Ship of Fools: Thank you for the Music

Thread: Thank you for the Music Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024910

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

What do you think about music during the service?

Is it better to have no music than an organist or pianist who doesn't play very well?

Is it better to have no music than to play a cd and sing hymns along to it, if there's no musician available?

Can anyone recommend any specific cd's?

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Sing a joyful song. So many congregations are used to dry services with no music. I have seen canned music and it sucks. I would suppose the vast majority of Christians throughout time and space sang a cappella.

I've seen four or five old ladies singing a cappela. I've seen one and two people chanting the office.

Singing adds a special dimension that just cannot be obtained by merely reading.

It may not always be possible at first, but surely it is a desireable goal to return to.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Since quite a lot of ecclesial communities, ranging from Orthodoxy to even the Church of Scotland, yet alone the others, on some islands, don't use instruments at all, sing unaccompanied as Mama Thomas says.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
What do you think about music during the service?

Its wonderful! Often the best bit.

quote:

Is it better to have no music than an organist or pianist who doesn't play very well?

No. God the Holy Spirit has given the congregation the gifts it needs to worship God. If God wants you to play music there will be someone who can play music.

quote:

Is it better to have no music than to play a cd and sing hymns along to it, if there's no musician available?

Better to sing unaccompanied than mess around with recordings.

quote:

Can anyone recommend any specific cd's?

No, because they are a Really Bad Idea!

The first thing about music in church is to sing. Everyone sing, this is worship, not a performance. If you have musical instruments and if it helps the singing, then play them. But they are an optional extra, the spice, not the food itself.

[ 16. September 2012, 14:19: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

Better to sing unaccompanied than mess around with recordings.

quote:

[/QB]

Quite right. After all, as you'll know that fine traditional anthem Nemo nos amat, non curamus is pretty much always sung unaccompanied, isn't it? [Big Grin]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Thank you. So far, all for singing unaccompanied. If no-one is able to pitch it without music, that may surely be as painful as trying to sing along to a poor piano player?

Joyful singing needs to be led by someone so that it's joyful, doesn't it? I wonder sometimes whether the musicians called to accompany the singing are listening, as they don't turn up.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

In our hospital chapel, I nearly always have a hymn if there are more than three of us. I don't really like CD accompaniment, but I use it because I know most people aren't confident singers. I think if I was in a parish church with a regular congregation, I'd tend to encourage them to sing unaccompanied. It only takes one or two people who can carry a tune to give the others the confidence to join in.

In my parish days, at weekday offices we'd sing the office hymn, Salve Regina and sometimes the Lord's prayer even if there were only two of us. (In fact, sometimes if there was only one of me!) I think singing is intrinsic to liturgy.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Yes. I'm not really musical but singing (even at small weekday offices) lifts the worship. Unaccompanied is best and nearly always possible, but I think CDs (or other technology) are fine for reflective music as e.g. a background to communion. Organs are all right in cathedrals and churches with big congregations but it's rare to find an organist sensitive enough to support and not drown out hesitant singers.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Thank you. So far, all for singing unaccompanied. If no-one is able to pitch it without music, that may surely be as painful as trying to sing along to a poor piano player?

Tuning forks cost £6.50 or thereabouts. Our services are music-intensive, and with entirely unaccompanied singing, that is how we do it. Just whack it on your head and away you go.

I'm sure it's an entirely innocent misuse but I'm not sure about the possible impliction that singing is not music unless it has instrumental accompaniment.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

Even better.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Just whack it on your head and away you go.

I'm sure it's an entirely innocent misuse

Of your head?

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Just whack it on your head and away you go.

I'm sure it's an entirely innocent misuse
Of your head?

One of our choir desks is wrought iron and the other is chipboard with some sort of veneer. Neither is suitable for hitting a tuning fork against as it would make a loud noise. By the time I thought of getting one of the little rubber things, I'd come to realise that my head lent itself very well to the purpose.

For those who prefer something with less contact, there's this. (The previous app to which I linked is rubbish. I am ashamed.)

[ 16. September 2012, 21:26: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I generally hit tuning forks on my hand or wrist. But I'm sure heads are good too... [Cool]

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I generally hit tuning forks on my hand or wrist.

It's a pity we can't post polls anymore. We could have found out which body parts are most popular for pitching church singing.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

And once again I'm thankful for the wisdom of the Ship's policies... [Big Grin]

Anyway, on the topic of the OP... Live music is best. I use CDs in some places I preach because they are the established custom there and I'm also a big fan of unaccompanied singing. I was presiding at the Eucharist for the meeting of the Local Preachers in our circuit last week and we sang unaccompanied for that. The church had quite a good acoustic and it sounded beautiful. Someone commented afterwards that it felt almost monastic.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

A tuning fork still requires the ability to get from the note it gives to the note you want. On the other hand if you have anyone vaguely young in the congregation they will have a phone thingy that will buzz whatever note you want.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Indeed - I do not know enough about music to be able to work out how to use a tuning fork. Successive directors of music have offered me one but i prefer them to give me a reciting note.

Otherwise, they know I can throw off the entire choir (and have done).

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
A tuning fork still requires the ability to get from the note it gives to the note you want.

That's true. The music at my parish is set mostly in F major. For some reason, F tuning forks seem difficult to come by but an A fork works just as well. I can't imagine anybody who is able to sing to a basic level, even if not musically trained, being unable to go down a third. They might not know what that terminology means but will know exactly what you're talking about after a ten-second explanation and demonstration.

I think people can be afraid of music and make it more difficult than it needs to be. For an example, just look at the facial expressions of an otherwise good parish choir when presented with western plainsong presented in traditional notation. It actually follows the same basic principles as what they are accustomed to but in a much simpler way, but I have known experienced choristers to go into a panic and refuse to try.

A few of our pieces are in G major with one or two in C. Altogether, we have tuning forks in C, F, G, and A, which cover all of our Sunday morning needs. Just get what is most commonly used at your church.

quote:
On the other hand if you have anyone vaguely young in the congregation they will have a phone thingy that will buzz whatever note you want.

The second of those two apps to which I linked earlier does exactly that. It seems very good, actually. I might start using that instead.

[ 17. September 2012, 21:20: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

I have a piano app on my phone. Useful for giving a starting note.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Well, we don't use cds for prayer in church rather than someone speaking in person. Why would anyone suggest removing worship provided by the human voice in singing? I tend to find that with cds people join in even less. Music in worship is a vital part of praising God and for me is a significant part of my personal worship especially singing in the choir. However, many people seem to be frightened and too embarrassed to attempt singing - I don't understand why as most people can sing. Unfortunately many of the modern songs in church aren't suited to congregational singing whereas the traditional hymns are much more user friendly.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Wouldn't a pitch pipe be better than a tuning fork? A pitch pipe can start at any key. They do have pitch pipe apps for smartphones.

[ 18. September 2012, 03:37: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
However, many people seem to be frightened and too embarrassed to attempt singing - I don't understand why as most people can sing.

