Ship of Fools: Hymns in foreign languages

Thread: Hymns in foreign languages 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=025835

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

In the main service this morning, our youth choirs sang various bits of music, and it was all wonderful.

But one of the songs they sang was in Xhosa. It sounded great, and the kids obviously enjoyed singing it, but, and how can I put this, our parish is not exactly overrun with speakers of Xhosa. They had learned the song phonetically, and most had no idea of the meaning of the words - they could have been singing "two pints of milk and a dozen eggs" for all they knew.

This makes me feel uneasy, and I don't know whether it should.

I think there are two sources of my unease. The first is singing words you don't understand. I have this concern to a lesser extent about the use of hymns in Latin - a lesser extent, because I think many people are familiar enough with the Latin used in the church over the years to get the gist, even if they haven't had formal instruction in Latin.

The second is the patronizing cultural tourism angle - are we just singing in an African language because we think it's cool? From this angle, the use of Latin is innocent, as Latin is certainly part of the cultural heritage of anyone descended from Western Europeans, but a room full of white faces singing in Xhosa?

Oh, and the third - given that nobody speaks Xhosa, how does anyone know that the pronunciation is accurate?

What thinks the panel?

[ 03. June 2013, 06:25: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Oh, and the third - given that nobody speaks Xhosa, how does anyone know that the pronunciation is accurate?

IN case it wasn't clear, nobody at our church speaks Xhosa. Clearly lots of people in South Africa do speak Xhosa...

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

We often sings choruses in Xhosa, and many other languages. We do this to express solidarity with our Christian brothers and sisters around the world. But then, we do actually have speakers of Xhosa in our church (the last time I saw a random language count in a service there were 22 nationalities in the congregation on around 250). In most songs there are also English verses as a translation.
But an interesting question if there are no native speakers. I am guessing the youth were taught the translation as well so they would know the meaning? Presumably they were singing a song from a reputable source which also discussed pronounciation? Certainly the singing wouldn't bother me. I enjoy singing in other languages despite my lack of foreign language skills.
My knowledge of latin is limited to medical and plant terminology and everyday phrases used in English - my church does not use Latin. Yet I love to listen to choral music in Latin and my lack of understanding does not seem to prevent my enjoyment or my understanding of it giving glory to God. But I also listen to CDs of African praise and Ladysmith Black Mambazo so perhaps I am not representative.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In the main service this morning, our youth choirs sang various bits of music, and it was all wonderful.

But one of the songs they sang was in Xhosa... What thinks the panel?

We've done things like this occasionally at our church, usually as part of a youth / children focus on a certain country. I remember once or twice we've sung songs or learnt Bible passages in the language they speak at churches or projects that our church has links with. I think that's a nice way of developing empathy and solidarity.

What was the point of singing a song in Xhosa, specifically? Where the young people learning about a country / region where Xhosa is spoken or was it chosen for aesthetic reasons? (I'm not sure if this particularly matters, btw; I don't have a strong view either way at the moment!)

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Hmm, that's an interesting one. I've only encountered the use of African languages in churches where there is at least one speaker of the language in question (who can presumably make sure the choir don't accidentally mispronounce words in a way that makes them mean anything rude).

I'm also guessing that a translation is provided in the service booklet? If not, that would seem quite remiss.

Having said that, I've heard parts of Rachmaninov's Vespers and suchlike sung in churches with no Russians...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

How did the young people do with the clicks?

I'm less troubled by getting one's young people to sing in Xhosa. It might inspire their imaginations to realise they have Christian brothers and sisters who live far away and live different lives. I'm more irritated by those who insist on singing choral Mass settings in Latin or the 'Oh, my dear, we only sing Silent Night in the original German' brigade. It frequently (possibly universally) represents pride.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm more irritated by those who insist on singing choral Mass settings in Latin

I can understand being irritated - if that's not your style - by choral rather than congregational Mass settings. Granted though that in some contexts it is appropriate, Latin gives you a much better choice of repertoire. There are few choral settings, in modern or Tudor English, that measure up to the great classic Latin Mass settings. Why else do you think even the most 'protestant' of our English cathedrals regularly sing in Latin?

