Thread: Introducing Modern Worship... 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=030346
Posted by matthew_dixon (# 12278) on :
 
Hi all,

I'm starting a thread here to ask for advice. I know I've not been about in ages, and I also trust that Ecclesiantics is the best place to post this - feel free to move it if not.

I am currently a lay reader in an Anglican parish. For those non-Anglicans unfamiliar with what that means, I can lead a wide range of non-Eucharistic services (and frequently do on Sunday evenings) and can preach, but have no authority to perform sacramental ministry. Our parish comprises of two churches, both middle-of-the-road, and very liberal with the one I attend being somewhat higher church than the other.

There is a couple in our church who are based at my church on a Sunday morning, and also attend some of our other services in both churches. At the back end of last year, they each separately expressed a wish for us to sometimes have some "more modern hymns". He expressed it to me, she expressed it to our parish priest. My understanding of this was Matt Redman/Stuart Townend/Martin Smith. I was going to raise it in our ministry team meeting, but the vicar got there first. We were talking about what music we were having for Advent and she mentioned that in the other church, on Advent 4, they were having "The Virgin Mary Had A Baby Boy", pre-empting Christmas. She went on to say that the lady of the couple in question had "asked for more music like this". I clarified with her that what the lady had said was that she wanted more modern music. I played a bit of "10,000 Reasons" by Matt Redman, and none of the rest of our ministry team were that impressed, but they suggested, given myself and the vicar had differing opinions of what this couple meant that I should clarify. I did, and as I thought, it was me that was spot on.

In my church, we pretty much don't sing anything post-1900. In the other church, they do sometimes have modern music - but modern = "Shine Jesus Shine" and other things of that era.

So - I'm wondering how to square this circle. Personally, I do like more modern worship songs (as well as traditional hymns) and I pretty much "get my fill" of them by attending a monthly service in our local Methodist circuit.

I was debating leading a non-Eucharistic evening service in Easter time with music of this style. We easily have enough strong musicians to form a worship band (and I believe have enough that would be well up for forming a worship band for a service like this). However, whilst I believe a number of people in the parish would be up for attending such a service, they would essentially know none of the hymns (Maybe a few might have happened to come across "In Christ Alone" - but the line about "the wrath of God" doesn't sit well with our liberal theology). Additionally, some people are, rightly, concerned about whether the theology of some modern worship songs fits with our own.

So - I'm really not sure what to do. I think there might be place in our area (we are in the heart of student-ville) for a service that mixes the modern worship songs sung at more Evangelical churches with the liberal and inclusive theology preached in our own parish.

Alternatively, do I simply invite the couple in question to join me at the Methodist service I attend, and accept that our parish will never (or at least not in the foreseeable future) accept any music produced later than 1920 or 1980 (depending on which church you're at)?
 
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :
 
My take is that the only reason for using any hymns/songs in worship is that they enhance the service. In other words the music should be in line with the emotional temperature of the service, and the words in tune with the theme. (And not banal, though that is a subjective thing.) Neither modernity nor Victorianism is a good thing in itself; neither familiarity nor newness is a reason to select or not select a hymn.

But you have to introduce new hymns gradually. One minister I know, who cares for a congregation of English speakers from all over the world, has a hymn of the month, just to build up a repertoire that all the congregation can be familiar with. That might be a way of introducing new hymns to a congregation which is not familiar with them (so long as they are worth introducing, see above!). By the time they have sung a hymn every Sunday for a month, it will no longer be new. But maybe you don't get to lead a service with such continuity, so you and your vicar would have to work together on it.
 
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :
 
If you were to have a service, plan for a half hour sing-a-long with coffee, etc. if that seems right. Then have a half-hour service that includes the songs that went over the best. You could also use the music and style of Taizé or do it with music from Iona or just go with the modern worship songs. You may be wise to frame it as an exploration of that music or style of worship for a one night thing or for four or six weeks in a row.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I am very puzzled that you don't make any mention of discussing this musical question with the organist(s) in the parish - is there a particular reason why?

The point raised above about the liturgical 'temperature' of existing liturgies is spot on: yes, it is perfectly possible to introduce more contemporary music into existing liturgy but it needs to be done carefully.

It also comes down to what you mean by 'more modern music' for worship - an expression that will have widely differing interpretations. What do I mean? Well, at our place we do have more 'modern' stuff from time to time: in the past few years we've had music by James MacMillan, John Tavener, Arvo Pärt, plus the usual Rutter (not a lot), Messiaen, etc.

But I'm guessing you're referring to what is called 'worship music', as produced by people like Vineyard Music and Matt Redman.

The biggest difference between the two styles is not, as some would claim, that the more 'traditional' music is difficult, or fuddy-duddy; it is that the more traditional type refer to the great truths of our religion and our relationship with Christ, while more modern hymns/songs tend to be more focused on the emotions and a one-to-one personal relationship.

It is up to the parish priest, at the end of the day, as to which style of music he thinks most likely to 'fit' and complement the worship style at the two churches, particularly bearing in mind the musical resources at the moment and the likely musical resources in, say, 10 years time.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
We had a music morning yesterday and I was impressed that a quarter of the congregation turned up.

The aim was to get us to try some 'modern' music and get our opinions.

We have the university choir but they are only here for about half the year so everyone else needs to sing when they're not here.

We looked at some new mass settings, discussed whether we should have a psalm at the Eucharist and, if so, Anglican chant, responsible, metrical.
We also tried out some new hymns but not Kendrick or Redman - instead, John Bell, Brian Wren and the like.
 
Posted by matthew_dixon (# 12278) on :
 
I think any idea of introducing modern worship songs to our main Sunday morning service (which the guy in question doesn't see that there would be any issue with) is out of the question. The organist is a Bach expert with a love of all things late-Renaissance/Baroque - and considers some of what we already do a bit too "modern pop" really. The main morning service is classical choir and organ - and simply CANNOT start having modern worship songs in it, it would be out of place, and frankly would be a waste of a really strong choir.

Agreed also with the point that any ultimate decisions about the musical styles in our main morning services in both churches are ultimately down to our, very collaborative, parish priest - together with input from the organists at both churches and the choir director.

We already have very popular Taize services, and I believe we have once done an Iona service - but that was a good few years ago when we had someone in the congregation who was up for leading worship and had been living out on Iona. I'm not sure whether putting Taize music into an evening service as well as modern worship songs would be wise - as I personally don't think Taize works all that well when taken out of context and used as a conventional hymn/song.
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
I am based at the other church in Matthew's parish, so know the situation fairly well, and hope you don't mind if I add to the discussion rather than sending a PM.
At my church we do usually have a reasonable mix of older and newer hymns and songs, with a bias to newer ones for the monthly family service. However, as Matthew said, "newer" tends to mean 1970s-1990s at the latest. There are two main reasons for this: firstly, the vicar chooses the music, apart from the anthems at Matthew's church, and isn't familiar with newish choruses; and secondly, our hymn book was printed in 2000.
As one of the regular organists, I very occasionally change one of the hymns on the list if it's in the hymn book and obviously relevant to the theme. It's not easy if nobody knows it, however - and that applies whether it's an old hymn, an Iona song or a 1980s chorus. At the very least you need a musician playing the song clearly and knowledgeably, and someone at the front or several people in the congregation who can sing it clearly. If it's in a newer style and doesn't suit the organ, you will need even more support.
A worship band would suit the type of music you have in mind, I assume, but it won't suit the rest of what the parish sings on an average Sunday. So for the main service, you either have the disruption of getting together a number of musicians for one odd piece, or you offer the congregation a service consisting entirely of music they don't normally sing.
That considered, a separate evening event may well be the best idea. Good luck with the band.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
The more modern hymns which have passed into the classical repertoire can be found in 'Common Praise' - these are good starting points for introducing music from 1970 onwards.

