# 2 types of religious music



## ZJovicic

For some reason medieval religious music and Orthodox religious music sounds more profoundly religious/spiritual to me, than things like Messiah or Mass in B minor.

Works like Messiah and Bach's Mass are definitely musical masterpieces and I even prefer listening to them, rather than the other type, but they are also somewhat less "heavy" to me.

I feel as if they glorify God (Bach, Handel, etc... ) and can even sound cheerful, while Medieval and Orthodox music provokes deeper religious feelings in me, humility, feels more solemn and heavy, sounds more like worship music.

I could listen for example to Bach's Mass or Handle's Messiah also just for the sake of enjoying it as a musical works. But Medieval and Orthodox music provoke totally different feelings and don't feel like something for casual listening.

Do you agree? And if yes, why is that so?

Compare this:






or this






with this






or with this


----------



## DavidA

Its is of course dependent on what view you take on religion, whether being 'religious' means sounding morbid. Certainly Bach and Handel didn't take that view


----------



## ZJovicic

Well, perhaps I am biased as I am Orthodox, so in our churches the music is usually only a capella and similar to the second type, so perhaps I associate this type of music with religious feelings.

I agree that it's kind of more solemn and heavy, but I wouldn't call it in any way morbid.


----------



## Guest

Perhaps it is relevant what the intended purpose of the composer was? And of course, as suggested, the attitude of the listener to religion (in general or the one specific to the piece itself).


----------



## ZJovicic

I don't know, when speaking of just musical experience, I enjoy Bach and Handel perhaps more,
but I find that Medieval and Orthodox music inspires deeper religious mood/feelings.

I also think that both types of music are extremely high art and both celebrate God in their own ways.


----------



## Nate Miller

medieval music in the Church was not based on the same rules of counterpoint that Bach and Handel wrote. Palestrina style polyphony is a different animal than late baroque counterpoint, so the two things are actually different. Even different enough that people who really don't know the theory behind the styles of counterpoint will still sense that something is different, like you did


----------



## ZJovicic

I am curious if some of you took some listen of the last example that I provided, the Orthodox liturgy? How would you classify it musically? How do you feel about this type of religious music?


----------



## Guest

ZJovicic said:


> I am curious if some of you took some listen of the last example that I provided, the Orthodox liturgy? How would you classify it musically? How do you feel about this type of religious music?


I like it , but I wouldn't like to provide the label. Is it Eastern European? Bulgarian?


----------



## ZJovicic

It's Serbian church music.


----------



## Nate Miller

I can't listen to the whole hour, but the first track sounded to me like a responsorial. I'm Roman Catholic, so our music traditions are similar. I mean, we're both Apostolic, as opposed to those heretical protestants, right?.....but the tradition of plain chant, which was definitely what I was hearing, but plain chant was around before the Great Schism, so when we were all one Church, we had plain chant.

so plain chant was a precursor to early polyphony, and it is a common thread to both of our Church's musical traditions


----------



## Nate Miller

there are groups of monks that have recorded the Gregorian hymns and other early Church music

if you were to look up some of the Gregorian hymns like "Adoro Te", "Ubi Caritas", "Tantum Ergo", "Salve Regina" and those sort of hymns, I'm sure you can find some Roman Catholic plain chant that is very similar to the Serbian music you had there

you'd like that stuff. It has the sound of the early music you like


----------



## ZJovicic

thanks I will check those hymns


----------



## Genoveva

ZJovicic said:


> For some reason medieval religious music and Orthodox religious music sounds more profoundly religious/spiritual to me, than things like Messiah or Mass in B minor.
> 
> Works like Messiah and Bach's Mass are definitely musical masterpieces and I even prefer listening to them, rather than the other type, but they are also somewhat less "heavy" to me.
> 
> I feel as if they glorify God (Bach, Handel, etc... ) and can even sound cheerful, while Medieval and Orthodox music provokes deeper religious feelings in me, humility, feels more solemn and heavy, sounds more like worship music.
> 
> I could listen for example to Bach's Mass or Handle's Messiah also just for the sake of enjoying it as a musical works. But Medieval and Orthodox music provoke totally different feelings and don't feel like something for casual listening.
> 
> Do you agree? And if yes, why is that so?


You are saying that works like Bach's Mass In B Minor or Handel's Messiah are "less heavy", in the sense of being relatively cheerful, compared with religious works that involve chant of some kind, whether Latin or Eastern Orthodox. You consider the chant type of music is more suitable for worship purposes.

I think this could be a touchy subject, as some people do not have any interest whatsoever in music of either type as being suitable for worship purposes. They are either irreligious in some way, or of different faith altogether.

