quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
... The modern megachurch rock-concert-as-church type thing, in my opinion, is not conducive to congregational participation, at least with the vocal cords.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:


The modern megachurch rock-concert-as-church type thing, in my opinion, is not conducive to congregational participation, at least with the vocal cords.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:


The modern megachurch rock-concert-as-church type thing, in my opinion, is not conducive to congregational participation, at least with the vocal cords.

---

Here in ground zero for the megachurch movement, many of our megachurches are places where the congregational singing is most energetic and engaged. Others... not so much. It really depends on the style of the worship leader-- and how they envision their role. The style of music doesn't seem to have much to do with it-- I've seen energetic singing with all styles of worship, and apathetic, disinterested response to all genres as well. But it does seem to have something to do with the way the stage is set both literally and figuratively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Do we need choir directors to face the congregation and direct them instead of the choir?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
... Like, in my church plenty of people sign up to be readers, light the Advent candles, etc, in a different church I sometimes visit no one signed up to light Advent candles. No one. (The ushers had to do it). ...

---

quote:

---

In Catholic churches people traditionally did not sing, and I have seen that this is still the case. There are some congregations, though, where the people do join in.

---

Well, in Canada, there was a worship manual, which at least when I was still practicing(late 80s) was distributed to Catholic churches across the country. The second half of the book consisted of the music and words to the songs, so I have to assume that the compilers of the book were expecting people to sing.

The Catholic Book Of Worship
 

---

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
^One thing.

I'm sure Amanda's observation was accurate pre-V2, and probably still is in parishes aspiring to a more traditonal style of worship. That CBW from 1972 is very post-V2, as can be seen by some of the song choices.

The version we were using in the late 70s was even more off-the-wall, containing things like the Battle Hymn Of The Republic and "Negro Spirituals". Trust me, nothing sounds more eerily grating than a bunch of white, middle-class Canadian suburbaites, none of whom had likely even heard a "Negro Spiritual" before, trying to get their way through Were You There.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Despite the growth in community choirs - and there is something of a resurgence in choral singing in a 'secular' context, I know of at least three popular choirs in the small town where I live - I think the OP does represent a trend.



The more liberal Anglican parish here tends to be the one where most of the weddings and funerals take place - although a good number happen at the evangelical parish too. Feedback from there suggests that few people know any of the words to the hymns these days.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The more liberal Anglican parish here tends to be the one where most of the weddings and funerals take place - although a good number happen at the evangelical parish too. Feedback from there suggests that few people know any of the words to the hymns these days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Do we need choir directors to face the congregation and direct them instead of the choir?

---

All of the churches I know that have good, involved congregational singing do this. I don't think you'd get much of a response w/o it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think there's as much singing going on as once there was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
That's the only church I've been in where the congregation was specifically led in singing instead of just being expected to go along with the choir and organ/band.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
... The modern megachurch rock-concert-as-church type thing, in my opinion, is not conducive to congregational participation, at least with the vocal cords.

---

I agree.


Karl, what you say is really discouraging, particularly from an area where places like Dronfield and Hathersage have had traditions of singing with gusto their own carols which other people don't know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Do we need choir directors to face the congregation and direct them instead of the choir?

---

All of the churches I know that have good, involved congregational singing do this. I don't think you'd get much of a response w/o it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
One of the things that helps people to sing is 'fervour'. If you believe what you're singing, you'll mean it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cattyish:
Apparently schools have practically no formal music tuition for younger children, though I don't know whether that's local or Scotland wide. The schools I visit don't really have any regular singing for everyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diomedes:
...in villages around Sheffield such as Dungworth, Lodge Moor and Worrall the carol singing sessions in the pubs are packed to the doors and raise the rafters!

---

Maybe we should be serving more than a sip of wine in church?

Is there something in the atmosphere of church being "serious" so we have to go to the pub if we want to enjoy the music? In church people (congregation, choir, praise band) frown while singing. In the pub they look happy.

People like to sing. Whenever I use an open mic slot not to sing some solo but to lead a sing-along of a familiar song, everyone sings! In nursing homes, they all sing! (I've discovered I love planning and leading sing-alongs.)

I admit I usually pull back to "barely heard" in church because to sing even normal volume is to stand out and I don't want to be accused of trying to call attention to myself. I've read too many on-line protests about anyone who does something identifiable being "a narcissist who is grabbing the spotlight." When everyone is singing and having fun in a house party, there's no such issue. I don't know why. Same people, different behavior, less judgment about the same behavior.

So I'm leaning toward something about church culture, an assumption that enjoying the music is wrong because it means you aren't focusing on God, not properly worshiping. We are supposed to be serious in church. Pub singing doesn't have those layers of complication about why we are singing.

(I wish we had pubs in USA culture!)
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I accept that point to an extent, Cliffdweller, but generally speaking I'd suggest that other than among sports fans and community choirs, singing of any kind isn't particularly a feature of British national life to the extent that it was at one time.

---

That's true of American life as well, primarily because of drastic cuts to the arts in US public schools-- to the point that they're virtually non-existant. In fact, American churches are currently really the last remnant of group choral singing (note how many American pop singers got their start singing in church gospel choirs). We've even been able to attract several non-Church families to our excellent children's choir program based on that absence in the public schools.
 

---

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
I wish I had gone to one of the carol singing session in South Yorkshire when I lived not that far away. But I didn't really hear about them until we had moved "darn sarf".

We've been telling some friends here in Canada about them and a number of people are getting very interested about the idea of rocking up to the local pub and blasting out some carols over a drink or two. Maybe next year.....
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

I wonder if today's performance ranges and studio tweaked impossible perfection have convinced ordinary people they "can't sing"?

In which case an emphasis on folk, sacred harp, and other styles that celebrate the imperfect singing voice might encourage ordinary people with ordinary voices to sing?

Just wondering out loud. My sense is people do love to sing. Something is silencing them. Fear of criticism for not sounding "good enough"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
... Like, in my church plenty of people sign up to be readers, light the Advent candles, etc, in a different church I sometimes visit no one signed up to light Advent candles. No one. (The ushers had to do it). ...

---

That must be one of those strange cultural differences that nobody is aware of until a chance remark draws it out. Almost everywhere in the UK, in my experience, children come up to the front to light the Advent candles. Sometimes they fight about it.

---

Our minister invites a family each week to be prepared to light an Advent candle (with reading and prayer); during the year the children light a Jesus Candle at the beginning of each service. There are plenty of volunteers for the Readers' and intercessors' rosters.
And we sing. At the end of our carols and readings someone had the bright idea of the congregation (60+ but a few were otherwise busy) joining the choir (maybe 25) to sing the blessing again together while she hopped on a chair to record it. The conductor was trying to make us smile but I needed a hanky!