I have been to churches which have carefully introduced some more meditative modern songs at set times in the service - for example during communion (these can initially be sung by a choir, to introduce familiarity) or immediately after the children have returned from Sunday School (ones that they would know and can take part in singing).

Otherwise, as l'Organist says, there are plently of modern anthems which are composed by current Cathedral organists and other living composers. Rutter seems to be a favourite of our congregation.

Where you have to be careful is that you don't let two people dictate to and alienate a whole congregation. Sometimes it is better to start a new service for people who want different worship, rather than trying to fiddle with a service format which works.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I used to attend a church which had a large congregation, a wonderful organ and a talented choir. A new minister arrived who had teenage daughters who persuaded Daddy that it would be much better from their point of view if we changed to a music group with modern worship songs. Sadly, this is what happened. The eminent organist left, and the choir was disbanded. Trouble was, half the congregation left too. It was a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. I think it is important to consult with the whole congregation before making such drastic changes which after all were only requested by two people.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
particularly bearing in mind the musical resources at the moment and the likely musical resources in, say, 10 years time.
This. At a church I am somewhat familiar with, there is a constituency within the congregation that doesn't like traditional hymns, and would like "modern" worship band stuff. The priest looks at this, and says, not unreasonably, that they should include some of that style of music in the repertoire.

The traditional choir don't want to sing that style of music, but the members of the congregation who want a worship band aren't able to provide any musicians. So their "worship band" is the organist way outside his comfort zone on piano, someone with a guitar, and one poor singer.

And it's just bad.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

The traditional choir don't want to sing that style of music, but the members of the congregation who want a worship band aren't able to provide any musicians. So their "worship band" is the organist way outside his comfort zone on piano, someone with a guitar, and one poor singer.

And it's just bad.
Strongly agree with this. What I really want in a service is whatever style of music the musicians are best capable of using in a worshipful way.

The vicar should make it clear that the worship band is welcome to take over 1 sunday a month or thereabouts, just as soon as there is a worship band, but until then the musicians should keep doing what they do best.

As a related note, people who throw half-baked suggestions at the vicar should be encouraged to get very involved in the work of thinking through all the practical difficulties.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
It's one of the Church of England's less charming heresies that it tends to see hymns and music as an interlude within the liturgy, rather than as an integral part of it. Ideally, the liturgy should display a stylistic unity, and its style should be that which is natural to the worshipping assembly.

There are few sights more alarming than a congregation of 80-year-olds interrupting BCP Holy Communion to wave their hands in the air for a couple of choruses of "Shine, Jesus, Shine".
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Well said, Adeodatus.

There is also the less than endearing CofE belief that if something is done 'sincerely' (whatever that means) it matters not how poor or downright bad the result, the 'sincerity' makes it OK. I still shudder at the memory of a violin/flute/piano/recorder combo 'sincerely' hacking their way through Sing of the Lord's goodness at quarter speed [Eek!]
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

There are few sights more alarming than a congregation of 80-year-olds interrupting BCP Holy Communion to wave their hands in the air for a couple of choruses of "Shine, Jesus, Shine".
I think I might actually pay good money to see that!

Yesterday had me shuddering. I normally attend the more traditional 11 o'clock service at our local cathedral but yesterday went to the earlier service which is geared towards "younger" people. So in addition to the Kenyan liturgy we had a "Praise and worship" group who were teaching us some new songs.....now stylistically think Hillsong meets Africa, words a bit dubious but eclipsed by the caterwauling of the two solo singers...
I am happy to report that there really is a god because just as I was silently beseeching help, there was a power cut, thus solving the problem.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
Personally, I love the Matt Redman/Stuart Townend etc. stuff (and much traditional stuff too), but I too would recommend John Bell. He, and other people from the Iona Community, have written some lovely modern hymns, e.g. 'Heaven shall not wait'. Celtic-y, ballad-y, very singable melodies and great, often challenging, lyrics.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Find out what they are asking for. Mary had a boy Child is actually in the "Modern" rather than the "Charismatic" style wise.

Sometime in the 19th century church music basically split in two. There was Revivalist and Hymnody. The Charismatic is the current version of the revivalist stream and modern is the current version of Hymnody. Both are prolific.

If it was up to me I would distinguish in the Modern stream is pretty broad with at one end influenced strongly by Christian Folk (this tends to be Roman Catholic) and at the other end the modern hymn writers (tends to be non-conformists). These meld in a variety of ways so in the middle you get John Rutter who creates a lot of worship around the Eucharistic service but style is that of hymn writers. On the other hand you get John Bell who works predominantly in the Protestant service but whose style is much closer to the Christian folk. However to pick out these nuances you need to be consistently watching it as I have.

I suspect such nuances can also be found within the Charismatic flow. I just have not been watching it as carefully. I do know that you used to be able to distinguish here "Songs of Fellowship" Charismatics from "Mission Praise" Charismatics by the different songs they sang. However, now you have to add in "Spring Harvest" which produces a new song book every year (something that American Roman Catholics do as well).

Because there is this wealth of current writers (post 1960s) you really do need to find out what they mean by modern. It could be code for having music in a particular style. It could be code for wanting modern language. It could be code for a different theological emphasis within music. It could be code for a number of songs that they personally hold as special. The last is not wrong, hymns get part of their meaning from the associations they hold for us regardless of the words. A refusal on the grounds of new hymns being unfamiliar to the congregation is also about the association hymns have to people.

Jengie
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I'd endorse what Jengie says. An excellent summary.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Laurelin
Re the description of John Bell as Celtic-y and ballad-y.

First, precisely what do you class as a 'Celtic' sound? Or do you in fact mean Gaelic, rather than Celtic, bearing in mind the differences between the two Celtic strands?

Second, while some people may appreciate folk-type music, and so perhaps welcome the inclusion of a Christian strand of such during worship, others don't like it so why should they be subjected to it at church?

In any case, in England there is another strand of traditional music, as collected by Cecil Sharp (and others), and you can find quite a lot of this used by Ralph Vaughan Williams in The English Hymnal.

I'm not familiar with all of John Bell's oeuvre but he did use some established tunes - for example the French 15th century carol Noel Nouvelet is the tune for Jesus Christ is waiting and he also uses traditional Scots tunes such as Ye banks and braes - so its more the words you're signing up to, rather than the music.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
<snip>Second, while some people may appreciate folk-type music, and so perhaps welcome the inclusion of a Christian strand of such during worship, others don't like it so why should they be subjected to it at church?<snip>
This argument can, of course, be applied to almost any musical genre, simply by replacing the words "folk-type" with the genre of your choice.
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
At a church I am somewhat familiar with, there is a constituency within the congregation that doesn't like traditional hymns, and would like "modern" worship band stuff. The priest looks at this, and says, not unreasonably, that they should include some of that style of music in the repertoire.

