Masses in Classical Era Austria

[Uncle Connie]

And while I await the traipse through the churches of Salzburg (when I toured the place I was told there are fifty!! - Wikipedia puts it more in the 30s, but either way....), I wonder if I might be permitted to go back to something that has been nagging at me for some while.  Gurn has broached it a couple of times, and from that point forward I've been trying to figure things out, so far to only a little avail.

The question is really in two parts:  (1)  Were the central European masses we've been dealing with intended for use during a church service, or were they 'concert masses'?  (2)  How can we tell which is which?

Gurn started the thoughts rolling when he mentioned, more or less in passing, that he believed the masses of Anton Bruckner were specifically intended for church services.  No sooner had I started delving into that question, than I ran across - in two different places - the information that the masses of Schubert could explicitly not be used in church, because of Schubert's refusal to set the phrase from the Credo "one holy and apostolic Church."  Ergo, the work was liturgically impure, ergo it couldn't be used for a formal church service. 

And then I ran across - again, two separate sources - the statement that, for a very long time and extending all the way up to Bruckner (if not beyond), the Church requirements for a performance of a mass during an actual service included the stipulation that the first line of the Gloria, and again the first like of the Credo, be intoned chant-style and unaccompanied, only after which the music could take over.

"Aha!" methought.  "Maybe that's the answer!  If the composer set the first lines of the Gloria and Credo, then it's concert.  If not, then it's church!"  Simple, hey?  Well, in theory maybe, but the problem is that it isn't really working out too well, and now I have no idea where I've wandered and how to get back out again.

According to my listening, to every single Joseph Haydn mass recording I have, only two - the two so-called "Organ" masses - have the first lines of those sections chanted.  (And in the case of the "Little Organ Mass," it's actually just the Gloria; not the Credo.)  All my versions of these two works, every one, have the chanted opening; every version I have of every other J.Haydn mass has none.  (And in fact I have the distinct recollection that the first time I ever heard the chanted openings at all, in any mass whatsoever, was on a Philips recording of both of these Organ Masses by the Vienna Choir Boys et al. conducted by Uwe Christian Harrer, issued in 1986.  Prior to that, the performances were all "through-composed."  And that included at least one LP recording of the Little Organ Mass (Hans Gillesberger, Vienna Academy Choir, 1952). 

Michael Haydn:  As but one example, the St.Hieronymus Mass has three current recordings, and all of them use the chant phrases.  But a fourth recording, the earliest, on LP (Andrew Minor, Chorus & Orch. of the University of Missouri at Columbia, sometime in the 1960s) does not use them.

Bruckner:  Apparently all current (recent) (modern) recordings use the chanted phrases for three of the four full-sized masses (the last of all, the f minor, was specifically not written that way).  But earlier recordings, e.g. F.Charles Adler doing the d minor in the early 1950s, and I THINK the Jochum set from the 60s, don't use the chants.

Beethoven, Hummel, Weber and of course Schubert:  I have never in my life heard a chanted phrase used for these four composers.


I'm not at all certain what I've just "discovered."  Mostly I've discovered more questions than I had when I started.  And paramount among them is, "HUH?"  (And probably least among them, but still of interest to me, is:  "If a performance didn't use the chant-openings in a work that has provision for them, what then happens to those words?")

I have no idea what this contributes to the direction of this thread, except maybe more confusion; but it's something I want to try and pin down, if I can.  Ideas/comments/thoughts/laughter most welcome indeed.   

[Gurn Blanston]

Hi, Conrad,
I'm certainly going to come back and address this issue when I have some good documentation on it. However, to the best of my knowledge, the very first 'Concert Mass' was Beethoven's Missa Solemnis. And at that, I'm not sure that it was always his intention that it be so (he wrote it for the elevation of Archduke Rudolph to Archbishop or Cardinal, finishing it too late for that), but everything I've read indicates that it is simply way too grand in all ways to perform as a church service. Is it possible that there is some liturgical 'rule of thumb' that allows one to distinguish between the two? I really don't know that there is. As I understand the Schubert situation, his mass without 'one holy and apostolic church' was rejected because he didn't write fugues in places that traditionally had fugues. But that isn't a liturgical consideration, it is merely a custom that happened to be congruent with the taste of the person making the decision. I need to go back and review Haydn's masses, but one (at least) of the late masses also has changes or elisions in the text. So too does one of Mozart's. But there was never any question that Haydn (and Mozart) intended their works as working masses.