GG
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
I love to sing. I hate the embarassed singing you often get - one person goes quiet, someone else goes quiet, and eventually no one will sing beyond a murmur. Awful. I definitely experienced this at school - it wasn't cool to sing, as I discovered very quickly. Having come from a church background, I sang with gusto....

I wonder if, in the Christingle service in Karl LB's OP, the cubs & beavers & their parents weren't churchy types and therefore more used to the embarassed muttering rather than gung ho singing.

My congregation sings with varying levels of enthusiasm. Personal prejudice follows: I find it much, much easier to sing hymns, even unfamiliar ones, with 4 or 5 verses and a predictable rhythm, so even if I don't know the hymn at the start, by verse 3 I'll know what I'm doing. The loudest and most enthusiastic singing I've heard at our place lately was to And Can It Be. Rightly so, too, I think. I love that hymn.

I do find modern songs more difficult for congregations - especially if you have a worship leader who doesn't read music and picks up the songs from youtube recordings or Matt Redman / Hillsong albums. The rhythms are more complex, and because the music often seems to be scribed from a concert, they may not be the same in each verse. I also think it's morally wrong to inflict a bridge or instrumental solo on a congregation.
 

---

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
I remember singing at school. Particularly I remember doing what I realise must have been an Australian-themed series of songs in second-year juniors. It's why I now still know the lyrics to Botany Bay and Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree.

I may be an abysmal singer, but I love singing. I was best at it when I was attending an evangelical church with two Sunday services, midweek house group and youth group, plus an ecumenical youth fellowship and school Christian Union.

Even though I'm not a good singer, I like to have the tune in front of me so I can keep an eye on the rhythm and watch the notes go up and down!
 

---

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I wonder if a culture of worship music being listened to outside of church helps evangelical congregations sing so much?

---

quote:

---

We don't sing any more

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
When the rock band is too loud that the congregation can't hear themselves then it does not help the worship experience at all.

In fact I find this to be just as bas as when an organist pulls all the stops out and drowns everyone out.

Too loud is too loud no matter what the style is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
Accompanying hymns is not at all as easy as you might think. It's something that "reluctants" (i.e. pianists pressed into playing the organ) find very difficult. If it's not done well, the result will not encourage congregational singing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

I admit I usually pull back to "barely heard" in church because to sing even normal volume is to stand out and I don't want to be accused of trying to call attention to myself.

---

From someone who sings badly (I'm usually in the same county as the tune), please sing out I sing in church. I want to sing in church, but everyone else really doesn't want to hear me. I need people like you, who can sing, to sing out loud and proud to help me follow the tune, and to mask my off-key voice.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
I guess I can provide a somewhat odd perspective on this.

I basically taught myself singing in Church, and in the RCC at that. My music education was basically non-existent, at least on the practical level. I entered the RCC as an adult via the FSSP (Catholic trads), so my first introduction to Church music was basically Gregorian chant-along! I still think that basically beats anything out there for non-professional participation, but perhaps for the most rousing of hymns. And so for a simple technical reason: you don't have to keep absolute pitch, for there is none, just relative one. As long as you ears can hear when the tone goes up or down, you can sing along. It's actually very simple for the regular chants. (Of course, there are chant "show pieces" that are very difficult to do...)

However, since then I have spend my time for the most part in non-trad RC churches, who would probably die of shock if anything resembling Gregorian chant was tried. Well, after my good experience with chanting, and keeping "He who sings, prays twice” in mind (falsely attributed to St Augustine), I decided to try to learn "regular" singing. So for the next six years or so I made a conscious effort to sing along with the songs that would be posted in Sunday mass. It worked, sort of. I can now carry a tune, at least a basic one. I have learned how to manage my breath (in particular important when one has to go high), I rapidly hear and remember "typical" patterns of music, etc. I even can sort of read music a bit, at least in the sense that if I look at the score I can much improve my "guessing" of the tune and even "sing ahead" on the first stanza rather than just a fraction of a second "behind" the choir while learning the tune. (I would be way better at reading music from this "training" if the hymn book actually always gave us notes to read. For the most part, we just get the text. And yes, I had a minimal background on reading musical notes from my high school education. But really what was left of that in my memory was basically "typographic recognition".)

So about six years down the track, I find that I am often one of the few strong voices in the congregation that joins the choir. I find this both amusing and tragically satisfying. And I now start to get this feeling of "why are not more people joining in, this is both holy and fun"? But of course from my own experience I can guess an answer: because many people are like me, never having had anything to do with music but consuming it, and few people are so crazy as me and construct some kind of music education out of trying for years to participate in singing at mass.

I would add that in my experience instrumental accompaniment is just as likely to kill singing as it is to encourage it. I find in particular the "guy with a guitar singing while strumming a song" setting is deadly. Basically everybody starts to switch to a "concert listening" mode. Whereas an organist giving a kind of "soft and neutral" accompaniment can give some backbone to the singing, in particular if he or she sort of "foreshadows" the tune before singing starts so that people have the tune in their minds. I also still find a few songs where after a few lines I think "I can't sing that" and stop. These typically have "strange sounds" and "difficult rhythms" (sorry, as I've said, basically no music education), but most importantly, they persist in them. Sometimes you get songs that have a tough part or two, but that's OK. You get a hang of that after the second attempt. What is annoying is if you have to concentrate hard during the entire song because it all is in that mode. (Not that it doesn't "work" if you hear it performed, but I just can't get into it.) And there are also plenty of songs which I find, well, uninspiring to sing. Though I do not necessarily agree with the "old songs good, modern songs bad" judgement that I often see. There certainly is a trend for older songs to be more singable (and have less saccharine / crypto-heretic lyrics...), but there is not such a clear divide for me there experientially.

Anyway, I have no idea what "lessons" to draw from this. I just thought I would mention this, since "singing along" has been a pet project during mass for me personally.
 

---

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Ingo - was that guy-with-a-guitar stuff more of an "intimate event" level of gain - as in a single guy on an electro-acoustic playing through backline, rather than the fully mic'd electric instruments with plenty of oomph type of thing?

I suppose we DI everything and have subwoofers so we can push that magic 85dBA level...
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
Accompanying hymns is not at all as easy as you might think. It's something that "reluctants" (i.e. pianists pressed into playing the organ) find very difficult. If it's not done well, the result will not encourage congregational singing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I bought a hymn fake book to enjoy at home, and eliminate half the chords when playing. Not what a church would expect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Ingo - was that guy-with-a-guitar stuff more of an "intimate event" level of gain - as in a single guy on an electro-acoustic playing through backline, rather than the fully mic'd electric instruments with plenty of oomph type of thing?

---

quote:

---

IngoB wrote quite a bit, including these two fragments:
I can now carry a tune, at least a basic one. I have learned how to manage my breath (in particular important when one has to go high), I rapidly hear and remember "typical" patterns of music, etc. I even can sort of read music a bit, at least in the sense that if I look at the score I can much improve my "guessing" of the tune and even "sing ahead" on the first stanza rather than just a fraction of a second "behind" the choir while learning the tune....

