Multi culturalism

Well it does to the people who post here... dispassionate and reasoned debate, with a good deal of humour thrown in for good measure.

Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir

dmu3tem
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:11 pm
Location: Frozen North

Re: Multi culturalism

Post by dmu3tem »

Yes, I quite agree. The perception by some that the supreme form of church Polyphony is the Renaissance Polyphony practiced by Palestrina et al is very blinkered. Unfortunately, it was precisely that form of polyphony that was upheld alongside plainchant as the supreme form of church music by Pius X in his motu proprio of 1903. It is this form of polyphony that is consistently referred to - at least by implication - in all subsequent major church documents, even if, as in Sacrosanctum Consilium, the vital prefix 'Renaissance' is not used.

The reason for this 'narrowness' goes back in part to the reaction against developments in polyphony from the Late Middle Ages into Renaissance times. At the time of the Council of Trent there were some who wanted to exclude 'Polyphony' altogether and rely on plainchant alone. The received 'legend' (not entirely supported by modern scholarly research) is that Palestrina 'saved the day' for 'polyphony' with works such as his Missa Papae Marcelli.

Now of course since then, as others correctly remark, polyphony has developed in many other wonderful forms - and at the same time earlier forms of medieval polyphony have been 'rediscovered' in such remarkable volumes as the Eton Choir Book; but these are not the forms of polyphony extolled by Pius X and his successors.

Please note though that my original point was not about the nature of any given form of polyphony. What I was noting was the way certain pressure groups within the Catholic church (e.g. the Cecilian Societies in the C19th and their successors) have often appealed to Palestrina-type Renaissance Polyphony as a touchstone for what they regarded as 'fine' church music. In so doing they limit the range of multicultural options.

Whether one thinks this a 'good' or 'bad' thing entirely depends on one's personal perspective:
Do we want a church music culture dominated 'from the top' by a 'canon' of defined styles - e.g. Plainchant and Renaissance Polyphony? If so, this restricts the multicultural option, whatever reassurances about respect for diversity are made in Sacrosanctum Consilium and subsequent documents. Alternatively, do we want a church music culture that responds at local level to local liturgical and religious needs and aspirations and therefore has the potential to be multicultural?
T.E.Muir
Post Reply