Thread: Yet more crappy choruses, wonky worship-songs and horrible hymns Board: Dead Horses / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000377

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Yay! Here we go...

Let me start with that all time Christmas classic everyone knows. Most Christmas carols, such as "Away in a Manger" and "Silent Night" are, let's say optional, but this one song is sacrosanct for Christmas morning "family" worship.

Have you guessed what it is yet?

Of course! [Yipee]
quote:

Come and join the celebration,
It's a very special day,
Come and share our jubilation
There's a new King born today...

...and we wonder church congregations are diminishing! I remember hearing Pam Rhodes interviewing the writer, Graham Kendrick, on "Songs of Praise."
She commented that Graham "seemed to write a new hymn every five minutes."
I thought, "Yeah, that sounds about right!"
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I don't agree with you about much, but I hate that song too. My parents' church sings it every year on Christmas day and insists on calling it "modern".

I don't believe anyone wouldn't prefer to be singing Hark the Herald Angels, but it's some kind of weird enforced tradition.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
The children cower and cringe with embarrassment, while the oldies (in a bid to appear "trendy") do this "wiggle" which looks somewhat strained to say the least... but it's a change from waving their hands about!
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Almost as bad as "Come on and celebrate". Which I already ranted over in the dead thread.

There is something about that word that makes it a generator of bad songs.

(Quite possibly there is - "celebration" has a specific liturgical meaning for the "new" charismatic churches in the 1970s and 1980s, and that's where most of our slightly-out-of-date songs come from, and slightly-out-of-date is nearly always the worst)
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Have you guessed what it is yet?

Is this a Rolf Harris music thread?

PS Re. "Come on and celebrate" - presumably the stricter Reformed churches would wish to make this "cerebrate" instead. (They are interlectuals, after all).
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I'd be happy with 'come and cerebrate'. But there's not a lot of cerebration around in that kind of music, is there?

But in all seriousness, given everything else that you might possibly be wanting to sing at Christmas, why on earth would you sing 'come and join the celebration' (at Christmas or at any other time)?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Point taken. But "Come and join the celebration" does go down well at our pretty serious-minded church, especially on Christmas morning. And why shouldn't it?
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Point taken. But "Come and join the celebration" does go down well at our pretty serious-minded church, especially on Christmas morning. And why shouldn't it?

No-one says you're not allowed to like it. The thing which irritates me is the way the words seem to be forced to fit the music with no poetic prose or depth whatsoever.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Just to make sure you know that Graham Kendrick did not write the song in the OP. I think it is a bit twee.

[Graham did write "Candle Song" which is lovely and has been used very often in my nonco congo at Christmas time. Definitely non-crappy]
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
IIRC that song is from a 1980s Christmas musical written for churches, and not written for congregational use?

Doesn't make it any better, perhaps. I'm sure I remember my friend's church doing the show, along with an even worse one which went 'It's the very best time of the year' and sonething about cookies made of gingerbread.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Just to make sure you know that Graham Kendrick did not write the song in the OP. I think it is a bit twee.

I didn't know that - I just checked and you are right, you could have knocked me down with a feather! It seems to have his clumsy "it's biblical, so I don't care what it sounds like" trademark stamped all over it.

...but, I stand corrected.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
IIRC that song is from a 1980s Christmas musical written for churches, and not written for congregational use?

Which song? "Come and Join the Celebration" or "Candle Song"?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Mark Betts

Ah well, some good done. Had you ever heard "Candle Song" before?

BTW I bet I've heard (and sung) a lot more crappy choruses and horrible hymns than you have. At almost 70, that seems a reasonably safe bet.

My local congo is big on contemporary Chriatian worship, some of which (but by no means all) strikes me as very crappy. But I don't diss the genre. There seem to me to be some gems there.

I grew up singing trad hymns in an Anglican church choir. Some pretty horrible hymns as well, but by no means all of them. I don't diss that genre either. I found some gems there, and many of them also get sung in my local congo.

Crappy and horrible are really not genre-specific. There's a huge subjective element in that. By all means, folks are free to develop their own aesthetic preferences and go on here about stuff that gets up their noses for lyrical triviality, or musical banality, or whatever.

But have a care. You may be throwing stones at other people's windows. And, as you've just found out, they may be wrongly aimed.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
I have heard the candle song before - but (as far as I know) only on the telly. I do still sometimes go to Anglican churches, for example with my father, the only thing I can't partake in is anything sacramental, like Communion.

In evangelical churches, of course, that's rarely a problem, and I agree with you that not all of their songs are dire - some even stay in my head for days afterwards (such as "There is a redeemer" - but let's not go back there! [Eek!] )
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
I meant 'Come and join the celebration'.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
It's easy to respect the choice of others when they are singing them at another church, or in a different service to the one you attend. But not so easy when the songs that you find meaningful are changed instead to ones you find crappy in the services that you do attend. The question is then 'Do I put up with it and feel really cringy, or bad' or 'Do I go somewhere else where I might be better suited to the type of worship?'

My crapometer is alerted when it goes into the red, ie. over 50% crappy at over 50% of the services. Fortunately, that has only happened once in my life.

[ 07. June 2012, 14:21: Message edited by: Chorister ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It seems to have his clumsy "it's biblical, so I don't care what it sounds like" trademark stamped all over it.

Now I see what's going on! All the high-chuch moaning about Graham Kendrick songs is because the whingers blame him for all bad songs. Even though most of his are actually quite good. Just like "hoover" means any vacuum cleaner, so "kendrick" now means any song you don't like. Simples!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It seems to have his clumsy "it's biblical, so I don't care what it sounds like" trademark stamped all over it.

Now I see what's going on! All the high-chuch moaning about Graham Kendrick songs is because the whingers blame him for all bad songs. Even though most of his are actually quite good. Just like "hoover" means any vacuum cleaner, so "kendrick" now means any song you don't like. Simples!
Yes. That does rather seem to be the case here. Mind you, a Catholic friend of mine told me a few years ago that "The Servant King" went down very well in his congo. "Pretty good theology" he observed, approvingly. "Same with 'Meekness and Majesty'".

[I think it had a "Vatican 2" priest.]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
There is a whole older seam of crapness yet to be mined in books such as "Redemption Hymnal" and the like - not to mention the R&B-type songs which were popular (not with me!) in the 70s.

[ 07. June 2012, 17:13: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
No, not true. I'm pretty high church and quite polite about Graham Kendrick - I've sung Like a candle flame in church too, along with quite a few others Darkness like a shroud at Advent, The Servant King and Meekness and Majesty, for starters. Such love gets sung at the Walk of Witness. The person who is seriously rude about Graham Kendrick is Alex Cockell, and he's not high church.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is a whole older seam of crapness yet to be mined in books such as "Redemption Hymnal" and the like - not to mention the R&B-type songs which were popular (not with me!) in the 70s.

The 1970s were the height of crap. Mind you, it went with the territory - the 1970s were hardly the height of good taste by any measurement, not just in the churches.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is a whole older seam of crapness yet to be mined in books such as "Redemption Hymnal" and the like - not to mention the R&B-type songs which were popular (not with me!) in the 70s.

The 1970s were the height of crap. Mind you, it went with the territory - the 1970s were hardly the height of good taste by any measurement, not just in the churches.
What concerns me is that, in typical Anglican behind-the-times fashion, many of the 1970s choruses are just being introduced into churches now, by people who really believe that they are 'modern'. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It seems to have his clumsy "it's biblical, so I don't care what it sounds like" trademark stamped all over it.

Now I see what's going on! All the high-church moaning about Graham Kendrick songs is because the whingers blame him for all bad songs. Even though most of his are actually quite good. Just like "hoover" means any vacuum cleaner, so "kendrick" now means any song you don't like. Simples!
Yes, I'll enter my plea - guilty as charged, your honour! But that doesn't mean I think that he writes good songs - theologically sound, I don't doubt, but good? I don't think so! Incidentally, isn't Graham himself high church charismatic?
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Incidentally, isn't Graham himself high church charismatic?

Before anyone sounds off, I've just wiki'd him, and it appears not.

However, here's a quote from the wiki page:
quote:
Kendrick also has his critics, among them the right wing journalist Quentin Letts, who has described him as "king of the happy-clappy banalities" and "the nation's pre-eminent churner-outer of evangelical bilge"

 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:


However, here's a quote from the wiki page:
Kendrick also has his critics, among them the right wing journalist Quentin Letts, who has described him as "king of the happy-clappy banalities" and "the nation's pre-eminent churner-outer of evangelical bilge"


Quentin Letts is your authority? Quentin Letts?? When did Quentin Letts become an arbiter of Church Music?

If it helps and for future reference, I don't care what Jeremy Clarkson thinks about liturgical vestments or whether Piers Morgan is a fan of Taize either.

anne
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Quentin Letts is your authority? Quentin Letts?? When did Quentin Letts become an arbiter of Church Music?

For what it's worth, I hadn't even heard of the guy. But he's a journalist and art critic, with the necessary wit to go with it, and that counts for alot when speaking for how the nation really feels.
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But he's a journalist and art critic, with the necessary wit to go with it, and that counts for alot when speaking for how the nation really feels.

No it doesn't. All it means is that they seem witty if you agree with them. If you disagree they just come across as arrogant tossers who, not being talented individuals themselves, try to score cheap points by flinging mud at others.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Incidentally, isn't Graham himself high church charismatic?

Before anyone sounds off, I've just wiki'd him, and it appears not.

However, here's a quote from the wiki page:
quote:
Kendrick also has his critics, among them the right wing journalist Quentin Letts, who has described him as "king of the happy-clappy banalities" and "the nation's pre-eminent churner-outer of evangelical bilge"

Wikipedia citing a Daily Wail journalist. Wow, you really do know how to pick your sources!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Here's a line which is not, so far as I know, in any crappy chorus or horrible hymn, but may get there one of these days. Especially for you, Mark

When in a hole, stop digging
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
OK, point taken.. let's move onto another..

"In Christ Alone"
quote:
"..Till on that cross as Jesus died, The wrath of God was satisfied"
I'm sure this isn't the first time this has been brought up, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

I actually quite like this, despite the fact that the quoted line smacks of "Penal Substitution".

I tend more towards "Christus Victor" these days, but I still sing this as it was intended - I don't see hymns as a pick 'n' mix affair where individuals can change the words to suit their own preferences.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Wikipedia citing a Daily Wail journalist. Wow, you really do know how to pick your sources!

Sorry (again!) but what better source is there for the layman than Wikipedia?

...and what better newspaper than the Daily Mail for interesting, engaging and amusing articles? No-one ever said you had to agree with everything they write.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Wikipedia citing a Daily Wail journalist. Wow, you really do know how to pick your sources!

Sorry (again!) but what better source is there for the layman than Wikipedia?

Here's some advice for you:

quote:
Originally said by someone wise:
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt

In other words, if you don't know what you're talking about then don't comment.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally said by someone wise:
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt

In other words, if you don't know what you're talking about then don't comment.
It's an opinion - do I have to ask your permission before I can have opinions?
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
You don't, just don't share them if they're worthlessly ill-founded.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
You don't, just don't share them if they're worthlessly ill-founded.

That doesn't even deserve a response.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting

quote:
4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell

If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.

Mark Betts and Dinghy Sailor - this kind of personal bickering belongs on the Hell Board. Please stop it here, thanks.

A reminder to all those who forget - if you object to someone's style of posting and their posting habits then instead of seeing how close you can get to the line here- go and open a thread on the Hell board.

thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

[ 08. June 2012, 22:30: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
More happy-clappy banalities from the nation's pre-eminent churner-outer of evangelical bilge:
quote:
Graham Kendrick: The Feast is Ready
The trumpets sound, the angels sing
The feast is ready to begin...


It fails on the very first line. It is just, well, not childlike, but childish!
Is this really what we need to inspire a penitential heart and reverence before we partake in the Most Holy Sacrament?
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
More happy-clappy banalities from the nation's pre-eminent churner-outer of evangelical bilge:
quote:
Graham Kendrick: The Feast is Ready
The trumpets sound, the angels sing
The feast is ready to begin...


It fails on the very first line. It is just, well, not childlike, but childish!

[Confused]
What's childish about it? It wouldn't be particularly hard to find Biblical references to these things happening (Revelation, for instance?) - are they childish? If not, why is this childish?
quote:
Is this really what we need to inspire a penitential heart and reverence before we partake in the Most Holy Sacrament?
Who knows? Perhaps for some people it is.

Thing is, from his perspective, I don't know if Kendrick would've thought he was writing for the "Most Holy Sacrament", because I don't suppose that's how he sees Communion. As it is, for traditions that see Communion primarily as a memorial meal (like mine), this song acts as a way of opening us up to other ways of understanding it. It gives us a "heavenly" dimension to work with, to incorporate into our view. It's not perfect but, who knows, it may help us see it as the "Most Holy Sacrament" [Razz] .

I just sometimes think a lot of the criticism of Kendrick is based on the sort of songs people think he writes, rather than the ones he does write. As mentioned above, "Meekness and Majesty" and "The Servant King" are, for this genre, quite different and thoughtful - a mile away from the "Jesus is my boyfriend" stuff. And while even he got fed up with "Shine Jesus Shine" for a while, it didn't become such a millstone round his neck for no reason.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
[Confused]
What's childish about it? It wouldn't be particularly hard to find Biblical references to these things happening (Revelation, for instance?) - are they childish? If not, why is this childish?

Again, the problem is not so much the content, but the way words are just hurriedly hashed together, with the "it's biblical, so I don't care what it sounds like" attitude, which has become prevailent with this type of hymn/chorus.

Even a child will take some care how they arrange words in a song or poem, but Kendrick seems to think it's not worth bothering about.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think you're running into a bit of a problem here, Mark. Curiosity Killed is no lover of contemporary worship songs and choruses in their entirety, although she does think that some of them are ok and useful. I only know that because we've discussed this issue before, both on the Boards and in the Cafe.

I think you need to ask yourself why you've received a Hell Call over it and others here who have discussed the self-same issue with her in the past, haven't.

Just because you've moved from one tradition to another, doesn't mean that you have to piss out of the window back onto the one you've left behind.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think you're running into a bit of a problem here, Mark. Curiosity Killed is no lover of contemporary worship songs and choruses in their entirety, although she does think that some of them are ok and useful. I only know that because we've discussed this issue before, both on the Boards and in the Cafe.

I think you need to ask yourself why you've received a Hell Call over it and others here who have discussed the self-same issue with her in the past, haven't.

Just because you've moved from one tradition to another, doesn't mean that you have to piss out of the window back onto the one you've left behind.

I never liked this style of music, even as an Anglican. To me:

Childlike = humble, respectful and knowing one's place
Childish = annoying, repetitive and not acting one's age

OK? Now I'm off to Hell! [Devil]
 
Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:


Childlike = humble, respectful and knowing one's place


Childish = annoying, repetitive and not acting one's age


Re your definition of childlike, I take it you've not met many children

Re your definition of childish, now where have I encountered this trait recently?
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kitten:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:


Childlike = humble, respectful and knowing one's place


Childish = annoying, repetitive and not acting one's age


Re your definition of childlike, I take it you've not met many children

Re your definition of childish, now where have I encountered this trait recently?

Aaaaah, I think you need to join my newly awarded Hell thread if you want to continue this... Look forward to seeing you there! [Smile]
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Anyway, to illustrate my point consider this - childlike or childish?
quote:

Our God is a great big God,
Our God is a great big God,
Our God is a great big God,
And he holds us in His hands.

He's higher than a Sky Scraper,
And deeper than a submarine,
He's wider than the universe
and beyond my wildest dreams


 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anyway, to illustrate my point consider this - childlike or childish?
quote:

Our God is a great big God,
Our God is a great big God,
Our God is a great big God,
And he holds us in His hands.

He's higher than a Sky Scraper,
And deeper than a submarine,
He's wider than the universe
and beyond my wildest dreams


I'm not thrilled with that chorus, but I'd consider it a great one for small children. That makes it child like, not childish. Childish is when one makes up lyrics that mock.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anyway, to illustrate my point consider this - childlike or childish?
quote:

Our God is a great big God,
...


OK- that last one is one geared towards kids. Kings Kids as an age range is primary school age.

May I pull you up on The Feast? This does not allude to Communion, but to the Wedding Supper Of The Lamb - the wedding reception we'll all be guests at in Heaven after Jesus has come back etc. Refers to the events in Revelation.

CCHH is here more for where we need to rant about a surfeit of cheese in the composition... for the record, something might be theologically sound - but the delivery causes the listener to wince. Or cringe with overuse of certain musical or lyrical ideas...
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I'm not thrilled with that chorus, but I'd consider it a great one for small children. That makes it child like, not childish. Childish is when one makes up lyrics that mock.

I don't think that's what we mean in this context. A chorus that deliberately mocks wouldn't be allowed in church at all. What I find most annoying is a very simple statement repeated over and over again - most children wouldn't appreciate it either I don't think.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
You can have "Our God is a great big God" it's crap, even for small children. But it's not by Graham Kendrick, it's possibly by Nigel Hemming, but that's not who I used to put on the copyright returns.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You can have "Our God is a great big God" it's crap, even for small children. But it's not by Graham Kendrick, it's possibly by Nigel Hemming, but that's not who I used to put on the copyright returns.

I was purposely trying to get away from Graham Kendrick - we can discuss him in Hell!
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What I find most annoying is a very simple statement repeated over and over again - most children wouldn't appreciate it either I don't think.

Well that's you disappointed...
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I'm not thrilled with that chorus, but I'd consider it a great one for small children. That makes it child like, not childish. Childish is when one makes up lyrics that mock.

I don't think that's what we mean in this context. A chorus that deliberately mocks wouldn't be allowed in church at all. What I find most annoying is a very simple statement repeated over and over again - most children wouldn't appreciate it either I don't think.
Very small children would do well with it. Think Jesus Loves Me, a song most of us sang growing up. My point, however, was that it was child like in simplicity. Childish is more snotty or selfish behavior that you get from small children.

As to songs with mocking lyrics, you'd be surprised at what I've heard over they years. Perhaps not mocking Christianity, but certainly mocking others. Another way not to win converts.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
May I pull you up on The Feast? This does not allude to Communion, but to the Wedding Supper Of The Lamb - the wedding reception we'll all be guests at in Heaven after Jesus has come back etc. Refers to the events in Revelation.

OK, but doesn't Holy Communion itself allude to this banquet? (amongst many other other things)

quote:
... for the record, something might be theologically sound - but the delivery causes the listener to wince. Or cringe with overuse of certain musical or lyrical ideas...
That's what I've been trying to say all along.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Very small children would do well with it. Think Jesus Loves Me, a song most of us sang growing up.

Oh yes - conceded - I'd forgotten about that.
quote:
As to songs with mocking lyrics, you'd be surprised at what I've heard over they years. Perhaps not mocking Christianity, but certainly mocking others. Another way not to win converts.
You mean like
quote:
Dare to be a Protestant,
Dare to stand alone,
Dare to say the Bible's true,
And down with the pope of Rome.

...and you wonder I turned my back on protestantism?
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Very small children would do well with it. Think Jesus Loves Me, a song most of us sang growing up.

Oh yes - conceded - I'd forgotten about that.
quote:
As to songs with mocking lyrics, you'd be surprised at what I've heard over they years. Perhaps not mocking Christianity, but certainly mocking others. Another way not to win converts.
You mean like
quote:
Dare to be a Protestant,
Dare to stand alone,
Dare to say the Bible's true,
And down with the pope of Rome.

...and you wonder I turned my back on protestantism?

Trust me, I've seen the same amount of disrespect from some in the Orthodox church, the RCC and evangelicals. It's generally a minority faction and you'll find them no matter what flavor of Christianity you turn to. Maturity is realizing that a few bad examples don't represent the whole and that every Christian, whether Happy Clappy or Smells and Bells people are the Body of Christ and to be respected as such. Turning your back on a whole side of the church because of the ill behavior of a few isn't the answer. I know this from personal experience and I've worked with and attended a wide variety of churches over the years.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Mark Betts,

Admin Tiara On

If you want a discussion and are able to abide by the 10 Commardments, then you're in the right place. But if you're just here to wind people up, slag off other Christian traditions and attempt to convert us all to the One True Faith then your time here is going to be short and not particularly sweet.

Re-read the 10 Commandments and start behaving like they apply to you as well as everyone else. Otherwise the next Admin post with your name on it will be telling you just how long a break from the Ship you'll be having.

Admin Tiara Off

Tubbs
Member Admin
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
What I find most annoying is a very simple statement repeated over and over again - most children wouldn't appreciate it either I don't think.
I think young children do like repetition; popular songs such as "The Wheels on the Bus" or "Old MacDonald had a Farm" are full of repetition.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Forgive me if i have posted this before - my best friend and i used to get together for a drink or four on Sunday evenings and we'd both escaped evangelical childhoods. I found the music editions of three volumes of CSSM choruses and we had a raucous singalong. After about the second bottle of we, we did 'Wide, wide as the ocean' and when we got to the big about' deep, deep as the deepest sea is my saviour's love', i turned to her in that way pissed people do and said, 'You know ... it's all true.'

Maybe today's worship songs are inferior but those old choruses were not trite nor judgmental.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Including

"I though so unworthy,
still am a child of his care
For His Word teaches me
that His love reaches me

EV - RY - WHERE" ?

Including the hand signs for "unworthy"?

Why leo! An "in vino veritas" moment.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Forgive me if i have posted this before - my best friend and i used to get together for a drink or four on Sunday evenings and we'd both escaped evangelical childhoods. I found the music editions of three volumes of CSSM choruses and we had a raucous singalong. After about the second bottle of we, we did 'Wide, wide as the ocean' and when we got to the big about' deep, deep as the deepest sea is my saviour's love', i turned to her in that way pissed people do and said, 'You know ... it's all true.'


One of my all time favourite choruses! (Complete with actions!) I learnt it as a very young child, and it still moves me as a crusty old adult.

BTW, you did mean 'after the second bottle of wine' didn't you? [Biased]

[ 10. June 2012, 20:49: Message edited by: Anselmina ]
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
'Our God is a great big God' is liked by quite a few small children I know. I'm always rather put off by the musical similarity to King Herod's Song from 'Jesus Christ Superstar' myself.

Again, context is everything. 'The Feast Is Ready' worked wonderfully when 500 of us conga-ed round the Big Top in Minehead in the 1980s, to the sound of live trumpeters doing their Latin American thang. I wouldn't try and use it in 2012 in a little local church with an organist.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
For My God is a great big God, I've seen 8 - 11 year olds hating every minute of having to demonstrate the actions to a church of people who were being urged to participate too, every time this particular leader lead the aforementioned Service of the Word. I used to take that song on the music listing as advance notice that this week was time to go elsewhere. That made me hate it so much I didn't inflict it on the pram service, when it might have been more appropriate, but round here skyscrapers and submarines are not common, so not really much very young children could relate to
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
'Our God is a great big God' is liked by quite a few small children I know.

As is the children's TV show Clifford the Big Red Dog. I used to combine the two and sing "My Dog is a Great Big Dog" with appropriately placed barking noises.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
BTW, you did mean 'after the second bottle of wine' didn't you? [Biased]

I took it as a comment on the quality.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
BTW, you did mean 'after the second bottle of wine' didn't you? [Biased]

I took it as a comment on the quality.
[TANGENT]Must be French wine from a chateau.
Chat is French for cat.
Eau = water.
Is it any wonder it tastes of cat's water?
(Apologies for plagiarising Terry Pratchett.)[/TANGENT]
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I've seen 8 - 11 year olds hating every minute of having to demonstrate the actions to a church of people who were being urged to participate too.

I went to a confirmation service where the younger ones getting confirmed (aged 9-11 I guess) were made to do an action song in front of the congregation. I could feel the waves of embarassment coming off them, particularly the boys. It was wrong on so many levels.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
If they're old enough and mature enough for Confirmation, they're too old for action songs.

JMHO, of course!
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I've seen 8 - 11 year olds hating every minute of having to demonstrate the actions to a church of people who were being urged to participate too.

I went to a confirmation service where the younger ones getting confirmed (aged 9-11 I guess) were made to do an action song in front of the congregation. I could feel the waves of embarassment coming off them, particularly the boys. It was wrong on so many levels.
I wonder how much embarrassing silliness puts young people off of church. I hated Sunday School. I don't think I ever liked it. It felt like baby stuff pitched at the lowest common denominator (generally, it is). I hated the songs in particular. The only thing that saved me was that I had the good sense to join the choir at 7 or 8 and got involved in adult liturgy.

But even then, I wasn't free. Our fifth grade teacher (I went to a school that was affiliated with our church) decided that we were going to sing this cutesy song about God loving all the children and the whole world in front of the entire school at chapel. It was mortifying and probably only entertaining for weird cat-ladies who teach fifth grade.

I felt like every single thing that was pitched toward kids at church assumed that we were five or six years younger than we were, and assumed that we may or may not have suffered some sort of brain damage. Every middle school youth group activity was like trying on the ugly, cutesy sweater that your grandmother made you.

It was only when I joined high school youth group and had a leader who was somewhat mature and "cool" that I could acknowledge that maybe not every expression of faith was infantile or for the benefit of old women...
 
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
May I pull you up on The Feast? This does not allude to Communion, but to the Wedding Supper Of The Lamb - the wedding reception we'll all be guests at in Heaven after Jesus has come back etc. Refers to the events in Revelation.

OK, but doesn't Holy Communion itself allude to this banquet? (amongst many other other things)

Quite so, and more than alludes, I would say. The cosmic and eschatological nature of the Eucharist is such that I cannot imagine it independently of the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. Hymms and songs often draw on this dual imagery and it seems that Kendrick's offering is no exception.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Yay! Here we go...

Let me start with that all time Christmas classic everyone knows.
[snip]

Have you guessed what it is yet?

Of course! [Yipee]
[QUOTE]
Come and join the celebration,
It's a very special day,
Come and share our jubilation
There's a new King born today...
[/QUOTE

Not quite "everyone" -- maybe "everyone in England" or "everyone in my (former) evangelical church" or even "everyone who had the songbook it comes from". But not "everyone". Nowhere near.

John
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
<Minor_Tangent>
Actions are funny things. We rarely do "up front" actions for the children's songs in services, so some kids, and some adults, do them and some don't.

However, at Holiday Club and other child-specific events where there are hordes of kids and very few adults, the kids love doing the actions, and will be singing the songs to themselves as they wander around for weeks afterwards.

I sometimes wonder if the embarrassment is imposed rather than innate ...
</Minor_Tangent>

On the specifics of Our Dog Is A Great Big Dog, As For Me And My Mouse and other such songs, again, context is everything. Decent band and an enthusiastic congregation they work fine for the intended age group, and the oldies can cope (excluding the early/mid-teens in their too-cool-for-school phase where everything is cringey). In a limp congregation with a deadly organist, forget it. And obviously, the above is all assuming a basic context where That Kind Of Thing is part of the local culture. It's not going to travel up the candle very well [Smile]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Quite frankly, if you think OGIAGBG is the nadir of children's worship songs, you need to get out more! As Snags says, context is everything. There really is some dire, dire stuff out there, but that particular song is competantly written, singable, has a memorable tune, and is theologically orthodox (plus I enjoy singing it, especially the false end - catches 'em out every time [Big Grin] ).

If you've ever had to work with someone whose idea of a good children's song is "Jumping up and down, sing hosanna" (I kid you not), you would thirst for songs like "OGIAGBG" and Judy Bailey's truely excellent "I reach up high".
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
If they're old enough and mature enough for Confirmation, they're too old for action songs.

JMHO, of course!

That's exactly what I thought. And I dare say quite a few of those kids have now learned that church is about being embarassed and made to feel silly so they won't want to come back.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
No, I don't think Our God is a Great Big God is the nadir of awful children's songs - I know it's not. What was particularly bad about it was the way it was used. And yes, I agree with others' comments: it doesn't work without a decent backing band. You should hear it a capella - which was another reason it wasn't on the pram service list.

When I was looking for alternative things to sing with the pram service I spent some time searching through HymnQuest's suggestions - there's a lot of really horrific stuff out there.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I have once refused point blank to play something; something so dire I've expunged it from my memory, but I remember the shock at the refusal. (Generally I subscribe to the view that I'm there to serve the service leader & congregation and not to have editorial input, but whatever the heck it was was not going to serve the congregation however well we played it).

Bearing in mind that I sucked it up and played "We have a king who rides on a donkey" for a couple of services, whatever I've redacted from my memory must have been truly execrable [Smile]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I've come very close to refusing to sing "Autumn Days" on the basis of dated twee 1960s references and a total lack of theological juice. I relented only because it was specifically requested by a young boy who was receiving communion for the first time.