"Why are not more people joining in, this is both holy and fun"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
...
My congregation sings with varying levels of enthusiasm. Personal prejudice follows: I find it much, much easier to sing hymns, even unfamiliar ones, with 4 or 5 verses and a predictable rhythm, so even if I don't know the hymn at the start, by verse 3 I'll know what I'm doing. The loudest and most enthusiastic singing I've heard at our place lately was to And Can It Be. Rightly so, too, I think. I love that hymn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I do find modern songs more difficult for congregations - especially if you have a worship leader who doesn't read music and picks up the songs from youtube recordings or Matt Redman / Hillsong albums. The rhythms are more complex, and because the music often seems to be scribed from a concert, they may not be the same in each verse. I also think it's morally wrong to inflict a bridge or instrumental solo on a congregation.

---

Coupled with a worship leader being more of a performer than a leader, leads to a total lack of the ability to sing pretty much anything.

We sang carols in church on Sunday. One was to an unfamiliar tune, and the others had word changes all over the place. Makes me want to stay home in December! Does no one understand that repetition is a key to remembering? That predictability is a key to being able to sing properly - especially when all one has to go on is words (no music) on a power point which may not change quickly enough for you to start the next phrase on time? Guessing on every note is problematic enough - guessing on the words as well is
 

---

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
I admire people who can pick up a tune as they sing – if it's unfamiliar I want to have the music, and then I'll sing anything.
I think these are two mutually exclusive skills.

GG
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

I admit I usually pull back to "barely heard" in church because to sing even normal volume is to stand out and I don't want to be accused of trying to call attention to myself.

---

From someone who sings badly (I'm usually in the same county as the tune), please sing out I sing in church. I want to sing in church, but everyone else really doesn't want to hear me. I need people like you, who can sing, to sing out loud and proud to help me follow the tune, and to mask my off-key voice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
On Saturday morning the Salvation Army band were playing and my mind immediately went into carol singing mode! I know all the words, having been a member of choirs for years when young and having a good memory for words, but (a) I find it too difficult to suspend my disbelief of the old-fashioned words, and (b) my voice definitely creaks a lot!! I think it is a great shame that those rousing tunes do not have up-to-date, vigorous, powerful words to replace the very rose-tinted, 19th century ones. All the way home I was singing it in my head, but taking each line and looking at it from a scientific point of view!
By the way, it was, Hark, the Herald Angels sing'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I admire people who can pick up a tune as they sing – if it's unfamiliar I want to have the music, and then I'll sing anything.
I think these are two mutually exclusive skills.

GG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
All the way home I was singing [Hark, the Herald Angels sing] in my head, but taking each line and looking at it from a scientific point of view!

---

Nope, you did not do that at all.

What you may have done is to look at each line from the particular philosophical point of view that you hold, which - judging by prior conversation - is some kind of naive metaphysical naturalism that informs the contemporary atheism which you so cheerfully believe in.

And what this could have made you think about is that maybe, just maybe, the inability of your philosophy to write songs that make your heart sing points to a problem with your philosophy. But admittedly that would require a somewhat wider view of "evidence" than just "empirical data suitable for mathematical modelling".
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Ingo, I've often disagreed with you in the past, but on this occasion
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Here in ground zero for the megachurch movement, many of our megachurches are places where the congregational singing is most energetic and engaged. Others... not so much.

---

quote:

---

I'm wondering if the plethora of talent quests has given people the idea that you need to have a specific talent in order to sing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Amanda wrote:

quote:

---

In Catholic churches people traditionally did not sing, and I have seen that this is still the case. There are some congregations, though, where the people do join in.

---

Well, in Canada, there was a worship manual, which at least when I was still practicing(late 80s) was distributed to Catholic churches across the country. The second half of the book consisted of the music and words to the songs, so I have to assume that the compilers of the book were expecting people to sing.

The Catholic Book Of Worship

---

My experience of RC outlets in Canada is that, should the congregation be largely anglophone of Celtic origin, there will be only gentle murmurs accompanying the worship leader. If there are regular worshippers in a francophone parish, the singing will be fair- almost at an Anglican level - but if it is a more generally-attended service (such as at Easter), most of the congregation will not know the hymns at all. At Xmas, well-known hymns such are on Radio Canada's specials (e.g. Minuit chrétien) will be well sung, but anything else gets embarrassed humming-along.

If the congregation is Filipino or Caribbean, expect the roof to shake. I have heard the local Tamil congregation is full-voiced, but have yet to check this out.

Ottawa might be exceptional in that we have a raft of good local voluntary choirs and two university schools of music, so there are quite a few professional and semi-professional musicians bolstering congregational music, mainly in UCC and Anglican circles.

Still, nothing quite beat a rural CoI service I attended in the 1970s, where we hummed along to hymns played on the gramophone.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
The local RC shack hosted the Community Christmas Concert two years in the village where I lived. The hymn books only had one line of music for each hymn.

Of course, in the UCCan, being of combined Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregationalist heritage, we need no excuse to sing. The drop of a hat will do.
 

---

Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cattyish:
Apparently schools have practically no formal music tuition for younger children, though I don't know whether that's local or Scotland wide.

---

We have a lot of pupils learning instruments (probably >50%) out here, but not that many who are willing to sing (particularly but not exclusively the boys) younger pupils are more willing so I think a lot of it is the embarrassment factor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The local RC shack hosted the Community Christmas Concert two years in the village where I lived. The hymn books only had one line of music for each hymn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
If the congregation is Filipino or Caribbean, expect the roof to shake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I admire people who can pick up a tune as they sing – if it's unfamiliar I want to have the music, and then I'll sing anything.
I think these are two mutually exclusive skills.

GG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I admire people who can pick up a tune as they sing – if it's unfamiliar I want to have the music,

---

I usually pick up a new tune as I sing it. I'd rather not have the sheet music in front of me as I find it distracting;..
OTOH, I'd benefit from having the sheet music made available so that I could practise singing the hymn at home later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
All the way home I was singing [Hark, the Herald Angels sing] in my head, but taking each line and looking at it from a scientific point of view!

---

Nope, you did not do that at all.

What you may have done is to look at each line from the particular philosophical point of view that you hold, which - judging by prior conversation - is some kind of naive metaphysical naturalism that informs the contemporary atheism which you so cheerfully believe in.

And what this could have made you think about is that maybe, just maybe, the inability of your philosophy to write songs that make your heart sing points to a problem with your philosophy. But admittedly that would require a somewhat wider view of "evidence" than just "empirical data suitable for mathematical modelling".

