The Recovering Choir Director

Additional lay observations upon further reflection (not an expert, just a witness):

• The original post should have been titled “A hierarchy of instruments” instead of timbres. More anon.
• The instrumental hierarchy should be modified to exclude the human voice. As speech is comprised of atonal timbres (ch, f, h, k, p, s, t, whispers, and in some African languages, clicks) and tonal timbres, the human voice used in speech and song runs the gamut of the timbral spectrum and in that way transcends it.
• The timbral spectrum perhaps should have tonal timbre at one end and atonal timbre at the other, recognizing that most tonal sounds contain some degree of atonality. For example: sing this sentence on a single tone, then speak it, then whisper it. The first employs the focused tonal qualities of the voice, the second employs unfocused tonality, and the last employs very little tonality, if any.
• Winds, brass and strings all can played percussively (staccato). Played such, their timbre would approach tuned percussion in the instrumental hierarchy. And yet, all instruments fall short of the human voice in that words are lost.
• The Western Church, I believe, had an instrumental hierarchy that cited specific instruments before Vatican II. Regardless of how closely it was followed, the human voice was still the exalted instrument for obvious reasons.
• Bernard Brandt writes (my emphasis added): “I suggest, however, that a different rationale would give primacy to the human voice, not because of the purity of the tone of the instrument, but because it is the only one which can praise God in both word and song.”
• It would be an interesting exercise to attempt to notate everyday speech, whether it be your own voice or someone else’s. Have certain syllabic chant patterns, like formulas for readings, originated from such a practice?

I’m not particularly interested in getting into a scientifically detailed discussion/justification for approving certain instruments in favor of others for the liturgy, although you may want to continue it here. (I’m sure my usage of terms in this post probably muddles the situation even more—corrections welcome.) I suspect that the alternative rationale suggested by Mr. Brandt transcends any such discussion.