|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Criticising choruses, hymns and other worship songs
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I have managed to hold firm against In Christ alone.
A quick question:
Is this on the grounds of music, lyrics or both?!
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
According to Cyberhymnal, it was written to protest the US's war with Mexico. ...
I suspect not many of us round here know much about that war. How live is it as an issue now? Is it forgotten or is it a running sore vis à vis relations between the US and Mexico?
And which way round is it? Was the cause that came Once to every man and nation for which to side with truth is noble hostility to unilaterally grabbing territory of another state, or the importance of recognising America's manifest destiny to extend its benefits to poor benighted hitherto foreigners?
If the first, then by failing to heed his poem, the US blew it. Does that explain everything since?! If the latter, then according to the writer, the US took the wrong decision. So presumably likewise it blew its one opportunity. It can ignore what would be noble thereafter.
Either way, that demonstrates that even as political poetry, yet alone as something suitable to have been appropriated as a hymn, it's not just bad theology and repulsive imagery, but overblown, pretentious, hyper-rhetorical kack.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Mrs Beaky quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I have managed to hold firm against In Christ alone. quote:
A quick question:
Is this on the grounds of music, lyrics or both?!
Both!
Actually, I find the words more offensive than the tune, which is simply trite and uninspiring.
But the words, with the repeated mantra of In Christ alone goes against everything that members of the CofE profess in the Creeds (all three).
Yes, I know ++Justin chose this nonsense to be sung at his enthronement: this should have informed anyone with any doubts of his intrinsic unsuitability for the position; after all, if you can't trust the Archbishop of Canterbury to grasp that for a member of a Trinitarian church to sing In Christ alone is doctrinal rubbish, where do you draw the line?
[ 15. April 2015, 12:17: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
Thanks, L'organist
I was pretty sure the words would be a problem but wanted to check what you thought about the music.
I personally don't mind the music that much but it's not something I'd choose to sing!
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Mrs Beaky quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I have managed to hold firm against In Christ alone. quote:
A quick question:
Is this on the grounds of music, lyrics or both?!
Both!
Actually, I find the words more offensive than the tune, which is simply trite and uninspiring.
But the words, with the repeated mantra of In Christ alone goes against everything that members of the CofE profess in the Creeds (all three).
Yes, I know ++Justin chose this nonsense to be sung at his enthronement: this should have informed anyone with any doubts of his intrinsic unsuitability for the position; after all, if you can't trust the Archbishop of Canterbury to grasp that for a member of a Trinitarian church to sing In Christ alone is doctrinal rubbish, where do you draw the line?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
In Christ Alone is un-Trinitarian?? Surely the title (which is only repeated twice - hardly a repeated mantra) is referring to trusting in Christ over against anything else we may be tempted to put our trust in, because of what Christ has done for us (or, if you prefer, what God has done for us through Christ). Given that the second verse contains a clear reference to the incarnation ("Fullness of God in helpless babe"), it's hard to see how Townend is being un-Trinitarian, unless the writer of, say,"I am trusting thee, Lord Jesus, trusting only thee" (a hmn which makes no mentions at all of the othe rmembers of the Trinity - less than In Christ Alone) is being similarly un-Trinitarian.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Both!
Actually, I find the words more offensive than the tune, which is simply trite and uninspiring.
But the words, with the repeated mantra of In Christ alone goes against everything that members of the CofE profess in the Creeds (all three).
Yes, I know ++Justin chose this nonsense to be sung at his enthronement: this should have informed anyone with any doubts of his intrinsic unsuitability for the position; after all, if you can't trust the Archbishop of Canterbury to grasp that for a member of a Trinitarian church to sing In Christ alone is doctrinal rubbish, where do you draw the line?
If your opinion is representative of a significant number of others then it's hardly surprising that the Anglican Church isn't as united as it might be, is it? Shafting your own leader over the choice of a hymn is a bit steep!
In any event the sentiment of that hymn is "In Christ alone, my hope is found." hardly non Trinitarian - but if you are looking for a charge of a song that majors on there being only one way to heaven, then this one is guilty as charged.
