What does the word duchovní[1] mean to each of us? Does it alert us to the presence of God? Or, on the contrary, can it be perceived as an indication of the spirituality? in the sense of spirituality? And can we also perceive spirituality through the lens of religion and piety? And what are the boundaries of the genre of sacred music – do they have a fixed definition?

The issue of defining the term sacred is still a highly debated question even within the artistic sphere. For we are moving here on the borderline between two opposites – the ecclesiastical based on religious usage and the inner – personal, which may not have a direct religious basis. In music in particular, we encounter the confusion of several terms (e.g. ecclesiastical music,[2] church music),[3] where the adjective duchovní is still not sufficiently convincingly defined. Nevertheless, in the field of terminology, there is a tendency to define this term in the form of dictionary entries. For example, the musicologist Jiří Fukač in Slovník české hudební kultury explains the term duchovní (in English sacred) as an alternative to the term ecclesiastical. He further adds that this term is associated with spirituality, but also with musical expressions having a religious character/content.[4] Also worth mentioning is Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht's (1919–1999) polemic Duchovní hudba: co to je? from his book Hudba a krásno. The author explains this expression as "[...] music as such, in which the relationship to God is formed in a special act of relating."[5] But even in Eggebrecht's interpretation there are some loopholes giving room for a second view and understanding of what the label duchovní can mean for a person. He writes that spirituality is connected to our conception, that is, our own experience and perception of music, and the decision whether to label music (or a particular piece of music) as duchovní (sacred od spiritual) is purely up to the individual.[6] In his reflections, composer and music theorist Slavomír Hořínka (*1980) also polemicises over term duchovní hudba with regard to its English equivalents. Here, however, he encounters a certain ambiguity and overuse of the term, which is connected with its universality (primarily) in the Czech language. And even English, where duchovní hudba is often translated as spiritual music, does not offer a suitable terminological variant, since we more often interpret it as music intended for meditation. In the text Co ucho neslyšelo... Hořínka writes much more often about the so-called spiritual dimension of music.[7] Like Eggebrecht, he does not see it only in extra-musical meanings and symbols, but points to the aspect of perceiving, or rather listening to music, as a faculty through which we can be closer to God. He captures the reflection by paraphrasing a quote from Master Eckhart: "[...] the ear with which we hear God is the same ear with which God hears us."[8]

Whether each of us sees in the word duchovní our relationship to God, or sees in it a space for our own inner spirituality not necessarily rooted in Christian faith, I am convinced that the term resonates with us.

 

What about sacred music from the Church's point of view?

Of interest and importance to us is the position of the Roman Catholic Church, which in the 20th century also became intensely concerned with the place of music in the liturgy – for example with the publication of the document Motu proprio Tra le Sollecitudini by Pope Pius X in 1903.[9]  In this case, we are not only talking about sacred music, but about its narrower subcategory – liturgical music – strongly circumscribed by the Church's service and its rules. This is nowadays governed by the so-called guidelines of post-conciliar renewal,[10] which are contained in the instruction Musicam sacram established by the Council for the Implementation of the Liturgical Constitution in 1967.[11] Naturally, demands have been made, especially with regard to the handling of liturgical texts and language (nowadays mainly in the mother tongue), influencing, for example, the resulting musical form or instrumentation.

 

