F
- Status
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
That’s quite lovely, but that style of singing belongs in an opera house, not a church.
F
filius_Immacula
Guest
What ofvit is inappropriate?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The style of singing is identical to what one would find at the opera. Compare the style used by the soloist in the recording you linked to say a recording of Montserrat Caballé singing o mio babbino caro from Gianni Schicchi. Setting a sacred text to secular music doesn’t make it any more appropriate for church than drawing saints in a cubist style would make cubism an appropriate style for church art. I suppose that such a piece could be done in church, but the more important question is to ask whether it would be appropriate for church or not. There is nothing wrong with that kind of music, as it can be very beautiful, but honestly, it belongs in the concert hall, not in the church.
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
My (Anglican) parish uses quite a bit of Eastern music in our Liturgy. It is stunningly beautiful. Here is one piece that our choir sings often. It is from the Rachmaninov Vespers.
youtube.com/watch?v=u0ymk0kOhRM
When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy, the music is what carries me spiritually. There is nothing like it.
youtube.com/watch?v=u0ymk0kOhRM
When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy, the music is what carries me spiritually. There is nothing like it.
O
Operalan
Guest
Cavaradossi–I have to greatly disagree with you. I don’t care if you are Tosca’s boyfriend. 
There is nothing wrong, in the least, to have an operatic voice sing in a liturgical situation. In fact, a great amount of music was written specifically for voices such as this to be lifted up to the Glory of God in our liturgies. I would add the caveat that voices need to be well produced to sing this music correctly.
You would not allow the great Masses of Mozart, Gounod, Beethoven, Verdi, Schubert, and yes, even Puccini, to be exclaimed in Church settings–the very settings for which many of them were written?
Our Church has a very rich history of musical exclamation–and with great choral AND solo voices as well as instrumental and orchestral accompaniment. We should cherish this.
There is nothing wrong, in the least, to have an operatic voice sing in a liturgical situation. In fact, a great amount of music was written specifically for voices such as this to be lifted up to the Glory of God in our liturgies. I would add the caveat that voices need to be well produced to sing this music correctly.
You would not allow the great Masses of Mozart, Gounod, Beethoven, Verdi, Schubert, and yes, even Puccini, to be exclaimed in Church settings–the very settings for which many of them were written?
Our Church has a very rich history of musical exclamation–and with great choral AND solo voices as well as instrumental and orchestral accompaniment. We should cherish this.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
In general, no, I would not. This was actually one of the questions which came up once in a course I took in my days as a music undergrad focusing on the music of Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven. What exactly delineates their sacred music from their secular music? The answer is, well, not much. Other than maybe having a greater tendency to include older textures like fughettas and respecting long-standing musical conventions (like changing the tempo and texture at ‘et incarnatus est’ in the credo), their sacred music has the same feel as their secular music. The same tends to be true of most composers from the mid-18th century onwards.Cavaradossi–I have to greatly disagree with you. I don’t care if you are Tosca’s boyfriend.
There is nothing wrong, in the least, to have an operatic voice sing in a liturgical situation. In fact, a great amount of music was written specifically for voices such as this to be lifted up to the Glory of God in our liturgies. I would add the caveat that voices need to be well produced to sing this music correctly.
You would not allow the great Masses of Mozart, Gounod, Beethoven, Verdi, Schubert, and yes, even Puccini, to be exclaimed in Church settings–the very settings for which many of them were written?
Our Church has a very rich history of musical exclamation–and with great choral AND solo voices as well as instrumental and orchestral accompaniment. We should cherish this.
Contrast that with the great Renaissance composers who usually distinguished their sacred music with several stylistic differences (even if sometimes they managed to sneak in songs like l’homme armé as the cantus firmus). It’s usually pretty easy to tell, without listening to the words, if you’re listening to a madrigal or a motet, for example. It is also to their credit that they were able to relate their music to the eight ecclesiastical modes of music (though with transposition, the relation between authentic and plagal modes is often obscured), unlike later composers who used functional tonality.