So you raise some interesting points. I will never be the arbiter of these, but I will do some research and present what I find for y'all's consideration. Cool.

[Lilas Pastia]

Haydn's  Seven Last Words is not a mass but was from the beginning intended to be presented in a church setting. When we listen to it nowadays - in orchestral or so-called oratorio form (meaning, with voices and orchestra), we must keep in mind that the work was certainly not intended to be played straight through as we do when playing a cd. Haydn himself would no doubt be rather surprised.

Composers of the era were also businessmen, so they probably saw to it that some form of performing use could be maintained after a work's 'trial run' (most masses composed in that period were either commands or hoped-for commands, therefore strictly speaking 'one-off' occasions). Haydn capitalized on SLW's fame by allowing trancription on pianoforte and himself working on the string quartet version that is by now the most frequently played of any of the work's versions. I have a transcription of Mozart's Requiem on string quartet (by Mozart disciple and champion Peter Lichtenthal, 1780-1853).  Access to a full-fledged concert or church performance was probably comsidered improbable at the time, hence a need for usable domestic arrangements. The first known trancription of the Requiem was done barely a year after Mozart's death, in a string quintet arrangement. Composers knew that and sometimes, as in Haydn's case, actively participated in the deal. Fame and income was all that counted !

My hunch is that composers probably through-composed what we now hear but fully expected the first musical lines to be dropped and replaced by the usual chant. In the light of the practices of the time this was probably seen as not only acceptable but even desirable in that it granted their works access to a performing forum of great popular accessibility and financial-social influence.

[Uncle Connie]

Today in my free time, of which there wasn't much, I did some perusing of the comments on the masses of Schubert in Brian Newbould's biography - I ordered a copy but in the end didn't want to wait, so I checked one out of the library. 

Newbould doesn't discuss the bit about the opening lines, per Andre in the post just up there above me, but one real possibility it seems to me - at least with Schubert - is to compose the whole thing and then, if somebody wants to chant the first few words, either let the chorus go ahead and repeat them, or simply use that short bit of music as an instrumental intro., and have the chorus come in on the next phrase.  Works in many many cases that I can think of, though not all.

But what Newbould DOES discuss is the famous bit about Schubert omitting a certain phrase from the Credo.  Yes he did, in all six of his masses; but what I did not know is that he also left out a rather wide range of other words in all six masses also; it's just that the "one holy and apostolic church" bit is the only phrase omitted repeatedly.  Newbould cites half a dozen specific examples and tells us that there are several more scattered about; and he also points out that other composers did the same sort of thing, including among the great ones, Mozart.  (He cites no specifics for Wolfie, though.)  And his summary opinion is that, even if that one repeated phrase does represent something of a protest by Schubert - but it might be something else too, says the good Ph.D., such as Schubert's effort to shorten the most academic portion of the wordiness - mostly it's just haste, forgetfulness, inattention, and perhaps unfamiliarity (in the sense of word-for-word memorization) with Latin, inasmuch as Schubert never held a church job.  It's also pointed out that Schubert not infrequently did the same thing with the poems he was setting as songs; either a word was left out, or added, or changed to a different word entirely; happened all the time.  (Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau discussed this in his book on Schubert's songs.)  In summary, Prof. Newbould suggests that what Schubert was really doing with his masses (and most other religious works) was writing a piece of music to which he would then fit the words; rather than taking the text as it stood and fitting the music to it.  And in his haste, sometimes he screwed up.   

And Newbould also makes mention of a number of church performances of the various masses and some of the smaller sacred works; so Schubert wasn't banned from use during actual services at all.  He may not have broken into the big-time, in the sense of having his works done at St. Stephen's or one of the other big churches; but in parish churches and the chapels on the estates of certain nobility (the latter as was also true of many of the Haydn masses), he got his chances.  Newbould makes particular mention of the little G Major mass, Schubert's smallest, which originally was set for voices, strings and organ only.  He wrote it for a small neighborhood church.  But later he gained a performance in a bigger venue and added trumpets and drums to the original; and later still, after his death, his brother Ferdinand added some woodwind parts presumably for yet another and bigger venue.

