Ship of Fools: Eccles: Keeping church music contemporary

Thread: Eccles: Keeping church music contemporary Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001260

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
What I always wonder about the move to contemporary music "to attract young people," is how often they're prepared to change. Because the definition of "contemporary" changes nearly every day.
The answer to this is simply, ISTM, to keep introducing new songs on a regular (but not too frequent) basis. Bringing in a few new songs each year keeps things fresh and contemporary, hopefully without alienating those who retain a love of some older songs.

Following this comment in the 'A distressed Church member...' Purgatory thread, I thought I'd start a new discussion.

Twilight asked how often churches that want to attract young people should be prepared to change the music / songs they use. Putting aside the question of whether contemporary music really does attract young(er) people, I wonder if anyone would like to talk about this.

Thinking about how my church handles this issue, it seems simple. Monitor the songs you use so you aren't doing different ones each week and giving new folks the impossible task of learning dozens of new songs. But also encourage people to introduce new songs every now and then, maybe a couple a month, so the bank of songs used by the church is constantly being updated.

This way, there is no question of 'how often should we change our songs / music' because it's happening constantly. It seems simple to me; what have I missed?!

[ 10. January 2015, 16:47: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

IME you can keep things interesting enough without leaving the pages of the New English Hymnal. After all, there'll always be someone hearing Ye Who Own The Faith of Jesus for the first time [Smile]

I suppose non AC churches may have more of an issue though!

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

The same songs week after week, with a few new ones thrown in sometimes? That sounds awfully boring. I'd rather be singing something old but different every week.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
After all, there'll always be someone hearing Ye Who Own The Faith of Jesus for the first time

The old hymn books are full of fantastic hymns. Unfortunately, there are a lot of churches who only sing a small number of them. Keeping things "fresh" should be a concern for everyone- if I started visiting your church and discovered that you sang the same songs over and over again, I would probably start shopping around again, even if you stuck to the hymnbook, as I prefer.

You have to know how and when to challenge the congregation. Programming a bunch of unfamiliar hymns on Easter in place of the old chestnuts would probably be a bad start. Mixing in some of the more unusual or less frequently sung Easter hymns in the following weeks along with some more familiar pieces would probably be a better step.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
The same songs week after week, with a few new ones thrown in sometimes? That sounds awfully boring. I'd rather be singing something old but different every week.

Sorry, I meant having a bank of songs that the music group / leaders choose from (e.g. from a hymn book) while also introducing new songs (new to the church or newly written, perhaps newly written by members of the church!) at a rate of maybe 2-3 each month.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Unless your church happens to include gifted lyricists and composers, I'll pass on the songs written by members, thanks.

Introducing songs that are new to the congregation is no great difficulty, indeed we have nearly 500 years of hymns in English to choose from, as well as many excellent hymns that can easily be sung in Latin from earlier in the history of the church. Better yet, they have already been filtered and the dross lost in the mists of time. There are some excellent new songs, and I think introducing one or two recently written ones every couple of years will help ensure that the congregation isn't drowning in awful, unsingable pap whilst still allowing access to the best of the new.

"Now my tongue the mystery telling" is as new to the congregation here as "Oh, to see the dawn", and why should we consider the latter to be a more worthwhile introduction than the former just because it was written less than 10 years ago rather than several hundred?

[ 23. April 2014, 20:27: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

How old does a song have to be before it is no longer considered contemporary?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
"Now my tongue the mystery telling" is as new to the congregation here as "Oh, to see the dawn", and why should we consider the latter to be a more worthwhile introduction than the former just because it was written less than 10 years ago rather than several hundred?

Introducing songs that are new to a particular church but were actually written several hundred years ago is fine with me! That wasn't really what I wanted to talk about in this thread, though. I was more interested in the question of how often we should update our songs and whether it can be done in an organic, gradual way - evolution rather than revolution, I suppose.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

A previous (evangelical Anglican) church of mine got the balance right, I think - a good mixture of contemporary worship band type songs, and classic hymns (although Wesleyan and Revivalist hymns were usually as old as they got!). Current evangelical church that I sometimes attend unfortunately uses music that sits awkwardly between venerably old and contemporary - it just feels dated.

My (A-C) church uses the New English Hymnal but I am so unfamiliar with so many of the hymns (unless they use a tune I already know from another hymn, as sometimes happens) that it is a struggle for me to enjoy singing them. They also often use quite complex melodies and are not easy for less confident singers to get to grips with. I think one of the attractions of modern worship songs is how easy they are for the average untrained congregation member to sing - that's not something that should be dismissed. Congregational singing is important. A good compromise might be something like Taizé chants - ancient and historic and even sometimes in Latin, but simple tunes and easy to learn.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

In terms of being "contemporary" the actual choice of songs probably isn't the defining issue. You can produce new songs which fit traditional styles of worship, and old hymns can be done in a contemporary fashion.

I don't really know what the current style is that makes something "contemporary", though probably not the drums/keyboard/guitar line-up that wouldn't have been out of place in a 70s folk rock band that was common 20 years ago. As was said on the other thread, it's a moving target and the church is typically at least far enough behind popular culture to make us all look like parents of teenagers attempting to be hip.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

South Coast Kevin, what you propose about the music would probably work in most churches. I'm afraid that for churches to stay really, really contemporary (as in popular Christian rock that has been released very recently), it's going to look more like the church band performs and the congregation overwhelmingly listens. Only those places that have a majority of members who listen to Christian rock will have lots of active join-in (and even in con-evo circles, this seems to be rather uncommon).

What you're missing is that churches trying to attract young people through gimmicks are bound to fail. They work a tiny percent of the time, but they alienate the active membership a large part of the time.

It's tough to predict what music hypothetical people will like. There are dozens of "traditional" churches within thirty miles of here that have very active, young congregants. On the other hand, there are dozens of "contemporary" churches that have very active, older congregants.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

A lot of the so called contemporary songs and choruses that abound are not in fact contemporary as they arose in the 1970s (hardly contemporary!).I think we all go through stages in our lives when different types of music appeal. What I liked as a teenager is now an anathema to me and my tastes have become much more conservative and traditional.I don't go to church to be entertained. It is impossible to please all of the people all of the time which is why it is important to have a variety of services in a church, or else different groups can choose to go to selected churches that cater for their tastes. I'm afraid that if I walk into a church which is set up looking like a rock concert with drums etc, I rapidly retreat and look elsewhere.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
A lot of the so called contemporary songs and choruses that abound are not in fact contemporary as they arose in the 1970s (hardly contemporary!).I think we all go through stages in our lives when different types of music appeal. What I liked as a teenager is now an anathema to me and my tastes have become much more conservative and traditional.I don't go to church to be entertained. It is impossible to please all of the people all of the time which is why it is important to have a variety of services in a church, or else different groups can choose to go to selected churches that cater for their tastes. I'm afraid that if I walk into a church which is set up looking like a rock concert with drums etc, I rapidly retreat and look elsewhere.

I wouldn't have called anything written in the 70s contemporary - something written in the 90s at the very earliest.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

"Contemporary music" seems to have several aspects, many of which seem to be treated as central when they don't have to be.

1. The style is fairly simple tunes and words (except when the band confuses performance pieces with wide ranges and tricky rhythms for congregational sing-along pieces, a common mistake that leaves the band doing a solo and the congregation looking puzzled.)

2. The word "contemporary" seems tied to "music notation is wrong." In one band, I was writing or finding music notation for the songs and the music director snatched it out of my hands, saying looking at a song sheet is not singing from the heart, not worship.

3. The word "contemporary" seems tied to what I call one note theology. The song is cheerful. Or awed. Or pensive. There aren't enough words to touch on more than one of these. No telling the story of Jesus from birth to resurrection. No helping you see even though life can be really hard, God is with you, and those that have gone before kept going when it was hard, and so can you, and be assured even in darkest pain that it's worth it. (That takes several verses to do well; they'll tell you music isn't for teaching.)

4. I've been told "contemporary" is about constant change. I sang under a music director who scorned any "old" songs - "That song is 15 years old" he would object as if songs go bad in a short time like milk. A previous director changed songs every week, not repeating any within half a year, how could the congregation learn the songs?

Couldn't you have a verse chorus bridge repeat style with music notation available for all, with lyrics that say more than one thing, and with enough reuse for songs to become familiar friends?

I see a lot of bands doing "solos" simply because the congregation don't know the song and can't sing along. The band I'm in, both the last and the current director regularly say "I'll do this one solo because there is no time for the band to learn it" - if the band with a practice session can't learn it, surely the congregation hasn't a chance! Give me a songbook and I'll join in no matter what the style. Without one, I gradually slide out of the church because the constantly changing songs leave me unable to participate.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think one of the attractions of modern worship songs is how easy they are for the average untrained congregation member to sing - that's not something that should be dismissed. Congregational singing is important. A good compromise might be something like Taizé chants - ancient and historic and even sometimes in Latin, but simple tunes and easy to learn.

Yes, definitely, both to the musical simplicity of modern worship songs and to the use of Taize as an alternative.

I gather the transition from complex to more simple arrangements began to happen (at least in the UK) in the 1960s and 70s, and IMO it's an excellent thing; making it easier for non-musical people to quickly join in with the singing and lowering the bar in terms of the technical skill required to get involved in leading.

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
South Coast Kevin, what you propose about the music would probably work in most churches. I'm afraid that for churches to stay really, really contemporary (as in popular Christian rock that has been released very recently), it's going to look more like the church band performs and the congregation overwhelmingly listens. Only those places that have a majority of members who listen to Christian rock will have lots of active join-in (and even in con-evo circles, this seems to be rather uncommon).

This isn't my experience, Olaf, although I haven't ever been part of a church that has tried to make a big transition from older to more modern music. That point raised above about how easy many newer church songs are to learn is a key one - this means that learning the new songs doesn't usually take very long, and the congregation will (IME) quickly be joining in with songs that they've just been introduced to.

Another point regarding contemporary church music is that it's in similar styles to contemporary secular music, so most people know the broad 'lay of the land' even if they aren't musically gifted or trained.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
The word "contemporary" seems tied to what I call one note theology. The song is cheerful. Or awed. Or pensive. There aren't enough words to touch on more than one of these. No telling the story of Jesus from birth to resurrection. No helping you see even though life can be really hard, God is with you, and those that have gone before kept going when it was hard, and so can you, and be assured even in darkest pain that it's worth it. (That takes several verses to do well; they'll tell you music isn't for teaching.)

You raised several interesting points, I think, Belle Ringer, and I'd particularly like to have a go at answering this one. I recently read an academic paper that covered this exact issue, and the key point is that in contemporary charismatic-style worship, it's the whole group of songs used in a service that should be looked at, not just one song in isolation. Just like it would be unhelpful to focus on one particular liturgical response in a more traditional service.

So, yes, any given song might well be rather 'one note' in terms of its theology, but when the minister or music leader puts several songs together for the service you can get (can get!) a much more theologically rounded experience.

I also think you're right to suggest that charismatic / contemporary church people often don't pay enough attention to the theological messages in the songs - IMO songs are an absolutely key way in which people are taught! I for one certainly remember songs far more readily than I remember sermons, Bible passages and so on.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think that picking up new songs is as much a matter of familiarity with the style as it is one of the style itself.

Congregations used to singing traditional hymns don't normally have a difficulty singing an unfamiliar hymn. Have the tune played through once, and a large proportion of congregations I've known will have a good stab at the first verse, with the rest of the congregation being confident by the third verse. That's with a large proportion of the congregation using words only hymn books, or not being able to read musical notation if they have it - assuming the new hymn isn't just words on a bit of paper.

On the other hand, the same congregation will often struggle with a contemporary worship song, even when they have accompaniment by something more suitable than an organ. Part of that, of course, may reflect the musical talents of the congregation. With a good organist a new hymn will be well led, but if the church doesn't have someone able to lead a new song on piano and/or guitar then there will be difficulties if the contemporary song doesn't have a setting suitable for organ.

ETA: and I agree with SCK that for younger congregants the style of more contemporary songs is part of the musical landscape, which would make such songs easier for them to pick up. I just wanted to say that for many congregations the style of hymns is part of their landscape.

[ 24. April 2014, 07:05: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In terms of being "contemporary" the actual choice of songs probably isn't the defining issue. You can produce new songs which fit traditional styles of worship, and old hymns can be done in a contemporary fashion.

Old hymns can be done in a contemporary fashion, but I wish they wouldn't. IMO, traditional hymns performed by a worship group sound awful, just as much as contemporary worship songs tackled by an organist is if they are traditional hymns. They are two completely different genres and neither should be mucked around with.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Firstly we need to distinguish new material from new styles. There is a lot of new material, but there really has not been much change in style in the last fifty years.

Musical songs used for worship come in four styles defined by two factors. There are classic and popular hymns, and there are pre and post the last big style change within the discipline. I am less good on classical style change (I think it was the end of 19th Century) but popular music was 1960.

The four groups therefore are as follows:

Classical
Modern
Revivalist
Contemporary*

My observation is that congregations strongly using contemporary tend not to use modern and those that use modern tend not to use contemporary or revivalist.

For those who are contemporary, the production of new modern material is also prolific at present. So you are only using part of the new material if you are not singings items by artists such as Marty Haugen, John Bell or Shirley Erena Murray.

Jengie

*For Roman Catholic substitute "Christian Folk" here.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

The problem I find with contemporary and modern music is that much of it was not written for congregational singing. It was written for a single voice/band. So it sounds great on CD/MP3/live/whatever, but awful when sung by a Church.

We had two such on Easter Sunday - I would much rather have sat and listened to it on CD.

[ 24. April 2014, 09:04: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think part of that is that culturally we have lost corporate public singing, other than in church. Probably the last bastion of the culture is the football/rugby terraces. People don't stand around the piano at home or down the pub singing songs together.

Instead we have a karaoke culture where people sing individually (or, as 2s or 3s) to their favourite popular music. Not necessarily at a karaoke session - singing in the shower or singing along to a song on the radio driving to work are similar. That is, people sing along to songs meant to be performed by an individual artist/small group. Is it all that surprising that much contemporary worship is similar?

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The problem I find with contemporary and modern music is that much of it was not written for congregational singing. It was written for a single voice/band. So it sounds great on CD/MP3/live/whatever, but awful when sung by a Church.

We had two such on Easter Sunday - I would much rather have sat and listened to it on CD.

I think that really depends whether the congregation is used to singing to such music. My own charismatic church sings mostly contemporary songs, and regularly introduces brand new songs and the congregation sings enthusiastically along. But I guess having a couple of hundred people present does make congregational singing easier.
We also occasionally have songs written by church members but we are blessed with some very talented musicians, including a worship leader who is a classical harpist and Director of music at an independent school ( she used to teach at Kings, where the choir boys attend). Our church is perhaps unusual in regularly featuring a harp in its worship.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Old hymns can be done in a contemporary fashion, but I wish they wouldn't. IMO, traditional hymns performed by a worship group sound awful

I think it needs a good music group, or at least leader. And, part of that is realising that there will be times when the guitarists need to stop playing and just join in the singing, or at least step back a while. A keyboard player can do a great job with hymns, and in a lot of cases I've known hymns played well on wind/brass instruments.

By "played well" I basically mean that it makes it easy for me in the congregation to join in singing. Which, in leading congregational singing, is the role of the music group or organist. There are other occasions in worship when the music group/organist could be playing without congregational singing, in those cases "good" has a different basis for judgement.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Firstly we need to distinguish new material from new styles. There is a lot of new material, but there really has not been much change in style in the last fifty years.

Wouldn't you agree that the emergence of songs that focus on our feelings is a significant stylistic development? Before the, I think, 1970s weren't there very few 'I love you, Lord', 'I come to praise and worship you' sort of songs? Arguably, there are now too few of the more objective, theologically rich songs emerging from the contemporary charismatic scene, but it often happens that the pendulum swings one way and then over-corrects the other way, eh?

Thinking about it, I guess you meant musical style but, even then, isn't the Coldplay-ish soft slightly alternative rock style (which is ubiquitous in my corner of Christianity, the Vineyard movement) a far more recent development than your time frame? Didn't this begin around 20-25 years ago?

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The problem I find with contemporary and modern music is that much of it was not written for congregational singing. It was written for a single voice/band. So it sounds great on CD/MP3/live/whatever, but awful when sung by a Church.

Hear hear! In so many new songs, the vocal range is just way too large for most people, and even the starting pitch is often all wrong. The latter is particularly disappointing, IMO, as it shouldn't be difficult for a songwriter to realise their song would be more congregation-friendly in a different key.

Mind you, one of the musicians at my church got in touch with a Very Famous Christian Musician to raise this very issue and the VFCM said he had no idea it was a problem. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by South Coast Kevin

quote:
Mind you, one of the musicians at my church got in touch with a Very Famous Christian Musician to raise this very issue and the VFCM said he had no idea it was a problem. [Hot and Hormonal]

If its the same person I'm thinking of I'm not surprised they hadn't realised there might be a problem since they've had no formal training in either composition, choral training or even simple music teaching. They also seem singularly unaware that singing as a whole has declined in the latter part of the 20th century.

Most of the singing heard by babies is recorded: various surveys have found that mothers feel nervous or inadequate about singing to their babies, so school is reached before singing may be expected, at which point its a 50/50 chance there is a music specialist about...

Looking at notes from a 40+ year career, I see that in the 1970s 7 and 8 year old children coming to a choir would, on average, have a comfortable vocal range (tessitura) of a 10th, somewhere between Middle C and G+1. By 2010-13 this had shrunk to a bare octave, placed somewhere between the B below Middle C and E+1. Much more work is required now to increase the range than was the case.

Yet at the same time some people are producing worship music demanding an increasingly broad tessitura.

But then if you look at the printed rhythms of some of this worship music it is very complex and most likely impossible for a congregation to reproduce.

[ 24. April 2014, 12:37: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In terms of being "contemporary" the actual choice of songs probably isn't the defining issue. You can produce new songs which fit traditional styles of worship, and old hymns can be done in a contemporary fashion.
Old hymns can be done in a contemporary fashion, but I wish they wouldn't. IMO, traditional hymns performed by a worship group sound awful, just as much as contemporary worship songs tackled by an organist is if they are traditional hymns. They are two completely different genres and neither should be mucked around with.

I agree with this. It seems that the typical worship band has no idea of phrasing suited to a more traditional melody - that's partly because melody lost out to beat in the 1960's. So, you get a style which is a dull 'plonk, plonk, plonk, plonk'.

Don't get me started on those who change stuff from 3/4 to 4/4, thereby slowing the flow of the melody. Is this because strummers and drummers cannot do three beats to a bar?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Yes it is a stylistic change, but it is one due to the change in style of popular music in the 1960s. The sentiments are not new as anyone whose grandma attended a tin tabernacle will tell you. For "I love you Lord" you need to go to the revivalist meeting songs. They were more wordy versions but the sentiment seem to be much the same, try How can I keep from singing, I know he is mine or Where my saviour leads. Perhaps better known Blessed Assurance gives a flavour of the emotion held in these songs.

They are designed to go with a piano rather than a guitar and drums but the theology and sentiments remain largely the same.

Jengie

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I am an alto and find a lot of contemporary worship songs difficult to sing for that reason - they all seem to be written for sopranos, and I have to sing tenor with the men to keep up.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

One change I would make to my classification is to distinguish in classical between the English hymn which spans between 1700 and 1900 and the catch all of classic hymns that predate 1700 (a very diverse group which have little in common except their longevity).

After the Evangelical Revival you get the splitting between the classical and popular modes.

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

You are right - but it's also reflected in secular music, e.g. "The Beggar's Opera" vs. "Messiah",

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Looking at notes from a 40+ year career, I see that in the 1970s 7 and 8 year old children coming to a choir would, on average, have a comfortable vocal range (tessitura) of a 10th, somewhere between Middle C and G+1. By 2010-13 this had shrunk to a bare octave, placed somewhere between the B below Middle C and E+1. Much more work is required now to increase the range than was the case.

How interesting! It's good to get the perspective of an expert in the field (and I've learnt a new word, so thanks).

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yes it is a stylistic change, but it is one due to the change in style of popular music in the 1960s. The sentiments are not new as anyone whose grandma attended a tin tabernacle will tell you. For "I love you Lord" you need to go to the revivalist meeting songs. They were more wordy versions but the sentiment seem to be much the same, try How can I keep from singing, I know he is mine or Where my saviour leads. Perhaps better known Blessed Assurance gives a flavour of the emotion held in these songs.

Mmm, I don't know. Those songs are mostly about the assurance of salvation and the joy that comes with following Jesus. Whereas the songs I'm talking about from the last 40 or so years are about the act of praise / worship / devotion itself, they are 'reflexive' as I've seen it dubbed. For example:

I Love You, Lord from 1978
Hungry from 1999
How He Loves from 2005

They're not two totally different categories, of course, but I think it's a clear change in emphasis.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Try I am thine O Lord then.

quote:

O the pure delight of a single hour
That before Thy throne I spend,
When I kneel in prayer, and with Thee, my God
I commune as friend with friend!

Or

What a friend we have in Jesus

Jengie

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Old hymns can be done in a contemporary fashion, but I wish they wouldn't. IMO, traditional hymns performed by a worship group sound awful
I think it needs a good music group, or at least leader. And, part of that is realising that there will be times when the guitarists need to stop playing and just join in the singing, or at least step back a while.

I'd go along with that. It really grates with me when I hear hymns like "Be thou my vision" or "Praise to The Lord, the almighty, the king of creation" played in 4/4 time. If the drummer and/or guitarist can't cope with 3/4 time then they shouldn't bother

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Sure JJ, there are examples of older songs / hymns with that more intimate, 'reflexive' tone, but I gather (and would you agree?) that the proportion of such songs is far greater in the charismatic contemporary scene of the last 40ish years.

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
It really grates with me when I hear hymns like "Be thou my vision" or "Praise to The Lord, the almighty, the king of creation" played in 4/4 time. If the drummer and/or guitarist can't cope with 3/4 time then they shouldn't bother

I only know about 'Be Thou My Vision' and I rather like the 4/4 version! In any case, I'm pretty sure it's a deliberate re-working rather than arising from anyone's inability to play in 3/4.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

The issue here is an old one; how to effect a change, whether liturgical, musical or in buildings. The key I have seen work is to begin by finding some element in the new that can be familiar or related to the old.

In our MR ECA parish our organist has introduced "contemporary" music by presenting familiar Gospel Hymns in up-date (1970's) setting such as using a Gospel choir for "This Little Light of Mine" or "Wade in the Water". This ties the familiar into the newer and so far has been received without complaint or grousing. His Choir anthems have taken their music to an even more updated version of familiar hymns.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Jade:

quote:
I think one of the attractions of modern worship songs is how easy they are for the average untrained congregation member to sing - that's not something that should be dismissed.

Actually a lot of old hymns are easy to sing; they have predictable intervals between notes, memorable melodies and straightforward rhythms. And obvious endings, unlike one of the favourites of the worship band at my previous church. They used to stick in extra repeats of the final chorus, the number of which varied depending on how many different riffs the lead guitarist felt like playing that week.

Don't get me wrong, I like some modern styles of music. The same band used to do a heavy metal version of 'Let all mortal flesh keep silence' which I loved.

If you want to encourage the congregation to sing, telling them how many repeats to expect is a good start.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade:
quote:
I think one of the attractions of modern worship songs is how easy they are for the average untrained congregation member to sing - that's not something that should be dismissed.
Actually a lot of old hymns are easy to sing; they have predictable intervals between notes, memorable melodies and straightforward rhythms. And obvious endings, unlike one of the favourites of the worship band at my previous church. They used to stick in extra repeats of the final chorus, the number of which varied depending on how many different riffs the lead guitarist felt like playing that week.

Don't get me wrong, I like some modern styles of music. The same band used to do a heavy metal version of 'Let all mortal flesh keep silence' which I loved.

If you want to encourage the congregation to sing, telling them how many repeats to expect is a good start.

I agree re repeats in modern songs! But I still find using the NEH (and my church only uses the NEH) very hard-going - I know very few of the hymns and it's assumed that we all know them. I also find the melodies complicated. We don't get given the music for it but I can't read music so that wouldn't help much! None of the congregation singing is particularly strong or enthusiastic anyway.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
If you want to encourage the congregation to sing, telling them how many repeats to expect is a good start.

What's usually done (forgive me if you're already well aware of this!) is that the music group leader will announce mid-song in some cunning way that the chorus is to be repeated, or we'll be repeating the final verse or whatever.

Amateurs like me will say the first few words of the relevant verse / chorus, while the real professionals sing the words just before the verse / chorus starts again. Either way, if it's done properly then anyone who knows the song at all well should pick up which bit is to be sung next and can continue participating with gusto.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

Old hymns can be done in a contemporary fashion, but I wish they wouldn't. IMO, traditional hymns performed by a worship group sound awful, just as much as contemporary worship songs tackled by an organist is if they are traditional hymns. They are two completely different genres and neither should be mucked around with.

I've heard some lovely rock, gospel and reggae versions of old hymns. And some Graham Kendrick-type songs can work well on the organ too. I suppose I just appreciate hearing different hymns 'covered' in different ways.

OTOH, a few months ago I heard a rather cheesy 'coffee shop' version of 'Blessed Assurance' at a local Baptist church. The old-fashioned church lady side of me didn't appreciated that very much!

[ 24. April 2014, 19:06: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Amateurs like me will say the first few words of the relevant verse / chorus, while the real professionals sing the words just before the verse / chorus starts again. Either way, if it's done properly then anyone who knows the song at all well should pick up which bit is to be sung next and can continue participating with gusto.

And those who don't know the song just stand around feeling uncomfortable.

[ 24. April 2014, 19:21: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Spike, I'm not sure what you're proposing, sorry. If a church service has songs / hymns at all then there might well be people attending who don't know the songs and will maybe 'stand around feeling uncomfortable' until they learn them. What's your solution?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Spike, I'm not sure what you're proposing, sorry. If a church service has songs / hymns at all then there might well be people attending who don't know the songs and will maybe 'stand around feeling uncomfortable' until they learn them. What's your solution?

At least in places where traditional music is used the words and music are available in hymnals. Even granting that fewer people read music today than did 50 years ago, there's still a better chance for participation than with the words flashing by on an LCD screen.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Spike, I'm not sure what you're proposing, sorry. If a church service has songs / hymns at all then there might well be people attending who don't know the songs and will maybe 'stand around feeling uncomfortable' until they learn them. What's your solution?
At least in places where traditional music is used the words and music are available in hymnals. Even granting that fewer people read music today than did 50 years ago, there's still a better chance for participation than with the words flashing by on an LCD screen.

There's also way more chance of someone having heard a song before if it's 150 years old than if it's less than 1 year old.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Spike, I'm not sure what you're proposing, sorry. If a church service has songs / hymns at all then there might well be people attending who don't know the songs and will maybe 'stand around feeling uncomfortable' until they learn them. What's your solution?

Stick to the words on the sheet/book and to the order in which they are printed.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
At least in places where traditional music is used the words and music are available in hymnals. Even granting that fewer people read music today than did 50 years ago, there's still a better chance for participation than with the words flashing by on an LCD screen.

OK, I'll bite.

Providing the words displayed on a screen are legible and are displayed in a timely manner, in what way does having them on a screen rather than printed on paper make participation harder?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Fr Weber

In the mainstream English churches I've attended it's not usual for congregational hymnbooks to contain the music, although sometimes a service sheet will include the melody of a new song. Some individuals will buy their own copy of the hymnbook with the music included.

There are books of contemporary worship songs that similarly come either or without the music, but the problem seems to be that 'contemporary worship' doesn't focus on one set of songs for any length of time, so it wouldn't be practical for members to buy their own books.

Maybe sheet music for individual songs of this type should be available for downloading.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

South Coast Kevin:

quote:
What's usually done (forgive me if you're already well aware of this!) is that the music group leader will announce mid-song in some cunning way that the chorus is to be repeated, or we'll be repeating the final verse or whatever.

Mid-song?! Doesn't that ruin the mood?