In a broader context, the relationship between music and ritual is dealt with in his study by Lubomír Tyllner, who interprets the term ritual as "...a repeatedly applied way of acting and behaving according to traditionally established rules."[12] He sees musical expressions (and music in general) as an active part of the structure of rituals, very often contributing to the integration of community members. In the realm of faith and religion, Tyllner then identifies music as a privileged part of their rituals. However, he does not overlook the fact that these processes also undergo transformations (small or large) that can mark their gradual transformation or, in the worst case, their demise.[13] Here, then, arises another important thematic area concerning contemporary classical music.[14] The transformation of the liturgy and its requirements has also caused a transformation of the musical language and the contemporary work of composers in recent decades. The stumbling block is the schism, or rather the question of the balance between the ministerial – liturgical function of music as determined by the Church and the artistic intention of the composer. Thus, in many parishes, music of a simpler, hymn-like character (for which I personally use the term sacra pop)[15] is coming to the fore, meeting the requirements of the liturgy, which by its accessibility is friendly to amateur singers and musicians working in parish scholae.[16] Of course, this type of song is also listener-friendly. On the other hand, we can speak of a certain crisis in terms of sacred/liturgical contemporary music. The popularity of sacra pop in recent years has been overwhelming the artificial contemporary music in churches, and with it the associated interest and demand for performing, albeit often more interpretively demanding, but all the more musically valuable works. It should be noted, however, that these waves (tendencies) are also common in historical perspective – especially where it was desirable to draw the laity into the liturgical service.  It is understandable that when we encounter a performance of a classical work in the context of liturgy, it will be of compositions from earlier periods or from among the best-known and most established 20th century composers in the Czech Republic. The equation is simple: if composers, especially of the younger generation, are not given the opportunity and impetus to compose and participate in new sacred or directly liturgical repertoire, neither will ensembles have the urge to seek out and perform this repertoire. All this is also related to the lack of listening experience of society (especially of the community of believers themselves), the consequences of which are a lack of understanding of new music, the absence of its need in worship, and, last but not least, the perception of the production of contemporary compositions as inappropriate, unnatural for church service. What comes through in this reflection is that the impetus must come from outside. For a long time, Jednota na zvelebení církevní hudby na Moravě Musica sacra (the Musica Sacra Association for the Enhancement of Church Music in Moravia) has been pointing to this situation and responding with its projects, for example, by regularly organising courses for church musicians and organists, as well as a composers' showcase with competition parameters.[17] Similar activity is also recorded in the Prague Society for Sacred Music.[18]

 

Emmert's solutions – approaches in sacred and liturgical creation

And it is the composers' competition under the auspices of the Musica Sacra that brings us to the personality of the Brno composer and long-time participant in the Forfest festival, František Gregor Emmert (1940–2015). As part of my work,[19] I have been studying the composer's six-part cycle of Mass propers from the late 20th century (1998–1999 to be precise), and thus had the opportunity to look deeper into the composer's scores. In the first of the two categories mentioned above, we regularly encounter in the composer's works titles or subtitles, such as biblical quotations or references to biblical characters and their stories, clearly indicating the sacred dimension of the music. In this context, it is worth noting the strong presence of symphonic, choral and chamber works, many of which were written at the instigation of the performers themselves.[20] This part of the composer's work, despite its sacred dimension, is strongly influenced by Emmert's aesthetic sensibility, and it is therefore not surprising that in most of them the artistic function prevails over the ministerial function – or even does not contain this function at all, leaving the listener room for individual experience and the search for his own spiritual dimension. Understandably, this is also due to the absence of liturgical texts tied to church rites or because of the freedom to work with them. Therefore, many of these works are characterized, in purely musical terms, by both listening and performance difficulty, conditioned mostly by a rather expressive, rhythmically structured and in many cases dissonant texture with virtuoso parts. This branch of Emmert's work, through its distinctive musical character and performance demands, is not primarily a type of music for church service.

 

However, I see a different situation in the author's liturgical work, which has its formal and functional rules determined by church rites. Despite the observance of the guidelines relating to the setting of texts, the composer's compositional approach in this area cannot ignore the work's appreciable artistic value. František Emmert, like the aforementioned Czech composers of liturgical music, found that balance between the ministerial function of music required by the individual rites and his own aesthetic attitude, the artistic authorial expression, which we include in the artistic – aesthetic function. This applies above all to the masses – the music of the Mass ordinaries in both Czech and Latin, but also to the two cycles of proprium missae.