Also worth noting in passing is the provision in churches in the Habsburg dominions at this time (which excluded Salzburg, by the way, until after Napoleon) for telescoped texts in the longer sections of the mass; the classic example is Joseph Haydn's Little Organ Mass, where the entire Gloria, with text compressed like mad, takes less than a minute.  Although Schubert didn't use this method of composing, he clearly knew of the tradition, and may well have thought, what the hell, what's a word here and there?, you can't understand half of 'em anyway.  [This particular thought is mine; it is not to be connected to Dr. Brian Newbould, it should be made clear.]

And so that's where my thoughts have been going today; tomorrow, they'll probably wander through yet another wormhole in intellectual space, and land in an entirely different galaxy!   

[Gurn Blanston]

Conrad,
Now, what you have written there gives eloquent voice to my own way of thinking. Of course, it also adds fuel to the fire of the dispute between the Church and the churches, so to speak, because when one reads what Rome have to say about "no words shall be omitted or rearranged &c &c" and the simple fact that one can scarcely listen to a mass written between, say, 1730 and 1830 and not find at least a small crop of variances, then de facto and de jure are a long way apart.

'Telescoping, as a principal, is pretty cool. Where I referred above to Mozart's complaints to Martini, his telescoping in the little string of Missa brevis' that he composed in the mid 1770's was his way of getting around the time constraints. However, that practice goes back decades. It is interesting to listen to, especially since, as you mention, it is hard to understand what they're saying except with practiced ear. In fact, that's another of the Roman tenets for sacred music; words must be clearly intelligible. Oops, guess the guys missed that one, too.

[Uncle Connie]

Conrad,
Now, what you have written there gives eloquent voice to my own way of thinking. Of course, it also adds fuel to the fire of the dispute between the Church and the churches, so to speak, because when one reads what Rome have to say about "no words shall be omitted or rearranged &c &c" and the simple fact that one can scarcely listen to a mass written between, say, 1730 and 1830 and not find at least a small crop of variances, then de facto and de jure are a long way apart.

And we have just uncovered another in life's endless examples of practice not always adhering to the letter of the law.  Obviously the Austrian churches did not go out of their way to create a blazing rift with Rome, but neither did they concern themselves about a little local variation here and there.  Ultimately, if my memory is even close to the facts, in c.1905 the Pope issued a strong edict severely restricting all aspects of acceptable music in the churches:  Piety and solemnity were the watchwords, and virtually all else was taboo.  But the edict, by virtue of pressure from the appropriate cardinals and bishops, included a specific dispensation for the celebration of mass in Austria and related lands (including I think south Germany).  And so from that point until the edict was overturned some generations later by a more liberal Pope, Austrian churches were the only ones allowed to do such things as play Schubert or Haydn masses during services.  Elsewhere, it was the organ and maybe a choir and, please, nothing fun or the least bit happy.... 

'Telescoping, as a principal, is pretty cool. Where I referred above to Mozart's complaints to Martini, his telescoping in the little string of Missa brevis' that he composed in the mid 1770's was his way of getting around the time constraints. However, that practice goes back decades. It is interesting to listen to, especially since, as you mention, it is hard to understand what they're saying except with practiced ear. In fact, that's another of the Roman tenets for sacred music; words must be clearly intelligible. Oops, guess the guys missed that one, too.

As the old cliche goes, "laws are meant to be broken," which if you believe it means anarchy when taken to extremes, but in moderation maybe it works rather well at times.

Oh, and if you can understand the words of the Gloria in the "Little Organ," well, more power to you.  Even though I know the words by this time, in this case (and some others as well) it all sounds like musical oatmeal to me.  I have trouble far too often understanding singers at all, even without competing words sung by others.  I seem to be unusually sensitive to good diction, far more so than many of my friends; there are times when I hear a mumble-singer do a song the words of which I not only know, but have sung myself; and I still can't understand!  (Which in the latter case means that, while I know what the word actually is, that's not what I hear.  Some sort of clogged sonic discriminator in my eardrum, I guess.) 

[Lilas Pastia]

Great posts guys, very informative stuff indeed. The hilariously compressed Gloria in Haydn's Little Organ Mass has been duly noted by scholars. Imo it's particularly ironic considering Haydn's extraordinarily extended setting of the Gloria in his first Missa Cellensis (sometimes referred to as the St-Cecilia Mass), where it lasts over 30 minutes - almost double the length of the Credo in Beethoven's Missa Solemnis.  Every single section is given the full treatment - florid arias, fugues etc.