---

Like Albertus, I don't always agree with you IngoB, but on this occasion, I agree with both you and Albertus. That gets a



My mind, incidentally, boggles at the suggestion that we ought to go through our hymns and carols and change the words to remove anything that might hinder people like Professor Dawkins from singing them with conviction.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
On Saturday morning the Salvation Army band were playing and my mind immediately went into carol singing mode! I know all the words, having been a member of choirs for years when young and having a good memory for words, but (a) I find it too difficult to suspend my disbelief of the old-fashioned words, and (b) my voice definitely creaks a lot!! I think it is a great shame that those rousing tunes do not have up-to-date, vigorous, powerful words to replace the very rose-tinted, 19th century ones. All the way home I was singing it in my head, but taking each line and looking at it from a scientific point of view!
By the way, it was, Hark, the Herald Angels sing'.

---

Oh dear do you take each line of a Shakespearean sonnet or a Beatles song and look at it from a "scientific point of view" too? What a terribly sad way to destroy the joy of music and poetry.

---

Of course not! That’s much too sweeping a statement! I would also point out that neither Shakespeare nor the Beatles had anything to do with being the inspiration for a religion. I love music and singing; both have been an important part of my life. Songs like the Liebestod from Tristan, and a cantata by Rachmaninov for instance can carry me away to ... well, I'd better not say 'another world' because I find that idea non-scientific!! - but to a feeling of ecstasy maybe. The study of poetry has not been such a major part and I prefer rhyming, i.e. rhythmic, verse, and dance to poetry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
All the way home I was singing [Hark, the Herald Angels sing] in my head, but taking each line and looking at it from a scientific point of view!

---

Nope, you did not do that at all.

---

quote:

---

What you may have done is to look at each line from the particular [philosophical point of view that you hold, which - judging by prior conversation - is some kind of naive metaphysical naturalism …

---

quote:

---

…that informs the contemporary atheism which you so cheerfully believe in.

---

quote:

---

And what this could have made you think about is that maybe, just maybe, the inability of your philosophy to write songs that make your heart sing points to a problem with your philosophy. But admittedly that would require a somewhat wider view of "evidence" than just "empirical data suitable for mathematical modelling".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Re: school choirs. Our primary school as a choir. Most years it contains about two dozen girls and no boys at all. Occasionally a boy joins, but I understand it practices at the same time as football...

It's perhaps no surprise that choirs struggle to get tenors and basses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Re: school choirs. Our primary school as a choir. Most years it contains about two dozen girls and no boys at all. Occasionally a boy joins, but I understand it practices at the same time as football...

It's perhaps no surprise that choirs struggle to get tenors and basses.

---

In the city centre today were four (presumably homeless) men singing carols to raise money for a homeless charity. They were bravely belting out the tunes, raucously and not very musically, but with plenty of enthusiasm. They looked as if they would have been happier in a football crowd but you had to admire their guts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
If the congregation is Filipino or Caribbean, expect the roof to shake.

---

I attended mass in the Cathedral of Baguio, Philippines, last Sunday (well, the Saturday evening Sunday mass). Roofs were very much not shaken by the singing. But for the public recitation of the rosary before mass (and the Tagalog homily, the rest was in English), it could have easily been mistaken for some standard UK mass. I am trying to remember my previous trips, but I can't quite remember what the singing was like elsewhere in the Philippines. It certainly didn't rise to the level of "amazing" though, or it would have stuck in my memory.

I would speculate that there is a typical "cultural conservation" going on with Filipinos overseas, where immigrants "practice" their culture with an enthusiasm rarely seen in the home land.*snip*

---

quote:

---

Accompanying hymns is not at all as easy as you might think. It's something that "reluctants" (i.e. pianists pressed into playing the organ) find very difficult. If it's not done well, the result will not encourage congregational singing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Although I con cede that realistic might be a better word than scientific.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Why do you use the word ‘naive’? At my age, that’s one thing I’m not!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Atheism, though, is not something one can believe in, is it? I simply totally lack any belief in God/god/s – a change from the belief in God I had when young.

---

quote:

---

posted by Piglet:
My Better Half, who's been the organist of a church or cathedral for over 40 years, has a theory that the better the standard of choral singing in a church, the less likely the congregation is to sing, and I think he has a point.

If the choir is voluntary, then many of the people in the congregation who are interested in singing will be in it, and the congregation will leave the singing to the choir.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Age is no sure protection against any manner of foolishness. That said, I called your metaphysical naturalism - not you yourself - "naive":

---

quote:

---

You are (1) largely oblivious that you are holding a specific philosophical position, being convinced instead that you rest in some kind of "objective mode of truth" (which is tragicomical); and (2) you have next to no knowledge, much less understanding, of the various philosophical challenges that have been levelled at your particular philosophy. So that is naive. "Naive" is not a synonym for "false" though, hence you can maintain the hope that you stumbled upon the truth even if you do not have the philosophical wherewithal to defend it.

---

quote:

---

You accept that there is no god, indeed nothing "supernatural" at all, without yourself being able to produce anything resembling a rational "proof" for this assertion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Got it in one, POI: playing for congregational hymn singing is an art - not straight accompaniment because you tend to be leading, but not playing alone either.
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
’stumbled upon’ it? No. I have reached the conclusions I have through a million conversations and discussions, reading, attending different churches (and a synagogue), singing, teaching, dealing with adversities, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
You accept that there is no god, indeed nothing "supernatural" at all, without yourself being able to produce anything resembling a rational "proof" for this assertion.

---

As do you, surely. From the opposite direction?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I keep seeing this thread title on the boards' front page, and just thinking how desperately sad it looks. "We don't sing any more" looks - to a music lover like me - like you don't have anything to be happy about any more (or to express any other emotion about, I suppose).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
... In all the churches I have been to, when there was an announcement that there would be some "special music performance" by some "professionals", the church ended up being packed. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Yebbut. Were they worshipping God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
But loving music is not at issue here. It is loving to produce music which this is really what this is all about.

---

quote:

---

In all the churches I have been to, when there was an announcement that there would be some "special music performance" by some "professionals", the church ended up being packed. Plenty of people are willing to listen to (good) music. Few are now wiling to make it. And fewer still are willing to sing (i.e., somebody who plays the piano is not necessarily going to be an enthusiastic singer at church).

I think the underlying issue is that singing has become a minor subsection of the particular hobby "making music".

---

Here I think you're right. It's one of the contemporary Big Lies of our culture that to consume music is to be musical. It's easily refuted by looking at just how passionate so many children and teenagers are about making music, until they become frustrated by not finding an outlet for their expression.