How many of the people believe what they profess in the creed anyway?
[ 15. April 2015, 14:28: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Mrs Beaky quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I have managed to hold firm against In Christ alone. quote:
A quick question:
Is this on the grounds of music, lyrics or both?!
Both!
Actually, I find the words more offensive than the tune, which is simply trite and uninspiring.
But the words, with the repeated mantra of In Christ alone goes against everything that members of the CofE profess in the Creeds (all three).
The controversy I'm aware of has to do with the line saying Jesus' death "satisfied" God's anger. Article here about that wording.
(As to "repeated mantra", many a praise band picks a phrase of a song to repeat endlessly as interlude or ending. The lyrics written are not necessarily all the lyrics as played in church.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
If Townend and Getty had wanted to reflect on God the Father they would have referred to him as such: they didn't.
The only reference to any being other than the "I / me" who is singing is the unspecified God in verse 2 - and exactly how is "Fulness of God in helpless babe" easily understandable?
We (I) believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost - to whom also no reference: dammit, there's more reference to God the Father in the appalling Shall we not love thee, Mother dear? than ICA.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If Townend and Getty had wanted to reflect on God the Father they would have referred to him as such: they didn't.
Because it's a song specifically about Jesus? Just like Philippians 3:7-21 (which seems to follow a similar theme to ICA) is about Jesus and only mentions the Father twice (calling Him "God" both times) and doesn't mention the Spirit at all.
quote:
The only reference to any being other than the "I / me" who is singing is the unspecified God in verse 2 - and exactly how is "Fulness of God in helpless babe" easily understandable?
Because it's a song specifically about Jesus?
I flicked through the section of the "Baptist Praise and Worship" hymnbook entitled "Our Lord's Ministry" and found many hymns that focussed specifically on Jesus with little or no mention of Father or Holy Spirit. Are they un-Trinitarian too? Does every hymn or song have to mention all 3 members of the Trinity explicitly?
And as for understandability, I didn't realise that was part of the criteria. But you've argued quite often for the use of the BCP on these pages and, from the quotations you've provided from it, I would argue that "fullness of God in helpless babe" is no more or less comprehensible than that and, again IMNSHO, points quite well to the mystery of the incarnation.
quote:
We (I) believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost - to whom also no reference: dammit, there's more reference to God the Father in the appalling Shall we not love thee, Mother dear? than ICA.
And there's less in a hymn like "I am trusting thee" or "Thine be the Glory" or "My song is love unknown" or... so what? Are they un-Trinitarian too, or is just down to not liking "In Christ Alone"?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Aside from That Line, I like In Christ Alone. Certainly not non-Trinitarian - what an odd criticism. I have sung Our God Is An Awesome God with ++Welby in Lambeth Palace crypt though...
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I flicked through the section of the "Baptist Praise and Worship" hymnbook entitled "Our Lord's Ministry" ...
At last - another Baptist who still uses it! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kitten
Shipmate
# 1179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Aside from That Line, I like In Christ Alone. Certainly not non-Trinitarian - what an odd criticism. I have sung Our God Is An Awesome God with ++Welby in Lambeth Palace crypt though...
You're not alone, I also like In Christ Alone and have requested it at my funeral, and most people I have spoken to about it, both clergy and laity, like it.
--------------------
Maius intra qua extra
Never accept a ride from a stranger, unless they are in a big blue box
Posts: 2330 | From: Carmarthenshire | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Vetting a hymn book, or a chorus book, or the projected words of songs (if your church uses that method) for imperfect theology is going to leave you with a pretty small list.
I think a lot of modern songs are pretty ephemeral, but some are going to stand the test of time. In another hundred years, if the church is still around, there will be people arguing about the content of songs of worship, preferring those which have stood the test of time. Amongst which will be a fair number of songs written in the last quarter of a century. Some of them will use "I", some "we", some of which get disparaged as "happy clappy" or "Jesus is my boy friend" etc. There's no harm in critising content; there is a lot of harm in descending into the derogatory.