The traditional choir don't want to sing that style of music, but the members of the congregation who want a worship band aren't able to provide any musicians. So their "worship band" is the organist way outside his comfort zone on piano, someone with a guitar, and one poor singer.

And it's just bad.
What Leorning Cniht (great handle!) says gets at what I think are the main questions when considering a new style of worship music. Can we do it well? Do we have the resources to do it competently? and Is it true to who we are as a congregation? I've thought about the latter question when our all-white, middle class choir has sung spirituals like Were You There or Go Down Moses, for instance. Not that I'd expurgate them from our repertoire just because one or two people thought it came off as less than authentic, but a steady diet of it probably wouldn't work for our parish.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
One option is for the church to produce a supplementary hymn book. You could ask for suggestions from the congregation as to what could go into it, which isn't already in the main hymn book the church uses. It could therefore be a whole congregation response, embracing all styles - if they feel they have all had an input, the project is more likely to have success than if just one or two people produce it. The congregation will then feel that they 'own' the book, rather like when a community get together to produce a community guide or recipe book.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
We once did 'Blessed be the name of the Lord' at an evening service I led there, though not well as I didn't gather the right musical resources.

Evening services would seem the logical place to start. Bell & Maule is probably more us than Redman. Bernadette Farrell is another possibility & things like 'Let us build a house/All are welcome'. As well as 'wrath of God' Townend uses non inclusive language eg man for people. Much as I dislike Kevin Mayhew's messing with the words of old hymns, there is no excuse for modern writers using this language.

Carys
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Carys

Mankind (homo sapiens = wise/thinking man) is the correct term for human beings en masse.

Frankly I'd have thought anyone looking at the state of the Church, never mind the world, should have better things to worry about than so-called inclusive language. In any case, "inclusive" for whom? Many of us who value and treasure accuracy in language are fed up with the imposition of farcical right-on changes made for no good reason.
 
Posted by frin (# 9) on :
 
quote:
However, whilst I believe a number of people in the parish would be up for attending such a service, they would essentially know none of the hymns
My experience is that if its often on Songs of Praise then even people you think have never sung the song will know it.

The problem that leaves you and I with is that we are not the demographic who are watching Songs of Praise.

'frin
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
My experience with a bit of statistics based on one congregation over a two year period, I have evidence to suggest that another congregation is similar.

At the end of that we had sung about 200 different hymns, but at morning worship about 50% of hymns sung during any service were not on the list. So if hymns are chosen at random (they are not) then that means 400 hymns in repertoire. There is a tension between frequently repetitions of certain types of hymn (e.g. preparatory hymns are limited and thus overused) and the deliberate none repetition of hymns. Then you add the ones that enough people know in the congregation to sing but are not in the repertoire and we are probably talking in the range of 800 hymns.

In other words, congregations know a lot more hymns than most people think.

Jengie
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
Let us not get bogged down in discussions about the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of inclusive language, please. Methinks t'would generate more heat than light.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
@Jengie: I doubt if that would be true of the "new" churches where I think the repertoire would tend to be more limited.

I suspect actually that the churches you have researched (being presumably MOTR URC) have in fact got a wider repertoire than most - e.g. a good basis of traditional "church" and "chapel" music, with a sprinkling of Graham Kendrick and Iona, and then those modern hymns by Brian Wren, Fred Kaan or even Stephen Pratt which IMO are not very widely sung outside URC/Methodist circles.

It's also true that, while people may know hymns, they will not necessarily like them!

[ 03. March 2015, 13:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
... There are few sights more alarming than a congregation of 80-year-olds interrupting BCP Holy Communion to wave their hands in the air for a couple of choruses of "Shine, Jesus, Shine".
Quote file! [Killing me]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

There are few sights more alarming than a congregation of 80-year-olds interrupting BCP Holy Communion to wave their hands in the air for a couple of choruses of "Shine, Jesus, Shine".
One of my fears of growing old is that I'll always be expected to do the same old things in the same old way, or that I'll never allow myself to try anything different. Why should 80-year-olds be pigeonholed?

Ideally, everyone in the congregation will come to share the same vision - if this suggestion is indeed about a vision, and not just about personal preferences. But that will require good communication.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
First, precisely what do you class as a 'Celtic' sound? Or do you in fact mean Gaelic, rather than Celtic, bearing in mind the differences between the two Celtic strands?
I'd have thought there were more than two Celtic strands ... [Biased] Gaelic, then.

quote:
Second, while some people may appreciate folk-type music, and so perhaps welcome the inclusion of a Christian strand of such during worship, others don't like it so why should they be subjected to it at church?
I was simply giving a suggestion which I genuinely thought might be useful to the OP. He was the one asking for advice on 'modern' music which he could pass on. Not sure how my post could be interpreted as subjecting anyone to anything. [Paranoid]

quote:
In any case, in England there is another strand of traditional music, as collected by Cecil Sharp (and others), and you can find quite a lot of this used by Ralph Vaughan Williams in The English Hymnal.
Vaughn Williams is a favourite of mine (although admittedly his symphonic pieces rather than his choral/folk music).

quote:
I'm not familiar with all of John Bell's oeuvre but he did use some established tunes - for example the French 15th century carol Noel Nouvelet is the tune for Jesus Christ is waiting and he also uses traditional Scots tunes such as Ye banks and braes - so its more the words you're signing up to, rather than the music.
I love that setting for 'Jesus Christ is waiting'.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In any case, in England there is another strand of traditional music, as collected by Cecil Sharp (and others), and you can find quite a lot of this used by Ralph Vaughan Williams in The English Hymnal.
Agreed, but the music has been somewhat "tidied up" and "hymnodised" - it doesn't sound like folk music anymore.

I once wanted to sing "This is the truth sent from above" in a more rustic and robust style, my music director was appalled even though it must be more historically correct than the "church choir" approach.

(Admittedly (a) this doesn't have too much to do with the OP and (b) John Bell done something rather similar to RVW with Scottish folk tunes).
 
Posted by Cameron PM (# 18142) on :
 
We make a special effort to fit hymns that are metrically appropriate to O Waly, Waly and Ye Banks and Braes, or even Come by the Hills if the congregation can catch onto it; I don't know if that's really appropriate for Mass, however. Ag Criost and Siol is one of the regulars, but that's fairly traditional isn't it? I don't know if that's really appropriate for Mass, however.

"How Deep the Father's Love for Us" is one song that is a compromise for the lovers of traditional and contemporary music. It has a set metre, the tune is modern but as easy as "Slane"
fora choir/congregation to learn.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I suspect actually that the churches you have researched (being presumably MOTR URC) have in fact got a wider repertoire than most - e.g. a good basis of traditional "church" and "chapel" music, with a sprinkling of Graham Kendrick and Iona, and then those modern hymns by Brian Wren, Fred Kaan or even Stephen Pratt which IMO are not very widely sung outside URC/Methodist circles.
Find me a MOTR URC and you will have found something exceptionally unusual. No URC will classify itself as typical in my experience. One person who is Anglican in background and was on my support group commented about how different the two congregations were.

Let me say one was Charismatic/Pentecostal and one was traditional Presbyterian. There was one couple who had belonged to both and another who were close friends with members at the other congregation.


The breadth that comes from the fact that enough members have worshipped with other congregations, as well as the change in repertoire over the years.