I cannot speak for all cases but I have had some experience of this with a number of people, the truth is that they have good singing voices but their reluctance to sing is due to any of a number of factors, including but not limited to:

Lack of confidence, which may be character trait or may be related to the other factors.
Never having been taught how to use their singing voice.
Never having sung publicly or with others before, so being held back by a debilitating shyness.
Lingering stigma that they associate with choral singing from schooldays, where belonging to the school choir would have been accompanied by ridicule from the groups with which they associated.
Genuine inability to "listen and repeat". I cannot understand this but can relate to it. I cannot draw. The best that I can muster up is a stick-man, and even that looks unhealthy most of the time. Back when I cared about this, oeople for whom this comes naturally and whom I asked for help would say to me, 'Just draw what you see', as though this were the most obvious thing in the world. To me, this wasn't obvious. What was obvious is that I see with my eye, and that in order to reproduce this vision with an implement held in my hand, there must be some active method that had to be employed, and it is this that I was hoping for them to explain to me. Yet they would have no idea what I was talking about. I have come to the conclusion that this ability must stem from a involuntary function that takes place in some people central nervous system, and which is weaker in my own. Perhaps being able to listen to a sound and repeat it, or listen to other surrounding sounds and fit in with them, requires a similar function with which some people struggle.

I think that most of these are not insurmountable but first it requires convincing the person to trust you and to be willing to get past their conviction of "I can't sing".

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Wouldn't a pitch pipe be better than a tuning fork? A pitch pipe can start at any key. They do have pitch pipe apps for smartphones.

I'm not sure a pitch pipe sound would be welcomed in the middle of the service.

At least the app would have the benefit of volume control, in which case the Cleartune one linked above (for which there is an alternative version for Apple slaves) would do just as you suggest.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
However, many people seem to be frightened and too embarrassed to attempt singing - I don't understand why as most people can sing.
I cannot speak for all cases but I have had some experience of this with a number of people, the truth is that they have good singing voices but their reluctance to sing is due to any of a number of factors, including but not limited to:
[Long and very good list of reasons why people think they can't sing]

This thread is very interesting to me. A church I know of is about to face a bit of a challenge. They're very small (can't afford to pay an organist or pianist), and one of the volunteer pianists feels he's getting too old to play well. (he's probably right about this). When this happens, it won't be possible for there to be a pianist every week. No-one sings very audibly at the moment, and there's no-one obvious to blackmail into becoming a cantor.

CDs are being talked about as the obvious solution to the problem of not having a pianist, but I wonder if they might actually be a disaster. (I fear a said service where everyone stops to listen to a recorded piece of boring organ music every now and then) I agree with all the fans of unaccompanied music on this thread, and agree that a lot of people are better at singing than they think, but I wonder how to actually force a critical mass of the congregation to realize this. I'd been thinking about ways of making a said service more interesting and dignified, but I haven't really worked out what I mean by that yet.

Any thoughts?

Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :

I go to a church which routinely uses CDs to sing along to. From time to time, I've managed to get us singing something unaccompanied, but I've all but given up with it because the inertia on the incumbent's part is too strong -- even though people enjoyed doing it, and felt more drawn into the song and involved in the service. In my view the drawbacks of singing with CDs are:

1. People do not sing, they listen.

2. If they are singing, they don't sing for themselves, they do a form of karaoke.

3. If what they are singing along to is a worship song, often these are sung really badly in the first place (a vague approximation of the note is reached, so you don't really know what note you are singing), and so are hard to sing along to.

4. If they are singing along to a worship song, and the lead singer is a tenor (as they often are), the range will be awkward for nearly everyone else.

5. If it is a recording of a traditional hymn sung by a choir, the descant in the final verse will confuse everyone because it will be louder than the main tune.

Singing unaccompanied does demand that you've got enough welly to get up and persuade people to do it. Often CDs are an easier option. But after years of them, I do think that if you can avoid them in the first place, do so.

[ 18. September 2012, 11:11: Message edited by: Niminypiminy ]

Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :

When our keyboard players moved away we bought some 'no-organist no problem' type CDs - intended for congregations to sing along to. The best thing about the experience was that a few people within our congregation who were unsure of their abilities, who played some unusual instruments to accompany traditional hymn singing, volunteered to offer their time and talent, because they thought it couldn't be any worse. We ended up with a music group of a cello, oboe, recorder and occasional guitar and/or mandolin, depending on who was available, and I think the quality of our singing improved at the same time. There was something very precious about offering our own community's musical worship to God, rather than buying in accompaniment.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
I can't imagine anybody who is able to sing to a basic level, even if not musically trained, being unable to go down a third.

I would doubt if five out of our congregation of over a hundred could do that!

No point in reviving old rants, but I'm a bad enough singer that I find it less difficult to match my voice to a sound more like my voice, such as an organ, or someone else singing in my range, than I do to one less like my voice, such as the piano, or somone singing out of my range. To listen to a note and then sing a different one would be almost impossible for me. Of course I can sing a different note - but singing the right one would be unlikely..

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Some people have been kind enough to say I'm not a bad singer. But I have the same problem as ken in picking up a note (even the same one) from something else. I wouldn't know what a third was if I fell over one.

The musical accompaniment where I worship is normally provided by a couple of violins and a guitar. Occasionally supplemented by a keyboard and/or harp. For a small congregation it is much less overwhelming than an organ and more prayerful (IMHO) than a piano. And unlike guitars alone, the instruments are suited to accompanying traditional hymns as well as modern worship songs.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

It's good to see how many perceive the drawbacks of using recordings in the liturgy, especially recorded or automated leadership of singing. Good accompanists are almost slaves to soloists: extremely sensitive in adapting everything they do supportively for an ensemble. With congregational accompaniment, of course the player(s) must lead more than follow, but still it's definitely a two-way street. How they play depends to some extent on what they hear, as well as on various factors influencing the mood. No way can the canned tinkling of any automoton make these real-time adjustments.

The instrumental alternatives to the organ that Rosa and Angloid report sound delightful, at least if the congregation is fairly small and intimate. It is important to have a melody instrument. Guitar alone can hardly serve this function, but violins + guitar could be beautiful.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

If you fill the void with CDs, then perhaps the developing/budding musicians in the woodwork won't come out to play, as there is no perceived need.

I know I got my start as an accompanist by doing hymns (poorly!!!) at church. I got competent soon enough, but thanks to my very tolerant congregation!

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Thank you all for the very helpful replies.

As one of those who wonders how people translate a note from an instrument into a human note, it's been so good to see that I'm not alone, and that there may be ways around it.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

My one suggestion as someone who does not sing well, is start out with just 4-5 simple pieces of music that everyone knows and use them over and over until confidence is build. After all we say the Lord's Prayer each week why not re-sing the same music for a while then slowly introduce other music, as people become use to singing in church.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Also, people sing much more enthusiastically when they are singing their favorite hymns.

Posted by Wm Dewy (# 16712) on :

Thanks for this thread and for the comments about music in church.

Everybody can sing. The only people who cannot sing are the people who aren’t willing. Shame on the organists and choirmasters who have told children they can’t sing. That is the only thing some people “learn” in church or Sunday school.

Unaccompanied singing is best. Paul and Silas would have died in prison if they had an organ.