The two aforementioned proprial cycles deposited in the Department of the History of Music of the Moravian Museum as part of the composer's estate[21] are a fitting testament to the composer's rich melodic invention, combination of compositional techniques, and imaginative and colourful instrumentation. At the same time, František Emmert takes into account the potential performance conditions with regard to amateur musicians, and therefore does not make great demands on the ranges of the voices and the technical complexity of the instrumental parts, and honours the texts' predetermined formal schemes (antiphon with verses, responsorium, etc.). By not interfering with the individual verses and by preserving the schemes, the author respects the ministerial aspect (function) of each part, and on the basis of analytical insight it can be concluded that both cycles are directly written for the church service.

 

The older of these was written between 1986–1991 and is intended for the entire Church year, divided into three volumes – Antiphons I: Advent, Christmas and the three Marian feasts, Antiphons II: Lent and Easter, Antiphons III: the Ordinary Time. The latter is considerably more extensive compared to the younger composition of six complete works from the late 1990s, yet the individual parts (feasts and Sundays) contain only the setting of three proprial texts (the entrance antiphon, the chant before the Evangelium, the antiphon for communion). The cycles also differ from each other in their scoring. The propers for the whole church year from the late 1980s and early 1990s have instrumental variation (partly influenced by the liturgy), which, however, does not make great demands in terms of the instrumentation of the individual amateur ensembles. Firstly, the instrumentation includes commonly available instruments such as organ, flute, violin, cello, oboe or guitar. And secondly, František Emmert himself, during his lifetime, admitted his openness to changing the instrumentation to suit the performance possibilities of the performers.[22] This friendliness of the composer is undoubtedly, among other things, an awareness of a certain path within which the work has great potential to live and be performed regularly.[23]

The second – younger cycle contains the proprial texts of Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Vigil, the Feast of the Resurrection of the Lord and the Descent of the Holy Spirit. In terms of instrumentation, however, there is a more varied apparatus here, enriched by brass and woodwinds, percussion, melodic percussion, double bass, and even the soundtrack of birdsong from nature, in addition to chant and organ.[24] Here too, Emmert plays with the instrumentation, and so although the apparatus seems somewhat extensive, he does not use all the instruments at once; instead, he lets many of them ring out in both accompanying and solo functions across the cycle. We might conclude that where the composer submits himself to the liturgical texts, whether in terms of content, schematic or even metrical rhythm, he displays his distinctive compositional approach in the melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, and above all instrumental areas. In this way, the work does not lose its artistic function and value.

František Gregor Emmert proves in his liturgical work that it is possible to find ways that would connect the ritual, the service of the texts and the aesthetic/compositional intention of the author without losing quality in one or the other aspect. The imaginary border between sacred and liturgical music must be understood as the liturgical texts and the work with them. While in the genre of sacred music the authors can freely handle the verses (reparation, abridgement, insertion of other texts), in the field of works intended for church service they are a key element determining the form, partly the scope, and above all the content of the composition.

In Emmert's music, I see the above-mentioned principles – solutions as inspiration, one could say a guide to find in my compositional practice that harmony between the above-mentioned functions. However, I am still thinking on a theoretical level. The real proof of whether a composer's approaches work is, of course, the performance of the works – but especially the performance of the works in the context of a church service. There is no way of knowing whether a contemporary work works in a church service other than by including it.

 

 

[1] Since this is an English translation of the original Czech text, I am deliberately using the Czech term here. We will work with it within the text.

[2] FUKAČ, Jiří. Církevní hudba. In FUKAČ, Jiří – VYSLOUŽIL, Jiří – MACEK, Petr (eds.). Slovník české hudební kultury. 1. Ed. Praha: Editio Supraphon, 1997, p. 98–99.

[3] FUKAČ, Jiří. Chrámová hudba. In FUKAČ, Jiří – VYSLOUŽIL, Jiří – MACEK, Petr (eds.). Slovník české hudební kultury. 1. Ed. Praha: Editio Supraphon, 1997, p. 365.

[4] FUKAČ, Jiří. Duchovní hudba. In FUKAČ, Jiří – VYSLOUŽIL, Jiří – MACEK, Petr (eds.). Slovník české hudební kultury. 1. Ed. Praha: Editio Supraphon, 1997, p. 170. 