Jengie
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Hosting

Thanks to y'all for steering clear of the inclusive language debate. The babies Jesus, Egeria, Cranmer and Dix, as well as the babies Daly, Ruether, Johnson and Fiorenza were all twitching and pouting in anticipated unison.

/ Hosting
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Fair enough Jengie, but I think a lot of URCs - possibly in rural areas especially - may have folk who have worshipped there "man and boy" (or its feminine equivalent) and had little experience of other churches.

That's certainly true for many folk in our Eastern Synod, at least outside places such as Cambridge.

And I do think that there is a species of "modern traditional socially-aware hymnody" which one is far more likely to encounter in the URC and Methodist churches than elsewhere.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Hosting

Thanks to y'all for steering clear of the inclusive language debate. The babies Jesus, Egeria, Cranmer and Dix, as well as the babies Daly, Ruether, Johnson and Fiorenza were all twitching and pouting in anticipated unison.

/ Hosting
Well, we're truly sorry (cue Crocodile Tears) to have disappointed them.

Or else Hell is temporarily not accepting new entrants [Devil] .

We can be Good and Civilised sometimes.

[ 04. March 2015, 17:19: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Yeah, right [Biased]
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Fair enough Jengie, but I think a lot of URCs - possibly in rural areas especially - may have folk who have worshipped there "man and boy" (or its feminine equivalent) and had little experience of other churches.

That's certainly true for many folk in our Eastern Synod, at least outside places such as Cambridge.
Yeah you get those as well. The thing is you actually quite a low exposure to a hymn in the congregation for it to be relatively easy for the congregation, say 10%. So the people who have been involved with Methodist or Pentecostal can quite easily bring quite a number of hymns with them.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And I do think that there is a species of "modern traditional socially-aware hymnody" which one is far more likely to encounter in the URC and Methodist churches than elsewhere.
Time to introduce you to Erik Routley.

Jengie
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
No need - I know of him already (my organist is a big fan of his!)
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's one of the Church of England's less charming heresies that it tends to see hymns and music as an interlude within the liturgy, rather than as an integral part of it. Ideally, the liturgy should display a stylistic unity, and its style should be that which is natural to the worshipping assembly.

There are few sights more alarming than a congregation of 80-year-olds interrupting BCP Holy Communion to wave their hands in the air for a couple of choruses of "Shine, Jesus, Shine".
I can't speak for others but I very carefully select hymns (now I have seized the role) that enhance and weave in and out of the themes explored in breaking open the word and in collects, propers, sermon and so on. Nothing clever about that - I mainly cheat with hymnary.org.

"Shine, Jesus, Shine" could occasionally be quite appropriate: we'll probably sing it at Pentecost. People may want to wave hands, sing dance whatever (though I doubt it!). All of this is simply personal choice. The critical issue is that the hymns be the twice prayed prayers they can be when woven tightly into the themes of the day.

What must never happen is that they become a token interlude sneered at by high brow choristers while they wait for the main game of polyphonic performance. That is the cycle I have had to break at my pad. It hasn't been easy.

[ 07. March 2015, 02:49: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Let me relate 2 conversations I had. I had just led a morning service at a Salvation Army corps when an old trombone player (both were old) approached me and told me that he couldn't stand anything modern. "If it's not in the song book, I don't want it."

Shipmates, FYI the present Salvation Army song book was published in 1986 and includes not one 'modern' or 'contemporary' song because the head of our music department at the time hated anything 'mission praise'. I think the most modern chorus in the chorus section at the back of the book is 'He is Lord'. There are many SA songs, a lot of Moody & Sankey, more Wesley than the Methodists have, and historic Anglican and Catholic hymns. Oh, there's a Brian Wren song in there somewhere.

Anyway, to this man who said he hated modern songs, I replied that every song in his song book was, at one time, 'a new, contemporary song.'
That is something we need to remember, those of us who like the traditional stuff. What we really mean is we like the familiar stuff.

Anyway. From that conversation, I walked to a young man who proceeded to tell me that if a song was in the sing book, he couldn't worship with it. To him, only contemporary worship was valid. He quoted 'And can it be' and specifically the line 'Thine eye diffused a quickening ray...' and sneered 'what's that all about??' Now, knowing this young man was a student at university, all I can assume is that he didn't want to use his brain in worship and that as long as he was having fun with a meaningless emotional song, that was 'worship enough' for him.

(I need at this point to tell you before I go on that for a decade The Salvation Army had its own radical worship gathering, just like Spring Harvest, called Roots.)

Anyway, then I looked at this boy, who sang in the worship group we had (as well as the brass band) and asked him what the final song of the 'alternative worship service' had been the week before, which he had sung as part of the group, and had thoroughly enjoyed himself.
His reply was "Be thou my Vision".
"But Peter, that song is 1200 years old! It's not modern or contemporary!"

"AH, but we sang it at Roots!"

I just walked off.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
...laudably resisting the temptation to beat him about the head with your euphonium and then throw him through the bass drum...
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:


...
I looked at this boy, who sang in the worship group we had (as well as the brass band) and asked him what the final song of the 'alternative worship service' had been the week before, which he had sung as part of the group, and had thoroughly enjoyed himself.
His reply was "Be thou my Vision".
"But Peter, that song is 1200 years old! It's not modern or contemporary!"

"AH, but we sang it at Roots!"

I just walked off.
Maybe the trick is to reinvent old songs by playing them in a more contemporary way. Some Christian rock bands seem to do this quite well, but I suppose it takes a good worship band to produce something appropriate for church worship.

I like this version of The Solid Rock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7oUbHBGOGs

And this version of Man of Sorrows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0h-6Q_KPPw

Churches of other cultural traditions often produce very lively versions of traditional hymns.

I think ministers should do more to encourage their congregations to come together to discuss what worship is really about. Everything a congregation does should be to promote and enhance its vision, not just to satisfy the personal tastes of a couple, or indeed all of its members.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
You might want to check out GIA publishers. They are an independent Roman Catholic publishing house. They produce liturgies and hymns more on a balanced level--which combines traditional with contemporary.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Woman at one of our local churches insists that the tempo for Father, we love you, we worship and adore you is c50 = crochet (in other words, less than half speed). You can imagine what that sort of nonsense achieves in the way of congregational participation [Eek!]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Mmm, I think this may be a matter of "what one is used to".

As far as I know, the writer Terrye Coelho didn't put a metronome mark in (none of my three books have got one included, anyway). The first version of sheet music I came across on the Internet gave c70. Your book/s may have something different.

I learned this as a student, a loooong time ago (1970s). The preferred way of singing it then was unaccompanied, slowly, very quietly and even rapturously (eyes closed, head raised, arms outstretched). But the key thing to note is that the song never came by itself, rather it was usually sung as the rather intense "climbdown" following a connected sequence of some more lively worship songs, and was usually followed itself by extempore spoken expressions of praise.

So context is everything. YMMV, but I don't think your congregant is actually being as ridiculous as you might think.

FWIW, my present organist would play it quite a bit faster (although he'd prefer not to play it at all!)