It sounds more organised than what used to happen at my old parish though, which as I said was 'make it up as we go along'. Presumably the band had some kind of arranged signal, but it was never communicated effectively to the ordinary pew-sitters.

Most of the hymn books at our church are words-only, but there are some available with words and music for people who can read music. Of course, as Jade said earlier, this is only helpful if you can read music.

[ 24. April 2014, 20:27: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

For at least some of us who read music it's very nice to have the notes in our hymn books so that we can see what's going on. Projector screens in my experience don't have any notes.

Also I often look at words in the hymn book that aren't in the same place the congregation is. Last time I remember doing so was a couple weeks ago when I was trying to memorize one of the verses of a song we were singing, so I could sing it to my daughter later. I've also thought let the congregation leave me behind while I stopped to think about the verses of a hymn I thought particularly beautiful or helpful to my situation.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
South Coast Kevin:
quote:
What's usually done (forgive me if you're already well aware of this!) is that the music group leader will announce mid-song in some cunning way that the chorus is to be repeated, or we'll be repeating the final verse or whatever.
Mid-song?! Doesn't that ruin the mood?

This practice goes back a long way. It seems common in Pentecostal-type churches, where it works very well. It probably wouldn't work in a more formal setting, though.

[ 24. April 2014, 20:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Contemporary often means 'the song I heard for the first time at the Christian music festival I've just returned from'. People return and enthusiastically want to teach it to the rest of the congregation. The problem with this is that the rest of the congregation didn't attend said Christian festival and so a) won't know it and b) won't have experienced the particular spiritual kick or blessing that those who did go experienced, and forever associate with the words and music of that particular song. The song therefore tends to get marketed without all the accompanying packaging and consequently may well fall flat.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
For at least some of us who read music it's very nice to have the notes in our hymn books so that we can see what's going on. Projector screens in my experience don't have any notes.

It is possible to project the dots, but I've only ever seen one person do it (thanks seasick!).

I had an interesting one, 'Lord I lift your name on high' used with a schoolful of teenagers (well 11-16 year olds). I've just looked it up, and according to wikipedia it was realised in 1989, i.e. 8 years minimum before they were born. I was surprised that had survived* and would be thought relevant to the congregation. That said, "In Christ Alone" (the other one used) is older than some of them (2001) but that is more of a classic.**

Carys

*And it still bugs me that it goes from Holy Saturday to Ascension Day in one move (from the grave to the sky)

**It's a great hymn barring the disputed line...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
It is possible to project the dots, but I've only ever seen one person do it (thanks seasick!).

Most projectors don't have the resolution to satisfactorily project a four-part setting for a whole verse, and projecting less than a whole verse is horrible.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Being with a group doing Christian sing-a-longs in nursing homes, I have a new awareness about music but don't know where it leads.

Old folks who rarely utter a word, even people with significant Alzheimers, will sing the hymns/songs they deeply know from years of repetition. Sometimes they correct us about a wording!

I have wondered how people will do sing alongs like this in their feeble memory years if they never got to deeply know songs, because the songs changed every couple weeks instead of recurring through the years.

But I guess a church's function in choosing songs for a morning's worship is NOT to identify songs people could be learning to help them in twilight years. That's a byproduct. If we've lost a beneficial byproduct in the fragmentation of the music collection by the constant pursuit of "new", there are always losses in any change and that doesn't mean change should not be.

I suppose as society becomes more secular, nursing home sing alongs will become secular anyway. I'm wondering if I'll do more good learning "light jazz standards" because people in my old age will sing along with "Blue Skies Smiling At Me" but won't know whatever "here today obsolete tomorrow" song my church's praise band is doing next week?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I've wondered why contemporary church music isn't sexier. I would like it more if it made people shake their hips and do pelvic thrusts.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I suppose as society becomes more secular, nursing home sing alongs will become secular anyway. I'm wondering if I'll do more good learning "light jazz standards" because people in my old age will sing along with "Blue Skies Smiling At Me" but won't know whatever "here today obsolete tomorrow" song my church's praise band is doing next week?

One day nursing homes will be full of Alyssas, Ryans, Coltons, and Carries. I imagine they randomly will sing, "Applause, applause, I live for the applause..."

I think every generation of churchgoer has its golden, timeless musical favorites. A wise church works these in often. Hopefully they all become part of the musical repertoire of the whole congregation. This does require learning new music, but not to the detriment of old hits. Each church's tolerance for the percent of new/old is different, and must be discovered through trial and error. No individual should be in total charge of this, as it seems with the OP situation's pastor. (Especially in that case, as Methodist pastors tend to be itinerant.)

Food for thought.......In a short time, nursing home residents will be requesting, "Let there be peace on earth." (Or will they?)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

The current crop of old people like Elvis and the Beatles.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
There's also way more chance of someone having heard a song before if it's 150 years old than if it's less than 1 year old.

I don't think this always follows. With my church specifically, I reckon a new song by some contemporary Christian rock band is likely to be known far better than most 150 year old hymns. But that's because of the practices and the demographic within my church; it'll be different in other churches, I'm sure.

With this thread, I was trying to avoid the argument about whether churches should use contemporary music. What I was interested in was the question of how to introduce new songs into the church service setting, for churches that wish to do this. (I know I can't control the way a thread I started goes, though!)

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Spike, I'm not sure what you're proposing, sorry. If a church service has songs / hymns at all then there might well be people attending who don't know the songs and will maybe 'stand around feeling uncomfortable' until they learn them. What's your solution?
Stick to the words on the sheet/book and to the order in which they are printed.

But people who don't know the song will still be standing around perhaps feeling uncomfortable. It's perfectly possible for a music leader to direct everyone to repeat the chorus, go back to the bridge, sing the last line a few times etc. I think this flexibility can really help people engage powerfully with God.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I can see what you're getting at, South Coast Kevin, and applaud your desire to see people welcomed and made as comfortable as possible in what is, for most people these days, a rather 'alien' setting - church.

And that applies to whatever style or 'stripe' or church we are talking about, be it Westminster Abbey or the Vineyard or a Gospel Hall on the corner of the street.

However - I sometimes get the impression that you're suggesting that unless we make absolutely everything water-tight in terms of user-friendliness/seeker friendliness or whatever the buzz words are, then we are somehow all shooting ourselves in the foot.

People stick around and persist despite very mediocre or even down right hopeless church experiences ... which isn't an excuse for giving them a hard time, of course.

On the music thing - and no, I don't want to get into a music-wars argument about which styles or which hymns and songs are 'better' than others - it strikes me that there is growing homogeneity among the kind of churches you are most familiar with.

Some 20 to 30 years ago in the burgeoning house-churches/restoration fellowships of that time the emphasis was pretty much on 'new' songs and choruses ... but we did have 'golden oldies' including some of those that Jengie Jon has mentioned. It might be my memory playing tricks but the musical offering was rather more varied than it appears to be in 'contemporary' fellowships today.

Through the success of conventions like Spring Harvest, Soul Survivor and New Wine (after the demise of earlier charismatic knees-ups such as the Dales, Downs, Wales and Stoneleigh etc) the musical diet has largely become the kind of quasi-Cold Play soft-rock that you've mentioned.

That's all very well and good as far as it goes, provided one doesn't lay claims to it being 'Spirit-led' and so on ... most charismatic churches these days have a diet and format that is just as predictable as anything one might encounter anywhere else - be it Divine Liturgy with the Orthodox, an RC folk Mass or a non-conformist 'hymn sandwich'.

It strikes me that people will either acclimatise or otherwise in whatever setting we offer them. We are all 'socialised' into the Kingdom. If people are exposed to these things they'll either accept or reject them. The musical style may play a part in that - in terms of its appeal and so on - but it's not the be-all and end-all. There are other factors.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Professor Hollenweger, the late, great historian of Pentecostalism, once observed to Andrew Walker the sociologist that, 'if you take away the music [from Pentecostalism] there's not a great deal left ...'

This may sound a bit harsh but I think there's some truth in it. Inasmuch - as South Coast Kevin himself has indicated in his modified, 'neo-pentecostal' fashion that the singing of worship songs and choruses is taken to be the main 'locus' for a 'powerful encounter with God' with the corollary that there are things that the worship leader can do to facilitate that and encourage it to happen.

This idea makes me feel increasingly uncomfortable as it's a fine line between that and manipulation ... just as, at the opposite end of the spectrum, there is a fine line between formalism and performance.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I agree entirely ... and, for some people, the encounter with God (albeit possibly less visceral) takes place through the sung liturgies of Tallis and Byrd.

PS I agree about Hollenweger's "greatness" - but is he actually "late"?

[ 25. April 2014, 08:48: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
With this thread, I was trying to avoid the argument about whether churches should use contemporary music. What I was interested in was the question of how to introduce new songs into the church service setting, for churches that wish to do this. (I know I can't control the way a thread I started goes, though!)

What we generally do is have the band perform the new song before the start of the service for a couple of Sundays to familiarise the congregation with its sound. We might also, depending on the song, play it during communion. Then, when we bring it into the main service we typically announce it as a new song, say the band will sing the first verse (or sing it once through depending on the structure) and invite the congregation to join in when they feel ready.

That seems to work and we introduce a new song roughly once every six weeks. But we are definitely a congregation which likes a good sing. And we do keep a broad repertoire; from the old hymnbook standards right through the "contemporary" songs that are actually 30 years old to the really modern stuff.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

In our (rather traditional) church, the organist surreptitiously plays the tune during the offering; and/or we get the choir to sing a verse and then get everyone to join in "from the top".

We occasionally have a music group at family services, in which case they'll play the song through first.

[ 25. April 2014, 10:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[Hot and Hormonal]

It seems that Mark Twain's dictum about a premature obituary he read in the paper one day applies to Hollenweger too ... 'reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.'

Apologies, I'd assumed he was no longer with us for some reason ... [Hot and Hormonal]

On the music thing - yes, Byrd and Tallis 'do it' for some people - and they do it for me, as indeed does Bach, plainchant, some Orthodox chant and indeed some forms of Gospel music - and no doubt Matt Redman, Tim Hughes and so on 'do it' for other people.

I'd suggest though, that it's not just music ... various liturgical actions can also take people somewhere else as it were - and I'm not simply thinking of the more obvious 'High Church' symbolism such as ritual gestures, vestments (let's not start debating that one again! [Biased]

), iconography, church architecture (whether elaborate or plain) or particular forms and patterns of words - be it Cranmer, the 1662, RC Missal or whatever else ...

I think that there are parallel/similar examples within some of the 'lower' church traditions too that often aren't recognised as being part and parcel of the same kind of thing.

I'd suggest, though, that it is 'God's job' and not the leader (whether minister/clergy or 'worship leader') to use and take these things in order to provide what South Coast Kevin calls a 'powerful encounter'.

It's our job to get on with the business of offering acceptable praise and worship. It's God's 'job' whether we derive any particular 'buzz' or powerful encounter or whatever else out of it.

I'm always wary of any set-up or system that tries to do God the Holy Spirit's 'job' for Him - and that can apply right across the board. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that there are worship-leaders and so on within the charismatic evangelical tradition who 'lead' worship sensitively and without seeking to manipulate people through 'mood music' to achieve a particular 'high' or a particular response ...

But the very nature of the modus operandi does draw attention to the worship leader and worship band in a way that can detract and distract. Sure, some people level the same charge at vested clergy and robed choirs but I'd argue that these represent an attempt to sublimate the personality and ego and not bring it to the fore.

But there can be dangers in both approaches.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Good ideas, busyknitter and Baptist Trainfan. And nice to 'see' you, Gamaliel! I agree with you on the dangers of manipulation, hence my keenness on multi-participative meetings where the emphasis is on enabling many to contribute, rather than on the level of technical excellence in the music, speaking, liturgy etc. (But that's another discussion.)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure - but without wishing to go off on a tangent - I can see what you are getting at but don't believe that it necessarily follows that a multi-participatory approach in the way you sometimes describe it on these Boards would do away with the dangers of manipulation.

What can happen in an apparent 'free for all' is that those with the loudest voices and most dominant personalities come to the fore.

I often used to 'contribute' back in the day - little homilies and spontaneous exhortations, scripture readings, 'prophecies' and 'words' and so on.

Sometimes these could have been helpful and appropriate. On other occasions I'm sure it was because I liked the sound of my own voice.

As I've said before, I think it's interesting that my level of vocal contribution in church meetings (other than when I'm on the roster to lead prayers or whatever) declined as my involvement in open-mic and creative writing groups developed.

Whether that's good, bad or indifferent is another issue.

Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent to the music issue.

All I would say is that in more formal liturgical settings it isn't necessarily the case that people aren't participating - they are simply participating in a different way to how they might be in a less formally liturgical context.

Whatever the case, it's not for me to determine whether people are truly participating or not. That's God's job, not mine.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
At least in places where traditional music is used the words and music are available in hymnals. Even granting that fewer people read music today than did 50 years ago, there's still a better chance for participation than with the words flashing by on an LCD screen.
OK, I'll bite.

Providing the words displayed on a screen are legible and are displayed in a timely manner, in what way does having them on a screen rather than printed on paper make participation harder?

I said "words and music," meaning that words and musical notation could both be read from a paper hymnal. But even having the words printed on a sheet of paper might allow a newbie to read ahead and back rather than feeling as though they have only the one chance to catch the words as they scroll across the screen.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Spike, I'm not sure what you're proposing, sorry. If a church service has songs / hymns at all then there might well be people attending who don't know the songs and will maybe 'stand around feeling uncomfortable' until they learn them. What's your solution?
At least in places where traditional music is used the words and music are available in hymnals. Even granting that fewer people read music today than did 50 years ago, there's still a better chance for participation than with the words flashing by on an LCD screen.
There's also way more chance of someone having heard a song before if it's 150 years old than if it's less than 1 year old.

Agreed. And it seems to me that the older hymns have more actual theological content than newer productions, on the average. Comparing a solid Charles Wesley lyric with repeated utterances of "I jus' wanna glorify-hy-hy yew-hew," I know which I'd prefer my parish to use in worship.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Stick to the words on the sheet/book and to the order in which they are printed.
But people who don't know the song will still be standing around perhaps feeling uncomfortable.

Because they can't read?

Yes, I understand that not everyone reads music, but with almost every song suitable for congregational singing, people can sing along given the words, a sensible musical accompaniment, and a light salting of people who do know the tune in the congregation.

quote:

It's perfectly possible for a music leader to direct everyone to repeat the chorus, go back to the bridge, sing the last line a few times etc. I think this flexibility can really help people engage powerfully with God.

I'm struggling to see how being randomly ordered about by a "music leader" gives me flexibility.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I thought this thread was about maintaining a particular status quo - ie. contemporaneity in musical style - should one wish to do so - rather than a thread with Dead Horse style comments on horrendous hymns and crappy choruses ...

Although I am inclined to agree ... [Biased]

It seems to me that the desirability of apparent contemporaneity is a 'given' within the kind of fellowships that South Coast Kevin is most familiar with so what the issue is here is how to maintain that rather than questioning whether it's desirable in the first place.

I can understand the appeal - heck, I was involved for 18 years in a church that was always changing its songs and repertoire every 15 seconds ... and I'm familiar with the current diet of choruses and songs that do the rounds - and things are much more homogeneous now than they were back in the day ...

I like a good sing-song as much as anyone else but I'm increasingly uncomfortable with this view that congregational singing is somehow the pinnacle of locus of our 'encounter with God'. I'm not saying that congregational singing isn't important ... but somehow it's become a defining feature.

Our local parish has 2 morning services - a more 'traditional' (but still snake-belly low) 9am service and a so-called 'contemporary' one at 11am. In the church magazine there is a description of these alongside the list of services and whilst I can see this as beneficial for newcomers and visitors I do notice that the only distinguishing features it draws attention to is the style of the songs.

It says nothing about the eucharist or any other aspect.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the 'worship time' as something that consists of a medley of back-to-back worship songs/choruses - and, in fairness, so is the local vicar - he does stress that the whole thing is worship and not simply the two or three choruses in the middle sung through twice ...

I do wonder what is achieved by constantly adding new songs for the sake of adding new songs or keeping up with the charismatic evangelical 'hit-parade' ...

In more traditional liturgical churches I've seen changes rung in terms of new settings for the Gloria or the Sanctus and so on ... which is fair enough as at least you know what you're getting whatever the tune or setting that is used ...

[Biased]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
I'm struggling to see how being randomly ordered about by a "music leader" gives me flexibility.

What South Coast Kevin suggested, Leorning Cnicht, was that it gives the worship leader 'flexibility' to lead and order the material in such a way that the people can have a 'powerful encounter with God.'

This begs a few questions.

I presupposes, for instance, that everyone is on the same page spiritually, emotionally and terms of their spiritual maturity.

Also that the worship leader is some how pneumatically in tune with the Holy Spirit and can guide people accordingly ... although I fail to see how improvising around the structure of a song - from bridge to chorus and back and so on - in any way indicates the direction or guidance of the Holy Spirit.

One may as well claim such a thing for improvised jazz.

It might have a pleasing effect but does that necessarily equate with 'a powerful encounter with God'?

What does a powerful encounter with God look like?

People being caught up in the moment and in the euphoria of a catchy or haunting tune isn't necessarily a 'powerful encounter with God.'

All this sounds to me to be a short-hand way to achieve particular effects according to a set menu of expectations.

[code]

[ 25. April 2014, 19:41: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I like a good sing-song as much as anyone else but I'm increasingly uncomfortable with this view that congregational singing is somehow the pinnacle of locus of our 'encounter with God'.

A book our Bible study bunch did a few years ago really relaxed me about people who worship differently, who "encounter God" through different vehicles, than I do.

Sacred Pathways describes different ways people feel most connected to God, different things work for different personalities. For some it's an ornate cathedral, others a small plain room for meeting - or a walk in the woods instead of any formal planned program. Some connect with God most easily thru aesthetics, others through intellectual discovery, others through social action on behalf of the sick or poor.

So yes I expect for some people the music is the primary vehicle, while for others it's prayer or the sermon - or even the coffee hour!

The kind of person why most readily "feels God's presence" or "enters an attitude of reverence" when surrounded by stained glass won't much like the small plain wooden church, and those for whom music is the primary reason for going to church don't belong in a quiet contemplative program.

Nothing wrong with any of the different ways.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Stick to the words on the sheet/book and to the order in which they are printed.
But people who don't know the song will still be standing around perhaps feeling uncomfortable.
Because they can't read?

Yes, I understand that not everyone reads music, but with almost every song suitable for congregational singing, people can sing along given the words, a sensible musical accompaniment, and a light salting of people who do know the tune in the congregation...

Dead right. Key words here are 'suitable for congregational singing'. If under these circumstances people can't sing along- and this applies to anything from your latest contemporary worship song to a Tallis 40-part piece- it's a strong suggestion that you shouldn't be using it congregationally.

[ 25. April 2014, 21:46: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I said "words and music," meaning that words and musical notation could both be read from a paper hymnal.

How many people can read musical notation? For the majority of people they're just dots. If all that matters is the words, then it makes little difference where those words are.

quote:
But even having the words printed on a sheet of paper might allow a newbie to read ahead and back rather than feeling as though they have only the one chance to catch the words as they scroll across the screen.

I admit it's been a while since I was at a church regularly projecting the words of songs. But, IME, the projection was of fairly large chunks of text (entire songs for a chorus or 2-3 verse song) rather than words scrolling across the screen. So, still time to read ahead a bit.

I will admit having the words in a book does provide the chance to read and reflect on them in advance or after the service. But, not many people will actually do that - and, if asked, I'm sure the music group could supply words for people to re-read after the service (they may need to send them in an email though).

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Sacred Pathways describes different ways people feel most connected to God, different things work for different personalities. For some it's an ornate cathedral, others a small plain room for meeting - or a walk in the woods instead of any formal planned program. Some connect with God most easily thru aesthetics, others through intellectual discovery, others through social action on behalf of the sick or poor.

Absolutely, Belle Ringer. I love that book!

I don't for a moment mean to imply that singing songs is the main way or the best way in which we connect and engage with God. But I was hoping we could have a chat about ways to introduce new songs into a church's musical 'repertoire', without getting too sidetracked by those broader questions. Is that a forlorn hope? Oh well.

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
And it seems to me that the older hymns have more actual theological content than newer productions, on the average. Comparing a solid Charles Wesley lyric with repeated utterances of "I jus' wanna glorify-hy-hy yew-hew,"

Oh yes, a typical older hymn will contain more theological content than a typical contemporary worship song. But the point is that in most contemporary-style church services, several songs will be put together to create something that is theologically complete, or at least rounded (like a complete piece of liturgy). Whereas older hymns tended to be used on their own (right?) so they were deliberately written with a self-contained theological 'message'.

Given the way contemporary worship songs are typically used, it doesn't make much sense to pick one and analyse it in isolation; just like you wouldn't take a single line and response of a liturgical piece and criticise it for being theologically simplistic or incomplete.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

I was hoping we could have a chat about ways to introduce new songs into a church's musical 'repertoire', without getting too sidetracked by those broader questions. Is that a forlorn hope? Oh well.

I think many of the folk here prefer to sing older music, or else simply have few examples of particularly good practice when it comes to the introduction of contemporary worship songs.

As for me, I once attended an interesting singing workshop run by two ladies from the Iona Community. (Are their songs are still considered 'contemporary'? Perhaps not, as they don't seem to be sung very often now.) Their goal was to model how new songs should be taught to congregations. One other person from my church also attended, but neither of us passed on the information to our organist, because she really wasn't a woman who had much interest in expanding the repertoire of contemporary songs, sadly.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I was hoping we could have a chat about ways to introduce new songs into a church's musical 'repertoire'...

I have pondered this some, which doesn't mean I have any useful answers. And I see two factors to consider.

1. The congregation that comes regularly, how to introduce them to new songs.
2. Newcomers, visitors, people trying out the church, how (or if) to include them in the singing.

The old hymnal approach - especially the ones with notation - gave any visitor a fighting chance to participate. With the elimination of hymnals, helping stranger get into the music becomes a problem.

(BTW, I know "not everyone reads music" but it's not hard to see when the dots go up your voice goes up in pitch, the reverse on going down. I've known lifelong chorus singers who knew no more than that about reading music, but find the music helpful.)

My childhood church played the hymn through completely, verse and chorus, before singing the first verse. Every time, not just the first time a hymn was used. This was intentional both to remind people of the tune and to introduce the hymn to any who didn't know it.

Most churches I've been in play just the last line of a hymn as introduction, and contemporary bands often give just one chord. If you don't already knows the song, that's not help. Not playing it through before singing keeps the pace of the program faster, but playing it through helps the congregation participate, maybe the question is which do you value more.

If I don't know a song, I appreciate the approach of playing the song's verse/chorus multiple times. By the third time (or in a tricky old hymn I don't know by the third verse) I can start to sing along, the 4th time I am comfortable with the song and can fully switch my focus from "what are the notes and how do the words fit them?" to God. Maybe others catch on a lot sooner? In various threads some have objected to that repetition.

Another way I have seen is to introduce a song one week knowing no one but the band will be singing along, use it four weeks in a row so the congregation learn it, then move it into normal rotation. This leaves out the visitor, but gives the regulars a chance.

One church I was in scheduled an evening meeting to introduce new songs, but people are busy and only a few came. But it got a few in the pews somewhat familiar with some of the songs.

A friend's church believes everyone should listen to Christian radio and know the current songs, so they see no reason to try to help the congregation learn the songs.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Trying to think about churches I've been in. They all sang mostly traditional hymns, from a hymn book, the most recent all with organ accompaniment though the two before moving here also had music groups who regularly played (some services displacing the organ entirely, often doing one or two songs with the rest on the organ). In all cases the introduction was almost always the entire verse played before anyone sang anything (exceptions included the occasional hymn with a long verse, especially where the tune was well known).

When we have new songs we'll often just do the same. But it depends on the song/hymn. If its set to a well known tune there is little value in doing more than our normal practice. Where the tune is less well known we often sing the first verse or two in practice before the service starts.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think one of the attractions of modern worship songs is how easy they are for the average untrained congregation member to sing - that's not something that should be dismissed. Congregational singing is important.

I feel bad at disagreeing with you (again) - please don't take it personally.

But as a leader of worship and as a musician (I play in our Salvation Army brass band as well), I can say that an awful lot of 'contemporary' worship songs are very difficult to play and sing.

there are gaps in the music where the congregation are not sure where to come in, the chorus might be repeated after a verse and then a bridge section comes in. The syncopation can be hard to play. It's evident that most of these songs are written by middle-aged wannabe rock musicians who wear flat caps and brown t shorts and have a real need to channel Coldplay or U2 when they sing. Butr congregational worship it isn't. The modern evangelical fellowships where the worship looks like a rock concert and the crowd sing along to their favourite frontman/worship leader is really, really to replicate or adapt in a church where there is nothing like that kind of musical talent.

A congregational song, I reckon, is one that you could sing acappella without getting lost or having to rely on the music to keep you right. The best modern songs are the ones that have traditional style metres and regular rhythms.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I agree with Mudfrog. There's been a 'shift' in the contemporary worship scene and format that I would date from around the mid to late '90s - with some hints and antecedents before that ...

In the '70s and '80s the popularity of the guitar accompanied worship song or chorus grew - helped by events like 'Come Together', various popular Christian 'musicals' and the emergence of the various Bible Weeks and conventions like Spring Harvest. The latter drew on a wider evangelical constituency and so this style of music was imported from there into many congregations - both charismatic and conservative.

Many of the earlier choruses could indeed have been sung acapella in the way that Mudfrog describes.

Then, however, there was a move towards a more singer-songwriter approach or rock-band style delivery - and that's what we largely see today on the charismatic evangelical scene. The sort of thing that works fine in performance but which is difficult to sing congregationally.

Conversely, Salvation Army songs and earlier 'revivalist' songs such as those found across traditional Pentecostalism - were intended and DESIGNED to be sung congregationally. They work in that context. Indeed, they don't sound quite 'right' when isolated from the context for which they were intended. That's not to say that it's not profitable to listen to them on CDs or as part of a performance of some kind - but they 'work' best in their intended context - that of congregational worship.

The same applies, of course, to a performance of Rachmaninov's Vespers etc. It sounds great, but if you heard one of the settings used in a worship context in a church or cathedral then it would work better ... in theory at least.

Anyway ... in respect to the OP. I'm rather puzzled as to how the introduction of new songs and new material can be such an 'issue' in the kind of 'newer' churches which are essentially geared up for innovation ...

When I was involved with the restorationist/house-church scene, the introduction of new songs and new material happened all the time and it was simply a case of the worship group singing it through a few times then everyone else would pick it up.

This is dead easy.

I'd suggest it is easier with the kind of material that Mudfrog has described - material designed for congregational singing.

It isn't so easy when it's one of the new breed of modern worship song or chorus (post late-90s say) because these don't lend themselves so readily to congregational singing.

The solution, I'd suggest, is for the people who write contemporary hymns and worship songs to ignore the trends and take a pragmatic approach - writing material that people can actually sing.

I'd also add that there is a strong commercial pressure at work here. I've met several people who have written very good contemporary hymns and songs (I won't name drop) which you'll see in various hymnals and anthologies - but which are rarely, rarely sung.

Why not? Because for some inexplicable reason the people who organise the show think that they have to copy the big conventions or have sub-Cold Play material that people can all zone-out to instead of engaging their brains ...

To an extent I'm with South Coast Kevin on the idea that contemporary worship songs aren't meant to work in isolation but in contribution to a whole or overall effect. Granted. And yes, I believe this can 'work' with each of these songs/themes interacting and working together to create something greater than the sum of its parts.

That can happen.

More typically, I'd suggest, it doesn't. All that happens is that a medley of 'favourites' are strung together because people are familiar with them or like the tunes.

It's not my style these days, but I'm not 'against' the kind of non-conformist hymn-prayer-sandwich ... done well it takes skill and imagination to pull off - and it can be done.

The same thing applies to the contemporary worship medley format but all too often all it does is to drift and fade out leaving very little behind for people to chew on ...