I will say that, when faced with these abominations, I find the best thing to do is jump in with both feet and get on with it, it's less cringemaking that way.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Snags, were we twins separated at birth? I, too, have refused to play a song on one occasion (actually, the aforementioned "jumping up and down"), and yes, it really is worse, much, much worse than "we have a King" (sung, for those who have had the good fortune never to have encountered it, to the tune of "what shall we do with a drunken sailor").
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Now, I have encountered We have a King - and sung it with the pram service - that one is OK a capella and is OK for 0-4 year olds.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Turn your eyes upon Bultmann,
look full on his wonderful words,
and the things you believe will grow strangely dim,
in the light of Kerygma and Myth.

(An improvement, I think.)
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Does it continue 'Hoo-ray and up He rises' ...?

I thought Autumn Days was 1990s but maybe that's when I heard it. It is certainly twee, and would have me scared to go on a plane in case it needed to be refuelled in the air!
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
nope, Jesus the King has risen ... Early in the morning - you can hear it here
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Whilst we're on awful children's songs, anything by "douggie doug doug" Horley is usually dire, but "Oi, Oi, we are gonna praise the Lord" is a particularly dreadful example of the genre, with the the classic line "He's an exciting, pulverising, c-colossal, humongous-mongous God!"
Not really the sort of theology that we'd want to teach our kids.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
I thought Autumn Days was 1990s but maybe that's when I heard it. It is certainly twee, and would have me scared to go on a plane in case it needed to be refuelled in the air!

Definitely older than that. I sang it at primary school in the 80s and I don't think it was new then.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
"we have a King" (sung, for those who have had the good fortune never to have encountered it, to the tune of "what shall we do with a drunken sailor").

"Clap you hands 'cos Jesus loves you," to the tune Bobby Shafto anyone? No? Thought not.

As for the coolness of early teen, it all comes back round a few years later. If you've never seen 17 to 21 year olds singing children's songs in a sarcastic voice you have missed something. It's wonderful when they discover irony.
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Whilst we're on awful children's songs, anything by "douggie doug doug" Horley is usually dire, but "Oi, Oi, we are gonna praise the Lord" is a particularly dreadful example of the genre, with the the classic line "He's an exciting, pulverising, c-colossal, humongous-mongous God!"
Not really the sort of theology that we'd want to teach our kids.

Yes... [Disappointed] Indeed. The 'Oi, Oi,...' song is an even lower point, when used in the 'all age' service, than 'Our God is a great big God'.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I can't work out if "Water of Life" ("See the raindrops") is rubbish, or just ruined by having the chorus sung to the tune of "Rupert the Bear."
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
There are some unbelievably awful "popular" hymns from about a century ago (I grew up with the Redemption Hymnal).

An example (to a tune very similar to "Knees up Mother Brown":

For Jesus is my Saviour,
He's washed my sins away,
Paid my debt on Calv'ry's mou-oun-tain,
Happy in his dying love,
Singing all the day,
I'm living, yes I'm living in the fountain.

The words are bad, but to that tune they're bordering on offensive IMO.

There are plenty of other examples, I've tried to wipe most of them from my memory.
 
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :
 
Just going back to OGIAGBG for a second, compared to 'God's love is big' it's sublime. Oh, how I cringe when we have to sing:

God's love is big
God's love is great
God's love is fab
And he's my mate
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
'God's love is fab'? Ah, there's up to date, relevant language that really speaks to da yoof- ahem.

Honestly, even if we're being charitable to the people who write this kind of stuff and allow that for them it may be a very heartfelt expression of their faith and so eminently acceptable to God, what kind of slack-jawed drooling moron (a) thinks this kind of stuff is worth publishing to a wider audience and (b) thinks it's worth including in public worship?

Refuse to sing it and indeed sit down sharply when it begins is my advice!
 
Posted by drnick (# 16065) on :
 
We sang a song yesterday which contains the words:

"We call you now to worship him
As Lord of all.
To have no other gods but him:
Their thrones must fall!"

Which frankly appals me. Not a very positive attitude to people of other faihs.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Not necessarily. I believe that most folk of other faiths are worshipping the same God as us.

The 'gods' whose thrones must fall are things like status, money, despot regimes.
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
Eric fucking Whitacre.

Writing for choirs doesn't prevent you from writing crappy choruses apparently.
 
Posted by drnick (# 16065) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not necessarily. I believe that most folk of other faiths are worshipping the same God as us.

The 'gods' whose thrones must fall are things like status, money, despot regimes.

That's a good point, I hadn't thought about it like that. I withdraw my comments.

It is clearly open to misinterpretation though (given that I did so). And I still don't like it.
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
Just going back to OGIAGBG for a second, compared to 'God's love is big' it's sublime. Oh, how I cringe when we have to sing:

God's love is big
God's love is great
God's love is fab
And he's my mate

First 3 lines - poor choice of language; last line - poor theology, I don't sing that one.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Snipped due to a complaint by someone mentioned in the post.

Tubbs

[ 21. June 2017, 21:36: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
Does "he's my mate" mean anything different from "he's my friend"? It doesn't in my view, it is just more informal. So where is the theological problem? Style-wise, sure, there will be loads of people who won't like it.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
[Tangent]

quote:
originally posted by Albertus

A curious church: apprently CofE, tho' you wouldn't know it from the website which is fronted by a nauseating picture of the Vicar ('Senior Pastor' in his parlance) apparently having his nipples groped (out of shot) by a blonde woman who I can only assume, in all charity, is his wife.


Actually (though it doesn't, in fact, front the website), I think it's quite sweet. Maybe not your taste, but hardly soft porn. And any Church which admits on its website that it doesn't always get everything right is a rare jewel, and has got to have something going for it.

[/Tangent]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
[Biased]
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
We sang a song yesterday which contains the words:

"We call you now to worship him
As Lord of all.
To have no other gods but him:
Their thrones must fall!"

Which frankly appals me. Not a very positive attitude to people of other faihs.

That would be Graham Kendrick's "Make Way" - 1983, wasn't it?
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Reminds me of the praise song with the line "Our God is an awesome God"

which rather implies that there are other gods after all,

not something that us monotheists should say loudly in worship.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Reminds me of the praise song with the line "Our God is an awesome God"

Given a dual penchant for Eucharistically-centered worship and bad puns, I usually hear this as "Our God is a gnaw-some God".
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Does "he's my mate" mean anything different from "he's my friend"? It doesn't in my view, it is just more informal. So where is the theological problem? Style-wise, sure, there will be loads of people who won't like it.

To me, at least, a friend is someone who has your best interests at heart, who keeps you company, who comforts you when you're down, who shares in the good times, who is always on (and at) your side - I'm very happy to claim Jesus as my friend. What's different to me about a mate is that we are equals - and God can never be that. YMMV.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
That's exactly it. Think of, e.g., the expressions 'friends in high places' and 'prisoner's friend' (a sort of lay defence counsel). That's why there's a difference between 'what a friend we have in Jesus' and 'God is my mate'.
 
Posted by Theophania (# 16647) on :
 
From this evening's service: a disturbing thing that featured the lines

Come have your way among us

(no comment)

and

You are the God who saves us
Worthy of all our praises


Is it me, or is that like saying "Almighty Lord, creator of all that is, with power and love and glory that we can't begin to imagine, we think you are quite good and would like to award you a sticker" ?
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
No, not really. It's more like saying that he's worthy of all our praises. How is that like a sticker?
 
Posted by Boat Boy (# 13050) on :
 
Theophania - I know what you mean. Such lines sort of seem to imply that God has had to earn our respect...
 
Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
'God's love is fab'? Ah, there's up to date, relevant language that really speaks to da yoof- ahem.!

We had one today in which the friendship of Jesus was described as "great, brill, wicked, skill"!!

To be fair, the kids (all girls of primary age) were all sufficiently young and unselfconscious to really enjoy doing the actions at the front of church. Those words may actually be so out of date that the kids don't realise they used to be 'in' - it's only cringeworthy for people my age who remember using them!!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boat Boy:
Theophania - I know what you mean. Such lines sort of seem to imply that God has had to earn our respect...

Well, there are bits of Revelation that talk about singing "Worthy"... Rev 4:11 and Rev 5:12 are the ones I hit, not sure if there are others. Don't they carry the same implication? I strongly suspect they'd be the inspiration for the use of the word.

[ 16. July 2012, 06:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boat Boy:
Theophania - I know what you mean. Such lines sort of seem to imply that God has had to earn our respect...

Well, there are bits of Revelation that talk about singing "Worthy"... Rev 4:11 and Rev 5:12 are the ones I hit, not sure if there are others. Don't they carry the same implication? I strongly suspect they'd be the inspiration for the use of the word.
There's also similar verses in some of the psalms (18:3 & 48:1 for starters). I wonder if (though this is probably a bit picky) it's the addition of the word "our" that could be the problem - "worthy of praise" could be seen as some sort of universal recognition of God's worth, whereas "worthy of our praise" might suggest it's just us? Feels like splitting hairs to the nth degree, though.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Theophania , if your mind tends towards the smutty, Mr Brenton Brown has written far more challenging lines than that, for singing with a straight face [Smile]

As it happens, I quite like a lot of his stuff, including Praise is Rising, but there are some doozies in there.

[ 17. July 2012, 14:31: Message edited by: Snags ]
 
Posted by manfromcaerdeon (# 16672) on :
 
I have recently purchased in the local flea market a very small, words-only edition of the Oxford Book of Carols from 1928, barely larger than a credit card.

One carol is called King Herod and the Cock.
Herod had been told that a princely babe was to be born that night.

The last two verses run thus,

"If this be true" King Herod said,
"As thou hast told to me,
This roasted cock that lies in the dish
Shall crow full fences three."

The cock soon thrustened and feathered well,
By the work of God's own hand,
And he did crow full fences three,
In the dish where he did stand.
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by manfromcaerdeon:
I have recently purchased in the local flea market a very small, words-only edition of the Oxford Book of Carols from 1928, barely larger than a credit card.

One carol is called King Herod and the Cock.
Herod had been told that a princely babe was to be born that night.

The last two verses run thus,

"If this be true" King Herod said,
"As thou hast told to me,
This roasted cock that lies in the dish
Shall crow full fences three."

The cock soon thrustened and feathered well,
By the work of God's own hand,
And he did crow full fences three,
In the dish where he did stand.

How charmingly reminiscent of Rumbling Sid Rumbold.....
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
On Saturday night I visited a Lutheran (ELCA) church in suburban Orlando that had sort of a charismatic, contemporary worship atmosphere about it. We attended the "traditional" service, which is turns out is "Blended Traditional," mixing old hymns from Evangelical Lutheran Worship with bits of contemporary praise music.

I didn't hate it as much as I feared I might, and most of the contemporary stuff had enough substance that I didn't find it insipid. But after the Gospel reading we sang some little ditty that went:

"Open the eyes of my heart Lord, Open the eyes of my heart, I want to see You, I want to see You."

High Church Episcopalian me cringed.
 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
"Open the Eyes of My Heart" is a very popular praise song among churches here in the States that sing such stuff --- despite the fact that the mixed metaphor doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
But after the Gospel reading we sang some little ditty that went:

"Open the eyes of my heart Lord, Open the eyes of my heart, I want to see You, I want to see You."

High Church Episcopalian me cringed.

You are right. It should, of course, have been before the scriptures were read.

I've sung it after communion. That is worth more of a cringe, no?
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
But after the Gospel reading we sang some little ditty that went:

"Open the eyes of my heart Lord, Open the eyes of my heart, I want to see You, I want to see You."

High Church Episcopalian me cringed.

You are right. It should, of course, have been before the scriptures were read.

I've sung it after communion. That is worth more of a cringe, no?

You monster. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
"Open the Eyes of My Heart" is a very popular praise song among churches here in the States that sing such stuff --- despite the fact that the mixed metaphor doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Not only doesn't make much sense, but kinda goes
against what we see in Scripture - Isaiah crying "Woe is me," etc. Even angels, when they show up, have to calm their viewers with a "Fear not."

Do we really want to see God, even "with the eyes of our heart? As C. s. Lewis said, only in our better moments, likely.

I try to have patience with such stuff, and even try to ferret out the insipid-ness in the contemporary songs that I like. We are in a period where a LOT of stuff is being produced, most of which is destined for threads like this; but hopefully, if the Lord tarries, a few hundred years from now my favor my favorites will have made the hymnbooks! [Razz]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting
On the front page of the board, there is a drop-down box on the top right hand side which offers a 'show threads from last/ show all threads' menu.

If you don't immediately see the thread you want - then either use the search function or set this box to 'show all threads' and hit 'Go'. That will show you all the pages and all the threads in Dead Horses. The thread was on page 2, Balaam.

Or if you don't see a thread in DH and need help finding it - you can always ask Tony or I, we're here to help!

cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

[ 04. October 2012, 20:56: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on 04 October, 2012 02:59 :

In Purgatory I criticized Komensky’s use of the word “ditties” in his Revival post because I suspected that he was using it to make a sectarian rather than an aesthetic point.

However, execrable lyrics and tune combinations undoubtedly exist in the Christian world, and perhaps this is a chance to get them out of our systems.

There are possibly worse examples, but here for starters is a chorus I remember from long ago:-

“Can you wonder at the people feeling envious,
When they see that we’re as happy as can be?
For the glory of the Lord is all around us,
We’re as happy as the birds up in the tree
(Tweet, tweet!).
Allelujah, allelujah, allelujah for my sins are all forgiven.
Very precious is Jesus,
And my heart’s a little Hallelujah Heaven.”

I own a little book of self-published hymns called Above The Clouds And In The Glory, written by a Brethren autodidact back in the 1930s, which is reminiscent of monumentally bad writers such as William McGonagall and Amanda McKittrick Ros.

Here are a couple of samples:-

“Some are faint and weary; some have fallen back;
Some – ah! sad to say it – some have lost the track”.

“Teachings of any and every cult hopelessly lead astray.
Oh! For the light of the truth of God. Oh! For the Gospel ray.”

Hope this doesn’t throw up copyright problems, Heavenly Hosts.


Posted by balaam (# 4543) on 04 October, 2012 10:45 :

I thought there was a horrible hymns and crappy chorus thread in dead horses, but I can't find it.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on 04 October, 2012 10:53 :

That's because the baby Jesus wept so many bloody tears over thing it drowned.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on 04 October, 2012 11:05 :

Back in the day I did a Rant of the Month about it.

How's this one, from that purveyor of lyrical shite, Ishmael?

"I'm a conqueror, victorious
I'm living in Jesus
I'm seated in heavenly places
In him, in him
And the kingdom of God is within me
I know no defeat only victory
Yes the kingdom of God is within me
I know no defeat only strength and power"

But to show that 1970s liberal hymnody can do it too, how about the awful:

"Jesus lives again; earth can breathe again.
Pass the Word around: loaves abound!"

from Fred Kaan?


Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on 04 October, 2012 20:44 :

I am deeply grateful to say that I've never heard any of the hymns or choruses quoted above. Of a dire collection, I think,
quote:
We’re as happy as the birds up in the tree
(Tweet, tweet!).
reaches an abyss that it would be hard to outdo.

There's a chorus I've seen in books but never actually experienced that starts with the words,
quote:
Pierce my ear Lord
I know as well as anyone else the deep Old Testament roots that is drawing on, but as person has got to be very unco good to be deaf to how ludicrous that sounds to everyone else.

Has any shipmate been present when it was sung, and what was the congregational reaction?

Posts copied over from closed thread minus hosting.
cheers,
L
Dead Horses Host
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Dubious words/ crappy hymns are nothing new.

The old Mirfield Mission Hymnal had a splendid number that began "Knocking, knocking, who is there?" I'm still trying to track down a copy - and perhaps stop it being inflicted on another congregation.

My all time worst is "I, the Lord of Sea and sky" - ghastly, it even beats the Farrell "Unless a grain of wheat".

BUT, if you are stuck in a church where this sort of thing is the staple fare there is a game you can play: FIT THE TUNE. For example, "Sing to the praise of Christ, our Sovereign Lord" segues neatly into "Bless her beautiful hide" from Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.

My prize for the dreariest is "From heaven you came, helpless Babe": and I've seen this schedules by a hymn-choosing vicar no less than 6 times between Passion and Easter sundays.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
On the front page of the board, there is a drop-down box on the top right hand side which offers a 'show threads from last/ show all threads' menu.
hosting off

I was searching "last 30 days". I apologise for the extra work I have caused for the hosts.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:


My prize for the dreariest is "From heaven you came, helpless Babe": and I've seen this schedules by a hymn-choosing vicar no less than 6 times between Passion and Easter sundays.

So glad to know I'm not the only one who finds "The Servant King" a dirge. It's the tune that is so dreary, the words are no better or worse than many others. And there was a stage when it was 'THE SONG' of the moment and seemed to be sung constantly. Fortunately this is now a less frequent occurrence but I still cringe a bit when I see it come up.

I did once rather embarrass myself in a housegroup when I expressed my dislike for the song and a dear older couple who were part of the group looked a little shocked and then laughed. The wife then told us that "The Servant King" was one of the songs her husband has requested should be sung at his funeral one day!

If I ever get to go to his funeral (not for a good few more years yet I hope!) I shall sing it with gladness for him!
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
...and anotherproblem can be with tunes that are written with a 'mood setting' introduction: anyone every managed "Walking in a garden" with a congregation? Me neither.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:


My prize for the dreariest is "From heaven you came, helpless Babe": and I've seen this schedules by a hymn-choosing vicar no less than 6 times between Passion and Easter sundays.

So glad to know I'm not the only one who finds "The Servant King" a dirge. It's the tune that is so dreary, the words are no better or worse than many others. And there was a stage when it was 'THE SONG' of the moment and seemed to be sung constantly. Fortunately this is now a less frequent occurrence but I still cringe a bit when I see it come up.

I did once rather embarrass myself in a housegroup when I expressed my dislike for the song and a dear older couple who were part of the group looked a little shocked and then laughed. The wife then told us that "The Servant King" was one of the songs her husband has requested should be sung at his funeral one day!

If I ever get to go to his funeral (not for a good few more years yet I hope!) I shall sing it with gladness for him!

For a tradition associated with hands in the air "we are always happy" giddiness, it's amazing how many dirges come out.

Does anyone know, other than numbers penned by the Smiths, of course, anything more dreary than the verse tune for "Lord I lift your name on high"?

The words are kludgy as well - first we have the "stringing together charismatic clichés section":

quote:
Lord, I lift Your name on high
Lord, I love to sing Your praises
I'm so glad You're in my life
I'm so glad You came to save us

Line 3 is particularly jarring.

But the real corker is in the chorus:

quote:
From the cross to the grave
From the grave to the sky
Lord, I lift Your name on high

Which reeks of "what else rhymes with 'high'?" if you ask me.

But the verse melody, O Lord, the melody! I really can imagine Morrissey rejecting it as too depressing.

[waits for someone to tell him they love that song and it's really meaningful and etc. etc. etc.]

[ 05. October 2012, 12:43: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
On the front page of the board, there is a drop-down box on the top right hand side which offers a 'show threads from last/ show all threads' menu.
hosting off

I was searching "last 30 days". I apologise for the extra work I have caused for the hosts.
Someone will be round with a cluestick in due course.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Dubious words/ crappy hymns are nothing new.

The old Mirfield Mission Hymnal had a splendid number that began "Knocking, knocking, who is there?" I'm still trying to track down a copy - and perhaps stop it being inflicted on another congregation.


Here you are (unless you mean the hymnal as a whole). Words by Harriet Beecher Stowe (Uncle Tom's Cabin)- written I take it in response to Holman Hunt's 'Light of the World'.
I've never heard it sung but from the computerised rendition on the web I can imagine it might have quite a good if rather sentimental swing to it when roared out by a crowd in a tin shack or open-air meeting (preferably on a misty evening in the late C19).
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
My all time worst is "I, the Lord of Sea and sky" - ghastly, ... .

I don't like that one either. To me, it's preachy and pretentious.

It's also grammatically confusing the way who 'I' is changes between lines.

Do I take it from the silence that nobody's actually experienced 'pierce my ear Lord' sung in church?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But the real corker is in the chorus:

quote:
From the cross to the grave
From the grave to the sky
Lord, I lift Your name on high

Which reeks of "what else rhymes with 'high'?" if you ask me.

Well, I have no brief to defend this song - I don't like it either. But I do think the choice of words is not entirely banal - it's crucixion - deposition - resurrection (although it does, I agree, sound more like Ascension!)
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do I take it from the silence that nobody's actually experienced 'pierce my ear Lord' sung in church?

If you mean "Pierce my ear, O Lord my God, take me to your throne this day." then I sang it many times in the late 80s and early 90s. The imagery refers to Exodus 21:6. Sound imagery and inoffensive 'ditty', IMO. Is your reference to the same piece, or something more execrable?
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But the real corker is in the chorus:

quote:
From the cross to the grave
From the grave to the sky
Lord, I lift Your name on high

Which reeks of "what else rhymes with 'high'?" if you ask me.

Well, I have no brief to defend this song - I don't like it either. But I do think the choice of words is not entirely banal - it's crucixion - deposition - resurrection (although it does, I agree, sound more like Ascension!)
Of course - you need a good bassist to carry "Lord I lift your name on high". The groove is what carries this one...
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

My all time worst is "I, the Lord of Sea and sky" - ghastly, it even beats the Farrell "Unless a grain of wheat".

Maybe I'm an indiscriminate musical omnivore but I quite like both of those! The former seems to me to be perfectly creditable sentiments of offering oneself to God's service, with associated references to Samuel and Isaiah. The latter has concurrent principles of self-sacrifice that call to mind "anyone who wants to save his life will lose it; anyone who loses his life my sake will save it".
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do I take it from the silence that nobody's actually experienced 'pierce my ear Lord' sung in church?

If you mean "Pierce my ear, O Lord my God, take me to your throne this day." then I sang it many times in the late 80s and early 90s. The imagery refers to Exodus 21:6. Sound imagery and inoffensive 'ditty', IMO. Is your reference to the same piece, or something more execrable?
No idea what comes next. As I said, I've only seen it in a book. But it's probably the same one. I can't imagine there are two choruses with the same incongruous first line.

As I said earlier, I know as well as anyone else the deep Old Testament roots it is drawing on. But the picture it conjures up to any normal person is something girls have done as a sort of rite of teenage passage so that they can wear ear rings.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
My all time worst is "I, the Lord of Sea and sky" - ghastly, ... .

I don't like that one either. To me, it's preachy and pretentious.


I quite like this one, and I associate it with good memories. I see it as an aspirational hymn; it's certainly not that God has picked me out to do great things for the poor and needy, but it's an expression of my longing to be of use to God and to his creation. And most of it is actually about what God does for us, not about what we're going to do.
 
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :
 
I agree with Svitlana. I think it's meant to be challenging rather than self-congratulatory.
 
Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do I take it from the silence that nobody's actually experienced 'pierce my ear Lord' sung in church?

If you mean "Pierce my ear, O Lord my God, take me to your throne this day." then I sang it many times in the late 80s and early 90s. The imagery refers to Exodus 21:6. Sound imagery and inoffensive 'ditty', IMO. Is your reference to the same piece, or something more execrable?
No idea what comes next. As I said, I've only seen it in a book. But it's probably the same one. I can't imagine there are two choruses with the same incongruous first line.

As I said earlier, I know as well as anyone else the deep Old Testament roots it is drawing on. But the picture it conjures up to any normal person is something girls have done as a sort of rite of teenage passage so that they can wear ear rings.

If it's "Pierce my ear O lord, make me ever true" - sadly I was expected to play and sing it many times in my less enlightened past. I shudder at the thought now. To be fair the horror of that ill-thoughtthrough opening line was always defeated by

"Lord, you put a tongue in my mouth"

Which always made me want to continue with "but I was only kissing you goodbye".... Are the writers' really that pure or am I just beyond the pale in depravity...?


And I can't hear "As the deer pants" without thinking "As the expensive knickers". Probably my mind again.....
 
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Reminds me of the praise song with the line "Our God is an awesome God"

which rather implies that there are other gods after all,

not something that us monotheists should say loudly in worship.

It all depends how you define the word. The language is confusing because we use the same word for "YHWH", "powerful being", and "object of worship". By the first definition, there is only one God. But by the latter two, there are gods beyond number.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But the real corker is in the chorus:

quote:
From the cross to the grave
From the grave to the sky
Lord, I lift Your name on high

Which reeks of "what else rhymes with 'high'?" if you ask me.

Well, I have no brief to defend this song - I don't like it either. But I do think the choice of words is not entirely banal - it's crucixion - deposition - resurrection (although it does, I agree, sound more like Ascension!)
Of course - you need a good bassist to carry "Lord I lift your name on high". The groove is what carries this one...
Would have been simpler if the composer had actually written a melody.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Of course - you need a good bassist to carry "Lord I lift your name on high". The groove is what carries this one...

Isn't "good bassist" a contradiction in terms?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Of course - you need a good bassist to carry "Lord I lift your name on high". The groove is what carries this one...

Isn't "good bassist" a contradiction in terms?
Now, now. But they're certainly rarer than rocking horse shit in churches, IME.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by anon four

If it's "Pierce my ear O lord, make me ever true" - sadly I was expected to play and sing it many times in my less enlightened past. I shudder at the thought now. To be fair the horror of that ill-thought through opening line was always defeated by

"Lord, you put a tongue in my mouth"

Which always made me want to continue with "but I was only kissing you goodbye".... Are the writers' really that pure or am I just beyond the pale in depravity...?

I think you are "misremembering" here, and conflating two songs, "pierce my ear, Lord", with which I am, mercifully, unfamiliar, and "Change my heart, O God, make it ever true".

But, surely, even "Lord, you've put a tongue in my mouth" cannot reach the heights of double-entendre-dom of this song. It's got a really good melody, actually, but I think the snigger factor wuld prevent it ever being used in a church!
 
Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think you are "misremembering" here, and conflating two songs, "pierce my ear, Lord", with which I am, mercifully, unfamiliar, and "Change my heart, O God, make it ever true".

But, surely, even "Lord, you've put a tongue in my mouth" cannot reach the heights of double-entendre-dom of this song. It's got a really good melody, actually, but I think the snigger factor wuld prevent it ever being used in a church! [/QB]

Ah yes - you're right about my misrmembering. Probably denial.....

I am deeply thankful about never having had to sing the song about the oil....Oh my.
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anon four:
If it's "Pierce my ear O lord, make me ever true" - sadly I was expected to play and sing it many times in my less enlightened past. I shudder at the thought now. To be fair the horror of that ill-thoughtthrough opening line was always defeated by

"Lord, you put a tongue in my mouth"

Which always made me want to continue with "but I was only kissing you goodbye".... Are the writers' really that pure or am I just beyond the pale in depravity...?


And I can't hear "As the deer pants" without thinking "As the expensive knickers". Probably my mind again.....

Fear not, anon four, you are not alone in having a mind that works thus. If you can find the original version of this thread in Limbo or Oblivion, and better still the archive from the very first SoF Boards, and if real life will allow you time to read them, you will find that they start out in very much this vein, and return quite regularly to it!
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
Today we sang "Jesu, lover of my soul." But we didn't. We sang "Jesus, lover of my soul." The same Jesus who no longer has a bosom, but a refuge.

Why, why, why make these little tweaks and prevent those of us who know the hymn from memory singing it from memory? It's not like it was reworked to take out "thou"; nor was there alteration to deal with jarring gender-specific language. For the record, I am in favour of the latter, though it continues to irritate me!

Does Wesley's theology really require review by hymn book compiling committees?

Gah!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I strongly suspect that many of these needless alterations- especially those perpetrated by the thrice-cursed Kevin Mayhew [Mad] - are about establishing a lucrative copyright in someone else's work, at minimal effort.

[ 14. October 2012, 13:12: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
Today we sang "Jesu, lover of my soul." But we didn't. We sang "Jesus, lover of my soul." The same Jesus who no longer has a bosom, but a refuge.

Why, why, why make these little tweaks and prevent those of us who know the hymn from memory singing it from memory? It's not like it was reworked to take out "thou"; nor was there alteration to deal with jarring gender-specific language. For the record, I am in favour of the latter, though it continues to irritate me!

Does Wesley's theology really require review by hymn book compiling committees?

Gah!

I entirely agree. This widespread practice is indefensible and inexcusable. I'd suggest that, if you dare, when you encounter it you pointedly sing the normal words in a very loud voice.

First, the editors of hymn books should respect the verbal choices of the original writer. This one clearly doesn't.

Only a few days ago, I encountered a badly mangled version of 'Be thou my vision'. This provoked in me an 'I don't believe it' reaction. It was in a hymn book which is a notoriously bad offender. Pulping is too good for it.

Second, no editor should ever fiddle with the words of any hymn that is well known, no, never - publishers do you hear that? This is particularly so with Christmas carols.

Third, it is patronising to tone down what the editor might regard as more difficult or old fashioned language on the grounds that some 10 year olds might not understand it.

Fourth, if you don't like the writer's theology, whether it is 'age of gold' or 'the wrath of God was satisfied', either respect him or her enough to leave it alone or don't put the hymn in your book.