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :

As some one working with multiple languages in worship often, I've found the following helps:

1) Always give a translation of anything not in the main language of the congregation.

2) If not sure how a song should go find it on-line and listen. And I do try to get 2 or 3 sources for this.

3) As said it is part of showing the wider part of the church, and when done like this can help see there is more than us here in this place now.

I'll get off my hobby horse now before I go on to long...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
... Why else do you think even the most 'protestant' of our English cathedrals regularly sing in Latin?

Because the professional musicians have hijacked the repertoire?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I've only encountered the use of African languages in churches where there is at least one speaker of the language in question (who can presumably make sure the choir don't accidentally mispronounce words in a way that makes them mean anything rude).

But if there's no-one there from that language, mistakes don't matter as nobody will know that the choir has unintentionally said a naughty word.

Of course, if you stream your services or have them available on your website, that's a different matter ...

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

As far as pronunciation is concerned, I believe that as a rule African languages have been rendered into roman script more or less phonetically, although of course you still have to know any pronunciation peculiar to that language, for example any particular letters or digraphs (th particularly comes to mind) being assigned to different sounds from English, and requirements of tone.

I think it is wise to provide translations in some shape or form, be it read or written, and preferably literal rather than the awful paraphrases we end up singing - when I did Grade 5 singing we didn't even consider doing Panis Angelicus in the truly awful English version provided.

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

Quite often the ones in English might as well be in a foreign bleedin' language.

"...potentate of time, creator of the rolling spheres, ineffably sublime."

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I've heard the 'solidarity' line used before: but what about solidarity with our brothers and sisters somewhere less 'exotic'?

Rough rule of thumb I work by is that all hymns, canticles and psalms should be in English; settings mainly in English - apart from the Kyrie of course; any anthem or motet in any unfamiliar language should have a translation available at the time.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I've heard the 'solidarity' line used before: but what about solidarity with our brothers and sisters somewhere less 'exotic'?

Sure, let's do that too! Mission trips, prayer partnerships and the like can be just as fruitful and inspiring with Christians in the same country as they can with those in exotic, far-flung places.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

I've only come across something being spoken in a language not regularly used by anybody present once, a couple of years ago.

Our church had, each week for seven in a row, a part of the service dedicated to celebrating one of our cross-cultural ministries and one of our local ministries. We would have a video (one of them live via Skype) or live interview from the cross-cultural side, an audio recording of a local person in that culture reciting 1 Corinthians 12:12-20 in their language, the talk or video from the local side and then everyone standing to recite the English version of the scripture together.

The main point behind including the scriptures in the other languages was that it all built up to that 'routine' being broken in the last week. Instead of an audio recording as there had been the first six weeks, there was just an explanation that the Bible had not yet been translated into that language and that this was to be the purpose of the next "above and beyond" offering fund.

It was a very effective method of setting up the lack of a translation as it being something important to a group of people important to us, rather than just an impersonal statistic of xxx many languages not having the Bible which we've all heard repeated many times.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I've heard the 'solidarity' line used before: but what about solidarity with our brothers and sisters somewhere less 'exotic'?

Why not both? Many churches belong to local and regional interchurch groups where they join together for missions and prayer partnerships.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
... Why else do you think even the most 'protestant' of our English cathedrals regularly sing in Latin?
Because the professional musicians have hijacked the repertoire?

And possibly because there are those in the congregation who like it (and can even understand the Latin!), and have said so.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Rough rule of thumb I work by is that all hymns, canticles and psalms should be in English; settings mainly in English - apart from the Kyrie of course; any anthem or motet in any unfamiliar language should have a translation available at the time.