That aside, the works you referred to as being of the more cheerful variety are designed to be just that, namely a celebration of the events surrounding the life of Christ and the redemptive aspects of his death and resurrection, etc. These works could hardly be anything else if the composer in question has stuck to the script! Fortunately, in both examples you quote the composers in question did a very fine job, albeit from rather different perspectives (one being a Mass and the other an Oratorio) and both are beyond reproach as exemplary works in each of those genres.

The chant type of works on the other hand do not necessarily have to have a cheerful aspect. Some do, and some don't depending on context and purpose, because they are not complete self-contained entities in themselves.

I happen to like both types of music, but I am choosy among the various offerings. I regard Bach's Mass in B Minor as being a marvellous work, but it is not my favourite mass by any means. I far prefer the Renaissance Masses of the likes of Palestrina and Victoria. Of the chant type of music, I have a strong preference for that by Hildegard of Bingen compared with that from the Orthodox tradition. It's mainly because I prefer the more westernised sound (to my ears) of Hildegard's music than that from further East. In addition, I can understand better what the Latin based chant pieces are all about. That's not to say that I do not like Orthodox chant.

There is another variety of sacred music that I like a lot too, and that's the music of Monteverdi in the form of his Vespers 1610 and the Selva Morale e Spirituale. These works do not quite fit the description of chant, but are excellent and I would say that they are my overall favourite type of sacred music.


----------



## ZJovicic

Interesting ideas Genoveva, I'll check Monteverdi.

Also regarding the second, Orthodox example that I provided, it's a whole Liturgy, which has the same function as a Mass in Catholic Church. It has chants, but it also has choral parts. However, it's exclusively vocal, no instruments involved.


----------



## Genoveva

ZJovicic said:


> Interesting ideas Genoveva, I'll check Monteverdi.
> 
> Also regarding the second, Orthodox example that I provided, it's a whole Liturgy, which has the same function as a Mass in Catholic Church. It has chants, but it also has choral parts. However, it's exclusively vocal, no instruments involved.


Regards Monteverdi (1567-1643), he is definitely a composer to place on a short list. He was born at the tail end of the Renaissance era in music, and his early music bears this trait, but he made the transition to early baroque, and became one of its chief exponents, if not the greatest.

Both the works I referred to are classics in the sense that no decent collection should be without them. They are both written in the early baroque style. The versions I have are by _The Sixteen_ with director Harry Christophers. Each of the works - _Vespers 1610_ and _Selva Morale e Spirituale_ - comprises a list of sub-works, many of which are well known in their own right as stand-alone works. In my view it's far better to listen to the whole lot in proper order, according to its Sv number. The Selva Morale was published in 1641, so it was nearly his swan-song.

You will soon discover that neither of these works is like chant, and it's not like a conventional Mass. The pieces are a mixture of hymns, psalms, and motets. With regard to the Vespers, listen out for the first piece which is very short: _"Deus in adiutorium meum intende"_, which I find immediately inspiring.

They're both spectacular works, and I really hope you like them.


----------



## millionrainbows

ZJovicic said:


> For some reason medieval religious music and Orthodox religious music sounds more profoundly religious/spiritual to me, than things like Messiah or Mass in B minor.
> 
> Works like Messiah and Bach's Mass are definitely musical masterpieces and I even prefer listening to them, rather than the other type, but they are also somewhat less "heavy" to me.
> 
> I feel as if they glorify God (Bach, Handel, etc... ) and can even sound cheerful, while Medieval and Orthodox music provokes deeper religious feelings in me, humility, feels more solemn and heavy, sounds more like worship music.
> 
> I could listen for example to Bach's Mass or Handle's Messiah also just for the sake of enjoying it as a musical works. But Medieval and Orthodox music provoke totally different feelings and don't feel like something for casual listening.
> 
> Do you agree? And if yes, why is that so?


From what I read here, I don't think most respondents really understand what ZJovicic is getting at, but I understand completely. In fact, I discussed this distinction in older threads.

Some music is "religious technology." It is designed to evoke sacred responses which are universal to human experience, such as using drones and creating a certain type of experience in which "time stops" so to speak. I also discussed the idea of "moment time" in another thread. Here's the idea, from my blog, which paraphrases from a textbook:

New Conceptions of Musical Time*
Linear time:* Music that imparts a sense of linear time seems to move towards goals. This quality permeates virtually all of Western music from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. This is accomplished by processes which occur within tonal and metrical frameworks.
*Nonlinear time:* Music that evokes a sense of nonlinear time seems to stand still or evolve very slowly.

Western musicians first became aware of nonlinear time during the late 19th century. Debussy's encounter with Javanese gamelan music at the 1889 Paris Exhibition was a seminal event.

*Moment Form:* broken down connections between musical events in order to create a series of more or less discrete moments. Certain works of Stravinsky, Webern, Messiaen, and Stockhausen exemplify this approach.