Changing the words can only be defended where;

a. The original version is not widely known, so there will be no one who is used to the original words;

b. Very, very occasionally where the original words really are incomprehensible, like Milton's 'Erythraean Main' for the Red Sea, or no longer scan.

c. Where the original English words are a translation, to correct a wrong translation.

Fiddling with grammar to correct perceptions that the language of the past was sexist should only be permissible where it can be done in a way that those who know the original will hardly notice. Otherwise the dogmatically anti-sexist should be expected to lump it. It is their contribution to the unity of the brethren and sistren.

It is never acceptable, and an abuse of the original writer, to replace his or her imagery with the editor's own so as to 'correct' an offending 'men' to 'people' - which then gives an extra syllable and so throws the original scansion.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I strongly suspect that many of these needless alterations- especially those perpetrated by the thrice-cursed Kevin Mayhew [Mad] - are about establishing a lucrative copyright in someone else's work, at minimal effort.

Albertus, I strongly suspect you are right. I know little about the name you mention, and can't comment on it, but it is not the behaviour of an honourable Christian.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote from Enoch
quote:
Albertus, I strongly suspect you are right. I know little about the name you mention, and can't comment on it, but it is not the behaviour of an honourable Christian.
Mr Mayhew was a chorister at Westminster Cathedral before his voice broke - rumour has it that his chorister scholarship was withdrawn .. info on this gratefully received.

Since forming his publishing enterprise he has specialised in bowlderising hymns, adding his own unique twist to the harmonies of well-loved (and well-written) tunes, and producing organ collections for the nil to modestly talented. His hymn collections (HON or Hymns Old and New) are noted for the small number of tunes compared to the large number of hymns/choruses.

A side product of his activities is to induce a feeling of confusion or unease in worshippers of long-standing as they wonder if they are either losing their marbles or if the words they learned 30+ years ago really were wrong.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote from Enoch
quote:
Albertus, I strongly suspect you are right. I know little about the name you mention, and can't comment on it, but it is not the behaviour of an honourable Christian.
Mr Mayhew was a chorister at Westminster Cathedral before his voice broke - rumour has it that his chorister scholarship was withdrawn .. info on this gratefully received.
That would explain a lot: a disappointed chorister, a sort of Phantom of the Opera character, driven by his frustration to spend his life wreaking a dreadful revenge on the entire church music establishment.

The thing that puzzles me, though, is why so many churches buy the bloody things. I assume that, as I believe my own parish didn't, they didn't look carefully at them before doing so. I think I'm going to start taking my own copy of A&M Revised to church to use whenever possible.
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Hmmmm ...

Not being a lawyer I'm 100% sure about this - but I feel that some of the more recent posts are tending towards the libellous.

We simply cannot afford to be sued.

I'm sure you understand...

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Don't worry- IIRC you can't bring a libel action for 'mere vulgar abuse', which is certainly what I've been trying to indulge in!

[ 15. October 2012, 19:11: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Abertus - I guess from your post that you are not a lawyer either, and that you are trying to be light-hearted about the matter.

Be that as it may, it is still best not to open the Ship to possible litigation ...

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

PS Of course, if you are really registering a complaint about this, please take it to the Styx Board. TK

[ 15. October 2012, 22:01: Message edited by: TonyK ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
No no, not complaining, and point taken.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Mea culpa Tony. Point taken.

For the record: KM is a brilliant, innovative, creative, musical and literary genius whose contribution to the hymnody of the church in the UK is without parallel. Marie, Queen of Romania
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Hmm... my experience is that HON and other KM products are nearly as bad at mangling words as some others I could mention, and a fairly competent young organist of my acquaintance regularly reached for HON in preference to certain other volumes.

Perhaps it is a matter of comparison. If you're used to A&M, then HON will appear dire. If, on the other hand, your point of comparison is Mission Praise and CH4, HON comes as a blessed relief.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Anyone else noticed just how well Let there be love shared among us fits to the chorus of Les Bicyclettes be Belsize ? So much so that I think the publishers for Les Reed (who wrote the song as sung by Englebert Humperdink) should be alerted since its more-or-less a straight steal.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Alex wrote

quote:
Of course - you need a good bassist to carry "Lord I lift your name on high". The groove is what carries this one...
I _think_ I might have once heard a bass player use this for this one.

And the line 'really love your peaches, wanna shake your tree' might be dropped in as an allusion to song of songs...though there, I think, bunches of grapes are the methaphor-du-jour...
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
...and (indignation building) - Enoch wrote

quote:
Only a few days ago, I encountered a badly mangled version of 'Be thou my vision'
In my sisters evo-charismatic-anglican church I heard this done...in 4/4 [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] so the lame-ass guitar band could play power chords all over it [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

I'd love to find a way to get 'Come down O love divine' squeezed into a service of theirs (after all, it's a powerful charismatic hymn about the Holy Spirit). But what'd they do to the 6-6-11 metre???

Yes, yes, 4/4, I know...
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Oi! The 4/4 version of "Be Thou my vision" can be incredibly effective when done with a bit of feel and sensitivity. You just watch your step there, Mr Mark In Manchester.

[Biased]

Anyway, what makes you think you can't drench a 3/4 song in power chords? [Snigger]
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Well, 3/4 is just a slow 6/8, I guess...in which case these people have been making something of a career of it for some time.

(If, by some total freak accident of musical preference, you're unfamiliar...wait 'till the end of the intro).

I'd travel some distance for a 'time of praise and worship' in this particular style. Just what we need to speak to the yoof [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I am not entirely unfamiliar [Smile]

I have been known to deliver "Give thanks to the Lord" in a shameless boogie-woogie style before when feeling Puckish ...
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
I (and this shows how long it is since I played in a praise band) used to do 'seek ye first' a-la Housemartins 'Happy hour again'.

All of which is entirely relevant to the OP - such cultural syncretism now makes me wince.

Or is it I just no longer know who the praise band are taking off.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
...and (indignation building) - Enoch wrote

quote:
Only a few days ago, I encountered a badly mangled version of 'Be thou my vision'
In my sisters evo-charismatic-anglican church I heard this done...in 4/4 [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] so the lame-ass guitar band could play power chords all over it [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

I'd love to find a way to get 'Come down O love divine' squeezed into a service of theirs (after all, it's a powerful charismatic hymn about the Holy Spirit). But what'd they do to the 6-6-11 metre???

Yes, yes, 4/4, I know...

Actually, Mark, I'm much less bothered with fiddling with tunes, as long as the end result doesn't get across the words altogether. It's a fairly recent idea to think each hymn should have its own tune and only that tune. That's why they have the numbers, 7,6,7,6,7,6 etc. What outrages me that a hymn book that claims to be respectable, and which commends itself for use, should think it knows best and presume dramatically to foul up a familiar, well known, well written and loved hymn.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
There's not a hymn book with a 4/4 version of Slane in it is there?

We should all pray St Patrick's Breastplate against such horrors!
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Alex wrote

quote:
Of course - you need a good bassist to carry "Lord I lift your name on high". The groove is what carries this one...
I _think_ I might have once heard a bass player use this for this one.

And the line 'really love your peaches, wanna shake your tree' might be dropped in as an allusion to song of songs...though there, I think, bunches of grapes are the methaphor-du-jour...

That would be the line...
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
quote:
mark_in_manchester:
Or is it I just no longer know who the praise band are taking off.

You don't need to know: it'll be one of Coldplay, Snow Patrol or U2 [Smile]

quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider
here's not a hymn book with a 4/4 version of Slane in it is there?

Depends whether you count it as a hymn book, but it appears in a number of Spring Harvest books from 2000 onwards, billed as "Ancient Irish melody". Doubtless in lots of other places too.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
...and (indignation building) - Enoch wrote

quote:
Only a few days ago, I encountered a badly mangled version of 'Be thou my vision'
In my sisters evo-charismatic-anglican church I heard this done...in 4/4 [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] so the lame-ass guitar band could play power chords all over it [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

It's common in traditional Celtic music to hear a tune as a march and rearrange it as a jig or hornpipe, whatever is needed. Nothing to see here, move along.
quote:

I'd love to find a way to get 'Come down O love divine' squeezed into a service of theirs (after all, it's a powerful charismatic hymn about the Holy Spirit). But what'd they do to the 6-6-11 metre???

Yes, yes, 4/4, I know...

I've heard it done over a hip hop beat with a guy on record decks scratching. Not as bad as that sounds, really.
 
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:

Of course - you need a good bassist to carry "Lord I lift your name on high". The groove is what carries this one...


Like this bassist?


Incidentally, I knew a bassist who adapted the bass line to “Summer Loving” for “Lord I lift your name on high”. You just adjust the tempo, play an extra verse line, and it fits the verse beautifully. First time he did this, there were a few 'come again?' looks, but people soon caught on.

Example
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Sarah G. said:
quote:
Like this bassist?
At 1:47 I lost the will to live...
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sarah G. said:
quote:
Like this bassist?
At 1:47 I lost the will to live...
It took you that long?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by me on 14th October:
... Only a few days ago, I encountered a badly mangled version of 'Be thou my vision'. This provoked in me an 'I don't believe it' reaction. It was in a hymn book which is a notoriously bad offender. Pulping is too good for it. ...

I appreciate this threat seems to be 'resting' at the moment, but I've discovered it was in a book called 'Sing Glory'. Have any shipmates encountered it, or do any know anything about it?

Bearing in mind the comments in the thread on defamation, I hesitate to speak the name of who does seem to be the publisher.


As Christmas approaches, does anyone feel inspired to be rude about their less favourite carols? A baby would have to have divine fortitude not to burst into tears at yet another 'Away in a Manger'.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Sorry 'threat' in the first line should be 'thread'.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry 'threat' in the first line should be 'thread'.

Actually, given some of the horrors being discussed here, you perhaps had it right first time...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by me on 14th October:
... Only a few days ago, I encountered a badly mangled version of 'Be thou my vision'. This provoked in me an 'I don't believe it' reaction. It was in a hymn book which is a notoriously bad offender. Pulping is too good for it. ...

I appreciate this threat seems to be 'resting' at the moment, but I've discovered it was in a book called 'Sing Glory'. Have any shipmates encountered it, or do any know anything about it?

Bearing in mind the comments in the thread on defamation, I hesitate to speak the name of who does seem to be the publisher.


As Christmas approaches, does anyone feel inspired to be rude about their less favourite carols? A baby would have to have divine fortitude not to burst into tears at yet another 'Away in a Manger'.

Yes, has to be 'Away in A Manger'. Also 'Adam lay y-bounden' (too tweely medieval revival for me, though I do warm to it a bit on looking it up on wikipedia and seeing that it comes from a manuscript whose other contents include 'I have a gentil cok'...).

Just looked up Sing Glory. Looks dire. Published by the people I'd guessed it might be.
[Frown]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Nowt wrong with "Adam lay ybounden", but it should be pronounced according to Middle English norms. Much better that way.

'Away in a Manger' has given me the horrors since I was in short trousers.

[ 06. December 2012, 22:02: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
Christmas always rekindles my hatred of the efforts of Mrs C F Alexander. So misguided, so unjustly loved.....

[brick wall] [Projectile]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nowt wrong with "Adam lay ybounden", but it should be pronounced according to Middle English norms. Much better that way.


I suppose so. But it's hearing it sung in ever-so-nice contemporary voices that puts me off it: the archness of the whole thing when done that way. The sort of thing you can imagine Linda Snell pushing into the Ambridge carols to try to raise the cultural bar, IYKWIM.
My really shocking Christmas music confession is this: I don't like John Rutter's work. Not crap- oh no, very much not crap- but far too 'tastefully' polished for my liking, what I've heard of it.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, I like "This is the truth sent from above" sung in a raunchy, folk-y sort of way.

But my organist doesn't.

I also like to hear "O come, O come Immanuel" sung with each line as a complete arching phrase, without intervening bar-lines.

[ 07. December 2012, 08:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on :
 
I've just discovered on you tubes three great new kids Christmas songs that are so uncool that they're cool - particularly with the actions.

Written and performed by an English Vicar - David Heath-Whyte and available from his website www.maynardsgroovytunes.org.uk. I downloaded the Christmas Album JUMP WITH JOY.

They are all new to me and my seven classes of eleven and twelve year olds this week really got the irony and the fun. Biblically accurate too.

GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST
LORD YOU'RE SO TOTALLY COOOL
AWESOME AND BRILLIANT
MAGNIFICENT WONDERFUL
JESUS YOU ROCK AND YOU RULE.

My fairly traditional rector has gone ahead and bought the whole catelog!

So not creepy with the right audience and the correct "vibe of the thing" as we Aussies would say.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Why do we have to sing Once in Royal David's City, when we could be singing this?

I defy anyone to listen to it, and not end up playing an air violin with a happy smile on their face.

The church in the snow, by the way, is Sheffield Cathedral.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Albertus wrote
quote:
My really shocking Christmas music confession is this: I don't like John Rutter's work. Not crap- oh no, very much not crap- but far too 'tastefully' polished for my liking, what I've heard of it.
Pffft! Iut if you want to see what crap looks like when polished up, I recommend his "Candlelight Carol", a particularly ripe example of the "Mistletoe and Wine" genre.

There are several examples of this outrage on Youtube, including one with the score so you can sing along to annoy the neighbours.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Albertus wrote
quote:
My really shocking Christmas music confession is this: I don't like John Rutter's work. Not crap- oh no, very much not crap- but far too 'tastefully' polished for my liking, what I've heard of it.
Pffft! Iut if you want to see what crap looks like when polished up, I recommend his "Candlelight Carol", a particularly ripe example of the "Mistletoe and Wine" genre.

There are several examples of this outrage on Youtube, including one with the score so you can sing along to annoy the neighbours.

Yuk. I'm too fond of my neighbours.

The line,
"How do you measure the love of a mother, how do you write down a baby's first cry",
says it all.

If I said 'so terribly BBC', would anyone know what I meant.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes.
Completely with you on Old Foster, by the way- applied for a couple of jobs in Sheffield earlier this year and I do remember thinking that proximity to the local carol tradition would have been a minor bonus of getting either. (I got neither, BTW).
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Christmas always rekindles my hatred of the efforts of Mrs C F Alexander. So misguided, so unjustly loved.....

[brick wall] [Projectile]

I have to say I do like some of her work. Much as I loath ATB&B, I will forgive a multitude of sins for the sublime translation of "St. Patrick's Breastplate" that she penned.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why do we have to sing Once in Royal David's City, when we could be singing this?

Is this the point when I interject my Christmas claim to fame that H J Gauntlett who wrote the tune to 'Once in Royal David's City' is my ancestor? The great (great?) grandfather of my paternal grandmother if I recall correctly. [Smile]

[ 07. December 2012, 18:31: Message edited by: Lucia ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
"All I once held dear built my life upon" sung to the tune of "76 Trombones" anyone?

Go on, go on, you know you want to
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
quote:
I've discovered it was in a book called 'Sing Glory'. Have any shipmates encountered it, or do any know anything about it?
Known amongst a sub-set of the musicians at our shack as "Sing Poorly".

I loathe that book with a passion. It's the worst of all possible worlds. "Modernised" words for old songs; awful layout on the page; a buggering nightmare to actually find songs because the alphabetical index is hidden at the back, but not right at the back; thoroughly random and snobbish choice of songs; arbitrary choice of which items are 'songs' and which 'hymns' and will therefore have guitar chords given, thus limiting general usefulness even more*l chap who edited/collated it clearly so far up his arse it's untrue.

This last caused some consternation when I discovered that one of my friends had him for a tutor at London School of Theology. She point-black refused to pass on my lack of regards [Devil]

Back in the day when we still used books, Sing Poorly was forcibly introduced by a dubious coalition between the then senior minister and one of the organists. Is outrage! didn't even come close to covering it.

*If some of the more modern songs had been over-printed with "On NO ACCOUNT try to play this on the organ" I might have had more sympathy with the apartheid approach. Grr. Travesty. Grr. Stupid ill-conceived and badly executed bloody orange book.

Fortunately I don't feel strongly about it.
 
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
"All I once held dear built my life upon" sung to the tune of "76 Trombones" anyone?

Go on, go on, you know you want to

Genius! Never tried that before. Must have a word with our organist... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
I've probably mentioned this before, but try "Meekness and Majesty" to Verdi's "La donn'e mobile"...
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I also like to hear "O come, O come Immanuel" sung with each line as a complete arching phrase, without intervening bar-lines.

Unaccompanied, adult male voices only for a real shivers down the back experience.

This is as good as music gets.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
I've probably mentioned this before, but try "Meekness and Majesty" to Verdi's "La donn'e mobile"...

For the more traditional congregation, "Jesus lives, thy sorrows now" can be sung to the tune of The Stripper.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

'Away in a Manger' has given me the horrors since I was in short trousers.

Cheer yourself up. Sing it to the Wombles theme tune ("Underground, overground, Wombling free et al").
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Singing 'As with gladness men of old' this morning, I noticed that Hymns Old & New gives us 'As their gifts they gently laid/ at that manger roughly made' (or something like that) for 'as they offered gifts most rare/ at that manger rude and bare'. Now, before the Hosts start having kittens, I am not accusing Kevin Mayhew of changing this for any disreputable reason. The reason appears to be obvious: the suspicion that choirboys will snigger at 'rude and bare'. (This is presumably thee same reason all mention of sods is dropped from 'Thou didst leave thy throne and thy kingly crown' and 'Good King Wenceslas'. )

The suspicion is, of course, perfectly well-founded, if today's kids are anything like we were. But isn't it a bit pathetic for a hymnbook editor to take notice of it?
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
SImilarly, the same KM book as altered George Herbert (how dare he?) from 'thou didst note my working breast/thou hast granted my request' to 'thou didst note my ardent zeal/thou hast granted my appeal' in 'Seven whole days' I tend to stick with what Herbert wrote!

Church I was at this morning had AMNS for most of the hymns but we had 'We three kings' out of a book of worship songs with a familiar feel to the typesetting (yes it was KM!) and it had altered 'all men raising' to 'gladly raising' which I ignored -- singing hymns half from memory has advantages!

Carys
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Oooh, you have to have the working breast! It's terrible when your breast isn't working. How else do you get 'the cream of all my heart'?
 
Posted by Margaret (# 283) on :
 
Not the least of the joys of leaving my old church is that I need never sing from HON again - almost every week there was a hymn which the editors had made a mess of. My new place uses Common Praise and it's bliss to have the Proper Words again!
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why do we have to sing Once in Royal David's City, when we could be singing this?

Is this the point when I interject my Christmas claim to fame that H J Gauntlett who wrote the tune to 'Once in Royal David's City' is my ancestor? The great (great?) grandfather of my paternal grandmother if I recall correctly. [Smile]
And what a lovely tune it is!

Worth remembering that dear Mrs Alexander was writing many of her hymns as sort of Bible lessons for Sunday School children; easy poetic ways for kids to learn the story of Jesus. It has to be said, she does seem to have succeeded.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
To add one post to this thread before it seems to dissappear back into the depths of DH - IMO the most hideous of changes to a hymn:

'Onward Christian Pilgrims' from 'Onwards Christian Soldiers'
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
To be fair Onward Christian Pilgrims is a new hymn which happens too share its tune and first two words with another hymn. One of the things HON has a thing about is military language. And I'm heading that way myself. Certainly I was glad that the version of For all the saints we sang on All Saints Day outside Church House as people gathered for an arms fair omitted those verses and replaced them with verses on martyrs and the like. It was a better version than KM's though. Again new material rather than mangled old material.

Carys
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
If you're bored have a go at putting the words of "Sing of the Lord's goodness" to Dave Brubeck's Take Five - you won't find the "original" the same ever again [Smile]
 
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If you're bored have a go at putting the words of "Sing of the Lord's goodness" to Dave Brubeck's Take Five - you won't find the "original" the same ever again [Smile]

We used to do this at school, or at least we used 'Take Five' as an intro. It's stuck in my head forever now, and made watching the recent tv programmes about Dave Brubeck a big problem.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
[Killing me] You too Can Write a Praise Song. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Thank you, Alogon, I needed that. [Killing me]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why do we have to sing Once in Royal David's City, when we could be singing this?

I defy anyone to listen to it, and not end up playing an air violin with a happy smile on their face.

The church in the snow, by the way, is Sheffield Cathedral.

My mother loathed Once in Royal, because she had a profound sense as a child that she Was Being Got At. King's College Chapel at the Strand London have a version which has excised the offensive parts.
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
...and (indignation building) - Enoch wrote

quote:
Only a few days ago, I encountered a badly mangled version of 'Be thou my vision'
In my sisters evo-charismatic-anglican church I heard this done...in 4/4 [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] so the lame-ass guitar band could play power chords all over it [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

...

...and in the process turning a lilting, flowing melody into a jerking, uneven, syncopated stagger just so that the drummer can bash the drum kit all over it as well.

I've also encountered the 3/4 to 4/4 adaptation done to the hymn 'Here is love, vast as the ocean' (link to original version) by extending the notes at the end of all the phrases by an extra beat, thus removing any sense of lyrical movement from the tune. It's one of my favourite hymns, and when I realised what the worship group had done to it I started to lose the will to live, let alone the will to engage in worship. [Frown]
Angus
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
That is poor. If a 3/4 tune must be turned into 4/4 (like if you're being threatened with flaying alive if you don't - can't think of any musical justification) then a better approach is generally something like turning:

C C C

into

C. C. C

If you get what I mean (note for Colonials - a C is a crotchet, what you call a "quarter note")

C C M makes the melody even squarer than the 3/4 was.

Ackshully - I can think of one song that is, if not improved, then made not unpleasantly different by this process. Notably it's already a modern song anyway - Meekness and Majesty.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I assume that that video claiming that certain words rhyme was joking. I have noticed that modern songs have curious understandings about rhyme.

Verse one: very good rhymes, some internal.
Verse two: generally well rhymed, internal ones gone.
Verse three: assonance.

We had one at school, in the BBC book, "Who put the colours in the rainbow?" that followed this pattern, but it wasn't the only one. (I grew up with one in "Songs of Praise" about "the coral-coated ladybird, the velvet humming-bee", similar message, much better rhyming, and no spat with evolution.)
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Bump

Albertus wrote, some time ago:

quote:
The reason appears to be obvious: the suspicion that choirboys will snigger at 'rude and bare'.
Our 7-yr-old girl likes rhyming poems, and was moaning to me the other day about 'songs where you have to say the words funny to make it rhyme'.

So I gave her 'late in time behold him come, offspring of a virgin's wum'.

Once she worked it out she laughed a lot...went quiet...and then started laughing a lot more. On questioning, she'd only say 'it could have been a LOT ruder than that...' [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Some swine linked me to a youtube of that "these are the days of Elijah" thing.

I was drawn to the Fr Ted episode where they write a song for Eurovision. "What were we thinking? It's just the same note over and over again!"
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I have noticed that modern songs have curious understandings about rhyme.

Verse one: very good rhymes, some internal.
Verse two: generally well rhymed, internal ones gone.
Verse three: assonance.

That's often the case in homespun poetry too: the muse departs after the first verse but the bard keeps writing.

In verse 4 of the songs the rhythm becomes unsingable, too.

(This also explains why some "new hymns to familiar tunes" don't work: the internal rhymes are different to the ones in the "usual" text and we notice that).

[ 02. April 2013, 16:19: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
If it helps, I once attended a conference on church music led by one of the people out of the Langley Vineyard -- Brian Doerkson, I believe, who has crafted a number of good worship songs. They (not necessarily Doerkson) are responsible for things like Refiner's Fire, which some of you may recognize.

He confided two relevent things -- the first was his opinion that if everything "God inspired me to write" was of God, God had really poor judgement and far too much time on His hands. The second was that even when God did give him, Brian, something, it could take years of working on it to make it usable, and musical. He used as an example, BTW, a song on his latest CD that he had had to work on for 2-3 years before it became something he could perform and record.

Incidently, at that same conference, one of the musicians confided that he and his friends never used that kind of music in their churches on Sunday -- that they aren't meant for congregational singing or use but for performance in what someone like me would call a sacred concert. The song Brian had used earlier to demonstrate how long it could take to make something performable, Brian also pointed out, was in fact so personal to him, that he said while others could possibly benefit from hearing it (which is why he recorded it) he doubted very much that anyone else should sing it -- and of course, by implication, that it should never by used for congregational singing.

JOhn
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
That's very interesting and sensible: just, I suppose, as those of us who are more liturgical would not expect to use e.g. Bach's B Minor Mass for congregational worship (quite apart from complexity and musical skill required, the Kyries alone last 20 minutes!)
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Incidently, at that same conference, one of the musicians confided that he and his friends never used that kind of music in their churches on Sunday -- that they aren't meant for congregational singing or use but for performance in what someone like me would call a sacred concert. The song Brian had used earlier to demonstrate how long it could take to make something performable, Brian also pointed out, was in fact so personal to him, that he said while others could possibly benefit from hearing it (which is why he recorded it) he doubted very much that anyone else should sing it -- and of course, by implication, that it should never by used for congregational singing.

There's plenty of contemporary songs that fit into this category, I think! One that I'm in two minds about is How He Loves which was written following the death of the songwriter's close friend (more at the Wikipedia link). On the surface, the language is horrendous 'Jesus is my boyfriend' stuff but my attitude to the song really changed when I found out the context in which it was written. Still not sure it works in a congregational setting, though.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
OK everyone, you want to know about crappy choruses, etc (and lousy clerical style as well): LOOK NO FURTHER. Go onto Amazon and see if you can get a copy of a splendid book "Why Catholics Can't Sing - The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste" by Thomas Day. Granted, it was written about the state of music in the American Roman Catholic church but (a) it deals comprehensively with many much-loved bits of c**p music adopted over here, and (b) sections of it will have you howling with laughter.

Seriously, it makes some very valid points about the theology of some worship songs. Try to track down a copy - you won't regret it.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
There's plenty of contemporary songs that fit into this category, I think! One that I'm in two minds about is How He Loves which was written following the death of the songwriter's close friend (more at the Wikipedia link). On the surface, the language is horrendous 'Jesus is my boyfriend' stuff but my attitude to the song really changed when I found out the context in which it was written. Still not sure it works in a congregational setting, though.

It definitely works well for us, but probably because we only used the song once it was made popular by David Crowder. We wouldn't have done that without it being brought into mainstream worship use by a respected worship leader like Crowder.


But of course there are other songs we would look at and say "no" straight away which you or others might find really good.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Yeah, I think we only started using 'How He Loves' since the David Crowder Band did it. In any case, my impression is that it's quite popular amongst our church as a whole (certainly most of the other music leaders like it), it's just I'm not much of a fan. I find it very hard to sing any 'I love you Jesus' sort of songs when I'm not really in the mood, as it were.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
I'm currently watching Songs of Praise - Junior School Choir competition - and they've just sung On Eagle's Wings.

One word - OUCH! Thank FUCK Haugen's stuff doesn't get played much in Protestant circles...
I can see why it's hated...
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Oh - another one used was... well, you'll recognise it from the metre. Also teh lament of any CCLI-only cleared church that relies on Easyworship when this one comes up..

"I have caused the office pain/Do we need this one again/We had to pay the PRS/Cos we don't use books"
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Thank FUCK Haugen's stuff doesn't get played much in Protestant circles...
I can see why it's hated...

Oh I don't know ... "Let us build a house/All are welcome" is popular in the URC in Britain. It goes down well with us, and we are pretty traditional when it comes to music.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Baptist trainfan posted
"Let us build a house/All are welcome" is popular in the URC in Britain. It goes down well with us, and we are pretty traditional when it comes to music. [Eek!]

NO! traditional is Praise my soul and Love divine - with a generous dollop of Latin hymns (or translations) such as the Veni creator or Pange lingua.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

NO! traditional is Praise my soul and Love divine - with a generous dollop of Latin hymns (or translations) such as the Veni creator or Pange lingua.

The real question is whether English-speaking congregations should sing Guide me, oh thou great redeemer in Welsh. [Snigger]
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Or indeed at all...

After 20 years in London I still haven't recovered from the shock of hearing a congregation sing 'And Can It Be' in unison!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Although neither author nor composer were Welsh!

(Not that you said they were).
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
posted by Leorning Cniht
The real question is whether English-speaking congregations should sing Guide me, oh thou great redeemer in Welsh.

Look, not all WELSH congregations sing it in Welsh... and west of the dyke the English is Guide me, O thou great Jehovah ".

As for And can it be IMHO it sounds at its best in harmony, preferably accompanied by Salvation Army band... [Smile]
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
I would like to report an occurrence of Colours of Day in Southern Scotland.
This is a song which I don't remember encountering outside the previous incarnation of this thread - but it transpires that mr whibley knows it well. In fact he interviewed the perpetrators for a radio programme when it first came out!
Things were going so well at the new church, too. Thankfully the person sitting next to mr whibley apologised to him for the quality of today's music.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

As for And can it be IMHO it sounds at its best in harmony, preferably accompanied by Salvation Army band... [Smile]

It wasn't too bad at a recent Archepiscopal enthronement ... nor at my son's wedding last year in a country parish church!
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... and west of the dyke the English is Guide me, O thou great Jehovah ".