I note in particular that my very favourite line of any Haydn mass  happens to be the words Schubert omitted in ALL his masses: the tenor solo at 'Unam sanctam catholicam, apostolical ecclesiam' in the Missa Cellensis . There is so much spring, bounce, airiness here that it makes me smile every time - esp. in the Gerhard Wilhelm version, where the conductor allows Kurt Equiluz time to enounce and relish the words. Could it be that Schubert knew the work and couldn't think of matching it? Just joking of course, but I find the coincidence amusing.

[Gurn Blanston]

And we have just uncovered another in life's endless examples of practice not always adhering to the letter of the law.  Obviously the Austrian churches did not go out of their way to create a blazing rift with Rome, but neither did they concern themselves about a little local variation here and there.  Ultimately, if my memory is even close to the facts, in c.1905 the Pope issued a strong edict severely restricting all aspects of acceptable music in the churches:  Piety and solemnity were the watchwords, and virtually all else was taboo.  But the edict, by virtue of pressure from the appropriate cardinals and bishops, included a specific dispensation for the celebration of mass in Austria and related lands (including I think south Germany).  And so from that point until the edict was overturned some generations later by a more liberal Pope, Austrian churches were the only ones allowed to do such things as play Schubert or Haydn masses during services.  Elsewhere, it was the organ and maybe a choir and, please, nothing fun or the least bit happy.... 

Ah yes, the famous "Motu Proprio" of Pius X. The edict and special dispensation that you mention for Austria et al dates back further, to the early 19th century. I ran across it in my research and am still kicking my own butt for not writing down where I saw it, because I can't find it again. However, in the course of things, I decided to ask someone who was there, so to speak. I have a very dear friend who was born and raised in a suburb of Augsburg, within easy distance of Salzburg. This was in the 1920's that we are talking about here. She had been telling me how her mother used to 'shop' for which church to go to every Sunday, and I wanted to know more about the process. The answer was revealing, not only about her mother but also about the importance attached to the music and related aspects of the mass for these people of southern Bavaria, who were continuing a tradition of centuries;

"Back to your question and Augsburg: The local newspaper published every Friday the events in all of the churches, down to names of the presiding clergyman of the Masses. That gave Mama the chance to avoid the Fire and Brimstone, but also to hear some very good Bach, Haydn, and all the others who ever wrote church choir stuff. I don't know about the papal actions you mentioned; evidently not too many churches obeyed, no lack of great music and singing that I noticed. In fact I remember the great musical offerings in Fürth, Nürnberg, and especially in Salzburg."

As the old cliche goes, "laws are meant to be broken," which if you believe it means anarchy when taken to extremes, but in moderation maybe it works rather well at times.

Oh, and if you can understand the words of the Gloria in the "Little Organ," well, more power to you.  Even though I know the words by this time, in this case (and some others as well) it all sounds like musical oatmeal to me.  I have trouble far too often understanding singers at all, even without competing words sung by others.  I seem to be unusually sensitive to good diction, far more so than many of my friends; there are times when I hear a mumble-singer do a song the words of which I not only know, but have sung myself; and I still can't understand!  (Which in the latter case means that, while I know what the word actually is, that's not what I hear.  Some sort of clogged sonic discriminator in my eardrum, I guess.)

Sad to say, I have all I can do to follow an opera even with a libretto in my hand! Same with church music, even though for 8 years I played an integral part in celebrating it (back in the pre-Vatican II days, altar boys had a great list of Latin responses to learn). My solution to all this is to treat them like I used to do Bob Dylan; just sit back and concentrate on the rhythm and tone and let the words just slide on by.   0:)

[Uncle Connie]

Great posts guys, very informative stuff indeed. The hilariously compressed Gloria in Haydn's Little Organ Mass has been duly noted by scholars. Imo it's particularly ironic considering Haydn's extraordinarily extended setting of the Gloria in his first Missa Cellensis (sometimes referred to as the St-Cecilia Mass), where it lasts over 30 minutes - almost double the length of the Credo in Beethoven's Missa Solemnis.  Every single section is given the full treatment - florid arias, fugues etc.

