D29 writes to say that he likes this version of the chant more than the one I posted.
It does have a substantially different feeling! Sometimes I wonder why the Church no longer celebrates in this manner. It does require substantial effort and training, but surely not much more than the choral and musical performances we do encounter. Beauty and truth and virtue all align. Why should we not, then, align our performances-meant-to-be-beautiful with the truth and virtue they mean to uphold?
9 comments:
Your philosophical point about beauty & truth is spot-on. It's a question that many of today's Church-employed 'liturgists' have not even considered, much less implemented.
And yes, learning Chant takes a bit of effort, but--as you say--no more than it takes to learn other choral music.
Grim, one possible _practical_ reason, speaking as a musician, is that the acoustic characteristics of places of worship have shifted away from natural amplification and reverberation and toward the use of microphones and speakers.
One histociral speculation is that the chant style itself developed more or less in concurrence with the construction of highly reverberant spaces (stone churches and cathedrals), which required the use of coherent sustained pitches to convey textual clarity.
Chant sung into a microphone in a heavily carpeted sanctuary loses a lot of its impact.
You might even go so far as to say that the overall loss of acoustically reverberant spaces from everyday life has had far-reaching second-order cultural effects, but that is likely best left to a separate discussion. 8-)
Hmm... I wonder what it would cost to renovate the local chapel in resonant stone?
Piercello, I thought the concurrence of chant and highly and/or distinctly reverberant spaces was considered almost a certainty- but perhaps I misremember. It certainly seems likely to me, and I think the trend to more contemporary pop styles for ecclesiastical music does have something to do with the architecture of our churches, particularly here in the United States. My wife, being European born, has always disliked most churches here because to her they hiss the point of being magnificent buildings to honor God, and instead look like 'meeting halls'. In Europe, even most small towns have a decent sized church, with good proportions and made of stone- quite different than here.
As an architect, I think it behooves us to be aware of the ethical implications for our profession in regards to the acoustical properties of spaces where music is important- too often we are transfixed by the visual, and neglect our other senses.
Oh, and Grim, changing the surfaces alone wouldn't be enough- the proportions and forms are also quite important acoustically. Sorry.
I'm good with rebuilding the churches in proper forms and materials. We just need to figure out how to pay for it.
Some notes don't sound right unless it's in an open space. The speakers for digital and analogy has a difficult time producing the right sounds. The pitch is certainly right, but there's often something missing.
Piano and violin are very well done on computer audio, however.
The history of Chant which was handed down to me begins with Temple chants (logically enough); thus Chant was utilized long before shoe-box proportioned plaster/stone churches were built.
Granted, carpeting and pew-cushions were not present in the catacombs, nor early basilicas, either.
Measured by amount-of-time/day, most Chant was sung for Hours, usually with two "choirs" facing each other across the nave near the front of the church. They are not as complex as "Ad Te Levavi."
Most Chant was organized in the 6th Century, and almost all was written down before 1200 AD--but here I'll concede ZERO knowledge of church-building between (say) 600-1200 AD.
Dad29, the Basilica style, common from the early Roman Church times up to even the Eleventh Century, has proportions and variations of spatial area (higher center ceilings, lower ceilings to the sides, with the clerestory between) fairly similar to the later churches of Medieval and Gothic construction. Where the proportions changed the most was in the structural members, and not quite so much in over all proportions. The furnishings also surely play a role.
One needs only hear someone do a faster paced contemporary song in a traditional church building to understand why chant works there. You won't likely even be able to understand the words the singer is singing in the contemporary song (sans amplification).
I have a suggestion for you, Grim, about building a medieval style church- but it may be out of your price range, and the chapel is only a small part of the project- but it is for sale...
Post a Comment