[Devil's Advocate] So why is Greek exempt (and as a matter of course) but Latin (which is even more a part of our Western heritage) not? Are English Protestants better friends with Messrs. Liddell & Scott than they are with Lewis & Short? [/Devil's Advocate]

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

Afraid I would not be in favour of using non English hymns unless your congregation has a large group of whichever group other language group the hymns are in.
As for Mass settings , my parish , Anglican Church of Canada , has over several Christmas Eve's used, French, German and Latin settings. IMHO not that great of an idea , however it adds to the majesty of the occassion, at the cost of congregational participation . Our still fairly new hymnal has texts ins Inuit,Cree French as well as English. Not that we used those texts , we being a very English speaking group but if I was in the high Artic well the Inuit text would fit. [Votive]

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

In honour of Corpus Christi, yesterday we (the congregation) sang Laudate Dominum in Latin. Our National Anthem which, from time to time, is sung in Church is in French and English. No-one seems to mind these things. A little Xhosa would be a nice change. I certainly don't see any reason to get one's knickers twisted.

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

As a general point, I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of liturgical and church practice underwear mobius strip like misfunction comes down to preconceptions about the sort of people who are perceived as habitually doing the practice in question.

And to be fair, it's exactly why if I walk into a church for a service and see a drum kit and mixing desk at the back I am inclined, if at all socially possible, to turn on my heel and run for dear life.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

The Anglican Cathedral in Buenos Aires used Spanish in most of their hymns. Generally, hymns would feature a few English verses, and then a few in Spanish. I was struck at how well the Spanish texts worked with Victorian Anglican hymns. In this case, pretty well everyone in the congregation was bilingual.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... And to be fair, it's exactly why if I walk into a church for a service and see a drum kit and mixing desk at the back I am inclined, if at all socially possible, to turn on my heel and run for dear life.

The really ominous sign is a drum kit surrounded by perspex screening.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Indeed.

When I lived in West Africa, it was routine for many church services to include hymns and songs in 3 or 4 languages - to suit the various people-groups present.

So one might start with Balanta and Bijago; the service leader would enquire if any Papel were present and, if so, we'd have some singing in that language too. Then we'd do stuff in Portuguese for the educated urban young people.

Most people could do at least two languages and the worship leader would give a brief explanation of each song. Everything was sung by heart and unaccompanied except for Western-style Portuguese hymns.

Services did go on a bit ... especially if the sermon had to be double-translated too! And few of the "pews" would score highly (if at all) on the Mystery Worshipper scale!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Aside from Paschatide, when we sing the Paschal troparion ("Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life") in multiple languages*, we only have a couple of songs with foreign words, and the one we sing the most is macaronic and the English and Slavonic parts say the same thing.

___
*but of course everybody knows the words in English and hence what the translation is. I'm sure we mangle the pronunciation horribly, especially the Luganda**.
**which we sing not out of "solidarity" but because we had a seminary student from Uganda stay with us for many summers, and he taught it to us.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

♬ Kum bah yah muh lord kum bah yah ♬

Mostly harmless I think. If there's a new song (these don't seem to be quite hymns to me) with some words not known, a choir practice with explanation before the service starts is the best place for the explanation.

Yes, it disrupts the liturgy, so it must be decided that it is worth doing. We decided that such things were okay for what we've called the "intergenerational service", which was formerly the 'youth service', but some of us greying people also get involved.

I don't think the idea of foreign words is a problem. We're not going to sing to satan and mean it. If we do by accident, I'm sure god and satan will discuss the intent as well as the words and it'll be okay.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
... Why else do you think even the most 'protestant' of our English cathedrals regularly sing in Latin?
Because the professional musicians have hijacked the repertoire?

I've always been wary of professional church musicians. But give them their due, 'in quires and places where they sing', they are the experts and they know that English settings of the Eucharist of any quality are as rare as hens' teeth. No doubt the reason for this is the neglect of the Eucharist in Anglican cathedrals at the time composers were churning out settings of the Evensong (and Mattins) canticles. But there is a big gap in the repertoire unless you [a] revert to Sung Mattins as the main service, or [b] use settings of the Latin.

I was in a parish church yesterday when the choir sang a Palestrina mass (in Latin of course). IMHO it didn't destroy the intimate congregational feel of the liturgy, but rather heightened the sense of worship.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

To me, a song is words and music. If I can't understand the words I'm missing half of the communication the song was written to convey.