[ 06. March 2015, 08:45: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :
 
Just about anything by Marty Haugen or David Haas will be EXCELLENT ...
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Mmm, I think this may be a matter of "what one is used to".
Indeed. I just glanced at my copy of Mission Praise and it advises "quite slow" which matches with how I've experienced it in the past - often sung during the distribution at communion.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I believe in getting it over with as quickly as possible, as with spinach.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
the key thing to note is that the song never came by itself, rather it was usually sung as the rather intense "climbdown" following a connected sequence of some more lively worship songs, and was usually followed itself by extempore spoken expressions of praise. at all!)
sort of post-coital, then?
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
I wish more worship leaders knew the difference between performance and leading congregational singing. Some songs are just not good for the latter, either because of the music (melody which skips all over the place, for example, or weird timing), or the way the leader sings it.

The use of powerpoint has really weakened congregational singing, in my experience. Most people don't know the tune, and are just trying to play follow the leader, so there is more mumbling than singing. The biggest problem, of course then, is that if you have several different leaders who all sing it differently (timing or notes) you have no idea what to do, and you never have the confidence to actually sing.

So, if nothing else, make sure the same song is always sung the same way.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
It's interesting to note that this is all generational.

A couple of years ago there was a 'contemporary worship service' held at a Methodist church we were attending. There was to be a worship group and a visiting speaker and people from all very the circuit were due to attend - as they did.

What was interesting was that there was a predominance of grey/white-haired people. But they were not 'the elderly'' these people were all in their 50s and 60s. These were the 'young people' of the 1970s and 80s and guess what the bulk of the songs were: the songs and choruses of the 1970s and 1980s.

For them this was contemporary worship, but to their children, Shine Jesus Shine and Father We Love You, are as ancient as And Can It Be and Abide With Me.

Guess what a contemporary worship meeting will look like in 2045; they will be singing stuff that's popular today, and they won't like what their kids are singing, and the kids will think Darlene Dzschech and Matt Redman are out of date and irrelevant.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
This is not surprising. Major changes in aethetic do not happen very often. The last one for popular music which is what the Charismatic and Revivalist hymns happened in the 1960s. Victorian and Modern worship depend far more on the classical stream of music and really there has been no real innovation for the best part of a century.

Jengie
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Mudfrog

The worship event you mentioned was clearly not aimed at Dzschech and Redman-loving 'young' Methodists. I'm not surprised, because there can't be too many of them around. Most of them probably end up in another denomination if they really like that sort of music.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I wish (but I've given up on ever seeing) churches wanting "new music" would look to the Christian songwriters in their own church and city.

I know 4 people in my church (and I don't know any of the youth) plus half a dozen others in my little city actively writing Christian songs, each has anywhere from dozens to hundreds of songs sitting in a drawer, mostly melody with guitar (fake book) chords but also some 4 part choral. All styles - folk, rock, classical, praise & worship, etc. Whatever you want, it's being written right where you live.

Surely I know only a fraction of the local song writers. (And two of Christian songwriters I knew have switched to secular so they can find outlets by playing at bars and restaurants.)

But when I suggest "use locally written songs" I'm told "if it's not on the radio it can't be any good." The opposite is more likely true, if it's on the radio its no good for congregational singing!

Couldn't we be recognizing and encouraging the talent God has placed right in our own community? (I'm not talking about me, my songs are too wacky for worship. I'm talking about lots of other people who long to contribute their talent to God through church worship.)

These songwriters would be so excited to have one of their songs actually used in a church! Thrilled! Most would gladly give free permission to record the song for the congregation to take home, for a video of the service or of the choir/band on Youtube or church web page, for printing copies for a church songbook. Imagine not having look up "does CCLI let us do *this* and at what price?" because the songwriter has happily signed "do anything except sell it commercially."

Using some of the currently buried-in-a-drawer music might help the local composers get exposure, make contacts in the industry, or even just push them to write more and better songs, develop that driving talent God put in them.

But the only locally written songs I've ever seen or heard of are written by the band director, not even band members.

Oh well, not gonna happen, but when a friend showed me a notebook and said she has written over 200 songs, not one of them ever heard although she offered them to several churches where she has friends in the music department - I grieved the discarding by the church community of sacred talent right on their doorstep.

How about an open call - "looking for a few new songs and hymns"? Lots of dreck would come in, but also some gems worth using.

That's my dream when I hear "church wants new music" but I have to realize "new music" is usually code for "my favorite radio songs (whether or not musically or theologically appropriate for this congregation)."
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
So Belle, a practical (and very serious) question:

How are music leaders in assorted churches supposed to find out who is writing this music and what they are writing?

I've been there -- 15 years doing music in a congregation very open to all styles of music. In a city of 900,000. How was I supposed to discern who was writing this music in order to go to them and find out what they were writing and figure out whether it was what we would want to do?

John
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I suppose you could run a yearly competition, having only one winner would allow you to step tactfully around the "dreck" and ensure what you accept is half decent without hurting too many feelings.

Also gives a focus for the congregation to learn that one new song a year. Part of (or only) 'prize' being its use in a service on St Cecilia's day - or equivalent.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
That's a very good idea. And indeed the church which is the subject of the OP does have some talented composers associated with it, whose work has been used in worship- but AFAIK none of them are working in the idiom that the OP refers to.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Really good point.

If we've got people who can write stuff, unless they're really rubbish, haven't we got a duty to use their material.
quote:
I Cor 14:26 (WEB Bible)
 What is it then, brothers? When you come together, each one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has another language, has an interpretation.

 
Posted by Salicional (# 16461) on :
 
Six years ago, our church held a competition looking for an original Christian song or hymn (we didn't specify the style). Most of the entries came from within our county, but a few were from as far afield as Texas and New York City.

In one sense it was a good idea, in terms of encouraging people with poetic and musical gifts to share their work. And the winning submission was actually quite well-crafted.

On the other hand, most of the entries were...well, to say 'mediocre' would be putting it charitably. Sorting through the dreck to find the few gems was very time-consuming.

And then, of course, there were people who were upset that their 'masterpiece' wasn't chosen as the winner. One such gentleman actually wrote me a rather nasty letter afterwards (even though I was just overseeing the contest, and didn't do the actual judging myself).
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Salicional:
.... On the other hand, most of the entries were...well, to say 'mediocre' would be putting it charitably. ....
Not that different then from a lot of the stuff that is going the rounds already and that one has to submit a CCLI return on.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Really good point.

If we've got people who can write stuff, unless they're really rubbish, haven't we got a duty to use their material.
quote:
I Cor 14:26 (WEB Bible)
 What is it then, brothers? When you come together, each one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has another language, has an interpretation.
Are we supposed to be adding to the Psalms by writing new ones?

I always took that verse to mean that people were suggesting ones to use that day out of the canon already set.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Fair comment but difficult to say. The early church must have sung new songs to the Lord, since we have some of them. Also there are bits in the epistles that look as though they might be quotations from them.

I have to admit that the thought driving me was more that locally produced material couldn't be worse than some of the dross that already exists, and might be better.

I can only comment that I recently visited an unfamiliar church where I could only describe the music, which undoubtedly came from well regarded praise band sources, as 'fervent but tuneless'. It wasn't just that it was unfamiliar. It was that the melodies were too insubstantial to be able to pick them up.

This is a trend that has developed in the last five years or so, since it wasn't the first time I've encountered this style.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Enoch
quote:
If we've got people who can write stuff, unless they're really rubbish, haven't we got a duty to use their material?
Well, it sounds like a charitable idea until you get to the competition refered to by Salicional:
quote:
And then, of course, there were people who were upset that their 'masterpiece' wasn't chosen as the winner. One such gentleman actually wrote me a rather nasty letter afterwards (even though I was just overseeing the contest, and didn't do the actual judging myself).
In a previous church we were cursed with a delightful pair of musicians who were convinced they had a gift for liturgical composition: the anthem that sounded like an inferior version of The Lumberjack song sticks in the memory despite all efforts to erase it; and I can state categorically that beginning any composition with the word "'twas" is never a good idea.