While I appreciate the argument about distraction, I refuse to throw stones at windows through which other folks are able to glimpse the presence of God and be drawn to worship Him. Even if they seem pretty opaque to me. Some do, some don't. Services of worship are not there to stroke my aesthetic prejudices.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
have sung Our God Is An Awesome God with ++Welby in Lambeth Palace crypt though...
That's what they all say...
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I flicked through the section of the "Baptist Praise and Worship" hymnbook entitled "Our Lord's Ministry" ...
At last - another Baptist who still uses it!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) I have a choice between that and the first 2 volumes of Songs Of Fellowship and, while the latter obviously has more of the more modern choruses etc. in, we're not that up-to-date. BPW is quite useful for finding some of the stuff our congo are familiar with and being thematically, rather than alphabetically, ordered is helpful as well.
Managed to convert our pianist (an ex-Methodist) to it as well!
What strikes me in general about these sorts of discussions is, actually, how incredibly subjective they are. Most lyrics are open to interpretation as to their "soundness" or otherwise, as the mini-debate about ICA here as demonstrated. And judgements about the worth or otherwise of tunes is surely equally subjective: there are tunes our pianist hates to play but which the congregation loves to sing. I personally think the tune for ICA is very good, especially in the last 2 verses where that "lift" in the second half of the tune matches the power of what's being described well.
But it seems to me that saying hymn x or chorus y is "bad" in a supposedly objective manner is a bit of a non-starter, because there will be an "ah, but" from someone else.
Except "Great, great, wicked, wicked, skill, skill," or whatever it is, of course...
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Stejjie:
quote:
What strikes me in general about these sorts of discussions is, actually, how incredibly subjective they are
Possibly for this discussion, but I'm not sure that can be wheeled out in general terms, otherwise there would be no 'great' composers and no 'great' music - which by its very existence means there is also a lot of crap stuff.
What bothers me about a lot of contemporary church music (by which I mean choruses) is the disposable nature of it. There is much that is also simply badly written in words and music. "Our God Is An Awesome God' is a perfect example. It's a catchy tune and easy to sing, but so is Ba Ba Black Sheep. What you essentially have in that chorus is a set of very cheesy lyrics verging on spoken slang about the 'awesomeness' of God combined with a mawkish nursery tune. Frankly, it's bloody awful; but due to our religious sensibilities and sensitivities we have this weird tendency not to judge it objectively with the result that churches gaze back at such delights like 'Majesty' from the 70's and think, 'How did we ever sing that thing that is neither worshipful nor majestic?', yet don't look at the current round and think the same.
Through all of it, time is the greater healer of musical wrongs (mostly). I'm sure every generation had its crap. We know the Victorians certainly did (Moody and Sanky anyone?), there are plenty of Baroque masses that nobody ever sings (thank God) that make a soprano sound like she's re-enacting a scene from When Harry Met Sally on an extended loop in vocal trills and there are many a Medieval Mass and Motet that's beyond dreadful yet somehow the composer clung to life long enough to write that 48 minute Gloria comprised entirely of four notes. With the passage of time it all fades away and gets forgotten. Sometimes it take a few generations and other times - like in the case of Majesty - it takes about two years, but the result is the same; the crap gets dropped. I just wish we didn't have to go through the whole rigmarole of ever singing it.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
But why is "Our God is an awesome God" a "bloody awful tune"? What criteria are you using to make that judgement? And why is that a good criteria to use?
Judging it against the great composers of the past (and surely even their "greatness" will not be universally recognised) is surely off the mark; as far as I can tell, Rich Mullins didn't intend it to be judged alongside them, he didn't write it as a "great work" in the sense of a piece by Mozart, Beethoven, Bach or whoever.
You compared it to "Baa baa black sheep", which suggests part of the problem might be its simplicity: "this is no more complex/advcanced than a child's nursery rhyme." But what if that's the point? Having just played it through on the piano, it sounds to me like a repeated chant/mantra for the congregation to pick up and join in. So it uses a simple tune that people who may not know it can pick up easily. Taize chants work in a similar way - not to say whether "Awesome God" is comparable musically to Taize chants, just to say that they seem to aim to do much the same thing.