There's no easy answer to any of this as all styles and traditions have their strengths and weaknesses.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The modern evangelical fellowships where the worship looks like a rock concert and the crowd sing along to their favourite frontman/worship leader is really, really to replicate or adapt in a church where there is nothing like that kind of musical talent.

To be clear, I'm no fan of this style of church music - both because of the 'performance' mentality and because it sets the bar unhelpfully high in terms of the musical skill required to lead.

What I'm in favour of is the use of music that reflects contemporary cultural styles, as long as such music can be tailored so it is (a) pretty easy for everyone to learn and join in with, and (b) pretty easy for people with a modicum of skill on guitar, piano etc. to lead.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Leave out whether or not the congregation would appreciate, let alone join in with, the soft-rock genre of modern worship music; leave out whether it would be possible to reproduce effectively at parish level, the big question is would it really work on a congregation age ranges c3-95 numbering 50-60 in a 12th century church?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Leave out whether or not the congregation would appreciate, let alone join in with, the soft-rock genre of modern worship music; leave out whether it would be possible to reproduce effectively at parish level, the big question is would it really work on a congregation age ranges c3-95 numbering 50-60 in a 12th century church?

Yeah, I don't see why not. What problems do you envisage, in terms of the congregation age range and size, and the nature of the building?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Leave out whether or not the congregation would appreciate, let alone join in with, the soft-rock genre of modern worship music; leave out whether it would be possible to reproduce effectively at parish level, the big question is would it really work on a congregation age ranges c3-95 numbering 50-60 in a 12th century church?

This comment suggests that the CofE is eager to start using contemporary worship music in all churches, regardless of context. Is this the case? Surely there must be quite a few successful CofE congregations that never touch contemporary music?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It might help, Kevin, if you defined what you understand by contemporary music styles.

It seems to me that you are presupposing that there is one catch-all, culturally appropriate style for everybody.

There isn't. Quite aside from the vast range of music from different cultural and ethnic groups there's also the issue of whether it's 'pop', 'rock' or classical etc. The kind of music found in the Vineyard churches, for instance, derives from Californian soft-rock ... is that contemporary? I'd suggest it's at least 10 to 15 years out of date.

What would be considered contemporary in style to some people wouldn't seem at all contemporary to others.

My eldest daughter (18) listens to the kind of music I was listening to when I was in my early 20s - the Clash, the Cure etc ... her friends don't. She listens to music by 'contemporary' bands too but she's got music downloaded on her gizmos that run from the 1960s through to the present. Is that 'contemporary'?

I tend to think that to many people the term 'contemporary' is short-hand for 'music that I like'.

Just as the term 'relevant' is short-hand for 'relevant for me and not necessarily anyone else.'

What is this contemporary music of which you speak and how might it work with a congregation aged between 3 and 95 in a 12th century church?

Show us some examples and explain how it might do so.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

As an aside, I had an interesting discussion with someone who is involved with visiting/helping with old people's homes.

He observed that when a group of well-meaning volunteers come in to lead some kind of musical evening for the oldies they invariably play early 1900s or 1920s Music Hall songs - 'My Old Man said follow the van ...'

... Or else WW2 favourites such as Vera Lynn or Glen Miller etc.

However, many people in OAP homes today would have left school in 1961, say, and may have listened to The Beatles, Beach Boys and the Stones.

Does any of that fit 'contemporary styles'?

It seems to me that people expect musical styles that suit a particular context. Rightly or wrongly, people involved with OAP homes imagine that this must be Marie Lloyd or George Formby ...

I s'pose the musical style in any church is going to derive/emanate from whatever the cultural norms are within that particular group - and, of course, the theological tradition and churchmanship.

It would no more make sense for a Vineyard church to sing an elaborate baroque setting of the Gloria than it would for people in a 12th century rural parish to sing some kind of dumbed-down soft-rock offering that would be more appropriate in Surftown USA ...

[Razz]

I can see what SCK is getting at and would argue that the kind of situation he is visually did apply to a certain extent in the early days of the so-called 'new churches'.

Or even, going further back, to the village 'wakes' and bands of the early 19th century before the CofE tidied it all up. Then you had a small band with shawms and 'serpents' and someone who would 'line-out' the hymns and psalms. It's all there in Hardy's 'Under The Greenwood Tree'.

I don't really see a great deal of difference in what he describes to the situation in rural parishes hereabouts where there is a kind of scratch-choir of mixed ability and people try to join is as best they can.

The only difference would be that the choir are in robes - shock, horror - and the music would not be as contemporary as SCK would like it to be.

I'm sure if we were to visit various Brethren assemblies and other independent evangelical churches we'd find some genuinely 'home-made' offerings ... someone plunking away on a piano or strumming a guitar whilst not pretending to be on the Pyramid Stage at Glastonbury ...

I'm sure if we attended Mudfrog's Citadel we'd find a mix of traditional and contemporary songs and musical styles that 'fit' that particular context. What would there be 'not to like' unless we took exception to the use of uniforms, brass instruments, the lack of holy communion or something ...

If we left all that aside and judged it purely on musical terms - if there is such a thing as 'purely' - or the appropriateness for the congregation/setting concerned then we might come away thinking that it was all fine and dandy.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It might help, Kevin, if you defined what you understand by contemporary music styles.

It seems to me that you are presupposing that there is one catch-all, culturally appropriate style for everybody.

Unintended implication, sorry! I guess I just mean the styles of music that are most ubiquitous in contemporary culture - so, the music played on the most popular radio stations or used in the background on popular TV shows like soaps. The kinds of music most people will be familiar with...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

South Coast Kevin

Do you believe that all churches should try to use contemporary music in worship, or is it a question of culture and context?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
South Coast Kevin

Do you believe that all churches should try to use contemporary music in worship, or is it a question of culture and context?

Good question... I guess, for me, it's about which people any given church is primarily trying to 'reach'. That could be in terms of a particular age range, socio-economic group, interest group, or whatever really.

And if a church sees its mission in general geographical terms (as most do, I suppose) then it makes sense to use musical styles that will be accessible and familiar to most people. But then, a church might feel there's a place for having a focus on, say, classical music fans, in which case they might want to deliberately use classical music in their services.

Let's just be deliberate about it, I suppose is what I'm saying. Let's use music that is accessible to the people we're trying to 'reach' (and that fits the existing culture of our church; that's important too). It's no good for a church to use music that alienates its existing members, but I think it's also no good to use music that is alien to the people that the church is hoping to share the gospel with.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hmmm ... so you would recommend setting hymns to the Eastenders theme tune and so on?

There's nothing new in this. The Salvation Army were doing that 130 years ago - 'Champagne Charlie' and all the rest of it.

Heck, some Slavic liturgical music is based on folk tunes ...

There are several examples of hymns being set to 'contemporary' tunes - like those set to the Dambuster's March and so on. Then there were all the Wild Geese songs set to folk tunes and so on. Some of these worked, others didn't work so well.

Plus the contemporary reworkings of 'Be Thou My Vision' and so on.

You seem to be suggesting that people can only relate to the kind of music found on TV programmes and MoR radio stations.

I really can't see what is so off-putting about Victorian hymn tunes or mid-20th century hymn tunes ... heck, a lot of these are sung on the terraces every Saturday at sporting fixtures.

I would suggest that there are deeper reasons why people aren't darkening the doors of our churches rather than that they don't like the music.

Give us some examples. Cite a tune that has almost universal appeal in your opinion and that we should be adopting in our churches ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've heard arguments for 'niche' targeting of evangelism many times, but targetting services specifically for classical music fans is a new one on me ...

[Ultra confused]

Forgive me, but you seem to have this idea that church services are - or should be - the main form of evangelism. Sure, they can have an evangelistic impact but I'd suggest that this isn't the prime or sole focus of public worship, however it is conducted.

As society becomes more atomised there is a case for targeted approaches but I still feel wary of such things ...

It's a tricky one. Our parish church - for all that I don't feel particularly comfortable with it - is at least trying to 'cater' to various groups. It does a lot of things aimed at young families with children but at the other end of the spectrum does a lot of work with old people too - coffee and communion, an elderly persons' house group etc.

It has effectively ended up with two congregations - a 9am and an 11am one - but it is at least keeping the two together rather than it all hiving off into separate little cliques.

Some people do bob between the 9am and 11am slots but by and large they are quite separate.

I don't know what the answer is.

I'm not sure to what extent music either alienates or engages people within congregations - but it is a major focus for bust-ups. There are small numbers of people travelling from our town out to tiny parish churches in the countryside to escape from contemporary styles in the various churches here.

Conversely, we've had people from more rural areas travelling in because they want something with a bit more 'buzz' as they see it.

I can understand some young people, say, being alienated by traditional music styles in churches - and vice-versa, older people being put off by the soft-rock approach.

But how about those 'in the middle'? How do things work for them?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Those in the middle often seem to like modern music from the Cathedral tradition, eg. Rutter, Archer, Shepherd, Ogden. The RSCM is a good source of inspiration for music that has been published by living composers, working in and for cathedrals. Here is an example by David Ogden that is popular in our church.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes - I think you're probably right about 'those int the middle' in a CofE context, Chorister.

But how about a Baptist one or a URC or Methodist one? Or an RC one come to that - there are variations in music style there too of course.

With the Orthodox the choice simply seems to be between more Byzantine styles or more Slavic styles ... they've not got around to introducing anything else yet - but give them time ...

[Biased]

I've seen videos of Orthodox services in Ghana where the tunes are recognisably Byzantine but the way in which they're sung is very, very African - with dancing and drumming etc.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hmmm ... are we saying that the BBC Songs of Praise diet should be the default one? It appears popular and lots more people watch it than one might think.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would suggest that there are deeper reasons why people aren't darkening the doors of our churches rather than that they don't like the music.

Oh yes, so would I. But this discussion is about music styles. If you want to start a discussion about some of those other reasons then I may well join in.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Give us some examples. Cite a tune that has almost universal appeal in your opinion and that we should be adopting in our churches ...

Well, I'm not sure there are tunes that have 'almost universal appeal'. Like I said above, it's about drawing from the culture(s) of the people you hope to draw in to the church community. I'm reluctant to post specific songs as I don't really want to get into that kind of discussion. Not on this thread anyway.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Forgive me, but you seem to have this idea that church services are - or should be - the main form of evangelism. Sure, they can have an evangelistic impact but I'd suggest that this isn't the prime or sole focus of public worship, however it is conducted.

Ah Gamaliel, our history of miscommunication continues, I see! I absolutely 100% do not consider our church services to be the main way we share the gospel with people. I have very little faith in that 'come to us' approach. (Here's something I wrote earlier)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

But how about those 'in the middle'? How do things work for them?

I'd appreciate the kind of church service that can incorporate both traditional hymns and worship music, but it seems quite rare IME. One problem I've heard about is that worship songs don't work so well in the traditional hymn sandwich format. IMO this is true, but others will probably disagree.

As for building up two separate congregations in one church, a traditional one and a contemporary one, only well-heeled, well-resourced churches are going to be able to do this. The vast majority of congregations in very ordinary areas will have to develop a single worshipping identity with a single congregation. But creating a diverse worshipping culture is hard, because it means long-term (mostly elderly) members have to suppress their own preferences for the sake of developing the church. The clergy aren't always convincing about why it's necessary.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

SCK - I think it's my posting style rather than miscommunication. I am well aware that you see church services as the primary/sole means of evangelism ...

What I try to do with your good self is to take an aspect of what you've posted and either push it too far or put more weight on it in order to stimulate debate. I will try to make this clearer if I do it another time.

Meanwhile - yes, I can see why you are reluctant to cite particular musical styles and examples as that could derail the thread. A wise decision on your part, I think.

[Votive]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[Hot and Hormonal]

Garrghhh!!

What I meant to post was 'I am well aware that you DON'T see church services as ...'

[Hot and Hormonal]

I must preview my posts too.

[Biased]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@SvitlanaV2. Yes, I agree.

Way back in the day I quickly realised that the kind of worship-songs and choruses that were sung in the emerging 'new churches' didn't work quite so well when vectored into Anglican services or even traditional non-conformist services.

What's happened, though, is that some Anglican and Baptist/URC/Methodist churches have adapted their style to suit these sort of songs or else developed versions of their own ... the New Wine thing being a case in point.

A mixed-model doesn't work so well.

And yes - on the whole our parish is pretty well-heeled and has the resources to pull this sort of thing off. That isn't to say that the older people are wealthy - they're fairly working class on the whole - as indeed are some of the younger newcomers.

But the 'backbone' of the church in financial and leadership terms is provided by a coterie of well-heeled professionals.

I am very aware that a mixed-economy approach can only work where there are the resources and infrastructure to support it. Which is why is doesn't happen very often.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

And BTW, what's happened to the trend of writing new, relevant words to old, familiar hymn tunes? Has it died out?

Some of the most versatile and congregation-friendly hymns tunes could find a new lease of life if given fresher and perhaps more honest words that take account of what Christians feel and believe today. And as I said above, some of these melodies work quite well in popular contemporary arrangements.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One problem I've heard about is that worship songs don't work so well in the traditional hymn sandwich format. IMO this is true, but others will probably disagree.

As usually practised I'd agree. The problem is usually that churches with a traditional hymn sandwich format do not have the resources to use modern worship songs the way they are intended. You need a music group to play the songs, because they won't work on the organ. At the very least a piano or electric keyboard with an organist able to play it as well as they play organ.

Even with a music group you either need to stick with the multi-verse songs that look a bit like hymns (even if the style is different), or work with groups of songs linked together. Which means a) familiarity with enough songs to put together a balanced selection that creates a whole which plays the role of expressing theology in song of hymns, b) having printed sheets with the songs altogether (so no finish one, then wait for everyone to turn to song number xxx in the book before continuing ... which makes things feel like two or more hymns without anything between them).

Basically, it takes someone in the church familiar with modern worships who understands how to use them in worship. Rather than treating them as "new hymns"

Posted by Below the Lansker (# 17297) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As usually practised I'd agree. The problem is usually that churches with a traditional hymn sandwich format do not have the resources to use modern worship songs the way they are intended. You need a music group to play the songs, because they won't work on the organ. At the very least a piano or electric keyboard with an organist able to play it as well as they play organ.

On the other hand, I have had the experience of members of my own rural Baptist church going to a service at a more zingy town church nearby coming back and saying "I quite liked the songs - they were modern and new, but I wish they'd played them on the piano - I couldn't hear myself singing over the noise of the drums and guitars." The problem may not be the song (though I think there are musical and lyrical problems with some modern worship music), but how it is presented. And whether it's a generational thing or not, for some people certain musical styles or instruments are considered worldly and not to be used in worship. That applies not only to the usual suspects (electric guitars and drums), but also to the organ. The chapel I attend was re-built in 1895, and packed with pews from the back of the gallery right up to the communion rail, leaving no space for musical instruments.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Singability is the key if we're going to go for congregational singing.

Mind you, the prospect of singing at all is off-putting to a lot of people.

So, what do we do? Not have any in case it puts people off?

In Anglican settings I've known of non-churchgoers say that it's the 'peace' that puts them off ie. they'd come along if they weren't expected to shake hands with total strangers and greet them in some way ...

I'm not so sure whether these things are as much of a turn-off as people say. I think they'd find something else off-putting. If it wasn't 'the peace' it'd be something else.

It's got more to do with people being wary of something being 'put over' on them - and that applies right across the board.

Who are these people? Do they want my money? Do they expect me to get involved and help them maintain their building, recruit other people, keep their show on the road ... ?

Are they going to brainwash me?

There are 101 barriers and rising as to why people think they shouldn't engage with church in any formal kind of way. If it isn't 'boring' then it's 'scary' with people raising their hands and smiling like they're on drugs ...

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

In TEC, it has been my experience that many congregations use yellowed, dog eared ancient paper backs from the 70s and for some reason consider them to be "contemporary." And these congos seem viscerally to hate anything remotely Gregorian. One person noticed a hymn tune had a Latin name, when I showed her the date proving it wasn't Gregorian, she said "OK then." They are often the people who were actually taught NOT to give anything up for Lent and the utter foolishness of fasting or being uncomfortable in any way, but I digress.

I have often found that though it is great to have hymns match the Lessons or the season, like what would Easter 2 be without O sons and daughters?" That sometimes the hymns themselves can be teaching.

Try getting the congo to learn some powerful J.M. Neale translations, or spend a month of Sundays on German or Dutch hymns. Many will be new and refreshing to the whole congregation.

Majesty, De Colores, and Shine, Jesus Shine need to be euthanized.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
In TEC, it has been my experience that many congregations use yellowed, dog eared ancient paper backs from the 70s

You do mean the 1870s, don't you?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Basically, it takes someone in the church familiar with modern worships who understands how to use them in worship. Rather than treating them as "new hymns"

Yes, this is a really good point. Some newer songs - I've got Stuart Townend's in mind - are written as 'new hymns', but a lot, especially the 'Vineyard-y' or 'New Wine-y' ones, are intended to be used in groups, creating what one might call a 'liturgical event' when put together with prayer, thought and skill.

So, yeah, moving wholesale from the 'hymn sandwich' model to the 'worship set' model will always take a lot of work, and will most likely upset plenty of people in the church! I wasn't really thinking about such a major upheaval in my thread starter; I more had in mind the situation where a church is trying to introduce a few new hymns / songs while keeping the overall format broadly the same.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I more had in mind the situation where a church is trying to introduce a few new hymns / songs while keeping the overall format broadly the same.

This is fairly straightforward, if it's just a question of introducing an unknown hymn - or a hymn-like 'new' song. The organist/pianist will simply play the tune through once, and then the congregation will be expected to join in.

The Iona women I mentioned above said it was much better for a new song to be introduced by a singer than by a musical instrument. However, IME Methodist preachers and ministers are often reluctant to teach a new song unaccompanied. Vicars are perhaps better at this since they're in the habit of leading their liturgies by chanting.

Black Pentecostal pastors seem to be at ease with leading congregations in song. Their musicians tend to play by ear, and they pick out the right key and tune while the singing is going on. Sometimes it's a member of the congregation who introduces a song spontaneously, and everyone else will just join in as and when they pick up the beat, the melody and the words. These days I suppose longer songs are introduced on a screen, but it doesn't seem to cause any anxiety AFAIK.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
And BTW, what's happened to the trend of writing new, relevant words to old, familiar hymn tunes? Has it died out?

Some of the most versatile and congregation-friendly hymns tunes could find a new lease of life if given fresher and perhaps more honest words that take account of what Christians feel and believe today. And as I said above, some of these melodies work quite well in popular contemporary arrangements.

Just my opinion, but most of the new words to old tunes that I've encountered really suck.

Partly its because the tunes people choose to give new words to (again, in my experience) are really good tunes that have really good old words that are basically praise, while the new words often carry heavy loads of preaching to the singers and moaning about social issues.

And partly because we've discarded the 95%-98% of really aweful old words by the Wesleys and others and are left with the cream (once we cut our half to two-thirds of the verses). I don't think it's unkind to say that the vast majority of modern words to old tunes are really, really bad as poetry -- compared with the tiny proportion of traditional poetry that is used to the old tunes.

I don't in fact disapprove of new words to old tunes -- some (not all) of the new words to old tunes in the first Jubilate Hymnnal (for example) are quite refreshing, if not earthshattering. It's just that so many of them are so dire.

John

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

'Moaning about social issues' - yes, there tends to be a lot of that! But it doesn't have to be that way, does it?

Maybe we need to switch things around a bit and get liberal Christian songwriters to write worship music, and evangelical ones to write new words for old tunes?

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'Moaning about social issues' - yes, there tends to be a lot of that! But it doesn't have to be that way, does it?

It doesn't have to be, of course. And there are some sets of new words to old tunes that do work, whatever they're about. I'd classify Will You Come And FOllow Me in this group, even though the tune was anything but old or traditional in this part of the world, and even though it could well be viewed as moaning about social issues.

It doesn't have to be -- but far too often it is. And unless you know a couple of good poets who are also good at theology....

It's not about having "liberal" authors, or "conservative" authors or anything else. Because some of the good new words to new music come out of conservative stables. It's about having good authors. And, I'm sorry, Fred Pratt Green and his friends just don't cut it for me.

John

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The Iona women I mentioned above said it was much better for a new song to be introduced by a singer than by a musical instrument. However, IME Methodist preachers and ministers are often reluctant to teach a new song unaccompanied. Vicars are perhaps better at this since they're in the habit of leading their liturgies by chanting.

This is one area in which I do thoroughly agree with the approach of most contemporary charismatic-style churches. IMO there's absolutely no reason why ministers / vicars should be the ones to lead or teach songs.

I realise that the minister / vicar might well retain decision-making powers regarding how the music and singing is done, but why should they be the person to actually lead it? If they're musically gifted and sensitive to the Spirit, then fine, but otherwise try to identify and then train a few people in the congregation who show signs of having those gifts / skills.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

South Coast Kevin

Get hold of The Singing Thing Too which deals with how to teach congregations songs. It is written by John Bell who has been doing precisely that for over thirty years.

The Iona Community has developed techniques to teach people songs for worship in a short time and to lead them.

Jengie

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

In Orthodox and some RC churches, of course, the singing isn't led by the priest but by a cantor or choir. Mind you, the level of congregational singing does vary and in most Orthodox services I've attended the congregation tend only to join in with the Lord's Prayer, the Creed and the preparation/responses before communion.

RC congregations do sing but they sing rather feebly in my experience and not with the kind of gusto you might find in charismatic, 'free church' and some Anglican settings.

There are exceptions to that general rule, though, and my brother-in-law was blown away by congregational RC singing on a visit to Poland.

Howbeit, Jengie Jon has raised an interesting point here.

There can be a tendency to regard there as being only three broad alternatives:

- A formal or more ritualised liturgical style.
- A non-conformist hymn-sandwich style.
- A 'worship set' medley of choruses led by a worship leader style.

Why only these?

I don't know much about John Bell's approach but from what little I have gathered it seems to offer a model that contains elements of the above but which doesn't completely fall into these categories in a 'rigid' way.

I agree with SCK that with skill and discernment a 'worship set' of choruses can indeed add up to something ... but by and large it tends to descend into the stringing of a few songs together to form a theme or to fulfil the standardised charismatic expectation of a 'lively one followed by a slower and more meditative one, followed by a whoozy-whoozy one, followed by a lively one to finish off on a high with.'

I'm sure there are some clever and spot-on things that could be done with a mix of liturgy, well-organised congregational singing (a la John Bell perhaps) and responses that takes us away from the tyranny of charismatic evangelical convention style.

But it would take a fair bit of nouse and effort to pull off.

The question then would be, would it be worthwhile? Are the three main 'styles' I've identified 'bust' and need fixing?

Answers on a postcard please ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
IMO there's absolutely no reason why ministers / vicars should be the ones to lead or teach songs.

I realise that the minister / vicar might well retain decision-making powers regarding how the music and singing is done, but why should they be the person to actually lead it? If they're musically gifted and sensitive to the Spirit, then fine, but otherwise try to identify and then train a few people in the congregation who show signs of having those gifts / skills.

In the Methodist case I think it's a question of convenience. Many different preachers pass through the average Methodist pulpit, and it wouldn't be practical for them to liaise with 'good singers' each time. But they do try to make sure that the organist has a copy of the sheet music in advance. I imagine there are well-organised churches where trained church choirs are given copies as well, but this would only happen at a minority of churches.

The lack of continuity in the Methodist pulpit has been blamed by some for discouraging innovation in Methodist churches. I think it does partly explain the relatively rare use of worship songs.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by South Coast Kevin

quote:
...the music played on the most popular radio stations ...

The top four radio stations by listener numbers in the UK are:

BBC Radio 2
BBC Radio 4
BBC Radio 1
Classic FM

Well, Radio 2 plays an eclectic mix of music from the past hundred years or more, from light classical to modern Indie.

Radio 4 plays little music unless you count the various requests on Desert Island Discs, the most popular choices of which are

Beethoven - Symphony No 9
Rachmaninoff - Piano Concerto No 2
Schubert - String Quintet in C
Beethoven Symphony No 6 (Pastoral)
Elgar - Pomp & Circumstance March no 1 (Land of Hope and Glory)
Beethoven - Piano Concerto No 5 (Emperor)
Elgar - Nimrod (Enigma Variations)
Beethoven - Symphony No 7

Radio 1 plays the top selling downloads and record releases and the entire playlist is churned over a 6 week period.

Classic FM 'Does what it says on the tin' - in other words, light classics.

Which of these choices have you in mind that churches should be seeking to reproduce, SCK? Keeping pace with Radio 1 would be impossible; Radio 4 - no problem. Radio 2 - thats the soft-rock genre that needs people capable of playing in a semi-pro band; Classic FM - well, OK but there is more to life than Max Bruch and The Lark Ascending!

In any case, I assume when you speak of 'contemporary worship music' you mean songs? We use quite a lot of stuff written in the past 40 years by people like Arvo Part, Olivier Messiaen, Richard Rodney Bennett, John Tavener, Goreckyi, Matthias, Howells, Leighton, etc, etc, etc. They're all pretty much contemporaneous...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

L'organist

Earlier in the thread South Coast Kevin clarified that getting every church to perform some variety of pop music wasn't his goal. Each church has its own context. The music you play obviously suits the demographic and the culture of your church, and of the people in the vicinity whom the church expects to reach. That's okay.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Get hold of The Singing Thing Too which deals with how to teach congregations songs. It is written by John Bell who has been doing precisely that for over thirty years.

The Iona Community has developed techniques to teach people songs for worship in a short time and to lead them.

Cheers for the recommendation! Could you post a brief summary or a couple of quick highlights from the book?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

While I haven't read that book, certainly Taizé and Iona are good places to look for inspiration.

SCK, does anyone in your church's congregation go to Greenbelt, or is it mostly Spring Harvest/New Wine etc? I would maybe suggest giving Greenbelt a try? Lots of variety when it comes to worship music there.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It's always being trotted out, but I don't agree with the statement that traditional and modern styles of worship don't mix, that each service must opt for one or another.

I agree that most modern 'worship songs' sound cr*p on an organ. That was so even back in Youth Praise days - does any other shipmate remember those two works? I also think that the sort of stuff produced by many Christian bands is unsuitable for congregational worship. Whatever the groups may say, it's designed to listen to or to watch the band worshipping on stage. You can't sing along to it.

So many groups seem to think that if they look as though they are being really sent by their own singing, that somehow their onlookers will be uplifted too. That's a delusion. They won't be.

It's also another version of the mistaken assumption that a vicar is called a vicar because he or she is vicariously holy on your behalf, and will let you off being.

But. Many traditional hymns weren't written to be played on an organ. The reason why there's usually four parts is because each part was played by a different instrument. You sang along with the one that was playing what was in your range.

On top of that, a lot of the Vaughan Williams English Hymnal input into the repertoire comes from traditional folky tunes collected by Cecil Sharp et al, but with conventional C19 hymn harmonies added.

Provided you use a band rather than an organ, and avoid hard rock, you can mix the styles together quite easily.

There are though two other important things to register. The first is that the job of choir/band/musicians is to lead the congregation, to enable them to worship, not to provide them with something to listen to or watch. The second is that the guitar, as usually played, is a tuned percussion instrument. A congregation must be given a strong melodic lead, which they can hear - so nothing drowned out by the beat - and a definite beat they can follow - no wifty-wafty stuff.

Oh, and one other thing - I've said this before - if you go into a church and see they've put their drummer in a perspex box, leave immediately. It's an infallible sign of heap bad medicine.

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
While I haven't read that book, certainly Taizé and Iona are good places to look for inspiration.

SCK, does anyone in your church's congregation go to Greenbelt, or is it mostly Spring Harvest/New Wine etc? I would maybe suggest giving Greenbelt a try? Lots of variety when it comes to worship music there.

And numerous opportunities to try both Taizé and Iona first hand [Big Grin]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Get hold of The Singing Thing Too which deals with how to teach congregations songs. It is written by John Bell who has been doing precisely that for over thirty years.

The Iona Community has developed techniques to teach people songs for worship in a short time and to lead them.
Cheers for the recommendation! Could you post a brief summary or a couple of quick highlights from the book?