If you usually sing one or two familiar songs, the congregation will come to recognize that it can sing. It is a very good idea to use a particular hymn for a whole liturgical season so that people may become accustomed to it. The same is true for the Mass setting. It is also helpful to give the people the words and music for the hymns and service music. When I visit a congregation and am given neither, I feel quite alienated if not unwelcome.

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

I prefer a said mass with no hymns. I find silence much more conducive to worship then singing which I find a distraction. Part of that is that I know next to no hymns because I wasn't brought up with them but mostly I just find silence helpful.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
I can't imagine anybody who is able to sing to a basic level, even if not musically trained, being unable to go down a third.

I would doubt if five out of our congregation of over a hundred could do that!

Hmmm...

It would be incredibly presumptuous of me to contradict you, Ken: you know your parish and I don't. However, let me try this little musical demonstration to show why what you say is very, very difficult to come to terms with.

Most modern western music has as its basis scales of notes in groups of eight. I imagine anybody who has ever seen "The Sound of Music" will be familiar with this as a concept, (Doh, a deer, a female deer... &c.), even if they don't know the theory behind it or the terminology used to describe it. There are other types of scales of different intervals (some eastern forms of music and some types of plainsong, &c.), but they are seldom found in modern western church or the various types of music commonly found in our part of the world.

This scale of eight notes is called an octave. It has a base note after which the scale is named, then goes up in steps until it reaches the eighth note, which corresponds to the base note, but is an octave higher, (Doh, Re, Mi, Fah, Soh, La, Ti, Doh, with Doh being both the base note and the eighth note).

Here, for example, is the scale of F major, which is the key I cited earlier in the thread. The base note (Doh), in this instance, is F, then the scale goes up until it reaches the eighth note, which is also F. You should be able to hear that these are both the "same" note. These two Fs are said to be an eighth (octave) apart.

Narrowing this down a little, the first (base note), third, and fifth notes of any major octave will harmonise with each other to form what is called a chord. You can hear the chord of F major here, again with the base note being F, then with A a third above that, and C a third above that.

The references to an eighth, a third, and so forth, simply indicate the number of notes from one note to the other, including the starting note in the counting.

Narrowing it down even further, then, you can hear how those first five notes of the octave are used in the children's song, Three Blind Mice, but let us focus just in the first three notes. The words "three blind mice" are sung to the notes A, G, F, respectively, and here we have the third that I referred to earlier in the thread, where I said I could not imagine most people who can sing to a basic level not being able to go down a third from A to F.

If the estimate that you have given is about accurate, Ken, what we are being asked to believe is that no more than five members of your congregation of over one hundred, if given the starting note, could sing the first three notes of "Three Blind Mice" to work out the third note.

I do not want to be like some of my classmates and high school art teacher who refused to believe that a certain level of ability that seemed natural to them didn't come so easily to everybody but this is one of the most basic elements of music, and, allowing for particular types of disability, I seriously doubt that such a high percentage of people are incapable of doing this. It seems to me to be much more likely that, for one reason or another, some people have succumbed to a conviction that they cannot, and this then affects the degree of their participation. This will not be true of everybody, of course, but I'm sure most congregations have significantly more than 5% basic musical ability, much of which is perhaps untapped.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wm Dewy:
It is also helpful to give the people the words and music for the hymns and service music. When I visit a congregation and am given neither, I feel quite alienated if not unwelcome.

It feels like I'm not "part of the club" if I don't have a way to join in with the music. Displaying words on a projector to a contemporary song I've never heard before does absolutely nothing for me. However, if you give me the music, I can read it and I will sing it, helping to add more volume and oomph to the assembly.

(Of course, perhaps some of these places have heard horror stories about my singing and chosen to cut me out.)

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

I've used CDs with small congregations when their normal organist was away. The CDs were recorded using a cathedral organ with no singing, specifically to be used in such circumstances. They were sufficient for that environment, although I remember having trouble with one particular tune where the melody line did not stand out towards the end of the verse.

I've also used recorded Mag, Nunc and anthem when leading an occasional midweek 1662 evensong.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

(BTW, are you people still talking literal CD's? In our church we don't play 'canned' music often, but if we do, they connect an iPad to the speakers or something like that.)

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(BTW, are you people still talking literal CD's? In our church we don't play 'canned' music often, but if we do, they connect an iPad to the speakers or something like that.)

Assuming one respects copyright, it might make sense to have a pile of literal CDs gathering dust in the vestry, even if they've all been ripped onto the iPod and there's no CD player in the building.

If the church I was referring to goes for 'CDs', I intend to do some research on whether iPods are considered confusingly newfangled; it might be that (given a fairly elderly congregation) more people would be prepared to work the system if it uses literal CDs. Of course, I'll make sure that it's easy for youngsters like me to plug in their more modern gadgets.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
*Leon*: Assuming one respects copyright, it might make sense to have a pile of literal CDs gathering dust in the vestry, even if they've all been ripped onto the iPod and there's no CD player in the building.

I guess you're right. In the church my parents go to, the national church usually has a 'Lent Project' or an 'Advent Project' for children each year. Local churches can download material from the national church website, including songs that were especially composed for this Project. The children then sing in church accompanied by these mp3 files during those weeks.

I'm not directly involved, so I don't know if these downloads have to be paid for, but I'm sure that copyright matters are cleared.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It can be very moving at times to listen to music rather than join in. If the choir is not good enough, then a CD of a good choir singing very atmospheric music can aid contemplation.

I tend to find that the Eucharist is very wordy without some of the liturgy being sung. It's very helpful to have the melody line written out for the congregation to sing along, and to have a familiar setting most weeks so that people feel confident.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
If the estimate that you have given is about accurate, Ken, what we are being asked to believe is that no more than five members of your congregation of over one hundred, if given the starting note, could sing the first three notes of "Three Blind Mice" to work out the third note.

I suspect that a higher proportion of the congregation could indeed sing the third note of Three Blind Mice if they were given the first note (and knew the tune in the first place).

But I don't think that was the point ken (or leo) was really making which would be more akin to a scenario of being given an A and then told to sing Three Blind Mice starting on an F.

So getting back to tuning forks, unless you have a range of forks the more remote a song's key is from the note of the fork the greater the challenge. Even an experienced cantor will need to concentrate if they have to start off in E flat using an A fork. I have never been one for Tonic sol-fa but I suspect it is highly dependent on someone being there who can ensure that doh is properly rooted in the first place.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I suspect that a higher proportion of the congregation could indeed sing the third note of Three Blind Mice if they were given the first note (and knew the tune in the first place).

But I don't think that was the point ken (or leo) was really making which would be more akin to a scenario of being given an A and then told to sing Three Blind Mice starting on an F.

Yes! Exactly!

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
If the estimate that you have given is about accurate, Ken, what we are being asked to believe is that no more than five members of your congregation of over one hundred, if given the starting note, could sing the first three notes of "Three Blind Mice" to work out the third note.
I suspect that a higher proportion of the congregation could indeed sing the third note of Three Blind Mice if they were given the first note (and knew the tune in the first place).

But I don't think that was the point ken (or leo) was really making which would be more akin to a scenario of being given an A and then told to sing Three Blind Mice starting on an F.