*Vertical Time: *At the other extreme of the nonlinear continuum is music that maximizes consistency and minimizes articulation. Vertical time means that whatever structure that is in the music exists between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures. A virtually static moment is expanded to encompass an entire piece. A vertical piece does not exhibit large-scale closure. It does not begin, but merely starts. It does not build to a climax, does not set up internal expectations, does not seek to fulfill any expectations that might arise accidentally, does not build or release tension, and does not end, but simply ceases.
*Minimalism* exemplifies vertical time, but instead of absolute stasis, it generates constant motion. The sense of movement is so evenly paced, and the goals are so vague, that we usually lose our sense of perspective.


So, whether you want to admit it or argue with it, there are ways of producing music which have an effect on our perception of the passing of time; and these ways of presenting music are recognized and accepted. Of course, there may be some listeners (of "normal" music) who just can't grasp the concept or experience of Indian ragas, minimalism, some modernism, "primitive" musics, and the like, which are not "developmental" in a linear way as "classical" music is.

I think JVovicic understands this distinction, and is pointing this out to us. With the Hildegard von Bingen example, he is spot-on.


----------



## millionrainbows

When we say 'religious' music, it may fit that description for a number of reasons which do not concern the music itself, or the actual structure of the sounds; it may be 'religious' because it was used in church rituals, or based on sacred text, or about a religious subject, but none of these has to do with the actual structure of the music itself.

I am saying that the term 'religious' in 'religious music' (which is a misleading term in my opinion) is a quality which I define in general terms as 'spiritual' in nature. The music can produce, under the right conditions, a spiritual awareness or feeling, or effect, which may or may not be associated with a particular religion, or idea of religion. 

You must first accept the given that "religious" is a misnomer in the sense that 'spiritual' music need not necessarily be connected to an established religion or institution. If we can accept that broadening and generalization of the term 'religious' music, then we can move ahead to the meat of the discussion.

I contend that music which is harmonically static, such as a drone, or one note and its partials, is inherently 'spiritual' because of its universal propensity to affect us as humans. This 'spirituality' is the note, or drone itself, so it is a structurally inseparable quality of the sound.

As a result, all things or sound events which follow are secondary, and inessential, as they are derived from this one sound. This sound, it could be said, is "God." This is a possible interpretation of the words "In the beginning was the word, and the word was God."

In other words, the unchanging note, or drone, is the center of being, which is sacred and holy. This center of being is impervious to the passage of time; it is stillness, it is being, it is no-mind. This is OM.

All change which follows, which is defined by change in time, is illusion. Being does not travel; things around it come and go, but it remains.

Thus, the early Gregorian chant was inherently religious music; its drone-like qualities attracted 20th century audiences with the smash hit "Chant," and revealed that people are in search of a stillness and peace which only the uncluttered effects of such harmonically centered drone-like music can bring. All other music which is 'busy' is music of the 'ego,' and while it has its purpose, ultimately it is a distraction, or artifice, or merely a metaphor for the spiritual. 

This is the basis of Indian raga, which is spiritual music designed to enhance one's spiritual awareness. African music is based on the drone of a fundamental tone and its harmonics, a 'drone' which is manipulated with mouth-bows to bring out different harmonic resonances. This led to blues, such as the droney songs of Skip James. The blues is thus a sacred music, and these bluesmen were our avatars of this spirituality, holy men, traveling saints. Bob Dylan, Ry Cooder, and Alan Wilson understood this well. For the blues connection, refer to Canned Heat's "on the Road Again' by the late great Alan Wilson

'The drone' is universal. All folk and ethnic musics exhibit elements of it, as it is my contention that all people, no matter how 'primitive,' are inherently spiritual from their beginning. Of course, many are distracted away from the path.

The drone is the manifestation of being, not just a reference or metaphor for the sacred. The spirit is sound, and the sound is sacred.


----------



## Josquin13

ZJovicic--I think Glenn Gould would have agreed with you, as he considered music to have gone into a spiritual decline after the Middle Ages, with the last vestige of that great Medieval spiritual tradition being the music of Orlando Gibbons, according to Gould. To a good extent I agree with him, yet I still see it all as a very necessary evolution.

In my view, organized religions are to a degree flawed, as historically their message has often been corrupted or distorted by bad men (seeking more power), as well as good intentioned men that have poorly or irresponsibly interpreted and/or translated the sacred texts--through all the ages, from the ancient Egyptians to the King James translators (whose Hebrew was sketchy) to today. (Not surprisingly, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad were all reformers.) 

