not intrude too much on religious thought/action. Personally I find most Gelineau psalmody and a lot of Palestrina falls into this category - is this why Palestrina is so often held up as a suitable role model for sacred music? The counter argument suggests that, if music is a language, then it can 'express' religious thought and therefore it does not have to be bland or anodyne but, as with any other aspect of religion, should have real intellectual and emotional depth, intensity and originality.
[11] A church music that 'stands still' and does not meet the (often unspoken - and changing) aspirations and needs of Christians can easily become redundant. This does not necessarily mean that the music has to be 'modern'. As noted above people may want to turn their backs on the 'modern' and take refuge in the past (as often happened in the nineteenth century) - so 'up to date' music might simply be something very 'traditional'. Note too that not everyone wants the same thing - we are supposed to be a 'multicultural' society.
[12] OR, should church music be a subvariety of 'Jesus Christ, the same, yesterday, today and for ever'? In other words is there such a thing as an 'absolute standard' of church music congruent with something called the 'absolute truth' of Christian faith? If so, church music should not respond to 'market forces'. There should be a 'take it or leave it' attitude. Those - like Pius X - who argue that the quality of church music should be measured by how closely it corresponds to plainchant come pretty close to this position. Note in particular the huge variety of interpretations of plainchant.
T.E.Muir