No because my awareness of what it contains comes from reading the other half The Singing Thing. However I found this review which gives some.

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Can I just add that I also think it's a great wee book, very practical and easy to read.

On modern worship songs (by someone who's very much "into" them), try reading this.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

That was so even back in Youth Praise days - does any other shipmate remember those two works?

Yes. The Sunday School (proper afternoon affair it was too*) I attended used them with the senior class.

Jengie

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The modern evangelical fellowships where the worship looks like a rock concert and the crowd sing along to their favourite frontman/worship leader is really, really to replicate or adapt in a church where there is nothing like that kind of musical talent.
To be clear, I'm no fan of this style of church music - both because of the 'performance' mentality and because it sets the bar unhelpfully high in terms of the musical skill required to lead.

What I'm in favour of is the use of music that reflects contemporary cultural styles, as long as such music can be tailored so it is (a) pretty easy for everyone to learn and join in with, and (b) pretty easy for people with a modicum of skill on guitar, piano etc. to lead.

The problem is that if you don't like Coldplay, you're excluded.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

That was so even back in Youth Praise days - does any other shipmate remember those two works?
Yes. The Sunday School (proper afternoon affair it was too*) I attended used them with the senior class.

Jengie

Yup, I remember YP - even in its first edition with "script" writing on the cover rather than the later "blobby" writing. There was great excitement in our Crusader class as one of our members had a song published in YP2.

I remember being horrified (c.1968) at guitars (non-electric at that!) being used in worship!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Jengie Jon may appreciate this, but I remember an interesting conversation with a URC minister whom I admired very much whose observation of the contemporary music format was that it was 'unbalanced' from a Trinitarian perspective.

His reasoning was that the bulk of these worship sessions started out with a few praise-y songs addressed to God the Father, but then the bulk of them were overly Christocentric in a Jesus-is-my-boyfriend sense. God the Holy Spirit only got a look-in as the One invited to 'do the stuff' during the almost ubiquitous 'ministry time' at the end ...

He wouldn't have contemporary worship songs in his church for this reason, despite his wife's protests. She liked them.

In fairness, I would suggest that this imbalance is more down to the way that the songs are deployed rather than something intrinsically 'off' about the songs themselves.

One of the reasons why I tend to favour a more formal/traditional liturgy these days is because it does preserve and convey the creedal formularies - and also adds balance. Things are there for a reason. They aren't just there on the whim of whoever happens to be leading the worship that week.

Meanwhile, whilst I agree with SvitlanaV2's and SCK's comments on the demographic and cultural elements at work in any church context, I also take the point that L'Organist was making.

In some areas you'd find people who would listen to range of those radio stations and musical styles. In others things would be more monolithic.

It's impossible to be 'neutral' but if one adopts a particular niche style - Goth Music say - then all you'll end up with are Goths. People who aren't Gothically inclined are going to feel alienated.

The same applies to Byrd, Tallis, black Gospel music or whatever else.

Either we accept that and work with it or we make accommodations.

No easy answer.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

His reasoning was that the bulk of these worship sessions started out with a few praise-y songs addressed to God the Father, but then the bulk of them were overly Christocentric in a Jesus-is-my-boyfriend sense. God the Holy Spirit only got a look-in as the One invited to 'do the stuff' during the almost ubiquitous 'ministry time' at the end ...

Interesting when one remembers Tom Smail saying, in the 70s, that the Holy Spirit had rather usurped the place of "The Forgotten Father".

Perhaps most Christians can only relate to a Duality at any one time ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Meanwhile, whilst I agree with SvitlanaV2's and SCK's comments on the demographic and cultural elements at work in any church context, I also take the point that L'Organist was making.

In some areas you'd find people who would listen to range of those radio stations and musical styles. In others things would be more monolithic.

It's impossible to be 'neutral' but if one adopts a particular niche style - Goth Music say - then all you'll end up with are Goths. People who aren't Gothically inclined are going to feel alienated.

The same applies to Byrd, Tallis, black Gospel music or whatever else.

Either we accept that and work with it or we make accommodations.

Does that then mean that CofE churches (theoretically serving everyone in the parish) should be more eclectic than "gathered community" nonconformists who can specifically aim at one cultural group? And, if so, how?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK, does anyone in your church's congregation go to Greenbelt, or is it mostly Spring Harvest/New Wine etc? I would maybe suggest giving Greenbelt a try? Lots of variety when it comes to worship music there.

I think there are people who go to all three of these, although I've only been to New Wine myself. I'm pretty sure I'd love Green Belt but I just haven't got round to going. Next year! (Not this year as I'll have an MA dissertation to finish.)

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Does that then mean that CofE churches (theoretically serving everyone in the parish) should be more eclectic than "gathered community" nonconformists who can specifically aim at one cultural group? And, if so, how?

Well, isn't the typical way to have two or more services each week, with each one having a distinctive 'style' and - usually, AIUI - a mostly separate congregation?

In parishes without the resources to do that, or where the people in charge don't want to have separate services / congregations, maybe you could vary the style so e.g. it's traditional hymn sandwich one week and charismatic-style worship set the next. But then, would people just come along on alternate weeks according to their musical preference...?

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

As a simple sociological question: is the CofE notably more socially diverse than nonconformist churches?

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Radio 4 plays little music unless you count the various requests on Desert Island Discs, the most popular choices of which are
Beethoven - Symphony No 9
Rachmaninoff - Piano Concerto No 2
Schubert - String Quintet in C
Beethoven Symphony No 6 (Pastoral)
Elgar - Pomp & Circumstance March no 1 (Land of Hope and Glory)
Beethoven - Piano Concerto No 5 (Emperor)
Elgar - Nimrod (Enigma Variations)
Beethoven - Symphony No 7

Most frequently played piece of music on BBC radio 4 has to be Barwick Green (aka Archers Theme) followed by Sailing By (or does Sailing By win? Is it played before silly o'clock shipping forecast as well as 0045?) and the National Anthem. Christian music comes next, with the Daily Serivce (Longwave only) and Sunday Worship (which has a variety of styles) and Something Understood (which has a range of traditions Christian and beyond).

Carys (who has Radio 4 as her soundtrack, but rarely hears the early shipping forecast)

Posted by jrw (# 18045) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
A previous (evangelical Anglican) church of mine got the balance right, I think - a good mixture of contemporary worship band type songs, and classic hymns (although Wesleyan and Revivalist hymns were usually as old as they got!). Current evangelical church that I sometimes attend unfortunately uses music that sits awkwardly between venerably old and contemporary - it just feels dated.

There's no such thing as dated.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Reading this discussion of contemporary music, I'm just up from my post-church nap and here to give this synopsis of the music at my parish this morning, divided by organist/choir & congregational singing.

Voluntary: 21st century
Five movement mass setting: 1869.
Psalm tone: 20th century.
Anthem: mid-20th century.
Voluntary: 19th century

Entrance hymn: text-1739; music-1866.
Gospel hymn: text-8th century; music 1544.
Offertory hymn: text-15century; music-15th century (1918 adapted).
Communion hymn: text-1695; music-1588.

[ 27. April 2014, 21:08: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Good question on whether CofE or non-conformist churches should operate differently in this respect, Baptist Trainfan.

I'm not sure whether there can be a clear cut answer or issue with this one.

It all depends on a whole range of demographic factors.

When I was growing up in South Wales, religion was still fairly stratified. If you were involved in church at all then the CofE was more middle-class and more 'anglo' in feel. The Baptists and other non-conformists tended to attract lower-middle/upper working class and tended to be more 'Welsh' in tone (if not in language, ours wasn't a Welsh speaking area) and the Pentecostals were the most working class - with some upward mobility going on.

These days things have moved on ... in some parts of Wales the Anglicans - Church in Wales - are more 'Welsh' in feel and in language because much of Welsh nonconformity has collapsed in on itself.

As far as the Baptist go, I know of an instance (in the North of England) where various plants from a large Baptist church all took on a different flavour within a densely populated but geographically condensed area. Interestingly, they tended to define these by reference to new-church streams - one was 'more NFI', another 'more Vineyard' ...

I'm not sure what the answer is. We've become so diverse and 'marketised' that people can self-select from a wide range of options.

Whether this is good or bad or indifferent is an interesting thing to discuss, but the reality is, that is where things are - for the most part.

It's different in inner city areas, of course, as SvitlanaV2 reminds us. There most churches don't have the resources to lay on multi-faceted styles for different demographics or different preferences.

As for the CofE laying on different services for different groups ... in my experience this only happens where there are sufficient resources to do so.

Ok, so you will find some parishes offering an 8am BCP service followed by a 10am Family Service or whatever ... and they do get a different crowd to each. But many, many parishes can only offer one option - and that applies both in rural areas and in the cities.

The multi-service, different-styles thing is largely a suburban one I suspect - and as SvitlanaV2 says, you have to be pretty well-resourced to be able to offer such variety.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jrw:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
A previous (evangelical Anglican) church of mine got the balance right, I think - a good mixture of contemporary worship band type songs, and classic hymns (although Wesleyan and Revivalist hymns were usually as old as they got!). Current evangelical church that I sometimes attend unfortunately uses music that sits awkwardly between venerably old and contemporary - it just feels dated.

There's no such thing as dated.

I don't see how? It's the musical equivalent of using out of date slang. Music changes just like language.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

The concept that contemp music is done in multiple songs together (instead of one song at a time) to create movement through more than the one thought in any one song, intrigues me because it raises a question whether the music can fit well in a traditional liturgical service, which is where I'm seeing it tried with less than enthusiasm from the congregation.

The one-thought songs in the traditional services I have attended are repeated every week - Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world have mercy on me. Praise God from whim all blessing flow. A few others. A single thought that belongs in a specific spot, sung or said. Hymns offer a much broader range of instruction, reminder, experience per song. Change those to one thought repeated several times, and the service has lost content?

Maybe we are discussing multiple things at once - style of music, but also appropriate use of the style? Nothing wrong with any style of music, but you don't try to put a marching band to a waltz. Are some music styles appropriate for one style of service but not another? Could mis-fit create problems in getting people to learn them? In which case "modern" songs with verses (70s kind of music?) might work better in a traditional style of worship than current "worship" songs?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, it is an intriguing idea. I'd suggest though, that the 'medley' approach works best in less obviously liturgical settings because, in effect, it replaces the job that liturgy does elsewhere.

It 'works' partly in a self-fulfilling prophecy way (and I don't mean that to sound insulting) insofar that there is an expectation that it will work and people are signed up to the format and concept.

The reason these songs work less well in other contexts is precisely because they have been taken out of context.

It's not as if repeated refrains aren't used in traditional liturgical settings - they are.

For instance, in the Orthodox parish I'm most familiar with the choir (and some of the congregation) sing this over and over as people receive communion - ending with 'alleluia, alleluia, alleluia ...'

They actually singing it a slightly faster tempo and, it seems to me, more joyfully than this example but it's the same chant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuWok6lOfe8

Then there are the Taize chants and so on which are popular in some circles.

I would suggest that this example could be transposed quite easily into other settings - even less liturgical ones - but it works best in its own context. I find it a very moving chant.

Of course, liturgical/sacramental settings could adopt a more 'contemporary' style of music for pieces like this - but I don't see how the tune itself could offend or be off-putting to anyone - unless they were sticklers for jangly-jangly happy-clappy ...

Posted by jrw (# 18045) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by jrw:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
A previous (evangelical Anglican) church of mine got the balance right, I think - a good mixture of contemporary worship band type songs, and classic hymns (although Wesleyan and Revivalist hymns were usually as old as they got!). Current evangelical church that I sometimes attend unfortunately uses music that sits awkwardly between venerably old and contemporary - it just feels dated.

There's no such thing as dated.
I don't see how? It's the musical equivalent of using out of date slang. Music changes just like language.

Surely the best music is timeless.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
In TEC, it has been my experience that many congregations use yellowed, dog eared ancient paper backs from the 70s
You do mean the 1870s, don't you?

No, the 1970s, when the present priest was in seminary. Many of them are 'kumbaya-istas' -- they 'grooved' on these songs in their formative days and likely haven't had a new (musical) idea since.
Just my opinion, though it's supported by evidence.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jrw:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by jrw:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
A previous (evangelical Anglican) church of mine got the balance right, I think - a good mixture of contemporary worship band type songs, and classic hymns (although Wesleyan and Revivalist hymns were usually as old as they got!). Current evangelical church that I sometimes attend unfortunately uses music that sits awkwardly between venerably old and contemporary - it just feels dated.

There's no such thing as dated.
I don't see how? It's the musical equivalent of using out of date slang. Music changes just like language.
Surely the best music is timeless.

Yes, and my point is that the music in question is not the best and so is not timeless!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Surely music, like any form of art, is a cultural product. It is produced within a cultural context, it is appreciated in a cultural context, it's quality is judged within a cultural context. Yes, a lot of art (including music) can and does cross cultural boundaries and speaks to other cultures - though whether the message translates as the same is another question.

For "good music to be timeless" then it has to be able to cross all cultural boundaries, and be recognised as good music by everyone who hears it. Or, there has to be an objective way of judging musical quality independent of culture, which by definition would also need to be able to judge cultures as "good" and "bad" (presumably a culture that does not recognise objectively good art is worse than one that does).

I have seen no evidence that art can either cross all cultural boundaries, nor that art can be assessed on objective grounds independent of all cultures.

Therefore, I conclude, it is very possible for very great art to be produced in one culture and fail to resonate in another. And, if the culture that produced such a piece of art is one that existed in the past then "dated" is an apt word to use.

Posted by jrw (# 18045) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Surely music, like any form of art, is a cultural product. It is produced within a cultural context, it is appreciated in a cultural context, it's quality is judged within a cultural context. Yes, a lot of art (including music) can and does cross cultural boundaries and speaks to other cultures - though whether the message translates as the same is another question.

For "good music to be timeless" then it has to be able to cross all cultural boundaries, and be recognised as good music by everyone who hears it. Or, there has to be an objective way of judging musical quality independent of culture, which by definition would also need to be able to judge cultures as "good" and "bad" (presumably a culture that does not recognise objectively good art is worse than one that does).

I have seen no evidence that art can either cross all cultural boundaries, nor that art can be assessed on objective grounds independent of all cultures.

Therefore, I conclude, it is very possible for very great art to be produced in one culture and fail to resonate in another. And, if the culture that produced such a piece of art is one that existed in the past then "dated" is an apt word to use.

I think I can understand that regarding other art forms but I've always regarded music as emotional before anything else. Maybe it's just me.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
The concept that contemp music is done in multiple songs together (instead of one song at a time) to create movement through more than the one thought in any one song, intrigues me because it raises a question whether the music can fit well in a traditional liturgical service, which is where I'm seeing it tried with less than enthusiasm from the congregation.

The "multiple songs together" approach seems to be for a "Your Turn-My Turn" sort of service, when the beginning half of the service is for the congregation to stand and emote, while the end half is for the congregation to sit and listen. "Book Liturgy" (pardon my term) has more of a give-and-take throughout.

That said, really traditional Western liturgy does have a succession of music in a row: Introit, Kyrie, Gloria. In the ancient pontifical rites, most of this covered the grand processions and dressing of the bishop/pope. Contemporary music could easily replicate this pattern:

Vigorous Gathering Song (maybe establishing the day's theme)
Slow and Reflective Song (maybe a bit penitential)
Happy Praise Song

My own denom's recent hymnal takes into account this possibility, and describes this period of time in the liturgy as "Gathering Song," into which the Entrance Hymn, Kyrie, and Gloria are all lumped. Needless to say, as with pretty much all modern liturgical texts, everything is optional. Sigh.

Anyway, later on during the ancient liturgy, the Offertory Chant, Sursum Corda, Preface, Sanctus, and Benedictus formed another succession of music.

[ 28. April 2014, 23:23: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Meant to add:

Eastern liturgy is very similar, with a succession of music appearing at the beginning of the liturgy. In this case, the music is prescribed in the propers and the ordinary.

Jewish liturgy also tends to begin with a succession of Psalmody and/or hymnody, followed by the Barchu (essentially an invocation), and shortly thereafter the Shema and its successive verses.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
I think I can understand that regarding other art forms but I've always regarded music as emotional before anything else. Maybe it's just me.

I would say that all art forms invoke emotional responses, as well as engaging our intellect and other faculties. I would agree that music tends towards engaging emotions above other faculties, although music coupled to lyrics has a stronger engagement with intellect.

But, my point is that the nature of our response (emotional, intellectual etc) is influenced by our cultural background. At the most basic level, you get a "that's just noise" response - much as my dad responded to the music I wanted to listen to as a young teenager.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I caught the organ voluntary at the end of the morning service on Radio 4 last Sunday on the way to the cycle club ride - I couldn't help thinking how anyone who'd been brought up on music prior to about 1850 would probably have considered it "just noise". Very discordant.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

But. Many traditional hymns weren't written to be played on an organ. The reason why there's usually four parts is because each part was played by a different instrument. You sang along with the one that was playing what was in your range.

On top of that, a lot of the Vaughan Williams English Hymnal input into the repertoire comes from traditional folky tunes collected by Cecil Sharp et al, but with conventional C19 hymn harmonies added.

That's not quite true. It is true that many hymn tunes have their source in different contexts and were not originally composed for organ, but in most hymnals predating the mid-20th century, the arrangements are for an organ or organ-like instrument (harmonium, say). The arrangements are in four parts so that a choir can sing them in harmony while the accompanying instrument is playing, and each part is singable : there are no drastic leaps in range, and the parts don't go above or below a reasonable expectation of what that voice part would sing.

There are exceptions, of course : look at the harmonization of King's Weston by Vaughan Williams and you see an inconsistent number of voices in the organ part (often ignoring usual voice-leading rules)--so it's obvious that those accompaniments are intended to go with unison singing.

And though certainly what you say about RVW's harmonizing of folk tunes is true, he went even further in many cases and regularized rhythm, often fitting the tunes into a four-square structure to make them easier for congregations to sing. If you compare, say, Shirley Collins' recording of "A Blacksmith Courted Me" with the RVW version of Monks Gate, you can see a similarity between the two, but that the RVW has been drastically smoothed out.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

And though certainly what you say about RVW's harmonizing of folk tunes is true, he went even further in many cases and regularized rhythm, often fitting the tunes into a four-square structure to make them easier for congregations to sing. If you compare, say, Shirley Collins' recording of "A Blacksmith Courted Me" with the RVW version of Monks Gate, you can see a similarity between the two, but that the RVW has been drastically smoothed out.

Following, for instance, the pattern set by Bach in his harmonization and rhythm-smoothing of the chorale tunes, some of which were certainly folk-songs in origin.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Organ voluntaries are twiddly bits tagged on at the end - they only make sense if you've heard what's gone on before.

It does raise and interesting thing about excessive 'ornamentation' though ... a lot of Western medieval chant had extended vowels and so on so it was virtually impossible to make out what was being sung, even if you could understand Latin.

Is there a distinction between 'art music', I wonder, and music intended for communal participation?

Does this HAVE to be the case?

[Confused]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Gamaliel

quote:
Organ voluntaries are twiddly bits tagged on at the end - they only make sense if you've heard what's gone on before.

Actually no, wrong.

Organ voluntaries are pieces of written repertoire that should be chosen to either reflect the liturgical season or mood, or to reflect the theme of the service.

I think what you may be thinking of are extemporisations (sometimes called improvisations): free-form playing on a given theme or on a shorter simpler piece played just before.

Of course, there are variations/improvisations that get written down - for example, Louis Vierne's Carillon de Westminster which is based on the Westminster chimes but in a different order.

As for the piece at the end of Sunday Worship on Radio 4 being 'just noise' KLB - I think you'll find it was one of Vierne's simpler pieces, the Carillon de Longpont.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Is there a distinction between 'art music', I wonder, and music intended for communal participation?

Does this HAVE to be the case?

Yes. Or at least, some music can only be performance by "pros," not communally (unless the community are "pros"). I can sing 2 and a half octaves. Most people sing an octave and a half. I can sing songs the community can't. Some songs have intervals uncommon in our musical culture and therefore "hard to sing." Some have tricky (for our culture) rhythms or rhythm changes.

Certainly a church can choose songs that are comfortable for all (in it's culture) to sing. One of the problems with CCW music is so many of the songs on the radio are performance songs not appropriate for community singing because of range, intervals, rhythms changes.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok - yes L'Organist, I bow to your superior wisdom on this one. Yes, I was thinking of improvisations but I also had the thing in mind about organ voluntaries tying in with the overall theme etc ...

I just didn't express that very well ...

[Hot and Hormonal]

And my wife is an organist so I have no excuse.

You expressed it better than I did or could.

I didn't hear the voluntary on Radio 4 that's been mentioned here - but I think the point wasn't so much that it was 'difficult' as that it would have appeared so to people born before a certain date.

I think that's a fair comment in the context of this discussion where 'timelessness' has been cited as a criterion.

Anyway - the point I was trying to make was whether it is possible to include 'art music' in a participatory way - or whether that should even be seen as aspiration.

Clearly, with an organ voluntary - or an organ improvisation - there can't be 'mass participation' in any hands-on way as not everyone present will be able to play the organ. The same applies to guitar-led worship too, of course.

In the case of a voluntary, one might sit and listen to it - be transported by it even.

But it couldn't be employed in a 'singalong' way.

Of course, that's not the intention of it, the organ voluntary serves a different purpose and one which can, indeed, integrate with everything else that has been going on - themes, mood etc etc.

I s'pose my question is, to what extent are we expecting whatever kind of music we have in church services/gatherings to be immediately accessible or immediately 'participatory'.

I get the impression with South Coast Kevin, for instance, that his view would be that if couldn't be quickly apprehended and sung along to by regulars and visitors then it should have no place - or at least a limited place - in the service at all.

Do we agree or disagree?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Gamaliel
quote:
Organ voluntaries are twiddly bits tagged on at the end - they only make sense if you've heard what's gone on before.
Actually no, wrong.

Organ voluntaries are pieces of written repertoire that should be chosen to either reflect the liturgical season or mood, or to reflect the theme of the service.

I think what you may be thinking of are extemporisations (sometimes called improvisations): free-form playing on a given theme or on a shorter simpler piece played just before.

Of course, there are variations/improvisations that get written down - for example, Louis Vierne's Carillon de Westminster which is based on the Westminster chimes but in a different order.

As for the piece at the end of Sunday Worship on Radio 4 being 'just noise' KLB - I think you'll find it was one of Vierne's simpler pieces, the Carillon de Longpont.

I didn't say it was "just noise". I said it was discordant, and that someone brought up on the music of the 18th century, and possibly the early 19th, would not have appreciated the discords. Personally I liked it, but I can understand why someone from a more musically harmonious age would not. This is related to the point that parents traditionally regard the music of their children as "just noise" - their musical ear was developed on a very different style.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Is there a distinction between 'art music', I wonder, and music intended for communal participation?

I would say that all music is art. There is, of course, a distinction between music intended for performance by an individual or (relatively) small group and listened to by a community, and music intended to be performed by the community. But, I don't think that stops communally performed music being art. And, therefore, being as bound by culture as any other form of art.

[ 30. April 2014, 09:23: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
... That's not quite true. It is true that many hymn tunes have their source in different contexts and were not originally composed for organ, but in most hymnals predating the mid-20th century, the arrangements are for an organ or organ-like instrument (harmonium, say). The arrangements are in four parts so that a choir can sing them in harmony while the accompanying instrument is playing, and each part is singable : there are no drastic leaps in range, and the parts don't go above or below a reasonable expectation of what that voice part would sing.

Up to a point Fr Weber, to quote Evelyn Waugh with his original meaning of that phrase.

That tends to be true from the mid C19 onwards. If you're regarding the late C19 as the ultimate source, I'd agree with you. But a lot of the tunes we sing hymns to date from the period 1550-1820.

There were very few organs. For one thing, they were very expensive. If a tune predates that era, it will usually have been written to be sung either by four or three voices. They are often set out that way. The air is quite frequently in the tenor line. The compilers of hymn books from the mid C19 reset everything to fit the expectation you are describing.

quote:

... And though certainly what you say about RVW's harmonizing of folk tunes is true, he went even further in many cases and regularized rhythm, often fitting the tunes into a four-square structure to make them easier for congregations to sing. If you compare, say, Shirley Collins' recording of "A Blacksmith Courted Me" with the RVW version of Monks Gate, you can see a similarity between the two, but that the RVW has been drastically smoothed out.

I agree with you there. Furthermore, a lot of folk songs are theoretically in Common or Ballad metre, but sit much more loosely than a hymn does on having the right number of syllables in each line.

A lot of printed copies of traditional songs in books with titles like 'Scotland Sings' have piano accompaniments added which now sound to us very nineteenth century. It wasn't just the words that were remade suitable for the parlour.

Of course, modern folk singers put their own style into what they sing as well.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

[tangent]
I'm preaching this Sunday, and finished off the sermon last night - barring the inevitable small revisions on the read through before printing it.

I've found myself picking up on the epistle about being foreigners (thanks Steve Longton for our long exchanges on that in Purg a few weeks ago, although my sermon takes the idea in a different direction) with the implication of different culture/language, and added in the Pentecost context of the reading from Acts with proclaiming the gospel in different languages. Which led me to how to communicate to people who have a different culture to ourselves. And, lo and behold I'm talking about contemporary music in church.

Although I go back to the epistle and conclude that our choice of worship style isn't all that important. It's having sincere and genuine love for each other that communicates the gospel across cultural boundaries.

[/tangent]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Does anyone have any experience of Church music with a beat similar to the kind of music people would want to have sex to? Not pure techno thump thump but not a calm beat to rap to either. A boom chicka wow wow but with the synthesizer and Latin, African, and Indian influences that have been added to recent club music. The kind of beat that makes you think about a marriage between Bollywood and porn. This is the kind of music that I think Church really needs. The problem with all Pop-Style Christian music is that, regardless of the lyrics, it sounds like Popular Music with the sex drained out of it. Music is inherently about human creative energy and that includes sex even if you're not singing about sex. Classical music, jazz, and traditional gospel music (even traditional hymns) can all bring to mind getting down and freaky, even if that is not what they are about or what they were written for. Contemporary Christian Music and Praise and Worship Music - even Christian rock and rap - I think are composed too self-consciously and try too hard to be in the world but not of it. Music is about moving your hip s! The music played in ethnically African and Latin-American churches is more like what I am talking about, but to a culturally-Anglo white boy like me (albeit a half-Latino white boy with recent black ancestry) I have trouble relating to it. I want to get down (not have sex, get down) with Christian music that sounds like the naughty club music sung by hot naked women that makes gay boys like me scream. That's how I want to worship God. And I also want traditional Masses with Gregorian Chant. I need both. Thank you.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hmmm ... let's get this straight ... if that's the right word in this context ...

You don't want to have sex but you want to 'get down'?

[Eek!]

Is this a Clinton-ism? [Big Grin]

Of course, I know you mean 'get down' in the musical sense - ie. get down and boogie.

Not sure how to answer this question. The reason, of course, why some Christian traditions have been wary of music with a beat is because it might encourage thoughts of a sexual nature ...

Rather like the old joke about the reason Calvinists didn't have sex standing up is because they wouldn't want people to think they were dancing ...

It's often been observed by observers of the charismatic movement, for instance, that some of the ecstatic faces and 'oohhs' and 'mmmms' and so on that one might see or hear in charismatic services can have an unintended (?) sexual element.

I think it was Eutychus on these boards who once observed that psychologists tell us that the part of the brain that 'deals' with sexual impulses isn't that far away from the part which deals with religious feelings and so on.

We are creaturely creatures so the physical is very far away.

I'm not sure I'd want music that ... ahem ... has some kind of encoded sexual arousal mechanism hot-wired into it. YMMV.

One of the things I appreciate about more 'traditional' forms of church music is that they don't tend to tug at the bouncy-bouncy impulses.

I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with a beat or with something uptempo ... I'd defy anyone to get 'aroused' by traditional Salvation Army music for instance ... although I have no doubt that the Army's detractors flung that accusation at the Sally Army girls back in the day ...