As it is in our church and most others I've been to in the south-east of England.
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... and west of the dyke the English is Guide me, O thou great Jehovah ".

As it is in our church and most others I've been to in the south-east of England.
Whereas in most of the churches I've been to in the last 10 years or so (Anglican and non-conformist, both in South London and here)it's been Redeemer.

Go figure...
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
It's Redeemer in the English Hymnal, and in most editions of Hymns A&M, but Jehovah in the New English Hymnal and Jehovah in the TEC hymnal.

Redeemer is what I grew up with, so it's what sticks.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

NO! traditional is Praise my soul and Love divine - with a generous dollop of Latin hymns (or translations) such as the Veni creator or Pange lingua.

The real question is whether English-speaking congregations should sing Guide me, oh thou great redeemer in Welsh. [Snigger]
Don't know about in Welsh, but I do know it's virtually impossible to sing it without inadvertently affecting a Welsh accent.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
I would like to report an occurrence of Colours of Day in Southern Scotland.
This is a song which I don't remember encountering outside the previous incarnation of this thread - but it transpires that mr whibley knows it well. In fact he interviewed the perpetrators for a radio programme when it first came out!

Is that the one where the chorus begins "So light up the fire and let the flame burn"? If yes, it was a staple at school in the 1980s but I've never heard it again since.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
I would like to report an occurrence of Colours of Day in Southern Scotland.
This is a song which I don't remember encountering outside the previous incarnation of this thread - but it transpires that mr whibley knows it well. In fact he interviewed the perpetrators for a radio programme when it first came out!

Is that the one where the chorus begins "So light up the fire and let the flame burn"? If yes, it was a staple at school in the 1980s but I've never heard it again since.
It was still a primary school staple in the 1990s, and lived on as one of the tunes that got cranked out in my old church for some baptisms etc where the visitors wouldn't have sung any hymns since their school assembly days.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

NO! traditional is Praise my soul and Love divine - with a generous dollop of Latin hymns (or translations) such as the Veni creator or Pange lingua.

The real question is whether English-speaking congregations should sing Guide me, oh thou great redeemer in Welsh. [Snigger]
Don't know about in Welsh, but I do know it's virtually impossible to sing it without inadvertently affecting a Welsh accent.
Anything sung (in totality) in any language other than that of the majority of the congregation is suspect IMHO. It may be great for those foir whom it's originally written - in suburban or rural uk it just sounds twee or as if someone's posing by proving they can write a song in Hebrew words (a particular pet hate)
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
I would like to report an occurrence of Colours of Day in Southern Scotland.
This is a song which I don't remember encountering outside the previous incarnation of this thread - but it transpires that mr whibley knows it well. In fact he interviewed the perpetrators for a radio programme when it first came out!

Is that the one where the chorus begins "So light up the fire and let the flame burn"? If yes, it was a staple at school in the 1980s but I've never heard it again since.
As a budding pyromaniac Ijust love that one. Petrol, matches and a bale of straw anyone?

Another pet hate is "I want to dance as david danced" Do you? Really? Ok, then if you're happy to undress in cold St Cuthberts it's up to you but a) we have no insurance for that kind of thing b) no risk assessment has been completed so you're on your own

[ 22. April 2013, 12:19: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
posted by Helen-Eva
Is that the one where the chorus begins "So light up the fire and let the flame burn"? If yes, it was a staple at school in the 1980s but I've never heard it again since.

...and I'd managed to avoid for, ooh, 4 years or so until just a few weeks ago, when I was at a service elsewhere than my own church,

- at a funeral,

- in a crematorium. [Snigger]

I'd have LOVED to think it was post-modern irony but...
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Songs of Praise - Redeemer. Tunes: Llanilar, Caersalem. I can't read music well, but they do not look right to me.

Congregational Praise - Jehovah. Tunes: Caersalem, Cwm Rhondda.

How could the SoP people, given who they were, for goodness sake, think that anything else should even be suggested? And the CP lot put the only correct tune second?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, Cwm Rhondda is a comparatively modern tune: it only dates from about 1905 - about 20 years before SoP was compiled. So Arglwydd arwain... was being sung to other tunes for, what, 130 years before it came along.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's Redeemer in the English Hymnal, and in most editions of Hymns A&M, but Jehovah in the New English Hymnal and Jehovah in the TEC hymnal.

Redeemer is what I grew up with, so it's what sticks.

'Jehovah' is a nonsense word based on the misunderstanding of Hebrew and of the Jewish interpretation of the commandment against taking God's name in vain.

Best avoided. Stick to 'redeemer'.
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Helen-Eva
Is that the one where the chorus begins "So light up the fire and let the flame burn"? If yes, it was a staple at school in the 1980s but I've never heard it again since.

...and I'd managed to avoid for, ooh, 4 years or so until just a few weeks ago, when I was at a service elsewhere than my own church,

- at a funeral,

- in a crematorium. [Snigger]

I'd have LOVED to think it was post-modern irony but...

That's the one! And
[Snigger]

A friend of mine has just posted her own alternative words to Be thou my vision on line, apparently because she can't sing it. Well, I can't sing her words to the actual tune, and it's not as if noone has tried this before...

Although I have only just considered that she might be playing it in 4/4...

[Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
A friend of mine has just posted her own alternative words to Be thou my vision on line, apparently because she can't sing it.

Got a link, please - I'd love to find justification as to why i don't like that hymn/song?
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
A friend of mine has just posted her own alternative words to Be thou my vision on line, apparently because she can't sing it.

Got a link, please - I'd love to find justification as to why i don't like that hymn/song?
I'm afraid it was on facebook - so even if public it would hardly be fair to link. Please take my word for it, any version you'll find in print is better (and I know there are some dire ones out there).
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
Although I have only just considered that she might be playing it in 4/4...

[Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes]

Was it something like this? I'm getting that feeling of being the odd one out, but I really like the 4/4 version!

Oh, and here's another fresh reworking / complete wrecking of another much-loved hymn. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing. And here is the full band version.

[ 22. April 2013, 21:06: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I really like "Be Thou my vision". I did come across a version which tried to excise the Thou's and Thee's. Can't be done.

I think it feeds into the memory of books I read as a child, set in the Irish mythical history. And Narnia. At least, despite the warrior images, it puts God first - not like "I vow to Thee".

[ 22. April 2013, 21:37: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I really like "Be Thou my vision". I did come across a version which tried to excise the Thou's and Thee's. Can't be done.

I think it feeds into the memory of books I read as a child, set in the Irish mythical history. at least, despite the warrior images, it puts God first - not like "I vow to Thee".

We had it at our wedding - and I policed the words used, so they had exactly the right amount of Thou's, Thee's and Be's! But then I like the Goblins and Foul Fiends, in "To be a Pilgrim" too.
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
Although I have only just considered that she might be playing it in 4/4...

[Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes]

Was it something like this? I'm getting that feeling of being the odd one out, but I really like the 4/4 version!

Oh, and here's another fresh reworking / complete wrecking of another much-loved hymn. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing. And here is the full band version.

Can I give you a respectful [Roll Eyes] ? At least not quite as [Projectile] or [Waterworks] as I feared!
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Of course, there are crappy tunes (much loved) to decent trad hymns too: A&M tune for "Our blest Redeemer, e'er he breathed" is ghastly.

But find a copy of the old English Hymnal and it has a ravishing RVW arranged tune... worth tracking down and introducing.

I'm afraid the only person I can think of who'd not notice the true horror of 4/4 Slane would be my late mother - she was tone deaf and rhythmically challenged. [Eek!]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]'Jehovah' is a nonsense word based on the misunderstanding of Hebrew...

Not at all. Its a perfectly standard Anglicisation of the tetragrammaton pointed with the vowels of "Adonai", and really just an early modern way of saying the word we write as "LORD" in English bibles. No misunderstanding involved, just a different tradition of tramsliteration, with a layer of English sound change on top of it.

And its no worse a representation of the original Hebrew than a lot of other Anglicised names. Joseph and Jesus and Mary are just as altered. And John a lot more altered.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
OK, enough about a very good hymn.

Just had another brush with Thank you, Lord, for this new day [Eek!]

Generally I try not to listen to it - "music" bad enough but the words... unfortunately they filtered through this time.

This has to be a serious contender for the top 10 of "most banal worship-songs of all time" [Projectile]
 
Posted by The Kat in the Hat (# 2557) on :
 
Did you also have to endure the chorus between each verse?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Oh yes, there was no escape. [Eek!]

Have you come across this shocker that a friend has mailed me? [Projectile]

Lord, I thank You for another new day to live You;
Another day for me to practise being one spirit with You.

++ 6 more lines that don't scan before the big finish
Abiding in You as a branch in the vine.

This was presented in the form of a printed Order of Service and a memory stick with MP3 file given to my friend 15 minutes before a wedding... [Ultra confused]

Friend described the music as being in that well-loved style Barry Manilow on a bad day crossed with Richard Clayderman - in layman's terms less easily singable for a congregation than getting a Kazoo band to pull off the 1812 Overture convincingly.

I'll try to track down this gem online...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I like the 4/4 setting of "Be Thou my Vision". And I like the 3/4 original setting. Slane is essentially a great blending of an Irish hymn with a tune which is also Irish-Celtic in its shape and form.

The 4/4 setting when first produced invoked a fascinating use of the Bodhran, a particular kind of Irish drum. The driving use of the Bodhran in the new rhythm seems to me to be perfectly in accord with both the Irish inheritance of the hymn and the power of the ancient words.

I suppose it may be a bit of a shock to the system the first time you hear it - as is any change - but personally I find it both moving and appropriate.

Of course, if you hate the whole idea of the use of drum accompaniment to hymns, you won't like that anyway. But that's a kind of pre-condition which doesn't bother me.

The first time I heard it was at a wedding in Edinburgh, and it was played with Bodhran accompaniment. I was electrified by the setting, talked about it a lot to folks involved in church music - and got mixed reaction!

I suppose if it makes you sick, it does. Sure doesn't do that to me, on any level.
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
I came across this ghastly hymn (I think) last week. I think it was selected as one the children would like, but I am glad to say that both children and adults looked unimpressed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bbmYOccWnk

There is even the obligatory whooa and an optional lalala at the end of each verse.
 
Posted by Margaret (# 283) on :
 
Oh yes, I encountered that one for the first time a few weeks ago too. All I can say in its favour is that it doesn't sound quite so bad if you've had at least one glass of wine before you sing it.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I came across this ghastly hymn (I think) last week. I think it was selected as one the children would like, but I am glad to say that both children and adults looked unimpressed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bbmYOccWnk

There is even the obligatory whooa and an optional lalala at the end of each verse.

Jings. there's getting on for two thousand years of Christian hymnwriting (and the Psalms before that) to choose from, and someones decide to sing that. Why? Why? Why? [Confused]
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Margaret:
Oh yes, I encountered that one for the first time a few weeks ago too. All I can say in its favour is that it doesn't sound quite so bad if you've had at least one glass of wine before you sing it.

I certainly felt like I needed a drink when it was over!
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
I would like to report an occurrence of Colours of Day in Southern Scotland.
This is a song which I don't remember encountering outside the previous incarnation of this thread - but it transpires that mr whibley knows it well. In fact he interviewed the perpetrators for a radio programme when it first came out!

Is that the one where the chorus begins "So light up the fire and let the flame burn"? If yes, it was a staple at school in the 1980s but I've never heard it again since.
It was still a primary school staple in the 1990s, and lived on as one of the tunes that got cranked out in my old church for some baptisms etc where the visitors wouldn't have sung any hymns since their school assembly days.
The co-author of "Light up the fire", as it was originally known, John Paculabo, actually passed away this month. May he rest in peace and rise in glory.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Liturgylover
O. M. G. [Projectile]

One glass of wine? Surely 2 or 3?

In any case, how could you begin to take seriously something with a middle-section that is so obviously ripped-off from that old Freddie & The Dreamers classic You were made for me?

I'm with you, Albertus: WHY? [Confused]

(Teenage son just opined "crap like that stops kinds going to church")
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I came across this ghastly hymn (I think) last week. I think it was selected as one the children would like, but I am glad to say that both children and adults looked unimpressed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bbmYOccWnk

There is even the obligatory whooa and an optional lalala at the end of each verse.

[Killing me] You know what this sounds JUST like? 'We Go Together' from Grease. [Big Grin]

Look, I like a lot of contemporary Christian worship music. I like a bit of Matt Redman and Tim Hughes etc etc etc. I even like some Hillsong and Bethel (not very keen on their fluffy theology, but I do like their music). I like a bit of Christian reggae, and a bit of Celtic rock/jazz/fusion stuff. Etc. Very middle of the road I am.

But there is duff stuff too. Ooooh, yes indeedy.

I sing with our Music Group at church and as I often complain to our worship leader, what is it with contemporary worship song composers and their obsession with the damn bridge and guitar riffs? [Razz]

I just didn't realise that Anglo-Catholic or Catholic youth produce some duff stuff too! I thought that was the special preserve of us weird evangelicals. [Yipee] Thanks to the Ship, I learn something new every day. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :
 
quote:
posted by Liturgylover:

I came across this ghastly hymn (I think) last week. I think it was selected as one the children would like, but I am glad to say that both children and adults looked unimpressed:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bbmYOccWnk

There is even the obligatory whooa and an optional lalala at the end of each verse.

Yes, but just imagine The Muppets singing it... that's what came to my mind.

[ 25. April 2013, 14:29: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
That would be AWESOME! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :
 
Wouldn't it just. [Big Grin] I can already hear Kermit & Miss Piggy singing along...
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Liturgylover
O. M. G. [Projectile]

One glass of wine? Surely 2 or 3?

In any case, how could you begin to take seriously something with a middle-section that is so obviously ripped-off from that old Freddie & The Dreamers classic You were made for me?

I'm with you, Albertus: WHY? [Confused]

(Teenage son just opined "crap like that stops kinds going to church")

L'Organist - you are so right. I have just listened to it again with a cup of cocoa and it really has no redeeming features.

I feel I must join with you in a shared [Projectile]
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
/QUOTE] [Killing me] You know what this sounds JUST like? 'We Go Together' from Grease. [Big Grin]

If I ever hear it again, I don't think I will get chills! [Biased]
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
Oh. Dear.
Not helped by the dancing priests.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Watch the priests very closely: from the start, NOT ONE of them is in time with the music - of course, if they're wearing ear-plugs it would be tricky... [Snigger]

Second child has seen & heard ("What's that garbage - what's this 'shat it'?") [Confused]

Listened again (the sacrifices one makes to be fair and accurate!) - child is right, they ARE singing "shat it on the mountain tarp". [Killing me]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
If I ever go bivoacing with them on Snowdon, remind me to take my own tarpaulin, then...
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I'm in danger of losing the will to live

THIRD wedding couple on the trot with requests:
Morning has broken - and all weddings in the afternoon
Zinger-Zanger - how many verses, Lord
The Lord of the Dance - I blame the CofE official website Weddings link

2 brides want the Pachelbel Canon
1 wants "the trumpet voluntary (unspecified)
1 wants The Ride of the Valkyries at the end - on a small tracker-action organ???
[Waterworks]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Anyone familiar with this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLcVC3CoOVA

Accompaniment is surely something from an old Sunday night serial with a plucky young Penelope Keith (or similar) on a bike in the countryside.

Deeply, deeply irritating. [Help]
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Anyone familiar with this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLcVC3CoOVA

Accompaniment is surely something from an old Sunday night serial with a plucky young Penelope Keith (or similar) on a bike in the countryside.

Deeply, deeply irritating. [Help]

The first few bars were surely ripped off from a 1970s commercial for hairpray. I can see the hair bouncing.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
...Got it! A spin-off from All Creatures Great and Small [Snigger]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm in danger of losing the will to live

THIRD wedding couple on the trot with requests:
Morning has broken - and all weddings in the afternoon
Zinger-Zanger - how many verses, Lord
The Lord of the Dance - I blame the CofE official website Weddings link

2 brides want the Pachelbel Canon
1 wants "the trumpet voluntary (unspecified)
1 wants The Ride of the Valkyries at the end - on a small tracker-action organ???
[Waterworks]

If Mrs A had let slip that she wanted to leave the church to Ride of the Valkyries, I'd have started thinking very hard about what I kind of relationship I was getting into. (We had Breuddwyd y Frenhines, BTW, which worked very well. Or is that what she came in to? Can't remember now- it was all in a bit of a daze.)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
You lot made me do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOaot4qu5pY
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

2 brides want the Pachelbel Canon
1 wants "the trumpet voluntary (unspecified)

The latter is probably the Prince of Denmark's March. Pachelbel's Canon as a processional? I'm not really convinced by that, but at least nobody asked for Lohengrin.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Karl
[Killing me] [Killing me]

The link should carry a warning: I was holding a cup of coffee when I hit it, now my keyboard is awash.

Particularly enjoyed the line
"He is like a mountie, he always gets his man "!!! [Snigger]

LOVE IT - of course, it's just Madness with a makeover and sans Buster Bloodvessel
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Leorning Cniht
quote:
you posted
The latter is probably the Prince of Denmark's March. Pachelbel's Canon as a processional? I'm not really convinced by that, but at least nobody asked for Lohengrin.

I'm minded to give them the Stanley - better than most.

YOU'RE not convinced by the Pachelbel! Being a small church I should manage to get in, ooh, first 8 bars, 12 at most - won't that be jolly!

Don't be beastly about the Lohengrin: I'm working on getting the ladies of the choir (dressed in drapery, natch) to position themselves around the church and sing like Rhinemaidens. The result won't be pleasant but it will be our little attempt at authenticity... [Devil]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm minded to give them the Stanley - better than most.

I'm rather fond of Stanley - we had it at our wedding, and Widor's Toccata as a recessional. It turns out that it was impossible not to bounce in time to the Widor... (and we recessed the long way around so we got to hear most of it [Big Grin] )

quote:

YOU'RE not convinced by the Pachelbel! Being a small church I should manage to get in, ooh, first 8 bars, 12 at most - won't that be jolly!

Oh, my! That would be, umm, interesting...

Could you persuade them to have it during the signing of the registers instead, with a few pointed remarks about the time it actually takes to walk down the aisle?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
psoted by Leorning Cniht
Could you persuade them to have it during the signing of the registers instead, with a few pointed remarks about the time it actually takes to walk down the aisle?

I've actually (through judicious use of a limited list of "offerings" hit pay dirt for today's couple - The Bell Anthem!

Otherwise sometimes I play piano duets with a friend - Dolly Suite, etc - or we have been know to employ Bob Chilcott's Irish Blessing.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Karl
[Killing me] [Killing me]

The link should carry a warning: I was holding a cup of coffee when I hit it, now my keyboard is awash.

Particularly enjoyed the line
"He is like a mountie, he always gets his man "!!! [Snigger]

LOVE IT - of course, it's just Madness with a makeover and sans Buster Bloodvessel

That line amused me, though the verse as a whole scared me. Zap?
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
What happens when the "flow, river flow" puts out the "blaze spirit blaze"?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Reminds of the person who allegedly prayed, "Lord God, if there be any spark of revival, any little flame: please water it". [Devil]
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
Got introduced to "Mr Cow" on the weekend. I know it's supposed to be a children's song, but for what age? I would have thought any child over the age of say 4 would find it insulting to their intelligence.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Gwladys:
Got introduced to "Mr Cow" on the weekend. I know it's supposed to be a children's song, but for what age? I would have thought any child over the age of say 4 would find it insulting to their intelligence.

Haha! Mr Cow is strictly for babies and toddlers.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
You know you made me have to go and look that shite up, don't you?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
posted by St Gwladys
Got introduced to "Mr Cow" on the weekend. I know it's supposed to be a children's song, but for what age? I would have thought any child over the age of say 4 would find it insulting to their intelligence.

Way too optimistic - I'd say 3 was pushing it.

Absolute sh**e. Makes If I were a butterfly look like the work of Isaac Watts.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
In fairness, eden.co.uk (for example) lists it under 'baby and toddlers'.
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
The composer of "Mr Cow" used to teach my daughter.
They didn't get on well. [Devil]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
I used to use it a lot during baby and toddler groups. Sorry [Two face]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I used to use it a lot during baby and toddler groups. Sorry [Two face]

Jade does her bit to bolster belief in the logical necessity of Purgatory.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I used to use it a lot during baby and toddler groups. Sorry [Two face]

Jade does her bit to bolster belief in the logical necessity of Purgatory.
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re the anonymous "trumpet voluntary" mentioned above:

I wonder if it's the one used for Charles and Diana's wedding? I think the composer was Thomas Horn or Korn.

FWIW.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
posted by Golden Key
Re the anonymous "trumpet voluntary" mentioned above:

I wonder if it's the one used for Charles and Diana's wedding? I think the composer was Thomas Horn or Korn.

FWIW.

1. The bride who requested "the trumpet voluntary" didn't specify a composer and was unable to sing it over to me. In the end I played the final movement (sometimes called the trumpet voluntary) by John Stanley.

2. The trumpet tune played at the entrance of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, at her wedding in 1981 was The Prince of Denmark's March by Jeremiah Clarke. For a long time this was wrongly attributed to Henry Purcell and referred to as his "Trumpet Voluntary".

I'm not aware of a Thomas Horn (or Korn) as a composer, whether of trumpet tunes or not.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
The composer of "Mr Cow" used to teach my daughter.
They didn't get on well. [Devil]

Why does that fail to surprise me?

Having just found a YouTube video of a primary class performingtperformingthis song all I can say is they did very impressive animal impressions

Carys

[ 27. May 2013, 21:23: Message edited by: Carys ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
quote:
posted by Liturgylover:

I came across this ghastly hymn (I think) last week. I think it was selected as one the children would like, but I am glad to say that both children and adults looked unimpressed:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bbmYOccWnk

There is even the obligatory whooa and an optional lalala at the end of each verse.

Yes, but just imagine The Muppets singing it... that's what came to my mind.
O my goodness! What an amazing sound/sight!

First of all the chorus of this awful song sounds like a very poor version of "We go together" from Grease.

Secondly what is totally incongruous is the procession of clergy and then a fully robed and mitred bishop!

On one hand you have a kind of Spring Harvest staged worship setting and then you have medieval imagery in what the clergy are wearing The two just do not go together and looked very, very weird.

Yes, a dreadful song.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
To all of you appalled by Mr Cow:

Go to your copy of HON (green) and find 241.

Read it through.

Give me a satisfactory reason why anyone should consider this tripe any more acceptable.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Stumbled on this clanger today...

Written up very well on the Internet Monk website..
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/someone-has-to-put-a-foot-down

"So heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss"?!
Ouch..
[Killing me] [Projectile]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
To all of you appalled by Mr Cow:

Go to your copy of HON (green) and find 241.

Read it through.

Give me a satisfactory reason why anyone should consider this tripe any more acceptable.

Fred Pratt Green? Well, yes. Lovely man, by all accounts, and actually not a bad poet: Larkin thought well enough of one of his to include it in his Oxford Book of Twentieth Century English Verse. But his hymns are the kind of thing that gives Methodism a bad name- as bland and inoffensive and well-meaning and uninspiring as a minister's damp handshake and milky tea in a green Berylware cup.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Albertus:

The Old Couple is an endearing poem and about as far removed from If I were a butterfly as Castleford is from Canberra.

[ 31. May 2013, 22:21: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Stumbled on this clanger today...

Written up very well on the Internet Monk website..
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/someone-has-to-put-a-foot-down

"So heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss"?!
Ouch..
[Killing me] [Projectile]

Yeah, I find the line about kissing a bit squiffy too, but knowing the story behind the song did make me see it in a much more positive light. Already mentioned in this thread here. [Smile]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Albertus:

The Old Couple is an endearing poem and about as far removed from If I were a butterfly as Castleford is from Canberra.

It is indeed. But I'm obviously looking at a differnt HON from you- I was thinking
God is here! as we his people which is, thinking about it, actually one of his better ones- although I stand by what I say about his hymns in general.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Stumbled on this clanger today...

Written up very well on the Internet Monk website..
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/someone-has-to-put-a-foot-down

"So heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss"?!
Ouch..
[Killing me] [Projectile]

I've usually come across it as "heaven meets earth like an unforeseen kiss" which is a little more bland.

How He Loves is probably one of the most raw and courageous songs of praise ever written though, so one odd line out of the whole thing is easy to cope with. It's a rare one you can keep on singing when real life crashes in and gets in the way of our bland platitudes.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
posted by the giant cheeseburger
How He Loves is probably one of the most raw and courageous songs of praise ever written

... and your qualification for coming out with such a statement are???

The "music" is banal and, largely, a poor imitation where it isn't a direct rip-off from other people.

The lyrics are clunky: they are all "me, me, me" so accurately reflect much of today's world, though not the good bits and not for the better.

Worship - in a church, baseball stadium or other place - is meant to be something we do with other people, while this drivel is about a one-to-one thing.

It may well be mesmerising - so is chanting "Om" but that doesn't make it good.

Raw? Courageous? [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

Yes, raw in the sense of being unpolished, unfinished or lacking in finesse.

Courageous - only in having the gall to release such tosh and present it as of one's best for the Lord.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
[QUOTE]The lyrics are clunky: they are all "me, me, me" so accurately reflect much of today's world, though not the good bits and not for the better.

What about this then? (Emphasis mine)

quote:
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me...
I's all "me, me, me." Does that make it bad?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Its good to play Devil's Advocate balaam but, as you well know, the important words in the 23rd Psalm are about the Lord, the Shepherd, HE restoreth my soul.

Even if a paraphrase is sung, say Crimond, the emphasis is on the Shepherd and HE
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Hadn't realized this thread was still going - here's a small bit of cheery sunshine to add to it, if it hasn't already been mentioned before.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Stumbled on this clanger today...

Some even headbang to it. A Purgatory for them would all include heavy doses of the Maiden and Slayer, so they find out what passion is.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
I'd forgotten about this thread, I have been crying with laughter.

I submit the following http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjYiEyu8Si8

with this offending chorus:
"You lived to die
rejected and alone

Like a Rose
trampled on the ground

You took the fall
and thought of me
Above all"
[Paranoid]
Now there's a classy bit of me me me. Jesus thought of me, above all? Hmm. And He lived to die? Double hmm.

Trampled rose imagery belongs firmly in rawk (a la Gold against the Soul era Manic Street Preachers) and nowhere else. So there.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Now there's a classy bit of me me me. Jesus thought of me, above all? Hmm. And He lived to die? Double hmm.

Oh, good call. Odd how the verse is so different in feel, though, focusing on Jesus' position above all creation, only for that strongly me-focused chorus...
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
This morning's musical innovation / abomination (delete according to taste) [EDIT] at my church's morning meeting [/EDIT] was 'Amazing Grace' to the tune of 'House of the Rising Sun'. Try it, it really works - on a technical level, I mean; whether it works aesthetically is a personal judgement!

I rather liked it, myself, and will have a go at playing it when I've finished my lunch. Oh, and I recognised the tune before the music leader guy started singing. /Smug mode

Linkety-link for a version by the Blind Boys of Alabama

[ 14. July 2013, 14:08: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I don't dislike singing hymns about Jesus' love for me, so long as though those aren't the only spiritual songs I sing.

Some people suffer from a general lack of self-esteem. Others feel that God has great plans for other Christians' lives, while having very little interest in theirs. It's important to have songs that make individual Christians recognise their value, especially if they're not perceived to be high status individuals within their churches, or within society as a whole.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Here in the Eldoret diocese of the Anglican church in Kenya, we either sing choruses/ hymns in mother tongues or Kiswahili which is great or (as we did this morning) we venture into the long forgotten (for my husband)/ unknown (for me)territory of "Golden Bells".....some of which is OK but some of which challenges me theologically and musically so I spend ages trying to figure out if I can bring myself to sing it.
In contrast, the Cathedral in Nairobi was great musically.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
This morning's musical innovation / abomination (delete according to taste) [EDIT] at my church's morning meeting [/EDIT] was 'Amazing Grace' to the tune of 'House of the Rising Sun'. Try it, it really works - on a technical level, I mean; whether it works aesthetically is a personal judgement!

I rather liked it, myself, and will have a go at playing it when I've finished my lunch. Oh, and I recognised the tune before the music leader guy started singing. /Smug mode

Linkety-link for a version by the Blind Boys of Alabama

I like the sound of that. I suppose that the worship style of your shack means that you're unlikely to get the 'Tantum Ergo' to the tune of 'The Yellow Rose of Texas', though..
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I suppose that the worship style of your shack means that you're unlikely to get the 'Tantum Ergo' to the tune of 'The Yellow Rose of Texas', though..

Indeed so, I'm afraid... In fact, I'm not familiar with either of those pieces! Link me up?
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Now there's a classy bit of me me me. Jesus thought of me, above all? Hmm. And He lived to die? Double hmm.