I note in particular that my very favourite line of any Haydn mass  happens to be the words Schubert omitted in ALL his masses: the tenor solo at 'Unam sanctam catholicam, apostolical ecclesiam' in the Missa Cellensis . There is so much spring, bounce, airiness here that it makes me smile every time - esp. in the Gerhard Wilhelm version, where the conductor allows Kurt Equiluz time to enounce and relish the words. Could it be that Schubert knew the work and couldn't think of matching it? Just joking of course, but I find the coincidence amusing.

Really good point, Andre - of course one of those masses was a Solemnis and the other a Brevis which makes some difference right there (in a Solemnis, for instance, one never telescoped text anywhere), but still - a time differential of 30 to 1 is absurd!  If I'm not mistaken the only longer Gloria in a mass setting than Haydn's is in Bach's b minor, and I am unaware of any shorter ones than Haydn's little one. 

Point of (minor) interest:  I've mentioned before that in 1795 Haydn's brother Michael wanted to use the Little Organ in Salzburg, but couldn't as it stood because Salzburg didn't allow telescoping.  So he rewrote the Gloria, expanding it ("a little bit extended," as he put it) to make all the words clear.  But even at that it only got him to three and a half minutes. 

On the versions of the Cellensis:  Overall, of the older (non-"period") performances I tend to prefer Jochum to Wilhelm, but not in the tenor section you refer to:  In fact, not in the tenor parts anywhere in the mass.  Equiluz has it all over Richard Holm - I strongly suspect that the latter was just a bit over the hill by this time; at least it sounds like he's having some trouble reaching notes that once he would have sailed to.  On the other hand, if there is a better soprano soloist than Maria Stader, and even more so a bass one than Josef Greindl (both from the Jochum disc), I don't know of them.  [Needless to say, I collect Cellenses - I wonder if that actually is the plural of Cellensis?, or if there even is one at all? - and to my knowledge I have every one ever made except the very first, by the Haydn Society in 1950, which I have never been able to find even 50 years ago when I really did mount a search through rare record dealers.  No luck.  Too bad, acrid sound or no, because with Walter Berry singing bass I suspect I'd be in heaven.]

[Gurn Blanston]

Great posts guys, very informative stuff indeed. The hilariously compressed Gloria in Haydn's Little Organ Mass has been duly noted by scholars. Imo it's particularly ironic considering Haydn's extraordinarily extended setting of the Gloria in his first Missa Cellensis (sometimes referred to as the St-Cecilia Mass), where it lasts over 30 minutes - almost double the length of the Credo in Beethoven's Missa Solemnis.  Every single section is given the full treatment - florid arias, fugues etc.

I note in particular that my very favourite line of any Haydn mass  happens to be the words Schubert omitted in ALL his masses: the tenor solo at 'Unam sanctam catholicam, apostolical ecclesiam' in the Missa Cellensis . There is so much spring, bounce, airiness here that it makes me smile every time - esp. in the Gerhard Wilhelm version, where the conductor allows Kurt Equiluz time to enounce and relish the words. Could it be that Schubert knew the work and couldn't think of matching it? Just joking of course, but I find the coincidence amusing.

I have noticed that every mass is unique and individual in what is chosen for emphasis and what is allowed to pass by this time. Oddly enough, Motu Proprio covered this aspect too;



What this is saying to me is that the different parts have to be so uniquely interwoven that they will only work with each other. I thought this was interesting.  Mozart's 'Credo Mass' (K 257) is another example of this, with its unique repetition of the word 'credo' until it takes on a life off its own.

[Leo K.]

Like Gurn, I just sit back and let the words be as they will, without concern of what they mean. As a Catholic, I know the jist of what is going on, and the basic structure of a mass, enough to enjoy what is going on, kind of like knowing what to expect with sonata form.

This is a great discussion! I’m racking my brain to add illumination, but alas, I have the darndest time trying to elucidate my thoughts.

I’m listening to J. Haydn’s “Theresienmesse” (Bruno Weil) and enjoying it as if hearing it for the first time. I dearly love the 18th century mass. I wonder why?

[Gurn Blanston]

Like Gurn, I just sit back and let the words be as they will, without concern of what they mean. As a Catholic, I know the jist of what is going on, and the basic structure of a mass, enough to enjoy what is going on, kind of like knowing what to expect with sonata form.