It's well known that revivals on the US model - the camp meetings and so on - could often be accompanied by illicit behaviour - opportunities for sexually repressed young people to meet and hive off into the words.

Similar things happen at Spring Harvest and Soul Survivor, I've heard. I was once present when a couple were caught almost in flagrante at Spring Harvest back in the early '80s - but I don't think that was anything to do with the music - more youngsters full of hormones and trying to have a quick liaison before everyone else got back to the chalet.

And there were wierdo schismatic Orthodox groups in Russia who used to lash themselves into a sexual frenzy and end up writhing in mass orgies on the floor ...

I think, though, that if I ever saw any style of worship get rather 'hot' in the way you describe, Stonespring, I'd be like the News of The World reporters of old and make my excuses and leave ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry, I meant to say that the physical is 'never very far away.'

That doesn't mean that we should encourage it, of course. Certainly not in a public worship context ...

Stranger things have happened though. But there is a time and place ...

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

Jesus take me as I am, I can come no other way ?

Sorry. I'll get my hat

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I want to get down (not have sex, get down) with Christian music that sounds like the naughty club music sung by hot naked women that makes gay boys like me scream. That's how I want to worship God. And I also want traditional Masses with Gregorian Chant. I need both. Thank you.

Maybe you could start an appropriate small group at your church...?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Am I the only one that finds Christian pop insipid? Some of the rock tries to be "hard" and people have experimented with Christian hip hop. And there are Latin and African beats in the music of Christian recording artists from those cultures. But there seems to be a fear of using anything like the booty-shaking beats found in popular dance music. Christian music is either down tempo or lacks a strong bass or otherwise seems to have a Bawdlerized rhythm section. The recording studios are trying really hard to sell nothing that would get parents worried about what their kids are listening to. What is this, the 50's?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I want to get down (not have sex, get down) with Christian music that sounds like the naughty club music sung by hot naked women that makes gay boys like me scream. That's how I want to worship God. And I also want traditional Masses with Gregorian Chant. I need both. Thank you.
Maybe you could start an appropriate small group at your church...?

And why would anyone not want to join it...?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Am I the only one that finds Christian pop insipid? Some of the rock tries to be "hard" and people have experimented with Christian hip hop. And there are Latin and African beats in the music of Christian recording artists from those cultures. But there seems to be a fear of using anything like the booty-shaking beats found in popular dance music. Christian music is either down tempo or lacks a strong bass or otherwise seems to have a Bawdlerized rhythm section. The recording studios are trying really hard to sell nothing that would get parents worried about what their kids are listening to. What is this, the 50's?

There are, of course, multiple factors at play.

One is that the number of people writing and performing "Christian music" is relatively small compared to main stream pop music. What is the proportion of main stream musicians who are actually sufficiently talented/lucky enough to progress beyond glorified hobbyists with maybe regular gigs at a local club? If the same percentage applies to "Christian musicians" then the number of really good talented groups will be very small, and the range of music styles they play will also be smaller.

Another factor is that music is a commercial operation. The companies producing "Christian music" (like companies producing mainstream music) have a marketing strategy that identifies who is most likely to buy music, and targeting their output to that audience. A large part of that audience would be self-identified as evangelical, and I know we have all sorts of hang-ups that the marketing people will know about and take into consideration when deciding if a particular band/artist would appeal to a large enough audience to be worth taking a commercial risk on. There are probably examples of Christian music on You-tube and elsewhere on the internet that are in many of the areas you identify as lacking, but you'd need to know where to find them and they probably wouldn't have the professional quality of the commercial music.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Why would you want rock or pop music that was specifically Christian? Why not just have music in those genres - and if it happens to be written/performed by Christians then fine ...

There are Christian poets and novelists who don't always write about specifically Christian themes.

Why do we want these ghetto genres?

If you want to listen to music with the kind of rhythms that appeal to you, go ahead. Why expect there to be Christian versions?

I really don't get that.

I've got friends who are into the Christian music scene big time - some even eke out a living in it as broadcasters etc.

I can never understand why. I don't get it. I really don't understand the appeal.

If you want to listen to rock music, listen to rock music. If you want to listen to music with Afro or Asian rhythms then go ahead, there is plenty to choose from.

Why expect Christian versions of it?

If I wanted to listen to world-music from Mali, say, and I have some CDs of that, I'd get copies of the original stuff. I wouldn't want to listen to some Christian 'take' on it unless of course there was a grassroots Christian version of the same thing that wasn't done simply to provide some kind of Christian 'response'.

Back in the day, I'd listen to The Clash. I still do at times. Why would I have wanted to listen to some sub-standard, sanitised Christian approximation of the same genre?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I used to listen to quite a lot of "Christian music" - though never exclusively.

Part of it was a ghetto mentality. I never fully bought into it, but in some parts of evangelicalism it's part and parcel of faith - probably related quite strongly to passages like the 1 Peter verses I'm preaching on about being seperate from the world. Christian music, Christian novels, Christian summer camps, Christian schools (or home schooling material), Christian lawyers and accountants ...

For me, the music I listened to was a combination of what my Christian friends were listening too (is that any different from anyone else, they listen to music their friends listen to?), it was music I could listen to and get a spiritual lift, music I could sing along to in the privacy of my own room in personal devotion, probably a few other factors too.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I understand all that, Alan. I deplore it though. It used to freak me out when I visited evangelical Christian homes to find that the only music they had was 'Christian' music, the only books they had on their shelves were the popular Christian paperbacks and so on ...

[Ultra confused]

Sure, I bought into a lot of that back in the day, but I never went as far as some of my peers.

There are degrees and gradations of these things, of course and I daresay there are places one could go connected with other Christian traditions where the only books/CDs etc etc on show would be those connected with that particular tradition or churchmanship.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Stonespring - link here to one of our leaders' band's music. Insipid it isn't, whatever else...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJvdXrm8bYM

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

But, Gamaliel, isn't there a difference between the music (including the lyrics) which we use when we gather together as Christians (in all the various guises) and what we choose to listen to at home or at a concert for our own pleasure and edification?

For me, in both scenarios lyrics play a really important part as well as the music. But the lyrics especially (whether they be in Latin or very modern language!).
There is a lot of "Christian music" which leaves me cold (both in church services and outside of that context)and it is usually more because of the lyrics than the musical style. But there are some songs which come under the "Christian music" genre which I enjoy listening to and which I find uplifting but which I wouldn't want to sing as part of corporate worship as they are not appropriate lyrically even thought their themes might be personally uplifting.
So I am wondering if the lyrics are the more definitive factor in this debate? But having said that I can think of lots of reasons why that might not be right...hey ho!

P.S. Edited to make it clear that most of the music I listen to is not from the "Christian Music" genre but I find it equally challenging if it has the right lyrics and equally uplifting musically.

[ 01. May 2014, 09:43: Message edited by: MrsBeaky ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Lyrics are important to me too. So I guess for some people who only listen to so-called Christian music, it's about trying to listen only to music that is 'sound', as it were; music that contains messages and an overall ethos that one agrees with.

I understand this motive, although I certainly don't listen only to Christian music myself (partly I think because I believe there is (a) some truth in many - all? - non-Christian philosophies, and (b) some error in all Christian viewpoints; only listening to Christian music will by no means guarantee that only wholesome, Godly sounds enter my ears...).

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I get the impression with South Coast Kevin, for instance, that his view would be that if couldn't be quickly apprehended and sung along to by regulars and visitors then it should have no place - or at least a limited place - in the service at all.

On the whole, I think this is my view. I agree with Alan that music, as with everything artistic, is culturally defined; so music that one culture or group of people finds very moving and effective in helping them to engage with God, another group of people will find alien and irrelevant, or indeed patronisingly trite (the cultural clash can go both ways!).

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

When I say "Christian Music," I mean "Music that can be (and is) used during Christian worship," not music with Christian themes that people listen to outside of worship. I am of the opinion (contrary to thousands of years of teaching) that any melody, harmony, or rhythm can be used in Christian worship as long as the words themselves are appropriate for the worship. The only melodies that can't be used, in my opinion, are ones that are too reminiscent of contemporary secular songs (you could write a wonderful hymn to the melody of "Oops! I did it again!" but in singing it it would be very hard to focus on the lyrics).

That's why I don't get why certain sounds (like what I call the "booty shaking" sound) are almost impossible to find in the Christian music that is for sale.

As for the traditional Mass with Gregorian chant (and traditional hymns), I think that's really important to have, but I don't see why you can't work twerking for Jesus into one of the quiet moments in the Ordinary form like after the Prayers of the Faithful but before the offertory procession or after communion and before the prayer after communion.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
When I say "Christian Music," I mean "Music that can be (and is) used during Christian worship," not music with Christian themes that people listen to outside of worship.

You didn't make that clear. We had been talking about music intended for individual performance being used in worship, and how that rarely works. Which does bring us to the next point.

quote:
I am of the opinion (contrary to thousands of years of teaching) that any melody, harmony, or rhythm can be used in Christian worship as long as the words themselves are appropriate for the worship.

For congregational singing that is clearly not the case. There are styles of music that can only be performed by trained musicians. The vast majority of people in a congregation wouldn't be able to sing opera (unless your congregation is the CU at a school of opera), or rap, or a wide range of other musical styles including much of the folk-rock stuff that people actually do try to get congregations to sing.

For music performed by the music group/choir/organist/whatever the range of possibilities is larger. It would still be restricted by the musical abilities that group/individual has. But, even if you had a music group capable of performing any style (or, using recorded music was acceptable) the music has to fit liturgically into the rest of the service - and that adds further restrictions. Plus, it has to fit into the cultural experience of at least a large minority of the congregation - and not be too far outwith the cultural experience of any more than a small minority of the congregation.

The result is that the vast majority of music used in worship falls into a middle ground.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
... That's not quite true. It is true that many hymn tunes have their source in different contexts and were not originally composed for organ, but in most hymnals predating the mid-20th century, the arrangements are for an organ or organ-like instrument (harmonium, say). The arrangements are in four parts so that a choir can sing them in harmony while the accompanying instrument is playing, and each part is singable : there are no drastic leaps in range, and the parts don't go above or below a reasonable expectation of what that voice part would sing.
Up to a point Fr Weber, to quote Evelyn Waugh with his original meaning of that phrase.

That tends to be true from the mid C19 onwards. If you're regarding the late C19 as the ultimate source, I'd agree with you. But a lot of the tunes we sing hymns to date from the period 1550-1820.

There were very few organs. For one thing, they were very expensive. If a tune predates that era, it will usually have been written to be sung either by four or three voices. They are often set out that way. The air is quite frequently in the tenor line. The compilers of hymn books from the mid C19 reset everything to fit the expectation you are describing.

I see what you're saying. I think we basically agree on this, and perhaps we were talking past each other.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sorry, I meant to say that the physical is 'never very far away.'

That doesn't mean that we should encourage it, of course. Certainly not in a public worship context ...

Stranger things have happened though. But there is a time and place ...

You mean like this famous statue.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T9B_9M6Clug/UKv6G36ku7I/AAAAAAAAAEE/apCkxMmmkzI/s1600/bernini_st_teresa_avila.jpg

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, yes ...

I know Stonespring is winding us all up - at least I hope he is - but I do think that there can be an inappropriate 'sensuality' in some forms of music and art that make them unsuitable for use in Christian worship.

I'm certainly no prude and don't believe for a moment that not allowing twerking, say, in worship services would correspond necessarily with an overly fastidious and Puritanical attitude towards the human body and so on ...

(Actually, the Puritans weren't at all Puritanical about sex or other bodily functions, but that's by the by)

Some Christian traditions have very strict rules on what's permissible in terms of musical style and indeed iconography and so on - and I can certainly see why this would be the case.

I s'pose the bottom line (literally in the case of twerking) has to be whether other people are going to be offended in some way. Stonespring might find twerking acceptable in church services but other people certainly wouldn't ...

He could always try it and see what reaction he gets ...

[Razz]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Why do we want these ghetto genres?

If you want to listen to music with the kind of rhythms that appeal to you, go ahead. Why expect there to be Christian versions?

I really don't get that.

It's personal taste, so what is there to 'get'?

I don't mind what sort of 'Christian music' people listen to any more than I mind whether people listen to love songs set to jazz, classical, hip hop, reggae, punk or heavy metal, etc. The old saying is that there's only two kinds of music: good and bad. If so, then it hardly matters what kind of music Christian lyrics are set to.

I don't know about the CofE, but if the other churches all suddenly decided to limit themselves to 'traditional music' they'd probably now find it impossible to attract organists and classically trained choirs. But they might have a guitarist, or someone who studied jazz piano. Why wouldn't they use those skills? It's also likely that the contingent they're attracting increasingly relates to non-traditional music. It's hardly surprising if those folks bring their private tastes the church, or if they take the church music they love into their homes.

Anyway, I'm sure the CofE will always maintain some places of excellence for traditional church music, so there's no need to worry that it'll all die out.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Svitlana2

quote:
Anyway, I'm sure the CofE will always maintain some places of excellence for traditional church music, so there's no need to worry that it'll all die out.

Nice thought but I fear you're being rather too complacent.

To attract children (actually their parents) to audition for cathedral choir schools you need people to (a) realise they exist, (b) be interested enough to want a child to go there, and (c) be prepared for their child to board. All that BEFORE you get onto the question of aptitude and ability. Larger places may get a decent pool of candidates but others are scratching round to find potential choristers.

To attract sufficient would-be choristers you need local choirs for children to start off in, or at least hear. You also need good singing in schools - and that is under pressure in the state sector too.

At a time when places are strapped for cash choirs are under increasing pressure - the larger cathedrals may be fine by the smaller ones aren't in such a good place.

A terrible sign of what may be to come is Llandaff, which sacked all its adult lay clerks just before Christmas - this despite the fact that the current Master of Music has taken the choir from run-of-the-mill to one of the most highly regarded in the UK.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It all boils down to what 'model' of church we want or expect, of course.

I think that South Coast Kevin's approach makes sense if:

- We share his convictions on what church should 'look' like. Not everyone does.

- We have small, loosely organised groups meeting in a relatively low-tech way in small venues with very little overhead (maintenance, restoration funds, paid staff etc).

This may well become the default position as Christendom crumbles and church attendance continues to decline.

It's an interesting conundrum. What happens at a place like Llandaff if the resources aren't there to sustain the high standards?

Would they be able to survive with 'lower standards'?

I think South Coast Kevin's key point about these things emerging organically from the needs/conditions of the local congregation is a potent one.

I know I often use the Orthodox as an example, but I think they are pertinent here as they are an example of a highly traditional historic Church which is attempting to plant parishes and to grow here in the UK.

Our nearest English-speaking parish has proven quite innovative in terms of recycling fitments, carving home-made decorations and so on. They have learned to make-do-and-mend. At one time they used to rely on cantors who travelled a long distance to lead the Easter services, for instance. Now they have home-grown talent - and a highly skilled former cathedral chorister as a Reader.

If this were a South Coast Kevin style church, then there would be parallels ... someone mastering the guitar to a certain level, someone sourcing material for the songs and services from various sources ...

It all depends on the context.

As for the issue of 'keeping church music contemporary' - I'd have thought that the main issue isn't whether the music is contemporary or not - but whether it is appropriate to its setting.

In some settings - such as a South Coast Kevin one - a simple guitar and keyboard arrangement might suffice. Elsewhere, there may be a need for more elaborate choral effects.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's an interesting conundrum. What happens at a place like Llandaff if the resources aren't there to sustain the high standards?

Would they be able to survive with 'lower standards'?

Thanks for your above post, Gamaliel. Very gracious, I thought. On L'organist's example of the choir at Llandaff, I suppose the approach has to be that we adapt and make do with what resources we have. If a church is struggling to put on the 'standard' of service it wants - be that in terms of a skilled choir, a professional contemporary band, experienced preachers etc. - it has to decide what can be done without and what really is (as they see it) essential to the worship experience.

And of course, every church is likely to face this issue at some point, whatever its style, size or other characteristics.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... This may well become the default position as Christendom crumbles and church attendance continues to decline.

It's an interesting conundrum. What happens at a place like Llandaff if the resources aren't there to sustain the high standards?

Would they be able to survive with 'lower standards'?

I think South Coast Kevin's key point about these things emerging organically from the needs/conditions of the local congregation is a potent one.

I know I often use the Orthodox as an example, but I think they are pertinent here as they are an example of a highly traditional historic Church which is attempting to plant parish s and to grow here in the UK....

They also had to survive for some 60 years in a country which was determined to wipe them out, blew up many churches and converted others into tractor factories, swimming pools and community centres.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thanks South Coast Kevin ... [Hot and Hormonal]

I'm touched by your response.

I thought my comments were more pragmatic rather than gracious ... but there we go.

What I'm trying to demonstrate is that I don't think thee and me are a million miles apart in terms of the practicalities or an emphasis on churches/groups developing a more 'organic' way of operating.

I'm with you in principle on the small-group/grassroots thing ... I don't think there's any disagreement there.

However, the shape and nature of our worship practices are always going to be governed to some extent by our traditions and proclivities ...

So, for instance, with newly developing Orthodox congregations in the UK or re-emergent ones in Russia, we don't see them ignoring iconography, chants or fasts and festivals - we see them trying to work all those things in according to the resources available.

They haven't suddenly adopted guitars and singalongable worship songs for instance ...

How sustainable retreat-houses, convents and monasteries and so on are going to be as Christendom dissolves is a moot point - but I don't think that grass-roots developments automatically mean contemporary music styles and so on ...

I'm not sure South Coast Kevin does either.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

A terrible sign of what may be to come is Llandaff, which sacked all its adult lay clerks just before Christmas - this despite the fact that the current Master of Music has taken the choir from run-of-the-mill to one of the most highly regarded in the UK.

It's sad for the individuals concerned, but almost all churches are having to cut back now in some way. As I said, the CofE may have to focus on a limited number of centres of excellence in traditional church music, but most churches simply won't have the people, skills or resources to provide this kind of thing, even if there's some demand for it.

For most British Christians in the mainstream denominations 'traditional' worship will simply mean a smallish congregation singing fairly old hymns along to a piano, or an organ if they're lucky. Or a keyboard that can double up as both. I even know of one church without an organist whose electronic organ only plays pre-recorded hymns. If this suits the congregation then fine, but I'm not sure how it's objectively superior to a worship band.

Anyway, I'm surprised that the CofE isn't using its popular state schools to develop the traditional musical skills that might be of use to the church.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

There are also "proper" organs where someone can record the tunes into the system in advance, and then get the organ to "play back" during the service. Not ideal, but it works, and the organist and a congregation can make allowances for their specific foibles!

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Our $800,000 upgrade to the organ includes that capacity, but I suspect the Director of Music would garrotte anyone who threatened to utilise it ...

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Our $800,000 upgrade to the organ includes that capacity, but I suspect the Director of Music would garrotte anyone who threatened to utilise it ...

No recording can replace a proficient organist working in tandem with the choir and the congregation in "real time"--not even a recording of that same organist. The recording tool is best utilized by that same organist to enhance her/his own performance by supplementing what s/he is playing. Essentially, it is a duet with oneself, but should only be done on music without words.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The recordings aren't mean to replace live organists; they exist to replace non-existent organists!

If you have the staff, that's great. But in nondescript parts of England there must be lots of small congregations that already have to do without organists, or who will expect to see many faithful organists grow infirm or pass away in the next 30-odd years.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The recordings can be a blessing for smaller churches in the US too. We don't have access to them, and we have no musicians, so it's been a capella singing since 2006.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Basically, it takes someone in the church familiar with modern worships who understands how to use them in worship. Rather than treating them as "new hymns"
Yes, this is a really good point. Some newer songs - I've got Stuart Townend's in mind - are written as 'new hymns', but a lot, especially the 'Vineyard-y' or 'New Wine-y' ones, are intended to be used in groups, creating what one might call a 'liturgical event' when put together with prayer, thought and skill.

So, yeah, moving wholesale from the 'hymn sandwich' model to the 'worship set' model will always take a lot of work, and will most likely upset plenty of people in the church! I wasn't really thinking about such a major upheaval in my thread starter; I more had in mind the situation where a church is trying to introduce a few new hymns / songs while keeping the overall format broadly the same.

Currently, Premier just played out Oh To see the dawn (Townend/Getty) segued into acapella When I survey.. Sounds like it had been recorded at Spring Harvest or similar.

A lot of older numbers have been retooled, with a response chorus added etc (Chris Tomlin does this a lot)

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

@Alex - the point is that songs segued together fit within a very different service from a traditional Eucharistic service where the format is often:
Greeting hymn
Welcome, confession and absolution,
Gloria
First reading(s)
Psalm / gradual hymn
Gospel reading
Sermon
Offertory hymn
Eucharist
(hymns during Eucharist)
Post communion hymn
Blessing and sending out

There is no real place within that sequence to fit a extended hymn segue so to do so means a complete rewriting of the service format or in reality the use of a different format altogether - which is more complicated than just adding a few new hymns to a service.

As an example of challenge of introducing new hymns, at one point we were occasionally getting Purify my Soul (Refiner's Fire) to sing as a gradual. Now it was fine until the chorus when everybody who hadn't been away to Christian camp, ie 95% of the congregation, got lost at the first Be-e-e-e-e-e holy. I googled it on YouTube, realised what the problem was, pointed it out to the organist (no, we were singing to piano and the accompaniment doesn't give a clue to that extended note) saying that if we were to sing it someone had to lead the damn thing first so the rest of the congregation stood a chance of singing it. As I wasn't volunteering (I genuinely can't sing) the song got dropped.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anyway, I'm surprised that the CofE isn't using its popular state schools to develop the traditional musical skills that might be of use to the church.

The implication here is that Church of England state schools are run by the CofE, which isn't true. The weasel word that you've missed is "state", which means CofE schools are state schools funded by the state and have to follow national guidance on curriculum*. CofE schools may well be in church buildings and their governing bodies will have a few church governors as part of the overall number but the way state schools are governed, the church governors are a minority. In theory CofE schools have better links with their local church and a Christian assembly, but that's not necessarily so, and not necessarily different to anything provided by non-Church schools.

* the National Curriculum is currently in rewrite and in abeyance until 2015, but there is still national advice on what should be taught.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Point taken about CofE state schools, although I wasn't referring to all such schools but to those that are 'popular.' The ones that insist on church attendance for entry surely sell themselves as places where Christian values and aspects of church culture are emphasised? If nothing else, the children of ambitious parents must, with some training, be ideal chorister material these days? Maybe not.

[ 04. May 2014, 12:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Today I attended an Episcopalian contemporary service that managed to combine the "multiple songs in one set" with the traditional liturgy, and do it well!

Opening of a couple of songs, then the opening words and collect, then a worship set. I expected nothing but spoken words from then on, the "hymns" all having been moved to the worship set, but it wasn't like that.

True, there was no hymn before the gospel, but much of what followed the peace was sung, including an upbeat "doxology", and the people singing lines I've only heard spoken before. For example "in the night in which he was betrayed" was sung by a song leader, and the quotations "This is my body..." were sung by the congregation.

So although in one sense "the hymns" had been moved to the opening worship set, there still was music throughout the service because different parts than I am used to hearing sung were congregationally sung. It didn't mimic non-demonimationals by being all music then all spoken.

This is the first time I've heard contemporary music used as designed (as described by some here) within the traditional liturgical format.

Of course, a professional quality band was a help, and a building designed for contemporary worship including well trained sound board and projection staff (no wrong verses on screen!) and screens that looked like they belonged instead of awkwardly fitted in. There are advantages to being a church with five full time clergy and the money to afford that much activity.

(My friend who went to the Rite 1 service that met at the same time as the contemporary said the choir voices, as they processed by, all sounded like they were professionally trained. Most of us can't dream of that standard for our music programs.)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That sounds interesting, Belle Ringer, but as you say, it would take significant resources to achieve.

Five full-time clergy! [Eek!]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Thanks for that, Belle Ringer, although I note the resources required to put on such a service.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But in nondescript parts of England there must be lots of small congregations that already have to do without organists, or who will expect to see many faithful organists grow infirm or pass away in the next 30-odd years.

This is why I think guitar-led worship makes so much sense nowadays. Plenty of people play the guitar a bit, buying a guitar doesn't cost a fortune, and I think learning how to play well enough to lead some songs at a small church service is not horrendously difficult.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

You would think so, South Coast Kevin, but it is interesting to note that what we've seen since the guitar first started to regular appear in a worship context ...

What we've seen isn't a growth in the kind of informal, rather ad hoc (and I don't mean that in a derogative way) gatherings of the kind you describe and favour.

Instead, what we've seen is the development of a kind of 'scene' - with all the marketing and puff that goes with all of that, people using the same material from the same sources ...

The small worship band and guitar thing was in evidence when it was all kum-by-yah and Peter, Paul and Mary folksy stuff ... church music a la that 60s group The Seekers ...

But now it's all become sub and cod Coldplay.

What's happened is that people have been to the large gatherings - the Spring Harvests and the New Wines and so on - and are trying to replicate the same effect back at their local church level - without the resources to achieve that.

To pare it all back to the bone would require a shift in ideology and emphasis, I would suggest - and that's a far harder thing to achieve.

I would say the same thing in a different context too - to those parish churches which try to emulate cathedral worship without the resources to pull it off, for instance.

I think these things aren't simply a problem within the charismatic evangelical constituency. There are parallels in other traditions.

In those traditions which favour choral music - or acapella singing in the case of the Orthodox (and some Protestant groups in the USA too, it must be said) then at the very least you need someone who can hold a tune or tone ... and that requires some training.

I don't know whether South Coast Kevin is old enough to remember punk, but I well remember the famous fanzine which had a diagram showing the finger positions for a guitar fret-board:

'This is a chord, this is a second ... this is a third ... Now form a band.'

That was great. The revolution had come. Anyone could make music, anyone could form a band. Lots of people did. Some of it had a raw, home-made feel, some of it was dire.

Soon, of course, the whole thing had become a scene - and let's face it, the Sex Pistols were 'manufactured' right from the outset. The whole thing was nowhere near as grass-roots and spontaneous as it appeared.

I may be old and cynical but I suspect that if people did pare it all back and have simpler, less hi-tech approaches - a few people in a hired hall strumming guitars - then before long they'd be discussing what amps to acquire, what mixing desks, what ...

You see, I've seen it all before.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Wow - someone's even got a copy of that fanzine for us to download! What a star!

I remember seeing it at a mate's house. But memory is a funny thing. I might have just as easily seen the original drawing reproduced in the NME or Melody Maker ... it did spark a flurry or reproductions and debate.

See: http://daveo-musicandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/sideburns-no1-this-is-chord-this-is.html

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Gamaliel

The very least you require with acapella is someone who can pitch a tune. That requires no training only a mid range voice (low alto/high tenor). I know I have done it and my music training is not anything above high school music lessons. I also need other voices to carry a tune. The reason is that with a group that knows the music well then once the initial few notes are sung the group itself carries the tune.

Remember the extreme form of this the cantor is chosen for their holiness of life not for their ability to hold a tune.

Jengie

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Correlation doesn't mean causation, Mr Gamaliel... [Smile]

I've just been reading the book Selling Worship by Pete Ward. I found it fascinating how, like Gamaliel says, apparently the so-called charismatic renewal began in the late 1960s (I think that's what Ward said) with a very do-it-yourself mentality, but this gradually morphed into the commercialised Contemporary Christian Music 'scene' that now dominates charismatic Christianity in the white western world.

So yes, I agree with much of Gamaliel's analysis, but I wouldn't put it down to the rise of guitar-based church music. Parallel developments IMO.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes indeed, Jengie Jon. I agree. Apologies for having temporarily forgotten acapella Gaelic Psalm singing/chanting.

I've not heard you sing or chant but believe you me, my musical abilities are limited to say the least. However, when I've done the Anglican chant thing at Compline services - once I'd overcome some initial embarrassment - I was told by the clergyperson that I'd done it very well. She even wondered whether I had a vocation ... although she did say that wasn't based simply on my ability to hold the tone ...

[Hot and Hormonal]

I've no idea whether she was right or wrong on that score.

