Ship of Fools: Why is "Christian music" so unremitingly crap?

Thread: Why is "Christian music" so unremitingly crap? 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=028095

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I should start by saying that I have a wide range of musical taste, and I listen to all sorts. In fact, as long as it is not Cowell-clone crap, I will probably give it a go. I am not a particular fan of classical music, but I do appreciate some of those genres too.

In fact, there is only one thing I ask from music, which is that it engages me in some form - mentally emotionally spiritually. The more intense that engagement, the better.

I was just cooking in the kitchen and listening to Underworld "Two Months Off". And I was dancing around the kitchen (something you really don't need to see) because it is a feel-good song. And it came to me that no Christian song makes me dance. Nothing in terms of Christian worship music - which should be engaging me, surely - doesn't move me.

It seems that so much of the "Christian worship" music is MoR, 1970s soft rock. Which I might have liked in the 1970s, but I - and the music business - has moved on a whole lot since that point.

This is not a "crappy choruses" thread - there is more to it than that. I think this total compromise, this lack of passion, this fear of emotional engagement that runs through church worship as a whole. Passion is reserved for (usually) condemnation of the "sinful", not for dancing to Underworld. For me, that is a real problem. I worship more - far more - dancing to Two Months Off than I ever have to "We really just wanna worship you Lord".

Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on :

Chavah Messianic radio

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

This may be completely off-base but I think maybe there is a bit of attitude of, "If it's for Jaysoos, who are we to judge it and say it's o good? And shouldn't we have different standards from the world? How well it glorifies God, and not how well they play their instruments or write memorable lyrics or inspiring melodies?"

When something else becomes more important than quality, then quality will suffer.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Do I assume that we are specifically talking about "modern" or "worship" music rather than music - however contemporary - in the "classical" or "choral" tradition (eg JohnTaverner, James MacMillan)?

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

I expect so, since some of the most emotionally satisfying music ever written is spiritual in nature.

As for the thread title: Why is "Christian music" so unremitingly crap? Could it be because those who write it have no talent, and those who listen to it have no taste?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Most good art has an element of challenge in it. It doesn't just give you what you want - that's kitsch - it offers something original, and quite often in a way that is hard to like at first. I don't think the people in the churches that use and produce worship songs enjoy anything that unsettles them.

Bach is, for me, the writer of the most feel good music of all. Shame there's so little to be found in a Baptist church.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I've no idea. I don't listen to 'Christian music'. Much better to listen to music and enjoy what it is, not having the remotest idea whether the composer is Christian or not. Surely, music can speak to you regardless of who the composer is, or what (s)he believes?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Do I assume that we are specifically talking about "modern" or "worship" music rather than music - however contemporary - in the "classical" or "choral" tradition (eg JohnTaverner, James MacMillan)?

How about some Charles Wesley?

Some of you folk ought to have become Methodists! No impossible evangelical stuff to believe before breakfast, and no crap worship music (in most cases, anyway)!

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Do I assume that we are specifically talking about "modern" or "worship" music rather than music - however contemporary - in the "classical" or "choral" tradition (eg JohnTaverner, James MacMillan)?

The thing is, I could do another rant about traditional music, but that is a different discussion.

However, classical style music also should engage me - the same core issues apply. A whole lot of organ hymn music is drab, tedious and soul-destroying.

I also think that some of the writers are talented, and many of the musicians are talented, but the music that the church system requires is trite and crap. There is a lack of people who can make a real difference, who can change things.

I used to play in church. I am not untalented, but I really wasn't allowed to rock it out, because people "people" wouldn't like it. I suspect nobody asked the "people".

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
As for the thread title: Why is "Christian music" so unremitingly crap? Could it be because those who write it have no talent, and those who listen to it have no taste?

No talent is a big part of it. Words whose natural rhythms don't fit the rhythm of the music, for example. Melodies that sound alike song to song and don't express the mood of the words. And that's before we get into the words themselves.

In churches, there is also the "Hillsong wannabe" syndrome. Band after church band wants/hopes/expects to become the next world famous Hillsong. That makes the group more focused on their sound brand than on serving the worship of the moment.

As to radio songs - the christian music stations are owned by secular corporations, songs are chosen for commercial momentary appeal. Songs are written to appeal to the secular bosses.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
How about some Charles Wesley?

For me Wesley is in the first bloom of the rot. I love a bit of Tallis or Palestrina and I have a certain fondness for Gregorian chant, but I cannot bear Wesley or anything like. Too many years of being forced to attend chapel after church!

I feel the same way about Christian rock as I do about secular hymns; music with its heart ripped out.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

Why is it so crap? How long have you got? [Biased]

I think Miss Amanda has a point in terms of what's written. I've been in churches since I was a teenager, and have always loathed modern worship music. I assumed that this was because, certainly at the time of conversion and for some years afterwards, I was an NME-reading music snob, and stylistically the music was not to my taste. It was what the NME would have termed "stool rock", I think. (ie, can be sung by people, usually men, sitting on stools, and often was when performed on Top of the Pops.)

These days I'm pretty much a recovered music snob, and I still loathe it. I think what you write, SC, about dancing round the kitchen, is an important point. I went to my weekly aerobics class this morning - the latest CD we work out to is a collection of pop/rock type stuff and it is cheesy as you like, my younger snob self would have hated it - Maroon5/Black Betty/Bon Jovi/Phil Collins via Gary Barlow (oh yes) and yet it was a really enjoyable, and almost immersive experience. Livin' on a Prayer is, in my book, an absolutely cracking tune, and bopping sweatily around the parish hall to it whilst belting out the chorus was great.

Belting stuff out is really important to me. What I lack in finesse when it comes to singing, I make up for in enthusiasm. This does sometimes happen in church, but (to repeat an oft made sentiment hereabouts) it's the hymns that do it. Singing "death of death, and hell's destruction" with two of my mates was one of the few moments in church lately where I've thought "actually, there might be something in this. Perhaps I'll stick it out for a bit".

The modern songs we sing don't really lend themselves to belting or bopping. And yet, while I find them entirely unmoving, a lot of people seem to like them & find singing them helpful. So perhaps it's me. [Ultra confused]

We're stuck in a funny place in churches like ours, I think. Church services are not, and should not be, a gig, so hurling your (beer assisted) self into the music with gay abandon doesn't seem right. So it's musically modern, but not immersive (I'm not sure if that's the word I want, but it'll do) - and besides, we only sing 3 or so songs at a time so there isn't the emotional involvement you have at a gig. And yet, the style of a lot of the modern songs doesn't lend itself to congregational singing.

Sorry, long and waffly. I could do a Mastermind specialist subject on reasons I don't like so much of what we sing in church.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I think this total compromise, this lack of passion, this fear of emotional engagement that runs through church worship as a whole.

I suspect that the more "emotionally engaged" your music gets, the more personal it gets, and what might engage you and fire you up might leave me cringing, which leaves us with inoffensive pablum that won't scare the horses.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Good liturgical musicians are worth their weight in gold (quite a claim in certain cases...) They understand how to integrate the music they select into the whole experience. Otherwise it just feels dolloped in, and cannot be immersive, however long the "set", because it isn't part of the worshipper's immersion into the whole experience. My experience (and love) is of the classical repertoire, but good and bad examples exist across the threshold. To my mind, the worst offenders are musical nappies: guaranteed to give one warm, moist feelings in areas one doesn't necessarily
want them.

To that extent, I would almost suggest a musical as a point of comparison, rather than a gig.

Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on :

jars of clay

Sons of Korah

Paul Field

IMO it very much depends on how responsive the worship team/leader is to the congregations desires. Worship often reflecting a person's personality.

Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on :

Without the song and dance

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Bach is, for me, the writer of the most feel good music of all. Shame there's so little to be found in a Baptist church.

We've got a Bach anthem tomorrow ... [Smile]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
How about some Charles Wesley?
For me Wesley is in the first bloom of the rot. I love a bit of Tallis or Palestrina and I have a certain fondness for Gregorian chant, but I cannot bear Wesley or anything like. Too many years of being forced to attend chapel after church!

I feel the same way about Christian rock as I do about secular hymns; music with its heart ripped out.

What I think you're saying is that Christian music ought to be affecting on an aesthetic level, quite apart from whether or not one accepts the Christian message.

Well, some non-religious people do enjoy the occasional rousing hymn, or even a touch of gospel music. Christmas carols are popular among atheists of a Dawkinsian type, as we all know. But perhaps the only Christian musical 'genre' that gets widespread cultural approval is the kind of high church music that you've mentioned - i.e. the kind of music that represents high culture.

I think this is partly a question of cultural heritage and social capital; people are always told that this is 'good' music, so they feel free to enjoy it even if they're not religious, or if their beliefs aren't orthodox. Worship songs are on far less secure cultural territory, and traditional hymns are part of a Nonconformist heritage that fewer and fewer British people now feel any connection with.

Fortunately, you can enjoy classical church music outside church contexts these days. Unfortunately, the average church simply isn't able to satisfy those who disapprove of both worship songs and traditional hymns. Where are the top quality musicians going to come from? Who's going to pay them to turn up on Sunday mornings and assist a meagre bunch of Christians to engage in 'worship'? You'll find something appropriate at a cathedral service, perhaps, or at a parish church with a good choir. But every other place will just have to make do with what it can get.

Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
How about some Charles Wesley?
For me Wesley is in the first bloom of the rot. I love a bit of Tallis or Palestrina and I have a certain fondness for Gregorian chant, but I cannot bear Wesley or anything like. Too many years of being forced to attend chapel after church!

I feel the same way about Christian rock as I do about secular hymns; music with its heart ripped out.

Thank God, I was beginning to think it was just me that detested Wesley hymns

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

"Crap" is in the ear of the beholder.

Truth is that "crap" Christian music and "Cowell-clone crap" both exist and succeed for the same reason - there are enough people who like it to make it a going concern.

So when you say "Why is so much Christian music crap" you're really just saying "Why don't more Christians have my taste."

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
"Crap" is in the ear of the beholder.

Truth is that "crap" Christian music and "Cowell-clone crap" both exist and succeed for the same reason - there are enough people who like it to make it a going concern.

So when you say "Why is so much Christian music crap" you're really just saying "Why don't more Christians have my taste."

That does not account for the fact that good music in the wrong context is utterly alienating. Music has to be part of the whole for it to work in church, as well as being of an intrinsically high quality.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

I haven't got time to go into a detailed response, but if we're talking about what's sung in church, there's a difference between congregational music and performance music on a musical level(although lines get blurred). There's also a difference in how it's played - something with space for people to join in vs. something loud and overpowering to lose yourself in (sticking to contemporary and rock-related).

Trouble is, when you widen it out to music-by-Christians a lot of it still applies. I suspect the big Christian market in the USA holds some responsibility as everything blands out, lyricallyy if not musically. There's a marked difference between bands who happen to be Christians, and "Christian bands".

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Is this unique to music with a Christian message? Why would that be of concern to someone who is faithfree? If Christian music of the genre you're thinking of were more appealing to you, would you still be in the church?