This is a great discussion! I'm racking my brain to add illumination, but alas, I have the darndest time trying to elucidate my thoughts.

I'm listening to J. Haydn's "Theresienmesse" (Bruno Weil) and enjoying it as if hearing it for the first time. I dearly love the 18th century mass. I wonder why?

Leo,
It IS difficult to add, my idea is that it is because it is such a large topic (we are talking about the entire heart of Classical Music here, I think) that one has a challenge coming to grips with any particular starting point. Way back before I started the thread, I realized that the only way I could do it was by delimiting a particular chunk and trying to ignore the rest for now, although clearly that is its own challenge.

IMO, you love it, as do I, because the underlying philosophy of that period was to create beauty (to praise God, for their part), and the beauty remains despite any other philosophical considerations today.

I am listening (once again) to The King's Consort playing Michael Haydn's Requiem in c for Sigismundo. What a wonderful (and sadly unknown) piece of work!   

[Uncle Connie]

Ah yes, the famous "Motu Proprio" of Pius X. The edict and special dispensation that you mention for Austria et al dates back further, to the early 19th century. I ran across it in my research and am still kicking my own butt for not writing down where I saw it, because I can't find it again. However, in the course of things, I decided to ask someone who was there, so to speak. I have a very dear friend who was born and raised in a suburb of Augsburg, within easy distance of Salzburg. This was in the 1920's that we are talking about here. She had been telling me how her mother used to 'shop' for which church to go to every Sunday, and I wanted to know more about the process. The answer was revealing, not only about her mother but also about the importance attached to the music and related aspects of the mass for these people of southern Bavaria, who were continuing a tradition of centuries;

"Back to your question and Augsburg: The local newspaper published every Friday the events in all of the churches, down to names of the presiding clergyman of the Masses. That gave Mama the chance to avoid the Fire and Brimstone, but also to hear some very good Bach, Haydn, and all the others who ever wrote church choir stuff. I don't know about the papal actions you mentioned; evidently not too many churches obeyed, no lack of great music and singing that I noticed. In fact I remember the great musical offerings in Fürth, Nürnberg, and especially in Salzburg."

I wouldn't be in the least surprised to learn that they still do this today in one form or another.  I was a tourist there in May - spending a bit of time in Salzburg, Innsbruck and Vienna - and although I saw no newspaper notices, I did see posters tacked up all over the place announcing church services and music for the coming Sunday.  In Innsbruck it was Sunday, and if I'd been paying more attention to music and less to touristy things, I could have tiptoed away from the tour group and gone to hear the Mass Number Nine in D Major by the obscurity Wenzel Horak, 1800-1871, for whom I find no listings in any recording database anywhere, so I seem to have missed out on a real coup.  In Salzburg the notices were of course mostly for Mozart, except at St.Peter's where they were doing some Michael Haydn smaller things, and the cathedral itself was doing a Requiem by one Luigi Gatti (1740-1817), but as I was there on Tuesday and Wednesday, oh well.... well, I'm off the track.  My point is that in all the public parks, train stations, etc., there are notice boards for all manner of musical performances (and drama, dance, art shows, etc.) including listings of what music is being done at what church on what date/time.  Same with south Germany (Munich and Karlsruhe were where I saw them) and even in the big bus/train station and park in Luzern, Switzerland - although their offerings were seemingly sparse, perhaps they are less cultured?  (I seriously doubt that.)  [However, no mention anywhere of the name of any priest for sermon-brimstone purposes.  Not on these public boards, at least.]

[Uncle Connie]

Like Gurn, I just sit back and let the words be as they will, without concern of what they mean.

It occurs to me that I probably have a different perspective than many others on the matter of intelligible words, because I was in fact a singer in another life (meaning, when I wasn't yet too old) and clear diction and emphasis on word meanings were part of the training.  And more than just my teachers hammering it in, once I got good enough to think about such things as a Lieder recital, I got hooked on Schubert and naturally adopted Fischer-Dieskau's book as my personal 'bible,' and boy!, does he pound the diction-and-word-sense mantras home with a nail-studded hammer!  And so now, even though I don't do it myself any longer, I still sit back and criticize others who mumble or slur or garble, and think how much better it would be if I knew what they were singing, and even more if I had the sense that they knew what they were singing.  Ask any of my friends just how big a pompous ass I can be on this topic.... 