Oh, good call. Odd how the verse is so different in feel, though, focusing on Jesus' position above all creation, only for that strongly me-focused chorus...
Yes, I thought that. I rather like the sentiment of the verse, even if the tune is a bit dirge-y.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Here in the Eldoret diocese of the Anglican church in Kenya ... we venture into the long forgotten (for my husband)/ unknown (for me)territory of "Golden Bells".....some of which is OK but some of which challenges me theologically and musically.

From earlier experience, it's also bad for one's eyes (tiny print!), at least in the editions I knew. But the sun presumably shines brightly in Kenya.
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
This morning's musical innovation / abomination (delete according to taste) [EDIT] at my church's morning meeting [/EDIT] was 'Amazing Grace' to the tune of 'House of the Rising Sun'. Try it, it really works - on a technical level, I mean; whether it works aesthetically is a personal judgement!

I rather liked it, myself, and will have a go at playing it when I've finished my lunch. Oh, and I recognised the tune before the music leader guy started singing. /Smug mode

Linkety-link for a version by the Blind Boys of Alabama

The politest thing I can say is dear....oh dear. But then I cannot abide Amazing Grace even when sung to the original tune.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I suppose that the worship style of your shack means that you're unlikely to get the 'Tantum Ergo' to the tune of 'The Yellow Rose of Texas', though..

Indeed so, I'm afraid... In fact, I'm not familiar with either of those pieces! Link me up?
Tantum Ergo

The Yellow Rose of Texas
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Ha ha, nice one Albertus! Two thoughts, one of them serious - I'm thoroughly tickled by the idea of medieval chant to the tune of a Presley hoedown; and I really should get myself to an ultra high church service (Anglican, RCC or Orthodox would all work for this, I guess) just to see what it's like. It's so utterly outside my experience that I imagine actually attending such a service would blow away some of my (mis)conceptions.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Must admit that I've never been to a service like the one in the Tantum Ergo video - I'm actually not nearly that high, although at one time I used to go to (rather less elaborate) Benediction quite regularly. I have also heard of cowboy churches in the USA so a fusion of the two is perhaps not unthinkable...
I'm sure that a request in Ecclesiantics would produce oodles of suggestions for ultra-high places to visit in your area.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan

quote:
From earlier experience, it's also bad for one's eyes (tiny print!), at least in the editions I knew. But the sun presumably shines brightly in Kenya.
Quite so....sometimes theologically, sometimes musically or sometimes visually challenging and on some occasions all three!
But yes, the sun does indeed shine brightly here [Smile]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
14th July = Sea Sunday.

Will your anchor hold in the storms of life and Eternal Father, strong to save - Bliss [Smile]
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
Knowing the love of "Shine Jesus shine" round here just thought I would give you:

Minion Praise

(Especially for those who have seen the 'Despicable Me' films!)

[ 05. August 2013, 07:37: Message edited by: Lucia ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Ok. God is love; let heaven adore him.

And when human hearts are breaking
Under sorrow's iron rod
Then they find the self-same aching
Deep within the heart of God.

I am not going to get into an argument about God's impassibility. But there's a bit of a difference between breaking and aching, isn't there. Human hearts are breaking, whereas God's only got to lie down for a bit with an aspirin. That's a comfort. Ugh.

Also,
God is love, so love for ever
O'er the universe must reign.

Because syllogisms go so well into notes. 'O'er the universe shall reign' would carry conviction. 'Must reign' feels as though we're trying a bit too hard to convince ourselves.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Lucia - thank you. After a stressful morning that clip was exactly what I needed.

Niw I just need to explain the sudden attack of hysterical laughter to my colleagues..,
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Ok. God is love; let heaven adore him.

And when human hearts are breaking
Under sorrow's iron rod
Then they find the self-same aching
Deep within the heart of God.

I am not going to get into an argument about God's impassibility. But there's a bit of a difference between breaking and aching, isn't there. Human hearts are breaking, whereas God's only got to lie down for a bit with an aspirin. That's a comfort. Ugh.

Interestingly, Mission Praise alters it to:
All the sorrow, all the aching
Wrings with pain the heart of God.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
Permit me a moment of whinge as I vent:

TEC churches,
Kindly refrain from using the canticle S-236 "Glory to you, Lord God of the Ages" in place of the Gloria. I know you think it's edgy to do so, but it really is not. My issue isn't so much with using an alternative to the Gloria every now and then in the summer months, but rather with this work itself. The composer really gave it the old college try, setting this repetitive and metrically-nightmarish canticle to music, but it just was not meant to be. Please cut your losses and find something better to use. There are hundreds of settings of the ICET Gloria to explore.

(For those who are curious, the melody line can be found in this bulletin, at the bottom of page 1 and continuing into page 2. Although it has been practice for years in some of TEC's flagships to use this in the summer, I have only started seeing it creeping toward the local parishes this summer.)

/Whinge over
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
I don't mind "Glory and Praise" as a piece of music. I think the tune is quite pleasant and I don't personally have any problem with the rhythm after a time or two. And it's repetitive in the original scriptural version, but so short that I don't think it gets time to be tedious. However if more variety is wanted, the liturgically traditional side of me would tend to prefer to choose other settings of the traditional Gloria in excelsis.

Our shack uses the "Glory and Praise" as a Gloria substitute sometimes, but in the late fall, not the summer. We are using a "Gloria" setting right now.

But what really annoys me liturgically is that in Advent, we use a hymn "Glory be to God on high" (I think that's the 1st line -- my hymnal 1982 is not at hand since I'm at Starbucks). I assume it is being chosen as an Advent replacement for the Gloria, but actually it IS a paraphrase version of the Gloria. I say why not use this sometimes on one of the "green" Sundays?

Actually, (and since we are talking about the US ECUSA liturgy) I think that during Advent the Song of Zechariah (Benedictus) would be a good substitute for the Gloria during Advent. It is very Advent-ish in theme, and since choral Matins isn't done these days, it's a good way for the congregation to be exposed to one of the great canticles to which they would otherwise probably not be exposed. But now I'm getting too much on an Ecclesiantical tangent.

[ 23. August 2013, 18:49: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
...my hymnal 1982 is not at hand since I'm at Starbucks

Until Starbucks starts having Hymnals available, you can always check here.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
It's probably the hymn All Glory Be to God on High, which is fairly common in historical Lutheranism as a metrical summary of the Gloria. Some Lutheran churches pull it off the dusty shelf on Reformation Sunday, as an homage to Luther's Deutsche Messe, which incorporated German hymns as the liturgical elements. Strange that you would use it in Advent, as it is basically the Gloria. I always like that awkward moment when one skips directly from the Kyrie to the collect. Attempts to fill the gap really seem to counter the Advent feeling.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
It's probably the hymn All Glory Be to God on High, which is fairly common in historical Lutheranism as a metrical summary of the Gloria.

Metrical paraphrases should all go and die. They are the absolute worst genre of horrible hymn.

quote:
I always like that awkward moment when one skips directly from the Kyrie to the collect. Attempts to fill the gap really seem to counter the Advent feeling.
Filling the gap with the Benedictus can be quite effective (and has a good historical basis).

But I liked the way with the ASB1980 you could place the penitential rite later in the service, thereby in Advent and Lent permitting starting the service with the greeting and the collect of the day, then moving straight into the Old Testament reading.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Stumbled on this clanger today...

Written up very well on the Internet Monk website..
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/someone-has-to-put-a-foot-down

"So heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss"?!
Ouch..
[Killing me] [Projectile]

I've usually come across it as "heaven meets earth like an unforeseen kiss" which is a little more bland.
Ah, that explains. I am newly in a "worship group" aka music team for the TEC "contemporary" service. I was horrified at this song, told my Bible study buddies (who all go to Non-D churches), they immediately started talking about cringing at the sloppy wet kiss. The group I'm in doesn't have that wording, so I didn't know what they meant.

My protest is the imagery that God's love is like a hurricane to a tree - hurricanes don't love trees, they rip off the leaves, break branches, uproot the tree throw it to the ground to die, and in settled areas the abused tree falls on a house and damages it. I've walked through after-hurricane nature preserves, piles of uprooted mature trees. I've seen the fear in the eyes of people who lived through a hurricane when the news says "there's another possibly headed our way."

I protested to the "worship leader" that song's destructive imagery will have me wanting to avoid God, not seek awareness of God's presence. He has not responded (he did respond to a different comment in the same email).

Whoever wrote that song never lived in hurricane territory. What's next, God's love is like a tornado embracing a house and lifting it up (before throwing it down ruined)?

Make God's love a hurricane and the enemy is a mere tree, that might work.

Galveston Island 2008 hurricane debris pile and house damage galevston hurricane 2008 and "The island lost as much as 80 percent of its tree canopy"
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
No, BR, it won't "work" and nor should you try to make it....

HHLU is derivative garbage - musically and textually and should not be encouraged [Mad]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
HHLU is derivative garbage - musically and textually and should not be encouraged [Mad]

LOL, I spent yesterday eve reading a 600 post thread about that song, pro and con the sloppy wet kiss, pro and con the hurricane, and my conclusion is - any song that generates so much disagreement should not be used in church, because the wordings are obviously distracting some people from God.

Then I watch a humorous video on how to write a worship song, then I looked at the songs I'm supposed to learn - oh I'm going to have trouble keeping a straight face, that video for laughs was too true! Same 4 chords, often the same progression, song after song after song. I V vi IV. Endlessly. And the words! Or lack of.

After a year in this group I will love this music style, or not. Gotta try stuff.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Then I watch a humorous video on how to write a worship song, then I looked at the songs I'm supposed to learn - oh I'm going to have trouble keeping a straight face, that video for laughs was too true! Same 4 chords, often the same progression, song after song after song. I V vi IV. Endlessly. And the words! Or lack of.

Heh, welcome to my world! Here are some positives of this musical style, as I see things:

- It's familiar to most people, so they won't be put off by a strange musical style (like the principle of using a language the people are comfortable with, as opposed to, say, Latin or 17th century English).

- The songs are simple so newcomers to the church should learn them quickly.

- The songs being simple to play and sing means more people can get involved in the leading, which IMO is a very fine thing.

Of course, it's not everyone's cup of tea! And I for one appreciate some greater musical complexity on occasion, even though I like the overall style that we're talking about.

Quick question - I've heard it said that a lot of, say, Wesley's hymns are comprised of secular melodies with the words changed; i.e. people new to Christianity would have already known the tunes. Is this broadly true, or something of an exaggeration?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I have heard that too. And, specifically, though not Wesley, that "Who would true valour see", aka "He who would valiant be" was set to a morris dance tune.

And it's only just struck me how the rewrite on that moves the valour from Christ to the singer.

[ 29. August 2013, 06:33: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
I don't like worship songs. But I should think there's one good point to them. In a service that uses them, I suppose that one never glances down the service sheet to encounter the baleful words Fred Pratt Green.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
[Overused]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I'm not a great fan of the aforementioned, but I'd sooner see his name there than quite a few others, mostly of the "worship song" ilk.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Then I watch a humorous video on how to write a worship song, then I looked at the songs I'm supposed to learn - oh I'm going to have trouble keeping a straight face, that video for laughs was too true! Same 4 chords, often the same progression, song after song after song. I V vi IV. Endlessly. And the words! Or lack of.

Heh, welcome to my world! Here are some positives of this musical style, as I see things:

- It's familiar to most people, so they won't be put off by a strange musical style (like the principle of using a language the people are comfortable with, as opposed to, say, Latin or 17th century English).

Is it though? I mean, the only place I hear music of the "worship song" style is in churches that use them. It doesn't sound much like any other music I know of; I'm convinced that keyboards for church use come with a special setting "twinkly worship song", for starters.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Karl

Funny you should say that. Some shops I go to play background music that reminds me of a certain kind of soft rock worship song.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Bravo KLB & SvitlanaV2

"Worship Song Music" has a pedigree derived from 1960s Lift Muzak and 1950s travelogue music, interbred with holiday camp singalong accompaniment crossed with hammond organ for masonic dance music [Projectile] .

It may be comforting for people who already go to church and like it (!) but to anyone new it is (a) weird, (b) horribly dated and (c) only induces two reactions: flight or hysterical laughter. [Snigger]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
L'organist

Well, I'm not against certain music just because it has humble origins, but I suppose it's true that worship songs have become a subgenre of their own rather than being 'contemporary popular music' as such.

As for what 'ordinary' people like most in church music, it's hard to tell. Tastes seem to be very divergent in the wider culture.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
To be fair, a lot of worship songs are not, as dots on the page, that dissimilar to a lot of pop dross^h^h^h^h^h music of the more melodic kind. However, they still sound totally different because commercial pop producers seldom orchestrate using two acoustic guitars, a tinkly keyboard and a random selection of violins, flutes, 'cellos or whatever else someone happens to be able to play.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To be fair, a lot of worship songs are not, as dots on the page, that dissimilar to a lot of pop dross^h^h^h^h^h music of the more melodic kind... commercial pop producers seldom orchestrate using two acoustic guitars, a tinkly keyboard and a random selection of violins, flutes, 'cellos or whatever else someone happens to be able to play.

Fair enough comments. I've been puzzled at the suggestion the music is what people are used to hearing on secular radio, maybe I listen to the wrong stations, but I do see a similarity with pop music in that top 40 stations play the latest hits, most of which are quickly forgotten, and worship music stations seem to do the same. So the idea of latest and greatest sounds, novelty rather than songs that remain meaningful through life, is a familiar idea from pop.

As to orchestration - we have one tolerable guitar player (far from great, but OK), two who play with their book of chord diagrams open on the music stand to help them find fingerings, a woman recruited last week for the purpose of having her play percussion (bongos, egg shaker) but she has never played any percussion before and isn't sure where the beat is, a tolerable pianist (not great but OK). And three singers two of whom freely and truthfully admit they are poor singers.

I taped rehearsals (to help me learn the songs). They sound sick.

Theoretically I'll be spelling the pianist sometimes, I've had a few months of piano lessons. (That's months, not years.)

A church has to use who it's got or else spend money to hire better.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Yes, but why not just have the guitarist who can play without having to look up the chords? You don't need three. You only benefit from having more than one if one of them is able to add colour with lead riffs, alternate chord voicings and so on. If they're playing acoustic you're better off without a percussionist unless said percussionist is quite good. Guitar and piano, played reasonably competently, would be better than insisting on having people who just aren't ready to play publically yet. Oh, and the one singer who can sing in tune without being muddied by the enthusiastic but - erm - otherwise talented.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yes, but why not just have the guitarist who can play without having to look up the chords? You don't need three. Guitar and piano, played reasonably competently, would be better than insisting on having people who just aren't ready to play publically yet. Oh, and the one singer who can sing in tune without being muddied by the enthusiastic but - erm - otherwise talented.

LOL, yes - but the "worship leader" insists there are to be no solos. One guitar one piano one singer would be like a solo.

I can understanding wanting to set a tone of the music being participatory. And some people truly believe what it sounds like to the ear is unimportant, it's about singing from the heart. I both agree and disagree. I think heart is what matters, but hearts respond to ears - we are more than just spiritual beings, like Jesus we are also physical and that is (God said upon making the physical world) good.

I'll try to write some "worship music" that brings Advent and Lent and Christmas and Easter into the lyrics. Bugs me to be in a liturgical church but in the contemporary service you have no sense of movement through the calendar, Lent is the same music as any other time. But with only one or two short verses and a chorus, and having to be addressed to God, and having to be praise (no laments), it's hard to do much seasonality in the song.

I disagree that people today need simplistic music. People yesterday didn't need it that simple. Have churches joined schools in dumbing down their understanding of humankind? And actually it's just the words and "tunes" that are simple, some of the rhythms are highly uninstinctive!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
"no solos" - like the solo organ used in 90% of churches 90% of the time around the Western World?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Belle Ringer: what you describe is quite hideous.

Talk to your "worship leader" and explain that God gave all of us talents, just not the same ones. And perhaps NOT to use the talented is sinful...

I mean, would he choose to have the church minibus driven by a blind man on the basis that everyone had to have a chance??? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Belle Ringer: what you describe is quite hideous.

Talk to your "worship leader" and explain that God gave all of us talents, just not the same ones. And perhaps NOT to use the talented is sinful...

I mean, would he choose to have the church minibus driven by a blind man on the basis that everyone had to have a chance??? [Ultra confused]

Talented people are welcome and so are untalented. [Smile]

Worship leader is self-described as not a good singer, and he's the one leading the songs (he's the only one who knows them all), so he can't very well say not-good singers shouldn't be song leading!

The group can only get better over time, right? [Smile] The guitarists will learn their four chords, the percussionist will boldly define the beat, the singers will learn how to sing, we'll be the new commercial hit! Tee hee.

In our favor - for the past several years the music has been provided by a children's choir who had to be strong-armed to show up. We'll probably be no worse than what that service is used to.

Coming to a church near you (or near me) - Open the eyes of my heart (not a favorite metaphor of mine but what the heck), I can only imagine (I cannot get the rhythm!), I will exalt your name (so that's what a 7/11 song is!), Let the river flow (nice verses, not sure what a river has to do with the rest of the words), Trading my sorrows (I'm missing a step here - how do I "lay down my" sickness and trade it in for the joy of the Lord"? I really want to know!)

I'm sure a year from now I will LOVE them all! As all of you already do. [Two face]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
That last paragraph sounds more than a little Orwellian.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Coming to a church near you (or near me) - Open the eyes of my heart (not a favorite metaphor of mine but what the heck), I can only imagine (I cannot get the rhythm!), I will exalt your name (so that's what a 7/11 song is!), Let the river flow (nice verses, not sure what a river has to do with the rest of the words), Trading my sorrows (I'm missing a step here - how do I "lay down my" sickness and trade it in for the joy of the Lord"? I really want to know!)

I'm sure a year from now I will LOVE them all! As all of you already do. [Two face]

The newest of that bunch (and only one of that bunch) came to churches near me twelve years ago.

If you're going to do contemporary music, make sure it's actually contemporary music and don't restrict yourself to a limited range of authors. There are plenty of great songs from the last ten years out there, you're just guaranteeing you won't find them if your leader is searching through the Darrell Evans back catalogue!

[ 31. August 2013, 09:01: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Belle Ringer, thank you (soooo much) for reminding me of The Orgasm Song.

Yes, Lord, yes, Lord, yes, yes, Lord ...!
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
...having to be praise (no laments) ...

Er, this bloke who is a self-confessed not-good-singer, yet is leading the music, umm, how much has he really thought about the theology of and place of music? Surely at least part of that includes reflecting people's real lives, not just only singing happy songs. Anyway, a lament can be "praise" too. Sounds like he's a bloke who likes some ten-year-old boppy songs and wants everyone else to join in with them too.


Gill - I remember that one, The Orgasm Song [Killing me] I'd forgotten all about it, and I remember sniggering inappropriately at it in the past. [Snigger]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Luvanddaisies

As a Scot you should be aware that the Elder who led the singing used to be chosen by seniority in the Eldership board not by musical talent.

Jengie
 
Posted by Scots lass (# 2699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Luvanddaisies

As a Scot you should be aware that the Elder who led the singing used to be chosen by seniority in the Eldership board not by musical talent.

Jengie

Not in the Free Church of Scotland he wasn't! I was FC from the 80s til less than a decade ago and it was always someone who could sing - Elder, Deacon or sometimes neither.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
Nor in any scottish church I've heard of either.

Anyway, musical ability has no bearing on the weird "no laments" thing.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Belle Ringer, thank you (soooo much) for reminding me of The Orgasm Song.

Yes, Lord, yes, Lord, yes, yes, Lord ...!

LOL, now I'm going to have a huge grin (and tears from trying not to laugh) when I sing it. Thanks!

Who leads music? Whoever the "leadership" thinks can be talked into doing it (free). Many a church has a half deaf little old lady playing piano poorly because she's the only pianist in the congregation.

My dear leader (nice guy, really!) was on a "worship team" some time in the past and so he probably was the logical person to ask to get a group started. It's work to find people, choose music, put up with complaints from the congregation, figure out the unfamiliar-to-this-church license system etc. So I'm keeping my mouth shut in church on this subject, in honor of his work.

Yes Lord Yes yes yes oh yes orgasm song, I LOVE it! See, this music can be fun!
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting
A friendly reminder to people that this thread is for posting truly terrible specimens of hymns and praise songs etc. Complaints in detail about your church/church leadership/choir or worship leaders don't belong here. Posters can seek support in All Saints for personal problems with their church.

thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Point taken:

Nominate Thank you, Lord, for this new day

repetitive, mindless - and what's with the "Right where we are"???

And played on a trad organ it sounds more suitable to a fairground. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I can only imagine (I cannot get the rhythm!),

Belle Ringer, if you haven't done so already, I find youtube very helpful for working out rhythms to this sort of song. Because they're recorded from events, by the time they get transcribed, what gets writ on the sheet music is very difficult to follow if you haven't heard it.
[Incidentally, another reason they're not good for congregations.]

There's another reason it's difficult to get the rhythm for this, and that's because it's sub-Whitney Houston tuneless, rhythm-less warbling of the very worst sort. If we're going to go for something sounding like Whitters, please could it be I Wanna Dance with Somebody.

And the imagery is rubbish. And it's all so pointless. It's probably a lovely thing, in private prayer, to wonder what meeting Jesus would be like, but in a congregational song?
"Surrounded by your glory,
What will my heart feel?
Will we go to the chip shop?
Will you buy me jellied eels?" is about as useful.

And another one.
Mighty to save http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08YZF87OBQ
for so, so many reasons.
1. Vacuous lyrics: "Saviour, my God is mighty to save". (Whom? From what?)
"I give my life to follow everything I believe in". Right-o.
2. They try to be Coldplay at the end.
3. It's also a great example of the X factor/boy band stuff mentioned on the previous page. It reminds me a little bit of James Arthur's Impossible. I think they're both missing a similar tune.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Jemima the 9th

Thank you. [Killing me]

Particularly enjoyed the bit where they're singing "Now I surrender" and the camera pans to a chunk of audience wth their hands in the air [Snigger]

Anyone else think the lead (male) singer looked like a younger Rory Bremner?
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I can only imagine (I cannot get the rhythm!),

it's sub-Whitney Houston tuneless, rhythm-less warbling of the very worst sort.

And the imagery is rubbish. And it's all so pointless. It's probably a lovely thing, in private prayer, to wonder what meeting Jesus would be like, but in a congregational song?
"Surrounded by your glory,
What will my heart feel?
Will we go to the chip shop?
Will you buy me jellied eels?" is about as useful.

LOL, rhythm-less warbling, jellied eels, I love this thread!

I think you've pointed to one of the things that makes an otherwise tolerable song crappy - private devotion moved to corporate worship environment.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I like the idea of a worship song about jellied eels. Why try to be like Coldplay when you could be like Chas & Dave?
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
I shall accept that as a challenge. [Biased]
I did get bored in church once and rewrite words to "All I once held dear" to describe a long marriage beset by disagreement over biscuits.
"There was once a man who loved Jaffa Cakes
But his wife preferred a custard cream".
And so on.

The thing is, the thing is (and thank you, L'Organist) that many people like these types of songs. Many people in my church love 'em. I know this because they tell my friend the worship leader. People seem to find them engaging and moving. But not me. Perhaps I am just a cold, dead soul... [Disappointed]
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
*Resists quoting from the Preface of the English Hymnal*

In any event, it's a new miasma. Had "Jesus is the Name we Honour" inflicted on me on Sunday night. That one should have gone and died years ago. Especially with the irritating "the person leaving the tedious reality TV show is..." pauses in the ultra-cheesy chorus.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Does crappy style (regardless of the song) count for this thread? I hate when a "praise band" does a song with a fade out at the end - repeating the last line over and over slowly fading way - that is commercial studio for radio performance style, not congregational singing style!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I think you've pointed to one of the things that makes an otherwise tolerable song crappy - private devotion moved to corporate worship environment.

But that would be true of many "traditional" hymns too.
 
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :
 
Didn't realise that music produced such venom amongst Christians.

Obviously the music style is a matter of personal taste.

Words, some are better than others, whether it's a modern worship song or a more traditional hymn.

Maybe we should stick to metrical psalms.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I think you've pointed to one of the things that makes an otherwise tolerable song crappy - private devotion moved to corporate worship environment.

But that would be true of many "traditional" hymns too.
I agree. I've often thought that certain hymns tend to make assumptions about the singer that can't always be true. For example, 'I Surrender All' supposes that the singer is in a state of complete submission to God. But how many of us have really reached that state? Maybe it's an aspirational hymn, but I still feel a slightly uncomfortable singing it. I don't think it's sung much these days, perhaps for this very reason.
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
would love to belong:

quote:
Maybe we should stick to metrical psalms
You seem to assume that people who don't like metrical psalms would be less venomous. Perhaps you're right.

[ 03. September 2013, 12:48: Message edited by: Jonah the Whale ]
 
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
would love to belong:

quote:
Maybe we should stick to metrical psalms
You seem to assume that people who don't like metrical psalms would be less venomous. Perhaps you're right.
Well, easier to take issue with Graham Kendrick's words than with God's Word.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
would love to belong:

quote:
Maybe we should stick to metrical psalms
You seem to assume that people who don't like metrical psalms would be less venomous. Perhaps you're right.
Well, easier to take issue with Graham Kendrick's words than with God's Word.
You're new here, aren't you? [Biased]
 
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :
 
Fairly new, yes.

Either I'm being welcomed or am about to undergo a beating up by Karl, bad boy of the Upper Fifth behind the bicycle shed.

Not sure which but bracing myself for a hammering.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
He wouldn't beat you up behind the bikesheds. More likely to give you a fag if you meet him there.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Heh. I was just pointing out that here on the Ship it's unlikely that, on a debating thread (Louise will be marching us of to her office for a hiding if she catches us doing that on this thread), you'd get away with the assumption that anything in the Bible, Psalms or elsewhere, is God's Word, or that it can't be argued with whatever. [Razz]

There are of course two reasons for meeting behind the bikesheds, but I never smoked and wasn't lucky enough for the other one. Throughout my teenage years and indeed longer I was so unlucky in that [censored censored censored]

[ 03. September 2013, 14:41: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Heh. I was just pointing out that here on the Ship it's unlikely that, on a debating thread (Louise will be marching us of to her office for a hiding if she catches us doing that on this thread), you'd get away with the assumption that anything in the Bible, Psalms or elsewhere, is God's Word, or that it can't be argued with whatever. [Razz]

There are of course two reasons for meeting behind the bikesheds, but I never smoked and wasn't lucky enough for the other one. Throughout my teenage years and indeed longer I was so unlucky in that [censored censored censored]

Apologies Karl, Louise and other readers.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I don't think there's much to apologise about. I've been grinning since about six posts back.

[sings]
This is yet another boring Kendrick song
This is yet another boring Kendrick song
This is yet another boring Kendrick song
And it goes on and on and on
And on and on!
[/sings]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Nice one but you can tell it isn't real Kendrick- it rhymes.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Didn't realise that music produced such venom amongst Christians.

[Ultra confused]

Presumably you've not spent a lot of time around Christians then [Big Grin]

"Worship" (sic) is one of the few guaranteed church split/punch up/divisive topics in pretty much any church of more than one person, in my experience.

Having spent too much of my life listening to such and fighting against it, I tend to read but not contribute to Crappy Choruses ... [Smile]
 
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Didn't realise that music produced such venom amongst Christians.

[Ultra confused]

Presumably you've not spent a lot of time around Christians then [Big Grin]

"Worship" (sic) is one of the few guaranteed church split/punch up/divisive topics in pretty much any church of more than one person, in my experience.

Having spent too much of my life listening to such and fighting against it, I tend to read but not contribute to Crappy Choruses ... [Smile]

It all seems a bit silly to me. But obviously it matters to some.
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Had "Jesus is the Name we Honour" inflicted on me on Sunday night. That one should have gone and died years ago. Especially with the irritating "the person leaving the tedious reality TV show is..." pauses in the ultra-cheesy chorus.

I loved your clever description! (And I actually LIKE that song.)
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Hadn't come across JitNwH before
horrible. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
No, it's fab! Especially when you try to play it to sound like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUyu5prWjTE

I do confess to venom for a few songs, but mostly I think in my case it's more childish petulance for being asked to sing along with* music that I don't like. And words I'm not entirely sure about. Couple that to the fact that periodically I am asked to play the piano for services....

*Yes, I know, worship is more than singing along with something.

[ 03. September 2013, 21:17: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
We are doing a lot of songs about 'waiting for You' at the moment.

Now, I could investigate whether that is good theology (and might start a thread) - but my main problem is that I see a room full of people, eyes closed, arms raised, passionately singing 'We're waiting for You' - and I can't help picturing Jesus sat over in the corner, waving and shouting 'I'm over here! Been here ages, where were you?'

Either that, or a stern headteacher saying 'Come on, we're all waiting for you...'
 