What is the musical landscape like for other faiths? What is the musical landscape like for those of us who are faithfree?

Is the OP restricted to a certain genre of Christian music? We're singing the Bach St. John's Passion in chorus this spring; dancing isn't what I want to do in response to it, but I find it a great and profound piece of music that inspires me in many ways.

I'm also fond of the Healey Willan service music that I grew up with, and fond of a great many hymns (especially those Lenten hymns in minor keys that most everyone else thinks are dreary and depressing).

I also love some of the used-to-be-modern Christian songs that people love to lambaste as both cliche and 50 years out of date.

Some of the music I love in all genres (whether Christian or not) makes me physically want to dance, some doesn't. Some of the music I love is unremittingly insane sounding to many ears (Stockhausen's Klaverstucke IX is my current favorite example of this).

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

It is not that I expect everyone to share my taste in music - I don't expect Underworld in church. It is about music that engages me. It is about music that engages everyone. I am unconvinced that most worship music does that, although some would say it does, because it is expected.

And I doubt whether many 1D fans enjoy them because they actually find their music engaging. It is more because they want to fuck the members of the band.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
... And yet, the style of a lot of the modern songs doesn't lend itself to congregational singing.
...

This is my biggest problem with most modern worship songs.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

On the engagement for congregational music, I think there are a number of factors that complicate things:

- expectation: One would (I hope) generally go to church expecting to engage in the music in a different way to when one goes to a concert, club or other non-church event.

- context (order of service): this will depend on the kind of church you go to, but I find it hard to really get into a piece of music or to "let go" (assuming letting go is a good thing) if I know it's going to be one song immediately stopped and replaced by something else. So if you go to a hymn-sandwich place, you've got an immediate problem for engagement.

- context (cultural): at my place people just don't expect to bop in church. Even people who would bop at other events. Even when they're told "If you want to boogie on down, feel free". There's a sort of consensus that "That sort of thing doesn't happen here"; not that it's wrong, or bad, just that it would be ... weird. Yet one can break through that at special occasion services, only to see it slammed back in place the next Sunday.

- delivery (style): I know that at our shack any extended musical interlude is viewed with uncomfortable suspicion. Folk aren't used to praying, dancing, contemplating, 'resting', whatever - they just stand around like lemons until they can sing again. Not because the music is shit (although sometimes it is) but because of the cultural context. As a result ... we very rarely leave non-singing bits for people to strut their stuff in

- delivery (quality): generally most churches I'm familiar with rely on volunteer amateurs. Some of whom could actually be pros (or are, in other contexts); some of whom most certainly are not. This can have a big impact on how well the music can engage, just because of technical ability, rehearsal time, thought about arrangements etc.

- delivery (purpose): as mentioned above, there is a huge difference in how you can deliver music for congregational participation vs a performance where the audience might do a bit of a sing-along. And there's a difference in the kind of engagement that's going on, I think, although it's hard to put your finger on it

- delivery (instrumentation): not all songs are suited to whatever instruments/players may be available. Not all leaders are sensitive to this. We have some very gifted pianists/organists, but put them in a band context for a modern up-tempo song and they're a disaster, quite frankly. Put them in a small ensemble with a couple of orchestral instruments for more reflective 'classics' and they're great. Ditto some of the guitarists, in reverse. And we have some people who are best lost in the mix regardless (as well as some who can cover all the bases). Getting the perfect team with the perfect leader and the perfect songs is not going to be a weekly thing, and that's before you start thinking about the differing expectations, needs, and preferred styles across the congregation

- response (congregational): sometimes congregations are just shit. I've been in groups that have worked their socks off in rehearsal, delivered some objectively very high quality and well put together music, and the congregation just haven't been there for whatever reason. That creates a positive feedback loop that escalates the crapness - the band disengage, the congregation mope even more etc. etc.

- combinations of all the above, which can lead to a crap song being rendered incredibly moving, or your favourite and most cherished piece of worship music causing you physical pain depending on how the cards are dealt.

Fundamentally though, I don't think people should necessaily expect to engage with worship music in the same way that they do with 'normal' music.

The former is something that you are supposed to be an active participant in. Without your contribution it is not whole, it is not complete. The musician(s) should be leaving space for each other person present to bring their bit. It should be good enough that you can do that, so there's a base level of engagement, but ultimately the musicians are serving you in giving you something to add to and be part of in glorifying God (and hopefully encouraging one another).

The latter is something that you consume. It is complete without you. It is wrapped up, packaged and presented for you to listen to and accept or reject. If, out of all the myriad commercial music out there, you happen upon a song or a band that punch your buttons, then you can thoroughly enjoy bopping, or belting it out along to the CD or at a gig, but other than economically you as an individual don't matter to the piece at all.

None of the above is meant to be critical of your position; just chucking some ideas and views out there around the issue(s).

I share a huge frustration with the quality of some stuff that people rave about. Made worse by the way the CCM scene appears to lag about 5-10 years behind popular culture, then hit on a formula and churn it out ad nauseum with endless Coldplay-lite and U2-lite clones (and now Munford & Sons-lite etc.). And in a lot of ways, I'd rather be in a rock band than in worship bands - much more satisfying musically and to the ego, to see people engaging with what you're doing for your/their sakes, than to be seeking to create something where you effectively vanish and are just a conduit to something numinous. But for all those reasons and more, I think it's a category error to directly compare worship music with commercial performance music (despite the CCM industry doing its best to blur the boundaries).

Not sure if any of that makes sense; it's a bit stream of consciousness, and should probably be treated in a more academic way with a draft, some re-reads and re-writes to make a coherent argument. But this is a forum, not a course [Smile]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is not that I expect everyone to share my taste in music - I don't expect Underworld in church. It is about music that engages me. It is about music that engages everyone.

One way of getting people engaged by music in church might be for them to create it themselves, as part of the process of communal worship. This is what Frank Viola, a proponent of 'organic church' suggests. It's not a process I've ever witnessed, but Brother Yun in 'The Heavenly Man' talks about how songs just bubbled up out of him during his time in the Chinese house churches of the 80s and 90s. And I think the Caribbean Pentecostal churches went through a creative phase of producing their own choruses during worship.

This process wouldn't be acceptable in formal mainstream congregations, of course, but since most British evangelical churches have emerged from or been influenced by the fairly recent charismatic movement it surely wouldn't be impossible for them to let the Spirit work among them in this way.

The problem, I suppose, is that since such songs emerge from how people actually feel in a given moment of praise they would be very unpredictable, and occasionally rather raw and embarrassing. And today's charismatics aren't as keen on unpredictability in worship as they used to be, so I understand. And maybe this sort of thing only works in environments of spiritual intensity. Once the environment becomes more settled and routinised people get self-conscious, worried about what others will think, or concerned about sticking to a timetable.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is not that I expect everyone to share my taste in music - I don't expect Underworld in church. It is about music that engages me. It is about music that engages everyone.

But what "engages" is different for different people and down to taste again. You just swapped one subjective category for another.

quote:
I am unconvinced that most worship music does that, although some would say it does, because it is expected.

Possibly true in some cases but I'm unconvinced they're all lying.

quote:
And I doubt whether many 1D fans enjoy them because they actually find their music engaging. It is more because they want to fuck the members of the band.

That's incredibly condescending. Even 1D fans are people and therefore able to decide for themselves whether and why they like something.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Let me address the point about people liking what they expect, because that is at the core of the issue. No, I don't think most people are lying about what they enjoy - lying implies a deliberate deception. It is far more subtle than that, and it is something that I see in a lot of areas of church - especially evangelical churches, but something similar is seen in other styles too.

In so many areas, there is a clear message from the church that x is what GLE people do. So you do that, follow that style, particularly when you are young or new to church. Over time, this idea is re-emphasised, reinforced, deviations seen as wrong. This is not necessarily in words, but in actions - what is the worship style at the big conferences? That must be the "right" thing. If you don't like it, then you are missing out, because all these other people like it.

And then within your church, everyone seems to be OK with the music (or the worship style, the preaching, the colour), so it is easiest not to complain. Until you come to associate that form and style with "worship", with spiritual music.

So it is not lying, it is conditioning. The problem is, when you reject the confirming to the church style, sometimes that is something that seems so wrong.

And yes, I get passionate and angry about it, (and make some OTT comments) because for me, it was one of the long-term breaking points. I could no longer worship in church, because what I worship to is not found in church. And I know that there are many others who feel the same.

And yes, I was being mean to 1D fans. It is not only them, not all of them, but some fandom is the people, not the music - it always has been, and always will be.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

But what exactly do you want? What does being 'engaged' by the music in church really mean to you?

If you don't want worship songs, traditional hymns, gospel music, Charles Wesley, Moody and Sanky, Bach and Tallis, or Jacquie and Dave with their own untutored warblings, etc. then what other genre are you looking for?

Or perhaps your problem isn't really to do with the style/quality of music at all but with the poor emotional and spiritual environment in churches? As someone with church issues myself (though not from an evangelical background) I'd really like to understand what you're getting at.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

The band I just resigned from plays Christian elevator music. Everything the same vague mild sound, because that's what the band leader equates with "worship music." One sound - different tunes but how they are done is all the same. Band leader says variety is performance, it's not worship.

I understanding at last why so many Christian musical friends over the years left the churches, switched to writing secular music and do their music in bars and open mics. Churches (not all, I've visited some musically amazing ones) seem to mostly seek and embrace bland.

But that's the structure isn't it? Sit and do/say nothing except what you are told, listen to a speech without any reaction, be bland. Anything else - laughing, crying, inventing a harmony "disturbs the worship of others."

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
In so many areas, there is a clear message from the church that x is what GLE people do. So you do that, follow that style, particularly when you are young or new to church. Over time, this idea is re-emphasised, reinforced, deviations seen as wrong. This is not necessarily in words, but in actions - what is the worship style at the big conferences? That must be the "right" thing. If you don't like it, then you are missing out, because all these other people like it.

And then within your church, everyone seems to be OK with the music (or the worship style, the preaching, the colour), so it is easiest not to complain. Until you come to associate that form and style with "worship", with spiritual music.

So it is not lying, it is conditioning. The problem is, when you reject the confirming to the church style, sometimes that is something that seems so wrong.

See none of that I have any problem with. If your OP had said "Why are so many churches mono-cultures when it comes to musical styles?" I would probably have agreed and not felt the need to comment. It's the labelling of the style you don't enjoy/doesn't engage you as "crap" that pushes my buttons.

quote:
And yes, I get passionate and angry about it, (and make some OTT comments) because for me, it was one of the long-term breaking points. I could no longer worship in church, because what I worship to is not found in church. And I know that there are many others who feel the same.

Again I don't take issue with that per se. There are many people for whom the prevailing worship styles don't "work". But the answer is not to label everything crap because that's just going to create an equal and opposite mono-culture where you're afraid to admit you actually like Matt Redman or whatever.