I think you may have missed my point. Three Blind Mice doesn't represent the song being sung: it is just an example I chose to illustrate what it is to go down a third, which ken thought of as being difficult. I was just illustrating how simple it is to work out an F after having been given the A, in response to your original point. If ken read that as meaning transposing to a different key, then it seems he may have misread my original response to you, and we have been talking at cross purposes since then.

[ 20. September 2012, 18:12: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
If the estimate that you have given is about accurate, Ken, what we are being asked to believe is that no more than five members of your congregation of over one hundred, if given the starting note, could sing the first three notes of "Three Blind Mice" to work out the third note.
I suspect that a higher proportion of the congregation could indeed sing the third note of Three Blind Mice if they were given the first note (and knew the tune in the first place).

But I don't think that was the point ken (or leo) was really making which would be more akin to a scenario of being given an A and then told to sing Three Blind Mice starting on an F.
I think you may have missed my point. Three Blind Mice doesn't represent the song being sung: it is just an example I chose to illustrate what it is to go down a third, which ken thought of as being difficult. I was just illustrating how simple it is to work out an F after having been given the A, in response to your original point. If ken read that as meaning transposing to a different key, then it seems he may have misread my original response to you, and we have been talking at cross purposes since then.

Pre-cambrian and ken, please forgive me.

Pre-cambrian, it is I who misread your post.

This:

quote:
...the point ken (or leo) was really making which would be more akin to a scenario of being given an A and then told to sing Three Blind Mice starting on an F.

Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about. If you need to start a hymn on F and all you have is a tuning fork in A, you go down a third and you have your starting note of F.

I know I must seem like a dog with a bone here, and I ask you to bear with me. I'm genuinely trying to understand because I do sometimes find myself confronted with the reality of people who tell me they can't do things when it comes to singing, and it might actually help me to understand now that I have people here on the Ship who are saying similar things to me. If a higher proportion then 5% could indeed work out that F if given an A, then what would be the difficulty in then starting a song or hymn on that note of F that they have just worked out and have in their head? How is having a note in their head from having worked it out themselves any different from having a note in their head because they have been given that specific note?

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

I think possibly both lots are talking past each other.

Ken and others have said how hearing a note doesn't mean they can reproduce it, unless it has a similar timbre (I think that is the word) to their own voice. So I can't see how a tuning fork would help in that case even if there wasn't the need to work out a different note to the one given - just singing the tuning fork note would be hard enough.

And the 'Three Blind Mice' example was (I think) intended to illustrate exactly HOW it would (in someone's opinion) be possible for most people to sing an F when given an A. Because if you sing that phrase starting with the note given for 'Three' (the A) the note you end up with when singing 'mice' would be an F. Fair enough, so someone who could get a note from a tuning fork AND knew three blind mice AND knew that this tune was a good example to use to go down a third from A to F, could do it. But I think that is rather a big ask! Plus of course you would need a whole set of 'reference tunes' (eg Three Blind Mice for going down a third) for each of the different possible intervals, and remember which was which - something which might come quite easy to musical people, but I think would be nigh on impossible for most.

The other thing was someone said provide the music for the congregation, not just words - this would be little help to most UK congregations as most people have never been taught to read music. But that has been said here many times before....

[ 20. September 2012, 20:52: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

Thank you for that, Gracious Rebel. I'm on a different device now so can't respond fully.

I think I may have made a mistake in introducing "Three Blind Mice" into the conversation. People are placing on it a heavier burden than it was intended to bear. My intention wasn't to suggest that any sort of reference tune would be needed. I wasn't suggesting using "Three Blind Mice" as a way of remembering going down the scale by a third. I was merely using it add an example to illustrate what I meant when I spoke about going down a third and how it is something that is so simple that most of us have done it since childhood when we sang that song, even if we didn't have the vocabulary to call it that. That's all. Reference tunes aren't needed: that would just complicate matters unnecessarily. You just need to go up or down the scale in however many steps the interval requires.

I take your point on board about talking past each other. It isn't my intention. I'm just trying to get it.

[ 20. September 2012, 21:12: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

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

I'd be quite happy to see music in church as something done by the talented or recorded. That's how our culture does music - it listens to recorded music or goes to gigs. I personally enjoy a good sing but I'm unconvinced of the value of congregational singing in this day and age.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

But the church is meant to be counter-cultural!

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

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But the church is meant to be counter-cultural!

I'm not sure this is a particularly useful way of being counter-cultural. I can think of better ones. Most people in most congregations I see look most uncomfortable being required to do something they don't normally do and don't think they're much good at.

[ 20. September 2012, 22:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

S/he who sings, prays twice!

I don't know a third from a fifth, and couldn't even sing Three Blind Mice in tune, but there is something about singing in worship which gives an added dimension. Quiet said services are all very well, and occasionally just what one needs, but music does help. I can't stand lots of long hearty hymns or happy-clappy choruses, but a couple of short verses (old or new words) to a singable trad or folky tune, plus some plainchant or Taizé, lifts the spirit.

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

Oh, I'm all for music. I don't think, what with iPods and whatnot, that people have ever spent more time listening to it.

I'm just not sure we need to be making people create it, that's all.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

Scrumpmeister:
I fully understand where you're coming from. I think music is one of those subjects where it feels there is an almost unbridgeable gap between those who understand how it works and those who don't. I personally am hopeless at explaining something that I understand very well, like music: "But it just works like that!" Although I feel that the mystery of music is probably exaggerated more than it deserves.

And kudos to you for being being one of the few people on the Ship recently to acknowledge that you'd misread a post [Overused]

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Scrumpmeister:
I fully understand where you're coming from. I think music is one of those subjects where it feels there is an almost unbridgeable gap between those who understand how it works and those who don't. I personally am hopeless at explaining something that I understand very well, like music: "But it just works like that!"

Thank you for this, Pre-Cambrian.

I imagine that you're right about it being unbridgeable in many cases. I think I ought to perhaps quietly accept that and leave it be.

I hope that I didn't infuriate anybody too much and I apologise if so. My intention was not to do that but rather it stems from the reality of our highly music-intensive Orthodox services and my role in our parish as the person responsible for that side of things. There are all sorts of questions about how to encourage congregational participation, how not just to make people feel included but to actually include them, and how to try to choose or compose settings that do not sacrifice the meaning and beauty of their place in the worship but which also minimise the barriers that exist for some people in their joining in.

For historical reasons, this listening is particularly important at my parish, with a view to helping people overcome their difficulties where possible, and accommodating those difficulties that are more of a challenge. I'm better at the former because in those cases, it usually involves helping people to overcome their conviction that they can't do something, which does not represent the reality of their ability but comes from something else. Yet the latter is often difficult for me, often because people can simply say they can't without further explanation of what it is that they find difficult, and are apparently made to feel excluded by the music, for which the person organising it can feel guilty. I suppose I just saw an opportunity here for getting a better understanding with a view to applying that but perhaps I need to accept that some people simply just can't and that, while many things are due to my getting things wrong, this isn't necessarily one of them.

Thank you all for being patient.

quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
I think possibly both lots are talking past each other.

