The Creed in the Liturgy?

I of course had quite a different opinion about the matter sometime recently--this morning, I think, when hearing the Creed in its best context--arguable, perhaps, especially if one prefers Bach's--a Mozart mass--in this case, "The Coronation" (of the Virgin), K.? And then I recalled that the spoken mass only arose in the Church's history in what? the 8th Century??? Good question. My memory fails me--culpably. Of course in the Ancient period--even the "Christian Origins" one, I suppose, the "singing" would have been whatever sort of "chant" or "Sprechstimme" in or with which prayer presumably was made, as with the Psalms, the earliest Jewish liturgy, the Carmina of Catullus or Horace, the Iliad or Odyssey, the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita, the Shammaneh, etc., etc. The point is, the Creed originally had the quality of a poem or hymn--and, presumably in its being uttered, something of musicality or sonorousness, quite apart from whatever semantic freight it bore. As spoken only, it acquired more the character of prose--and eventually--in the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the late 19th Century (the age of Charles Hodge of PTS and later Fundamentalism) of literal signification--as it were, as an historical proposition. I wonder if such an idea was strictly conceivable or entertained until one of those periods. I have always thought that if said in Prayer Book English or Tridentine Latin (as opposed to Rite II, e.g.), it still has more a poetic, hymnic character--"as a piece of tradition that should be read" as historic, not historically, if I may be so bold. (Als Geschichte, nicht als Historie.) As tradition, perhaps even as historical theology, but not as systematic or philosophical. And in that way I THINK IT SHOULD ALWAYS CONTINUE TO BE SAID IN THE CHURCH IN THE EUCHARISTIC LITURGY. If Mozart included it, so should we. So wird es gesprochen worden! Sed contra.