There is masses of new music out there, but a lot of it isn't performed because its bad - and that is as true for church music as for secular. In past days most of the dross never saw the light of day partly because of the cost and difficulty of reproducing it, and so we've been spared some of the worst. Sadly, modern technology makes it possible for anyone to publish their outpouring, regardless of whether or not it has any merit. Going a step further and performing it does no one any favours and could well put people off religion, and religious music, for life.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
As a musical ignoramus, what I would look for in any liturgical music is how easy it is to sing. On that reckoning, most of the praise band stuff fails because it is designed for performers rather than congregations. And unlike classical mass settings and anthems, designed for 'quires and places where they sing', they are 'all about me' (the performer) rather than leading us to God.

Hymn tunes in the traditional style may sometimes be boring, even banal, but at least they are usually easy to sing.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As a musical ignoramus, what I would look for in any liturgical music is how easy it is to sing. On that reckoning, most of the praise band stuff fails because it is designed for performers rather than congregations.
Yes, I largely agree - which suggests that a different sort of dynamic is going on in the worship service. However, one mustn't forget that much of the traditional Cathedral-style music is also designed for the "professional musicians" who perform it on behalf of, and to, the congregation. Perhaps the problem comes when "congregational" and "performers'" music get muddled - after all, one wouldn't expect congregational participation in "Spem in alium" but it is essential in "Cwm Rhondda". (Anglican chants can be a very grey area where one isn't quite sure!)

quote:
And unlike classical mass settings and anthems, designed for 'quires and places where they sing', they are 'all about me' (the performer) rather than leading us to God.
I disagree. Any music can be "all about me", depending on the attitude of the musician; conversely those in the charismatic/worship song tradition would say that their music does lead them to God (and that classical music doesn't). Either type of music can, in its way, lead to an "altered state of consciousness" - the important thing is that it ticks "your own" box. FWIW, though, there are too many modern worship songs (and, dare it be said, Victorian hymns) which are far too much about our personal and subjective experiences of God, rather than focusing on objective worship.

quote:
Hymn tunes in the traditional style may sometimes be boring, even banal, but at least they are usually easy to sing.
Only if you are schooled in that musical tradition (for instance, an African who was more used to a pentatonic scale might struggle). Young people might well find modern worship music easier to sing than traditional hymns. And there are some modern "traditional" hymn-tunes which seem to be deliberately obtuse and are a devil to sing!

[ 16. March 2015, 17:50: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
after all, one wouldn't expect congregational participation in "Spem in alium"
But wouldn't it be fun to have a congregation who could?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It would be BRILLIANT - mind you, you'd need to right acoustic.

And perhaps we could segue into Byrd's "Great Service"?

Dare I say: these were "modern worship" once, and so presumably had the plainchant diehards muttering dark imprecations into their surplices ...

[ 16. March 2015, 19:13: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
the anthem that sounded like an inferior version of The Lumberjack song sticks in the memory despite all efforts to erase it; and I can state categorically that beginning any composition with the word "'twas" is never a good idea.
Whereas any composition that can include the line "suspenders and a bra" is on for a good idea - and double points for a liturgical setting.

[ 17. March 2015, 05:55: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I guess that most hymns and songs that are well known - from Watts, to Wesley, to Crosby, to Dudley-Smith - were all originally written for local situations or even just for personal use. The reason we sing them today is that they were copied, collected, borrowed by 'the church down the road'. Some popular traditional hymns were simple poems that subsequently were put to music. We sing them now because they gained in popularity due to how good/meaningful/useful they are.

In The Salvation Army we have a vast repertoir of music for brass bands and choirs. Songs are produced by the hundredweight and many of our soldiers and officers are musicians - I am a bandsman as well as an officer (minister). But oddly, there is no tradition of locally produced songs.

So highly organised are we that we have a Music Ministries Unit and all songs that people want to be considered for use in worship are sent there and if they are good enough they might be added to the repertoire of the choirs. I cannot remember the last time a new congregational song was distributed. We are getting a new song book this summer and it will have been highly editorially controlled. Musically the tunes will have been scrutinised and then rearranged by our own top musicians, and as far as words are concerned, they will all have been passed by our doctrine council and nothing will get through that does not accord with Salvation Army doctrine and theology.

On a final note (pun unintended [Biased] ); I believe the biggest problem today with the sheer volume of songs and choruses, is that they are written for profit. I wonder how many of Wesleys songs were written by him to be sold to a publisher to give him an income? How many of the revival songs of the Victorian era were sold as income for the authors? I bet very few.
Today, however, the propfessional worship leaders who sell their CDs are writing all this stuff because it's their job, their career. If they don't write songs constantly, if they don't record them and put them on a CD and sell them at conventions and big meetings, and from Christian bookshops, they don't get to pay the mortgage.

Worship music and songs therefore, are not written out of conviction, testimony, a desire for mission or simple personal experience or worship, but simply because they pay someone's salary. Quantity is therefore the necessity over quality.

Only yesterday I heard a new song I'd never heard before and literally, the 4 line verse (I never got to the refrain) was the same descending few notes of a melody line, simply repeated 4 times. I have heard that so many times in other songs. That is not a melody, it's not a tune, it's a scale.

Easy to write, easy to sell.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

FWIW, though, there are too many... Victorian hymns which are far too much about our personal and subjective experiences of God, rather than focusing on objective worship.
How very, very true. Singing about feelings that I don’t share is just camp.

Why don’t we just have the plainchant propers of the day and then there’s no disagreement?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

FWIW, though, there are too many... Victorian hymns which are far too much about our personal and subjective experiences of God, rather than focusing on objective worship.
How very, very true. Singing about feelings that I don’t share is just camp.

Why don’t we just have the plainchant propers of the day and then there’s no disagreement?
I think you might forget such songs by Bernard of Clairvaux:
quote:
Jesus, the very thought of thee
with sweetness fills my breast;
but sweeter far thy face to see,
and in thy presence rest...
Or Martin Luther:
quote:
What language shall I borrow
to thank thee dearest friend,
for this thy dying sorrow,
thy pity without end.
Oh make me thine forever
and, should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never
outlive my love to thee.
I realise these are translations, but one cannot deny that when not relying upon words from the Psalms, the hymns and songs of the church have often been very devotional and highly personal. In fact, that was the criticism of Isaac Watts' hymns - that they were too personal.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
My point was not that I am against songs and hymns of personal experience per se (although I think they need to be used with caution).

My point - now eloquently expressed by others - is that such sentiments are not confined to modern worship music.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
after all, one wouldn't expect congregational participation in "Spem in alium"
But wouldn't it be fun to have a congregation who could?
You'd need to be sure you would get 40 people there, which we can't all do [Frown]

[ 17. March 2015, 09:13: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Oh, I don't know: The Sixteen seem to have managed it. Perhaps their arithmetic isn't as good as their music ... [Devil]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's a very good idea. And indeed the church which is the subject of the OP does have some talented composers associated with it, whose work has been used in worship- but AFAIK none of them are working in the idiom that the OP refers to.
You could specify a different genre each year by style or theme so you don't get the same winner each year: anthem, modern praise song, children's action song, plainchant, hymn for easter etc
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
My point - now eloquently expressed by others - is that such sentiments are not confined to modern worship music.
I know that and I'm not too happy with them and first person hymns generally.

