Good & useful clarification/re- definement , Howard. I work at a large CD/record/DVD establishment, and every now and then I will slip on a mass by Josquin, Byrd, whoever- (any of the usual suspects) and most of my fellow employees- except the other two who help me out in the classical division- will show surprise at hearing such "Churchy" sounding music. And my initial reflex mental response- before opening my mouth- is- "That's not CHURCH music- that's EARLY music!"
When I put on secular viol consort music I still sometimes get the "That sounds like church music" reaction. But, I sell a surprising amount of both religious vocal polyphonic as well as secular Early Music CDs to customers for whom this music genre (or sub-genre?) is a completely new experience- ranging from sophisticated listeners who come for Jazz to World Music of all kinds, Pop Vocal fans, and even some of the stranger Heavy Metal/Electronica/experimental folks- all enchanted by music they never hear in church (those who go, of course!). Dan On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:54 AM, howard posner wrote: > On Mar 15, 2012, at 5:56 AM, Christopher Wilke wrote: > >> Church officials apparently came to the conclusion that, although people >> where willing to PAY to hear this music performed well, they found it's use >> in the original context off-putting. > > Your definition of "people" changed in mid-sentence, because the audience > for early music is not the same thing as "the people on whose attendance in > church the Catholic Church depends for its existence." Your sentence > actually meant: > > "Church officials apparently came to the conclusion that, although thousands > of persons, many of them non-Catholics, were willing to PAY to hear this > music performed well, hundreds of millions of Catholics found its use in the > original context off-putting." > > The change might not seem so paradoxical when your terms are defined. > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
