By Mark Emerson Donnelly
Composer-in-Residence
If you’ve read any of my previous articles on composing, you’ll likely know that I’m totally sold on a strict adherence to the rules of functional harmony, as exemplified by Palestrina. Though Bach, Mozart and Beethoven also excel at the use of functional harmony (how’s that for understatement?!), I don’t generally try to emulate these musical giants. Without getting into the reasons here, my conclusion is: If you use Palestrina’s music as the pinnacle, you have a better chance of producing something well suited for the sacred liturgy (St. Pius X is with me on this; or, rather, I’m with him).
However, even in Traditional circles, my views on liturgical music are quite narrow. I’m kind of rigid in this way because we are in a battle for the reclamation of our culture. At the epicentre of that culture is the Mass. Since our Lord, present on the altar, is Truth, Beauty and the Good Himself, He deserves only the most fitting music to adorn the Holy Sacrifice. I guess you could say I’ve kind of adopted this narrowness of style as my musical charism.
So, is ALL other music not seeking this particular ideal bad? By no means! As I am writing this, I’m listening to a Baroque concerto played by the great Dutch cellist Anner Bylsma, who passed away one year ago today, the Feast of St. James. (Requiescat in pace.) As with most of the Baroque repertoire, it is great music for thinking and writing. (The coffee and rum helps, too!) Would this style of music work for the liturgy? I think so but, for the most part, not as well as that emulating the 16th century. But, again, I’m a stickler.
I think things get really dicey when you get towards the end of the 18th century (French Revolution). Around this time, music begins to take on a more emotional character; instead of tempering the passions, it feeds them.
This trend continued throughout the 19th century, what is called the Romantic period. It is not surprising that most of the attacks on our culture come from ideas and movements which arose during this time and into the next century. It’s unreasonable to think that even as art and architecture were corrupted during this period, music would somehow remain unscathed. Therefore, I am very wary of 19th century musical styles, for church anyway. And I reject whole all uniquely 20th century compositional innovations – a time of horrendous wars, degradation of culture and devaluation of human life.
I say “uniquely 20th century” as there are a lot of 20th century techniques employed by composers who consciously harked back to earlier epochs. The revival of Gregorian Chant greatly influenced many 20th century composers. Much of the music of Ralph Vaughan Williams (1872-1958) is distinctly modal. However, atonality and “crunchy” non-functional harmonies? Not for me.
Upcoming Articles
Aristotle considered a musical education essential for the philosopher, indeed, for any liberally educated person. In a recent interview with Eddie Muller, trumpeter extraordinaire Wynton Marsalis said that, for jazz, there needed to be more education; not for musicians, but for the listening public. If this is of value for jazz, it is even more so for liturgical music.
In future articles, I hope to unpack the characteristics of particular musical styles – one style per article. In each discussion, I will also try to explain the thinking process I go through to come to a judgement of whether or not a piece of music in that particular style is suitable for the sacred liturgy.
***
To learn more about the compositions of Mark Emerson Donnelly and how you can sign up for his newsletter and support his work, visit his website at markemersondonnelly.com
To support Mark’s compositional work through Una Voce Canada, please click here and choose “MED Composer” from the dropdown menu. Canadian donors will be provided with tax receipts.
