What's new

Breaking the monopoly of choir music - We are coming for it

Yes, but he cannot choose Hobbits for the test. The primarily target should be Apollo, secondary target Dionysos, and not to forget, the Orphic Hymns. With pagan choirs. If he can do that, we can declare the choir monopoly is over.
I'm afraid I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
 
Actually in Bach time it was the opposite. Which is why Bach was just writing chorals for liturgical use (the cantatas are not for liturgical use). One of the reasons why the Protestant reformation happened, is because Luther and other reformers thought that the music in the Catholic Church had become too fancy and complex polyphony made it harder for the assembly to hear the words and sing along. Which is why Bach chorals are mostly homophonic in texture and extremely simple in structure. If you check his b minor mass (written for the catholic mass) it’s much more complex, not less than his choral work for Protestant liturgies. Of course, Bach also wrote a lot of non liturgical religious pieces.

Anyways, this thread is actually about wood chopping. By the way, when did wood chopping become monopolized by singers?
Please check the history books again. One of Bach's main works are his ecclesiastical cantatas. The Catholic Church has a complicated relationship with music. Partly forbidden at times, before that very polyphonic - depending on the epoch. Luther's concern, of course, was simplification - but Bach's great masses are a topic in themselves. Of course, there are also secular cantatas that were not performed in the church.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but he cannot choose Hobbits for the test. The primarily target should be Apollo, secondary target Dionysos, and not to forget, the Orphic Hymns. With pagan choirs. If he can do that, we can declare the choir monopoly is over.
Not sure if you can call it "monopoly"? There are no one excluding any competition from starting their own choirs.
It's more lack of interrest in doing so it would seem.
 
I'm afraid I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Im not into Star Wars, but a search for the Duel of Fates text, which you referred to, brings up the following.

Korah Matah Korah Rahtahmah
Korah Rahtamah Yoodhah Korah
Korah Syahdho Rahtahmah Daanyah
Korah Keelah Daanyah
Nyohah Keelah Korah Rahtahmah
Syadho Keelah Korah Rahtahmah
Korah Daanyah Korah Rahtahmah
Korah Daanyah Korah Rahtahmah
Nyohah Keelah Korah Rahtahmah
Syadho Keelah Korah Rahtahmah
Korah
Korah Matah Korah Rahtahmah
Korah Daanyah Korah Rahtahmah
Nyohah Keelah Korah Rahtahmah
Syadho Keelah Korah Rahtahmah

Korah

.....


The Choir Monopoly Church institution, and the secret societies, that control the choirs - can laugh that text away, as some hobbit nonsense. They will allow it, even sung by pagans. What we pagans will target are the Orphic Hymns, and John Williams will be recruited to bring them alive. Church affiliated people here need to prepare for this mentally, we are going to bring the choirs back home. When the choirs are back home, Bachs Christmas oratorio will - to Gene Pools dismay - fall into the abyss of a "white guy doing blues at Missisippi".
 
Last edited:
Not sure if you can call it "monopoly"? There are no one excluding any competition from starting their own choirs.
It's more lack of interrest in doing so it would seem.
Not sure about that, the suspicion is, we are about to enter forbidden territory.
 
Please check the history books again. One of Bach's main works are his ecclesiastical cantatas. The Catholic Church has a complicated relationship with music. Partly forbidden at times, before that very polyphonic - depending on the epoch. Luther's concern, of course, was simplification - but Bach's great masses are a topic in themselves. Of course, there are also secular cantatas that were not performed in the church.
Of course the cantatas were performed in the church, but they are not really liturgical even if that can be argued (they were in some way there own liturgy).

As for the catholic church, music was never banned and was always extremely important, actually the mass used to be mostly sung for centuries. And you got the order backward, it was first monophonic, polyphonic music didn't even exist at the time, and purely vocal, even if the organ made it's way in the catholic church around the 10th century already. Gregorian became the official church music in the west, while the eastern churches went in a slightly different direction but with similar roots. The goal of Gregorian chant was to enhance the text and not to provide music for the sake of music even if in it's own way it can be sublime.