Ken and others have said how hearing a note doesn't mean they can reproduce it, unless it has a similar timbre (I think that is the word) to their own voice. So I can't see how a tuning fork would help in that case even if there wasn't the need to work out a different note to the one given - just singing the tuning fork note would be hard enough.

I hope I didn't seem dismissive last night, Gracious rebel. I can respond more fully now.

In wonder whether a simple solution to this would be what happens in our little choir. I (or if I am in the altar somebody else) takes the note from the tuning fork and gives everybody else his note. Sometimes I just give the first few notes of the melody, then those singing the melody (including the congregation, for the pieces for which they join in) have their opening phrase and those harmonising in the choir take their note from that.

For those who would find taking a note from a tuning fork difficult because of the difference in timbre (yes, that's the right term, GR [Smile]

), would you find it easier to do so from a human voice?

quote:
The other thing was someone said provide the music for the congregation, not just words - this would be little help to most UK congregations as most people have never been taught to read music. But that has been said here many times before....

That's certainly true, and I blame the lack of musical education in school for that. Parents who have never been taught cannot teach their children, and I find it astounding in a part of the world that has music as so much a part of its rich history and present culture that schools do not teach children how to read music.

That aside, what I have found is that, when I have invited people who do not usually sing with the choir to stand with us and follow along nonetheless, the light has dawned fairly quickly, at least as far as the basics are concerned. More than once I have heard, 'Oooooh! So when the note goes up the tune goes up and when the note goes down the tune goes down!' One of those people has stayed and, over a year later, sings the soprano part with confidence.

I think that it will not help everybody, but certainly including the music for the melody line in a booklet for the congregation will help some people. That is easy for me to say, though. Because our services are sung from start to finish, much of the music applies to the unvarying parts of the service so could be included without much in the way of effort or resources, (it is one of many projects I have on the go at the moment). That might be more difficult in churches where the hymns are different each week, though.

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

Chiming in as someone who can read music and learnt piano and guitar - I can hear when the guitar is off tune and pick out tunes by ear but I really cannot sing. And it's not lack of practice - I led unaccompanied singing at pre-school groups for years, and most recently went through the purgatorial experience of leading the pram service with mainly unaccompanied singing weekly for 3 years. And having to get up and lead the singing was what made it purgatorial. I could deal the rest of it, just not the singing.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

What's a pram service?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Oh, I'm all for music. I don't think, what with iPods and whatnot, that people have ever spent more time listening to it.

I'm just not sure we need to be making people create it, that's all.

To me this raises a pretty serious theological/liturgical question. Are we offering worship to God when we only listen to something that somebody else recorded? In my opinion, that's way too passive to be considered worship. Yes, we may have a spiritual experience, but are we worshipping? Not so far as I can tell. We're listening to something someone else somewhere else some other time recorded.

Worship is a communal event that requires that we do more than show up and sit there. We participate as individuals but we do so in community. Singing, which engages the body as well as the mind, together fosters that community, giving it a voice. (Even when it's just the choir singing, the choir sings as part of and on behalf of the community gathered in that place in that time.) The problem is that too many people have been given the idea that their singing isn't good enough so they should jusy keep their mouths shut already.

I think there's a reason that while exhorting us to "Sing to the Lord, sing a new song," the psalms (which are of course songs) also exhort us to "make a joyful noise." God is much less concerned about the quality of our singing than we are, I'd wager.

I'm wondering a little as I read through this thread if there's something of a pond difference here. Even in the smallest congregation where I am in the American South, singing would typically be viewed as integral to worship, and people who would rarely sing anywhere else would sing (or at least try) in church.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Not a pond difference I think. Some traditions rarely if ever celebrate worship without singing: Orthodox (as the Scrumpmeister makes clear) as well as Lutherans, most Pentecostals and many Evangelicals. Others, notably the RCC and Anglicans, are accustomed to frequent 'low masses' said quietly without music, or to the regular recital of the daily office. In those traditions music is often restricted to the major service on a Sunday and it might not always be participative.

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

Equating worship with involvement in making music would imply that any service not involving music (and there are plenty of those) is not worship. Nevertheless we call them things like "evening worship" and "morning worship", and they are called that whether there is any singing involved or not.

I've resisted this conclusion for years because as a musician and singer I like music and I like doing it. But I'm more and more drawn to it.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Equating worship with involvement in making music would imply that any service not involving music (and there are plenty of those) is not worship.

Not at all what I was saying; sorry if I wasn't clear. Of course there can be worship without music. My point is that listening to recorded music is not (or is rarely), as best I can tell, worship. It's a form of being the audience to a performance. The rest of my post was intended to convey my belief that congregational singing, however lacking it may be musically, is still more worshipful than a congregation listening to recorded music. It may not be as aesthetically pleasing for the musically inclined, but that is not the same as not being worshipful.

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Not a pond difference I think. Some traditions rarely if ever celebrate worship without singing: Orthodox (as the Scrumpmeister makes clear) as well as Lutherans, most Pentecostals and many Evangelicals. Others, notably the RCC and Anglicans, are accustomed to frequent 'low masses' said quietly without music, or to the regular recital of the daily office. In those traditions music is often restricted to the major service on a Sunday and it might not always be participative.

I'm not being clear this morning -- not enough caffeine yet, I guess. [Big Grin]

I understand those difference among traditions. I was thinking more in terms of saying "we don't have that many people and none of us are that musical, so should we just dispense with singing?" In my experience and as a general rule, the answer to that here would rarely be "yes," just on those grounds.

But I may indeed be seeing more than is really there.

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

I would see the role of recorded music as enhancing worship that would otherwise lack a musical input, rather than being worship in itself - performing a similar function to the vestments, statues, icons, windows and whatnot.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Good to see you, Karl.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
listening to recorded music is not (or is rarely), as best I can tell, worship.

That depends on what you think 'worship' is.

For many years, my 'quiet time' was 30 minutes per day listening to early music while lying flat on my back. This helped me to 'be still (in) the presence' and to listen to what He might be trying to say to me.

It is possible for a group to meditate/contemplate together using the same message.

In corporate worship, we do a lot of listening, especially to scripture.

BTW I am somewhat bemused by some 'happy clappy' people who equate 'worship' merely with 'singing' as in 'We shall now have a time of worship together.' Especially when they express an intention to worship but never get down to it, as in 'We really want to praise you Lord.' If I were the Lord, I'd probably reply, 'I am really glad that you want to praise me. You have my permission. So stop saying what you want to do and get on and do it.'

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That depends on what you think 'worship' is.

For many years, my 'quiet time' was 30 minutes per day listening to early music while lying flat on my back. This helped me to 'be still (in) the presence' and to listen to what He might be trying to say to me.

It is possible for a group to meditate/contemplate together using the same message.

In corporate worship, we do a lot of listening, especially to scripture.

Valid points, and we do indeed do a great deal of listening i worship, especially to Scripture (and sermon). But in my experience, there is a significant difference in how we listen. Listening to Scripture or sermon involves some engagement with the reader (or preacher) who is reading (or preaching) in our presence. The problem for me is not the act of listening, but the act of listening to a recording -- something that is separate from the gathered community at worship.