The point, of course, is that whether we favour guitar-led worship (as South Coast Kevin does) or whether we would consider the kind of acapella Psalm singing exemplified on your link - it's ultimately a decision based on theological and churchmanship criteria as well as socio-cultural ones.

I can't imagine South Coast Kevin recommending metrical Psalm singing or acapella chant of any kind. The kind of guitar-led worship he prefers lends itself to the singing of contemporary worship songs - although it is possible, of course, to arrange traditional hymns for guitar.

The thing is, though, there are small group settings for worship in all Christian traditions. Heck, I even remember seeing some Orthodox monks in Greece singing with a guitar - although this was a folk-style song for exhortation purposes rather than something for liturgical use ...

I've not been to many Anglican compline services but I've never heard musical accompaniment at any of them. The same with 8am 1662 Prayer Book communion services.

In university chaplaincies and so on there will often be a lunch-time act of worship with no music or singing whatsoever - simply prayers and readings following a simple liturgy on photocopied paper. I've seen this done in both Anglican and Free Church chaplaincy settings.

I don't have an issue with guitars and so on, but all I'd suggest is that there are other ways to proceed. If there isn't any one gifted musically present at the time then why not simply use a printed liturgy with some extemporary prayers if one wishes to include those?

There are plenty of examples and they are cheaply available. There's loads of material out there. Why do we have to stick to - or adopt - the kind of 'medley' approach with one song segue-ing into another?

There are no scriptural or theological reasons for this, it's simply become a style that has developed and gained in popularity since the growth of the big charismatic evangelical conventions.

Back in the day, in Brethren assemblies and other evangelical settings there were times of less 'formal' worship led by piano-accordions. They were the guitars of their day.

Sure, guitars are relatively simple and readily available but even where they aren't I'd suggest that there is material and means we can use provided we are prepared to think outside of the so-called 'contemporary' box.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I've attended a few Compline services, and they've all been unaccompanied, just led by a good singer. I've also attended Taize style services with minimal musical accompaniment, but we had a good singer there too - and Evensong services with no choir or organ, where we chanted the psalms.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry, cross-posted - yes, I've read reviews and synopses of Peter Ward's 'Selling Worship' I think - I may even have read the book itself but my memory fails me ...

Sure, correlation isn't necessarily causation. I agree with that. I think it's more subtle, though, than a direct causal relation. Parallel development isn't necessarily evident of causation but I'm old enough and ugly enough to have seen how these things have developed. I wasn't involved with the emergence of the charismatic thing back in the 1960s - I was just a kid - but I knew and know plenty of people who were. My mother-in-law first got involved with it all back around 1963-64 so she would have been one of the 'early adopters' as it were.

All I am suggesting is that the kind of pure, unsullied, uncommercialised 'scene' that South Coast Kevin yearns for is actually rather difficult to achieve. The popularity of worship songs and choruses was driven - to a large extent - by the large gatherings and also by sales of cassettes - and later CDs.

Back in the day, I remember the stir caused by recordings of 'live worship' from the Dales Bible Week and so on - even across settings that would not have identified with the theology or practices espoused there.

The stable door is already open, South Coast Kevin. None of us are operating in a vacuum. If thee or me started a church in our nearest hireable hall tomorrow then we'd still be drawing from whatever 'scene' there is out there - with its concomitant compromises, means of production and distribution and so on.

That is inevitable. As sure as eggs are eggs.

The only choices we have are to do with how we 'manage' all that.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't have an issue with guitars and so on, but all I'd suggest is that there are other ways to proceed. If there isn't any one gifted musically present at the time then why not simply use a printed liturgy with some extemporary prayers if one wishes to include those?

Why not indeed. I'd be fine with this, although I do think there is something special (for most, but not all, people) about music in how it touches our emotions and thus can help us connect with God in the emotional sense.

There's obviously the corollary danger of music being used to manipulate and bring about certain emotional / behavioural responses and this is one reason why I'm so keen on the multi-participative low-key approach, as against the highly-skilled 'worship band' approach as typified by festivals like New Wine.

EDIT - Cross-posted with Gamaliel's most recent post, with which I agree pretty much 100%.

[ 05. May 2014, 09:55: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Curiosity Killed ... (hi, by the way, hope you're well) - yes, indeed.

There are also RC services with minimal musical accompaniment. I once attended a Mass followed by a Benediction and they simply had a nun (in civvies) playing the piano for the hymns. The rest of it was from the Missal, of course.

The issue, of course, is that SCK favours what he sees as a multi-participatory approach and he appears to believe that guitar-led worship-songs are one of the best ways to achieve this.

I would posit that there is participation in every conceivable worship setting - the only difference being the level of obvious individual contribution.

I'd also suggest that every church tradition I am aware of makes room for small groups and less formal forms of worship in some way, shape or form. They just aren't as immediately obvious or apparent in some of the older, historic traditions. That doesn't mean that they don't exist.

The difference between the older, historic Churches and the kind of congregations/gatherings that SCK would favour, is that in the older outfits these things are there if you want them ...

You could easily spend a lifetime as an Anglican, a Roman Catholic or Orthodox without necessarily attending a small group Bible study, prayer group or similar. In SCK's favoured scheme of things the smaller group setting would be the main - or perhaps even the only - expression or item on the menu - with people being free, of course, to visit other settings if they wished or the larger gatherings and celebrations.

Which is fair enough if everyone is on the same page. But in reality, not everyone is.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Instead, what we've seen is the development of a kind of 'scene' - with all the marketing and puff that goes with all of that, people using the same material from the same sources ...

The small worship band and guitar thing was in evidence when it was all kum-by-yah and Peter, Paul and Mary folksy stuff ... church music a la that 60s group The Seekers ...

But now it's all become sub and cod Coldplay.

What's happened is that people have been to the large gatherings - the Spring Harvests and the New Wines and so on - and are trying to replicate the same effect back at their local church level - without the resources to achieve that.

To pare it all back to the bone would require a shift in ideology and emphasis, I would suggest - and that's a far harder thing to achieve.

I would say the same thing in a different context too - to those parish churches which try to emulate cathedral worship without the resources to pull it off, for instance. ...

That parallel gets a [Overused]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

The real issue is matching music expectations and choices to available resources. I know a music director who was fired because he chose music the 6 voice choir could handle and sound decent - church management wanted a "fuller" sound and wanted him to use commercial recordings of bigger choirs for the little choir to sing along to.

A cathedral choir of professional voices is beautiful. A three person folk style group with a guitar is a different kind of beauty. Commercially promoted songs on the radio may be great - and songs written by your own congregation may be just as good vehicles of worship. (Local songs with no licensing fees would be kinder to small church budget! The local Christian songwriters I know would be thrilled to have their songs used.)

I think too often churches are trying to mimic a sound or style they don't have the resources for instead of appreciating what music they do have available if they would look to "what can we do with one guitar and one penny whistle" or "no instruments except a pitch pipe" or "an accordionist who can play simple music lines and basic chords" or whatever is at hand to help the congregation make a joyful noise.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Gamaliel

The very least you require with acapella is someone who can pitch a tune. That requires no training only a mid range voice (low alto/high tenor). I know I have done it and my music training is not anything above high school music lessons. I also need other voices to carry a tune. The reason is that with a group that knows the music well then once the initial few notes are sung the group itself carries the tune.

Having been forced to lead on a couple of occasions I can tell you that if the group is familiar with the song they can "self-correct" if the tin-heared song leader happens to get the wrong tune.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It is interesting to note [...] what we've seen since the guitar first started to regularly appear in a worship context ...

What we've seen isn't a growth in the kind of informal, rather ad hoc (and I don't mean that in a derogative way) gatherings of the kind you describe and favour.

Instead, what we've seen is the development of a kind of 'scene' - with all the marketing and puff that goes with all of that, people using the same material from the same sources ...

The small worship band and guitar thing was in evidence when it was all kum-by-yah and Peter, Paul and Mary folksy stuff ... church music a la that 60s group The Seekers ...

But now it's all become sub and cod Coldplay.

It's interesting you should say that. I think the folksy influence is still detectable in a few churches and church events I've come across. However, it could be that only small, cash-starved congregations are likely to have a place for the guy with his guitar and kids shaking maracas and tambourines in the pews. Once a church moves up in the world, this sort of thing is probably unacceptable.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Surely not!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not so convinced about that, SvitlanaV2 - although I can understand why you'd suggest so.

I know a retired vicar who worships at an inner-city Anglo-Catholic church in Cardiff whenever he returns there and that's as makeshift as can be - for all the bells and smells.

But as a general rule of thumb, I think it holds good.

I've often wondered - like Belle Ringer - why some of the newer and trendier outfits don't go in for more home-made music and home-grown talent ... as you say, there are plenty of people writing music and songs and their material rarely gets an airing - because the stuff coming out of the large networks and conventions dominate the scene.

But that's what happens when you have a 'scene' - and that's effectively what the contemporary charismatic evangelical thing has become - like it or not.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

The folk influence now tends to be nu-folk, Mumford & Sons type stuff (Marcus Mumford's parents are involved with Vineyard iirc?).

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've often wondered - like Belle Ringer - why some of the newer and trendier outfits don't go in for more home-made music and home-grown talent ...

My church does! I think it's great - giving people an opportunity to explore and develop gifts they think they might have.

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The folk influence now tends to be nu-folk, Mumford & Sons type stuff (Marcus Mumford's parents are involved with Vineyard iirc?).

Yes they are. And I think you're broadly right about the musical direction; here is an example I really like.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

My point was that it usually costs money to be 'trendy', and with the ongoing development of technology this is ever more the case. Consequently, churches that lack money either have to be more self-reliant, or simply stick with a more traditional worship style, if they have classically-trained musicians available.

Also ISTM that the world of professional worship music is now as savvy as any other business, and has worked hard to create a demand for its products that makes home-made music an inadequate competitor. However, I agree that there are some highly talented amateur Christian song-writers and other musicians around, and it's very sad when their churches underuse them. IME, though, they tend not to rely solely on the regular congregation for the expression of their gifts, but also perform at ecumenical events, church concerts and other Christian or denominational functions. They can record their music and develop a name for themselves without the specific involvement of the local congregation.

[ 05. May 2014, 19:38: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Sunday Morning Worship on Radio 4 this week came from the Lighthouse in Salford, and one of the songs that they performed (it really was worship leader performing with mumbling along) was one they'd written in house.

That Build Your Kingdom Here had Irish folk rhythms and phrasing. Some of the stuff from Iona is lyrics to traditional folk songs, I've sung things to Wild Mountain Thyme, O Waly Waly, The Ash Grove and the Londonderry Air amongst others - with the original folk words running through my head.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, it's a 'taste' thing South Coast Kevin, but although I enjoy folky style music this example leaves me cold. I'm looking for the boredom/yawning smiley.

It wouldn't even sound that much better after 3 or 4 pints down my local.

[Roll Eyes]

'Change the at-mos-phere,
Build your kingdom here
We pray ...'

Puh-leeze ...

@SvitlanaV2, yes, I take the point you're making, trendiness does cost money ...

Back to South Coast Kevin ... I'm glad to hear your church makes room for local talent. Back in the day the various 'new church' streams did create a platform for their own talent - but this tended to happen on a network wide level rather than an individual congregational footing. So you had guys like Dave Haddon with Harvestime/Covenant Ministries and David Fellingham, I think, in New Frontiers ... there were others too. But things had become quite organised by that point.

I was imagining you had in mind a few bods with guitars and a paper-and-comb ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I like those tunes, Curiosity Killed. As a sentimental Welshman 'The Ash Grove' can make me go all goo-ey.

I think folk tunes can work well for hymns. 'I Heard The Voice of Jesus Say' is a folk tune, of course.

I came across an Iona/Wild Goose one set to the tune of 'The Lincolnshire Poacher' once ... which I found a bit bizarre.

It may be the circles I move in but I've rarely heard Iona Community songs used in worship.

I like Irish jigs and reels and I like some US nu-country and Alt.Country - and roots/traditional music of all kinds - whether from Mali or Nova Scotia.

There's something a bit 'forced' and cod about SCK's example - middle-class Home Counties kids pretending to be Romany. But then, that was always a danger with the whole folk-revival thing.

It's the sort of thing I wouldn't mind listening to at a festival or some kind or in a bar with a coupla pints. I'm not sure I'd want it in church on a Sunday morning.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Lots of versions of this on-line, including full churches singing to organs, but I've linked to seminarians and a version to guitar with the words: My soul is filled with joy/Holy is Your Name. It's sung to Wild Mountain Thyme and is a setting of the Magnificat by Wild Goose/David Haas.

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

There's something a bit 'forced' and cod about SCK's example - middle-class Home Counties kids pretending to be Romany. But then, that was always a danger with the whole folk-revival thing.

I couldn't speak to their socio-economic background but Rend Collective are from Northern Ireland.

IMO they are an incredibly creative and talented bunch but I think their songs and/or style would be difficult to cover in your average parish church (though we have tried once or twice).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok - fair enough, if they're from No'r'n Ir'n' then they will be more authentic than Mumford & Sons (I nearly typed Mudfrog & Sons [Biased]

) and so on ...

I've got an issue with the Mumfords and the Home Counties upper-echelons of UK evangelicalism ...

I don't doubt that these guys would be fun to watch at a gig or at Greenbelt or some other festival - I'm just not convinced it'd translate very well into Sunday morning worship ...

The thing is, and this applies right across the board, all Christian music has either been 'contemporary' at one time or other or remains so.

Where it borrows directly from what one might call 'secular' styles - and I think it's inevitable that it will do, whatever the churchmanship or style - then there is always a danger of it being sub - something else.

Arguably, the old Salvation Army songs were sub-Music Hall. Similarly with the early Pentecostal songs. On the contemporary, yoof orientated Christian music scene it seems that the only choices available are to be either sub-Coldplay or sub-Bellowhead.

These N'r'n' Irish kids simply look and sound like any number of contemporary folky outfits. The only reason they are getting any attention whatsoever is that they are playing within the niche and specialist arena of contemporary Christian music.

Sure, I'd prefer it to much of what I've heard coming from the contemporary Christian music scene - so taken on its own merits it's probably not bad.

But I still come away with the feeling that we could all do better ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

One further thought that this has triggered is the 'connect' between day-to-day worship during the week and the Sunday gathering.

I increasingly feel a 'disconnect' between my own personal worship practices and what happens on a Sunday morning at our local parish church. I follow the Lectionary readings - they don't. I use a more liturgical 'Office' style - they tend not to.

South Coast Kevin has often made the point about Sunday worship segue-ing seamlessly from the rest of our lives - and I agree with him entirely on that. I don't see any disconnect, necessarily, between listening to heavy metal, country-and-western, Punk, soul, reggae, classical music or jazz and then having Gregorian chant or traditional hymns on a Sunday morning, say.

But it strikes me that all styles of churchmanship tend towards some kind of niche style when it comes to music that is in danger of alienating somebody or other.

Not sure what the answer is to that one - if indeed there is one.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've got an issue with the Mumfords and the Home Counties upper-echelons of UK evangelicalism ...

I don't doubt that these guys would be fun to watch at a gig or at Greenbelt or some other festival - I'm just not convinced it'd translate very well into Sunday morning worship ...

One of the problems is that folk coming back to church after a great church festival - whether that be a whoopee praise session at Spring Harvest or a grand Festal Mass at the Vatican - want to reproduce it in the confines of their own church. And, of course, it doesn't work.

More pragmatic realism would lead to less frustration and angst all round.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes - I completely agree with that, Baptist Trainfan.

I think I've seen this sort of thing going on in my entire 30-odd years involvement with churches of one stripe or other.

I can't be prescriptive for anyone else, but what I've found helpful is to try to develop my own daily 'office' and so on that doesn't depend on anything flash and hi-tech - nor even high-octane - and this sustains me whatever does or doesn't happen on a Sunday morning.

I'd also suggest that a focus on word and sacrament - rather than the 'packaging' of each, as it were - is helpful. Of course, you can't avoid packaging and I quite like it - but if we train ourselves to avoid the kind of mood-swings that seem to accompany roller-coaster ride style worship - and that can be found at all ends of the spectrum - then we can maintain an even keel and be grateful for all God's mercies and for whatever it is we experience or encounter when we gather for worship collectively.

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

One big elephant trap to avoid is to try and recreate the precise sound you heard at Greenbelt or on YouTube, or even the cathedral. Some music (and this cuts across all genres) translates much better into different settings than others. In addition to that, some music is simply more vocally demanding than others. A skilled worship leader/musical director/Sunday organist needs to appreciate these issues, or they ain't going to do a very good job.

At our place we sing an awful lot of songs by Stuart Townend and the Gettys, almost to the point of overkill. I think our vicar chooses them mainly for their strong association with his Reformed theology. But in addition to that they are written for the comfortable middle ranges of both male and female voices, they tend to have structured predictable tunes (easy for the congregation to sing) and they sound nice played very simply as well as with all the extra instruments and production.

Matt Redman songs can be very tricky to do well in a small church. Blessed Be Your Name needs a big sound and is simply awful without a guitar and drums (which we usually have, but not always). And 10,000 Reasons (which I love as a song) is almost impossible for female voices to sing in the key in which it's written. I think at one point it goes up to a high F, which lots of women simply cannot do. And those that can, can only manage it in head voice, which sounds all wrong for this kind of song. We have been known to transpose it down three semitones.

But some songs written for stadium settings can be adapted very well for the local church; this for example. We leave out the octave leap at the end of the second verse and do it as a straight verse-chorus format song (i.e. without the instrumental bridge) and everybody loves it.

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd also suggest that a focus on word and sacrament - rather than the 'packaging' of each, as it were - is helpful.

I completely agree Gamaliel. I think one reason why Stuart Townend is so successful at the moment is that his songs are well grounded in structure AND have simple, nice tunes.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes - I was rather hoping that Townend would inspire a trend towards a more theologically grounded approach as well as singalongable-ness ... and in a way that would spill out from his small r reformedness to the wider evangelical constituency.

It doesn't seem to have happened, though.

I suspect, though, that my days of singing worship songs and choruses are over. I tend to avoid the 11am service at our parish church where they sing that sort of thing. I'm probably too high up the candle now for the supposedly more 'traditional' 9am service - which is still snake-belly low. My wife likes that sort of thing, though, she doesn't like the 'higher' stuff.

I'd have no problem visiting your parish, though, Busyknitter, but I wouldn't want a regular diet of that stuff these days.

20 years ago I'd have thought The Rend Collective were great. Now it all just looks pretty tired to me ...

I don't particularly have a big beef with evangelicalism per se nor with charismatic stuff - although I'm certainly post-evangelical and post-charismatic to all intents and purposes.

I've been round the block too many times.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That said, the beef I'd have with the particular Rend Collective song that South Coast Kevin posted isn't necessarily the style - I'd prefer it to Hillsongs any day of the week - but the theology.

It still buys into this revivalist thing about changing the spiritual atmosphere and so on ...

That doesn't sit very well with me these days.

I think that spiritual 'atmosphere' can be changed, but there's rather more to it than singing songs and engaging in what is loosely referred to as 'spiritual warfare' in some charismatic settings.

Nah.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Gamaliel

The very least you require with acapella is someone who can pitch a tune. That requires no training only a mid range voice (low alto/high tenor). I know I have done it and my music training is not anything above high school music lessons. I also need other voices to carry a tune. The reason is that with a group that knows the music well then once the initial few notes are sung the group itself carries the tune.

Remember the extreme form of this the cantor is chosen for their holiness of life not for their ability to hold a tune.

Jengie

One correction - don't by "middling voice" we mean mezzo-soprano or baritone? Mixed sex groups will in my experience sing perfectly naturally in octaves, as they do in traditional hymn and modern worship song singing, with women automatically singing an octave above a male lead, and vice versa. A high tenor/low alto true unison is going to be hard for a lot of women, and impossible for many men.

[ 06. May 2014, 09:43: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Gamaliel

The very least you require with acapella is someone who can pitch a tune. That requires no training only a mid range voice (low alto/high tenor). I know I have done it and my music training is not anything above high school music lessons. I also need other voices to carry a tune. The reason is that with a group that knows the music well then once the initial few notes are sung the group itself carries the tune.

Remember the extreme form of this the cantor is chosen for their holiness of life not for their ability to hold a tune.

Jengie
One correction - don't by "middling voice" we mean mezzo-soprano or baritone? Mixed sex groups will in my experience sing perfectly naturally in octaves, as they do in traditional hymn and modern worship song singing, with women automatically singing an octave above a male lead, and vice versa. A high tenor/low alto true unison is going to be hard for a lot of women, and impossible for many men.

Yes, exactly so. I suspect Matt Redman (and also Tim Hughes) have high tenor voices and write songs that are comfortable for their range.

The range difference between untrained male and female high voices seems to be two or three semitones less than an octave. So a woman with a naturally highish voice may not be able to sing stuff written by a high voiced bloke.

I'm not sure if the same holds true for lowish voices.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:
Matt Redman songs can be very tricky to do well in a small church. Blessed Be Your Name needs a big sound and is simply awful without a guitar and drums (which we usually have, but not always). And 10,000 Reasons (which I love as a song) is almost impossible for female voices to sing in the key in which it's written. I think at one point it goes up to a high F, which lots of women simply cannot do. And those that can, can only manage it in head voice, which sounds all wrong for this kind of song. We have been known to transpose it down three semitones.

Yes, these are great points for people seeking to transfer the professionally produced sound of Contemporary Christian Music CDs and conferences to smaller church settings. I mentioned the vocal range issue upthread, I think; a guy from my church contacted one of the contemporary UK worship leaders and they were completely unaware that their songs are really difficult for most people to sing.

The bottom line is that (maybe unlike older hymns) you can't just take the contemporary chorus-type songs as written and use them 'as is' in smaller settings with less skilled / gifted / trained musicians and singers. The songs need adapting, and that's a skill in itself - what arrangements will work in our sort of meeting, what key we should sing it in etc.

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

Looks like I'm not the only person to be getting a bit bothered over pitch and key. The ever-resourcefull folk at Musicademy have produced a handy set of guidelines and a list of suitable keys for popular songs here.

And here is a blogpost from the same author that I found elsewhere.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I am an alto, I find most worship songs very difficult to sing. But I also find a lot of the New English Hymnal (what my church uses) to be made for quavery-voiced old ladies and also difficult to sing, and unlike worship songs I am unfamiliar with a lot of the hymns still. The hymns I find easiest to sing are Wesleyan and Revivalist type hymns, big rousing ones - given their popularity at Beer & Hymns etc, I'd say a lot of people do too.

Sung music does not appear to be massively important at my church - we have a good organist and his playing is appreciated, but the singing is not very enthusiastic.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I agree about the stupidity of having songs and hymns that are outside most people's range, but that's not the only thing a lot of the young 'worship leaders' don't seem to understand. What little I know of New Wine suggests they aren't good on this. If your job is to lead other people in worship, that job includes ensuring the congregation can catch and sing along with the rhythm. Wandering on and off pitch or in and out of time may - for those that like that sort of thing - be just about all right if you are performing and others are listening. If your job is to enable them to sing, it's not.

That means rhythms that people can pick up AND giving them a clear melodic lead that fits the rhythm.

The Gettys and Dave Townsend are good on this. But of the other examples, if you were using the Magnificat in a congregational setting to Mountain Thyme, you'd need to stick far closer to rhythm and melody than the linked version, nice though it was. Likewise, if Rend Collective were actually leading worship rather than doing a music video, they would need to do Build your kingdom here differently. Otherwise people would not be able to follow them.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:
Looks like I'm not the only person to be getting a bit bothered over pitch and key. The ever-resourcefull folk at Musicademy have produced a handy set of guidelines and a list of suitable keys for popular songs here.

And here is a blogpost from the same author that I found elsewhere.

Those links look very useful, thanks! I shall have a proper look later.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

@Enoch - yes, I agree that that wasn't a particularly great version of Holy is His Name for congregational worship, but I've linked you a better version to show that. I just picked on that tune as adaptable to a range of different settings, both physical and musical, and chose one with words and one in small informal worship.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Gamaliel

The very least you require with acapella is someone who can pitch a tune. That requires no training only a mid range voice (low alto/high tenor). I know I have done it and my music training is not anything above high school music lessons. I also need other voices to carry a tune. The reason is that with a group that knows the music well then once the initial few notes are sung the group itself carries the tune.

Remember the extreme form of this the cantor is chosen for their holiness of life not for their ability to hold a tune.

Jengie
One correction - don't by "middling voice" we mean mezzo-soprano or baritone? Mixed sex groups will in my experience sing perfectly naturally in octaves, as they do in traditional hymn and modern worship song singing, with women automatically singing an octave above a male lead, and vice versa. A high tenor/low alto true unison is going to be hard for a lot of women, and impossible for many men.
Yes, exactly so. I suspect Matt Redman (and also Tim Hughes) have high tenor voices and write songs that are comfortable for their range.

The range difference between untrained male and female high voices seems to be two or three semitones less than an octave. So a woman with a naturally highish voice may not be able to sing stuff written by a high voiced bloke.

I'm not sure if the same holds true for lowish voices.

No because you are setting for everyone from a Bass to a Soprano! Men are not simply an octave lower than women.

Jengie

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

I think that's what I said too. [Smile]

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

To expand: the difficulty is that contemporary worship songs are typically sung in unison with the men and women singing an octave apart. And it is precisely because vocal ranges do not fit into tidy octave-sized chunks that songwriters should ideally write songs within a fairly narrow range, a musical lowest common denominator if you will.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Has anyone else noticed how it suddenly dawns on the average congregation with an expression of mild panic, part way through the first verse of I cannot tell - yes, tune Danny Boy - that "This is the one with that really high note in it"?

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Has anyone else noticed how it suddenly dawns on the average congregation with an expression of mild panic, part way through the first verse of I cannot tell - yes, tune Danny Boy - that "This is the one with that really high note in it"?

But that's what makes it all so much fun!
[Big Grin]

It just so happens I do have a high voice. When I'm in full choral mode I can cruise up to high A or even Bflat without breaking into too much of a sweat. And for that song it all sounds grand. But when it comes to the standard contemporary worship style, high female voices don't work at all. When I'm singing in the music group I more often than not sing mezzo range harmonies these days, or even a bit lower.

[ 06. May 2014, 15:57: Message edited by: busyknitter ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Has anyone else noticed how it suddenly dawns on the average congregation with an expression of mild panic, part way through the first verse of I cannot tell - yes, tune Danny Boy - that "This is the one with that really high note in it"?

Yes - you can have the same frisson of excitement with "Blaenwern". And what about "I vow to thee my country" - do you go up or down for the bit in the middle (neither is ideal, but then it wasn't written as a hymn tune)?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Gamaliel

The very least you require with acapella is someone who can pitch a tune. That requires no training only a mid range voice (low alto/high tenor). I know I have done it and my music training is not anything above high school music lessons. I also need other voices to carry a tune. The reason is that with a group that knows the music well then once the initial few notes are sung the group itself carries the tune.

Remember the extreme form of this the cantor is chosen for their holiness of life not for their ability to hold a tune.

Jengie
One correction - don't by "middling voice" we mean mezzo-soprano or baritone? Mixed sex groups will in my experience sing perfectly naturally in octaves, as they do in traditional hymn and modern worship song singing, with women automatically singing an octave above a male lead, and vice versa. A high tenor/low alto true unison is going to be hard for a lot of women, and impossible for many men.
Yes, exactly so. I suspect Matt Redman (and also Tim Hughes) have high tenor voices and write songs that are comfortable for their range.

The range difference between untrained male and female high voices seems to be two or three semitones less than an octave. So a woman with a naturally highish voice may not be able to sing stuff written by a high voiced bloke.

I'm not sure if the same holds true for lowish voices.
No because you are setting for everyone from a Bass to a Soprano! Men are not simply an octave lower than women.