For that reason I dislike anything sung in a language not the language of the people listening - in a church worship event. In an art event, fine. But in a church of English-speaking people let's communicate in English, please.

In an international community like in Taize, or bi/multi-lingual congregation in USA or elsewhere, makes sense to use the multiple languages present.

Obviously a lot of people disagree with me. Heck, the whole RCC disagreed with me for a long time, insisting the entire service be in a language no one (but a few scholars) was fluent in anymore.

At the time of the change in language one Catholic friend told me he liked the Latin better because he couldn't understand it so it gave him a sense of mystery. I think God keeps trying to reveal God's-self, not wrap it in extra mystery! But obviously mileages vary.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

When I go to Choral Evensong at Westminster Abbey, the wording on the order of service card given out to the congregation, is something to the effect - the Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis are sung in English or in another language. The 'other language' is usually (but not always) Latin. In this case, there would seem to be no problem what the words mean, because these canticles are used invariably at Evensong.

As a linguist, it is unusual for me to go to any church and not to know the words in another language mean; or rarely, if I don't, I can usually identify the language. As I am not a Greek scholar, the phrase, "It is all Greek to me", is true both literally and metaphorically to me.

I have met the Xhosa langusge on my visits to South Africa; I might be able to identify it when I see it, but no more.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

People can easily learn to understand the Latin text of the Ordinary of the Mass (and the Greek Kyrie, of course). The bigger problem IMO is choral settings that are so ornate and polyphonic that you can't follow the text. I am often in the situation of straining to make out bits of the text in the Gloria and Credo at which the servers and sacred ministers are to bow. It gets difficult when the setting is highly vocally overlayed, with bits of different phrases being sung simultaneously and with "vain repetitions" and "too many notes (just take some out and it will be fine)". You can know and follow the Latin text itself, but be completely unable to follow the garbled language produced with the choir wailing away at some polyphonic setting.

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
... Why else do you think even the most 'protestant' of our English cathedrals regularly sing in Latin?
Because the professional musicians have hijacked the repertoire?

Thank God. I can only imagine what the lowest common denominator would do with the repertoire.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
People can easily learn to understand the Latin text of the Ordinary of the Mass (and the Greek Kyrie, of course). The bigger problem IMO is choral settings that are so ornate and polyphonic that you can't follow the text. I am often in the situation of straining to make out bits of the text in the Gloria and Credo at which the servers and sacred ministers are to bow. It gets difficult when the setting is highly vocally overlayed, with bits of different phrases being sung simultaneously and with "vain repetitions" and "too many notes (just take some out and it will be fine)". You can know and follow the Latin text itself, but be completely unable to follow the garbled language produced with the choir wailing away at some polyphonic setting.

I have much sympathy with this view. As beautiful as it might sound overly ornate polyfony doesn't belong in the liturgy. One should be able to make out the words being sung. This is the beauty of plainchant.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by Angloid
I've always been wary of professional church musicians. But give them their due, 'in quires and places where they sing', they are the experts and they know that English settings of the Eucharist of any quality are as rare as hens' teeth. No doubt the reason for this is the neglect of the Eucharist in Anglican cathedrals at the time composers were churning out settings of the Evensong (and Mattins) canticles. But there is a big gap in the repertoire unless you [a] revert to Sung Mattins as the main service, or [b] use settings of the Latin.

WHY wary? Only in the CofE 'professional' a dirty word.

As for settings of the Eucharist being rare, not so. There are settings by exactly the same composers as for the canticles but, on the whole they (a) are less well-regarded, and (b) it was decreed that the old words were not acceptable when the liturgical merry-go-round set off in the 1970s.

Yes, there are horrors (Prendergast in E flat anyone?) but there are some reasonable settings.

As for the 'new words', they've not inspired many people but then perhaps they find the language and the rhythms limiting - Peter Hurford wrote a setting but the Gloria can be accompanied by a mixture of Here we go round the Mulberry-bush and Pop goes the Weasel... [Snigger]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I rather like the versions of the Gloria which go to the tunes of The Ash Grove and In An English Country Garden.