Posted by Scots lass (# 2699) on :
 
That just reminds me of the time there was a typo in the service sheet, so the writer's name was on the wrong line. Which meant we read:
So I'll wait, I'll wait, I'll wait for you, Nathan

I was with luvanddaisies and we laughed through the last line instead of singing, un-noticed by most of the congregation who didn't appear to have spotted it.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I love typos: have fond memories of nearly choking when I saw at the end of My God, how wonderful thou art the matchless
Fther of Jesus, love's reward,
What rapture will it be
Prostate before thy throne to lie ...


Another nomination for banality: Jesus took a piece of bread (HON 281). Yup, Michael Forster showing he has a future in composing rhyming couplets for cheap birthday cards.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
You mean that's not already his day job?
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
We are doing a lot of songs about 'waiting for You' at the moment.

Shouldn't that be Advent? :-)
 
Posted by Quinquireme (# 17384) on :
 
i'm going to get technical here. I suppose most of you know "I, the Lord of sea and sky" which I occasionally trot out as a sop to anyone who might accuse me of being a boring old C of E fart. Mostly we use Hymns Old and New, and I've marked in my copy all the consecutive fifths and octaves in that song/hymn. There are LOADS of them and this bugs me. I know I know it shouldn't matter, but it does.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
i'm going to get technical here. I suppose most of you know "I, the Lord of sea and sky" which I occasionally trot out as a sop to anyone who might accuse me of being a boring old C of E fart. Mostly we use Hymns Old and New, and I've marked in my copy all the consecutive fifths and octaves in that song/hymn. There are LOADS of them and this bugs me. I know I know it shouldn't matter, but it does.

So reharmonize it.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Are they all there in other books? After all, HO&N does have a reputation for sodding about with music as well as with words.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I, the Lord of Sea and Sky (here I am, Lord!) is known among some musicians as the Bi-Polar hymn, since it moves from speaking as the voice of God to the voice of one of the flock.

Frankly, that doesn't bother me beyond point: we don't sing it at my place because its crap.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
And also ungrammatical - me/I confused.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And also ungrammatical - me/I confused.

No it doesn't. Unless I'm being really thick. As far as I can see, it uses the nominative ('I') in all the right places, including the rather formal predicate nominative ('is it I, Lord?'). It only uses 'me' once, again correctly: 'I will go, Lord, if You lead me' (the pedantic complaint against that sentence would be that it probably should be 'if you should lead me', but that's not observed universally in speech, and clearly wouldn't work metrically).

[ 14. September 2013, 18:25: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I've never heard of a predicate nominative.

It sounds right to say 'is it me?'

But I notice that the KJV's version of the last Supper has 'Lord, is it I?' (26:22)
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I've never heard of a predicate nominative.

It sounds right to say 'is it me?'

But I notice that the KJV's version of the last Supper has 'Lord, is it I?' (26:22)

But you've presumably heard somebody confirm his or her identify on the telephone by saying 'this is he' or ' this is she' as applicable? It's a fairly formal way of speaking, so much so that I would associate it with business telephone manners, but it's not archaic yet.

And surely no one would ever say 'here am me'? As you point out, the AV translates Matt. 26.22 as 'is it I?'. So does the RSV. The NRSV has 'surely not I, Lord', which is a bit less formal sounding but is the same idea, in that it would be parsed 'surely [it is not] I'.

English allows both the constructions 'are you looking for me, Lord?' and 'is it I for whom you are looking, Lord?'. The latter is a bit stilted, but it's not incorrect and does have a different emphasis.

[ 15. September 2013, 15:16: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I, the Lord of Sea and Sky (here I am, Lord!) is known among some musicians as the Bi-Polar hymn, since it moves from speaking as the voice of God to the voice of one of the flock.

Frankly, that doesn't bother me beyond point: we don't sing it at my place because its crap.

I quite like it. But it's a hymn that lacks a certain versatility. I prefer hymns that focus on God rather than on our response to God, because each member of the 'flock' is likely to have a different response.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Belle Ringer, thank you (soooo much) for reminding me of The Orgasm Song.

Yes, Lord, yes, Lord, yes, yes, Lord ...!

Is that in response to He Brought Me To His Banqueting Table?
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
i'm going to get technical here. I suppose most of you know "I, the Lord of sea and sky" which I occasionally trot out as a sop to anyone who might accuse me of being a boring old C of E fart. Mostly we use Hymns Old and New, and I've marked in my copy all the consecutive fifths and octaves in that song/hymn. There are LOADS of them and this bugs me. I know I know it shouldn't matter, but it does.

Don't listen to anything pre baroque then.

Rules of harmony were written in the 17th Century to distinguish modern music from the outdated stuff.

But there's always room for rule breaking, modern popular music is full of it. The guitar riff from Smoke on the Water of the rhythm guitar part from Derek and the Dominoes Layla would not sound as good without parallel 4ths or 5ths respectively.

Parallel 4ths, 5ths and octaves were said to be bad harmony in the 17th Century because they made the music sound out of date. Ironically they can now make a song sound modern. Things come around.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I, the Lord of Sea and Sky (here I am, Lord!) is known among some musicians as the Bi-Polar hymn, since it moves from speaking as the voice of God to the voice of one of the flock.

Frankly, that doesn't bother me beyond point: we don't sing it at my place because its crap.

I quite like it. But it's a hymn that lacks a certain versatility. I prefer hymns that focus on God rather than on our response to God, because each member of the 'flock' is likely to have a different response.
Indeed - I like the alternative 'Someone else, Lord, It is I lord, hiding under me bed...send someone else instead'
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
I can claim authorship of that little parody!

Someone else, Lord
Please not me, Lord
I am hiding underneath my bed
I won't go, Lord
I'm too scared, Lord
Won't you please send someone else instead?

Personally I don't mind the two voices in the hymn. The chorus is very obviously meant to be our response. (This has absolutely nothing to do with bipolar disorder though, I suspect the nickname should really refer to DID, but I digress!)

It is certainly less confusing than the Cat Stevens song 'Father to Son' where it took me years to figure out there were two characters speaking.

For songs that really confuse the issue of address, try 'Come, now is the time to worship' in which 'you' are encouraged to come as you are before your God - and then sing 'One day every tongue will comfess you are God'. I am? Wow!

Or 'Spirit break out':

Our Father, all of heaven roars your name
Sing louder, let this place erupt with praise...

Are we asking God to sing louder?

Confused...!
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Has anyone ever had a problem with 'Amazing Grace'? I once read of a church that removed the word 'wretch' because they didn't approve of it. (I think it was changed to 'child').

Moreover, some might say that 'I once was lost but now am found' and references to 'the hour I first believed' make little sense for someone who's never been through a 'lost' and 'found' spiritual experience but who nevertheless considers themselves and/or is considered by the church to be a Christian.

The history behind the song is moving, if you're willing to forgive the fact that its writer John Newton had been a slave trader. Some people aren't.

And, finally, to judge from Google, quite a few people find it depressing. Probably because it's used a lot at funerals. (Well, American ones, anyway. It is used much at British funerals in your experience?)
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Rules of harmony were written in the 17th Century to distinguish modern music from the outdated stuff...

Parallel 4ths, 5ths and octaves were said to be bad harmony in the 17th Century because they made the music sound out of date. Ironically they can now make a song sound modern. Things come around.

I took an free on-line guitar course from Berklee School of Music and was surprised that some of the chords we were suppose to learn are just 3 notes - octave with a fifth in the middle. They are called "power chords." Why a chord using just 3 strings and missing the third is a power chord, I don't know, but apparently it's popular in some modern kinds of music. Maybe you are suppose to distort the sound?
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Why a chord using just 3 strings and missing the third is a power chord, I don't know, but apparently it's popular in some modern kinds of music. Maybe you are suppose to distort the sound?

It also makes the chord neither a major nor a minor chord, which creates a distinctive sound. Not everyone's cup of tea of course, but very popular in rock music. I've not come across power chords used much in church songs, though; has anyone else?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
No, because they work by reinforcing harmonics and interference patterns or summat and only really work with moderate to heavy distortion. You can use them without, but they don't carry any particular power. Under heavy distortion however including a third (especially a minor, but a major third as well to a lesser extent) "muddies" the sound - power chords sound much clearer. This is especially noticeable when playing in a minor key (sequences based on e.g. Am, G, F in varying orders) where you want the tonic chord (Am in this instance) to be clear and powerful, not muddy and indistinct.

Come to think of it, they may also reduce dissonance; a lot of rock lead guitar uses blues scales which means you get dissonances between the blues notes (e.g. the third) against major chords. When you're using power chords the sequence may well imply a major tonality, but because the major third isn't actually being played there's less dissonance against the blues or minor pentatonic scale being used by vocalist and/or lead guitarist.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Why a chord using just 3 strings and missing the third is a power chord, I don't know, but apparently it's popular in some modern kinds of music. Maybe you are suppose to distort the sound?

It also makes the chord neither a major nor a minor chord, which creates a distinctive sound. Not everyone's cup of tea of course, but very popular in rock music. I've not come across power chords used much in church songs, though; has anyone else?
The pianist in our new "worship (i.e. music) group" uses them, but I think it's just because she's a somewhat beginning pianist and it's easy. Left hand is an octave of the tonic, right hand plays the melody plus one note, usually the tonic or 5th, might sometimes be the third. But with a guitar or two playing full chords, it's not like a band is choosing power chords, only one of the instruments in the band. And the piano's real, job is the melody, not chords.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
New in my local church, alas.

Holy holy holy Lord
God of power of power and might
Heaven and earth are full of your glory
Hosa-ah-ah-ah-ah-ahna in the
hi-i-i-i-i-i-iest
Blessed is he who comesinthe nameofthe Lord

To the theme song from MASH the theme song from MASH (first 3 lines repeated, third of those lines is modified to stay low).

A most unHosannah-like tune, in my opinion. But supposedly it's joyful because it's MASH and everyone likes MASH; and that the original lyrics are about suicide just makes it "more fun" to sing.

Every week!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, you can do a version of "Glory be to God on high" to the theme of "Eastenders".
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
New in my local church, alas.

Holy holy holy Lord
God of power of power and might
Heaven and earth are full of your glory
Hosa-ah-ah-ah-ah-ahna in the
hi-i-i-i-i-i-iest
Blessed is he who comesinthe nameofthe Lord

To the theme song from MASH the theme song from MASH (first 3 lines repeated, third of those lines is modified to stay low).

A most unHosannah-like tune, in my opinion. But supposedly it's joyful because it's MASH and everyone likes MASH; and that the original lyrics are about suicide just makes it "more fun" to sing.

Every week!

[Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
I can claim authorship of that little parody!

Someone else, Lord
Please not me, Lord
I am hiding underneath my bed
I won't go, Lord
I'm too scared, Lord
Won't you please send someone else instead?

I know you've posted this on here before - but I still love it, and it was nice to be reminded of it.
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, because...

Thanks for this post, K:LB. Interesting stuff.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I, the Lord of Sea and Sky (here I am, Lord!) is known among some musicians as the Bi-Polar hymn, since it moves from speaking as the voice of God to the voice of one of the flock.

Frankly, that doesn't bother me beyond point: we don't sing it at my place because its crap.

A bit late to the fair, I know, but I just wanted to point out that How firm a foundation is also Bi-Polar, as are a number of Psalms.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
A bit late to the fair, I know, but I just wanted to point out that How firm a foundation is also Bi-Polar, as are a number of Psalms.

Psalm 2 is even in surround sound (four speakers).
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I don't think I've mentioned this one. There's an old spiritual about Jesus walked this lonesome valley he had it walk it alone. And the third verse says we are each alone, too.

Baptism ceremony, lots of assurance about this child will never be alone, God is always with him. Song, third verse we're coming to the part about you are stuck with being alone, I stop singing too startled at the words I had just sung to finish the verse. Pastor lets the song end but immediately loudly declares "that song is wrong, you are never alone, Jesus is always with you, now and in eternity."

Later I asked the music director, curious, why he chose that one. He shrugged, "it's in the hymnal."
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Having had as an earworm the MASH theme since reading this, and discussing unsuitable tunes for adopting for religious purposes, I came up with this. Went back to Victorian times for out of copyright on the tune, and music hall for unsuitableness.

The preacher man said "Follow God's plan,
Don't give way to sinning on the way.
The Bible's got all you need to know in it,
Believe every word, do not dare to bin it."*
But I shillied and shallied, dallied and I dillied,
Left the Way and don't know where to roam.
You can't trust a liberal like an old time pastor
When you can't find God's Way Home."

*I believe that Marie Lloyd may have had problems with rhyming here, too.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Penny S - thanks for that [Smile]

My worrying ear-worm du jour is Meekness and Majesty to the Russian (soviet and current, not tsarist) national anthem [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I don't think I've mentioned this one. There's an old spiritual about Jesus walked this lonesome valley he had it walk it alone.

"Jesus walked this lonesome valley, He had to walk it by himself..."

There's another "verse" I made up with a lot of truth to it when I was younger:

I must go and use the bathroom,
I have to use it by myself.
Oh, nobody else can use it for me,
I must use it for myself.

My mother was not particularly overwhelmed by my creativity, as I recall...

[ 20. September 2013, 15:56: Message edited by: Organ Builder ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Penny S - thanks for that [Smile]

My worrying ear-worm du jour is Meekness and Majesty to the Russian (soviet and current, not tsarist) national anthem [Ultra confused]

Dare you to sneak it in to a service. I think you might have to drop the repeat of the last line of the chorus, though.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Not sure if this is the right place for this question, I'm genuinely trying to understand "modern worship music" so maybe I can learn to appreciate it.

Why do many of the songs not resolve? Some do, but half of them don't.

In Western music, songs normally end on the 1, the tonic. I'm looking at the music our group is doing.

Better Is One Day, in E, last note is F, the 2nd; or in a different version C, the 6th.

I Lift My Hands, in B, last note is C, the 2nd.

Let the River Flow, in E, last note is B, the 5th.

Open the Eyes of My Heart, in E, last note is E but the chord is B, the 5th.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I'm not really into worship music ... but isn't it right to ay that quite a number of songs don't resolve in the melody line, however the backing goes on for a further beat or two and does gain resolution?

That seems to be my impression, although some songs do leave one "hanging in the air" - quite effective stylistically but not when it happens all the time.

Nothing to do with worship music, but wasn't it Benjamin Britten who specialised in devising "the right ending in the wrong key"?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Not sure if this is the right place for this question, I'm genuinely trying to understand "modern worship music" so maybe I can learn to appreciate it.

Why do many of the songs not resolve? Some do, but half of them don't.

In Western music, songs normally end on the 1, the tonic. I'm looking at the music our group is doing.

Better Is One Day, in E, last note is F, the 2nd; or in a different version C, the 6th.

I Lift My Hands, in B, last note is C, the 2nd.

Let the River Flow, in E, last note is B, the 5th.

Open the Eyes of My Heart, in E, last note is E but the chord is B, the 5th.

Because they're not written by competent song-writers?
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Let the River Flow, in E, last note is B, the 5th.

Open the Eyes of My Heart, in E, last note is E but the chord is B, the 5th.

I fortunately don't know either song, but finishing on the dominant is probably a way of encouraging repeating the last chorus ad infinitum until everyone is suitably hypnotized.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
... or so bored they're losing the will to live.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
Or sometimes they're written for studio recording, and they're written by someone who thinks a fade-out isn't shit.
(Or sometimes they're written by someone who wants to emulate those and sticks with the same approach to ending).

If it's done well, not resolving can be quite nice, for a change. It's not, however, very sensible for a congregational song.

A lot of modern (let's say last twentyish years is 'modern') songs sung by church congregations don't take account of the obvious fact that writing for a solo singer, band or decent choir is very different from writing for a congregation, especially a mixed-age, mixed background, mixed cultures, mixed expectations mixed whatever one.
So maybe the songs have a tessitura that's too wide for people to join in easily, or they put in rhythms that are syncopated or surprising - easy enough for a half-competent learner musician/singer type, but for a person who's just come along to a church service it feels awkward or rocky and they just end up feeling like they're rubbish at singing, or having to concentrate so hard on 'getting it right' that they're not able to engage with the words or the service going on around them. It's a similar thing with an unresolved ending - it feels odd to people, and they don't know why, so it's like adding an uncomfortable silence or tailing off of a congregation.
Sometimes (it seemed increasingly often, last time I was in church) this is the fault of the writer - but a lot of the time it's because people want the sung musical expression of worship to sound like the cd, and because they can sing it along with their iPod, they think a whole congregation can do it too - especially tricky where the resources available to accompany the singing don't complement whatever style they're trying to do.

So there's demand for those songs in songbooks from those who don't know any better, the songbooks sell more copies, making money for their producers, and the composers get some royalties for the reproduction, as well as some of them getting more gigs out of it too. It's not going to change any time soon.

(There are some modern bits of good congregational writing, it would be wrong to suggest otherwise. Stuart Townend or the K & K Getty write a lot of tunes that are good for congregations - regardless of whether you agree with the theology of their lyrics, or regardless of how unpleasant the Gettys were last time i played a gig they were featured in. I've not been around church for maybe four years now, so I'm not up-to-date, but it sounds like the industry's not changed much)
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... or so bored they're losing the will to live.

That way they get to go to heaven sooner? [Smile]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Or sometimes they're written for studio recording, and they're written by someone who thinks a fade-out isn't shit...

So maybe the songs have a tessitura that's too wide for people to join in easily, or they put in rhythms that are syncopated or surprising - easy enough for a half-competent learner musician/singer type, but for a person who's just come along to a church service it feels awkward or rocky and they just end up feeling like they're rubbish at singing,

Yup, fadeouts. That may explain the lack of resolving songs even in a final guitar chord? I guess for some worship leaders how the music is on the radio is how the music is supposed to be done?

Awkward rhythms, oh yes. Ten Thousand Reasons would work fine in 4/4 but inserts a 2/4 bar near the end to provide an extra two drum beats while singers wait - effective on stage but confusing for the congregation. I would actually like the song if not for that insertion.

I doubt anyone thinks a band of one or two acoustic guitars, maybe a keyboard, no bass no drums is recreating what is heard on the radio. But might some music leaders be hearing in their minds what the radio version sounds like and "playing along" to that, not realizing what it sounds like to those not "hearing" that radio version?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
A lot of modern (let's say last twentyish years is 'modern') songs sung by church congregations don't take account of the obvious fact that writing for a solo singer, band or decent choir is very different from writing for a congregation.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Penny S - thanks for that [Smile]

My worrying ear-worm du jour is Meekness and Majesty to the Russian (soviet and current, not tsarist) national anthem [Ultra confused]

Thank you- and you have now sent my ears off to "God the All-Terrible" to Rephidim, aka the tsarist anthem. Or possibly "God Bless our Motherland", both in "Congregational Praise" - we never sang them in church, though.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:


Awkward rhythms, oh yes. Ten Thousand Reasons would work fine in 4/4 but inserts a 2/4 bar near the end to provide an extra two drum beats while singers wait - effective on stage but confusing for the congregation. I would actually like the song if not for that insertion.

Cut it. Stick a pencil through the 2/4 bar and change a chord or two if necessary if it's making it hard for the congo to sing. The music in a church service is meant to serve the congregation, not the congregation to serve the music.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

might some music leaders be hearing in their minds what the radio version sounds like and "playing along" to that, not realizing what it sounds like to those not "hearing" that radio version?

Yes.
Which shows their own bad musicianship, if they're leading, but actually just following along to an invisible kareoke. They need to spend time working out what works, and if they're going to teach a song that's going to be not intuative for the congo to sing and actually participate in while they're doing it, they're not spending enough time preparing and practising themselves. Just because church musicians are usually volunteers, and because a sunday service is the same people every week, it's no excuse for not giving the very best that is possible. It used to wind me up when I was playing with other pro players who thought a service was a second class sort of effort and didn't apply at least the same level of professionalism to that that they would to a paid gig. Amateur players, even those not very far on with their instrument or voice, giving their best, practising, preparing, turning up to rehearsals on time, thinking and praying about the music they're planning strike me as offering something much more authentic as worship and service than a far better pro player rocking up late, giving lip-service, but never actually turning their brain on - and believe me, I've done the latter. Many times. (Not the rocking up late. I hate people being late to rehearsals of any kind anywhere ever. It makes me want to hit them repeatedly with a spade)
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Actually in fairness to Graham Kendrick (I can't speak for others), he does know the difference, but struggles because he writes performance pieces for the choirs at events such as Spring Harvest and then people take them home and try to get their congregation to sing them. This is not what they are intended for.

Jengie
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
Yes, a lot of his stuff that's intended for congregation is stuff that is actually quite easy for them to sing and has been written with real normal people singing it in mind (even if not everyone likes its style!).
He wrote a little book about music used in worship & praise, can't remember what it's called - but there're some really good bits in it from what I remember. if I remember rightly, it's useful reading for church musicians of all stripes.

The thing that makes me cynical and annoyed about Kendrick is that he's just so awful when he get his guitar out and strums & sings. I've played backing for him a few times - he can't even tune his guitar properly, and as for putting a tune in a bucket and carrying it... forget it.
He's better at writing stuff than he is at presenting it - at the big events he does this at, like Spring Harvest or whatever, it's not like they're short of people who are quite good at that side of it, it's not like it's a small congregation and he's the only bloke there who can play an instrument or learn & lead songs so he's having to do it out of necessity. It's cringy and cynicism-inducing - celebrity culture for the sake of it (and for the sake of making more money, of course).
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
You are all wrong. Every last one of you.

None of the songs choruses and hymns mentioned in this thread so far are in any way crappy, wonky or terrible....

... at least not compared to a song we had at the Family Worship this morning.

"God is good, good, good, God is very, very good." to the tune of Agadoo.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
[Eek!]

Seriously?

[Eek!]

hahahaha [Killing me] hahahahahahahahahaha [Killing me] hahahahahahahah [Killing me] ahhhahahahaha<falls over>

[Eek!]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
You lot should just turn Methodist and sing Wesley every Sunday; there's none of this 'crappy chorus' and 'wonky worship-songs' nonsense in the Methodist circuits I know. A few dodgy hymns occasionally, but that's it.

However, one Christmas we had to sing 'Happy Birthday' to Jesus. I thought that was terribly cheesy.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You lot should just turn Methodist and sing Wesley every Sunday; there's none of this 'crappy chorus' and 'wonky worship-songs' nonsense in the Methodist circuits I know. A few dodgy hymns occasionally, but that's it.

Local Methodist church has a contemporary service. [Smile]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Seriously?

Afraid so.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You lot should just turn Methodist and sing Wesley every Sunday; there's none of this 'crappy chorus' and 'wonky worship-songs' nonsense in the Methodist circuits I know. A few dodgy hymns occasionally, but that's it.

Local Methodist church has a contemporary service. [Smile]
Ah, but you're in the USA. American Methodist churches aren't constrained by the circuit system, so they're free to be as 'contemporary' as they want. In the UK they have to convince a bunch of ageing lay preachers before they can take any such step. A big challenge.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Seriously?

Afraid so.
Who even thinks of that?
Bizarre.
If it's a kids' song it's not like many little people know much about early 80s pop. There'd at least be a seam of logic discernable in using a One Direction tune.
 
Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You lot should just turn Methodist and sing Wesley every Sunday; there's none of this 'crappy chorus' and 'wonky worship-songs' nonsense in the Methodist circuits I know. A few dodgy hymns occasionally, but that's it.

However, one Christmas we had to sing 'Happy Birthday' to Jesus. I thought that was terribly cheesy.

Not all of us Methodists are that enamoured with Wesley hymns
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Seriously?

Afraid so.
Who even thinks of that?
Bizarre.
If it's a kids' song it's not like many little people know much about early 80s pop. There'd at least be a seam of logic discernable in using a One Direction tune.

It started as a joke. The youth leader asked the parents and siblings of the child being baptised what songs they'd like. Agadoo was mentioned as a joke.

So we youth leader wrote some words to the tune. That it was bad was acknowledged up front, everyone knew it was ironic.

As it was an all age worship service we got away with it. I don't expect it will ever be repeated.

But it was bad, bad, bad. It was very, very bad.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kitten:
Not all of us Methodists are that enamoured with Wesley hymns

Speaking personally, I'd like the British Methodists to add a lot more choruses and worship-songs to their worship. But it's a rare British Methodist who admits to not really liking Charles Wesley at all!

In the USA are there Methodist churches that have ditched Charles Wesley entirely?
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
WRT worship songs not going back to the root - this is often due to them being segued one to t'other during a worship set... rather than..

Song.
Something else
Song
Nuther element
Song...
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Kitten:
Not all of us Methodists are that enamoured with Wesley hymns

Speaking personally, I'd like the British Methodists to add a lot more choruses and worship-songs to their worship. But it's a rare British Methodist who admits to not really liking Charles Wesley at all!

In the USA are there Methodist churches that have ditched Charles Wesley entirely?

I doubt any church has ditched Wesley completely, didn't he write Hark the Herald Angels Sing? [Smile]

The 1989 hymnal has about 50 of Charlie's, 5 of John's, out of 700+ total, and there are two more recent (contemporary) supplementary songbooks with probably none, so it would be easy to bypass the Wesleys entirely.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
WRT worship songs not going back to the root - this is often due to them being segued one to t'other during a worship set... rather than..

Song.
Something else
Song
Nuther element
Song...

Well, yes - but I think what she was wondering about was when they're written and published like that.

I mean, if you're flowing straight from one song to another you stick in a little linking passage to get there - maybe it has to take you into the new key, or maybe they're already in the same key and you get away with just not resolving at the end and sticking a dominant 7th at the end of the old one.

That's different from when they actually print & publish songs for congregations to sing that don't resolve at the end, which in a little normal church with an ordinary small congregation and maybe one or possibly two volunteer musicians who might describe their playing ability as about intermediate level, that's hard to carry off without it sounding a bit like tailing off and shuffling away, leaving everyone a bit uncomfortable and feeling like 'it's gone wrong' or something, which perversely makes it more like a performance type thing (and like one that hasn't really worked) than a musical expression as part of a corporate act of worship.

It's only a little thing, but it's not helpful, which is a pity when it could be avoided without much effort
It would take about half a minute for the composer, and about ten seconds for the books' typesetters to put an alternative ending onto songs that don't resolve, which would be really helpful for a lot of congregations and the musicians and singers that are doing their best to serve them.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I doubt any church has ditched Wesley completely, didn't he write Hark the Herald Angels Sing? [Smile]

Christmas! The time when every 'contemporary' church suddenly turns all traditional in its musical offerings! Or have they written a slew of new Christmas carols to replace the old ones? I suppose people just sing secular Christmas songs if they want something modern.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
There are modern Christmas carols, some of them are even decent. I'd be upset at any carol service that didn't have traditional ones* but for instance I like Star Child.

*I'd say that of any non-carol service too though
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
The Non-Ds I've been to have no sense of liturgical seasons other than Christmas Day and Easter Day. Same music all year. Felt weird to be in Church the week of Christmas and it's the same music as mid-summer. Maybe songs celebrating Jesus' birth aren't "worship"? [Two face]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Hark" the herald angels sing is Wesley as altered by George Whitefield.

The music is Mendelssohn.

As for Non-Ds and no sense of liturgical season: try a service on All Souls which starts with Give me joy aka zinger-zanger [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
This

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:


That's different from when they actually print & publish songs for congregations to sing that don't resolve at the end, which in a little normal church with an ordinary small congregation and maybe one or possibly two volunteer musicians who might describe their playing ability as about intermediate level, that's hard to carry off without it sounding a bit like tailing off and shuffling away, leaving everyone a bit uncomfortable and feeling like 'it's gone wrong' or something, which perversely makes it more like a performance type thing (and like one that hasn't really worked) than a musical expression as part of a corporate act of worship.

It's only a little thing, but it's not helpful, which is a pity when it could be avoided without much effort
It would take about half a minute for the composer, and about ten seconds for the books' typesetters to put an alternative ending onto songs that don't resolve, which would be really helpful for a lot of congregations and the musicians and singers that are doing their best to serve them.

in fact everything you've written, luv'n'daisies, has been really informative, thank you.

I wish to know - if doing what you suggest would only take a little effort for the composers & typesetters, why isn't it done? Presumably it's been suggested? Is it not thought appropriate, or is there a misunderstanding about how the books might best be used, ie what works and doesn't work for congregational singing as you've outlined? Or, well, what?
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for Non-Ds and no sense of liturgical season: try a service on All Souls which starts with Give me joy aka zinger-zanger [Ultra confused]

Reminds me years back of trying to explain that some worship song including the word "Alleluia" (I mercifully have forgotten which one it was; it was dire anyway) was unsuitable for Ash Wednesday. I got a response along the lines of, "you mean you Anglicans don't praise God for six weeks?"
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
quote:
...It would take about half a minute for the composer, and about ten seconds for the books' typesetters to put an alternative ending onto songs that don't resolve, which would be really helpful for a lot of congregations and the musicians and singers that are doing their best to serve them.
if doing what you suggest would only take a little effort for the composers & typesetters, why isn't it done?
I think what is going on is two things.