Listening to a recording is a different experience, at least in my experience. I find that when people listen to a recording, they tend to be more passive and less engaged about it. As Karl said, what with iPods and other things, we do listen to a great deal of music today, but we often are doing other things while we listen. We're just not conditioned to "participate," either by joining in or by listening, to a recording in the same way that we are to the live thing. And whoever made the recording is not really participating in the gathered community's worship, it seems to me.

Is it possible to be engaged in corporate worship through a recording? Perhaps, but it is rare, it seems to me.

Think of it this way: If a congregation were without someone able to preach, would we think that a viable alternative was to put on a recording of someone reading a sermon, or would we look for other solutions?

I don't know how else to describe it except that I find the use of recordings in worship inauthentic -- the worship is no longer what we as a gathered community are offering to God. I know some people and communities come to a different conclusion, and that's okay . . . as long as I can go somewhere else. [Big Grin]

quote:
BTW I am somewhat bemused by some 'happy clappy' people who equate 'worship' merely with 'singing' as in 'We shall now have a time of worship together.' Especially when they express an intention to worship but never get down to it, as in 'We really want to praise you Lord.' If I were the Lord, I'd probably reply, 'I am really glad that you want to praise me. You have my permission. So stop saying what you want to do and get on and do it.'

I share your bemusement.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
there is a significant difference in how we listen. Listening to Scripture or sermon involves some engagement with the reader (or preacher) who is reading (or preaching) in our presence. The problem for me is not the act of listening, but the act of listening to a recording -- something that is separate from the gathered community at worship.

I listen far more intently and with far more engagement when listening to a CD at home and in a meditative state.

Church is full of distractions.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
For those who would find taking a note from a tuning fork difficult because of the difference in timbre (yes, that's the right term, GR ), would you find it easier to do so from a human voice?

Yes, I'm able to take a note from a human voice with no difficulty. A musician who tried to teach me couldn't understand how I could sing along with him in tune, and pitch it again once familiar with it, and yet when he pressed a piano key I responded with a blank face.

This thread has been a great help to me.

quote:
originally posted by Nick Tamen: I don't know how else to describe it except that I find the use of recordings in worship inauthentic -- the worship is no longer what we as a gathered community are offering to God. I know some people and communities come to a different conclusion, and that's okay . . . as long as I can go somewhere else.

I can't go along with this. Firstly, as others have said, music or chanting may set a mood for specific forms of worship. Secondly, what difference would it make to authenticity whether a Church organist recorded some of his music for use in his own church when he was away, or he allowed other people to use it?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Scrumpmeister:
I fully understand where you're coming from. I think music is one of those subjects where it feels there is an almost unbridgeable gap between those who understand how it works and those who don't.

I don't think that's it. I understand how music works, I know what a third is, I can hear when things are out of tune, I can read music, I can play a number of different instruments (none very well), I can play simple tunes by ear without the written music, and I can sometimes just about transpose a very simple tune or one I know well from one key to anoher while playing it.

But if someone gave me a note and told me to start singing a third higher or lower I couldn't do it. I have enough trouble getting the same note - there are people who post here who have heard me sing who can tell you that I sing out of tune painfully often.

And, precisely because I can usually hear when something is out of tune, I know perfectly well that most - not some, but most - of opur congregation in church sing out of tune quite a lot of the time. (I don't really mind. Its not meant to be a concert.) And I also know that I probably know more about music than almost all our congregation - not quite all, after all there are at least two professional musicians in it, but almost all.

And it is easier, or less difficult, to match my voice to another sound when it is more like a voice. Also when it is in a reachable range - very often at church I am not within earshot of any man who is singing in tune so I have to sing along with women and children who are an octave (or sometiems two) higher than I am comfortable with. And I know that even when I sing in tune with them I often get it wrong and manage to sing, say, a fifth below them rather than the exact octave. It's "in tune" but its a different note.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
[Listening to Scripture or sermon involves some engagement with the reader (or preacher) who is reading (or preaching) in our presence. The problem for me is not the act of listening, but the act of listening to a recording -- something that is separate from the gathered community at worship.

Listening to a recording is a different experience, at least in my experience. I find that when people listen to a recording, they tend to be more passive and less engaged about it. As Karl said, what with iPods and other things, we do listen to a great deal of music today, but we often are doing other things while we listen. We're just not conditioned to "participate," either by joining in or by listening, to a recording in the same way that we are to the live thing. And whoever made the recording is not really participating in the gathered community's worship, it seems to me.

Is it possible to be engaged in corporate worship through a recording? Perhaps, but it is rare, it seems to me.

Think of it this way: If a congregation were without someone able to preach, would we think that a viable alternative was to put on a recording of someone reading a sermon, or would we look for other solutions?

I don't know how else to describe it except that I find the use of recordings in worship inauthentic -- the worship is no longer what we as a gathered community are offering to God.

What he said.

I'd much rather we sang together badly than we listened to a recording of someone else singing. Just as, if there was no sermon, I'd much rather we talked together informally about the readings than listen to a DVD of some famous preacher. Go along that road and yoiu end up sitting on your own at home tuned in to the God Channel.

There is too much plastic and inauthentic in the world as it is. Keep church real. I'd rather have no flowers in church than plastic flowers - but I'd love to see ordinary wild flowers from round about, or flowers someoe grew in their own garden, instead of some expensive florist's concoction. I'd rather sit on wooden pews than plastic chairs. I'd rather drink real wine than ribena.

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

OK, sorry, major tangent

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
What's a pram service?

Service for pre-school children midweek, most children were 0-2 - here, when I did it, it was in the form:

opening prayer (very simple, eg: We thank you God for the chance to be together and learn about you)
4/5 songs - e.g. Give me joy in my heart / My God is so big / Thank you God/ - ending up with one that calmed them down - I used If I go a climbing
Bible story - puppets, action, involvement, sometimes a book
short prayer from the story
more songs
notices
sung blessing
time for tea / coffee / squash / chat / craft activity tied into the story

I structured it so that we covered the OT through autumn, started the nativity story in Advent ending up with birth of Christ at Christmas, life of Christ from January to Ascension, Acts and Paul from Ascension to the end of term. And a story was something like the parable of the seeds and the craft was setting up mustard seeds to grow and colouring pictures.</tangent>

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I listen far more intently and with far more engagement when listening to a CD at home and in a meditative state.

Church is full of distractions.

Then I need to learn from you -- home is much more full of distractions for me. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I can't go along with this. Firstly, as others have said, music or chanting may set a mood for specific forms of worship. Secondly, what difference would it make to authenticity whether a Church organist recorded some of his music for use in his own church when he was away, or he allowed other people to use it?

To me there's no difference -- both are recordings and both I would find an impediment to worship. I've never been anywhere where the organist recorded music for when he or she was away -- even in small towns a substitute has been found, even if the subsitute was a guitarist or banjoist. (Yes, I have experienced the latter a number of times.)

While my earlier posts assumed a recording by someone not connected to the community, that only exacerbates the inauthenticity to my mind. It is the recording itself that lacks authenticity for worship. And I'm not willing to sacrifice that authenticity for the sake of mood or atmosphere. If the mood matters, ways can be found to achieve it that don't rely on canned, pre-produced products.

ken has summed up well my feelings about this with regard to music, flowers, and anything else in church. (Don't get me started on electric candles.)