May I be forgiven, but they are both singable and fun.....

No foreign languages at our place, usually, with the occasional exception of those Taize chants usually sung in Latin e.g. Laudate, omnes gentes.

Ian J.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

One of the reasons I was so fond of the Series Two Eucharist was that it was

(a) Modern, but
(b) Still Traditional language, so we could use all the old war horses - Merbeck, Martin Shaw, Thingy (Woodward?) in E flat, etc..

When people kvetch about the lack of settings for HC in Anglicanism, they are usually grumbling about the lack of modern language ones. As Series 3 came out in 1972, that means only about 40 years has passed since the first ML rite in England. That is not very long to build a repetoire.

As for reintroducing Choral Mattins - yes please!

In my own parish we use English and very occasionally Latin. We could also get away with German and perhaps Spanish.

PD

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

It takes a very perverse form of dedication to pour this much lukewarm water at people who have the audacity to do things well.

Why on earth God should be honoured by mediocrity has always been entirely beyond me.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
WHY wary? Only in the CofE 'professional' a dirty word.

As for settings of the Eucharist being rare, not so. :

I bow to the professional!

I'm not wary of professionals per se, and you're right it shouldn't be a dirty word. Just that many (not all, by any means) church musicians appear to have an ambivalent relationship with the worshipping community, and some organists I have known have been very prickly.

That said, though I accept that there may be many worthy settings of the eucharist in English, and that there is no more reason why Tudor English rather than Latin should be excluded from a modern-language liturgy, the great classical composers have left a legacy to the whole church, not just the RCC, and so why should not Anglicans share in that inheritance?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I'll happily sing in Xhosa, Swahili, Spanish, Greek, Russian, Latin, German, Gaelic, Scots, or anything else I can wrap my tongue around. I prefer to have a translation, and it's certainly better to have someone with a passing knowledge of the correct pronunciation, but really if no-one there knows the correct pronunciation, it's not going to trouble anyone, and God will know what we intend.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
... Why else do you think even the most 'protestant' of our English cathedrals regularly sing in Latin?
Because the professional musicians have hijacked the repertoire?
Thank God. I can only imagine what the lowest common denominator would do with the repertoire.

Then what does the word 'president' mean, and who is supposed to 'preside'?

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

The way I see it, music by the Choir is offered to the glory and praise of God, on behalf of all and not for the entertainment of the congregation. Therefore it is not required that you always understand the words.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

This rather depends on the nature of what is being sung, I think. IMO the sung text of the Mass should be understanded of the people. In places, such as my own parish, that use Latin settings of the Ordinary, it can be expected that all regular parishioners and most others who seek out such a place will understand the Latin text. However, they may be unable to follow the text if excessively ornate polyphony is used. I see no sense in that. OTOH, communion motets, anthems and the like are less important to congregational participation in the offering of the Holy Eucharist, and it doesn't particularly bother me if they aren't readily comprehended.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Graven Image:
The way I see it, music by the Choir is offered to the glory and praise of God, on behalf of all and not for the entertainment of the congregation. Therefore it is not required that you always understand the words.

But shouldn't the choir understand the words?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

A good choir master will incorporate an understanding of the text into choir practices, so that, by the time the choir sing the anthem in a service, they know what the words mean. A good choir will interpret the words musically, making sure the dynamics of the music and words match - regardless of which language they are singing in. A good choir will also provide a translation of the words for the congregation to follow, or - at the very least - a summary of what the anthem is about.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

Why is it important that the congregation follow along with the words in a linear fashion at every single service? Because that's what is being suggested: you can understand what is being sung without following all the words as they 'appear', either by virtue of the service sheet/missal, or by virtue of the fact that the texts *are the same every week.* Are people so averse to making a little effort to inhabiting the liturgy that polyphony is completely beyond them? At what price comprehension? Too often 'easy to follow' is code for 'unutterably trite'.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

If the Choir is singing something I can't understand (either in a foreign language, or in English that's hard to follow), I can still enjoy it for the sake of the music. It's much like the organ playing -- it doesn't need words. Besides which -- they're not singing for me.