See this is something I'm passionate about too actually. Because the type of worship that I'm comfortable with and relaxed in, and which is therefore capable of allowing me to engage with God most easily, is often the type that gets the most disdain on these boards. And I wouldn't make any grand claims that this is anything more than a preference informed by background and personality etc. (though in my younger days I might have).

But the fact is that for most people there is at least some choice. Church worship styles differ and for all but the most rural you usually have options.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

What I want at core is an acknowledgement that the music I worship to may not be what it found in church usually.

It is a frustration that there seems to be an idea that the stuff we do in church is the "spiritual" stuff, rather than, as so often, a ridiculous compromise so as not to offend anyone we care about. It is the idea that songs by Graham Kendrick are "acceptable", whereas songs by Underworld (for example - just as we started there) are not.

The truth is, I worship to Underworld more than Kendrick. I worship to Radiohead more than Vicky Beeching*. Bon Jovi, GnR, Floyd are all engaging for me. I would rather listen to Opeth and The War on Drugs than Hillsong.

The thing is, it extends - I would rather learn my spirituality by discussion, not sermon. I would rather pray in some way that is not the traditional intercessions. I would rather Be a Christian in a way that is different to the Going to Church way. It is just that music is a passion of mine, and one area that focusses this dissatisfaction.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
What I want at core is an acknowledgement that the music I worship to may not be what it found in church usually.

It is a frustration that there seems to be an idea that the stuff we do in church is the "spiritual" stuff, rather than, as so often, a ridiculous compromise so as not to offend anyone we care about. It is the idea that songs by Graham Kendrick are "acceptable", whereas songs by Underworld (for example - just as we started there) are not.

The truth is, I worship to Underworld more than Kendrick. I worship to Radiohead more than Vicky Beeching*. Bon Jovi, GnR, Floyd are all engaging for me. I would rather listen to Opeth and The War on Drugs than Hillsong.

I'd say that how you worship at home or when out and about is your business alone - no one is stopping you from worshipping with the aid of secular music there. But perhaps evangelicals do cast judgement on what music church members are listening to?

In the Methodist tradition, it's probably easier to admit to enjoying a different kind of music at home than at church; IME Methodist clergy are quite open about meditating with classical music at home, or looking for spirituality in rock music. My ex-minister talked about how much he loved Bob Marley's theology, and I bought him a book about The Wailers as leaving present. No one seriously finds this a problem - but at church, traditional hymns are still the norm in the average Methodist Sunday service.

I agree with Paul that the lack of variety in church music can get tedious. It's either one thing or the other - all worship music or all traditional hymns, or hymns plus parish choir with their 'anthem'. This monotony gets on my nerves, but most churches do seem to fall into a rut.

FWIW, there are resources to help group leaders use popular music (and film, novels, etc.) to encourage theological reflection. I'd love to be part of a Christian group that was interested in this. The first challenge would be in creating such group (because I don't know of any that currently exist). I'm not sure that there's much of a demand for this sort of thing, unfortunately.

[ 18. January 2015, 17:55: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

Snags - I agree with your analysis.

I do want to belt songs out in church (well, not all the time, perhaps) but I feel my voice is what I'm bringing to worship. Including adding harmony from the pews. The importance to me of bringing my voice is one reason I really don't like instrumental solos, I feel excluded when I want to join in.

I don't expect to bop in church. I agree that I should be engaging with church music in a different way to the way I'd engage with non-church music. I don't expect, or want to, "let go" in church.

But plenty of others (the majority?) do seem to be more emotionally engaged with the music than me. Which is what leads me to think it's me, not them. In my own case I don't think there is quite that expectation that SC mentions. Everyone knows I really don't like the music, including the worship leader I play piano with. I don't think people think I'm unspiritual for not liking it, but they do see me as a bit odd, perhaps. A bit grumpy. But then I think I'm broadly seen as odd anyway.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

I thought of something else relating to the "this is how it's done at the big worship conferences and therefore this must be right" thing. There's a lot going on there.

In my own little group, our leader doesn't read music, and nor does a new chap who came to join us. They learn by watching youtube clips of the song in question, by contrast I would learn from a quick listen to the youtube and then using the sheet music. In the past we've changed songs from what's done "in concert" (and even on the sheet music, which is often transcribed from a live set, I presume), to make things more congregation friendly, eg Leaving out bridges and the odd random bar which creeps in, esp where it creeps in in some verses and not in others. Some changes have been more radical - eg changing a time signature or rhythm.

I don't see these changes as a Bad Thing as I think it makes the result easier to sing as a congregation member. But the new chap did - it was not good that what we were playing was not like it was on youtube.

I think this is part of a broader discussion about whether a particular song should only be done in this way, or within a limited degree of variation of this way. Blame X factor if you like - endless covers of songs, with limited invention of new things.

So there's the what should the actual song sound like - a homage to Hillsong (or whatever) or St Blog's own version. There's also the issue of how people learn, and people who don't read music will be learning from listening & trying to reproduce what they hear.

I like folk music so I'm used to 87 different interpretations of the same song, but others will see things differently.

There might then be a tangent about what "doing it right" is - if we're closer to the Big Worship Conference rendition, are we somehow more spiritual? [I don't think so, obviously, but I'm a cynical git.]

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

SC, I can relate to all of that, and I don't see it as problematic. It's just a statement that your personal engagement with God is not going to be well-served by normative expressions of church. And frankly, if I'm in the congregation not the band I'm right there with you most of the time.

Jemima the 9th, amen, hallelujah, preach it sister.

Posted by jrw (# 18045) on :

I wonder whether some of the problem at least is due to believers who think that 'God gives them songs'. I'm sure that that happens sometimes but most of the time songs have to be written.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
In my own little group, our leader doesn't read music, and nor does a new chap who came to join us. They learn by watching youtube clips of the song in question... In the past we've changed songs from what's done "in concert" ... to make things more congregation friendly, eg Leaving out bridges and the odd random bar which creeps in, esp where it creeps in in some verses and not in others.

Yes this is a problem. People who learn by rote from hearing are thrown off balance when expected to sing NOT as they heard it. Meanwhile, the people who didn't learn it by listening to the radio are thrown off by the interlude (am I supposed to sing or not, maybe it's a performance and I wasn't supposed to sing at all?) and by the occasional extra beats.

Perhaps the solution is to not sing radio songs unless as played on the radio they are good congregational songs.

The band leaders I've known are unaware there's such a thing as a difference between performance songs and a congregational songs. So a better rule might be if it's on the radio we don't sing it in church. (One could explain "it's to give people variety from what they hear all week").

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
I wonder whether some of the problem at least is due to believers who think that 'God gives them songs'. I'm sure that that happens sometimes but most of the time songs have to be written.

I like the Martyn Joseph quote: "I got sick and tired of people standing up on platforms saying 'God gave me this song', and then when you hear it you're like God wanted to get rid of it!"

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

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
In my own little group, our leader doesn't read music

I'd be inclined to tell him to go away and come back when he's learnt the fundamental tools of his trade. Yes, I know, Paul McCartney etc., but Def Leppard's drummer only has one arm, and you don't find drummers saying "having only one arm's no problem; the second one isn't important."

Reading music is not hard to learn to do. My sons are 10 and 8. Learning to read music was the easiest thing both of them found about learning instruments. It's meant to be simple and intuitive, and to a large extent it is. I'm fed up with excuses on this one.

/rant

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

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:

quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
I wonder whether some of the problem at least is due to believers who think that 'God gives them songs'. I'm sure that that happens sometimes but most of the time songs have to be written.
I like the Martyn Joseph quote: "I got sick and tired of people standing up on platforms saying 'God gave me this song', and then when you hear it you're like God wanted to get rid of it!"

Funny you should mention S. Martyn Abertawe. I was thinking here that, contra Paul., the issue is not genre. It's that in many cases the Christian musicians in the CCM scene aren't particularly good exemplars of the genre. One or two exceptions - Stryper were a good example of hair extension glam rock, and it's significant that they also had secular success. Similarly the aforementioned S. Martyn, Liberal Backslider, who's a damned good protest acoustic folk/rock singer in the tradition of Bob Dylan or Billy Bragg, although he himself tends to cite Bruce Springsteen, which connection I personally have never quite got. And again, I know strong atheists who are Martyn Joseph fans.

So perhaps the take-home message here is to look for secular success. If you can only sell to Christians, it probably means you're a bit shite.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Up to a point, I think CCM suffers from the phenomenon that “95% of everything is crap”. In churches that sing traditional hymns, they’ve had longer to filter out the 95% of crap so they’ve mostly retained the ones that are worth singing.

The other issue that I see is the increasingly commercialisation. I think this dovetails with the Purgatory thread about “Christian” books, where “Christian” is a marketing label. I very rarely listen to CCM these days because so much of it is produced by a massive industry, making a highly homogenised product. Same sound, same pretty white 20-somethings singing it. I think a lot of the artists probably have perfectly sincere intentions when they set out on a musical career, but they quickly end up getting swallowed up by an industry whose main aim is to make money.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Funny you should mention S. Martyn Abertawe. I was thinking here that, contra Paul., the issue is not genre. It's that in many cases the Christian musicians in the CCM scene aren't particularly good exemplars of the genre.

When did I say the problem was genre? I said the problem was taste. And there are plenty of things which could be said to be a poor example of their genre which are nonetheless popular and well-liked. In fact it's almost a cliche when a hard-core fan will tell you that the band or artist that popularized a genre is not the "real thing" and point you instead to some obscure artist you've never heard of.

So again the decision that "band X is a poor example of genre Y" is a subjective opinion.

And if that's true for music listened to purely for entertainment then it's even more true for worship music which has other agendas to fulfill such as whether it's easy to sing, whether the lyrics make theological sense etc.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Funny you should mention S. Martyn Abertawe. I was thinking here that, contra Paul., the issue is not genre. It's that in many cases the Christian musicians in the CCM scene aren't particularly good exemplars of the genre.
When did I say the problem was genre? I said the problem was taste. And there are plenty of things which could be said to be a poor example of their genre which are nonetheless popular and well-liked. In fact it's almost a cliche when a hard-core fan will tell you that the band or artist that popularized a genre is not the "real thing" and point you instead to some obscure artist you've never heard of.

Indeed there are. And there will also be loads of crappy examples who are neither popular with the cognoscenti nor with the wider general public. Unless they're Christian and can therefore use that as their selling point, they will generally be completely unheard of.

quote:
So again the decision that "band X is a poor example of genre Y" is a subjective opinion.

I'd disagree. I've heard lots of bands at places like Greenbelt who are really bad examples of their genre. Metal bands that would neither get a half page in Kerrang! nor a single in the top 40 in a million years. That's what I mean by poor examples. Bands and artists who have little going for them except that they're Christians and someone somewhere in a crummy little Christian bookshop somewhere will buy it for little other reason.

quote:
And if that's true for music listened to purely for entertainment then it's even more true for worship music which has other agendas to fulfill such as whether it's easy to sing, whether the lyrics make theological sense etc.

Which two particular agendas are notoriously failed by much CCM; we even have an uber-thread dedicated to that.