It's only around the 10th century that we had the very first examples of basic polyphony, with two voices moving mostly in parallel. It's also important to realize that at the time (like today), they were always the rules, but also more or less freedom as to how to do things. And the rules were usually changed once many people had already "broken" them and not the other way around. They were really more guidance than anything else. Which is why church music has been able to evolve so much and so fast.

Anyway, after this first experience of polyphony we already have the school of Notre Dame in the 13th century with very melismatic writing and a rhythmic approach with rhythmic cells that overlap that is more reminiscent of Steve Reich than of classical music . I think that's when church music became much more independent from the text, which would allow it to become increasingly complex.

Move forward one century and in the 14th century you have music like the Messe de Tournai or Messe de Notre Dame that start having an approach to accidentals that breaks from the ecclesiastical modes and will eventually lead to tonality (but we are still far from that)

15-16th century, you have Josquin des Prez and as you can hear in the Misa Pane Lingua the various voices are now much more independent, they start the phrases at different moments, and we are getting a big step closer to tonality (which was obviously not analyzed as a V - I but simply as a combination of melodic movements to finish some phrases). You can also hear the use of cadences, especially the perfect authentic cadence, except that it was a development of the much older Clausula Vera and would never be thought of as a V - I.

By the end of the 16th century it's already Palestrina and we are ready to make the jump to tonality (the jump is a poor word as it was always a gradual change):

And then of course we get to Bach. And while Bach chorales were a direct effect of the protestant reformation, the rest of his music is right in the lineage of the music of the catholic church. It's also around that time that more complex orchestrations make their way in the church.
 
Last edited:
Reformation music was a response to the extravagant concerted music of the catholic mass, which was deemed too complex and theatrical. It is usually described as having elicited two basic reformational responses, one leading in the direction of Luther with lots of congregational singing, the other in the direction of Calvin with a highly restricted use of music. Some Calvinist sects even dismantled their organs and melted down the pipes for scrap metal, as nothing in the Bible authorized the presence of the organ in the church.

The Catholic Church had its own counter reformation musical response, and Palestrina is usually classed with establishing the basic parameters of the counter reformation Catholic mass.
 
And to answer to Peter: while all the examples above are church music, secular vocal music was also absolutely a thing during the middle ages, but it's true that it was mostly solo songs while most choral music was in the church probably for the simple reason that creating a choir or any kind of bigger ensemble is not convenient (even less during the middle ages) and what was the point since almost everybody was going to church anyway? Also composers probably wanted to get paid, and the singers as well, and there was definitely more budget doing music for the church.
 
Reformation music was a response to the extravagant concerted music of the catholic mass, which was deemed too complex and theatrical. It is usually described as having elicited two basic reformational responses, one leading in the direction of Luther with lots of congregational singing, the other in the direction of Calvin with a highly restricted use of music. Some Calvinist sects even dismantled their organs and melted down the pipes for scrap metal, as nothing in the Bible authorized the presence of the organ in the church.

The Catholic Church had its own counter reformation musical response, and Palestrina is usually classed with establishing the basic parameters of the counter reformation Catholic mass.
The role of Palestrina in the counter reformation is a little bit a myth (some people see him as the saviour of polyphony without whom it would be banned) but it's true that his music has been set as an example when Pius IV appointed him his composer and therefore had a huge influence.
 
The role of Palestrina in the counter reformation is a little bit a myth (some people see him as the saviour of polyphony without whom it would be banned) but it's true that his music has been set as an example when Pius IV appointed him his composer and therefore had a huge influence.
I wouldn’t call it a myth. I would say the situation is more complicated. Just as the reformation response to music is more complicated than breaking it into Lutheran and Calvinist responses. But they make good stories that help organize and illuminate the stakes of the messy history so they get retold.
 
I wouldn’t call it a myth. I would say the situation is more complicated. Just as the reformation response to music is more complicated than breaking it into Lutheran and Calvinist responses. But they make good stories that help organize and illuminate the stakes of the messy history so they get retold.
The myth part is that he went to the council and performed his music in front of the cardinals who then decided that they wouldn't ban polyphony. There is no historical records for any of that. But I do agree that simplifications are often necessary to transmit history. The same way we put composers in categories, and divide their own pieces in periods. As for Calvin, having grown up in Switzerland and studied the Swiss reformation, I'm glad for the arts that his thinking didn't become predominant Europe, living in Geneva during the reformation was not very fun... even if he did have his own musical contribution.
 