I would rather go to a church where the music is made by everyone, perhaps not well, but with commitment, than a church where the music is made only by a polished professional few.
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
I'm an example of the trend Karl identifies. I'm a thirty-something from a working class unchurched background. I had never sung communally before I started going to church in my early twenties. I don't read music and have no experience of nor interest in choral or classical music (I'm basically a 90s Indie kid at heart ). Communal singing was just another cultural hurdle to clear in becoming a Christian. I can get by with the kind of contemporary worship which attracts much snobbery on SOF, but find traditional worship very heavy going. Its just culturally alien. Our current church alternates slightly between trad and contemp in an effort to keep everyone equally happy / unhappy and the singing on 'trad' mornings is just dead time to me. IME people like me are thin on the ground on SOF but rather commoner IRL.
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
As an aside, there's the interesting question of repetition. IME clergypeople and life-long churchgoers in traditional congregations want a wide repertoire and complain if they have to sing the same thing 'too often'. I on the other hand bloody love repetition, because it helps me actually learn songs, focus on the words rather than trying to struggle along with the tune etc. Its interesting and revealing that more contemporary and / or charismatic settings are often very comfortable with repetition - it makes that style easier for outsiders to engage with.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
IME people like me are thin on the ground on SOF but rather commoner IRL.

---

Sadly, Yerevan, this is certainly the case.

Which is why some of us like to come onto these boards and complain about it ...



 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Yerevan - my background is very similar to yours, I think. IMO people like us - unchurched as children and far more familiar with contemporary musical culture than with classical music etc. - will usually find traditional church a very alien, bizarre experience.

If we are going to become comfortable with church then the music (if indeed there is any significant musical content) has to be relevant to our cultural context.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Thanks for that datapoint Yerevan.

I'd like to address the "told they can't sing" thing. I think it's very true. I:

Sang as a treble in the school Choral Society (public school, strong musical tradition, had to be "good enough");
Continued in said Choral Society (most didn't) as a tenor and in a smaller more select chamber choir at the school;
Have sung small G&S tenor and baritone roles;
Regularly sing in a folk group and have received emails telling me I'm missed when I've missed a few sessions.

A reasonable assumption would be that I can sing, if not brilliantly, at least not like a cat with hot water being poured over it. And yet I've been told more times than I care to remember that I "can't sing".

What folk with a little less ear for tuning and training, experience and practice must get told I dread to think.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't have a problem with repetition either - anyone who is half-way liturgical in their inclinations is going to have to get used to a heck of a lot of repetition ...

If anyone is Orthodox then that is even more the case as things tend to be repeated about three times (at least) in most of their services ...

'Again and again in peace, let us pray to the Lord ...'

What bothers me in charismatic evangelical circles (and I was involved with them for donkey's years) isn't so much the repetition as the content.

I don't mind repeating things again and again if they're any good. But not if they are shite.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
As an aside, there's the interesting question of repetition. IME clergypeople and life-long churchgoers in traditional congregations want a wide repertoire and complain if they have to sing the same thing 'too often'. I on the other hand bloody love repetition, because it helps me actually learn songs, focus on the words rather than trying to struggle along with the tune etc. Its interesting and revealing that more contemporary and / or charismatic settings are often very comfortable with repetition - it makes that style easier for outsiders to engage with.

---

quote:

---

* this church doesn't use music to exclude new people
* this church habitually does new things
* nobody here knows this song any better than I do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Yerevan - my background is very similar to yours, I think. IMO people like us - unchurched as children and far more familiar with contemporary musical culture than with classical music etc. - will usually find traditional church a very alien, bizarre experience.

If we are going to become comfortable with church then the music (if indeed there is any significant musical content) has to be relevant to our cultural context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... The traditional church music is a genre (or indeed group of genres) all of its own, a genre specifically evolved and developed around congregational involvement. Hymns are meant to be sung by a congregation, pop/rock songs aren't. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
There are very few people who can't sing, even if they have trouble pitching a tune.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
ISTM that part of the artificiality of some modern worship material is that stylistically it's the sort of stuff you listen to, but you're expected to perform it.

The traditional church music is a genre (or indeed group of genres) all of its own, a genre specifically evolved and developed around congregational involvement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I have a similar background to both of you (working class, unchurched) though younger and female, but traditional church inc traditional church singing is what I love. I love it because it's a relatively alien experience - it feels different, set apart, holy. I like quite a few worship songs but I have a real problem with most of them because they just feel far too like pop songs to count as worship for me - their 'relevance' has sucked all the reverence out of them. For me the worship songs I like are just Jesusy pop songs and not anything I'd want to sing in church. FWIW I can't read music (though noted psalms are OK and I can pick up a tune well) and don't listen to classical music at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Singing hymns the conventional way happens to have been a particularly good and very accessible way for people to do this. Different generations have stirred new ingredients into the pot.

Because that is the objective, it is entirely reasonable and right that if popular music has taken a turn that no longer enables that, our music may not be the same as popular music, may be and have to be, a slightly alien genre.

I suspect it might also be why, of the various threads that contribute to modern popular Christian music as actually sung in churches rather than bought on CDs, I reckon folk and 'sub-folk' is normally a more usefully mineable resource than any of the varieties of rock. It is more likely to meet the simple and obvious test 'is this singable?'.

Complicated polyphonic motets, however exquisite, aren't. Nor is most rock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
I just find the obliviousness of older traditional churchgoers on this issue mystifying. They seem incapable of grasping that most under-fifties have literally no experience of congregational singing, choral music, organs, hymn singing, hymnbooks etc.

---

Well, it's about bloody time they learned then, isn't it?



Says Gamaliel, aged 53 ...



Seriously though, as with other things, I'm from a generation that has 'seen both' ... I learned both the Imperial and Metric systems at school, we learned pounds, shillings and pence and then had to unlearn them and learn the decimal system for coinage when that was introduced in 1971.

The older ones among us will remember 'Decimal Five' at this point ... with Roger McGough and Mike McGear (brother of Paul McCartney) and all teaching the nation songs to help them learn the new system ...

'You give more, you get change ...' and 'One pound is a hundred new pennies, a hundred new pennies to the pound ...'

Whatever happened to the use of song in public information programmes?



I can remember those songs after all these years ...

The thing is, coming back to the present from nostalgia land, what looked fresh and radical and contemporary back when the new choruses and worship songs were coming into vogue in the 1970s and '80s doesn't stay fresh and radical for long.

I don't know what's so 'contemporary' about so-called contemporary worship songs and choruses. They all sound like sad and sappy pop songs and lag way behind whatever is really happening in the world of 'popular music'.

Sure, it has broad appeal in a kind of MoR soft-rock or folky kind of way - and there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself ...

Perhaps I'm a grumpy old git but given the choice between a contemporary worship band approach and a trained cathedral choir - or even a hoarse village parish one - I know what I'd prefer. But I wouldn't have said that 30 years ago.

It's all relative and all to do with context.