Unrelated - some of it's production values. I bought, many years ago, a Garth Hewitt (remember him, Ship Old People?) album on the basis of a good live gig. The album was absolutely feckin' awful - over produced, twee sounding, yeurgh...

[ 19. January 2015, 12:07: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Snags:

Jemima the 9th, amen, hallelujah, preach it sister.

No one's ever said that to me before, you've quite made my day!

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
The band leaders I've known are unaware there's such a thing as a difference between performance songs and a congregational songs. So a better rule might be if it's on the radio we don't sing it in church. (One could explain "it's to give people variety from what they hear all week").

I've never braved Christian radio, but I agree about the difference between performance and congregational songs. I would never go to a performance type worship type event. Never. Not if you paid me a million quid and I got to have a pint with Benedict Cumberbatch afterwards. Well, possibly in the last scenario. Otherwise not.

Karl LB - yes I see what you mean about learning music. My older kids (11 & 9) have picked it up pretty easily whilst learning guitar and flute. As you say, not the hardest part of learning an instrument. Perhaps there's a view that if you're a singer rather than playing an instrument you don't need to learn? I don't think it's laziness on our worship leader's part - she's a wonderful woman, devoted to what she does. I think if she thought it was important to learn to read music, she would. It comes back to the point about "how to make good worship music" - are we trying to reproduce what we've heard, or doing something different? And the latter of those will be made much easier with a little bit of musical background.

The "go away and come back when you've learned how to do it" wouldn't happen, because I think a) It's seen as snobbery and b) We really need people to lead worship. Gift horses etc.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
So again the decision that "band X is a poor example of genre Y" is a subjective opinion.
I'd disagree. I've heard lots of bands at places like Greenbelt who are really bad examples of their genre. Metal bands that would neither get a half page in Kerrang! nor a single in the top 40 in a million years. That's what I mean by poor examples.

Which is still a matter of taste. Kerrang! and the people who buy top 40 singles are not more objective arbiters of taste than the music leaders, choir directors or whoever else is in charge of the churches' music that Schroedinger's cat so deplores.

And he has every right to deplore it, because he has every right to his taste. But so do the people who happy sing along to "Jesus is lord (x12)".

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
In my own little group, our leader doesn't read music
I'd be inclined to tell him to go away and come back when he's learnt the fundamental tools of his trade.

Our band's leader scorns reading, says it's a crutch and holds people back, true musicians don't read, they learn by listening.

I'm fine with some people read and some learn by ear. I've never before run into open scorn for reading music.

Band leader is appointed by clergy person (who admits to knowing nothing about music and just grabbed the first guitar player she found). The group has no say about who is leader. Clergy won't fire the current amateur leader or discuss music group dynamics because they have enough to do without getting into music issues,if the band leader is happy enough to keep coming back, that's all that matters.

Sad that churches have become dependent of the weekly presence of someone with rare (?) skills.

Not rare, just rare to find people with real music skills willing to show up every Sunday morning plus extra Christmas and Easter) to play/lead a limited range of music for free, unless they truly love being in church every week. No wonder people who respond to decent music don't find themselves responding to the music in church!

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

New to me thought crossed my mind.

Clergy are "essential" every week but we don't (usually) grab just anyone willing to show up and do it, we (the system) put them through some sort of discernment which (I hope) has as much to do with personality fitness as spiritual health.

Just because a church cannot function without clergy is not seen as reason to grab the first willing person and stick them in that position.

If music leaders have important effect on the gathering, shouldn't music leaders be chosen via some discernment process? Some discernment about personality and leadership and whether their music goals fit with those of the church?

I may be seeing a band leader whose goal is to slowly reduce church member participation in the band so his hired (not of this church or denomination) combo have a permanent paid gig. OTOH the clergy might be fine with that so long as they get weekly music and don't have to think about it.

I'm struck by the importance to the show of two leaders - clergy and music; one we try to make sure is professional in training and attitude, the other we think any amateur immature person will do! Why the difference if music matters?

If we had serious discernment about music leaders, would church music be less crap?

I have visited a church where the band was as good or better than any pro group I've heard. They would be able to make your most hated crappy Christian song sound good. (They were paid by the church a reasonable fee to make being that good and giving church events priority worth the effort. I saw no personality grandstanding, although I can't know what goes on behind scenes.)

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

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
In my own little group, our leader doesn't read music
I'd be inclined to tell him to go away and come back when he's learnt the fundamental tools of his trade.
Our band's leader scorns reading, says it's a crutch and holds people back, true musicians don't read, they learn by listening.

What an utter crock. Written music is the way musicians communicate musical ideas to one another. It's the way they record musical ideas. If I don't know a tune, the dots will teach me it. Play him the Amen chorus from Handel's Messiah then ask him to sing the Tenor part from listening alone.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

You used to catch a lot of scorn/snootiness about reading dots rather than playing purely by ear in (rock) guitar circles, as well as a general disdain for anyone that understood theory in any shape or form. Generally it would come from the arrogant and ill-informed who equated formal learning/knowledge with being 'constrained', conforming, or in some other way failing to be a righteous rebel and stick it to The Man.

In church circles I guess it's because the dots will "block the Spirit" or some such bolleaux.

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

Does remind me of the old joke - "how do you make a lead guitarist turn his amp down?"

"Hand him some sheet music."

Frustrates me no end that the best you can hope for if you look guitar music up on the 'net is Tab. Tab's useful to tell you how to play something - on the guitar a given note can be played on different strings using different frets for different effects (or just because it's easier with the notes before and after and the scale in use) but the dots explicitly tell you about rhythm, melody, harmony and whatnot.

That's what comes of taking up guitar from a classical background, I suppose.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
In my own little group, our leader doesn't read music
I'd be inclined to tell him to go away and come back when he's learnt the fundamental tools of his trade.
Our band's leader scorns reading, says it's a crutch and holds people back, true musicians don't read, they learn by listening.

Oh my goodness me, that's hilarious. What does he think people in an orchestra are doing? Or are they not proper musicians?

I wouldn't call myself a musician. My highest musical achievement is grade 5 piano (I failed grade 7). I've been playing in church for years though. I can, from the sheet music, make a reasonable job of yer average worship song and hymn. I do make occasional mistakes - probably half a dozen bum notes over the course of a service. Hopefully not too many. I play well enough that the congregation know when to come in and when to stop, and where the tune goes.

I can (and have had to) work out how things go from youtube and chords. That's it. I hope it's good enough...

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

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Our band's leader scorns reading, says it's a crutch and holds people back, true musicians don't read, they learn by listening.

While it's true that some of the greatest entertainers of all time (Kate Smith, Irving Berlin) couldn't read a note, I somehow doubt that your band's leader is in their league.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Perhaps it's that attitude that had whole congregations, for many years, sing nothing harder than Kum ba Ya.

There is certainly space for learning things by heart (Taize is a good example) but think how limiting it would be if everything sung in church was that basic!

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Perhaps (going back to the original question), there is a lack of market forces. Nobody gets up and says, "This Christian book, or this Christian song, sucks." The 'Christian' allows the writer or composer to get away with a lesser product. And, because if you can get away with less you do, this leads to a crappification of the entire genre.

This is not as it was in the past. In the past there was the expectation that the work done for the Church or for God had to be the very best you could get. Hence Michaelangelo to paint the ceilings, and Bach to do the cantatas.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Many classical musicians need the music to play with (not the virtuoso ones, of course, but many of the rank and file). Many contemporary musicians cannot read music (or not well, at least).

One of the reasons behind this difference is that classical musicians mostly have to play pieces to the music*, whereas most contemporary musicians will often improvise as a basic part of their normal playing.

And yet, IME, improvising in worship music is not generally looked on well. So why would a worship leader disparage music reading? Personally, I would have liked to improvise (Many others might not have liked it though).

* This is not as rigid as some people might suggest - there is a lot of listening to others, adjusting ones own playing.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps it's that attitude that had whole congregations, for many years, sing nothing harder than Kum ba Ya.

There is certainly space for learning things by heart (Taize is a good example) but think how limiting it would be if everything sung in church was that basic!

Oh, yes, I forgot, he also opposed word sheets or word projections. If people are looking at a piece of paper they aren't worshiping, he said. I guess that explains why it was all CCM music, he assumed everyone in the congregation listens to CCM radio and if not they should, so they'll have already memorized the words. No need for word sheets. (He's gone now.)

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In the past there was the expectation that the work done for the Church or for God had to be the very best you could get. Hence Michaelangelo to paint the ceilings, and Bach to do the cantatas.

Paid for by rich patrons. If those two had to sell to the public at a price the public could afford, what would they have churned out?

Churches are no longer patrons of the arts. They hire the cheapest musical labor they can find (some refuse to pay anything, not even cost of purchasing music, people are supposed to donate music).

The really good musicians I know would be glad to play in a church but they do their art elsewhere so they can afford a house and food for the family.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Perhaps (going back to the original question), there is a lack of market forces. Nobody gets up and says, "This Christian book, or this Christian song, sucks." The 'Christian' allows the writer or composer to get away with a lesser product. And, because if you can get away with less you do, this leads to a crappification of the entire genre.

But people are freely able not to buy Christian books or CDs if they don't like what's on offer. They can even write their own books or produce their own music if they think they could do better....

However, maybe the reality is that church communities have a way of nurturing passivity, or else attracting an overabundance of passive people rather than a healthy range of personality types.

quote:

This is not as it was in the past. In the past there was the expectation that the work done for the Church or for God had to be the very best you could get. Hence Michaelangelo to paint the ceilings, and Bach to do the cantatas.

I'm not sure that this was always the case. Most RC churches are not the Sistine Chapel. And I can't believe that they would all have had access to the kinds of trained musicians or chorists who would have been able to perform Bach at an impressive level.

There are probably some very well-attended and wealthy evangelical churches that can afford to hire professional musicians to make their music for them. But such churches then come under fire for being too obsessed with money, too materialistic!

I'm uneasy about institutional churches (historical or contemporary)and their acquisition of wealth, but the fact is that stunningly beautiful church art and architecture and the making of amazing church music cost money, and the money has to come from somewhere.

[ 19. January 2015, 22:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...maybe the reality is that church communities have a way of nurturing passivity

Interesting observation, which would perpetuate the chronic lack of volunteers which reinforces the importance of clergy and expectation they do it all. If someone wants to be active, creative, non-passive in a church, what's the avenue for that?

But also, our culture turns people passive. It's not just flopping in front of the TV, it's being unable to measure up to what the see there and thus unwilling to look foolish by doing anything in public. Like sing, play, offer art, read the lesson, start a group.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Excuse me, but good music doesn't necessarily cost the earth.

To take my own choir as an example: full choir is 7 children - they get paid a nominal amount; the remaining 24 adults are all volunteers who give their time and talent ad gloriam Dei.

I get paid but nothing like the going rate for the amount of work; but I do it because (a) its what I'm trained to do, and (b) I find it fulfilling (for the most part).

The most important thing is that the PP who appointed me and the current chap are both committed to having the highest standard of music possible: that is not to say inaccessible but that whatever is played and/or sung is done to the best possible standard.