Jengie

No, they aren't. But the vast majority of women can sing in the range where soprano and alto overlap (say Bb - D) and similarly most men can sing in the tenor/bass overlap - (approximately the same an octave lower). This is the range that would naturally be set by a mezzo or Baritone. A high tenor is likely to set a range such as G below middle C to A above, which is going to be damned hard for most men to sing along with, and a bit low to sing an octave down. The overlap range in octaves, c. Bb - D, is how I've always known it done, and it generally works.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:
To expand: the difficulty is that contemporary worship songs are typically sung in unison with the men and women singing an octave apart. And it is precisely because vocal ranges do not fit into tidy octave-sized chunks that songwriters should ideally write songs within a fairly narrow range, a musical lowest common denominator if you will.

Yes. It's also a fact that modern vocal techniques tend to be quite high for men, but quite low for women - most male vocalists sing in the tenor range (often falsetto if it's not their natural voice) whereas women tend to be down in the low contralto (I blame Karen Carpenter). Probably nearer a fourth or fifth than an octave. Women singing contemporary songs written for a contemporary male voice are usually stuck between singing at pitch and struggling with the bottom, or singing up an octave and sounding Just Wrong at the top. Mrs LB has found this with Beatles songs (yes, I know, but the range is much the same as contemporary stuff and she's hardly going to ever want to sing anything by Boyzone or whoever's popular now) - professionally, the songs would be transposed. Can't do that when you're singing together, so you need to move more towards the traditional ranges that work an octave apart - even if that does take the professional male vocalist rather lower than he's used.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am an alto, I find most worship songs very difficult to sing. But I also find a lot of the New English Hymnal (what my church uses) to be made for quavery-voiced old ladies and also difficult to sing

Which is odd because the original English Hymnal pitched everything lower than Ancient and Modern.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am an alto, I find most worship songs very difficult to sing. But I also find a lot of the New English Hymnal (what my church uses) to be made for quavery-voiced old ladies and also difficult to sing
Which is odd because the original English Hymnal pitched everything lower than Ancient and Modern.

I have no experience of Ancient & Modern, sorry. It is possibly an issue that comes from having a small elderly congregation rather than the hymns themselves.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Jade

You have my sympathy: as an alto, the alto line for NEH hymns would be well within your comfort zone but if you are joining in with hymns in unison - singing the tune, in other words - then you are stuck between things being either too high or too low. The same is likely to be true for a bass.

As for the pitch of hymns in A&M - this is irrelevant, BUT: the old A&M was higher than the NEH, the AMNS is lower than the NEH.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Jade

You have my sympathy: as an alto, the alto line for NEH hymns would be well within your comfort zone but if you are joining in with hymns in unison - singing the tune, in other words - then you are stuck between things being either too high or too low. The same is likely to be true for a bass.

As for the pitch of hymns in A&M - this is irrelevant, BUT: the old A&M was higher than the NEH, the AMNS is lower than the NEH.

I wonder if voices have got lower? Hymns seldom rise above an Eb, usually peaking at around D. Doesn't seem high to me, but then I'm not a bass. Were the tunes written in a time when when voices were higher for some reason? Or is it that we seldom sing these days, especially out loud, so high notes seem harder?

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

(Apologies if I'm covering old ground, I've not read the whole thread, just the last few messages)

Isn't it more a case that in Ye Olden Dayes hymns were written with the expectation that people would sing their line (soprano, alto, tenor, bass etc. etc.), so there was always a "comfortable zone" for everyone*, whereas with more modern songs (and congregations) one tends to sing unison, so it's melody or bust?

Coupled with (for 'modern' songs) the tendency to have a few big name pro/semi-pro artists and bands producing stadium pieces with near two-octave ranges which then get translated to one's local shack where if you're lucky a gifted amateur has to take a stab at leading it, and you're in for a lot of rumble rumble squeak squeak.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
(Apologies if I'm covering old ground, I've not read the whole thread, just the last few messages)

Isn't it more a case that in Ye Olden Dayes hymns were written with the expectation that people would sing their line (soprano, alto, tenor, bass etc. etc.), so there was always a "comfortable zone" for everyone*, whereas with more modern songs (and congregations) one tends to sing unison, so it's melody or bust?

I've heard of this happening in some places, but I'm not aware it was ever the expected norm.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

But it certainly sounds reasonable!

One other thing to remember: the actual pitching of instruments has gone up and down over the years. Middle C is not a fixed point!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Well, yes and no. The melody of most hymns is actually a bit low for soprano. I've always considered it to sit in a compromise range; mezzo-soprano/Baritone. I'd have expected it to have a higher tessitura if voices were expect to split.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
(Apologies if I'm covering old ground, I've not read the whole thread, just the last few messages)

Isn't it more a case that in Ye Olden Dayes hymns were written with the expectation that people would sing their line (soprano, alto, tenor, bass etc. etc.), so there was always a "comfortable zone" for everyone*, whereas with more modern songs (and congregations) one tends to sing unison, so it's melody or bust?
I've heard of this happening in some places, but I'm not aware it was ever the expected norm.

In some cultures it might be different, but in general, congregations need to be taught how to sing in harmony, and indeed feel as if they've been given permission to do so. It's not something they seem willing or able to do without guidance, IME.

Perhaps churches should be more willing to work with singing teachers to encourage help them to achieve this. But rather than just targeting a few enthusiasts from the pews I think you do need to get organists, choir leaders and/or worship band leaders on board. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that some of these people want congregations to have any musical training. Perhaps they see this as their territory.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I'm not sure many people want to sing in harmony. IME they'd rather sing the tunes they know.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

They don't want to and they're not expected to.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm old enough to have caught the tail-end of four-part harmony in Welsh chapels.

My impression is that it was already dying out but the emergence of the contemporary worship song put paid to it entirely.

Back in the day there were plenty of Baptist, Methodist and other non-conformist churches that went in for four-part harmony during congregational hymn-singing - particularly in those industrial areas (South Wales, The Potteries) where there was a grass-roots choral tradition based on choirs in mills and mines and potbanks.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

That's interesting. Can you explain why these skills weren't transferable to the singing of contemporary worship songs? After all, the bands singing worship songs in videos often have backing singers or other performers who sing in harmony.

When I lived in South Wales about 15 years ago the Methodist and Baptist churches I attended were still singing hymns, but I don't remember much distinctive harmonising.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Most contemporary worship songs are written to be performed by Christian music stars, and are then adopted by congregations, rather than being written specifically for congregational singing.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Does worship music employ more complicated harmonies than hymns?

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Gamaliel

That's interesting. Can you explain why these skills weren't transferable to the singing of contemporary worship songs? After all, the bands singing worship songs in videos often have backing singers or other performers who sing in harmony.

I'm not Gamaliel, and I don't speak for him. However, my own experience is that contemporary music is written for melody, or occasionally soprano/tenor as opposed to SATB*. My vocal range is perfect for most SATB (I'm a B), but the majority of the contemporary stuff is set at an odd pitch for me. It's too high to sing melody, but too low to sing harmony. Chris Tomlin is especially bad about that. I am trying to learn how to sing tenor so maybe I can cope. Most of the time I just stand and listen and sing as best I can.

___________
*There are exceptions to every rule and someone will come along and tell me this long list of songs written in the past 20 years that have full harmonization. I say great, but that's not the general rule -- I listen to Christian radio enough to know that.

[ 07. May 2014, 18:52: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Does worship music employ more complicated harmonies than hymns?

It's not really the same thing. Worship music is generally written for one voice, not multiple voices.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Thanks for these comments. However, it does look as though some of you experienced and trained church musicians might be missing a trick here: why not get together with some of the Christian songwriters and write new arrangements to some of the songs that would be best suited to congregational singing? Or indeed, collaborate in order to produce some completely new songs?

(Or, you could ditch that stuff entirely and just go back to the oldies! There are plenty of churches that still sing them!)

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Well, there are going to be churches who sing the latest Matt Redman/Chris Tomlin etc whatever it is, and wouldn't have the same interest in something less well-known just because it's easier to sing. Sad, I think, but true. I am also not sure that they'd listen to an organist! FYI I am not a musician (can't even read music though I think I have a pretty good ear for it - I have dyscalculia, though apparently instruments like guitars/ukuleles etc that use tabs are much easier to play for dyscalculics), nor am I a trained singer. I was in the (very casual!) choir at my secular secondary school, and obviously sing in church, but that's about it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

SvitlanaV2, I'm talking about 30 years ago. The harmonising had largely died out in congregational hymn singing in South Wales by the time you visited 15 years back.

Heck, it had all but died out 30 years back when I effectively caught the tail-end of it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it carried on in more rural areas though - and may still do in some places.

But to all intents and purposes I think that four-part harmonising in congregational singing has all but died out.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Jade

You have my sympathy: as an alto, the alto line for NEH hymns would be well within your comfort zone but if you are joining in with hymns in unison - singing the tune, in other words - then you are stuck between things being either too high or too low. The same is likely to be true for a bass.

As for the pitch of hymns in A&M - this is irrelevant, BUT: the old A&M was higher than the NEH, the AMNS is lower than the NEH.
I wonder if voices have got lower? ...

Yes, they definitely have. Better nutrition since Victorian times has made people grow bigger, so with lower voices. Editors of hymnbooks have often recognised this and have set tunes in lower keys than they were pitched at in earlier years.

I've been singing bass (harmony) to hymns since I was 14 and know the bass lines better than the tunes. Most modern songwriters seem to have high tenor voices and set songs in keys to suit themselves (Graham Kendrick, I'm looking at you!) making them unsingable for me unless I keep dropping down an octave when the tune goes too high, and then jumping up again when it gets too low to sing two octaves lower than written. Not a great worshipping experience.

Angus

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

At my MC/PCW godson's christening (morning service, Capel Salem, Canton, Cardiff) ten years ago, there was a codwr canu doing the tonic sol fa stuff. But how many of the congregation were actually singing in harmony, I don't remember.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

On special occasions and at Cymanfa Ganu - Welsh hymn singing festivals - you'll still hear the four-part harmonies. But it's largely died out among your average congregation in Wales.

I once attended a Cymanfa Ganu at Blackley Baptist Chapel, atop the Pennines between Huddersfield and Halifax and a more striking Bronte-esque location for a chapel it would be difficult to find - despite the proximity of the M62.

It was truly bizarre. A Pennine Yorkshire chapel full of silver-haired Welsh people singing four-part harmonies with gusto. They came from all over the North of England, retired school-teachers, ministers ...

Some of those who sang most lustily were atheists and agnostics ...

[Biased]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not sure many people want to sing in harmony. IME they'd rather sing the tunes they know.

It depends. I have a friend who gets annoyed whenever a hymn is chosen that has no alto line. Partly she has a low voice and partly she dislikes unison sound, craves harmony. But many directors (that I've known) don't allow spontaneous invention of harmony by the choir, so she's stuck with unison lines too high for her voice.

I used to invent harmonies (in the pews) but these days with no one else apparently doing it, it emotionally feels like I'm standing out/intruding on the experience of others. In contemporary songs those backup singers often aren't doing concurrent harmonies but responding phrases. If I do that - echo a song phrase during a part where the main singers are holding a note, it REALLY stands out! Which feels like I'm distracting attention to me.

One problem with choral harmonies is when they are written as Bach decreed - the "ideal" for the middle voices is they sit on one note - they are boring to sing. I switched to soprano to get variety in the music line. (They insisted I sing Alto because I can, so I dropped choir, freeing up a whole evening per week!)

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

No time just now to read the whole thread but have been meaning to check out our favourites.
We normally have one or two 'hymn book favourites' each week (though the current With One Voice often has a different tune from the Presbyterian one we grew up with) and some more recent, but we don't as a rule 'do' worship songs.
How new is contemporary? Does it inevitably mean 'of the current decade'? It seems to me that many of the hymn writers of the last half century (to be generous) have left a handful of favourites. Graham Kendrick leaves me cold most of the time but there are 2-3 of his that I love singing; several by Bernadette Farrell and Marty Haugen are often sung; in New Zealand Colin Gibson and Shirley Murray are regular favourites.
A minister who recently left the parish ministry to concentrate on writing and teaching worship songs visited us and taught a song he's written specially for us. Not all of us found it inspiring but after thrashing it for a few weeks we kind of got used to it. And now with visiting clergy of all stripes we occasionally get to sing their choice with as much gusto as ever.

GG

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A Pennine Yorkshire chapel full of silver-haired Welsh people singing four-part harmonies with gusto. They came from all over the North of England, retired school-teachers, ministers ...

Double post, but -

Sacred Harp gatherings here are like that. I was stunned the first time I attended one - enthusiastic 4 part singing with more men than women! Usually a 4-part group has lots of women (most of them soprano), and is begging/arm twisting a small group of men, few or no tenors show up.

No lack of tenors in sacred harp gatherings!

I said to a neighbor "whats different?" She pointed out "the tenors have the melody."

Make their line fun, they'll come.

(I note contemporary music has no lack of male singers including lots of tenors.)

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

Regarding the OP:

I find the major issues with introducing contemporary songs are:

1. Since musical notation is usually not provided, this compounds the difficulty of trying to acquaint oneself with the melody.

2. Unlike with traditional hymns, contemporary songs often do not follow standard recognizable patterns of rhythm, structure, etc.

At my traditional parish, the organist nearly always prefaces a hymn with a full run through of the melody, in addition to the musical notation provided.

An analogue in a contemporary worship setting would be to have the worship band do the first verse by itself, before the congregation joins in. If the song is particularly unusual, perhaps introduce it first solely by the worship band, and then include congregational participation at a later service.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On special occasions and at Cymanfa Ganu - Welsh hymn singing festivals - you'll still hear the four-part harmonies. But it's largely died out among your average congregation in Wales.

I once attended a Cymanfa Ganu at Blackley Baptist Chapel, atop the Pennines between Huddersfield and Halifax and a more striking Bronte-esque location for a chapel it would be difficult to find - despite the proximity of the M62.

It was truly bizarre. A Pennine Yorkshire chapel full of silver-haired Welsh people singing four-part harmonies with gusto. They came from all over the North of England, retired school-teachers, ministers ...

Some of those who sang most lustily were atheists and agnostics ...

Sounds wonderful. Reclaiming Yr Hen Ogledd, no doubt [Smile]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Heh heh ...

Yes, indeed Albertus.

[Biased]

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

That Build Your Kingdom Here had Irish folk rhythms and phrasing. Some of the stuff from Iona is lyrics to traditional folk songs, I've sung things to Wild Mountain Thyme, O Waly Waly, The Ash Grove and the Londonderry Air amongst others - with the original folk words running through my head.

I can't sing the Waly waly one without the original words in my head– it's my favourite folk song. On the whole the Wild Goose songs are singable and popular with our lot; I've even got over singing one in triple time that I'd danced as a strathspey.
After half a lifetime singing in church choirs I automatically sing the alto line (my natural soprano's gone a bit cracked) and there are usually a few others who do the same. My only wish is that if there's an unfamiliar tune there could be a few copies of the music for people like me who'll read anything but can't easily 'pick up' a tune. (Yes, Piglet, an alto is indeed a soprano who can read music).

GG

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
My only wish is that if there's an unfamiliar tune there could be a few copies of the music for people like me who'll read anything but can't easily 'pick up' a tune.

Agreed, but my church is on it's third song leader in 10 months, and although the church paid for the license to reproduce the music for the congregation, the song leaders have all refused to allow sheet music for the congregation even if someone else does the work of preparing it.

Explanations given so far:

1. They don't read music so they don't see any need for written music.

2. They don't read music so anyone who does is using a crutch that inhibits learning the music.

3. Learning by ear is (supposedly) faster than learning from sheet music.

4. Looking at sheet music is incompatible with worship. (I've found statements on line objecting to projected words for the same reason - if you have to be paying intellectual attention by reading something you can't be worshiping.)

5. Creating a booklet of commonly used songs is restricting worship music choices.

Puzzles me why the band thinks they need to rehearse a new song several times to get familiar with it while the congregation is expected to pick it up cold, having never even heard it before. But

6. it doesn't matter what notes or rhythms people in the congregation sing because worship isn't about getting the music "right" but about singing from your heart and whatever notes come out are fine, so except for people at the mic no one needs to know the tune just to sing along in worship.

All three song leaders have occasionally chosen a song they said they couldn't teach the band in time so they'll do it solo - and yet they have it listed as a congregational song. I guess either all three think the specific song choice is more important than congregational participation, or they really do think the congregation should be singing - any notes, any rhythm - to an unfamiliar song being sung at the mic.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

I would suggest, BR, that you have the misfortune to be dealing with leaders who are complete tools (although far from alone in the toolbox, sadly).

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Jade

You have my sympathy: as an alto, the alto line for NEH hymns would be well within your comfort zone but if you are joining in with hymns in unison - singing the tune, in other words - then you are stuck between things being either too high or too low. The same is likely to be true for a bass.

As for the pitch of hymns in A&M - this is irrelevant, BUT: the old A&M was higher than the NEH, the AMNS is lower than the NEH.
I wonder if voices have got lower? ...
Yes, they definitely have. Better nutrition since Victorian times has made people grow bigger, so with lower voices. Editors of hymnbooks have often recognised this and have set tunes in lower keys than they were pitched at in earlier years.

That strikes me as mansplaining, Angus. There isn't any correlation between the size of a person's body and the voice range in which he sings. A larger body means more resonant space, but that doesn't control pitch; it's the thickness of the vocal cords that determines your vocal range.

Fewer people can read music today than could 100 years ago, though. And in popular music, breath support isn't as crucial an issue as it is in legit singing (why bother with projecting when you have a mike?), so people have become pretty lazy singers.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Better nutrition since Victorian times has made people grow bigger, so with lower voices.

There isn't any correlation between the size of a person's body and the voice range in which he sings. A larger body means more resonant space, but that doesn't control pitch; it's the thickness of the vocal cords that determines your vocal range.

Fewer people can read music today than could 100 years ago, though. And in popular music, breath support isn't as crucial an issue as it is in legit singing (why bother with projecting when you have a mike?), so people have become pretty lazy singers.

I believed the "bigger bodies" explanation until I started looking at actual body sizes in the local community chorus. Short sopranos, equally short altos. Tall altos, taller sopranos. Men - not as clue from size what range will come out of their mouths.

I got tired of Alto and taught myself to sing soprano (even though I'm tall), moving my highest note from Eb to Bb with the help of a CD set of vocal exercises. (I only got to the second set of exercises, really should do the rest.)

Then I learned about vocal cord thickness, not length making the difference. You can train your vocal cord muscles.

Breath support makes a huge difference in range, as well as quality of sound and projection of sound. I grew up before mics (that is, mics existed but were so low quality no decent singer used one). At one church's contemporary service I stood in the back of the hall and created harmonies to the band (clergy and various people said they really liked it) - the band were amplified I was not, but my voice was easily heard without any strain.

They don't seem to teach projection anymore. When the power goes out a person who learned projection can continue the Bible reading or sermon or leading a song and be heard throughout the hall, without the mic. In an outdoor gathering the projected voice can be heard by the crowd instead of by only the few standing very near the speaker. Projecting is not yelling, it's diaphragm supported speaking or singing.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

...which is why one of the most important parts of chorister training that I do is about breathing - support and control - and voice projection.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

Br, one main reason for not teaching operatic vocal technique, and that is close-mic methods. However it's great for the sound tech if there IS a trained voice going into that specific mic...

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Br, one main reason for not teaching operatic vocal technique, and that is close-mic methods. However it's great for the sound tech if there IS a trained voice going into that specific mic...

Yes, mic singing is different, and I had to learn it.

It's not just singing - the local little theater has no mics. You project or you aren't heard. I don't go much anymore, a younger group are doing the plays and they just talk instead of projecting.

Also at outdoors events if there's no battery sound system the person making announcements can't be heard because they weren't taught to project, it diminishes the event for all but the nearest dozen people.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

We still sing harmony in The Salvation Army [Smile]

It's true though, the contemporary songs are not written in SATB but you will find that we put in harmonies when we can make it fit [Biased]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I lead worship for the residents of a psychiatric hospital, in the chapel and on the wards. We have a full range of ages of people, and a complete cross-section of society. Religious or church-going people are a small minority. A large proportion of our patients have very poor literacy for a variety of reasons.

It's been interesting trying to work out what music to use. That handful of really well-known hymns has pretty much shrunk to All Things Bright and Beautiful. I chose Be Thou my Vision for a funeral and it was clear that not even the staff knew it.

Modern worship songs are little known. Give me Oil in my Lamp gets some people going - memories of the last religious school assemblies, perhaps.

The music I've found most promising is American Spirituals / very early gospel. Standing in the Need of Prayer, or I'm Gonna Sit at the Welcome Table, even Swing Low, Sweet Chariot. They are very easy to pick up. You can sing them without words or music as call and response songs. They seem to invite improvisation.

It feels like inventing congregational music again from the beginning, though.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Sounds like a very smart piece of thinking, too!

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I lead worship for the residents of a psychiatric hospital...

...That handful of really well-known hymns has pretty much shrunk to All Things Bright and Beautiful. ...Modern worship songs are little known. Give me Oil in my Lamp gets some people going - memories of the last religious school assemblies, perhaps.

I'm in Bible Belt USA, I feel sorry for the non-Christians in nursing homes, all the sing-alongs are Christian music, primarily Baptist ("power in the blood" etc).

I would suggest think about camp songs, Swing Low, Give me oil in my lamp, this little light of mine, when the saints go marching in, we are climbing jacobs ladder. They tend to be repetitive enough for people to catch on.

I privately lament about modern worship songs that changing the music every year or two means songs don't get deeply embedded and remembered when the mind is fading, and no songs span the multi-ages present in a nursing home gathering.

But I guess the focus has changed to latest style and valuing newness, one of the recent song leaders in my church was appalled at using any song as much as ten years old, "obsolete in music style."

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I privately lament about modern worship songs that changing the music every year or two means songs don't get deeply embedded and remembered when the mind is fading, and no songs span the multi-ages present in a nursing home gathering.

But - at least in my experience - a few songs do survive the process of quick turnover that you describe. I can think of several songs that have been used by my church for many years, and I expect these are among the songs I'll remember as and when my memory starts fading.

Mind you, that group of long-lasting songs will be different from church to church but I think this merely reflects the modern fragmentation of culture and entertainment; which is both a positive and a negative thing, I suppose!

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Here in the UK, the Royal School of Church Music (RSCM) have brilliant people who seem to spend their time travelling around the UK enthusing groups of grumpy deanery synod members/ diocesan groupings / cluster of parishes into actually enjoying singing together.

At a recent session the RSCM rep was met with the usual bucket load of grumblings and gripings, complete with "he won't get Me singing, damn man". I could not resist turning round to watch the very same man on his feet, singing sweetly and smiling….

I guess one way to introduce new stuff is to ask for help from the professionals. RSCM could be your friend. And yes, they Do advise with contemporary/ modern stuff as well [Smile]

[ 04. June 2014, 14:47: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That handful of really well-known hymns has pretty much shrunk to All Things Bright and Beautiful. I chose Be Thou my Vision for a funeral and it was clear that not even the staff knew it.

Amazing Grace?
Praise my Soul?
What a friend we have in Jesus?
How Great thou art?

I guess any song/hymn that would be featured on Songs of Praise would be known by many; but you're right, the generation that sang hymns at school is now middle-aged and we are losing our heritage now that we have lost our religion from public life.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That handful of really well-known hymns has pretty much shrunk to All Things Bright and Beautiful. I chose Be Thou my Vision for a funeral and it was clear that not even the staff knew it.

Amazing Grace?
Praise my Soul?
What a friend we have in Jesus?
How Great thou art?

I guess any song/hymn that would be featured on Songs of Praise would be known by many; but you're right, the generation that sang hymns at school is now middle-aged and we are losing our heritage now that we have lost our religion from public life.

Yes, but there's no obvious reason you should be allowed to make children sing your hymns in secular state schools, is there?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

I know there's lots of criticism of contemporary worship music/Christian pop, but (and perhaps this is natural due to British demographics) there is little discussion or use of contemporary gospel music, much of which is written for and performed by choirs or artists backed by choirs.

Not all contemporary Christian music is Hillsong!

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I know there's lots of criticism of contemporary worship music/Christian pop, but (and perhaps this is natural due to British demographics) there is little discussion or use of contemporary gospel music, much of which is written for and performed by choirs or artists backed by choirs.

I'm not familiar with contemporary gospel music - is there a significant difference between it and the gospel music of the early 20th century?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I know there's lots of criticism of contemporary worship music/Christian pop, but (and perhaps this is natural due to British demographics) there is little discussion or use of contemporary gospel music, much of which is written for and performed by choirs or artists backed by choirs.
I'm not familiar with contemporary gospel music - is there a significant difference between it and the gospel music of the early 20th century?

Yes. Think Radio 2 on a Saturday afternoon.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm not familiar with contemporary gospel music - is there a significant difference between it and the gospel music of the early 20th century?

Quite a lot of them sound like more like mainstream R&B and have more crossover appeal.

Two examples:

Mary Mary "Shackles (Praise You)" which I've heard in non-Christian nightclubs, despite the totally unambiguously religious lyrics

Mary Mary video

And Kirk Franklin's "Stomp" which was a huge US hit as well.

Kirk Franklin video

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

[tangent]I'm old enough to remember when R&B meant stuff like the Rolling Stones, Small Faces and The Who.

I don't understand how it came to refer to the rather anodyne musical filler that seems to get the moniker slapped on it today.[/tangent]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm old enough to remember when R&B meant stuff like the Rolling Stones, Small Faces and The Who.

Oh my my. You do know R&B was created by African-Americans in the early 20th century, and not by British bands in the 1960s? Perhaps you aren't old enough!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm old enough to remember when R&B meant stuff like the Rolling Stones, Small Faces and The Who.
Oh my my. You do know R&B was created by African-Americans in the early 20th century, and not by British bands in the 1960s? Perhaps you aren't old enough!

Yes I do, thanks.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That handful of really well-known hymns has pretty much shrunk to All Things Bright and Beautiful. I chose Be Thou my Vision for a funeral and it was clear that not even the staff knew it.

Amazing Grace?
Praise my Soul?
What a friend we have in Jesus?
How Great thou art?

I guess any song/hymn that would be featured on Songs of Praise would be known by many; but you're right, the generation that sang hymns at school is now middle-aged and we are losing our heritage now that we have lost our religion from public life.
Yes, but there's no obvious reason you should be allowed to make children sing your hymns in secular state schools, is there?

While there's a statutory requirement for collective worship, there is. Of course, there's another discussion to be had about that.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That handful of really well-known hymns has pretty much shrunk to All Things Bright and Beautiful. I chose Be Thou my Vision for a funeral and it was clear that not even the staff knew it.

Amazing Grace?
Praise my Soul?
What a friend we have in Jesus?
How Great thou art?

I guess any song/hymn that would be featured on Songs of Praise would be known by many; but you're right, the generation that sang hymns at school is now middle-aged and we are losing our heritage now that we have lost our religion from public life.
Yes, but there's no obvious reason you should be allowed to make children sing your hymns in secular state schools, is there?

I thought in this particular instance we were talking about a scenario in which worship was being lead in a psychiatric hospital.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

There is still a school assembly memory, but only amongst older people, now. How Great Thou Art only became popular as a hymn after most people (in the UK) stopped having assemblies at school.

Amazing Grace is still very well known and loved. I wonder why. It's ages since any truly popular singer sang it. Judy Collins did, but that was a couple of generations ago. I think it may be down to the merit of the piece. Its pietistic, individualistic words somehow speak of far bigger universals - being found, joined, and given hope. And the tune is very folk song like, pentatonic, easy to learn, and good to sing.

There are other songs that everyone knows, but they don't all seem terribly suitable for worship. Ten Green Bottles, What Shall we do with the Drunken Sailor, Oh My Darling Clementine, Auld Lang Syne, For He's a Jolly Good Fellow, and of course, Happy Birthday to You.

[ 05. June 2014, 22:50: Message edited by: hatless ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm old enough to remember when R&B meant stuff like the Rolling Stones, Small Faces and The Who.
Oh my my. You do know R&B was created by African-Americans in the early 20th century, and not by British bands in the 1960s? Perhaps you aren't old enough!
Yes I do, thanks.