And why should a nursery rhyme tune (or a tune that can be compared to a nursery rhyme tune) be unsuitable for worship? The point is that they stand the test of time and are easily singable, even by people without any musical training. Surely these are plus points for congregational singing?
"Majesty" is a great song and, as far as I'm aware, still regularly song (and it's from the 80s, not the 70s). Whether it's majestic or not surely depends on how it's played; IMHO it tends to get played a bit too fast which loses some of the power of the tune. And what does "worshipful" mean anyway? The first line calls us to "worship his majesty"; the middle bit calls us to "exalt, lift up on high the name of Jesus" - how is that not worshipful? And if it isn't, what do you mean by "worshipful", and why is your definition better than the one implied by this chorus?
There's nothing there that's an objective judgement on the quality of those songs. You hate them, fair enough - I quite like them. We're probably using different criteria to judge them - how can that be objective. According to Wikipedia Ira Sankey is in the Gospel Music Hall of Fame - which suggests a far from universal rejection of his work.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, but lots of people have produced great stuff and crap at different times. There are yards and yards of really mediocre Mozart that only ever get played now, if at all, because he wrote it: and the same will go for almost every other composer (except prhaps JS Bach: never heard anything by him that fell below 'pretty good', which given the amount he had to turn out is astonishing).
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Stejjie:
quote:
What criteria are you using to make that judgement? And why is that a good criteria to use?
That's a whole thread in itself and there are sections in libraries devoted to it, but some of the elements that I would draw on as a criteria would be (certainly not by any means exhaustive, but they will serve purpose here):
1. Does it have beauty in an immediate or subjective sense? (admittedly this would be subject to how 'I' or 'you' hear it)
2. Does it convey something profound in terms of its words and music? (this is not an subjective thing. Even if it is irrelevant to me personally, I can still recognise something that is profound for others)
3. Is it fit for purpose?
4. Does it reward (not just be 'nice', but actually reward) repeat listening/involvement?
5. Does it keep my interest to draw me into its world and language?
6. Is it the best, both musically, spiritually and intellectually, that can be offered to God? (otherwise what the heck is the point?)
&. Can it be said that the music and/or words point and direct the listener/engager to something 'beyond the veil'?
I could go on and on and on, but the thread might derail into dullness. Music is a language much like art, but our society indulges in disposable fluff. We have grown fat on our own stupidity and been happy to lose the languages of art and music in favour of 'tunes' laced with dripping and art that equates only to cash. It's been present in every generation but our ease of access and our greed has sped the whole thing up.
'Our God Is An Awesome God' - why is it so bad? Firstly the lyrics are nothing short of appalling. It's so close to slang it looks like they were written by someone who was half asleep. 'Dialled it in' I think is possibly the term I'm looking for. It certainly doesn't stand alone; there are libraries of devotional material from all ages that are just as crass and dreadful. The 'awesomeness' disappears rapidly when there is nothing profound and no poetic beauty - it's just plain old naff with sloppy Biblical references all cobbled together to fit a neat little ditty. I'm sure Mr Mullins fasted and prayed for months over such profundity as 'rolling up his sleeves', 'putting on the ritz' and 'kicked 'em out of Eden', but I really can't say it moves me in sundry places.
Then there's the 'tune'. O good Lord deliver us from repetitive ear injury. Yes, it has that line that everyone can join in on and ok, it's certainly not the worst, but it's not exactly 'good'. I guess if we were to be totally objective about it we could ask ourselves if it didn't have the 'religious' element, would we still actually listen to it? See, sometimes I wonder of our religious sensibilities blind us to the truth - or more accurately deafen us - that it's actually just crap. It's sort of an emperor and his new fangled outfit. There is nothing rewarding about it, it's pretty much disconnected from its text, it has little by way of musical merit and it's twee and mawkish, like you're singing to a fairy on a stump rather than the creator of all that is.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Sorry, I should respond to this, because it's quite important in relation to all of this:
posted by Stejjie:
quote:
You compared it to "Baa baa black sheep", which suggests part of the problem might be its simplicity
You don't really get more 'simple' than this
I hate the damn thing with a passion, however I do appreciate that it is great music by a great composer. In fact I hate most Beethoven, really cannot abide listening to the vast majority of his music, but I know what he's at, why he wrote what he did and what his intentions were and I can appreciate that he wrote great music - I just don't happen to like very much of it. In the same way - whether it be simple or complex - there is a lot of church music (both ancient and modern) that I despise, but can appreciate that it is great because it works, is fit for purpose, doing what it is intended to do with craft and skill. Such things are not subjective in whether I think it's 'nice' or not.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Three points.