Luther is not a precedent likely to make me sympathetic.

I have no experience of contemporary worship songs so I have no more objection to them in principal than I do to Victorian hymns. And I'm not too keen on them unless chosen with care and imagination.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Some good trad first person hymns, broadly defined, off the top of my head:
And Can It Be
Through All the Changing Scenes of Life
Come Down O Love Divine
Just As I Am
O Thou That Camest From Above
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
My point - now eloquently expressed by others - is that such sentiments are not confined to modern worship music.
I know that and I'm not too happy with them and first person hymns generally... And I'm not too keen on them unless chosen with care and imagination.
Agreed. The danger is that - especially in a congregational context - we put words into peoples' mouths which are not true. To take one example, many people cannot think of a "happy day ... when Jesus washed (their) sins away" and they are certainly not "rejoicing every day".

It's not so bad when such hymns and songs are used devotionally as then the individual can choose appropriately.

However I suspect this is developing into a bit of a tangent: I think we have by now established without doubt that (a) many modern worship songs are excessively self-centred and (b) that many older hymns suffer from the same defect. Where differences may perhaps lie is in the facts of the older hymns having greater theological content and modern society (and spirituality) being more individualistic in general.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Before anyone else points it out to me, the Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete (a major part of the Orthodox Lenten services and technically a hymn) is in the first person.

I'm still suspicious of first person hymns, but that's because personal devotion doesn't convince me that much - liturgical or contemplative prayer does overwhelmingly at times by contrast.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It was on the tip of my tongue to mention it, of course, but I forbore (!)

A good point, and shows where and when "first person" liturgy - which, of course, has an excellent precedent in the Psalms - can be used.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It was on the tip of my tongue to mention it, of course, but I forbore (!)

A good point, and shows where and when "first person" liturgy - which, of course, has an excellent precedent in the Psalms - can be used.
Exactly. I have the same discomfort about over personal, emotional and sentimental hymns, but :-
quote:
Have mercy on me, God, according to your loving kindness: according to the multitude of your tender mercies, blot out my transgressions.
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity: cleanse me from my sin.
Ps 51:1-2
quote:
My soul longs, and even faints for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my flesh cry out for the living God.
Ps 84:2
quote:
I will lift up my eyes to the hills: whence cometh my help?
My help cometh from the LORD: who made heaven and earth.
Ps 121:1-2
There are few prayers that are more personal and emotional that the Anima Christi. "Blood of Christ, inebriate me" is definitely a bit beyond my comfort zone. Yet it is put at the beginning of St Ignatius's Exercises.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
Mudfrog said

quote:
On a final note (pun unintended [Biased] ); I believe the biggest problem today with the sheer volume of songs and choruses, is that they are written for profit. I wonder how many of Wesleys songs were written by him to be sold to a publisher to give him an income? How many of the revival songs of the Victorian era were sold as income for the authors? I bet very few.
Today, however, the propfessional worship leaders who sell their CDs are writing all this stuff because it's their job, their career. If they don't write songs constantly, if they don't record them and put them on a CD and sell them at conventions and big meetings, and from Christian bookshops, they don't get to pay the mortgage.

Worship music and songs therefore, are not written out of conviction, testimony, a desire for mission or simple personal experience or worship, but simply because they pay someone's salary. Quantity is therefore the necessity over quality.

Nail. Head. Hit.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Some good trad first person hymns, broadly defined, off the top of my head:
And Can It Be
[...]
This is a very rousing hymn, of course, but the experience it describes isn't universal for Christians.

The thing with older hymns is that people sing them as a way of reinforcing their shared heritage, and not necessarily because they all share a theology or an experience. They enjoy the benefit of the doubt because of their familiarity. New worship songs don't.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
You've got a point there. That's probably why I'm very happpy reciting the psalms every day although I don't feel what they describe at the time.

But I know they describe the experience many Christians will have had sometime or that I have sometime in the past or likely to have sometime in the future.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
after all, one wouldn't expect congregational participation in "Spem in alium"
But wouldn't it be fun to have a congregation who could?
You'd need to be sure you would get 40 people there, which we can't all do [Frown]
Someone could set up an appreciation society for music of this type, and regional gatherings could be held enabling the members to get together ecumenically and enjoy singing it at the most accessible churches.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I also think Mudfrog has nailed it - because he has identified what's happened - contemporary worship songs have become a 'scene' - a 'market' ...

The whole thing is driven by market-forces.

That said, to an extent it has been 'ever thus' ... it's easy to get all romantic about the Wesley's but both John and Charles had nice little earners going in terms of revenues from royalties for their books, sermons and - in Charles's case - hymns ...

I remember reading somewhere how much income these generated in contemporary monetary terms - they were getting not inconsiderable sums from these sources. Of course, Charles had a family to support and John tended to give the bulk of his earnings away and lived on a small proportion of his actual income.

However, the kind of market and 'scene' we have now is very different to the one that applied then - and, as Belle Ringer laments - I'd suggest it's one which effectively screens out and 'still-births' emerging talent and local initiatives.

I can remember back in the day visiting charismatic evangelical churches both in the UK and in Spain and finding a reasonable amount of home-grown talent - material composed within the congregations themselves.

Gradually, this shifted to a more developed 'market' with one or two key suppliers dominating the scene.

Perhaps this is inevitable in late modernity/late capitalism ... but it has had the effect, I believe, of encouraging blandness and 'flattening' everything out to the kind of large convention style worship band/worship leader model.

People in the apparently new and vibrant churches can't complain about traditional churches offering a diet that is predictable and 'same-y' - because they are doing exactly the same themselves.

I'd hazard a guess that the musical and hymnody diet is more varied in Mudfrog's Salvation Army citadel than it is in most large and lively independent fellowships or the New Wine/HTB axis within the Church of England.

'Modern worship' has become as predictable as the staid old liturgies of the historic churches and the non-conformist hymn/prayer sandwiches that it is supposed to have reacted to and replaced.

We'd all know exactly what to expect if we visited HTB, say or St Thomas Crookes or a Vineyard fellowship or one of the New Frontiers churches - or whatever they've rebranded themselves as these days.

We wouldn't have to be some kind of musical genius or even overly familiar with the repertoire to predict with some accuracy what songs would be sung, in what sequence and the kind of readings/contributions that would come along in between.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
Belle Ringer said:

quote:
These songwriters would be so excited to have one of their songs actually used in a church! Thrilled! Most would gladly give free permission to record the song for the congregation to take home, for a video of the service or of the choir/band on Youtube or church web page, for printing copies for a church songbook. Imagine not having look up "does CCLI let us do *this* and at what price?" because the songwriter has happily signed "do anything except sell it commercially."
Not so sure about this CCLI business at all.

I read a while back, Pete Banks (of 'After the Fire' fame) pointing out that music used in services of worship are exempt from PRS charges and such like, so CCLI is more like a voluntary gift to the composer rather than a legal acknowledgement of intellectual property.