Congregational singing is another matter.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
It's much like the organ playing -- it doesn't need words.

Emily Dickinson felt the same way.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

There are always some in the church who enjoy the sport of knocking the choir and music. However, ask them to come and contribute to the music worship and they run a mile. A great deal of time and effort goes into preparing and presenting music for worship and it would be nice if sometimes the congregation appreciated that. Just as long as we aren't asked to introduce rap into the service!

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Emily Dickinson felt the same way.

But I do wish I could read her poems without automatically singing them to the Gilligan's Island theme song.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Emily Dickinson felt the same way.

But I do wish I could read her poems without automatically singing them to the Gilligan's Island theme song.

I sing them to "Yellow Rose of Texas." [Smile]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why is it important that the congregation follow along with the words in a linear fashion at every single service? Because that's what is being suggested: you can understand what is being sung without following all the words as they 'appear', either by virtue of the service sheet/missal, or by virtue of the fact that the texts *are the same every week.* Are people so averse to making a little effort to inhabiting the liturgy that polyphony is completely beyond them? At what price comprehension? Too often 'easy to follow' is code for 'unutterably trite'.

So, you think maybe the congo should jot down the words phonetically and go look them up on Google Translate when they get home? (Or better yet, on their smart phones during the middle of the service!)

[ 04. June 2013, 18:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Graven Image:
The way I see it, music by the Choir is offered to the glory and praise of God, on behalf of all and not for the entertainment of the congregation. Therefore it is not required that you always understand the words.

I would actually quite strongly disagree with this. If the congregation cannot understand what is being said, how can they share silently in the prayer and praise of God that is the anthem?

I see worship as requiring a strong sense of unity, from the first note played and first word spoken to the last note of the closing voluntary. A section of the worship that excludes people by language because they are not being told what those "at the front" are on about breaks that unity.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:

quote:
Originally posted by Graven Image:
The way I see it, music by the Choir is offered to the glory and praise of God, on behalf of all and not for the entertainment of the congregation. Therefore it is not required that you always understand the words.
I would actually quite strongly disagree with this. If the congregation cannot understand what is being said, how can they share silently in the prayer and praise of God that is the anthem?

I see worship as requiring a strong sense of unity, from the first note played and first word spoken to the last note of the closing voluntary. A section of the worship that excludes people by language because they are not being told what those "at the front" are on about breaks that unity.

Your second paragraph relies on the first: the idea that, if the people don't understand the words, they cannot share in the prayer and praise. For me, that is utterly wrong. It ends up saying that those incapable of an intellectual understanding of Christianity---whether through age, disability or whatever---are incapable of sharing in the prayer and praise.

That isn't a Christian message. Ultimately, it reduces the Gospel to triteness and fails to point to the incomprehensible Mystery that Christianity claims.

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

You're going way beyond what I meant, in fact you're off at a tangent.

There is a serious issue to be unpacked elsewhere, regarding Christian terminology or "jargon" which can exclude but at least the words can be looked up or explanations sought. The desire to learn more can even enhance worship.

Use of foreign languages which few or none present can understand and without explanation, the focus of this discussion, is not so easy to deal with. While we are each individually responsible to actually worship, music in foreign languages without explanation becomes just another piece of music to sit back and enjoy that could be about anything.

On the other hand, if told that Brahms' Wie lieblich sind deine Wohnungen is based on the first few verses of Psalm 84 without being bored with having it read to you, you can connect, and rather more importantly, share in the worship being offered.

[ 05. June 2013, 07:23: Message edited by: AndyB ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

There are a two churches near me with choirs singing mass settings. I notice that they both have more non-white and working class or immigrant members than the family friendly middle class hymn singers.

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

IIRC John Bell said that singing in Xhosa or whatever was an act of solidarity with Southafricans who has to go to church services in the "language of oppression."