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

Hmm - for me, it's not a case of recorded music vs. congregational singing - they're two totally different things. Neither need to happen every time.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Hmm - for me, it's not a case of recorded music vs. congregational singing - they're two totally different things.

I'd agree with that. For me, it's a case of recorded music vs. no music. A service with no music can be fine, and in my mind is preferable to a service with recorded music. If music is desired, than I would want to find some way to make that music happen through the people gathered to worship, not through a recording, that's all.

[ 21. September 2012, 18:13: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I listen far more intently and with far more engagement when listening to a CD at home and in a meditative state.

Church is full of distractions.
Then I need to learn from you -- home is much more full of distractions for me. ..... I've never been anywhere where the organist recorded music for when he or she was away

I live alone. (Though there are always books, radio and TV to distract.

One of our churches has a new electronic organ and the organist can programme it before he goes away - simply play the hymns and mass setting and a push of a button the following week repeats it.

Despite being in a sizeable city, we often can't get substitute organists. (Mind you, I'd prefer unaccompanied singing, or use of a piano or whatever.)

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Putting together what leo and Karl are saying, perhaps churches need to think how they can introduce meditation to music into church services, during a time of prayer for example. There is so much emphasis these days on getting everyone to do things, but perhaps what people need more of is calm stillness.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Before recorded music was so widely available people made their own music and participated. Now we have become a society of listeners and non participants. Many people, therefore, have never had the experience of singing and believe it to be a difficult activity that should only be performed by professionals. In many schools the curriculum is so crowded that music often assumes a low priority. Maybe the schools should have the 3Rs plus music as basic subjects. I don't know how we change people's thinking to believe that they can sing - so many people are vociferous in saying 'you wouldn't want to hear me sing' when I know that most of them are quite capable of singing.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Putting together what leo and Karl are saying, perhaps churches need to think how they can introduce meditation to music into church services, during a time of prayer for example. There is so much emphasis these days on getting everyone to do things, but perhaps what people need more of is calm stillness.

I agree 100%

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

"Putting together what leo and Karl are saying, perhaps churches need to think how they can introduce meditation to music into church services, during a time of prayer for example. There is so much emphasis these days on getting everyone to do things, but perhaps what people need more of is calm stillness."

To quote the BCP "In Quires and Places where they sing, here followeth the Anthem".

Liturgical music can be very uplifting - this applies to music that the congregation join in with (hymns, psalms) and to anthems, settings of the canticles, motets, anthems that are sung by the choir.

The vital thing with "live" music is that it should be of the best possible standard that can be achieved. And in this context it does help if the material being used is good quality too.

Far too many modern worship songs are just plain bad - mediocrity would be an improvement. Often theologically confused, they tend to be repetitive and musically naive, at best. The coup-de-grace to prayerful liturgy is then delivered when these tawdry ditties are just randomly scattered through the service with no thought for whether or not they "fit" the slot where they are placed - either by subject matter or in terms of the type of music. As an example of this, I do not find it helpful to receive communion while a badly-rehearsed 'music group' gives a raucous, fortissimo performance of "Majesty"...

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd be quite happy to see music in church as something done by the talented or recorded. That's how our culture does music - it listens to recorded music or goes to gigs. I personally enjoy a good sing but I'm unconvinced of the value of congregational singing in this day and age.

I'll ask you what a very prominent American choirmaster once asked me when I suggested that our culture no longer encourages musical participation. "Have you ever been to a rock concert." Most church musicians can only hope and pray to elicit such enthusiastic "congregational singing".

I don't think it's just an accident that the church has cultivated group singing to such a high art, probably more developed than in any religion. It illustrates in such wonderful epitome so much of what we believe about the ideal social life in "the Kingdom of God." Furthermore, perhaps only someone who has had life too easy and takes too many comforts for granted would be tempted to deny the value of music.

Remarkably, for a long time so thought no less an accomplished and gifted musician than Paul Halley. Beginning as a boy chorister, he always loved music, and rose rapidly through the ranks. When he was assistant organist at Victoria BC Cathedral, he was discovered (during a meeting of cathedral deans where everyone was surprised to see him), by Dean James Morton of the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, New York. He was persuaded to move there, and began his own legendary tenure in succession to the equally legendary Alec Wyton. But during all this time, he felt that music was just a nice luxury and a distraction from tikkun olam. He eventually felt so guilty and inadequate for not doing more to repair the world that he actually enrolled in medical school while still doing the music at St. John the Divine.

Then, while on a tour with the Paul Winter Consort, he met an amateur choir in the Soviet Union whose mission to present illegal folk music had driven them underground. He heard singing so intense that he said it was as though the sound was rearranging the molecules in his body. "These people had nothing – nothing but a grey featureless life that they could lose at any moment. And yet they sang. They were singing for their lives." The experience humbled him, but even more, it invigorated him: suddenly he realized that he was already helping to heal the world. His music, and what he trained others to do, was not just ornamental.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Here's how Lutherans at conventions manage to combine traditional and contemporary musical styles.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Olaf - just clicked the link - brilliant. Thank you [Smile]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

[tangent] AAaaaRRrrrGGGGh!!! You Tube sound went out on me- again!! [Mad]

[/tangent]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

I agree with this...

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And in this context it does help if the material being used is good quality too.

But not with what you said immediately beforehand:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

The vital thing with "live" music is that it should be of the best possible standard that can be achieved.

Taking this at face value, you would prefer the most skilled, gifted musician to lead the music at every church service. I think it's much better to have a variety of people to serve the church in this way; both to give a range of styles and (more importantly, I'd say) to give more people the opportunity to contribute in an active way.

I'm not denying there has to be some level of basic technical competence, but I don't think it's the only issue at play - the church is supposed to come together with everyone having something to bring, not as some kind of concert performance at which only the very best can play.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The vital thing with "live" music is that it should be of the best possible standard that can be achieved. And in this context it does help if the material being used is good quality too.

Sorry but no.

It is dangerous to make direct comparisons between Jewish worship and Christian worship, but there are principles which can be born in mind.

1 Chronicles 25 (one of those boring lists of names) is concerned with the singers and musicians at the Temple. verse 8 says, "Young and old alike, teacher as well as student cast lots for their duties." Let the students have their turn leading.

Our church had a young man (late teens) in the congregation who wished to play the organ*. He was at first allowed to play before and after the service, but progressed to accompanying the hymns. Now that he is competent enough, still in his early 20s he is organist at another church. Don't insist on perfection, nurture your talent.

quote:
Far too many modern worship songs are just plain bad - mediocrity would be an improvement.

Not all of them are plain bad or mediocre, some are quite good, a few are very good.

Look in any traditional hymn book, there is usually a compilation of good songs from the past and a collection of of songs which were then modern. These latter songs vary in quality. That some songs written contemporaneously to the publication of a compendium of hymns contains trash has always been the case. Time will sort these new ones out.

quote:
I do not find it helpful to receive communion while a badly-rehearsed 'music group' gives a raucous, fortissimo performance of "Majesty"...