Therefore, it is the great rarity of human genius in this world that speaks most profoundly to me, personally, & more so than any "religious" music per se (except for possibly works of a Marian devotion). Though of course many post-early Renaissance works do incorporate the sacred texts in a profound way, and can certainly be viewed as the spiritual expression of a higher genius--such as Bach's Mass in B minor, etc., Handel's Messiah, etc., Mozart's Requiem, and so on. 

Besides, there will always be certain unalterable truths that will continue to exist. Artists, writers, & composers can tap into these mystical truths, if they are so inclined and wish to--even today, & maybe especially in our own time, when we are in such dire need of a more expansive, pervasive, & deeper spirituality: like that which existed during the age of the great cathedrals.


----------



## david johnson

the only bible-mentioned requirement is that the music fits as - psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (eph 5:19) and, of course, that the worshipper means the message presented in his/her singing. those simple goals allow for many styles to be used in accomplishing the 'mission'.


----------



## Ingélou

I know what you mean. I too find orthodox music and medieval music very moving spiritually - more so perhaps than 'yer average' religious piece by mainstream Western composers.

However, I can account for the effect on *me*, in that the music sounds 'eerier', so taps into the sense of awe and profound mystery that we all feel when something is strange. Ghost stories and inexplicable coincidences can evoke the same goose-flesh sensations. I can get the same experience with other 'strange' but non-Christian music, such as Hindu chants.

However, the pieces that make most impact on my spiritual feelings are ones which are tied to bible texts about death, salvation or the Passion of Christ - Biber's Rosary Sonatas, Vivaldi's Stabat Mater, and Handel's Messiah.

That's because I've always been oriented towards lyrics and stories since I was a very small child singing nursery rhymes to myself in my cot.

The pieces I've mentioned have got everything - wonderful music, depth of text, character identification, and drama.

Nice thread. :tiphat:


----------



## haydnguy

I may be rehashing what was said earlier in this thread but I tend to think of Mass in B Minor as a type of celebratory music.

For myself, worship(ful) music is music that I can totally focus on. I'm not sure how to describe it. Maybe less complex music. Could anyone give me some examples they like in this vein.

I realize everyone's preferences are different in this regard but I was wondering if there were others with the same experience.


----------



## haydnguy

Would you have a recommended recording of Biber's Rosary Sonatas?


----------



## haydnguy

Would anyone have a recommended recording of Biber's Rosary Sonatas?


----------



## St Matthew

There are quite a few areas of religious music in classical music but here are two significant and it's obvious which one dominates for obvious reasons:

1) The Catholic masses and the oratorios (most dominating between renaissance and romantic eras)
2) The eastern and occult works (more freedom to spiritual expression in the 20th/21st century, so it's obviously more quantifiable here - even though many Christians will either reject it as "spooky" or "philosophical")

It's kinda sad you don't see more on no 2 in this subforum


----------



## millionrainbows

St Matthew said:


> 2) The eastern and occult works (more freedom to spiritual expression in the 20th/21st century, so it's obviously more quantifiable here - even though many Christians will either reject it as "spooky" or "philosophical")


That's because the drone is "spooky." It weakens the ego. It draws us into "the void" of no-mind, and the void is evil. It is counter to the ego. The ego must remain intact, and God must be totally "other" and "out there," not-us. This objectifies and controls the concept of God, and allows us to use its power to conquer other peoples and cultures. This simplistic fundamentality is also what drives fundamentalist Islam. The desire for power and control is borne of the ego.

Ironically, Islam means "to submit," but it hasn't turned out that way with almost any organized religion I can think of. Apparently, people in Scientology, Catholicism, Jehova's Witnesses and other religions which ostracize people, are more interested in how religion and dogma can empower them, and control other people. We've seen this tendency over and over. Rarely is religion used as it should be: a "spiritual mirror" to make us better people, aware of our own flaws.


----------



## Logos

This change can be observed in the history of the visual arts as well. Compare Trecento religious paintings with those of the Cinquecento. In the latter, the mere sensory stimulation of form has increased in importance, while the importance of pious representation of religious truths has correspondingly decreased.


----------



## millionrainbows

Logos said:


> This change can be observed in the history of the visual arts as well. Compare Trecento religious paintings with those of the Cinquecento. In the latter, the mere sensory stimulation of form has increased in importance, while the importance of pious representation of religious truths has correspondingly decreased.


This seems to imply that there is deviation from "art for religious purposes" into "art for art's sake".


----------



## SixFootScowl

ZJovicic said:


> I am curious if some of you took some listen of the last example that I provided, the Orthodox liturgy? How would you classify it musically? How do you feel about this type of religious music?


I have not been able to listen to medieval music beyond a quick clip for curiosity. Messiah and the Bach mass are much more my style of religious music. My favorite mass is Beethoven's Missa Solemnis. Listen to this beautiful part:


----------