It also means that music chosen for liturgies is selected not only because it is appropriate but because it is of a certain standard: unfortunately that can't be said for some churches. There seems to be a belief among some clergy that reducing music and lyrics to the point of inanity makes a worship song 'easy' - it doesn't, it just makes it annoying and exhibits a lack of care on the part of the person choosing it weekin, week out.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Belting stuff out is really important to me. What I lack in finesse when it comes to singing, I make up for in enthusiasm. This does sometimes happen in church, but (to repeat an oft made sentiment hereabouts) it's the hymns that do it. Singing "death of death, and hell's destruction" with two of my mates was one of the few moments in church lately where I've thought "actually, there might be something in this. Perhaps I'll stick it out for a bit".

Ever tried Sacred Harp singing?

I was here Saturday and Sunday. Way better than church for me these days.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Excuse me, but good music doesn't necessarily cost the earth.

To take my own choir as an example: full choir is 7 children - they get paid a nominal amount; the remaining 24 adults are all volunteers who give their time and talent ad gloriam Dei.

... I find it fulfilling (for the most part).

I have seen excellent musicians contribute their music free week after week. But many musicians don't find church music fulfilling, perhaps because of the selections.

But the payment issue - I didn't think we were talking about choir members who show up twice a week for an hour or so.

When a church demands one person provide every week an opening instrumental, a closing instrumental, accompany the choir, direct the choir, choose the music, put up with the many complaints about the music selections, attend rehearsals, attend every Sunday or find a substitute, triple all that Christmas and Easter seasons, it's an awful lot to expect free!

Add a requirement to attend staff meetings during the week day, you now need either a church music fanatic who is also independently wealthy or you need to pay enough to compensate for not allowing him or her to have a day job. I've seen music pro friends quit when a church insisted on all that for $1000 a month, less than the cost of monthly rent on a house. How is the director suppose to buy groceries?

Bach worked full time, you can't expect that free.

I've never been in a church choir of more than a dozen on a good day, 5 on a bad day. Just a few mediocre singers requires easy music, which bores the good singers, so they don't join.

Two hour rehearsals going over simple phrases again and again and again are painful for a good musician to sit through, but those who need the long rehearsals object if a good musician is allowed to pick up the music in the quick run-thru before church, the slow learners feel like someone else is getting to sing without paying their dues. It's really hard to get the musicians to join a mediocre choir, so it stays mediocre.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Well, Belle Ringer, you've described what I do almost exactly except that you've underestimated the amount of time I spend on choir training (particularly the juniors) and grossly over-estimated the amount of money I get. Hells teeth - if I got anywhere near $1,000 a month I'd be thrilled!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...maybe the reality is that church communities have a way of nurturing passivity
Interesting observation, which would perpetuate the chronic lack of volunteers which reinforces the importance of clergy and expectation they do it all. If someone wants to be active, creative, non-passive in a church, what's the avenue for that?

I've come across a number of studies that refer to the problem of clergy dominance and congregational (and parish) passivity. I think it must be the almost inevitable outcome of the clergy/laity divide.

But since most people want to preserve the clergy/laity system, the most obvious thing that an 'active, creative, non-passive' person, IME, is to enter the ministry and find a church that's willing to develop in new ways, or can be persuaded. Things won't be successful if the minister and congregation aren't of one mind.

The person who doesn't want to become a minister needs to join a church that's already embarking on this process and offer his/her services. But I don't think it makes sense to stick with a church that nurtures a passive culture and then complain about passivity. I've been there and done that and it just leads to a lot of frustration.

I don't know if these exist in your country, but Fresh Expressions of church within established denominations are popular now and they need active, creative people to work with them. You have to be in the right place at the right time to be involved with these. If you're a member of a struggling or complacent congregation you're probably in the wrong place, unfortunately. To those who have, more will be given. That seems to be the reality.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Excuse me, but good music doesn't necessarily cost the earth.

To take my own choir as an example: full choir is 7 children - they get paid a nominal amount; the remaining 24 adults are all volunteers who give their time and talent ad gloriam Dei.

I get paid but nothing like the going rate for the amount of work.

I think it's all relative, rather like 'affordable housing'. What one church can manage, many others cannot.

From my perspective it would be interesting to know if there are any stats about British churches and the quality and cost of their music provision. How many CofE churches are like yours - able to attract good numbers of willing volunteers of high quality and/or to find the resources to pay good musicians even quite a low fee? How many British Nonconformist churches pay their organists? (Only a small minority, I imagine.) What about charismatic evangelicals - are they especially reluctant to pay musicians, even if they could afford to? Overall, what sort of income do churches normally achieve before they consider paying musical staff? These are the kinds of questions I'd love to see addressed.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

I think Belle Ringer's post illustrates a big difference between expectations, possibly cross-Pond, or possibly just denominational/tradition-based.

This year I gave out 60 little "thank you" gifts to volunteers at our place (weekly attendance ~300-ish across morning and evening excluding sprogs). That was only to people involved in music, service leading, PA, projection, or regular preaching. Not one of those people is paid for their contribution*, and most of them involve preparation/rehearsal/setting up/breaking down etc. in addition to the actual time in the services.

Of course, because it's a big team, it means that people don't have to do it week in week out, although there are inevitably frequent flyers and occasional fillers-in across the pool. But even so, the expectation is that this stuff is done from within the fellowship as part of one's service to the fellowship (and God, natch).

I do know someone who was taken on in a paid role elsewhere to be the church's Musical Director, but that's the exception rather than the rule in my experience. (And of course, as MD, they were then trying to develop, motivate and encourage a bunch of volunteers from a congregation who had the attitude "Well, you're getting paid to do all this, why should we?", despite the salary hardly constituting a living wage**).

*Actually, not quite true. One of them is the Children's and Youth Pastor, and he's salaried. And the 'guest' preachers I think are nominally entitled to a pulpit fee but I don't think anyone who's internal ever actually takes it.

**This person is fortunate in not having to worry about having a living wage, so happily not an issue, but also limiting on who you're going to get if you are looking for a pro

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Well, Belle Ringer, you've described what I do almost exactly except that you've underestimated the amount of time I spend on choir training (particularly the juniors) and grossly over-estimated the amount of money I get. Hells teeth - if I got anywhere near $1,000 a month I'd be thrilled!

Fantastic that you found something that fulfills you!

Fantastic that you can afford to do it for little or no pay!

If most churches had someone who found directing church music fulfilling and who could afford to spend that much time for token or no pay, this thread wouldn't exist. [Smile]

Most musicians need to earn a living. Even if they find church music fulfilling, they need to earn enough to live on. Bach was paid, that's why he could use his time writing music instead of digging ditches.

If a church wants good music they need to be willing to pay for it unless someone like you shows up willing to do it free. Most churches don't have you, insist music should be free, and then wonder why the quality is poor.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

As to this thread, it's probably significant to point out not all full time church musicians are Bach, and his music was considered crap by some. Churches in any age tend to detest creativity.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Belle Ringer

The implication of some of your posts above is that the churches you're thinking of could well afford to pay the going rate for good musicians, but simply don't want to. Is this the case?

What sort of churches are they? Independent evangelical? Episcopalian? Lutheran? IOW, is this a 'problem' for one type of church rather than another? If the evangelicals don't like paying for top musicians, what else do they spend their money on?

Regarding your claim that most churches 'detest creativity', we should remember that many of the less prestigious Protestant denominations grew up precisely because ordinary people felt out of place amid the High Church grandeur of the RCC and the Anglicans, etc. Beauty was never their focus, except during certain historical interludes when some of their churches grew quite rich and wanted to appear cultured.

Maybe churchgoers should simply accept that if they want a top aesthetic experience they'll have to be prepared to seek out those churches that make this a high priority, rather than sticking with the denominations they know. They should vote with their feet.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Belle Ringer

The implication of some of your posts above is that the churches you're thinking of could well afford to pay the going rate for good musicians, but simply don't want to. Is this the case?

The church I'm most involved with (mainline) pays their clergy over $80,000, sends the youth on ski trips, and runs a surplus in the budget. They fired the (best I've ever sung with in church) music director on the grounds a church shouldn't pay for music, asked him to continue unpaid and when he said no (he's not from this denomination) they told the choir to continue with no director. (They quit; a member who hates directing finally grit his teeth and did it for a couple years, is that healthy? His lack of delight in it shows.)

Meanwhile a volunteer organist played a dozen years, got sick, a vestry member told me no they won't add an organist slot to the budget, the fact that he had played free proves churches don't need to pay organists. Meanwhile, they sent the resigning head of altar guild on a two week tour in UK (from USA) as a thank you for her five years of work. They now struggle with mediocre pianists trying to learn organ, and complain about the lack of quality.

Yes they can afford and yes they refuse. They are against paying for music as a principle.

Many churches can't pay for music (some can't even pay a clergy person). The solution is - well, one I used to sing in decided to buy CDs for the choir to sing along with so they could have a big church choir sound. (I quit, not worth the hour round trip and gas.)

Some think church music has to be high quality classical, and moan about not getting it free when they can't afford it.

But others do fine by using the music that fits well the talents of who they have. Musical members get to do their music, non-musical get to enjoy petty good music in whatever genre the musicians can handle well - country & western, black gospel, folk. Lots of amateur musicians can handle these well.

The problem arises when a church demands a different kind of music than members can gladly offer. Or expects full time work without adequate pay from someone who has to be the primary breadwinner for a family.

The concept of churches as patrons of the arts has flipped, churches now expect artists to be patrons of churches.

(Charities, too, want musicians to play all evening free. Basically I suspect the culture regards music as free, turn on the radio, so why would anyone pay for it?)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Most musicians need to earn a living. Even if they find church music fulfilling, they need to earn enough to live on.

Yes indeed. On the other hand, most churches neither want nor need a full-time music director. What is required is Sunday mornings, plus an evening a week for choir practice, extras at Christmas and Easter, plus the non-contact time (choosing music etc.). That can't be more than 10 hours a week. If you have multiple choirs, maybe it's a little more.

Then they need an organist (assuming we're talking traditional choir'n'organ) for roughly the same weekly commitment. If the organist and choir director are the same person, there's some overlap (but not complete - a music director/organist still presumably needs time to practice the organ).

There's no way an average church has enough work for a musician to make up a full-time job. A cathedral, possibly, but your typical church is nowhere close.

The church that was expecting it's (very part-time) music director to show up for weekday staff meetings is either completely barking mad, or used to musicians whose other job is as a peripatetic music teacher or similar, with a flexible schedule so that they could arrange to show up midweek.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[qb] There's no way an average church has enough work for a musician to make up a full-time job. A cathedral, possibly, but your typical church is nowhere close.

The church that was expecting it's (very part-time) music director to show up for weekday staff meetings is either completely barking mad,...

Having seen them run through a series of high quality musicians each of whom lasts about six months, I think barking mad is a reasonable guess. [Smile]

It's a small church that wants a "full" music program: multiple services, soloists, choir, band, handbells, children's, youth. That's 6 different rehearsals per week. ASA around 100.