I do think this 'relevance' malarkey is a over-used term though. What's 'relevant' to one person is likely to be completely 'irrelevant' to someone else. If we are constantly chasing so-called 'relevance' we are constantly chasing a chimera.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think part of the problem, Pomona, is that the contemporary worship scene has become just that - a 'scene' - it's become so thoroughly commercialised and marketed that you can even find Hillsongs CDs in 'secular' outlets as a sub-genre of naff mood music.

The marketisation of the contemporary worship song has effectively neutered the genre. It's produced bland, same-y, formulaic songs where there is little room for anything genuinely radical or prophetic.

That's what's so pants about it. Not the fact that it is contemporary, nor that it's popular or uses pop-song structures and tropes - but that the whole scene has been marketed out of any semblance of 'edge' or gutsiness.

It's lost its balls to the money men.
 

---

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
No-one gets to abolish tradition. Add to it, fine. Adapt, again, fine. Behave as if it doesn't exist? No. Same with these attempts to behave as if we can have a mid-2nd-century church in the 21st century. Just not an option.

Nor is attempting to set it in stone. It's organic, and attempts to stop it from changing kill it.

Cultures have memories, and the church, among the many things it is, is a culture. It won't be bullied into forgetting itself.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Regarding commercialisation, that happens to all forms of church music. People will pay to listen to nice tunes without thinking too much about the meaning behind the words. Whether it's Handel or gospel music, the more secular listeners enjoy it the money money can be made. The record labels know this, and I should think the artistes do as well.

For the sake of the recording industry if nothing else we need the churches to nurture a love of communal singing, since not many other organisations are doing it these days!
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I am yet to see a CD featuring New English Hymnal hymns.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

To be honest, "relevant" means it's played and you listen. That's how people interact with music in the main these days. Quite often as background.

ISTM that part of the artificiality of some modern worship material is that stylistically it's the sort of stuff you listen to, but you're expected to perform it.

The traditional church music is a genre (or indeed group of genres) all of its own, a genre specifically evolved and developed around congregational involvement. Hymns are meant to be sung by a congregation, pop/rock songs aren't. That's not to say that congregational music can't be written with modern influences and using modern instruments, but there's more to "relevance" than that, IMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
My issue is with the quality and lack of reverence. I think what we need is modern hymns with a bit of strength behind them, rather than a catchy but shallow worship song*.

*I know not all worship songs are shallow!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I am yet to see a CD featuring New English Hymnal hymns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I am yet to see a CD featuring New English Hymnal hymns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I have trouble with the tendency of some bands to do fancy endings, forcing the congregation to stop singing for the last half of the last verse. An otherwise decent congregational piece becomes a performance piece at the end.

---

quote:

---

And then in heaven receive me
And then in heaven receive me
And then in heaven receive me
My Saviour and my friend
Saviour and my friend
Saviour and my friend
Be always my Saviour and my friend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Regarding commercialisation, ... Whether it's Handel or gospel music, the more secular listeners enjoy it the money money can be made. The record labels know this, and I should think the artistes do as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
One difference maybe - but those who know music history better than I can correct me - in the "old days" Handel, Bach, black gospel song writers etc may or may not have been paid to write but wrote what they wanted to then presented the composition, whether for mostly listening (the Messiah) or for congregational singing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al Eluia:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
There are very few people who can't sing, even if they have trouble pitching a tune.

---

You wouldn't know that from watching American Idol and similar shows!

---

quote:

---

It's all part of "unless you can sing like Sandy Denny or Bryn Terfel etc. you can't sing" which I think is part of the problem. It underlies people telling me I "can't sing", for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Karl:

quote:

---

It's all part of "unless you can sing like Sandy Denny or Bryn Terfel etc. you can't sing" which I think is part of the problem. It underlies people telling me I "can't sing", for example.

---

That's true, but there are different types of singing. I expect what bib meant was that there are very few people who are completely incapable of singing a traditional hymn as part of a congregation, and that's true. Singing a tune as part of a group is relatively easy. Singing a harmony part is harder. Singing a solo (well) is harder still. Singing a principal role in an opera (for example, Turandot or The Queen of the Night in 'Magic Flute') is hardest of all.

Most of the people who do these reality TV shows have fairly good natural voices, but either haven't been trained how to use them properly or haven't got a good sense of pitch. Or both. They'd be fine singing in a group as they are, and after a few singing lessons most would be OK doing solos too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Perhaps I'm a grumpy old git but given the choice between a contemporary worship band approach and a trained cathedral choir - or even a hoarse village parish one - I know what I'd prefer. But I wouldn't have said that 30 years ago.

---

Of course, one can enjoy both, just as one can enjoy both rock and Bach. To coin your phrase, it's not either/or. I love both 16th century polyphony and Kate Bush. (If she ever became a Christian, what amazing worship music she might write. )

As with anything, there are some good contemporary worship people around (e.g. Sara Groves, Audrey Assad, Lou Fellingham, Iona) as well as stuff that doesn't do a thing for me. I still think that Delirious? were one of the best things ever on the Christian contemporary scene. I always found their brand of soft rock quite contemplative, with some rich melodies and thoughtful lyrics.

Not a fan of the corporate culture of Hillsong and Jesus Culture. Hillsong, however, do write some pretty good songs, although I am suspicious of their theology. Jesus Culture - meh. I've listened to quite a lot of their stuff and - yeah, I'm still meh. I also find it incredibly manipulative, and that worries me. Delirious?, twenty years ago, were HEAPS better.

I love lots of trad hymns. And there are other trad hymns that I find boring, dirge-y or I think have dodgy theology.

quote:

---

I do think this 'relevance' malarkey is a over-used term though. What's 'relevant' to one person is likely to be completely 'irrelevant' to someone else. If we are constantly chasing so-called 'relevance' we are constantly chasing a chimera.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
I see what you're getting at, but I think part of the problem *is* those people who sing professionally outside opera without any formal training or (in some cases) much musical knowledge. It gives the impression that you either know how to sing instinctively or you don't, and if you don't there's not much you can do to improve matters. This is not true except for the very small number of people who are completely tone deaf.

---

quote:

---

I think programmes like 'The Voice' do help to raise awareness that singing is something that can be improved with training and practice, but the pop music industry is geared to selecting stars on their looks.

[x-post - that was a reply to Karl]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think it's more people being told that unless they can sing like that they "can't sing" that's the issue. I don't think most people need training to sing in a congregation - just the confidence that they don't have to be brilliant; the mix of voices fills in inadequacies in any one individual's tone.

---

Stone me! I that's the second time in a week now that I think I agree with you. Has hell frozen over or something?

[ 19. December 2014, 10:46: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't disagree with the tenor of all that, Laurelin. Even if I may disagree on the detail ... I just thought Delirious? and similar were sub-Cold Play but there you go ...

If you saw my CD collection you'd find everything from The Pogues to Bach, Arvo Part to Handel, The Clash, Sex Pistols, world-music, folk music, jazz, blues and Gospel.