1. Does it matter if music is "disposable" or "ephemeral"? There may be good practical reasons for not wanting to keep learning new stuff - but if they're happy to do so, where's the problem? We don't need to write stuff thinking "this will be good for 50 years".
2. We must remember that people have very varied musical backgrounds. Whether we like it or not, good classical-style music with profound lyrics simply doesn't "work" for large numbers of people. There are times and places when "simplistic" is right.
3. Mozart had nothing against "Baa, baa, black sheep" - even though, to him, it had a fancy French name!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Sorry to nit-pick, but Ah vous dirai-je, Maman? is actually better known as Twinkle, twinkle, little star.
To be fair, there are several children's songs with the same basic pattern: Twinkle, twinkle; Baa-baa, black sheep, I had a little nut tree and Goosey, goosey gander - all with the same basic notes in the melody and all can be played with the same alberti bass - as can Colonel Bogey.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Alberti bass- genitive of Albertus?- is this something I should know about? (Or is it Alfie Bass's Italian cousin?)
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
1. Does it matter if music is "disposable" or "ephemeral"? There may be good practical reasons for not wanting to keep learning new stuff - but if they're happy to do so, where's the problem? We don't need to write stuff thinking "this will be good for 50 years".
2. We must remember that people have very varied musical backgrounds. Whether we like it or not, good classical-style music with profound lyrics simply doesn't "work" for large numbers of people. There are times and places when "simplistic" is right.
1. Absolutely not. We have disposable music for all manner of things, I just don't think liturgical music should ever be. It may turn out unintentionally to be so, but that's another matter.
2. So to put it crassly - stupid people should be left stupid?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
...
While I appreciate the argument about distraction, I refuse to throw stones at windows through which other folks are able to glimpse the presence of God and be drawn to worship Him. Even if they seem pretty opaque to me. Some do, some don't. Services of worship are not there to stroke my aesthetic prejudices.
This is where I am at - or at least where I try to be. When we sing a chorus I don't know or dislike, I pay attention to those around me who are obviously using it as a tool to worship, and I am glad for them.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Fletcher Christian I think we can be too high minded and precious about music. There's a lot I don't like. I've criticised one hymn on this thread, now thankfully obsolete, for its words. There are plenty of tunes I think are trite. But I think I'd be on more dangerous ground if I started adopting the approach that music I like is morally more virtuous than music I don't.
I agree with you in not mourning the eclipse of Majesty. Three questions:-
1. Is 'majesty' hypostasised?
2. Is it a suitable object for latria?
3. If not, would doulia or hyperdoulia be permissible?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Sorry to nit-pick, but Ah vous dirai-je, Maman? is actually better known as Twinkle, twinkle, little star.
To be fair, there are several children's songs with the same basic pattern.
This is very true. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[ 16. April 2015, 14:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Enoch:
quote:
I think I'd be on more dangerous ground if I started adopting the approach that music I like is morally more virtuous than music I don't.
Which is precisely not the line I was taking, in fact I went to great length to give examples of music I hate that I still think is 'great' - but I wasn't imputing a 'moral' objectivity. There are plenty of great contemporary choruses, I just don't see why we all have to be precious and sensitive about the shit ones. It's the same with modern liturgical music in the 'classical style'. There are many composers whom I am tempted to name but will resist, who write crap. I don't see why we can't think about what we do - regardless of tradition or style - so that it is the best we can offer. It's hard work and with limited resources it gets a hell of a lot tougher, but even hymns with a rickety organ or choruses with a cheap guitar can still be great liturgical music.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
@Fletcher Christian
re: "Our God is an awesome God" - I only ever knew the chorus, I didn't realise there were verses to it as well! TBH... yeah... I kind of prefer just knowing the chorus... eesh there's some dodgy rhymes there!
