top of page

Hermann Schroeder on Liturgical Music in the 20th Century

The organ of the Trier Cathedral in Trier, Germany. The organ played by Hermann Schroeder.

Schroeder on Liturgical Music in the 20th Century

The accessibility of Schroder’s choral music is probably in part due to Schroeder’s concern with liturgical music reform. Like Palestrina centuries before, Schroeder was looking for a repertoire of quality music that would serve the function of Christian worship without undue excess. Schroeder expresses what he believes to be the measure by which one assess ecclesiastical music in his essay, Zur Katholischen Musik Der Gegenwart:


So haben wir zwei Maßstäbe, nach denen liturgische Musik zu verwerten ist: nach ihrer liturgischen Eignung und nach ihrem künstlerischen Wert in der Verbindung von Wort (geheiligtem Wort) und Ton, wobei das musikalische Handwerk wie bei jeder Musik selbstverständliche Voraussetzung ist.


“So we have two standards by which liturgical music’s functional is to be measured: according to its liturgical suitability and according to its artistic value in its joining of word (hallowed word) and sound, in which musical craft, as in any music, is a self-evident presupposition.” (trans. by Jordan Key)


For Schroeder, ecclesiastical music should not only be functional to its liturgical use, but also of compositional merit in its marriage of music and text. Furthermore, due to its function, liturgical music must be accessible to a wide variety of musical skill levels and speak to the lineage of Christian liturgical music.


However, just like any composer concerned with liturgical music before him (Palestrina and Bach being two good examples), Schroeder was also concerned with the insertion of his own voice into this lineage. The concern that faces any composer in this situation is how their musical voice can hold its integrity under the scrutiny of functionality, wide accessibility, and stylistic synthesis. Schroeder even addressed this concern in the same essay on contemporary catholic music cited above. He wrote,

Der Wille zur Objektivität bedeutet aber nicht Aufgabe einer persönlichen Aussage, sondern Ein- und Unterordnung in den liturgischen Dienst. Für den schöpferischen Künstler bedeutet das weder Fessel noch Einengung, sondern Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit im höchsten Dienst, wobei sein persönliches Dekorum seine Ausstrahlung ist im Sinne der Augustinischen Definition der Kunst als ‚splendor veritatis'.


“The desire of objectivity [in liturgical music] does not mean the abandonment of a personal statement, but coordination and subordination [of the personal statement] with and to the liturgical service. For the creative artist stands for that which is neither bound nor chained, but rather the development of selfhood [or personhood] in the highest service, in which their individual decorum and charisma is in the sense of Augustine's definition of art as, ‘splendor veritatis' (‘splendor of truth’).” (trans. by Jordan Key)

Of course Schroeder has plenty of outlets to develop and express his own personalized musical voice outside of specifically liturgical music. Thus, such a self-subordinating declaration might be easier for him to make than one not availed of such non-functional resources (e.g. solo concerts, orchestral performances, and chamber recitals). Schroeder’s point, however, is true. Despite being subservient to these same restrictions as listed above, composers like Bach and Palestrina were able to carve out a stylistic niche for themselves in their work for the Church, writing masterful and quality music that both spoke to an ecclesiastical heritage and served its liturgical function. While they perhaps could not find the broadest forms of expression in Masses, motets, and cantatas, Palestrina and Bach’s sacred music hardly bespeaks banality. In fact, the Masses of Palestrina and the cantatas of Bach are works that are highly functional, stylistically accessible (for their time and even today), and technically manageable (granted some pieces are naturally more challenging than others).


Schroeder’s above quotation is reminiscent of (and probably intentionally so) the sentiments of Bach when he famously wrote that “the aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul.” Like Schroeder’s, this remark is clearly two parted: music serves God and music serves the soul (the individual being). Music does not have to limit itself to one or the other necessarily. There is place for the “and” between God and the soul. Thus, according to Bach there is a place for personal expression in the service of God via functional music, but as Schroeder adds (though Bach probably thought this to be without saying), the music must demonstrate masterful musical craftsmanship in equal measure to its ability to function. It cannot function well if it has not first been well-composed.


A further question Schroeder has to face, which Bach perhaps never had to confront was the issue of musical progress. Bach and Schroeder are both relatively conservative composers during their time, however, by the time of Schroeder, Bach’s music is well entrenched in the liturgy of the German church, making it a paradigm of excellence. Schroeder, in writing music that speaks with his own 20th century voice, was necessarily writing music that was progressive, at least in relation to Bach, Mozart, Haydn, and Brahms. While his music is tame compared to contemporaries like Schoenberg, Messiaen, and Stravinsky, Schroeder’s music was not “classical.”