Perhaps the fact that people - myself included - don't speak Latin says more about the failures of our education system than anything else. On the continent it is quite common for people to lean Latin in state schools. For instance, in Switzerland it is a prerequisite for most humanities subjects.

There is a shortage of eucharist settings in the contemporary protestant translation, be they for modern instruments or traditional ones.

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

Funny you should mention that.

For traditional choirs, there is the inevitable Rutter, but I also know settings by Matthias and Tambling, both of which are much better.

One for worship groups was written by the then worship leader in my old church (curiously including the Creed, which had to be retired as the 2000/2004 textual changes no longer fit!) and I've written one myself, but I'm not happy with mine.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why is it important that the congregation follow along with the words in a linear fashion at every single service? Because that's what is being suggested: you can understand what is being sung without following all the words as they 'appear', either by virtue of the service sheet/missal, or by virtue of the fact that the texts *are the same every week.* Are people so averse to making a little effort to inhabiting the liturgy that polyphony is completely beyond them? At what price comprehension? Too often 'easy to follow' is code for 'unutterably trite'.
So, you think maybe the congo should jot down the words phonetically and go look them up on Google Translate when they get home? (Or better yet, on their smart phones during the middle of the service!)

I don't think a glance at the Missal/BCP/Order of Service is too much to ask, no.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... And to be fair, it's exactly why if I walk into a church for a service and see a drum kit and mixing desk at the back I am inclined, if at all socially possible, to turn on my heel and run for dear life.
The really ominous sign is a drum kit surrounded by perspex screening.

Depends the kind of musical worship you like. [Biased]

One of my previous churches had enough members from Nigeria to form a small choir and every so often they would sing to us, teach us the songs and then we'd sing them together. That worked fine as it was a reflection of the culture of that congregation - and they would translate the songs into English so we knew what we were singing.

We then moved from that church to a very white middle class one. When we sang one of the songs that the Nigerian choir had taught us there, it felt wrong and rather patronising.

Tubbs

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

This is probably a culture thing. Our church wouldn't have a gloss of every song we sing in the bulletin.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
curiously including the Creed

All mass settings until very recently set the creed to music

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
leo: All mass settings until very recently set the creed to music

In the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, the Creed is usually sung.

(In fact, I can only remember the words of the Creed by mentally humming the melody [Biased]

)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Whenever I've sung a foreign language song in a Methodist or Anglican church the words are always explained by the person who's teaching the song. Either that or, in the case of a Taizé-style service, the words are printed on a sheet, alongside a translation.

I like to sing something I understand and believe, or long to believe (though I can see that singing in tongues would be valuable, since that's about sheer praise rather than theology). It's been said, though, that traditional church hymns are full of theology that the average person in the pew either doesn't understand or doesn't believe; yet traditional churches continue to sing those hymns. So maybe what hymn lyrics 'mean' isn't really as important to churchgoers as other associations that they make with their favourite hymns.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It's strange how, sometimes, the people who complain most about items sung in Latin are the ones who think it's perfectly OK to sing in tongues - and, no doubt, vice versa.

Although it's a very long time since I've heard anyone advocate singing in tongues, even in ecumenical settings. Is it a dying art, or just that those who practise it are only likely to do so in the privacy of their own groups?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I've sung a lot of hymns in my life. I remember the first line, the tune and any amusing phraseology.

The eucharist is an action, not a set of words.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It's strange how, sometimes, the people who complain most about items sung in Latin are the ones who think it's perfectly OK to sing in tongues - and, no doubt, vice versa.

Maybe it's because Latin is considered to be the language of the intellect, of learning. Therefore, it seems more important to understand what's being sung. With singing in tongues, the assumption (perhaps incorrect) that I made in my last post was that praise rather than high theology is what's going on.

Choral singing in Latin, though it can be very ethereal, projects a great sense of performance, of high art and self-control. You couldn't have choral singing in tongues, because everyone in the choir would be singing something different! The American gospel singer-songwriter Donnie McClurkin includes short outbursts of singing in tongues in his solo performances on Youtube. You wouldn't suddenly start singing in Latin like that!