I think the (accurate) point seekingsister was making was that R&B is historically black music, not the preserve of the middle-aged white men who copied it. Mary Mary is closer to original R&B than The Who.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Jade, I am old enough to remember when the Who and the Rolling Stones were Angry Young Men adopting that style of music to rebel against the Establishment. They weren't always middle-aged, you know.

If you could go back to the 1970s and tell people that Bob Geldof would one day be Sir Bob and a pillar of the establishment himself, they'd have laughed at you.

Getting back to the subject of church music, why this false dichotomy between 'hymns' and 'worship songs'? A song in praise of God (or a god) IS a hymn. A hymn is a worship song. [Devil]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm old enough to remember when R&B meant stuff like the Rolling Stones, Small Faces and The Who.
Oh my my. You do know R&B was created by African-Americans in the early 20th century, and not by British bands in the 1960s? Perhaps you aren't old enough!
Yes I do, thanks.
I think the (accurate) point seekingsister was making was that R&B is historically black music, not the preserve of the middle-aged white men who copied it. Mary Mary is closer to original R&B than The Who.

In what way? Musically or racially?

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade, I am old enough to remember when the Who and the Rolling Stones were Angry Young Men adopting that style of music to rebel against the Establishment. They weren't always middle-aged, you know.

If you could go back to the 1970s and tell people that Bob Geldof would one day be Sir Bob and a pillar of the establishment himself, they'd have laughed at you.

They sure aren't middle aged now (and I've just paid $240 for a Bob Dylan ticket ...)

But, more seriously .. if a hymn/song is a prayer prayed twice, then surely it's worth having a iota of meaning to the lines, because twice zero is bugger all

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Yes, nowadays they're OAPs... even Bob Geldof is nearly old enough to qualify for his bus pass!

Completely agree with you about meaningless lyrics.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In what way? Musically or racially?

Both. There's a straight line from traditional R&B to Kirk Franklin and Mary Mary. The Rolling Stones etc. are on a separate branch that most people would call rock, not R&B. The first contemporary gospel hit was probably "Oh Happy Day" which sounded like radio R&B at that time, in the same way that Mary Mary etc. sound like radio R&B today.

The Stones do not fit into this very clearly anymore. I can think of groups that are closer - Culture Club is one that comes to mind - but not these rock bands that basically copied a bit of what they saw black Americans doing without any authentic experience with the original form.

[ 06. June 2014, 09:14: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade, I am old enough to remember when the Who and the Rolling Stones were Angry Young Men adopting that style of music to rebel against the Establishment. They weren't always middle-aged, you know.

If you could go back to the 1970s and tell people that Bob Geldof would one day be Sir Bob and a pillar of the establishment himself, they'd have laughed at you.

Getting back to the subject of church music, why this false dichotomy between 'hymns' and 'worship songs'? A song in praise of God (or a god) IS a hymn. A hymn is a worship song.

But that's irrelevant to my point - they're still white men playing black music.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

So what? ISTM (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that there's an implied criticism here. But fusion, interchange of ideas and styles; that's what makes things develop. And where did the 'black' music come from? No white influences there?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So what? ISTM (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that there's an implied criticism here. But fusion, interchange of ideas and styles; that's what makes things develop. And where did the 'black' music come from? No white influences there?

There's a cross-pollination for sure. "Black music" may be sociologically coded as black, but to my ears it has features of both African and European musics.

Rock critics like Dave Marsh have done an immense disservice to music by claiming that all rock is essentially "black music". Generally speaking, rock music is of mixed ethnicity.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Hmm. Muddy Waters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hEYwk0bypY

Ray Charles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTruv-lVoLk&list=PLF4EF0D26157C4445

Classic Rhythm and Blues, yes?

Now, my ears can hear the link between the above and say The Who: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=594WLzzb3JI

Or even Deep Purple, who aren't the first people I'd associate with "Rhythm and Blues": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lthsy99AJj0

But I just cannot, for the life of me, join the dots between any of the above and anything here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18QrECBKavY

That's what I mean by its meaning having apparently completely changed.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

(FWIW, I can certainly, having listened to some, see the link to Mary Mary - but the irony here is I think you'd find her style more likely to be classified as Gospel than R&B. She certainly sounds nothing like the compilation in my last YouTube link)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Jade Constable

quote:
...white men playing black music.

What on earth is this all about?

Using this spurious 'logic' all light opera should only be written in and performed by Italians, paraphrased psalms should be confined to the heirs of Calvin and Zwingli, etc.

In any case, music is colour-blind - or would you argue that rather than have Willard White (say) in Otello you'd prefer an Italian bass to 'black-up'?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Um, hate to nit-pick, especially as I agree with you, but I think Otello is actually a tenor role. Sorry.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
(FWIW, I can certainly, having listened to some, see the link to Mary Mary - but the irony here is I think you'd find her style more likely to be classified as Gospel than R&B. She certainly sounds nothing like the compilation in my last YouTube link)

Gospel is one of the roots of R&B. CF Whirling Willie etc. A lot of Motown artists were Gospel-trained.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jade Constable
quote:
...white men playing black music.
What on earth is this all about?

Using this spurious 'logic' all light opera should only be written in and performed by Italians, paraphrased psalms should be confined to the heirs of Calvin and Zwingli, etc.

In any case, music is colour-blind - or would you argue that rather than have Willard White (say) in Otello you'd prefer an Italian bass to 'black-up'?

Actually that's not my point at all. My point is that white musicians frequently get praise for musical styles taken from black musicians who are ignored, or don't get nearly as much recognition. Music doesn't exist in a vacuum and is affected by race issues just like anything else.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So what? ISTM (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that there's an implied criticism here. But fusion, interchange of ideas and styles; that's what makes things develop. And where did the 'black' music come from? No white influences there?

There's no criticism of white people enjoying and playing black music - there is criticism of a system where white people playing black music get more praise and recognition than the black musicians who initially performed the music. Music gets affected by racism and racial privilege like anything else, including church music.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jade Constable
quote:
...white men playing black music.
What on earth is this all about?

Using this spurious 'logic' all light opera should only be written in and performed by Italians, paraphrased psalms should be confined to the heirs of Calvin and Zwingli, etc.

In any case, music is colour-blind - or would you argue that rather than have Willard White (say) in Otello you'd prefer an Italian bass to 'black-up'?

I can say precisely what Jade Constable was on about, but maybe it had something to do with this ridiculous experience I had in La Jolla, California.

A choir of rich white people—salted with a few non-whites—on some Sunday commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr., singing Lift Every Voice and Sing. It may be my uncharitable memory recalling, but I'm pretty sure this was accompanied on their 1975 Austin pipe organ.

White people. Rich white people. Rich white people in 1%-rich La Jolla. Trying to sing Lift Every Voice and Sing. On an organ.

Not just any Negro gospel song neatly pinched from LEVAS, to season our multicultural stew, but the one with these lyrics:

quote:
Stony the road we trod, bitter the chastening rod,
Felt in the days when hope unborn had died;
…
We have come over a way that with tears has been watered,
We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered;

Now, I'll merit that very few of us are meet to sing the songs of the martyred. But for folk such as these to sing "treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered" just fifty years after the lynching of 14-year old Emmett Till, ought to make us positively squirm with discomfort.

Is there a whiff of the ad hominem about this post? You bet. That would be its point.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
(FWIW, I can certainly, having listened to some, see the link to Mary Mary - but the irony here is I think you'd find her style more likely to be classified as Gospel than R&B. She certainly sounds nothing like the compilation in my last YouTube link)
Gospel is one of the roots of R&B. CF Whirling Willie etc. A lot of Motown artists were Gospel-trained.

Yeah, I know. My point is that what is called R&B TODAY, and for about the last 20 years, does not sound anything like the Gospel rooted Rhythm & Blues of earlier times.

Hence, whilst I'd aver that Mary Mary is more like R&B of old than Rihanna, it's the latter who's more representative of what gets called R&B now rather than the former.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jade Constable
quote:
...white men playing black music.
What on earth is this all about?

Using this spurious 'logic' all light opera should only be written in and performed by Italians, paraphrased psalms should be confined to the heirs of Calvin and Zwingli, etc.

In any case, music is colour-blind - or would you argue that rather than have Willard White (say) in Otello you'd prefer an Italian bass to 'black-up'?
Actually that's not my point at all. My point is that white musicians frequently get praise for musical styles taken from black musicians who are ignored, or don't get nearly as much recognition. Music doesn't exist in a vacuum and is affected by race issues just like anything else.

Do they? Not sure about that. B B King was big in his time, just as Deep Purple were in theirs.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yeah, I know. My point is that what is called R&B TODAY, and for about the last 20 years, does not sound anything like the Gospel rooted Rhythm & Blues of earlier times

Or in other words, the music in (whenever the speaker was 15-30 years old) is better than the music now. [Big Grin]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

[gives up]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

I'm not trying to insult your musical tastes, Karl. But there is no universe in which British rock bands are more authentically R&B than contemporary African-American gospel artists are.

If you'd said "Mary Mary who? What's wrong with Aretha Franklin?" then you'd have a point.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm not trying to insult your musical tastes, Karl. But there is no universe in which British rock bands are more authentically R&B than contemporary African-American gospel artists are.

If you'd said "Mary Mary who? What's wrong with Aretha Franklin?" then you'd have a point.

Gospel artists, yes, and I've said I can see the R&B/Gospel roots of Mary Mary, but my point is that the label R&B is generally given to the sort of poppy stuff I linked to on YouTube earlier, which seems to have no musical connection at all with earlier R&B, or contemporary gospel.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Jade:

quote:
My point is that white musicians frequently get praise for musical styles taken from black musicians who are ignored, or don't get nearly as much recognition.

And Vaughan Williams got praised for taking perfectly respectable folk-tunes and "arranging" them, and before him Cecil Sharp was praised for collecting and popularising folk songs and music that were dying out from lack of interest (because people tend to take more notice of middle-class academics than random yokels in the pub), and women musicians and composers don't get as much praise and recognition as men. The way the music industry works is not likely to be any better than the rest of society, is it?

We're all standing on the shoulders of giants. Creative people all over the world and throughout history have been influenced by others. It's only fairly recently (in historical terms) that anyone would have thought there was a problem about taking a style of music you liked from another culture (or sub-culture) as inspiration for your own work.

But it's an interesting argument - do you strive for "authenticity" or "hybridity"? And in an increasingly globalized culture, what's authentic anyway?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So what? ISTM (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that there's an implied criticism here. But fusion, interchange of ideas and styles; that's what makes things develop. And where did the 'black' music come from? No white influences there?
There's no criticism of white people enjoying and playing black music - there is criticism of a system where white people playing black music get more praise and recognition than the black musicians who initially performed the music. Music gets affected by racism and racial privilege like anything else, including church music.

Yeah, I think you'll find you're arguing that point exactly 60 years too late - it was current when Elvis became popular.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
]I can say precisely what Jade Constable was on about, but maybe it had something to do with this ridiculous experience I had in La Jolla, California.

A choir of rich white people—salted with a few non-whites—on some Sunday commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr., singing Lift Every Voice and Sing. It may be my uncharitable memory recalling, but I'm pretty sure this was accompanied on their 1975 Austin pipe organ.

(snip)

I get what you're talking about, TSA. The social aspect of this particular appropriation is certainly embarrassing; around these parts it seems to be very right-on for (mostly-white) parishes to sport copies of LEVAS in the pews. And invariably, when the songs come up in the service, there is enthusiastic clapping.

On the 1 and the 3.

Posted by Salicional (# 16461) on :

The PCUSA's new hymnal, which just came out last year, includes both 'Lift Every Voice' and another civil-rights-era favorite, 'We Shall Overcome'. I imagine there are some PCUSA congregations where the latter, in particular, could be sung meaningfully.

But the one I serve consists almost entirely of white folks and is highly skewed to the upper end of the income bracket. If someone ever suggested we sing it, I'd find it hard to resist asking "What exactly do you people have to overcome?"

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Answer, maybe: 'our crushing embarrassment and sense of guilt at being well-heeled white folks'.But if it is that, they're never going to overcome it.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jade Constable
quote:
...white men playing black music.
What on earth is this all about?

Using this spurious 'logic' all light opera should only be written in and performed by Italians, paraphrased psalms should be confined to the heirs of Calvin and Zwingli, etc.

In any case, music is colour-blind - or would you argue that rather than have Willard White (say) in Otello you'd prefer an Italian bass to 'black-up'?
Actually that's not my point at all. My point is that white musicians frequently get praise for musical styles taken from black musicians who are ignored, or don't get nearly as much recognition. Music doesn't exist in a vacuum and is affected by race issues just like anything else.
Do they? Not sure about that. B B King was big in his time, just as Deep Purple were in theirs.

Judging by the pictures BB King kept getting bigger and bigger.....
But seriously by the late 60's he needed the white college (rock) audience to survive. This came about because his (white (generally English)) imitators gave his credit and patronage. White people playing black music at whatever remove have always shifted more units from the Beastie Boys to Emenem from Benny Goodman to Dave Brubeck.
R&B is a term with several meanings including 50's black music, both British blue booms (early and late 60's), and contemporary black pop music.

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Salicional:
The PCUSA's new hymnal, which just came out last year, includes both 'Lift Every Voice' and another civil-rights-era favorite, 'We Shall Overcome'. I imagine there are some PCUSA congregations where the latter, in particular, could be sung meaningfully.

But the one I serve consists almost entirely of white folks and is highly skewed to the upper end of the income bracket. If someone ever suggested we sing it, I'd find it hard to resist asking "What exactly do you people have to overcome?"

This is where phrases like "Cultural appropriation" have meaning. Lift every Voice and Sing is considered the black national anthem in the US and is intimately tied with the the struggle for equality, upper class whites singing it seems incredibly strange and out of place

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:
This is where phrases like "Cultural appropriation" have meaning. Lift every Voice and Sing is considered the black national anthem in the US and is intimately tied with the the struggle for equality, upper class whites singing it seems incredibly strange and out of place

Though perhaps there's an element of "neither Greek nor Jew" operating there, as rich whites might be singing in the joy of liberation from the oppression of sin rather than economic (sin) oppression

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:

quote:
Originally posted by Salicional:
The PCUSA's new hymnal, which just came out last year, includes both 'Lift Every Voice' and another civil-rights-era favorite, 'We Shall Overcome'.
This is where phrases like "Cultural appropriation" have meaning. Lift every Voice and Sing is considered the black national anthem in the US and is intimately tied with the the struggle for equality, upper class whites singing it seems incredibly strange and out of place

I was in a mostly black chorus singing at a Martin Luther King event, I felt uncomfortable singing that song, it's a stirring deeply moving song, but I felt an intruder in singing it, the words are true of a certain people and their history and (to be honest) ongoing struggle, not of me.

To say wording like "Stony the road we trod, bitter the chast'ning rod...We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered... God of our weary years, God of our silent tears..." is about everybody's occasional spiritual down times or personal battles with sin would utterly trivialize the painful American Black history and experience the song describes.

We shall overcome was the anthem of a mixed race movement to end segregation, so it doesn't have that same feeling of belonging to one specific group. Does feel strange, though (to me), to sing it in a 100% white church in the 2000s, way out of context.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
To say wording like "Stony the road we trod, bitter the chast'ning rod...We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered... God of our weary years, God of our silent tears..." is about everybody's occasional spiritual down times or personal battles with sin would utterly trivialize the painful American Black history and experience the song describes.

I agree completely. But I think context matters.

For a white or predominately white-culture congregation to sing "Lift Every Voice," even with the best intentions of identifying with others, is problematic, I think. Despite a suggestion to do so, our pastor made a conscious decision not to sing it in worship during MLK weekend for that reason. (We used "The Right Hand of God" instead.)

But I have been in settings such as MLK services where the congregation was mostly African American, and where the rest of us were invited to sing along. I think that's quite different. And in those contexts, I have found the verse you describe to be quite challenging—have I ever wielded the "chastening rod," however unintentionally?

Clearly, the hymn is not in the hymnal just so white congregations will sing it. (It was in the former Presbyterian hymnal as well.) i It's there to include the non-white experience in a predominately white denomination.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Does it not depend a little on other people's histories too ? There are many people of many backgrounds who have experienced persecution, suffering and hardship.

What about all the white refugee immigrants who arrived in the states, the Irish diaspora etc.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
For a white or predominately white-culture congregation to sing "Lift Every Voice," even with the best intentions of identifying with others, is problematic, I think.

I do not see why this should be problematic. Songs written within a specific historical context are often repurposed for contemporary use. For example, we do not restrict the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner or the Battle Hymn of the Republic merely because they were written in the context of the War of 1812 and the Civil War, respectively.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does it not depend a little on other people's histories too ? There are many people of many backgrounds who have experienced persecution, suffering and hardship.

What about all the white refugee immigrants who arrived in the states, the Irish diaspora etc.

I presume that many of their descendants have done well for themselves and would only be singing such songs out of nostalgia - whereas African Americans, even wealthy ones, will realise that their racial group is still disproportionately disadvantaged in the USA. The meaning and symbolism would be rather different for them.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
For a white or predominately white-culture congregation to sing "Lift Every Voice," even with the best intentions of identifying with others, is problematic, I think.
I do not see why this should be problematic. Songs written within a specific historical context are often repurposed for contemporary use. For example, we do not restrict the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner or the Battle Hymn of the Republic merely because they were written in the context of the War of 1812 and the Civil War, respectively.

Quite a different thing, I think. As others have pointed out, the "we" in "Lift Every Voice" speaks of specific experiences not shared by (most) white people. The two you mention have historical contexts, but those contexts and the words themselves easily permit the more general use they enjoy today. But for upper middle class whites to sing about how "we" have suffered seems a bit tone deaf to me. It's not "our" story.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Samll tangent (not trying to make any kind of point, just curious)- would people consider it problematic for Mr Obama to be singing these Civil Rights hymns? Because AIUI his American ancestry is white: no doubt Kenyans such as his father might have their own struggles to commemorate, but they are not the struggles that, say, Mrs Obama's family had.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm not American, but I understand that ordinary African Americans have been mostly supportive of Mr Obama. This is because his political awareness as a young man was nurtured very much by his work among African Americans in Chicago.

Also, they know that after he left the protective care of his white mother's family and before he became famous, most people on seeing him would automatically have treated him like any other African American. Having a long-gone Kenyan father wouldn't have made any difference to that. Then, of course, he married Michelle, which is further proof that he wanted to be part of the African American family.

Some African American voices on the left (e.g. Cornel West) have been critical of Obama's appropriation of aspects of the African American prophetic voice. This isn't because Obama had a Kenyan father, but because it looks a bit like cynical PR, especially since they don't see Obama standing up for struggling African Americans or for poor Americans in general as much as they would like.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
For a white or predominately white-culture congregation to sing "Lift Every Voice," even with the best intentions of identifying with others, is problematic, I think.
I do not see why this should be problematic. Songs written within a specific historical context are often repurposed for contemporary use. For example, we do not restrict the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner or the Battle Hymn of the Republic merely because they were written in the context of the War of 1812 and the Civil War, respectively.
Quite a different thing, I think. As others have pointed out, the "we" in "Lift Every Voice" speaks of specific experiences not shared by (most) white people. The two you mention have historical contexts, but those contexts and the words themselves easily permit the more general use they enjoy today. But for upper middle class whites to sing about how "we" have suffered seems a bit tone deaf to me. It's not "our" story.

I think the problem is that you are assuming that the congregation largely composed of upper-middle class Whites are self-identifying as such in the context of such a song, rather than as a community of Christians. Since it is most assuredly the latter, I remain unconvinced that this would be so inappropriate.

Perhaps it may come across as tone deaf to an outside observer who has no understanding of the context with which such a song is sung by such a congregation, but is this enough of a reason to silence it when it may further the worship of God? Why should the non-Black portions of the Church by forbidden access to the richness of Black compositions merely for the sake of political correctness? That merely encourages the ghettoization of Black hymns to Black congregations, undermining the effort to reconcile Black and White churches into One Church, which this was undoubtedly meant to promote.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I think the problem is that you are assuming that the congregation largely composed of upper-middle class Whites are self-identifying as such in the context of such a song, rather than as a community of Christians. Since it is most assuredly the latter, I remain unconvinced that this would be so inappropriate.

I imagine I am assuming that the congregation is predominantly middle- to upper-middle-class white. That still describes the typical PC(USA) congregation, I'm afraid. (The PC(USA) is both my frame of reference and the denomination whose hymnal was mentioned as containing the hymn.)

But based on my experience, I cannot say that it is most assuredly the case that worshipers are identifying as fellow Christians rather than as middle- to upper-middle-class whites. I don't think it's that simple. I think people tend to identify as both.

quote:
Perhaps it may come across as tone deaf to an outside observer who has no understanding of the context with which such a song is sung by such a congregation, but is this enough of a reason to silence it when it may further the worship of God? Why should the non-Black portions of the Church by forbidden access to the richness of Black compositions merely for the sake of political correctness? That merely encourages the ghettoization of Black hymns to Black congregations, undermining the effort to reconcile Black and White churches into One Church, which this was undoubtedly meant to promote.

I speak only from my own experience, and that experience has been in the South, where these issues can still lurk close to the surface. There is no question that we've come a long way, but there is also no question that we have further to go and that there is a lot of memory.

In my experience, I don't think anyone feels "forbidden" from singing it at all, I think many feel uncomfortable singing it, at least in a group that is mainly white. Singing it with fellow Christians who are African American—absolutely! But I guess I'd say in my experience, white people tend to feel like it's disrespectful to sing it on our own, for want of a better way of putting it.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I think the problem is that you are assuming that the congregation largely composed of upper-middle class Whites are self-identifying as such in the context of such a song, rather than as a community of Christians. Since it is most assuredly the latter, I remain unconvinced that this would be so inappropriate.
I imagine I am assuming that the congregation is predominantly middle- to upper-middle-class white. That still describes the typical PC(USA) congregation, I'm afraid. (The PC(USA) is both my frame of reference and the denomination whose hymnal was mentioned as containing the hymn.)

But based on my experience, I cannot say that it is most assuredly the case that worshipers are identifying as fellow Christians rather than as middle- to upper-middle-class whites. I don't think it's that simple. I think people tend to identify as both.

I did not mean to imply that if you asked such persons about their race and socio-economic strata, they would not identify as upper-middle class Whites. Rather, I meant within the specific context of the Church. In my experience, a predominately White congregation thinks of itself merely as a congregation of Christians, not a congregation of upper-middle class White Christians. Thus, when they sing of themselves as a group in the context of the song, they would be singing within the common identity of the Christian faith. If, instead, they were somehow singing with a conscious group identity of upper-middle class Whites, then of course it would be inappropriate. I find it difficult to believe that this would be the case, however.

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Perhaps it may come across as tone deaf to an outside observer who has no understanding of the context with which such a song is sung by such a congregation, but is this enough of a reason to silence it when it may further the worship of God? Why should the non-Black portions of the Church by forbidden access to the richness of Black compositions merely for the sake of political correctness? That merely encourages the ghettoization of Black hymns to Black congregations, undermining the effort to reconcile Black and White churches into One Church, which this was undoubtedly meant to promote.
I speak only from my own experience, and that experience has been in the South, where these issues can still lurk close to the surface. There is no question that we've come a long way, but there is also no question that we have further to go and that there is a lot of memory.

In my experience, I don't think anyone feels "forbidden" from singing it at all, I think many feel uncomfortable singing it, at least in a group that is mainly white. Singing it with fellow Christians who are African American—absolutely! But I guess I'd say in my experience, white people tend to feel like it's disrespectful to sing it on our own, for want of a better way of putting it.

Ah, I totally understand why individuals may have personal reluctance for the reasons you have described. I was merely arguing against the notion of the Church specifically proscribing others from singing these songs. Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning when you said that this would be "problematic." If so, I apologize.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
In my experience, a predominately White congregation thinks of itself merely as a congregation of Christians, not a congregation of upper-middle class White Christians.

This is perhaps an example of what's been called 'white privilege': the ability to see oneself as racially - and sociologically - netural. But colour and class blindness probably isn't a great advantage in a country where racial and sociological divides really do exist. Once those issues are resolved then everyone can claim that race and class don't matter.

BTW, have prominent African Americans ever actually complained about white congregations singing spirituals and gospel music, or is this something that's just assumed? I know that some black British theologians and historians of black music have criticised the ways in which some of the white writers of worship music have made use of black musical idioms without acknowledging the fact, but this is a somewhat different issue.

In the UK and on the Continent gospel music is not only popular beyond black churches, it's also popular beyond churches in general. Individuals will have their preferences as to who sings these songs 'the best', but there's not much of a debate about who has the right to sing them.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
In my experience, a predominately White congregation thinks of itself merely as a congregation of Christians, not a congregation of upper-middle class White Christians.
This is perhaps an example of what's been called 'white privilege': the ability to see oneself as racially - and sociologically - netural. But colour and class blindness probably isn't a great advantage in a country where racial and sociological divides really do exist. Once those issues are resolved then everyone can claim that race and class don't matter.

BTW, have prominent African Americans ever actually complained about white congregations singing spirituals and gospel music, or is this something that's just assumed? I know that some black British theologians and historians of black music have criticised the ways in which some of the white writers of worship music have made use of black musical idioms without acknowledging the fact, but this is a somewhat different issue.

In the UK and on the Continent gospel music is not only popular beyond black churches, it's also popular beyond churches in general. Individuals will have their preferences as to who sings these songs 'the best', but there's not much of a debate about who has the right to sing them.

I would say that blindness to race and class is very relevant, however, in determining the intent of a congregation is this particular context.

As to whether African-Americans have complained, I have no idea. This tangent was prompted by discussion above that I construed as attempting to proactively admonish anyone from singing the beforementioned songs that was non-Black. That may have been a misunderstanding, however.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Ah, I totally understand why individuals may have personal reluctance for the reasons you have described. I was merely arguing against the notion of the Church specifically proscribing others from singing these songs. Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning when you said that this would be "problematic." If so, I apologize.

No problem. I think we're on the same page. Perhaps I could have chosen a better word than "problematic."

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
BTW, have prominent African Americans ever actually complained about white congregations singing spirituals and gospel music, or is this something that's just assumed?

Not as far as I know, nor have I ever observed it being assumed. In my experience, white congregations sing African American spirituals and gospel songs all the time—with the exceptions of one or two hymns, like "Lift Every Voice," that carry particular significance.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Song choice, whether in terms of the compilation of denominational hymnbooks or in terms of additional repertoire, is an interesting subject. Like all other forms of cultural production and consumption there must be a whole range of issues going on there. I wonder if anyone has ever subjected a whole hymnbook, or simply a range of popular hymns or worship songs, to any kind of critical theoretical analysis? I'm sure it would be very fruitful.

[ 23. June 2014, 01:05: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Right. The simple answer is YES, including myself as part of my thesis (the analysis of hymns used for worship week by week within the congregations I was studying, presented at the Post Graduate SST conference a few years back). However, I am not a real player in this field. The other supervisee who is often paired with me is!

However for more direct then there is J R Watsons A Annotated Anthology of Hymns and The English Hymn: A Critical and Historical Study.

There is also Abide with Me by Ian Bradley and I also turned up this book also on Victorian Hymnody (scroll down for a list of other books that may be on topic). Actually Hymn Quest gives a long listing of resources on origins of hymns including a thesis on modern hymns

For a theological-critical look at hymns the Brian Wren's Hymns for Today.

There is more, lots more including stuff on Church Music. One problem is the journals and books tend to be slow at getting online.

Jengie

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I wonder if anyone has ever subjected a whole hymnbook, or simply a range of popular hymns or worship songs, to any kind of critical theoretical analysis? I'm sure it would be very fruitful.

I sort of did this recently, for an assignment on my theology course. Inspired by this recent paper (summary only, sorry), I wrote an analysis of the charismatic evangelical 'worship set' structure.

My paper is here - it is quite long, and this is dangerously close to blatant self-promotion, I realise! Hope it's okay (both in terms of the Ship rules and general modesty!) as I think it's relevant to the discussion...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Thank you both very much for these suggestions!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0