Fair enough on that one (although to be consistent I should probably point out that's my subjective judgement and that for some it may well "work").
I think there is a point as well about cash having such a dominant effect on the music scene today; I think the Christian music business has a lot to answer for for churning out too many Matt Redman sound-and-look-a-likes who seem to be there primarily because they shift albums. (I'd actually draw a distinction between them and Mullins who at least looked like he was trying to do something different, even if it didn't come off particularly well). There's too much "me-too"ism out there and when you hear songwriters' descriptions of what the lyrics mean or what inspired them to write the song... it never seems to go beyond "Yeah, I'd just had this awareness, like, of the awesomeness of God and I just wanted people to, y'know, pour out their hearts in praise to Him, to lift up a sacrifice of praise..." like it's a massively radical insight.
My problem is people using the highest possible standard of classical music as some kind of objective measure by which all church music should be judged, which is how these discussions seem to go (apologies if I misunderstood you in that regard). I'd probably go along with much of your criteria for good liturgical music - I'd just want to be sure, when applying it, I wasn't mistaking it for what I like.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kitten:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Aside from That Line, I like In Christ Alone. Certainly not non-Trinitarian - what an odd criticism. I have sung Our God Is An Awesome God with ++Welby in Lambeth Palace crypt though...
You're not alone, I also like In Christ Alone and have requested it at my funeral, and most people I have spoken to about it, both clergy and laity, like it.
It's a wonderful song and, when played by a Salvation Army brass band with the percussion playing a bolero rhythm, is particularly inspiring and uplifting.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I think the Christian music business has a lot to answer for for churning out too many Matt Redman sound-and-look-a-likes who seem to be there primarily because they shift albums.
Yes, I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Has the worship music industry been referred to the monopolies commission?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Have tracked down the aforementioned Our God ... and listened to it - and waited 24 hours and tried again.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
I believe we have crossed the line between a robust debate on whether or not it is okay to criticize music intended for worship and the Crappy Choruses thread in Dead Horses. The first example is most welcome here, while the second is not.
Mind the gap.
Barefoot Friar
Eccles. Host
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Could one reason for the emergence of divisive songs in worship (divisive in that some like them and some don't) come from the tendency to bring Christian 'pop' music that was originally sung by a Christian artiste into congregational worship? The 'Our God is an Awesome God' example is such a song. It wasn't written as a congregational song but because it was popular t0 listen to, people started singing it in gatherings.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
It's one reason - among others, I'm sure.
Just imagine (or try not to!) "O for the wings of a dove" sung congregationally!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Right. To return to the original question.
Yes it is OK to criticise the music that is served up to us in worship. Yes, it is OK to be asking yourself as you sing words that have been chosen for you by someone else over whom you have no control or influence, whether they fit the faith as you experience it and as countless generations before us would recognise. Yes, a hypercritical attitude is not good for the soul. And no, we are not required to receive gratefully whatever an organist, band-leader or whoever has chosen to serve up to us.
We don't switch off our critical faculties when the preacher gets up in the pulpit. Likewise, we don't switch them off when the instruments strike up.
There are hymns that are rubbish through and through. Once to every man and nation is one of them. There are good hymns wrecked by trite tunes. There are worthy thoughts expressed in trite words.
Indeed, if you want an example of one where a worthy thought is expressed with both words and tune that are trite and not up to the job, what about Jesus loves me this I know?
[ 17. April 2015, 06:50: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... if you want an example of one where a worthy thought is expressed with both words and tune that are trite and not up to the job, what about Jesus loves me this I know?
You mean the Victorian children's song that was written for...erm, Victorian children?