I think Albertus strikes the right note.

But that doesn't stop me sounding off at times ...



The main point though, is that however we cut it, if we are going to have congregational singing then it should be sing-along-able.

It also has to be recognised, I think, that some Christian traditions such as the Catholics (in most countries - Poland an exception I understand) and the Orthodox aren't necessarily focused on congregational singing at all - but they still have a rich musical and choral tradition - as a visit to any monastery or convent or to a Russian Orthodox service (dig that basso-profundo!) will soon reveal.

I am interested in the idea of these 'emerging' churches which have done away with congregational singing altogether because it is so alien to their particular - presumably previously unchurched - constituency.

I'm interested to hear what they do instead.

I get the impression from what Karl: Liberal Backslider is saying about his church that they tend not to sing but do listen to the music or to other people singing ... which isn't a million miles from what the Orthodox tend to do. Full circle?

It isn't all about singing or congregational singing of course - worship isn't simply about the words we use or the way we articulate them.

Do some form of physical action comprise the worship in these new, non-congregational singing churches?

Do they 'do actions' ... in some kind of post-modernist way?

Physical actions - walking to pilgrim sites, bowing, kneeling, prostrations, crossing oneself, raising one's hands, lighting candles, venerating icons etc etc have long played a part in Christian worship - and can be found in most Christian traditions (apart from the most Reformed where sitting on one's arse and listening to sermons is about as physical as it gets) ...

Are these - or developments/alternatives to these - taking the place of congregational singing in some of the 'newer' or 'emerging' settings?
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
....I think Albertus strikes the right note...

---

Except when I'm singing
(Actually, I was always led to believe I 'couldn't sing'. Then I took some lessons to see if I could, and I could, after a fashion! But need to work on it again.)

[ 19. December 2014, 13:14: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Heh heh ...

A chap I knew who was an accomplished singer used to say that virtually everyone can sing, they simply need to be shown how.

He even reckoned I could sing ...

I'd still like to be one of those basso-profundo Russian deacons ...
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
To judge from this thread, both traditional CofE worship and 'commercialised' charismatic worship are sometimes similar in at least one sense: in both cases ordinary members of the congregation prefer not to sing up too much, and would rather just listen to the 'professionals' at the front.

This is what sometimes puts me off singing in church, though - not being able to hear my own voice. It's in large congregations with modern charismatic music being played that this can be a problem. I don't know if this is to do with the type of mysic being played, the acoustics, or the number of people present.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Karl:

quote:

---

I don't think most people need training to sing in a congregation - just the confidence that they don't have to be brilliant; the mix of voices fills in inadequacies in any one individual's tone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
...I would have answered the question "why don't you sing?" in much the same way as I would answer the question "why don't you play handball?" now. There was no particular reason - I just wasn't doing it, the few times I had tried it it was sort of fun but certainly not enough to make a hobby out of it, and I had no other reason why I would be doing it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Karl:

quote:

---

I don't think most people need training to sing in a congregation - just the confidence that they don't have to be brilliant; the mix of voices fills in inadequacies in any one individual's tone.

---

I never said they did. What I was trying to say in my previous post was that many (most) people need training to sing solos.

Confidence is good too, though. I agree with you there. As someone else said further up the thread, the habit of listening to recorded music tends to make people more self-conscious about singing in public as well. Most of us are capable of telling the difference in quality between our own singing and (let's say) Kiri Te Kanewa's or Pavarotti's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
To judge from this thread, both traditional CofE worship and 'commercialised' charismatic worship are sometimes similar in at least one sense: in both cases ordinary members of the congregation prefer not to sing up too much, and would rather just listen to the 'professionals' at the front.

This is what sometimes puts me off singing in church, though - not being able to hear my own voice. It's in large congregations with modern charismatic music being played that this can be a problem. I don't know if this is to do with the type of mysic being played, the acoustics, or the number of people present.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Karl:

quote:

---

It's all part of "unless you can sing like Sandy Denny or Bryn Terfel etc. you can't sing" which I think is part of the problem. It underlies people telling me I "can't sing", for example.

---

That's true, but there are different types of singing. I expect what bib meant was that there are very few people who are completely incapable of singing a traditional hymn as part of a congregation, and that's true. Singing a tune as part of a group is relatively easy. Singing a harmony part is harder. Singing a solo (well) is harder still. Singing a principal role in an opera (for example, Turandot or The Queen of the Night in 'Magic Flute') is hardest of all.

Most of the people who do these reality TV shows have fairly good natural voices, but either haven't been trained how to use them properly or haven't got a good sense of pitch. Or both. They'd be fine singing in a group as they are, and after a few singing lessons most would be OK doing solos too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... I sound exactly like Pavarotti did in his prime. Honest.

---

I sound like Caruso. Robinson Caruso. (My jokes are no better than my singing, see?)

[codefix]

[ 19. December 2014, 16:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Except, SvitlanaV2, that in traditional Anglican worship the congregation do tend to sing along with the 'professionals' as you put it - even if these 'professionals' are simply volunteer members of the local choir.

They may not sing with gusto, but they generally do sing. Which isn't always something that happens in RC or Orthodox services. It does vary though, I've visited Orthodox parishes where people sing along with the choir - and don't simply recite the required bits - like the Creed and the Lord's Prayer and the pre-communion prayer which begins, 'Of Thy Mystic Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant ...'

In fact, I've sung along with the Cherubic Hymn and other parts of the Liturgy with which I'm familiar and nobody has looked askance or taken any notice.

Coming back to Anglicanism, other than the vicar, there aren't likely to be that many 'professionals' around in your typical traditional Anglican service - unless it's in a cathedral and there'll you'll find professional choir directors and so on.

I think that the point you're making is an interesting and valid one in principle, though ... it seems to me that some forms of uber-contemporary 'emerging' style churches have gone full cycle and returned to a situation where congregational singing has been abandoned in favour of listening to a dedicated choir or music group (not necessarily professionals) who sing on their behalf.

Meanwhile, I'm quite intrigued by the issue of non-sung worship (and yes, I know that worship is't all about singing nor what we do or don't do in church) - and I may start a thread on that over on Ecclesiantics.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The other aspect, of course, is that if it's an 8am BCP service with no musicians or choir present then there is unlikely to be any music at all - it'll be a 'said' (or chanted) service with the congregation joining in the set responses as the clergy person goes 'by the book'.

I suspect that in some of the 'emerging' style churches that have been alluded to - where there is no congregational singing - then there'll be an equivalent of some kind - even if it isn't a formal liturgy as such.

I'm guessing, but I'd imagine that in some of these places they won't have any 'set response' at all but people will simply watch whatever it is that goes or - or perhaps they are given interactive things to do - like cutting things out of pieces of paper or putting pebbles in baskets and whatever happens to be in vogue in these circles ...
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Hmm. 'Uber-contemporary 'emerging' churches' reinventing Choral Evensong? Interesting!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There's nothing new under the sun, Albertus ... it's just that these trendy new 'emerging churches' haven't quite clocked that yet ...