[ 07. June 2013, 21:56: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I rather like the versions of the Gloria which go to the tunes of The Ash Grove and In An English Country Garden.

May I be forgiven, but they are both singable and fun.....

Try this for the Ordinary to tunes you know...

Thurible

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

[Eek!]

Thanks for that......I think!

Ian J.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Try this for the Ordinary to tunes you know...

Forgive me, but if I heard that setting of the Agnus Dei I wouldn't be able to help thinking about the Three Stooges (that tune being the theme to many of their films)

I notice the Sanctus was spared.

I noticed the name of the blog is "parishLife", but whatever is the meaning of the blog's motto "Me Liturgy, You Drains"?

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Malik3000
I noticed the name of the blog is "parishLife", but whatever is the meaning of the blog's motto "Me Liturgy, You Drains"?

The blog is written by Father Simon Rundell who is an Anglo-Catholic priest with a passion for mission. He is constantly looking at ways of helping children and young people to engage with liturgy and the sacraments.
As for his strap line: I don't know but I follow him on Twitter and he appears to have a somewhat quirky sense of humour.....

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I think this may be a reference to the anglo-catholic 'slum priests' who cared for people in practical ways as well as leading worship. During the cholera epidemic, concern for drains was incarnational.

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Try this for the Ordinary to tunes you know...

But the Confession only fits to Baa Baa Black Sheep if you switch to Twinkle Twinkle Little Star after the second line!

[ 08. June 2013, 08:44: Message edited by: AndyB ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I think this may be a reference to the anglo-catholic 'slum priests' who cared for people in practical ways as well as leading worship. During the cholera epidemic, concern for drains was incarnational.

Yes, there's a line about the theology of the incarnation being expressed in a concern with drainage which IIRC i've seen attributed to +Frank Weston, though I can't find it and suspect that it was quite a common saying.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

No mention of drains in his speech which is

given here.

[edited - please do not post massive chunks of materials from elsewhere!]

[ 08. June 2013, 21:33: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Then again, on drains, I think you are thinking of Fr. Robert Dolling: of St. Agatha's Landport, who said,

quote:
I speak out and fight about the drains because I believe in the Incarnation.

.

He said,

quote:
relating to S. Saviour's Schools from Father Dolling's 'Quarterly Letter' for June, 1899, especially as it shows the reason why he valued supremely the opportunity given him by the possession of Church day-schools:
'It won't bore you if I am a little garrulous about the schools. I have spent on the drainage, making new entrances for boys and girls, boys' cloak-rooms and lavatories, and doing up the infants' school, £1,392, and I have collected £1,333.'

It says that he was

quote:
A Victorian slum priest, campaigning for better sanitation, was told to stop interfering in secular matters. He replied, ‘I speak out and fight about the drains because I believe in the Incarnation’. Between 1885 and 1895, another slum priest, Father Dolling, transformed the poorest area of Portsmouth. He created a gym to promote physical fitness and dancing, but his ‘Communicants Dancing Guild’ disgusted a local evangelical vicar. ‘Who can separate the secular from the religious?’, asked Dolling. ‘Certainly the Master did not try to do so.’ He forced brothels to close, attacked army authorities for mismanagement and encouraged trade unions. The worship combined high ritual with hymns sung to homely tunes. Dolling, singing songs with servicemen, was very different from the bookish Tractarians. Why did priests like Dolling begin to connect Jesus with drains and dancing? They learned their incarnationalism and sacramentalism from a tradition which included the theologians F D Maurice, Stewart Headlam, Charles Gore and Henry Scott Holland.

His full life story is here

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

And Fr Rundell, of course, ministered previously in Portsmouth.

Thurible,

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible
And Fr Rundell, of course, ministered previously in Portsmouth.

"You can take the boy out of Portsmouth but...."

For more than twenty years my husband worked in a Victorian building in Landport, Portsmouth.
The plumbing and drainage were still a cause for concern then so they must have been ghastly a century plus earlier.
Oh I think there might be a song about that.....

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0