1. Most of these songs are never written in the sense of a music publisher preparing the song to print and sell. A transcription done by someone (can machines do that yet?) is available from CCLI, but it's taken from the radio performance, if the radio performance does an unresolved fadeout, that's what the transcription shows.

2. People who listen to "Christian Radio" expect the songs to be done exactly as on the radio including fadeouts etc. because that is the "right way" to do the song, just turn on your radio and you'll hear that's how the song is supposed to be done, why would anyone change what the song is supposed to be?

What's really striking me, in contrast to many choir leaders, the "worship leaders" I have met have zero formal music training. The leader is self-taught, learns music (and guitar) by ear, and genuinely believes the only valid questions about any song are "do I like it?" and "is it addressed to God with words of praise?"

Having never heard the concept that some songs are written for solo performance instead of congregational singing, or that fadeouts are post recording mechanical manipulation for theatrical effect, what they hear if you raise those issues is "people invent stupid excuses to complain" and turn away, seeing no reason to discuss it.

How does one raise the question of turning a performance song into a congregational song if the leader believes there is no such thing as that difference? He does *not* want an added measure at the end resolving the chord if the radio "proves" it's not supposed to have that. If you add it, he'll take it off.

Actually, he won't know you added it in the sheet music, the "praise band" leaders I've met don't read music, and don't see any reason to learn. (Those who do read music probably are puzzled if a written song ends "wrong" - e.g. resolved - instead of matching the radio.)
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Found this in another place - thought it might be relevant here. Praise songs and hymns
I have a slight quibble with what the second person uses as an example, but no matter.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Sigh.

Lord I lift you name up high has the line "from the earth to the cross my debt to pay" which surprised me, I didn't know TEC endorses PSA.

Lamb of God, someone up thread already pointed out the "guilty sod" makes no sense, the sod is not guilty of anything.

I can only imagine - I cannot get the rhythm of the verse! Not sure what it means to "find myself standing in the Son."

How great is our God - "he wraps himself in light - I thought he is the light, no? Guess I need to relearn basic theology.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
What is it with some of these worship songs and the tinkly introductions? All it reminds me of is some US Medical soap opera - can't decide if its St Elsewhere or ER.

And just to add to the confusion I can only imagine is also the title of a song recorded by Lil'Wayne which is rather different from the worship song of the same title. [Snigger]
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

How great is our God - "he wraps himself in light - I thought he is the light, no? Guess I need to relearn basic theology.

It's a quote from Psalm 104:2:

quote:
You are clothed with honor and majesty/wrapped in light as with a garment.

 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

How great is our God - "he wraps himself in light - I thought he is the light, no? Guess I need to relearn basic theology.

It's a quote from Psalm 104:2:

quote:
You are clothed with honor and majesty/wrapped in light as with a garment.

Thanks.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
As the deer. Well past its sell-by date, involves singing lyrics about joy at a pace that rather suggests boredom, and stops paraphrasing just before the Psalm gets good. Actually, that last bit's probably a blessing at tha-at pa-ace...
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
As the deer. Well past its sell-by date, involves singing lyrics about joy at a pace that rather suggests boredom,

LOL, today we sang the Sanctus to a secular dirge about suicide. I started giggling at the contrast and missed a few beats trying to stifle it.

Someone mentioned Amazing Grace. I really hadn't thought of it as a like or dislike, maybe because it so familiar and I relate to words more than tune, and if it sounds a bit of a lament that's appropriate for the story behind it. But usually I hear it at an almost peppy pace.

And it's fun to invent descants to it, I enjoy playing with music, being easy to play with decreases the dislike factor.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

What's really striking me, in contrast to many choir leaders, the "worship leaders" I have met have zero formal music training. The leader is self-taught, learns music (and guitar) by ear, and genuinely believes the only valid questions about any song are "do I like it?" and "is it addressed to God with words of praise?"

OK, you've just triggered my "Oh do fuck off" reflex, only partially redeemed by the fact that it's "in your experience" and so therefore can't be argued with.

That situation is no different to the majority of leaders I've experienced who are of a more traditional bent. In fact, if anything, the more modern lot (whilst often being irritating in other ways) are much more concerned about content and overall flow than the traditional "Let's pick this hymn because I know it" brigade.

It's a besetting sin for anyone regardless of style, musical training, or theology when they haven't been taught to think about these issues in a fuller way. And more effort goes into that within the contemporary scene (although not nearly enough) than the traditional IME.

I can't speak to choirmasters as I abandoned choir as soon as I could, and I suspect there will be a Pond Difference, but get off the snobby horse on that one. I do, however, worship in a church that straddles both traditional and contemporary boundaries, and serve with highly trained formal musicians as well as chord-sheet/ear only folk. All it has ever shown me is that most people are doing their best with what they have, and seeking to serve God and the church. And that most worship/service leaders are under-trained and under-developed in terms of what they're about, regardless of style/background/musicality. And that all congregations contain ignorant folk who unless something is entirely to their preconceived and generally ill-informed, narrow, closed-minded taste, it's wrong and Of Satan, and they'll get more delight in banging on about that than they will in meeting to worship God and encourage their brothers and sisters (that's not a passive aggressive dig at Belle Ringer, just a genuine tangential observation).

I'm not going to address the rest of the post because it will get far too hellish, and I'm almost certainly dragging off-Ship emotions into my responses on these issues, but a little bit more "love one another" and a little less smug superiority and passive-aggressive stereotyping might go some way towards a start. As well as a modest amount of personal study on What The Whole Bloody Point Is.

(Makes mental note to try harder to stop reading this thread, it's just not good for me yet like a junkie I keep coming back for one more hit).
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
As the deer. Well past its sell-by date, involves singing lyrics about joy at a pace that rather suggests boredom, and stops paraphrasing just before the Psalm gets good. Actually, that last bit's probably a blessing at tha-at pa-ace...

Yes, yes, yes! Been toying with the idea of suggesting this one for ages and never got round to it.

I don't mind modern worship songs and don't even mind the cheesy naff ones: "Shine Jesus Shine"? Great! "I the Lord of Sea and Sky"? No problems! Even "Our God is a Great Big God" - at least it tells children that they can be part of "God's amazing plan", rather than simply teaching them to be good and quiet. I wouldn't be able to lead worship at our church if I couldn't at least tolerate them.

But "As the Deer" sucks all the passion out of one of the most powerful psalms of all, turning it into "Well I wouldn't mind it if you were here, God - yeah, that'd sort of OK if you didn't mind" with a dose of borderline God-is-my-boyfriend as well. [Projectile]
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
Sorry for the double-post, but meant to add that the tune's as wet and soggy as a rainy day in Manchester, or like one of those annoying, cloying children's cartoons were everything's bright and sunny and full of cream cakes until the bad people come and make it a bit cloudy, but then the heroes teach them all to be friends and everybody's happy again*.

And breathe...

Surely those words deserve an urgent, desperate tune - not the soppiness of "As the deer". Are there any other musical treatments of Psalm 42?


*Yes, we let our children watch too many of those...
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
But "As the Deer" sucks all the passion out of one of the most powerful psalms of all, turning it into "Well I wouldn't mind it if you were here, God - yeah, that'd sort of OK if you didn't mind" with a dose of borderline God-is-my-boyfriend as well. [Projectile]

There's another thing about it that unsurprisingly didn't make it into a message posted from a mobile phone in a pub after church last night. [Smile] It only starts as Psalm 42, but then goes on a bit of a metaphor raid through scripture. I've spotted Proverbs 7.2 (naturally, the metaphor makes much more sense the other way around, as at Deuteronomy 32.10) and Psalm 119.72. Now, there's nothing wrong in that in itself, but it somewhat stretches it when this song is used as a metrical psalm.

Now, if you'll all excuse my going a bit Keryg for a moment, I'd argue that even taking the two stanzas and refrains that we number 42 leaves things hanging a bit too much at "where is your God?", rather than including 43 and getting to the punchline "Send forth your light and your truth, and let them lead me [...] Then will I go to the altar of God, to God the joy of my gladness" (neatly turning the complaint at Psalm 42.4). So if I were writing a paraphrase of that Psalm, I'd make sure I'd actually get there!

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Surely those words deserve an urgent, desperate tune - not the soppiness of "As the deer". Are there any other musical treatments of Psalm 42?

There are plenty of others, but they all tend to be dreadful in their own ways. The classic problem is metrical psalms with dozens upon dozens of verses carefully paraphrasing each line into at least one rhyming couplet, and occasionally an entire quatrain to get the stanza breaks in the right places. I vaguely recall a version to one of Mendelssohn's Songs without Words. Better tune, but still probably on the wet side.

It's one of those ones where it would be tempting to circulate "anonymous" lyrics...
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
...goes on a bit of a metaphor raid through scripture.

Ha ha ha [Big Grin]

A few people have commented (here and in the All Saints thread) about songs containing sentiments that they can't sing with integrity - things like 'Oh, I feel like dancing', for example. Well I'd like to add Unfailing Love by my fellow Vineyarders in Nottingham (full lyrics towards the bottom of this page):

'We wait in hope for You
Our shelter and our truth
You are always faithful to Your word...

Unfailing love
You never let us down'

Difficult to sing when you're feeling abandoned and let down by God, or when someone close to you is suffering...
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
South Coast Kevin

But you could say the same about most religious music; it praises God rather than expressing anxiety about abandonment.

African American spirituals and some of the Moody and Sankey hymns deal with pain and distress, but that kind of thing seems not to be popular in the British middle class charismatic churches, for obvious reasons.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
True that, SvitlanaV2. There are a few examples of modern worship songs that do deal in the messy reality of life though. One that springs to my mind is 'Shadows' by the David Crowder Band - song here and words here.
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
True that, SvitlanaV2. There are a few examples of modern worship songs that do deal in the messy reality of life though. One that springs to my mind is 'Shadows' by the David Crowder Band - song here and words here.

But the music that accompanies the words (that get repeated over and and over) seems to be the same worship-style genre that cannot create a sense of contemplative reflection suggested by the lyrics.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But you could say the same about most religious music; it praises God rather than expressing anxiety about abandonment.

But if one paraphrased Psalm 42/43 properly, it would do both! (And, yes, I know it's easier to take the first couple of verses of the Psalm and veer off into platitudes instead.)
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
But the music that accompanies the words (that get repeated over and and over) seems to be the same worship-style genre that cannot create a sense of contemplative reflection suggested by the lyrics.

At least, it doesn't create a sense of contemplative reflection for you. But each to their own, eh? In any case, a church or group of musicians could take this song and rework the music in whatever way they felt more appropriate; e.g. introducing a string quartet, or a folk guitar and flute, or a brass band...

Also, I wasn't meaning to hold up the song as a shining example of modern music-craft; it's just a song I like that has more realistic, life-is-sometimes-crap words than a lot of church hymns / songs. I know the music won't be everyone's cup of tea; what music is?!

On that point about reinterpreting hymns / songs in a different musical style, does anyone have examples they think are particularly effective? My church does a Christmas service most years, with traditional hymns played on electric guitar, drums and so on. I really like it. Are there other examples of reworkings that folks would like to share?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
But the music that accompanies the words (that get repeated over and and over) seems to be the same worship-style genre that cannot create a sense of contemplative reflection suggested by the lyrics.

At least, it doesn't create a sense of contemplative reflection for you. But each to their own, eh? In any case, a church or group of musicians could take this song and rework the music in whatever way they felt more appropriate; e.g. introducing a string quartet, or a folk guitar and flute, or a brass band...

Also, I wasn't meaning to hold up the song as a shining example of modern music-craft; it's just a song I like that has more realistic, life-is-sometimes-crap words than a lot of church hymns / songs. I know the music won't be everyone's cup of tea; what music is?!

On that point about reinterpreting hymns / songs in a different musical style, does anyone have examples they think are particularly effective? My church does a Christmas service most years, with traditional hymns played on electric guitar, drums and so on. I really like it. Are there other examples of reworkings that folks would like to share?

Normally I blanche at such reworkings, but honourable mention to http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HCY-Bi1_IYI
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I like gospel, reggae or rock versions of traditional hymns, and I think that mainstream churches would do better to rework traditional hymns than to take on contemporary worship songs whose theology (or poetics) they don't like.

I like 'Sold Rock' by Delirious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRryrGI15Uo

There's an American band called Ascend the Hill that has some lovely versions of old hymns (and they're good hymns for when we feel troubled), such as:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0h-6Q_KPPw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGtEaS0JB38
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
But the music that accompanies the words (that get repeated over and and over) seems to be the same worship-style genre that cannot create a sense of contemplative reflection suggested by the lyrics.

At least, it doesn't create a sense of contemplative reflection for you. But each to their own, eh? In any case, a church or group of musicians could take this song and rework the music in whatever way they felt more appropriate; e.g. introducing a string quartet, or a folk guitar and flute, or a brass band...

Also, I wasn't meaning to hold up the song as a shining example of modern music-craft; it's just a song I like that has more realistic, life-is-sometimes-crap words than a lot of church hymns / songs. I know the music won't be everyone's cup of tea; what music is?!

On that point about reinterpreting hymns / songs in a different musical style, does anyone have examples they think are particularly effective? My church does a Christmas service most years, with traditional hymns played on electric guitar, drums and so on. I really like it. Are there other examples of reworkings that folks would like to share?

Normally I blanche at such reworkings, but honourable mention to http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HCY-Bi1_IYI
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
It's one of those ones where it would be tempting to circulate "anonymous" lyrics...

Yes, have some "anonymous" lyrics. Total doggerel, of course, as merits this thread; but better to go off on an idly-creative tangent than just moaning about other paraphrases.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
But "As the Deer" sucks all the passion out of one of the most powerful psalms of all, turning it into "Well I wouldn't mind it if you were here, God - yeah, that'd sort of OK if you didn't mind" with a dose of borderline God-is-my-boyfriend as well. [Projectile]

And how many of us prefer God to silver and gold, if we are brutally honest?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
South Coast Kevin

But you could say the same about most religious music; it praises God rather than expressing anxiety about abandonment.

African American spirituals and some of the Moody and Sankey hymns deal with pain and distress, but that kind of thing seems not to be popular in the British middle class charismatic churches, for obvious reasons.

We sang "What a friend we have in Jesus" the other day. A wonderful and totally non-crappy song, shot through with the pain of abandonment and defeat. Same goes for "Jesus lover of my soul"
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
and genuinely believes the only valid questions about any song are "do I like it?" and "is it addressed to God with words of praise?"

OK, you've just triggered my "Oh do fuck off" reflex...

That situation is no different to the majority of leaders I've experienced who are of a more traditional bent. In fact, if anything, the more modern lot (whilst often being irritating in other ways) are much more concerned about content and overall flow than the traditional "Let's pick this hymn because I know it" brigade.

You are quite right that plenty of hymn lovers are primarily interested in "do I like it." And there must surely be contemporary music leaders who work hard to choose songs that have appropriate content for the week.

I guess I've been lucky, all the choral leaders I've sung with - paid or volunteer leader, big church or small - have been music majors who took music selection seriously, and also tried to teach us some of why various songs were chosen or not. The few contemporary worship leaders I've known, I have not been lucky.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
and genuinely believes the only valid questions about any song are "do I like it?" and "is it addressed to God with words of praise?"

OK, you've just triggered my "Oh do fuck off" reflex...

That situation is no different to the majority of leaders I've experienced who are of a more traditional bent. In fact, if anything, the more modern lot (whilst often being irritating in other ways) are much more concerned about content and overall flow than the traditional "Let's pick this hymn because I know it" brigade.

You are quite right that plenty of hymn lovers are primarily interested in "do I like it." And there must surely be contemporary music leaders who work hard to choose songs that have appropriate content for the week.

I guess I've been lucky, all the choral leaders I've sung with - paid or volunteer leader, big church or small - have been music majors who took music selection seriously, and also tried to teach us some of why various songs were chosen or not. The few contemporary worship leaders I've known, I have not been lucky.

Oh, I definitely think that many (most, ime) contemporary worship leaders focus very strongly on song selection, but not in quite the same way as do more traditionally leaning church musicians. Whilst the traditional organist and/or choir leader might think primarily about the way that chosen hymns would fit in with the objective content of the service (liturgical season/lectionary reading/sermon topic), contemporary leaders would tend to be much more interested in the dynamic content of the service (where is the congregation "at" at the moment, what is God saying to us today, how do we help people to realise and express what is already potentially there in their hearts, how do we guide them safely and securely through their current pilgrimage.) Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and require great skill and not a little prayer to do well. In the worst case, the former can become arid, didactic, and impersonal, whilst the latter can degenerate into emotional manipulation and "feelgoodism", cast adrift from objective truth. But it's certainly not true to say we don't think about these things.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Whilst the traditional organist and/or choir leader might think primarily about the way that chosen hymns would fit in with the objective content of the service (liturgical season/lectionary reading/sermon topic), contemporary leaders would tend to be much more interested in the dynamic content of the service (where is the congregation "at" at the moment, what is God saying to us today, how do we help people to realise and express what is already potentially there in their hearts, how do we guide them safely and securely through their current pilgrimage.) Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses

Hmm, interesting, maybe the "blended service" is a third aproach - neither about reflecting the sermon/season nor about seeing where the congregation is at right now. Typically in "blended services (that I have attended) the CCM songs simply replace hymns in the song slots, neither reflecting the sermon or season, nor responding to the congregation. Verse, chorus bridge chorus chorus. Song is done, sit down, on to the next reading or prayer of the liturgy. It's a different use of music than the 30-45 minutes of "praise and worship" separated from the spoken (sermon/teaching) part of the morning.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I ran across this article disdaining use of a piano in church as too emotional.
organ yes, piano no.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I ran across this article disdaining use of a piano in church as too emotional.
organ yes, piano no.

What an odd argument:

“When it comes to the Church’s public worship of Almighty God and the reënactment of the sacrifice of Calvary, we have to make sure that the music is of a certain seriousness, loftiness, and dignity... I love the piano, but it is not a sacred instrument.”

Surely this is just personal opinion masquerading as objectivity? Nothing wrong with personal opinion, of course, but that's all it is; a personal viewpoint. Personally, FWIW, I find most organ music to be a droning dirge, very obstructive to my focusing on praising God. But that's just my opinion. There's nothing objectively bad about the organ as a musical instrument.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Meanwhile a quick Google search shows it is easy to find those who argue that it is un-Christian to have any kind of instrument in worship other than the human voice. Mostly AFAICT on the basis that the NT does not either describe or mandate the use of any musical instrument.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Meanwhile a quick Google search shows it is easy to find those who argue that it is un-Christian to have any kind of instrument in worship other than the human voice. Mostly AFAICT on the basis that the NT does not either describe or mandate the use of any musical instrument.

No shortage of OT references, though. It would be a bit strange if the NT Christians did not share, to some extent, a worship culture similar to that of the Jewish people of which, at least at first, they were a subset.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
To anyone who argues about only using the human voice for worship there is a simple answer:

Read Psalm 150. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I ran across this article disdaining use of a piano in church as too emotional.
organ yes, piano no.

What an odd argument:

“When it comes to the Church’s public worship of Almighty God and the reënactment of the sacrifice of Calvary, we have to make sure that the music is of a certain seriousness, loftiness, and dignity... I love the piano, but it is not a sacred instrument.”

Surely this is just personal opinion masquerading as objectivity? ...

I thought it just another personal opinion, but he quotes "Pope St. Pius X wrote in an official Church document (1903): 'The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.'"

I have no idea if other Popes have said otherwise, if not it's a personal opinion with a powerful backing in some circles.

Surprised me. Lots of local churches use piano because few people play organ anymore.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I thought it just another personal opinion, but he quotes "Pope St. Pius X wrote in an official Church document (1903): 'The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.'"

Here it is! Points 15-21 from 'Tra le Sollecitudini', indeed written by Pope Pius 10th in 1903. 'Noisy or frivolous instruments' - good grief. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
We sang "What a friend we have in Jesus" the other day. A wonderful and totally non-crappy song, shot through with the pain of abandonment and defeat. Same goes for "Jesus lover of my soul"

On the subject of Jesus, lover of my soul: Charles Wesley was a genius. A talented hymn writer would have written something obvious like 'give sight to the blind'. Wesley wrote 'lead the blind'. The hymn (at least in the four verse version as usually sung) ends up in a different place from where it sets out; or rather, it ends up in the same place looked at with different eyes.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Prowling "worship leader" blogs, I came across this instructional page for worship leaders which lays it all out including why the songs must have minimal content - unless the verses are few and simple, most people won't remember them all.
quote:

Do not distribute sheets with lyrics on them.

Why?

Never give people anything they can fidget with... The rustle of paper can be very distracting.
...If people are to read from the paper, the lights will have to be brightened, which breaks the atmosphere that has been built.
People often close their eyes during prayer. They will have to open their eyes to read the words on the paper. Concentration is broken and once again, atmosphere is lost.


Do not display lyrics on a screen. ...

Why?

...it makes people open their eyes, breaking concentration and atmosphere.
Not displaying lyrics also helps people memorize the verses faster.


 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Prowling "worship leader" blogs, I came across this instructional page for worship leaders which lays it all out including why the songs must have minimal content - unless the verses are few and simple, most people won't remember them all.
quote:

Do not distribute sheets with lyrics on them.

Why?

Never give people anything they can fidget with... The rustle of paper can be very distracting.
...If people are to read from the paper, the lights will have to be brightened, which breaks the atmosphere that has been built.
People often close their eyes during prayer. They will have to open their eyes to read the words on the paper. Concentration is broken and once again, atmosphere is lost.


Do not display lyrics on a screen. ...

Why?

...it makes people open their eyes, breaking concentration and atmosphere.
Not displaying lyrics also helps people memorize the verses faster.


In other words: Shut up and listen you poor, simpleminded buffoons! [Mad]

This is why I stay away from churches like that!
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
why the songs must have minimal content - unless the verses are few and simple, most people won't remember them all.
quote:

Do not distribute sheets with lyrics on them.

Do not display lyrics on a screen. ...


In other words: Shut up and listen you poor, simpleminded buffoons!
Or "we do only simple songs your 6 year old can learn because worship should be solely emotional ("heart"), not at all intellectual ("mind") and getting rid of content is the best way to write easy to learn songs for people to enjoy with only heart no mind. La la la la, wo-oh wo-oh."

Apparently a lot of what I have objected to as poor writing and poor choices of songs is intentional. The assumed purpose of music, the why we sing together, is different. What is believed to constitute "worship" is different. The place - or non-place - of the human mind in worship and of emotions in worship is different. Not just different music style - whole lot more going on.

Open Letter from Brian McLaren:
quote:
Too many of our lyrics are embarrassingly personalistic, as if the whole gospel revolved around "Jesus and me." Personal intimacy with God is a priceless gift indeed... But it isn’t the whole story. In fact...it isn’t necessarily the main point of the story
Lots more in the open letter, ending with
quote:
And finally, can our lyricists start reading more good poetry, good prose, so they can be sensitized to the powers of language, the grace of a well-turned phrase, the delight of a freshly discovered image...[instead of] a monotonous recycling of plastic language and paper triteness.
open letter to worship songwriters
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
To anyone who argues about only using the human voice for worship there is a simple answer:

Read Psalm 150. [Roll Eyes]

Ah, but that's pre-Pentecost.
The Church shouldn't have instruments like the Jews in the previous dispensation. [Biased]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
posted by Mudfrog
The Church shouldn't have instruments like the Jews in the previous dispensation.

Because?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Mudfrog
The Church shouldn't have instruments like the Jews in the previous dispensation.

Because?
THEY say (not me of course) that after Pentecost when the church came into being there is no mention in the NT of worship with instruments. Don't blame me - we have brass bands!
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
A church in my town does allow instruments to accompany singing - but only the piano. Apparently they do indeed have theological reasons for the piano being the only suitable form of music for worship [Help]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
A church in my town does allow instruments to accompany singing - but only the piano. Apparently they do indeed have theological reasons for the piano being the only suitable form of music for worship [Help]

Are they concerned that any other form of music might lead to sex and hence, inevitably, to dancing?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
posted by Jade Constable
A church in my town does allow instruments to accompany singing - but only the piano. Apparently they do indeed have theological reasons for the piano being the only suitable form of music for worship

This is completely baffling.

If they want to be "biblical" and are determined in having a hammered stringed instrument they ought to be insisting on a dulcimer.

Meanwhile, what about the instruments mentioned in the OT: psaltery, cymbals, harp, lyre, shofar, organ, pipe, trumpet, etc, etc, etc [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
No idea what the argument is (I'm sure it's hilariously stupid). It's the favoured church of the CU though....
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
A church in my town does allow instruments to accompany singing - but only the piano. Apparently they do indeed have theological reasons for the piano being the only suitable form of music for worship [Help]

Are they concerned that any other form of music might lead to sex and hence, inevitably, to dancing?
They're not a church that forbids dancing.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Meanwhile, what about the instruments mentioned in the OT: psaltery, cymbals, harp, lyre, shofar, organ, pipe, trumpet, etc, etc, etc [Ultra confused]

Of course some of those are mentioned only in the context of the image which Nebuchadnezzar had set up, and are thus associated with pagan worship, not Judaeo-Christian.
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...
My church does a Christmas service most years, with traditional hymns played on electric guitar, drums and so on. I really like it.

Aaaarrgh nooooooo! [Mad] [Waterworks]

I can cope with disliking modern worship songs by thinking that at least some people find them helpful to worship. But to have the traditional hymns and carols that I really like singing fouled up, bastardised, and generally bashed around with is unbearable. It means that I'm not even allowed to worship in a style that I find amenable, and the tastes of others have to be imposed even on to what I prefer.

It's like artwork. I might not like modern art, and can't bear to look at it, but I can accept that others might appreciate it. But suppose I happen to like Rembrandt's works, and the modern art-lovers come along, deride them for being so old-fashioned, and slap a load of paint on them to 'modernise' them and make them 'contemporary', I think I would be justified in being very upset. OK, so I might be overstating the case in comparing old hymns to old master paintings, but the parallel is, I suggest, appropriate.
Angus
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
A. Pilgrim

But on the positive side, I suppose most churches will be doing a traditional thing at Christmas so it's not as though you won't be able to find something to your taste.

I myself sometimes wonder how worship-band churches manage at Christmas; it doesn't seem very authentic to be 'modern' the rest of the year and then suddenly go sub-Victorian in December! Maybe I should deliberately attend a charismatic service the Sunday before Christmas day to see what it's like.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I myself sometimes wonder how worship-band churches manage at Christmas; it doesn't seem very authentic to be 'modern' the rest of the year and then suddenly go sub-Victorian in December! Maybe I should deliberately attend a charismatic service the Sunday before Christmas day to see what it's like.

A surprising number of hymns can be done with a rock band... Come to my church's Christmas service and see what you think!
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I myself sometimes wonder how worship-band churches manage at Christmas; it doesn't seem very authentic to be 'modern' the rest of the year and then suddenly go sub-Victorian in December! Maybe I should deliberately attend a charismatic service the Sunday before Christmas day to see what it's like.

A surprising number of hymns can be done with a rock band... Come to my church's Christmas service and see what you think!
They can be done, but that doesn't mean they're done well [Razz]

Big bolshy revivalist hymns work better with a band than anything older, unsurprisingly.

(former member of con-evo Anglican place that did a lot of hymns, but by a worship band - organ never ever used)
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
A surprising number of hymns can be done with a rock band...

They can be done, but that doesn't mean they're done well [Razz]
Oh yes, of course; Hark the Herald Angels with guitar and drums won't be everyone's cup of tea! (Though it absolutely works for me.) I was just saying that churches with what SvitlanaV2 called a 'modern' style certainly don't have to go 'sub-Victorian' at Christmas. Perfectly possible to keep the same style of instrumentation and service generally, IMO. I know it won't be to everyone's taste but I imagine people who want a 'traditional' Christmas service are unlikely to find their way to a modern-style church service.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Does anyone else have the echo of the Christmas muzak at their local supermarket ringing in their ears?

(We get pop versions of carols all through December and Christmas pop classics.)
 
Posted by Charlie-in-the-box (# 17954) on :
 
I hate "Go Tell it On The Mountain" I saw a video of an old lady and a young teen gal, I presume, is her granddaughter, singing this song in "twang". Their bodies were frozen. All that moved were their lips. The young lady was sporting a Farrah Fawcett wing "flip" big hair-do and, yes, this was after the year 2000. Ever since I have hated that song. I keep picturing them and that stupid pause, and then that chorus....GAG GAG GAG [Projectile]

[ 05. January 2014, 15:19: Message edited by: Charlie-in-the-box ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Our God reigns (How lovely on the mountains).

Ultra-repetitive.

And nearly every performance ends up sounding like the Mike Sammes Singers on valium
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Our God reigns (How lovely on the mountains).

Ultra-repetitive.

And nearly every performance ends up sounding like the Mike Sammes Singers on valium

Stupid tune as well.
 