[ 17. April 2015, 07:20: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Surely the enduring popularity of that song in Sunday Schools, when many other songs presumably came and went without trace, suggests that a lot of people felt that it was "up to the job" it was written for - which wasn't adult congregational worship.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Mudfrog quote:
Could one reason for the emergence of divisive songs in worship (divisive in that some like them and some don't) come from the tendency to bring Christian 'pop' music that was originally sung by a Christian artiste into congregational worship? The 'Our God is an Awesome God' example is such a song. It wasn't written as a congregational song but because it was popular t0 listen to, people started singing it in gatherings.
Got it in one.
Its trying to use something for congregational singing that was never intended for such mass-participatory use. And trying to shoehorn congregations into adequately reproducing such stuff is like saying that everyone who appreciates opera should be able to join in with Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen (the so-called Queen of the Night's aria from the Magic Flute) or Credeasi, misera (Arturo's last aria in I Puritani).
Now, its personal taste that makes me want to heave at Our God is an awesome God but its knowing music, and congregational music at that, that makes me say stop trying to force this onto congregations: its not written for mass singing.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Actually, I'd argue that the refrain of "Our God..." does work as a conregational song, because I've been in places where that bit - and only that bit - have been sung and sung well (in the sense of heartily and fully). It's the rest of it that probably doesn't work in that setting, which is probably why I'd never heard of any of the verses until yesterday.
That said I do agree that trying to shoe-horn songs written for performance into congregational settings normally doesn't work. If you look at some of them in the Songs Of Fellowship music books, the vocal lines are incredibly complex and hard for a congregation to sing, largely (I think) because someone's tried to transcribe all the vocal inflections etc. that solo singers naturally do live and on recordings. But it's simply not possible for a whole congregation, however much they like and enjoy that type of music, to sing those notes. At the very least, they need to be simplified.
But then, who's writing stuff congregations can sing? I actually think (and I may get shot down in flames for this) that Kendrick and Townend at their best do this quite well and, if you look at many of his lyrics, many (not all) of Kendrick's songs are a long from the "me-and-Jesus" style that he's cariacatured as writing. Whereas a lot of the too-individualistic stuff out there (and there's always been "me and Jesus"-style songs and hymns) I think comes from songwriters simply writing about their own personal experiences without thinking of how this might be extended for a group of people to participate in - or whether that can happen at all.
Kendrick especially, and to some extent Townend, do go against that to a certain extent and seem to care about writing songs that a congregation can sing together. Other than that, I'm stuggling...
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I'll leave it to others to decide who's writing "singable" stuff - though I agree with you about Kendrick and Townend.
quote:
If you look at some of them in the Songs Of Fellowship music books, the vocal lines are incredibly complex and hard for a congregation to sing, largely (I think) because someone's tried to transcribe all the vocal inflections etc. that solo singers naturally do live and on recordings.
Yes, and things get even harder when your pianist (or whoever) insists on playing the music exactly as it's written, even though "everyone" knows that that's not the way it's actually sung!
At least many of the 1970s "Scripture in Song" pieces were easy!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
And why should a nursery rhyme tune (or a tune that can be compared to a nursery rhyme tune) be unsuitable for worship? The point is that they stand the test of time and are easily singable, even by people without any musical training. Surely these are plus points for congregational singing?
Well there is the nursery rhyme mass by Simon Rundell . It works with toddlers
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Carys
Your quoted Nursery Rhyme Mass may work with toddlers - but that could be because they don't notice that half of it doesn't fit the rhyme its supposed to.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Oh dear, I didn't mean to start a debate about OGIAAG! For the record it's not my favourite (though I can see the Taize similarity), but I was with a group of teenage/twentysomething evangelicals, mostly Pentecostal/charismatic - I didn't choose it!
It's definitely something congregations have taken and 'owned'. I'm not sure I could criticise that.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cantiones Sacrae
Shipmate
# 12774
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, and things get even harder when your pianist (or whoever) insists on playing the music exactly as it's written, even though "everyone" knows that that's not the way it's actually sung!