Not full time, but not just one evening and an hour on Sunday.

I think as with many things church, people get an abstract idea of what a church should look and sound like and then fuss when their limited resources can't match that image, whether a large choir in a small congregation or pipe organ sound from an inexpensive keyboard or a classical solo from a congregation lacking (willing) classical singers.

The key is find out what you do well, and do that, even if it's penny whistle and rotating cantors instead of organ and choir.

A lot of Christian music as written is crap but done by decent musicians using the style and instruments they are good at, even Kum By Ya can be effective, yes?

(Of course, amateur musicians don't necessarily know what they are or aren't good at.)

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Belting stuff out is really important to me. What I lack in finesse when it comes to singing, I make up for in enthusiasm. This does sometimes happen in church, but (to repeat an oft made sentiment hereabouts) it's the hymns that do it. Singing "death of death, and hell's destruction" with two of my mates was one of the few moments in church lately where I've thought "actually, there might be something in this. Perhaps I'll stick it out for a bit".
Ever tried Sacred Harp singing?

I was here Saturday and Sunday. Way better than church for me these days.

That is wonderful, I think the nearest I've got to that sort of singing was at a workshop at a folk festivel. Thank you ever so much, no I'd never heard of it - I'm going to look and see if there's SH singing near me.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Belle Ringer:

Ah, your post above clarifies things.

I agree that Western (or even global) culture now regards music as something that should be free. The pop star Will I Am makes the point that musicians have to find some way of generating an income that doesn't just involve them playing their instruments. But he also implies that it's always been about more than that.

It could be said that by being a patron of the arts the RCC wasn't a disinterested admirer whose goal was merely aesthetic perfection in the service of God; the Church was using music and art as a way of displaying its wealth and power. Plus, it employed creative people who would then be less likely to bite the hand that fed them (and I think there was increasing criticism of the Church from the late Middle Ages onwards)....

IOW, there's almost always an ulterior motive. Clearly, the American mainline churches haven't worked out what current benefit they can gain from paying to have top quality musical performers. And the performers haven't considered what kid of 'value added' impact they can bring to the table.

[ 21. January 2015, 13:25: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
The key is find out what you do well, and do that, even if it's penny whistle and rotating cantors.

Are they like a Christian version of Whirling Dervishes? [Devil]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And the schedule: all Sundays, all religious holidays -- means that it's difficult to make up the shortfall by holding two jobs. I suppose you could be the music teacher at a school, which would give you employment weekdays, or with a theater or orchestra, which would mean you would work all evenings.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Ever tried Sacred Harp singing?

I was here Saturday and Sunday. Way better than church for me these days.

I don't know anything about Sacred Harp Singing, but lots of people join secular choirs and enjoy singing religious and non-religious music without having to share a particular faith.

Religious music can now be written, performed and enjoyed by people of all religious beliefs and none. Maybe the future of religious music in the West is in the hands of the non-believers, since the believers will either be too few, too poor, too reluctant or too badly trained to be able to produce it and pay for it themselves.

[ 21. January 2015, 13:47: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Ever tried Sacred Harp singing?

I was here Saturday and Sunday. Way better than church for me these days.
I don't know anything about Sacred Harp Singing, but lots of people join secular choirs and enjoy singing religious and non-religious music without having to share a particular faith.

Religious music can now be written, performed and enjoyed by people of all religious beliefs and none. Maybe the future of religious music in the West is in the hands of the non-believers, since the believers will either be too few, too poor, too reluctant or too badly trained to be able to produce it and pay for it themselves.

Many Sacred Harp singers are non-believers or adhere to other faiths.

Jemima the 9th: The UK Sacred Harp website is here, and it looks like the listing of house group and all-day singings is pretty extensive. Info on the annual convention in London is here; a convention is two days of singing.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Many Sacred Harp singers are non-believers or adhere to other faiths.

That was my point.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

I don't mean exactly the same thing you said, but I should have elaborated.

Religious music can of course be written, performed and enjoyed by people who have no religious beliefs as well as people who espouse beliefs other than those expressed in the music. But most of the people who perform religious music -- I'd guess in fact the vast majority of them -- are either performing in a religious context they belong to or are professionals. Sacred Harp is different, and, I think, unique. No one ever gets paid to go to a Sacred Harp singing, and the vast majority of the people who sing Sacred Harp do not subscribe to the music's theology. The only thing that I know of that's comparable are Messiah sing-alongs, but I'd bet the rent there aren't a lot of Jewish people at them, whereas you do meet quite a few Jewish people singing Sacred Harp.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

Jemima the 9th: The UK Sacred Harp website is here, and it looks like the listing of house group and all-day singings is pretty extensive. Info on the annual convention in London is here; a convention is two days of singing.

Thanks very much for those. I shall investigate further - I would love to give it a try.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe the future of religious music in the West is in the hands of the non-believers, since the believers will either be too few, too poor, too reluctant or too badly trained to be able to produce it and pay for it themselves. [/QB]

N'ah it's in the hands of Hillsong who are none of the things in the above list. [Devil]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I agree that Western (or even global) culture now regards music as something that should be free. The pop star [URL=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHNiigP0ck0] Will I Am makes the point that musicians have to find some way of generating an income that doesn't just involve them playing their instruments.

...

IOW, there's almost always an ulterior motive.

Interesting interview. Explains artists putting their music on YouTube free; why not if those who would contract with you to sell don't share the income. Old record industry tricks reportedly left artists with million record sales in debt to the company instead of earning anything.

As to ulterior motives, thy name is human.

The church band I dropped out of last week was supposed to split into two bands that would alternate, no one person or band would be essential, a relaxed schedule for each band member. When the original leader left (church politics), the clergy hastily hired a band leader - who killed the thought of a second band not led by him. He regularly forgets to include some (specific) names on emails, requires some singers stand ten feet from any vocal mic (i.e. be unheard). The more the numbers dwindle the more essential he is and thus the more secure his paycheck. Musicians love secure gigs.

We all do ulterior motives.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Perhaps (going back to the original question), there is a lack of market forces. Nobody gets up and says, "This Christian book, or this Christian song, sucks." The 'Christian' allows the writer or composer to get away with a lesser product. And, because if you can get away with less you do, this leads to a crappification of the entire genre.

This is not as it was in the past. In the past there was the expectation that the work done for the Church or for God had to be the very best you could get. Hence Michaelangelo to paint the ceilings, and Bach to do the cantatas.

Pretty much agree with your first paragraph. It's amazing what people can get away with in terms of lack of artistic merit so long as they give it a veneer of 'spiritual' merit, doing it for the Lord and so on.

It's a difficult area, because on one level I think God really does care more about the sincerity of our worship than some kind of secular assessment of whether the music is any good. But if you're a person with any kind of musical sensibilities, getting through a service where people who don't really know what they're doing manage to wreck songs that weren't very good in the first place can be a bit of a struggle, as can listening to Christian radio.

I would say, though, that this is not entirely a new problem, in the sense that it doesn't just afflict the modern 'pop' music side of Christian music. Hymn books are littered with really uninspired tunes that plonk along in 8686 metre and hit the dominant and tonic exactly where you'd expect... and these rub shoulders with beautiful melodies by some of the finest composers who ever lived.

Nor is all modern Christian music terrible. There are things in my CD collection that I'm not at all embarrassed by, and indeed there are some albums that I would consider just as good as anything 'secular' that I have. And some artists straddle the line between CCM and secular in fascinating ways (such as the band Thrice which I am rather fond of at the moment - Biblical references absolutely everywhere in the lyrics if you know what you're looking for),

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The hopeful thing is that the mills of God do grind, however slowly. The truly crappy songs and material go away, unloved and unsung. The good does stay on. So very gradually over time there is mostly gold, with a thin layer of modern junk that will eventually and mercifully be forgotten.

Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But most of the people who perform religious music -- I'd guess in fact the vast majority of them -- are either performing in a religious context they belong to or are professionals.

Major pond difference here, perhaps. ISTM in the UK a very large proportion of religious music is now performed by secular, amateur choirs. The average local choral society will almost invariably be performing mainly religious works (and probably both rehearses and performs in church premises), but its membership reflects the general population, with a minority of active churchgoers.

Sometimes discovering what the words actually mean (if the piece is in Latin or other unknown tongue) can be quite a shock [Roll Eyes]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The hopeful thing is that the mills of God do grind, however slowly. The truly crappy songs and material go away, unloved and unsung. The good does stay on. So very gradually over time there is mostly gold, with a thin layer of modern junk that will eventually and mercifully be forgotten.

Well, I've already given you my opinion about material in the hymn book which is far from modern.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I'm afraid it is a centuries-long process.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

However, what I've read on the Ship is that worship songs fall out of fashion fairly quickly, so presumably the charismatic or Pentecostal churchgoer only has to wait a few years for the songs they dislike to be replaced. If you dislike a whole genre rather than just a few songs, though, maybe you have to wait a bit longer for the 'problem' to pass.

For myself, having spent most of my life as a British Methodist, I've had to grow accustomed a staple diet of traditional hymns, but there have been fashions for other things. Socially engaged modern hymns were around for a while, although some people found the lyrics ugly. Then there was Taizé. Neither seems to be hugely popular now.

I have fond memories of school assemblies in which we kids sang about black and white getting along together. Probably not very PC these days, but racial, religious and class segregation is an even bigger problem in our communities now, so perhaps we need more worship songs on this theme. And I miss 'Kum Ba Ya' - how many other hymns call upon the Lord to be present in the banal ups and downs of other people's lives? You can even personalise this song by changing the verb! But we don't live in a hippyish, cross-legged, lovely-dovey age any more.

It's quite hard, actually, to say what sort of 'Christian music', in terms of lyrics, ethos and sound, would really serve the desires and concerns of the present. And now that we're all so used to the highest quality writing, performances and production in the secular music scene what churches can offer on a weekly basis will hardly ever match up.

[ 24. January 2015, 00:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, what I've read on the Ship is that worship songs fall out of fashion fairly quickly, so presumably the charismatic or Pentecostal churchgoer only has to wait a few years for the songs they dislike to be replaced.

Heh. You'd think wouldn't you? I left the church for a decade and a half and when I came back, they were mostly singing new songs, some old hymns and about once every 2 or 3 weeks, an "oldie" from the 90s.

None that I disliked particularly though.

Actually what tripped me up more was to turn up one week to see that Amazing Grace was being sung and so I go into belt-it-out mode only to find it was based on some new arrangement from a modern worship album and my timing was all discombobulated. I've since heard the track itself and quite like the version but it was a bit of a shock at first.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Música evangelica that's being played in Brazil is very bad. I only need to hear one or two notes to perceive: "oh crap, it's evangelical".

I don't think this has necessarily to do with the skills of the musicians or even the composers. Most of them are quite good at their trade. I think it's more deliberate that. They go for sequences of chords that try to invoke some pumped-up emotion, and that can be really off-putting.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, what I've read on the Ship is that worship songs fall out of fashion fairly quickly, so presumably the charismatic or Pentecostal churchgoer only has to wait a few years for the songs they dislike to be replaced. If you dislike a whole genre rather than just a few songs, though, maybe you have to wait a bit longer for the 'problem' to pass.