There is no excuse for a fortissimo performance of anything in any style of music whilst communion is being administered. This is inappropriate.

There is no excuse to being badly-rehearsed either. Psalm 33:3 says "Sing to him a new song, play skilfully and shout for joy."

Note play skilfully. There is no excuse for the "it says be joyful not be tuneful" heresy, which I heard a lot a number of years ago.

--

*He also played bass in the music group.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd be quite happy to see music in church as something done by the talented or recorded. That's how our culture does music - it listens to recorded music or goes to gigs. I personally enjoy a good sing but I'm unconvinced of the value of congregational singing in this day and age.
I'll ask you what a very prominent American choirmaster once asked me when I suggested that our culture no longer encourages musical participation. "Have you ever been to a rock concert." Most church musicians can only hope and pray to elicit such enthusiastic "congregational singing".

Yes I have. And there are a number of differences. Firstly it's not compulsory, or seen as such, secondly it's so loud you can't hear yourself, and thirdly it's so loud that you're not worried that anyone else can hear you. I really don't think it's that similar to what we expect people to do in church.

quote:
I don't think it's just an accident that the church has cultivated group singing to such a high art, probably more developed than in any religion. It illustrates in such wonderful epitome so much of what we believe about the ideal social life in "the Kingdom of God." Furthermore, perhaps only someone who has had life too easy and takes too many comforts for granted would be tempted to deny the value of music.

Something that really pisses me off is people assuming that something must be wrong with people who view things differently to them, so you can take your "perhaps only someone..." and swivel on it. As it happens, I value music highly; I'm a folk musician. Not being convinced by congregational singing being a given is not the same as denying the value of music.

The fact is I do know people who loathe being expected to sing, some who just don't, looking uncomfortable, and others who do, haltingly, and wishing they weren't. And some who will not come because they are expected to sing. I have nothing to gain from this; I love a good sing, and the first thing I do on getting to the pew is often to look through the hymns and see which ones we're getting (sometimes a disappointment). But it's not just about me. Just this Saturday I went to a wedding where the music was all recorded, with no congregational singing. It worked for this group.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
I'm not denying there has to be some level of basic technical competence, but I don't think it's the only issue at play - the church is supposed to come together with everyone having something to bring, not as some kind of concert performance at which only the very best can play.

Sorry, Kevin, I can't agree.
Having struggled with a place where anyone, regardless of any aptitude could "take part in the ministry of music" there has to be some basic talent.

Besides, although I know its very old-fashioned, some of us were taught that we should give of our best to the Lord. This attitude of "the Lord won't mind, we're trying" isn't very appealing.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Having struggled with a place where anyone, regardless of any aptitude could "take part in the ministry of music" there has to be some basic talent.

I agree with you - that's why I said 'I'm not denying there has to be some level of basic technical competence'. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Besides, although I know its very old-fashioned, some of us were taught that we should give of our best to the Lord. This attitude of "the Lord won't mind, we're trying" isn't very appealing.

And I agree with you here, that we should give of our best to the Lord. But I take it in a different way to how you have done - I think each of us individually should give of our best, not that we should only choose the 'best' (i.e. most skilled) people within our church to perform any particular task / role all the time.

This doesn't come from an attitude in me of 'the Lord won't mind, we're trying'. Rather, I think it's important to nurture people's skills and to help everyone find how they can contribute to the life of the church community.

The church as body metaphor, with every part being valued and having an important role, speaks to me of a community where all have something to contribute. I grant that this doesn't just mean in the church services, but I think it's really good to model the principle when the church community gathers together - having many people involved and leading in some way is, IMO, more important than technical excellence.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Besides, although I know its very old-fashioned, some of us were taught that we should give of our best to the Lord. This attitude of "the Lord won't mind, we're trying" isn't very appealing.
And I agree with you here, that we should give of our best to the Lord. But I take it in a different way to how you have done - I think each of us individually should give of our best, not that we should only choose the 'best' (i.e. most skilled) people within our church to perform any particular task / role all the time.

I agree in a way with both. Congregational singing is part of the whole. Referring again to Paul Halley, I recall a Sunday morning service at St. John the Divine in 1985, during his day. He served as organist and choirmaster, but in that place it is not feasible to conduct from the console because it is two or three storeys high in the air, atop the south choir screen. (I can't make it show properly as a URL link, but-- speaking of letting the kids have a go once in awhile-- Googling for "Cathedral of Saint John the Divine" organ brings up a delightful photo from a visiting family). At least one very fine assistant organist was on hand for accompaniments and perhaps voluntaries, while Mr. Halley was usually among the choir stalls to conduct. However, so seriously did he take leading the hymns that he did not delegate this task, but climbed all the stairs to the console and back down again to do it himself every time. So yes, everyone should have a role in making the music, but helping everyone to do their best demands the best in itself.

While I'm happy to be in a liturgical tradition in which spoken services have their place (and I appreciate them myself) I can't agree with Karl's inference that congregational singing is an ornament or accident that could become obsolete where a culture does not encourage singing. On the contrary, I firmly believe that it is as much of the essence to the church as reading the scriptures. Without it, a mainspring would be broken, such that it would not long remain the church, but devolve into some amalgam of Red Cross and great books discussion group.

[ 05. October 2012, 18:00: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I thought this BBC programme Ear Worms of interest. It includes the observation that far more people are able to pick up a tune when it's sung to them than are able to pick it up from the music being played to them.

They found that over 90% of people have 'ear worms'. Could this be an indication that over 90% of people have basic musical ability?

The programme has given me more confidence in the possibility of congregational singing without music.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
. Could this be an indication that over 90% of people have basic musical ability?

Tivially. 99.99%. Depends how basic you want to go. Almost everyone can sing. Its just that most of us can't sing very well.

And I feel a bit chuffed at them supporting my contention that its easier to follow a tune when someone is singing it than it is to get it from an instrument that doesnt sound much like a voice.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
If the estimate that you have given is about accurate, Ken, what we are being asked to believe is that no more than five members of your congregation of over one hundred, if given the starting note, could sing the first three notes of "Three Blind Mice" to work out the third note.
I suspect that a higher proportion of the congregation could indeed sing the third note of Three Blind Mice if they were given the first note (and knew the tune in the first place).

But I don't think that was the point ken (or leo) was really making which would be more akin to a scenario of being given an A and then told to sing Three Blind Mice starting on an F.
I think you may have missed my point. Three Blind Mice doesn't represent the song being sung: it is just an example I chose to illustrate what it is to go down a third, which ken thought of as being difficult. I was just illustrating how simple it is to work out an F after having been given the A, in response to your original point. If ken read that as meaning transposing to a different key, then it seems he may have misread my original response to you, and we have been talking at cross purposes since then.

This all assumes someone would know that F is the third note after A! I would have honestly no idea what the third note after A is, or what the order of notes is in general. And I can sing - I just cannot read music. In my head notes are arranged left-right (like, er, a volume display [Hot and Hormonal]

) and not up-down so the idea of a note being below another would confuse me. I sing by ear so if someone sang something I could sing it back, but playing a note wouldn't help me at all.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0