The only other thing that I can add is that maybe the Greek tradition is a bit different in that the Greek Orthodox almost exclusively use Byzantine Chant (with an exception here in the US where polyphony is often used for the liturgy among the Greek Orthodox). I honestly prefer it that way, to the extent that I became a psaltis (the Greek equivalent of a cantor) to play an active role in promoting the use of genuine Byzantine Chant here in the US rather than using polyphonic music which, while beautiful, runs into the same issues which I delineated above with Mozart, Beethoven, Hayden, et al.
That is all of course, my own subjective opinion. Music is not a dogmatic matter, but rather a matter largely related to taste and propriety. To me though, to hear something in church and have it evoke ideas of the opera house, of Gianni Schicchi, Tosca, or Turandot would be more distracting than edifying, whereas when I hear chant, the only thing I associate it with is with the Church and with prayer, because those are the only occasions in my life when I use it.
Also, I broke up with Tosca after she unwittingly sold me out to Scarpia out of jealousy and got me killed. It was all quite traumatic.
F
filius_Immacula
Guest
Um, what show is this?In general, no, I would not. This was actually one of the questions which came up once in a course I took in my days as a music undergrad focusing on the music of Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven. What exactly delineates their sacred music from their secular music? The answer is, well, not much. Other than maybe having a greater tendency to include older textures like fughettas and respecting long-standing musical conventions (like changing the tempo and texture at ‘et incarnatus est’ in the credo), their sacred music has the same feel as their secular music. The same tends to be true of most composers from the mid-18th century onwards.
Contrast that with the great Renaissance composers who usually distinguished their sacred music with several stylistic differences (even if sometimes they managed to sneak in songs like l’homme armé as the cantus firmus). It’s usually pretty easy to tell, without listening to the words, if you’re listening to a madrigal or a motet, for example. It is also to their credit that they were able to relate their music to the eight ecclesiastical modes of music (though with transposition, the relation between authentic and plagal modes is often obscured), unlike later composers who used functional tonality.
The only other thing that I can add is that maybe the Greek tradition is a bit different in that the Greek Orthodox almost exclusively use Byzantine Chant (with an exception here in the US where polyphony is often used for the liturgy among the Greek Orthodox). I honestly prefer it that way, to the extent that I became a psaltis (the Greek equivalent of a cantor) to play an active role in promoting the use of genuine Byzantine Chant here in the US rather than using polyphonic music which, while beautiful, runs into the same issues which I delineated above with Mozart, Beethoven, Hayden, et al.
That is all of course, my own subjective opinion. Music is not a dogmatic matter, but rather a matter largely related to taste and propriety. To me though, to hear something in church and have it evoke ideas of the opera house, of Gianni Schicchi, Tosca, or Turandot would be more distracting than edifying, whereas when I hear chant, the only thing I associate it with is with the Church and with prayer, because those are the only occasions in my life when I use it.
Also, I broke up with Tosca after she unwittingly sold me out to Scarpia out of jealousy and got me killed. It was all quite traumatic.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Are you asking what opera Mario Cavaradossi and Floria Tosca come from? They are characters from Puccini’s opera Tosca. Great opera with great music, but the ending feels kind of cheap.
O
Operalan
Guest
There we have to disagree—“Tosca” has one of the greatest endings of all operas–it is supposed to be melodramatic–it sure is.
I’ve sung the role of Scarpia–it is one of the great baritone roles in all of opera. Indeed, he’s one nasty dude. But, he’s a treat to play. And, best yet, he has not much use for the tenor.
Again, I’d disgree with another poster as well—it’s all a matter of taste. I’d far rather hear a wonderful voiced singer sing something that was truly spirit filled and a great expression from a wonderful composer than much of the music we hear today. I have no problem with Renaissance (and earlier) motets. They are beautiful as well if sung correctly. They can add much to a Mass. But, so can the music of Puccini—for example his “Messa di Gloria”. Another favorite is Gounod’s “Mass of St. Cecelia”. I can think of few pieces of music that proclaim the great message of the Eternal Hymn, “The Sanctus”, better than the Sanctus portion of this great Mass setting. When you have a tenor who sings it well, accompanied by the choir, organ/orchestra, it is magnificent and helps lift our minds in glorious praise. You tend to find Churches, that sing complete Mass settings during Mass by great composers, in Europe. Many Churches have very devoted choirs–some are even professional. I can remember going to Mass in Vienna and the St. Cecelia Mass was sung. It was one of the greatest worship experiences of my life.