For myself, having spent most of my life as a British Methodist,

You only have to look through any hymn book which either gives the copyright date for modern songs or the birth and death years of the lyricist (and composer in music editions) to see that most of the songs that were contemporary to the compilation are unused.

As a Methodist you should know that we only use a small proportion of the hymns Charles Wesley wrote, and many of them are no longer to the tunes Wesley used.

The majority of songs from any era in any style have passed away. A very few are passed on to future generations.

'Twas ever so. There is nothing new under the sun.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, what I've read on the Ship is that worship songs fall out of fashion fairly quickly, so presumably the charismatic or Pentecostal churchgoer only has to wait a few years for the songs they dislike to be replaced.
Heh. You'd think wouldn't you? I left the church for a decade and a half and when I came back, they were mostly singing new songs, some old hymns and about once every 2 or 3 weeks, an "oldie" from the 90s.

Having sometimes joined a Christian sing-along group at nursing homes, I see one thing today's oldsters have that we are losing is commonly known songs.

All ages of oldsters know many of the same Christian songs, because no matter which years of their lives they were in church, if today they are 100 or 70, they were singing a lot of the same songs in their churches. (And all the songs were rhythmically easy).

But today when I walk into a friend's church once every 4 years, I don't know any of the songs, they've all changed. That suggests in our nursing homes people half a decade apart in age won't know the same songs, and most songs will be only half remembered because they were sung only a short time.

How will we do singalongs in our nursing home? How will alzheimers patients join in if no song was deeply embedded through decades of repeat? The seach for always the newest is robbing us of shared culture across the years.

Actually, most of the songs the group leads at the nursing homes are crap to me, because they are all from the fundi evangelical side, which approach to Christianity I went thru for a while and then rejected.

So maybe a lot of "what is crap" is just where you sit at the big Christian table.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, what I've read on the Ship is that worship songs fall out of fashion fairly quickly, so presumably the charismatic or Pentecostal churchgoer only has to wait a few years for the songs they dislike to be replaced. If you dislike a whole genre rather than just a few songs, though, maybe you have to wait a bit longer for the 'problem' to pass.

For myself, having spent most of my life as a British Methodist,
You only have to look through any hymn book which either gives the copyright date for modern songs or the birth and death years of the lyricist (and composer in music editions) to see that most of the songs that were contemporary to the compilation are unused.

As a Methodist you should know that we only use a small proportion of the hymns Charles Wesley wrote, and many of them are no longer to the tunes Wesley used.

The majority of songs from any era in any style have passed away. A very few are passed on to future generations.

'Twas ever so. There is nothing new under the sun.

I didn't say anything to contradict this. (Indeed, I went on to talk about the more modern songs that have come in and gone out of fashion in Methodist churches.) My point was simply that it appears to happen more quickly in the charismatic evangelical context.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Having sometimes joined a Christian sing-along group at nursing homes, I see one thing today's oldsters have that we are losing is commonly known songs.

All ages of oldsters know many of the same Christian songs, because no matter which years of their lives they were in church, if today they are 100 or 70, they were singing a lot of the same songs in their churches. (And all the songs were rhythmically easy).

But today when I walk into a friend's church once every 4 years, I don't know any of the songs, they've all changed. That suggests in our nursing homes people half a decade apart in age won't know the same songs, and most songs will be only half remembered because they were sung only a short time.

How will we do singalongs in our nursing home?

I think it'll be difficult to have churchy sing-alongs in many British residential homes in 20-30 years time because so few of the residents will know any Christian songs. Some evangelicals will perhaps set up their own residential homes and there might be some common ground in that context.

But do you think secular sing-alongs will go any better? The musical tastes of today's youth are so fragmented it's hard to imagine that in 50-70 years' time a large group of elderly people in a room are all going to want to sing along to One Direction or nod their heads to 'All About That Bass'.

[ 24. January 2015, 16:27: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

FWIW, I helped kickstarting Donny Todd's "Kingdom Come" album, which has just been announced as finished. Here's a sneak peek.

I think it's pretty decent Christian music...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think it'll be difficult to have churchy sing-alongs in many British residential homes in 20-30 years time because so few of the residents will know any Christian songs. Some evangelicals will perhaps set up their own residential homes and there might be some common ground in that context.

Most Evangelical/Charismatic songs come and go so quickly that they don't have time to get established in a musician's repertoire, let alone the congregation's memory.

quote:

But do you think secular sing-alongs will go any better? The musical tastes of today's youth are so fragmented it's hard to imagine that in 50-70 years' time a large group of elderly people in a room are all going to want to sing along to One Direction or nod their heads to 'All About That Bass'.

If they stick to sixties music, they will be OK. Most kids know a fair bit of that.

Anyway, two reasons for "Crap Christian Music" are that i) too much which is written for performance is used for worship and ii) modern composers can't do endings. FFS, you can't 'fade-out' in a worship meeting, so the song wanders off down some blind alley with the worship leader "Oh, Oh, Oh"-ing which makes me cringe.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... you can't 'fade-out' in a worship meeting, so the song wanders off down some blind alley with the worship leader "Oh, Oh, Oh"-ing which makes me cringe.

Oh, you had to remind me - I *hate* fade outs of congregational songs!

I'm also not thrilled with random instrumental interludes (is it or is it not a congregational song?) or fancy endings that depart from the previous tune. Congregation have to drop out when the melody and rhythm change at the end.

What do y'all think of significant slowing down at the end of a congregational song? I equate it with show, not sing-along, but it is common enough to probably not be too disruptive of congregation members singing.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most Evangelical/Charismatic songs come and go so quickly that they don't have time to get established in a musician's repertoire, let alone the congregation's memory.

Does this mean that evangelicals can't even have singalongs in church??

My experience of evangelicalism is mostly via black Pentecostal churches, where it's normal for individuals to break spontaneously into song and then to be joined by the rest. But this presumably isn't possible in the charismatic evangelical congregations if hardly anyone really knows the songs, certainly not off by heart. Pentecostal musicians have to be able to play by ear because congregations often initiate the singing themselves, rather than waiting for the musicians or leaders to decide what they're going to sing. This sounds very different from the charismatic evangelical experience.

Perhaps having a rapid turnover of songs is a way for charismatic leaders to keep control. If songs are introduced and discarded quickly then congregations won't have the time to develop favourites, won't be able to demand that particular songs be sung more often during worship, and won't slip into Pentecostal habits....

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
FWIW, I helped kickstarting Donny Todd's "Kingdom Come" album, which has just been announced as finished. Here's a sneak peek.

I think it's pretty decent Christian music...

So do I. But as we are talking about congregational singing it does seem to be pitched too high - especially for untrained voices.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

Belle, slowing down is a hugely traditional thing in my experience. The organ does it at the end of every rousing hymn to make a statement, bands do it too. In fact, at my shack I sometimes want to keep tempo to go straight into another song and the congregation force a rit. Very annoying!

But generally I think it's a good thing if used well, not on every flipping song.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Not all Christian music is 'crap'.

This morning, as normally, we had some beautiful music:

Eccard's 'When to the temple Mary went'

Standford's 'Beati chorum'

A mass setting by James MacMillan.

One of the hymns was slightly crap - 'When candles are lighted on Candlemass Day' to the Lourdes tune.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Slowing down is a hugely traditional thing in my experience. The organ does it at the end of every rousing hymn to make a statement, bands do it too. In fact, at my shack I sometimes want to keep tempo to go straight into another song and the congregation force a rit. Very annoying!

But generally I think it's a good thing if used well, not on every flipping song.

It's quite interesting to hear (say) Bach fugues (e.g. the "Cum Sancto Spirito" from the B Minor Mass) performed without any rallentando at the end. It certainly makes one sit up!

It's also good in church to sing German chorales at the proper speed - i.e. not lugubriously slow but with a certain amount of pace and liveliness. For instance, try doing "Rinkart" ("Christ is the world's true light") with a waltz-like swing. Once one has got used to it, it sounds "right" and makes one realise how many of these tunes were originally taken from popular music.

[ 01. February 2015, 14:23: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Candlemas, Candlemas!

Byrd Senex puerum portabat
Sumsion Nunc dimittis in F

Hail to the Lord who comes to his temple gate (Old 120th)

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

I'd like to offer a slightly more serious answer to the OP. Modern Christian culture differs fundamentally in its approach to music—though some of those roots go at least as far back as the Reformation—from the earliest neumes to WWII. Namely, the de-professionalisation of music. The results of that practice are apparent to most any literate musician. However, there are other reasons too. Fundamental to modern (post-war) evangelical movements is the co-opting of advertising methods and materials and other consumer-oriented facets of modern capitalist culture. The visual and audio materials and methods, for example, that are employed by the advertising industries have only one fundamental goal: to convince you to buy whatever it is they are selling. This is worth mentioning because they are not secretive (on the whole) about this—that's why they are in business at all. Evangelical industries (let's just take Alpha as a local UK example) have borrowed the exact same approaches in almost all aspects of their product—and music is central to this. Why? For the exact same reason that advertisers place so much stock in it: it is extremely effective. Like advertising jingles and songs, it must be instantly consumable (in both the auditory and capitalist senses of the term) and achieve one goal above all others: sell the product. There was a recent study (I'll dig it out and see if I can find an open-source version online) that aimed to answer the question 'is pop music getting simpler and more repetitive?' The answer was, of course, 'yes'. However, if you subject your average Christian 'worship song' to the same criteria it is on the far end of the spectrum of songs of extremely repetitious natures. Big deal, right? Lots of pop songs are repetitious, why pick on Christian pop music? It's way more repetitious and—here is my point—has as a core aim to manipulate its audience. I don't think that most Christian songwriters set out to do that, but they are aping songwriting models that do and grafting even more repetition of the product on top of those models. You don't need to do much research in how repetition about a product works in the marketplace. If it didn't work, no one would advertise at all; but it does work and works wonderfully well. Christian worship music is crap because they have crap models used by crap composers in a completely uncritical environment.

That's my tuppence anyway.

K.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
You don't need to do much research in how repetition about a product works in the marketplace. If it didn't work, no one would advertise at all; but it does work and works wonderfully well.

It obviously doesn't work for the discerning people who post on the Ship of Fools! If only everyone else were just like us!
[Biased]

Worship songs may use some fairly brazen techniques, but all music must influence the listener in some way. Evangelists of the past were reluctant to leave all the best tunes to the Devil, because they knew just how powerful music could be. It's just a question of degree IMO.

Even very traditional churches spend money on new hymnbooks, etc., which puts money into someone's pocket, so I don't see any way of avoiding the commercialisation of the Christian 'product' - unless we all go in for the organic model of church (and I'm sure someone will say that that too is a fad that can be exploited by Christian writers and training providers, etc). I'd be in favour of a more pared back, organic approach but it seems to be very much a minority view, even on the Ship.

