If church authorities regarded Palestrina's masses as models of church music for centuries, why are they so seldom performed today? Think about how worship styles have changed since the Renaissance Period. They have changed a whole lot, believe me! During the Renaissance Period, musicians had to fight to harmonize and/or play musical instruments with church music. You may write about the work of Palestrina, but this is not simply a biography of him. Please remember to answer the actual questionIf church authorities regarded Palestrina's masses as models of church music for centuries, why are they so seldom performed today? (Think carefully about how worship and styles of worship have changed in the past several hundred yearseven the past 25-30 years). Without Palestrina fighting for it back during the Renaissance Period, many churches would not be able to use instruments during their services even today.

An outstanding Italian composer of the 16th century, an unsurpassed master of choral polyphony Palestrina, was one of the largest figures in music of the late Renaissance. In his work, which was extremely extensive both in volume and in the richness of genres, the art of choral polyphony, which developed over several centuries, reached its highest perfection. In his vast legacy, there are about 105 mass. When creating Mass, Palestrina was guided primarily by the four- and five-voice.

Today, even in the same city, there can be parishes that are more inclined to tradition, where organ and music of the centuries before last sound, and parishes that prefer modern music, where the guitar and tambourines sound. However, in some parishes, some kind of balance is maintained: something best from the heritage, along with chants are performed, in which the whole community participates.

Explanation:

ghana achieved independence peacefully, while algeria gained independence through an armed struggle.

since most of current immigration into the u.s., both legal and illegal, is coming from latin america. it would be very difficult to imagine or rationalize a country my fellow citizens are trying desperately to flee into, would pose a threat to my prosperity or freedom. since the u.s. has a long history of intervention, but no record of permanent occupation, i would not feel oppression is the main objective.  

the largest free trade nation, along with the largest gdp in the world wanting to expand it's economic policy on us, and including us, could only be positive. the u.s. government has no interest in, or way of simply forcing american culture on us. and has no track record of it. other nations that adopted american social culture, or "americanization" did so voluntarily, mainly through the choice of allowing american businesses and u.s. citizens to come into their nations, as free operatives.