Why would anyone publish versions of songs that aren’t correct? Presumably the versions of Kendrick songs in books edited by Kendrick eg The Source have some claim to authenticity. Otherwise the whole thing is a con. Unless tradition trumps what’s written in the book.
Posts: 271 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cantiones Sacrae:
Why would anyone publish versions of songs that aren’t correct? Presumably the versions of Kendrick songs in books edited by Kendrick eg The Source have some claim to authenticity. Otherwise the whole thing is a con. Unless tradition trumps what’s written in the book.
Because outside the classiest of classical music,i the sheet music is best regarded as a prompt sheet of what the notes are. It's the musicians' job to know how it's supposed to go and how they want to lead the congregation.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cantiones Sacrae
Shipmate
# 12774
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Because outside the classiest of classical music, the sheet music is best regarded as a prompt sheet of what the notes are. It's the musicians' job to know how it's supposed to go and how they want to lead the congregation. [/QB]
"Supposed to know" intuitively or via recordings, Christian festivals etc? Some of the piano writing in The Source is quite idiomatic; “fills”, non-vocal melodies for introductions and bridges etc. Are these not part of the composition of the song? I certainly understand the idea that a leader, band, congregation are entitled to make the song their own, with a new arrangement, different feel/groove etc, but Baptist Trainfan implied that of all possible versions of a song the only one that is “wrong” is the one that is printed in the book. I would maintain, if that is so, that the publishers and musical arrangers of the book are guilty of putting a stumbling block in the way of the trained musician. It would be better to use just chord symbols and not provide a detailed notated piano part. The book could be much cheaper then!
Posts: 271 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cantiones Sacrae
Shipmate
# 12774
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cantiones Sacrae:
"Supposed to know" intuitively or via recordings, Christian festivals etc? Some of the piano writing in The Source is quite idiomatic; “fills”, non-vocal melodies for introductions and bridges etc. Are these not part of the composition of the song? I certainly understand the idea that a leader, band, congregation are entitled to make the song their own, with a new arrangement, different feel/groove etc, but Baptist Trainfan implied that of all possible versions of a song the only one that is “wrong” is the one that is printed in the book. I would maintain, if that is so, that the publishers and musical arrangers of the book are guilty of putting a stumbling block in the way of the trained musician. It would be better to use just chord symbols and not provide a detailed notated piano part. The book could be much cheaper then! [/QB]
In the absence of any contradictory argument I declare mine has won.
Posts: 271 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cantiones Sacrae:
Baptist Trainfan implied that of all possible versions of a song the only one that is “wrong” is the one that is printed in the book.
No, I didn't - it's more a case that the only version which is "right" is the version which - by whatever means - the majority of folk in your church have picked up off recordings, by word of mouth, or whatever. That may or may not be different to the printed version, or the version used in the church down the road. Bear in mind that most people who learn songs aren't musicians and learn by ear rather than from the score.
Think of folk-songs, where one village's version of a song may vary from the next village's - and neither are the same as the version written down by RVW and Cecil Sharp. The difference, of course, with modern worship songs is that they have been composed by A Person ... but some of them seem to perform them differently on different occasions!
And there are also just mistakes: we sung a simple children's song yesterday at church; at choir practice on Friday we discovered two misprints, or at least inconsistencies, in the printed score (from a reputable publisher).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
But, BT, you also need to remember that at least visiting musicians have no choice but to play the dots. They are in front of the musicians, to be paid; if they don't, especially if they haven't had huge amounts of time to rehearse together, the result is cacophony, which can't accompany anyone.
There may well be a specific set of experiences which are common to a local congregation, and which define the way certain music is done. If those are not accessible to a particular set of music, they have to go with what they've got.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I don't disagree. In practice (and as you suggest), though, the musicians in churches that utilise modern worship songs tend to be "home grown", so will have a common experience of the songs.
It presumably gets difficult if you're forming a band for an inter-church event or festival, but I can't usefully comment on that scenario - although I guess that one needs to conceive of the preparation for such an event more as a group of jazz or session musicians working together than as a symphony orchestra rehearsing.
[ 04. May 2015, 07:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