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

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
You don't need to do much research in how repetition about a product works in the marketplace. If it didn't work, no one would advertise at all; but it does work and works wonderfully well.

It obviously doesn't work for the discerning people who post on the Ship of Fools! If only everyone else were just like us!

Worship songs may use some fairly brazen techniques, but all music must influence the listener in some way. Evangelists of the past were reluctant to leave all the best tunes to the Devil, because they knew just how powerful music could be. It's just a question of degree IMO.

Even very traditional churches spend money on new hymnbooks, etc., which puts money into someone's pocket, so I don't see any way of avoiding the commercialisation of the Christian 'product' - unless we all go in for the organic model of church (and I'm sure someone will say that that too is a fad that can be exploited by Christian writers and training providers, etc). I'd be in favour of a more pared back, organic approach but it seems to be very much a minority view, even on the Ship.

I'd say especially on the Ship. There are some incredibly strong voices for traditional models of church on here, and you rock their apple cart at your very great peril.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'd be in favour of a more pared back, organic approach but it seems to be very much a minority view, even on the Ship.
I'd say especially on the Ship. There are some incredibly strong voices for traditional models of church on here, and you rock their apple cart at your very great peril.

Really? I'd never noticed - and certainly not in Ecclesiantics, at any rate. [Devil]

Takes cover behind the parapet ...

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

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'd be in favour of a more pared back, organic approach but it seems to be very much a minority view, even on the Ship.
I'd say especially on the Ship. There are some incredibly strong voices for traditional models of church on here, and you rock their apple cart at your very great peril.
Really? I'd never noticed - and certainly not in Ecclesiantics, at any rate.

Takes cover behind the parapet ...

I always felt that merging MW and Small Fire was a mistake in retrospect; the Small Fire was smothered by a pile of gin-scented lace and invisible through the smoke from a thousand thuribles.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I always felt that merging MW and Small Fire was a mistake in retrospect; the Small Fire was smothered by a pile of gin-scented lace and invisible through the smoke from a thousand thuribles.

I do understand why it was done, but I do agree. While they are both about worship, one was a traditionalist approach, the other was a radical approach. Their differences were actually more than their similarities.

Tradition has a tendency to squash innovation. This is not a criticism of the traditionalist style, it is an acknowledgement that alternative views and opinions are often fragile.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I always felt that merging MW and Small Fire was a mistake in retrospect; the Small Fire was smothered by a pile of gin-scented lace and invisible through the smoke from a thousand thuribles.
I do understand why it was done, but I do agree. While they are both about worship, one was a traditionalist approach, the other was a radical approach. Their differences were actually more than their similarities.

Tradition has a tendency to squash innovation. This is not a criticism of the traditionalist style, it is an acknowledgement that alternative views and opinions are often fragile.

Speaking as one whose natural tendency is to integrate the two, I agree entirely that developments are more fragile than established practice, and much effort is required to gain them the necessary time to grow, develop and establish in an environment used to traditional forms.

My other observation is that it can take very little time for an innovation to become established, at which point it takes on the same weight as millennial tradition.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Even very traditional churches spend money on new hymnbooks, etc., which puts money into someone's pocket, so I don't see any way of avoiding the commercialisation of the Christian 'product' - unless we all go in for the organic model of church (and I'm sure someone will say that that too is a fad that can be exploited by Christian writers and training providers, etc). I'd be in favour of a more pared back, organic approach but it seems to be very much a minority view, even on the Ship.
I'd say especially on the Ship. There are some incredibly strong voices for traditional models of church on here, and you rock their apple cart at your very great peril.

I think this is because very few of the British ex-/post-evangelicals on the Ship have ever come across this sort of alternative church in a non-evangelical context. The automatic fear for them is that this sort of thing represents yet another advance on the evangelical front, whereas the most traditional elements

The Americans have their emerging/emergent, post-evangelical, alternative fellowships, but the British equivalent appears to be a rare beast. I wonder if any research has been done on this in the UK.

Anyway, going back to the topic of this thread, what sort of music do you sing at your non-evangelical, non-traditional fellowship? Does it mostly avoid being 'crap'?

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

We mostly don't.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Very few of the British ex-/post-evangelicals on the Ship have ever come across this sort of alternative church in a non-evangelical context. The automatic fear for them is that this sort of thing represents yet another advance on the evangelical front ...
The Americans have their emerging/emergent, post-evangelical, alternative fellowships, but the British equivalent appears to be a rare beast.

I agree absolutely. ISTM that most "liberal" churches in Britain (I am probably thinking more of Methodists and URC rather than Anglican here) are progressive in their theology but extremely traditional (and worthily wordy!) in their liturgy and music. They will use hymns by Fred Kaan or Brian Wren but these are far from "contemporary" in idiom.

There is surely an untapped "market", indeed a great need, for churches with this approach to the Faith, expressed in a 21st century manner. I don't know what they'd look like, and I wish I did.

[ 06. February 2015, 08:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

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

At great personal risk, ours looks like this http://www.theorderoftheblacksheep.com/

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Very few of the British ex-/post-evangelicals on the Ship have ever come across this sort of alternative church in a non-evangelical context. The automatic fear for them is that this sort of thing represents yet another advance on the evangelical front, whereas the most traditional elements

Oops, it looks as though I lost my train of thought there. Sorry!

Karl: Liberal Backslider

It seems as though not singing very much is the way that your felowship has dealt with the problem of avoiding 'crap'. Perhaps music is just too contentious among Christians, while the public at large simply has little taste for communal singing, except as a rather specialist hobby.

[ 06. February 2015, 12:45: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

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

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Very few of the British ex-/post-evangelicals on the Ship have ever come across this sort of alternative church in a non-evangelical context. The automatic fear for them is that this sort of thing represents yet another advance on the evangelical front, whereas the most traditional elements
Oops, it looks as though I lost my train of thought there. Sorry!

Karl: Liberal Backslider

It seems as though not singing very much is the way that your felowship has dealt with the problem of avoiding 'crap'. Perhaps music is just too contentious among Christians, while the public at large simply has little taste for communal singing, except as a rather specialist hobby.

The last point. It's not something people generally do. Whenever this point is mentioned everyone starts talking about football matches, but I for example have been to precisely 1 football match in my life and I didn't sing anything there.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
ISTM that most "liberal" churches in Britain (I am probably thinking more of Methodists and URC rather than Anglican here) are progressive in their theology but extremely traditional (and worthily wordy!) in their liturgy and music. They will use hymns by Fred Kaan or Brian Wren but these are far from "contemporary" in idiom.

There is surely an untapped "market", indeed a great need, for churches with this approach to the Faith, expressed in a 21st century manner. I don't know what they'd look like, and I wish I did.

I think the Baptists might be better placed to explore this than the Methodists and the URC.

Firstly, the Baptists are still close enough to their evangelical heritage to be able to benefit from its dynamism, but they also seem to be a bit more open (or more likely to be 'emerging'?) than some of the other evangelical denominations. Secondly, the Baptist movement successfully absorbed influences from the charismatic movt in the 20th c. which perhaps means that the Baptists are better equipped for and more experienced at dealing with changes in church culture than the other historical denominations.

However, unlike the more 'liberal' Methodists, I've never heard of the Baptists setting up FEs etc., though I'm sure they must have their own equivalents (house churches?) in some favoured places. The Methodists are keen on things like 'messy church'. I have no idea what the music is like in this context.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I think the problem boils down to the fact that any music in church has to be something that fits in with the demographic represented.

With a few exceptions *, in virtually every area of activity the participants are confined within certain age parameters: for example, martial arts films tend to attract viewers, mostly male, aged between c10 and 50.

By contrast, in churches you can find a spread of ages from babes-in-arms to people in their 90s (and sometimes beyond); they are also of both genders (and may include people who are transgender), and with levels of IQ right across the spectrum: in other words, for church there are no limits. Even tone-deafness is no bar to inclusion in worship music, plus people may be from wildly varying ethnic backgrounds with subsequently differing musical heritage.

I submit that trying to work out a musical style to suit that broad a constituency is impossible

* The only activities I can readily come up with are: ballroom dancing and leisure swimming - and even they require a sense of rhythm or an ability to float.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've never heard of the Baptists setting up FEs etc., though I'm sure they must have their own equivalents (house churches?) in some favoured places.

There are loads of FE's - Baptists usually refer to them as pioneer or missional communities.

Baptists are open to reflection, change and discussion but usually around our declaration of principle. That states that the bible determines our theology and thus our praxis. There aren't that many "liberal" Baptist congregations - we're more open to a charismatic influences than we are liberal ones.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Just to clarify what EM has said for non-Baptists: our Declaration of Principle (capital letters!) is not just a "nice thought" but a specific foundational statement which binds our denomination together.

And EM is right: there are loads of Baptist FE-type initiatives; and most (but not) all churches tend to be Evangelical and charismatic-lite (though not all).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Why is Muslim religious music so much better than Christian religious music?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Now there's a sweeping generalisation!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Do Muslims use music in the same way? There are plenty of musical styles with an Islamic aspect to them, Sufi music used in meditations, but my understanding is that for most Muslims the Jummah assembly involves sermons and prayers but no corporate singing. The only music involved is the call to prayer. Which can be haunting and evocative but I don't think it makes any sense to compare it with an organ hymn, Byrd's masses or with a praise band.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

LeRoc

I've heard some 'Muslim' music when out and about in the local shopping areas. It seems to involve more chanting or reciting than singing, and has a certain dreamy quality. The language used is English, with a mid-Atlantic accent. It's pleasant enough, but not strikingly good, IMHO. But I suppose Muslim music comes in a range of styles and genres, and you're probably referring to something else.

[ 14. February 2015, 11:33: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think there is a problem because music from Arabic origins is different in structure from Western music. It has developed in a very different way, and so can sound odd or difficult to our ears.

That doesn't mean it is bad, just that it is very difficult to compare alongside western music. Whatever principles you use for comparison, it will be biased toward one or the other, because it will be inspired by one or the other.

Interestingly, it does look as though there is Islamic worship music, but it is not used in their worship services. So its place is different.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've never heard of the Baptists setting up FEs etc., though I'm sure they must have their own equivalents (house churches?) in some favoured places.
There are loads of FE's - Baptists usually refer to them as pioneer or missional communities.

Ah. I suspect that the different terminology indicates a subtly different approach from CofE and Methodist FEs.

Do any of the pioneer or missional communities use different music from the worship songs that have now become normative in many established Baptist churches?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do any of the pioneer or missional communities use different music from the worship songs that have now become normative in many established Baptist churches?

In short order, yes. It's hard to categorise though - a great many Baptist churches (apart from the pioneer and missional outfits) use a wide variety of music and other resources in worship.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
....a specific foundational statement[/URL] which binds our denomination together.

True but it is designed for freedom of conscience and is not a licence for "anything goes". The declaration is often misunderstood on that very point.

You can't just believe anything when the ultimate foundation is scripture. This is why the denomination is being polarised over SSM.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0