I’ve sung the role of Scarpia–it is one of the great baritone roles in all of opera. Indeed, he’s one nasty dude. But, he’s a treat to play. And, best yet, he has not much use for the tenor.
Again, I’d disgree with another poster as well—it’s all a matter of taste. I’d far rather hear a wonderful voiced singer sing something that was truly spirit filled and a great expression from a wonderful composer than much of the music we hear today. I have no problem with Renaissance (and earlier) motets. They are beautiful as well if sung correctly. They can add much to a Mass. But, so can the music of Puccini—for example his “Messa di Gloria”. Another favorite is Gounod’s “Mass of St. Cecelia”. I can think of few pieces of music that proclaim the great message of the Eternal Hymn, “The Sanctus”, better than the Sanctus portion of this great Mass setting. When you have a tenor who sings it well, accompanied by the choir, organ/orchestra, it is magnificent and helps lift our minds in glorious praise. You tend to find Churches, that sing complete Mass settings during Mass by great composers, in Europe. Many Churches have very devoted choirs–some are even professional. I can remember going to Mass in Vienna and the St. Cecelia Mass was sung. It was one of the greatest worship experiences of my life.
5
5Loaves
Guest
I believe Cavaradossi has answered this well, if by “byzantine liturgies” you mean liturgical services in Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches, such as Divine Liturgy, Presanctified Liturgy, Orthros, Vespers, etc.
What is appropriate in Mass in the Roman Rite is a separate topic for another section of CAF.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
In the Byzantine Ruthenian & Ukrainian traditions, there are two modes found in celebrations of the Divine Liturgy.
First, the normal liturgical hymns can be harmonized. It is quite common to hear at least two part harmony, with women singing an alto line against the familiar plainchant melodies. Four part harmonization is also readily managed, especially in the Ruthenian tradition.
Second, formal choral settings of liturgical hymns from Eastern European composers are sometimes used in place of plainchant hymns.
S
SVP
Guest
In the Eastern churches, the celebration of the liturgy is to be a work of the people. Operatic hymnody, as put forth in the original post, while beautiful aren’t meant to be sung congregationally and thus become an obstacle to worship rather than an enhancement.
5
5Loaves
Guest
Byzantine/Greek chant doesn’t really lend itself to congregational singing other than some basic responses [Kyrie eleison, Agios o Theos, Agios ischyros,etc.], unlike Carpatho-Rusyns/Ruthenian chant which indeed the faithful generally join in with the kliros signing. I spend a fair amount of time in the local Greek Orthodox Cathedral. On Sundays they have typical American style more western like choir with organ. But weekdays and Saturdays they have a small group of skilled chanters in classic Byzantine chant. Even though it is not something I can sing along with I still LOVE it and feel very engaged in worship through it. I actually find more of an “obstacle” in several OCA parishes the style of singing where although the hymns are in English and the melody is familiar, they sing with a rhythm that makes it all but impossible for the faithful to sing along, and indeed the faithful do not sign with the choir.
F
filius_Immacula
Guest
I heard someone say that eastern catholics should look t the orthodox and imitate
T
twf
Guest
Even in the Roman Rite, Gregorian chant is to have “pride of place” as the Second Vatican Council taught. In all traditions, all other music styles, even if permitted, are by their very nature not as fitting as chant to the liturgy.
F
filius_Immacula
Guest
trusth trutsh, buy licitne nont les
S
SVP
Guest
True, my experience is strongly of the Carpatho-Rusyn tradition and strong congregational participation. I do concur with your assessment of some OCA choirs regarding rhythm and tempo.
- Status