Last edited:
Star Wars
Hey, that's a very Christian story! A "New Hope". The Son descending from the Father. The self-immolating Hero living in the soul of all those who believe. The disciple speaking all the languages of the world. The angels descending from the sky. The way of saluting ("May the Force be with you", modeled after the "May the Lord be with you").

And then, the saint that has superseded all the others in Southern Italy, and is probably even more venerated than Christ himself, is Ben Kenobi:
 
Last edited:
The myth part is that he went to the council and performed his music in front of the cardinals who then decided that they wouldn't ban polyphony. There is no historical records for any of that. But I do agree that simplifications are often necessary to transmit history. The same way we put composers in categories, and divide their own pieces in periods. As for Calvin, having grown up in Switzerland and studied the Swiss reformation, I'm glad for the arts that his thinking didn't become predominant Europe, living in Geneva during the reformation was not very fun... even if he did have his own musical contribution.
Oh, yes, much of the Palestrina story is myth, but his music is also representative of counter reformation musical practice. That latter claim is broadly true but also very much a simplification.

I always liked the story of Zwingli melting down the organ pipes and turning them into tableware. I have no idea whether the particulars of that story are true, but it’s a neat tale that has stuck with me over the years.
 
Very good point about rhythm - but was it allowed? At least in the military. And when the King arrived.

We used to have shaman drums here in North Europe, but theres only one or two dusty left in museums. Rest were destroyed.

(Interesting point about flute btw)
Drums were not allowed in church. Why would drums not be allowed elsewhere ? Every military band has drums. I seriously doubt that pagan instruments were destroyed. Old instruments, just like everything else, get replaced by better or more fashionable ones.
 
Last edited:
The Catholic Church has a complicated relationship with music. Partly forbidden at times..
When you write something like this, there will be people out there who will assume that the CC banned all music, not just liturgical music. :) This is because first the reformation, later the enlightenment and secularism invented and propagated all kinds of nonsense and vast exaggerations concerning the CC.
 
When you write something like this, there will be people out there who will assume that the CC banned all music, not just liturgical music. :) This is because first the reformation, later the enlightenment and secularism invented and propagated all kinds of nonsense and vast exaggerations concerning the CC.
Yes, that's right, that's a bit misleading and expressed too radically! There were often times when some in the Catholic Church wanted to go back to monophonic Gregorian singing. And the relationship to music was far from uniform and consistently positive. I learned this from my former music history professor who is a devout Catholic. And not everyone in the Catholic Church was ragtime fanatic ...
Of course the cantatas were performed in the church, but they are not really liturgical even if that can be argued (they were in some way there own liturgy).
Bach wrote his church cantatas for use in church services and performed them in church services. What is not liturgical about them?

As for the catholic church, music was never banned and was always extremely important, actually the mass used to be mostly sung for centuries.
There were some in the Catholic Church who always wanted to go back to monophonic Gregorian chant. There has been a lot of controversy. As far as I know there were some people in charge who at times did not allow music in their churches.
 
Yes, that's right, that's a bit misleading and expressed too radically! There were often times when some in the Catholic Church wanted to go back to monophonic Gregorian singing. And the relationship to music was far from uniform and consistently positive. I learned this from my former music history professor who is a devout Catholic. And not everyone in the Catholic Church was ragtime fanatic ..
And this is often seen as something negative. The fact of the matter is that liturgy is not a concert, and people in charge of the CC had bigger concerns than advancing music expression. If music is too much of a distraction, there is no place for it in a church.
 
And this is often seen as something negative. The fact of the matter is that liturgy is not a concert, and people in charge of the CC had bigger concerns than advancing music expression. If music is too much of a distraction, there is no place for it in a church.
That's right! I myself do not judge such decisions either. On the other hand, I am very happy about the contributions to church music over the past centuries. Of course there is a certain cult around Bach here in Germany, but the "early music" movement is also very strong here. (For whom Bach is already on the verge of being too modern)
 
Top Bottom