Hmmm. As a medievalist I think that Renaissance polyphony is packed with
cultural baggage - the adaptation of Gregorian chant to a very new mode of
music and of performance, leading directly to Baroque and the cult of the
virtuoso performer, and then the 18th and 19th century habit of having opera
soloists perform the musical parts of the Mass, and then the 19th century
liturgical reform spearheaded by Solemnes to restore chant, then the 20th
century liturgical reform to introduce congregational chant, and then the
deluge of the 70s. Oh, well. I like Palestrina, but he's just as baggaged
up as Marty Haugen, just in a different way!
I agree that the intrusion of popular tunes is the most tedious part of
contemporary liturgical music, but I'm not sure that it hasn't always gone
on. One of the things people always say about St. Ambrose was that he wrote
such 'singable' hymns!
My response sent today:
Ok - agree with me on this point:
There's a key difference between how secular characteristics infiltrated
music during the Renaissance and today.
During the renaissance, composers hid secular tunes inside of the polyphony.
The style remained intact while little tidbits of secular ditties were
quoted in the pieces. Today, we just drop the words "Christ" "God"
"Peace" and "Service" into any old secular tune and we have instant sacred
music.
Another key point from a musical standpoint, the sacred and secular styles
were separated by the modes they were written in: today's major key was the
secular mode of choice during the Renaissance, most sacred music was written
in a different mode a distrinction between the sacred style and secular
style.
Ok - time for more coffee. Enjoy your weekend.