I'm ok with that, but, assuming this is correct, I bet that's not widely shared in a context where musicians need to make a living.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
Gamaliel said

quote:
'Modern worship' has become as predictable as the staid old liturgies of the historic churches and the non-conformist hymn/prayer sandwiches that it is supposed to have reacted to and replaced.
I'm sure one or two folk have seen this one on how to write a modern worship song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhYuA0Cz8ls

I look out for these elements now.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I expect you see them every time, Beatmenace ...

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
If you're looking for a first person hymn the finest IMO is Charles Wesley's O love divine, how sweet thou art. Apart from the common mistake of thinking the Mary of the last verse refers to the virgin, most people 'get' this hymn straight away because it reads as if written today.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Belle Ringer said:

quote:
These songwriters would be so excited to have one of their songs actually used in a church! Thrilled! Most would gladly give free permission to record the song for the congregation to take home...
music used in services of worship are exempt from PRS charges and such like, so CCLI is more like a voluntary gift to the composer...

... where musicians need to make a living.
Any song/music can be actively done as worship, that's an exception to copyright laws. But putting the music in a fixed form (even temporarily) is not worship - printing it in songsheets, creating a computer slide to project the words, recording the capture the worship and put it on CDs for shut-ins or put on the web. If only the human brain used to learn and remember the words melody and chords, the band and congregation learn words and music by ear, with no cheat sheets, no fixed form of the song created, it is done as worship with no copyright restriction.

CCLI gets involved because congregations are putting the songs in fixed form - song sheets, slides, CDs for shut-ins - instead of just *doing* the music as an act of worship.

As to musicians needing money - the local composers of dozens or hundreds of worship songs that never see daylight obviously aren't writing them for the money! There are other paybacks people value, like recognition and appreciation, these friends are getting nothing but the satisfaction of doing what they feel driven to do. But with a frustration of incompleteness because songs are meant to be sung. Like making clothes no one wears, cooking meals no one eats, building houses no one lives in, it feels like an incomplete act of creation.

As to encouraging local writers, supposedly an old cowboy tradition (I remember Roy Rogers or Gene Autry mentioning it - or maybe they created it?) is that on 5th Sundays the cowboys don't go to church but stay around the campfire singing. Several local Cowboy churches have an open mic on 5th Sundays instead of their regular worship program. Any Christian song any style.

The one I often attend starts at the usual worship time and continues until it runs out of musicians (with a pot luck lunch break). I've been there as late as 6 PM to hear the last musician on stage, but 3:30 or 4 PM is a more common ending time. Whole day of music! Sort of like days gone by when people would go to church, picnic after, and spend the afternoon gospel singing.

It's been fun to watch youngsters in the church (and some outsiders) grow in music ability, as well as adults feel encouraged to try taking up simple piano or guitar, and songwriters try out their songs on a live stage.

A different local church was planning a monthly open mic Sunday evenings, open to the community. (But they chickened out - that church has a long history of distrust, the committee decided they "can't trust open mic participants to bring songs appropriate for a family environment.") I like the idea, if there's already equipment to amplify a praise band, an open mic needs minimal set-up.

An open mic would be a way to discover who is writing some decent songs, without the competitive win/lose aspect. Although competition can be handled gently, partly in how "what we are looking for" is explained, partly in telling the "losers" what would have made it a better song "for us to use." Or finding non-worship uses for it, like cover the walls of the coffee hall with all the songs submitted - every song gets "honorable mention"!

Or collect "songs by the congregation" into a booklet, like people collect "favorite recipes on the congregation" into a book, sell to members as a minor fund raiser (with proper copyright release), do a song or two from that book in worship.
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As a musical ignoramus, what I would look for in any liturgical music is how easy it is to sing. On that reckoning, most of the praise band stuff fails because it is designed for performers rather than congregations. And unlike classical mass settings and anthems, designed for 'quires and places where they sing', they are 'all about me' (the performer) rather than leading us to God.
I have recently been made aware of a song which will appear during Holy Week; the chorus's last line is He took the fall, and thought of me, Above All.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
I have recently been made aware of a song which will appear during Holy Week; the chorus's last line is He took the fall, and thought of me, Above All.
I hope it doesn't here.

[ 23. March 2015, 14:27: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Cowboy Churches ...

Yes, I've seen these on't telly ...

Many's the day I'm glad I don't live in Texas ...

[Big Grin] [Biased]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Before I get called on it ... if they are real Cowboys then fair enough ...

But if they're all city slickers who like to dress up in stetsons at weekends ...
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Just about anything by Marty Haugen or David Haas will be EXCELLENT ...
Several years ago I featured in the church newsletter that I produce (more of a magazine really) a series of The People who Write our Hymns. When I googled Marty Haugen I came across several 'Down with Marty Haugen' websites, of which I remember a horrified statement that 'we have a whole generation of young Catholics who've never heard of Gregorian Chant'. Such websites still exist, for instance this one

It seems to me that much (not all!) of this discussion centres on traditional hymns that we sang at school half a century ago, and praise songs with guitars and often banal, repetitive words.
In my experience, many hymn writers, ancient or recent, good or bad, have each left one or a handful of songs worth using and preserving, and many can be found in the music of, say, the last 80 years, that have attractive, singable tunes and acceptable sentiments well expressed.

Our own congregation, aged from 3 months to 93 years, enjoy a mix including (rarely) the odd praise song – what can you do if the current favourite writes one specially for you? Great if you have a gifted pianist who can improve on it.

Some examples:
I can do without most of Graham Kendrick but Beauty for brokenness is a real beauty, and there's a calypso style carol (This child?) that's great to sing
Several of Bell & Maule's Iona vast oeuvre are regulars
Bernadette Farrell's Christ be our light is a good substitute for Shine Jesus Shine and we regularly use her Holy, holy, holy at Communion. I suspect we'd sing more of hers if we were looking for something new
Townend's In Christ alone remains popular, except for 'the wrath of God' which he insisted must not be changed but everywhere I've been it is tweaked.
There are several of Marty Haugen's that are frequently used – Let us build a house, Come and journey with a saviour, Come O God of all the earth, and others.
In New Zealand we have several hymn writers/composers whose work is known further afield, especially Colin Gibson and Shirley Murray together or with others. David Dell's arrangement of William Worley's "Jesus, come to our hearts like falling rain" is one of my favourites, words and music. found here and in the United Church of Canada's book.

That's enough to make my point – it's late at night and I can't find my complete list. Good singing, everyone.

GG
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Before I get called on it ... if they are real Cowboys then fair enough ...

But if they're all city slickers who like to dress up in stetsons at weekends ...
LOL, I guess it depends what you mean by real cowboys. On a horse all day moving cattle, no, although that is done other places where the ranches are larger. (I've been on a horse moving cattle from one grazing field to another. Yeow, I'm not used to 4 hours on a horse!)

A ranch-based life of fixing fences, rearing animals in the field, "Western" hat and boots are normal daily wear along with the beat up truck because they are practical (and because there isn't much money), a do it yourself attitude towards fixing anything ("with bailing wire and duct tape").

The look could be mimicked by city slickers but city folk usually add rhinestones and fancy colors. The rodeo audience show up in amazing outfits. (I have trouble imagining the cowboy churches I've visited wanting to be on TV! It wouldn't feel authentic.)

The music is a mix of radio pop Christian and C&W gospel with a rare old hymn thrown in (usually Amazing Grace).
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0