[5] EGGEBRECHT, Hans Heinrich. Hudba a krásno. 1. Ed. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2001, p. 141–155. 

[6] Ibid.

[7] HOŘÍNKA, Slavomír. Co ucho neslyšelo... In Dingir: religionistický časopis o současné náboženské scéně. 2020, Vol. 23, no. 2, rep. cit., p. 47.  

[8] Ibid, p. 49.

[9] PIUS X. Motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini [online] 1903. [cit. 17. 4. 2024]. Available from: <https://adoremus.org/1903/11/tra-le-sollecitudini/>. 

[10] We are referring to the Second Vatican Council 1962–1965.

[11] Instrukce Musicam Sacram [online] 1967. [cit. 17. 4. 2024]. Available from: <https://www.liturgie.cz/temata/liturgicka-hudba/dokumenty-o-liturgicke-hudbe/musicam-sacram>. 

[12] TYLLNER, Lubomír. Hudba a rituál. In Český lid. 2016, vol. 103, no. 4, p. 636. Available from: <https://ceskylid.avcr.cz/cz/article/hudba-a-ritual>.

[13] Ibid, p. 636–637.

[14] Primarily we mean artifical work, but of course we also include non-artifical work.

[15] Přemysl Rut writes about this repertoire in an interesting way in his article Pop – musica sacra. Available here: <https://sdh.cz/sdh_htm/odjinud/prut1.htm>.

[16] The Germans have their own term for this contemporary repertoire, Sacropop, which comes from the German composer Peter Janssens. More, for example, here: BUBMANN, Peter. Populäre Kirchenmusik der Gegenwart. In Wolfgang Hochstein, Christoph Krummacher (Hrsg.): Geschichte der Kirchenmusik. Die zweite Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts und die Herausforderungen der Gegenwart.  Vol. 4. Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 2014, p. 292–343.

[17] www.musicasacra.cz  

[18] www.sdh.cz

[19] OPÁLKOVÁ, Tereza. Mešní propria Františka Gregora Emmerta v kontextu české duchovní tvorby 20. století. Bachelor thesis, thesis supervisor doc. Mgr. Vladimír Maňas, Ph.D. Brno: FF MU, 2023.

[20] Worthy of note are the violin and viola pieces written at the instigation of Milan Paľa, a long-time friend of František Gregor Emmert and a leading interpreter of the composer. A selection of this repertoire has also recently been recorded by Milan Pala, accompanied by his wife, pianist Katarína Paľa, on the new CD František Gregor Emmert: Musica da Violino I. (Pavlik records, 2023).

[21] The estate of František Emmert. Department of the History of Music of the Moravian Museum, unprocessed materiál. Other colleagues from the Institute of Musicology at the Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University, also worked with the estate of the Brno composer, and their research resulted in stimulating theses: ČOLOVIĆ, Sofija. František Gregor Emmert: Katalog orchestrálních skladeb. Master thesis, thesis supervisor PhDr. Martin Flašar, Ph.D. Brno: FF MU, 2016., ČTVERÁČKOVÁ, Petra. Kritická edice 25. symfonie Františka Gregora Emmerta. Bachelor thesis, thesis supervisor PhDr. Martin Flašar, Ph.D. Brno: FF MU, 2016., VOLFOVÁ, Dominika. Kritická edice Stabat Mater Františka Gregora Emmerta. Master thesis, thesis supervisor doc. PhDr. Martin Flašar, Ph.D. Brno: FF MU, 2022.

[22] Personal communication of Zdenka Vaculovičová, organiser of the Forfest festival [cit. 23. 4. 2024]. 

[23] The Vaculovičs have been working for a long time on computer transcriptions, recordings and regular performances of selected parts of this cycle (1986–1991).

[24] The estate of František Emmert. Department of the History of Music of the Moravian Museum, unprocessed materiál, rep. cit.