[Gurn Blanston]

It occurs to me that I probably have a different perspective than many others on the matter of intelligible words, because I was in fact a singer in another life (meaning, when I wasn't yet too old) and clear diction and emphasis on word meanings were part of the training.  And more than just my teachers hammering it in, once I got good enough to think about such things as a Lieder recital, I got hooked on Schubert and naturally adopted Fischer-Dieskau's book as my personal 'bible,' and boy!, does he pound the diction-and-word-sense mantras home with a nail-studded hammer!  And so now, even though I don't do it myself any longer, I still sit back and criticize others who mumble or slur or garble, and think how much better it would be if I knew what they were singing, and even more if I had the sense that they knew what they were singing.  Ask any of my friends just how big a pompous ass I can be on this topic....

I see your point completely, Conrad. But OTOH, I already know all the words and what they mean (as I know you do too), plus I have pathological hearing defects, so I am forced to content myself with that.   I'm not happy about it, just pragmatic. Many times I have found out that what I thought was fuzzy singing was really fuzzy hearing on my part!    So I edge around that topic. Glad you don't though, since someone has to be the watchdog.

[Lilas Pastia]

Like Gurn, I just sit back and let the words be as they will, without concern of what they mean. As a Catholic, I know the jist of what is going on, and the basic structure of a mass, enough to enjoy what is going on, kind of like knowing what to expect with sonata form.

My thoughts, almost exactly. Knowing "what to expect" is part of the pleasure a known structure or text gives me. As if I'm instantly at an upper level of knowledge and appreciation, where I can savour nuances, fineness of musicality from both composer and interpreters.

[Lilas Pastia]

Gurn, there's one aspect of performing masses of that place and era that you haven't covered. I'm referring to the vexatious question of the proper latin pronunciation:alla tedesca or all'italiana ? The logical way would seem to be the german way (Aggnus Dei, kvi tollis peccata mundi). I have reservations about equating austrian and german in that regard. Austrians are Germany's southerners and share a border with Italy, on top of the obvious political interconnections within the Habsburg Empire. Could your 'dear friend'    tell us a thing or two on the subject? I'm really curious. Even though she hails from Augsburg, not Salzburg, I'll take her advice on the matter very seriously

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, there's one aspect of performing masses of that place and era that you haven't covered. I'm referring to the vexatious question of the proper latin pronunciation:alla tedesca or all'italiana ? The logical way would seem to be the german way (Aggnus Dei, kvi tollis peccata mundi). I have reservations about equating austrian and german in that regard. Austrians are Germany's southerners and share a border with Italy, on top of the obvious political interconnections within the Habsburg Empire. Could your 'dear friend'    tell us a thing or two on the subject? I'm really curious. Even though she hails from Augsburg, not Salzburg, I'll take her advice on the matter very seriously

'dré,
Hoy, I had quite forgotten that debate, long ago and at a time when my interest was not as high. But yes, it is interesting to know. I will ask my friend, although I suspect she will say that she doesn't hear it as different. It is, after all, Latin the way she learned it in school. Sort of like the valedictorian at the local Texas high school, whose speech I heard when I went to a friend's son's graduation. As a 3 years German scholar, he couldn't help but close with "Owf wiedersehen, y'all"...

[Leo K.]

IMO, you love it, as do I, because the underlying philosophy of that period was to create beauty (to praise God, for their part), and the beauty remains despite any other philosophical considerations today.

Yes, I would have to say your are right! 

I am listening (once again) to The King's Consort playing Michael Haydn's Requiem in c for Sigismundo. What a wonderful (and sadly unknown) piece of work!   

Me too, and I prefer the King's Consort recording over Helmuth Rilling's account. What a stunning requiem! Fans of Mozart's Requiem should hear this!

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes, I would have to say your are right! 

Me too, and I prefer the King's Consort recording over Helmuth Rilling's account. What a stunning requiem! Fans of Mozart's Requiem should hear this!

Ah, we are both aesthetes then.

I don't have the Rilling (well, I wouldn't, would I?) but I have no urge at all to 'upgrade' the King version. And yes, it isn't hard to see where Mozart found a role model 20 years down the line.