 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As I mentioned upthread, I think the "professionalization" of church life (imported from corporate business culture) is the problem. We emphasize "excellence" rather than "giving your best"; we emphasize a "polished, professional" presentation rather than recognizing the historic role the church has played in nurturing budding talent (recognizing that a "budding" talent needs to begin somewhere-- and somewhere is not going to be polished, professional act).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Hmm. 'Uber-contemporary 'emerging' churches' reinventing Choral Evensong? Interesting!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In traditional Anglican worship the congregation do tend to sing along with the 'professionals' as you put it - even if these 'professionals' are simply volunteer members of the local choir.

They may not sing with gusto, but they generally do sing. Which isn't always something that happens in RC or Orthodox services.
[...]

Coming back to Anglicanism, other than the vicar, there aren't likely to be that many 'professionals' around in your typical traditional Anglican service - unless it's in a cathedral and there'll you'll find professional choir directors and so on.

---

quote:

---

I'm quite intrigued by the issue of non-sung worship (and yes, I know that worship is't all about singing nor what we do or don't do in church) - and I may start a thread on that over on Ecclesiantics.

---

I suppose one advantage of non-sung worship is that it can't be commercialised. (Although someone may now tell us that you can go online and order a copy some silent Quaker worship on CD....)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You could always get a copy of John Cage's 4'33" and pretend it was a recording of a Quaker meeting ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
My wife's off to choir practice in a few minutes. She practices with a village choir in a medieval church about 7 miles north of here in exchange for singing with them on high-days and holidays.

She'll be singing at their carol service on Sunday.

I'll mention to her that you've referred to such choirs as 'professionals' and see what reaction I get ...

You might hear the laughing from where you are ...

More seriously, though, they are 'directed' by a professional, a woman with a PhD in 18th century church music who grew up Swedenborgian, migrated to the Methodists ('they sang better') and is now Anglican ('I'm still very much non-conformist at heart but I love the liturgy ...').

She teaches flute and piano and also plays the organ and acts as choir-mistress ... that's not her 'professional' job though ... the teaching is.

I have to say, mind, that there is something very 'community building' about choral singing - Chorister's made that point on these boards plenty of times and she's right.

I was recently invited to sing with the choir at our local Methodist church for their morning Harvest Festival service and their evening 'Harvest Celebration' - which I found to my cost, to be about 18 hymns sung back to back with short-readings in between.

We had to sing the final number twice because the minister had enjoyed it so much. I nearly enjoyed stringing him up and flaying him alive afterwards ...

They invited me back to sing in the Christmas cycle but I made my excuses ...



There was something rather jolly and very communal about practicing with them and hearing it all come together - sort of - on the day. But it was a close-run thing ...

They've got a very gifted woman there who organises the choir.

Every church I've been in or been involved with has had some musically gifted people involved and I think there's a lot of scope for such people to help everyone else. So the question posed to Yerevan, SCK et al on whether there's any help/support available to the congregations in their churches when it comes to singing is a good one.

Back in the day, when I was first involved with charismatic evangelical churches, it wasn't unusual to find churches using home-grown material - songs written by members of their congregations.

I think I caught the tail-end of that, it had already become something of a 'scene' when I got involved. I visited Spanish evangelical charismatic churches in the mid to late '80s and they were still using their own home-grown talent and music to some extent - as well as Spanish translations of popular US or British worship songs.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
The One Show has just broadcast what appeared a Skyped version of Adeste Fideles, with individuals joining in from their homes and projected on flat screen TVs. Various voices, one quite operatic.
So some people are singing.
Don't know how they organised it, and I missed the intro.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Gamaliel

They can laugh all they like, but if they're being led by someone with a PhD in a relevant field then they're doing vastly better in the 'professional' music stakes than the vast majority of British churches, I should think! It's all relative, though, I agree.

So long as we have access to the kinds of churches where we feel we can contribute as much or as little as we're able to, musically and otherwise, then perhaps that's the main thing. What other people's churches do or don't do is then irrelevant.

[ 19. December 2014, 18:34: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well yes, that particular parish is fortunate to have someone with those skills and background.

Not everyone has access to that - which is one of the reasons, of course, why traditional Anglican choirs have been in decline.

I'm not particularly commenting on the rights and wrongs and ins and outs of how various churches conduct their worship ... I'm simply making some observations about sung worship - just as over in Ecclesiantics I've started to make some on what we might call 'unsung' worship - the use of physical postures, gestures, actions and so on - rather than the vocal element we've been discussing here.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
...I would have answered the question "why don't you sing?" in much the same way as I would answer the question "why don't you play handball?" now. There was no particular reason - I just wasn't doing it, the few times I had tried it it was sort of fun but certainly not enough to make a hobby out of it, and I had no other reason why I would be doing it.

---

Interesting comment, thank you.

I grew singing, not daily, but around the campfire on vacations, on car trips, in Scouts. Singing was a normal activity outside church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I grew singing, not daily, but around the campfire on vacations, on car trips, in Scouts. Singing was a normal activity outside church.

---

As did I. But that was 50-55 years ago. Back then, we sang in school...
BUT....

Today music in schools really doesn't happen (around here) at the primary or elementary level, except possibly one term of learning to play the recorder... As for scouts and such, they've just about disappeared from around here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I wondered about scouts, seems like lots of kids are in sports instead, that's not good or bad, just a change. The last adult campfire I was at no one sang, just chatted. I wished I had brought a uke or guitar, hadn't occurred to me they may not respond if I did!

Perhaps the concept of being as interested in singing as in handball is widespread - "nothing wrong with it, just not something that crosses my mind to do." Also, perhaps have fewer songs "known by everyone" these days? That would war against spontaneous group singing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
The One Show has just broadcast what appeared a Skyped version of Adeste Fideles, with individuals joining in from their homes and projected on flat screen TVs. Various voices, one quite operatic.
So some people are singing.
Don't know how they organised it, and I missed the intro.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
The One Show has just broadcast what appeared a Skyped version of Adeste Fideles, with individuals joining in from their homes and projected on flat screen TVs. Various voices, one quite operatic.
So some people are singing.
Don't know how they organised it, and I missed the intro.

---

---

This is from last year's but explains how it was done:
and here is the performance.

(double posted cos hit 'add reply' without typing anything - )

[ 20. December 2014, 07:51: Message edited by: Stumbling Pilgrim ]
 

---

Posted by Salicional (# 16461) on :
 
The comparison of singing to handball that arose earlier on this thread is very interesting! Although I'm not sure that scripture specifically exhorts us to "play handball unto the Lord".
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0