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Charlie-in-the-box:
I hate "Go Tell it On The Mountain" ...

That's the one where the harmony on the chorus sounds like they're singing, "Go t' 'Ell"?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Our God reigns (How lovely on the mountains).

Ultra-repetitive.

And nearly every performance ends up sounding like the Mike Sammes Singers on valium

Actually, I always have to restrain myself from asking if they are worshipping Jupiter Pluvius.

[ 08. January 2014, 21:30: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 
It wouldn't be the Easter Vigil without

"Zi------on! Holy mountain, sacred city, lead me on!"

(see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.religion.christian/OR65Gv6vigg ) but we are not allowed to say "Y----h" any longer so we have to say "Father" instead which doesn't really scan.

I'm not sure what to make of it - on the one hand it seems incredibly quaint and seventies, a bit of a word salad complete with obligatory clapping. On the other hand it's undeniably a joyful and upbeat way of celebrating Easter and seems to slot nicely into that point in the Holy Week services.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
It wouldn't be the Easter Vigil without

"Zi------on! Holy mountain, sacred city, lead me on!"

(see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.religion.christian/OR65Gv6vigg ) but we are not allowed to say "Y----h" any longer so we have to say "Father" instead which doesn't really scan.

I'm not sure what to make of it - on the one hand it seems incredibly quaint and seventies, a bit of a word salad complete with obligatory clapping. On the other hand it's undeniably a joyful and upbeat way of celebrating Easter and seems to slot nicely into that point in the Holy Week services.

I've been to 50 Easter Vigils over the years and have never encountered that song.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Good Friday had me weeping...too many hymns to mention, stuffed full of "Hallelujahs!"

Honestly, I ask you!
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Good Friday had me weeping...too many hymns to mention, stuffed full of "Hallelujahs!"

Honestly, I ask you!

As one who has planned Triduum liturgies, I can honestly say that the pewfolk overwhelmingly want music that pulls at their heartstrings....in particular, they want to get misty-eyed, especially on Good Friday. I had thought that was an American thing, a reflection of the romanticism one found in American religion in the between-war depression years, but it seems to spread beyond these shores. Favored are the Revivalist classics, with their first-person point of view and dancy or dour tempos, all sung very sloooowwly.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
I think this is probably the right place for this rant.

In the 1978 BCP, it says that you can start the Eucharist at the Vigil with the Easter proclamation, followed by a Gloria, Te Deum, or Pascha Nostrum. Now there are a lot of fantastic settings of the Te Deum out there, and since sung morning prayer doesn't really happen here in the States, we don't get to sing them very often. So choir directors seem to think that they must program a Te Deum for the Vigil, as it is probably their only chance to sing one.

No complaints about the music, mind you. We have done the Howells Col. Reg. Te Deum for the last three years, and it is a glorious piece of music.

But when you have been sitting in church for the last three days and finally get to the Easter proclamation, the last thing anyone needs (especially the choir, who have two services left to sing the next day) is an eight-and-a-half minute scream fest. About three minutes in, the congregation stops ringing their bells, and after about five minutes, they start to look a bit annoyed.

Sorry, choir directors of America. I don't care how fantastic the setting is, programing a Te Deum at the Vigil is just cruel.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Olaf: Favored are the Revivalist classics, with their first-person point of view and dancy or dour tempos, all sung very sloooowwly.
And then exported over here!!

I often find myself deeply moved on Good Friday so I understand that there can be an emotional element to our worship but it's about an appropriate match of words to occasion. However that's just me perhaps...
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Favored are the Revivalist classics, with their first-person point of view and dancy or dour tempos, all sung very sloooowwly.

I'll hold my hand up and admit to a liking for singing "Old rugged cross" on Good Friday.And having been delegated the task of ordering the Good Friday liturgy the last couple of years that's what we've had [Smile] .
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Our lot sang "The old rugged cross" on Easter Day.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Ken: I should think that caused a few raised eyebrows.

I have scheduled Lift high the Cross on Easter Day before now but wouldn't make a habit of it.

As for places that have Hallelujahs on Good Friday [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

Point about the Te Deum laudamus at the Easter Vigil: yes, it can be overlong - maybe they should find a shorter setting or see about a metrical version that the congregation could join in with? Charles Wesley wrote a fairly good 3 verse one (but don't use the Barnby tune, which is a shocker).
 
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Ken: I should think that caused a few raised eyebrows.

I have scheduled Lift high the Cross on Easter Day before now but wouldn't make a habit of it.

As for places that have Hallelujahs on Good Friday [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

Point about the Te Deum laudamus at the Easter Vigil: yes, it can be overlong - maybe they should find a shorter setting or see about a metrical version that the congregation could join in with? Charles Wesley wrote a fairly good 3 verse one (but don't use the Barnby tune, which is a shocker).

"Holy God we praise your name" ?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
No, Infinite God, to thee we raise which is the first, second and fifth verses of a 14 verse metrical Te Deum that appeared in his 'Hymns for Those that Seek and Those that Have Redemption in the Blood of Jesus Christ' (London, 1747).
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Slick title.

I don't think picking a hymn is what the choir directors have in mind. This is their one chance all year to program their favorite Te Deum setting, and damn it, they are going to do it!
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Slick title.

I don't think picking a hymn is what the choir directors have in mind. This is their one chance all year to program their favorite Te Deum setting, and damn it, they are going to do it!

Although I knew about the three options, I have never seen anything other than the Gloria used. Furthermore, I'm surprised there are any Episcopal choir directors who remember Morning Prayer at all! I do agree that 8+ minutes is unacceptable. As a pew-warmer, I just want to belt out the Gloria on my own for the first time in seven weeks (anybody lucky enough to get a sung one for midweek feasts had better just stay put and deal with Howells!)

As a fan of the Vigil who hopes it catches on, I don't want to see it unnecessarily prolonged. Scares away the non-liturgy buffs.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Og

A solution would be to have a congregational Gloria in the relevant place: the choir could sing a Te Deum at the Offertory which members of the congregation could either sit and listen to or use as background music for exchanging the Peace... [Biased]
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
Came across an impressive example of shoehorning PSA into any hymn about the Cross today.

quote:
You were lifted on a tree,
Crying 'Father God, forgive them,
Place their punishment on Me'

No Stuart Townend that is not what Jesus said on the cross, that was 'Father Forgive them, they do not know what they are doing' nothing whatsoever about punishment. I can just about live with PSA as one emphasis, but twisting Christ's words to include it is several steps too far.

Carys
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
O come on! Did you expect anything different from Townend? If he was asked to write a birthday ditty for his granny's 100th birthday party, he'd include a reference to PSA.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
Sorry for the double post...

Don't know if it has been mentioned before, but since coming to Canada I have been "introduced" to the songs of Marty Haugan. Lots of people love him, apparently. Hmmmm. Not me. Rather empty lyrics sung to stodgy tunes. Just don't get it.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Marty Haugen: I can't listen to anything of his without being reminded of The Little House on the Prairie and The Waltons.

Sure, when you first encounter him you can play 'Spot the ripped-off tune' but even that palls after a while.

And the performances of his music: done by professionals it sounds like the Mike Sammes singers; attempted by congregations live it can be cringe-makingly bad.

A less forgiving colleague calls MH's style Worship interruptus since it oozes its way from semi-climax to semi-climax with almost nothing in between.

Its enough to make the baby Jesus weep.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
O come on! Did you expect anything different from Townend? If he was asked to write a birthday ditty for his granny's 100th birthday party, he'd include a reference to PSA.

I wasn't surprised by the PSA reference in the hymn, but I expect better respect for the words of our Lord as reported by Holy Scripture from an evangelical.

Carys
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
O come on! Did you expect anything different from Townend? If he was asked to write a birthday ditty for his granny's 100th birthday party, he'd include a reference to PSA.

I wasn't surprised by the PSA reference in the hymn, but I expect better respect for the words of our Lord as reported by Holy Scripture from an evangelical.

Carys

Oh Carys. Bless you for your sweet innocence! Surely you know that PSA always trumps everything - even Biblical accuracy. Have you never played "Evo Top Trumps"?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
O come on! Did you expect anything different fromTownend? If he was asked to write a birthday ditty for his granny's 100th birthday party, he'd include a reference to PSA.

That was, pretty much, my view of Townend's songwriting, though I love him as a tunesmith. However, I notice that "love incarnate" is 12 years old now, and these days he seems to have lost his obsession with PSA, and is even writing sons that imply movement on certain Dead Horse issues. Experience changes theology.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
Just come across these beauties in a hymn book. First of all there is this:

quote:
O beautiful Gaia, O Gaia, calling us home,
O beautiful Gaia, calling us on.

Soil yielding its harvest, O Gaia, calling us home,
Soil yielding its harvest, calling us on.
Refrain
Waves crashing on granite, O Gaia, calling us home.
Waves crashing on granite, calling us on.
Refrain
Pine bending in windstorm, O Gaia, calling us home.
Pine bending in windstorm, calling us on.
Refrain
Loon nesting in marshland, O Gaia, calling us home.
Loon nesting in marshland, calling us on.

Heaven knows - I'm no Evo Fundie. But I'm really not sure what this is doing in a Christian hymn book.

And secondly:
quote:
Mother Earth, our mother birthing
Ev’ry creature on the land
Jesus too was flesh and breathing,
Kin to all that's green and brown.
Celebrate with all creation:
God has joined the web of life.

Sister Air, our sister lifting
Ev’ry creature born with wing;
Jesus shared the breath of forests,
Breath that makes our spirits sing.
Celebrate with all creation:
God has joined the web of life.

Brother Water, brother pulsing
Deep through ev’ry vein and sea,
Jesus drank the very raindrops
For our wine and in our tea.
Celebrate with all creation:
God has joined the web of life.

Father Fire, our father burning
With the sacred urge to live.
Jesus' death completes the cycle,
Bringing life beyond the grave.
Celebrate with all creation:
God has joined the web of life.

O dear, o dear, o dear.....

Jesus drank the very raindrops
For our wine and in our tea.
[Ultra confused]
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Dear Lord. [Eek!]

St. Francis did vastly better...
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Dear Lord. [Eek!]

St. Francis did vastly better...

Bobby Bare did vastly better...


Drop kick me, Jesus, through the goalposts of life
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Don't forget Telephone to Glory. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Dear Lord. [Eek!]

St. Francis did vastly better...

Bobby Bare did vastly better...


Drop kick me, Jesus, through the goalposts of life

Someone on The Ship pointed this song out years ago, and I've always wondered a bit - is it seriously an actual proper song, or is he taking the piss?
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Dear Lord. [Eek!]

St. Francis did vastly better...

Bobby Bare did vastly better...


Drop kick me, Jesus, through the goalposts of life

Someone on The Ship pointed this song out years ago, and I've always wondered a bit - is it seriously an actual proper song, or is he taking the piss?
That was probably me! It's a personal favourite and I love mentioning it if I possibly can.

As for your question - I think it's semi-serious. Clearly it's an absurd image, but at the same time I suspect that the underlying sentiments of the song are meant.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
The combination of football and messaging about Jesus is a sure bet in the Bible Belt.

Where else do you get praying before and after the game while demanding the brutality of the actual game?
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

Drop kick me, Jesus, through the goalposts of life

One local church that I know of sings it (in the "contemporary" service) every year on Superbowl Sunday.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Horseman Bree: The combination of football and messaging about Jesus is a sure bet in the Bible Belt.
Moving to a different sport, I guess many will be familiar with The Ball Game by Sister Wynona Carr. I rather like it.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Horseman Bree: The combination of football and messaging about Jesus is a sure bet in the Bible Belt.
Moving to a different sport, I guess many will be familiar with The Ball Game by Sister Wynona Carr. I rather like it.
Love it! Just forwarded it to the praise band. (Gosh, what if they take me seriously?)
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The Ball Game by 'Sister' Wynona Carr is a very clever song, especially with the quote in the intro from 'Take me out to the ball game'.

But I'm amazed its taken so long for some people to get around to this song - 60+ years from when it was recorded.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Don't forget Telephone to Glory. [Ultra confused]

My mother, who was raised as a Pentecostal, used to sing snatches of this around the house as I was growing up, so I have fond (rather than 'crappy') memories associated with it. I've never come across it at any church I've attended.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
Sang one of my least favourite hymns today: Love is his word, love is his way; words by Luke Connaughton to the tune Cresswell. What a load of doggerel gibberish. Also the tune sounds as though it comes from a kindergarten. It was very difficult to stand in the choir and spout such drivel. I'm still cringing. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
...the tune Cresswell... Also the tune sounds as though it comes from a kindergarten. [Eek!]

No relation to our Mad Scientist, I hope.
[Biased]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Its one of the many ditties we owe to the publishing of the Ma***w juggernaut...

Pure doggerel, with a tune that Anthony Milner must have taken a good 5 minutes to knock-out.

Banned at my place - but much loved, so I'm told, by + John Hind.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Don't forget Telephone to Glory. [Ultra confused]

My mother, who was raised as a Pentecostal, used to sing snatches of this around the house as I was growing up, so I have fond (rather than 'crappy') memories associated with it. I've never come across it at any church I've attended.
I've never heard it sung congregationally, and it's certainly lightweight, but I find it interesting as one of the few examples of Christian hymns and songs which use technological imagery.

On another subject,we attended a Samoan church yesterday, where I encountered this "hymn" for the first time.

http://www.klangwesley.com/songs.php?songID=30

Ok, it's crap, but they sang it at a million decibels and at a million miles an hour, after which there was a time of greeting one another, at which they all hugged and kissed us, never having met us before, so I'm happy to cut them a bit of hymnological slack.
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Don't forget Telephone to Glory. [Ultra confused]

My mother, who was raised as a Pentecostal, used to sing snatches of this around the house as I was growing up, so I have fond (rather than 'crappy') memories associated with it. I've never come across it at any church I've attended.
I've never heard it sung congregationally, and it's certainly lightweight, but I find it interesting as one of the few examples of Christian hymns and songs which use technological imagery.


What about 'Turn your radio on'

[ 26. October 2014, 22:33: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Banned at my place - but much loved, so I'm told, by + John Hind.

Indeed, many's the time I've sung it at Chichester Cathedral
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
I actually sang "Telephone to Glory" in the congregation of a Pentecostal church in Cambridge about 25 years ago. It has more verses than the link you posted. There was one about having interference from Satan on the line, as far as I remember.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
..."Telephone to Glory" ...has more verses than the link you posted. There was one about having interference from Satan on the line, as far as I remember.

"Fail to get the answer, Satan’s crossed your wire,"...
5 verses at Hymntime
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
They played this one today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nQYbK9-Iew

Seems to say people who are physically disabled should just take their mat up and walk. Just takes faith to make you whole.

Half my friends walk with a cane, or have COPD, or Parkinson's, or etc. Do you want to be well? Of course. Take your mat up and walk. Huh?

I believe in miracle healing, I've seen it, I've experienced it, but it isn't something most (or any?) of us can just decide to do! So I feel this song is accusative - if you aren't whole it's because you lack faith or lack willingness to try.

Am I being over-sensitive to "beautiful" and "inspirational" lyrics (what one healthy friend said), or are the lyrics insensitive to the reality of pain and disability (what I think), or am I misunderstanding the song's message?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
They played that at a service? For real?
[Waterworks] [Projectile] [Killing me]

Yes, the lyrics are offensive and yes, they do imply that the guy on the mat can just pick it up and skip around like a spring lamb.

I just can't get over the whole ghastliness of it all as a package... [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Oh dear, I just listened to that whilst eating my breakfast.....
ISTM that there are a few issues here:
Firstly to my mind this is not a song to be used for public worship as it is far more of a performance piece for those who like this style of music.
Secondly the way he has used the words "Take up your mat and walk" is metaphorical. As such in a concert setting perhaps he can get away with it but not in a church service context where people might end up feeling marginalised as a result.
On a personal note those very words spoke clearly and metaphorically to me several years ago and led to me extricating myself from a very tricky situation. But it was private and personal and not appropriate for public and it wasn't about physical healing either!
Finally this is where the crossover happens, where the personal becomes public and some will resonate with it and others certainly not and we walk a challenging path of discerning which types of music and lyrics are right for public worship.

We sang a few jaunty little numbers for "Golden Bells" on Sunday.....oh dear!
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
You don't seriously mean that they played that abomination in church! And have you read the comments from people on the Youtube page? Oh dear, I despair for the future of music. I think if they played that at my church I wouldn't be taking my mat and walking. I'd take my bat and ball and run far away.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
You don't seriously mean that they played that abomination in church! And have you read the comments from people on the Youtube page? Oh dear, I despair for the future of music. I think if they played that at my church I wouldn't be taking my mat and walking. I'd take my bat and ball and run far away.

To be fair, the Youtube video was performance stylistically. This church used just the usual amplified acoustic guitar, playing it more of a folk/ballad style than the Youtube version.

The words bug me, but one friend called it "beautiful." That's why I wondered if I was mistakenly understanding the song. But I've also noticed a lot of people don't really listen to the words of a song they sing. Toss in a few nice sounding phrases they'll like it even of there's no overall sense to it.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
You don't seriously mean that they played that abomination in church! And have you read the comments from people on the Youtube page? Oh dear, I despair for the future of music. I think if they played that at my church I wouldn't be taking my mat and walking. I'd take my bat and ball and run far away.

To be fair, the Youtube video was performance stylistically. This church used just the usual amplified acoustic guitar, playing it more of a folk/ballad style than the Youtube version.

The words bug me, but one friend called it "beautiful." That's why I wondered if I was mistakenly understanding the song. But I've also noticed a lot of people don't really listen to the words of a song they sing. Toss in a few nice sounding phrases they'll like it even of there's no overall sense to it.

I find it very hard not to consider such people to be bleedin' cretins. But that's just me.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Spot on, Karl.

Its the appalling 'lyrics' that depress more than anything else - and so much modern 'worship music' is just vacuous.

Compare and contrast the words of This is the Day the Lord has made by Isaac Watts with Thank you Lord for this new day.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Spot on, Karl.

Its the appalling 'lyrics' that depress more than anything else - and so much modern 'worship music' is just vacuous.

Compare and contrast the words of This is the Day the Lord has made by Isaac Watts with Thank you Lord for this new day.

At least that latter is meant to be a children's song. Don't get me started on grown adults doing children's action songs with the actions, often whilst the children themselves look on in embarrassment...

[ 03. December 2014, 11:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
A friend and I came to the conclusion that a number of worship songs are designed (possibly unconsciously) to work like mantras, and bypass the part of the mind which would be engaged with more traditional hymns. Like Hare Krishna. Only less honest about it.
He was working on a parody at the time. Only it failed because it had too many ideas in it.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
A friend and I came to the conclusion that a number of worship songs are designed (possibly unconsciously) to work like mantras, and bypass the part of the mind which would be engaged with more traditional hymns. Like Hare Krishna. Only less honest about it.
He was working on a parody at the time. Only it failed because it had too many ideas in it.

I did a parody or three in my time. The problem is they tend to be either completely silly, or fall foul of Poe's Law.

I was unreasonably pleased with Boring is the song

Boring is the song x4
Repetitive is the song x4
Tiresome is the song x4

...and so on. I also presume most people of a certain vintage are familiar with This is yet another boring Kendrick song

Then there was I can play too many chords now; they're going to throw me out of the worship group which went IIRC to a Kendrick tune.

[ 03. December 2014, 12:49: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Now, as a Travelling Wilburies style listen along whilst you're cooking, as a description of the experiences of the person singing the song, the first 3 minutes of that "Take your mat up and walk" is not too bad. Better that than the latest sub-Coldplay / U2 ooh look at my new guitar FX cobblers from Mr Redman.

But as a congregational hymn - awful! Just no.

I used to write parodies too. A girl has to keep busy when she's stuck behind the piano during a long service. I wrote a nice one about biscuits once. And another that is far too filthy to describe. Frankly, if your actual song contains the words "Your love is surprising, I can feel it rising", the parody writer's job is already half done.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Now, as a Travelling Wilburies style listen along whilst you're cooking, as a description of the experiences of the person singing the song, the first 3 minutes of that "Take your mat up and walk" is not too bad. Better that than the latest sub-Coldplay / U2 ooh look at my new guitar FX cobblers from Mr Redman.

But as a congregational hymn - awful! Just no.

I used to write parodies too. A girl has to keep busy when she's stuck behind the piano during a long service. I wrote a nice one about biscuits once. And another that is far too filthy to describe. Frankly, if your actual song contains the words "Your love is surprising, I can feel it rising", the parody writer's job is already half done.

It's hard to beat "Jesus take me as I am/I can come no other way" or "Lord you put a tongue in my mouth" really, isn't it?

Some of us at our church recently voted "Isn't he beautiful" not only the worst worship song of all time, but the worst song of any kind of all time. We did give it some more fitting words:

Cootchie-coo, little God
Little God, cootchie-coo
Ain't he sweet?
Baby God?
Cootchie-coo?


[ 03. December 2014, 13:12: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
I'd forgotten about "Isn't he beautiful?" [Projectile] I think your congregation's words are a huge improvement! [Big Grin]
And what about "When I feel the touch of your hand upon my knee"?

Whilst looking through a box of music in the loft the other day, I came across "Behold his love, I stand amazed". Snigger.

Eta: Even re-reading that made me snigger all over again. I fear there may be no hope for me.

[ 03. December 2014, 13:37: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I thank God daily for the English Hymnal and a PCC that refuses to 'move with the times' [Angel]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I thank God daily for the English Hymnal and a PCC that refuses to 'move with the times' [Angel]

There's moving, and there's changing. And there's expanding.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I'd forgotten about "Isn't he beautiful?" [Projectile] I think your congregation's words are a huge improvement! [Big Grin]
And what about "When I feel the touch of your hand upon my knee"?

.

It's life, not knee, isn't it? Surely? Please?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Don't worry, we go far beyond the EH (or NEH) but the rule for the introduction of all new material is that it is (a) theologically sound; (b) literate; (c) of musical worth; and (d) it is within the range of possibility that we can do it properly.

So, we can on occasion do Sing of the Lord's goodness because we can get it to move the way it should - which, bearing in mind it is almost a direct rip-off from Dave Brubeck's Take Five, isn't as easy as people think. We can also do complex bits of Bach and Haydn because yours truly is prepared to spend hours making sure the accompaniment is right.

We don't do Thank you, Lord, for this new day because it doesn't fulfil the criteria at (b) and (c).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I wish that there were more churches that are prepared to range so widely! [Smile]
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I'd forgotten about "Isn't he beautiful?" [Projectile] I think your congregation's words are a huge improvement! [Big Grin]
And what about "When I feel the touch of your hand upon my knee"?

.

It's life, not knee, isn't it? Surely? Please?
It is life. But since a friend of mine told me that she and her husband always sing "knee" that's all I can think of when I hear it. Which, thankfully, is not too often, these days.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
<snip> but the rule for the introduction of all new material is that it is (a) theologically sound; (b) literate; (c) of musical worth; and (d) it is within the range of possibility that we can do it properly.
<snip>

This is a fab rule, and I wish to introduce it round our way. Trouble is, it would reduce the sound levels to almost Quaker-like quiet.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
we can on occasion do Sing of the Lord's goodness because we can get it to move the way it should - which, bearing in mind it is almost a direct rip-off from Dave Brubeck's Take Five, isn't as easy as people think.

Yes! It's a great hymn, but only if you have someone who can do the whole Dave Brubeck thing.

Our musical director is a jazz pianist and I would really love to be able to get him to do this. Some time soon....
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I'd forgotten about "Isn't he beautiful?" [Projectile] I think your congregation's words are a huge improvement! [Big Grin]
And what about "When I feel the touch of your hand upon my knee"?

.

It's life, not knee, isn't it? Surely? Please?
It is life. But since a friend of mine told me that she and her husband always sing "knee" that's all I can think of when I hear it. Which, thankfully, is not too often, these days.
'Knee' shows a lack of ambition. You need a word that rhymes with touch. Now whatever could that be...?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
we can on occasion do Sing of the Lord's goodness because we can get it to move the way it should - which, bearing in mind it is almost a direct rip-off from Dave Brubeck's Take Five, isn't as easy as people think.

Yes! It's a great hymn, but only if you have someone who can do the whole Dave Brubeck thing.

Our musical director is a jazz pianist and I would really love to be able to get him to do this. Some time soon....

The occasional appearance of this one is the sole reason to tolerate the presence of The Band - really an orchestral group - for the informal non-Eucharistic services. It appeared for Harvest, when I had to parade as a Guide leader, along with some real horrors. Very good musical director on the piano, orchestral level violinists (one plays folk for local dances too) and flautist, arrangement from musical director to give parts to everyone else.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
we can on occasion do Sing of the Lord's goodness because we can get it to move the way it should - which, bearing in mind it is almost a direct rip-off from Dave Brubeck's Take Five, isn't as easy as people think.

Yes! It's a great hymn, but only if you have someone who can do the whole Dave Brubeck thing.

Our musical director is a jazz pianist and I would really love to be able to get him to do this. Some time soon....

Don't forget the drummer too.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
There's a beat-box track available...

There's also the not very good rip-off of Havah nagilah that is almost guaranteed to sound dire unless (a) sung at roughly twice the speed of most churches, and (b) gets faster each verse - basically it needs to acknowledge the Klezmer music heritage I think Mr Ke****ck may have had in mind (or not).

I can tell you that played on the organ at a steady slow march tempo it lacks that certain something [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There's also the not very good rip-off of Havah nagilah

Havah nagilah
Have two nagilahs
Have three nagilahs
They're very small
Hey!

[Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There's also the not very good rip-off of Havah nagilah that is almost guaranteed to sound dire unless (a) sung at roughly twice the speed of most churches, and (b) gets faster each verse - basically it needs to acknowledge the Klezmer music heritage I think Mr Ke****ck may have had in mind (or not).

Ugh! Anything Klezmer just pollutes my ears. Christian faux-Klezmer is an abomination upon an abomination. (Hey!)
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
You shall go out with joy? here sung at pathetically boring church pace. There's a better version here.

We sang that a capella at toddler church when I led it, getting faster and faster.

(There are a few things, like Colours of the Day which I reckon are suitable for toddlers, and am most unimpressed if I have to sing them in church.)
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Anything that involves Hebrew words .... just posing.

Anything with la la la or oi! in it
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Frankly, Curiosity killed both of those versions were grisly, just a question of which one finds the more offensive: that which sounds as if sung by the Mickey Mouse Club or the version sung by a single Soccer Mom. Mehh [Projectile]
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
I have just returned home having had to sing "Shine, Jesus, shine" [Eek!]
I have nothing more to say......
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I'd say that calls for a stiff drink [Snigger]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Shine Jesus Shine is ONLY acceptable when half-cut at Greenbelt's Beer & Hymns.

I was horrified to see it in an RC hymn book - what's the RC equivalent of the NEH, and how can I get it to those poor churches??

*happy singer of Wake, O Wake! With Tidings Thrilling today*
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I went to an Advent service last week, and after noting the complete rewrite of Hills of the North so it wasn't patronisingly imperial (I missed the coral caves, though), realised with horror that I simply could not sing verse 2 of Lo, He comes with clouds descending. (This wasn't as noticeable as when I stopped singing during "In Christ Alone, because my singing voice had gone missing.)

Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.

But we aren't like that, children, are we? Now we can see what happens to the nasty people, can't we, and sing happily about it to that lovely tune.

While collecting that verse from the internet I find that at least one other verse, similarly smug about judgement of others, has never been in any hymnbook I have sung this hymn from.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.

But we aren't like that, children, are we? Now we can see what happens to the nasty people, can't we, and sing happily about it to that lovely tune.


Equally, we happily trill along in "Messiah" to "All we like sheep have gone astray" - as Sir Thomas Beecham allegedly said to his choir during rehearsal, "Might we please have a little more regret and a little less satisfaction?"

BTW the words to "Lo, he comes" are, I think, Wesley's own. I agree that they may seem a little bit smug and self-righteous, although I suspect that Wesley's intention was for them to serve as a warning to his singers. On the other hand, dare we omit them if the reason for doing so is because we dislike the idea of divine judgement?

[ 08. December 2014, 09:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I won't be able to sing Lo He Comes again with a straight face after a friend pointed out Jesus' 'dazzling body'.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.

But we aren't like that, children, are we? Now we can see what happens to the nasty people, can't we, and sing happily about it to that lovely tune.


Equally, we happily trill along in "Messiah" to "All we like sheep have gone astray" - as Sir Thomas Beecham allegedly said to his choir during rehearsal, "Might we please have a little more regret and a little less satisfaction?"

BTW the words to "Lo, he comes" are, I think, Wesley's own. I agree that they may seem a little bit smug and self-righteous, although I suspect that Wesley's intention was for them to serve as a warning to his singers. On the other hand, dare we omit them if the reason for doing so is because we dislike the idea of divine judgement?

K-v-n M-yh-w substitutes 'we' for 'those' in this verse. Unlike some of his substitutions it doesn't bugger up the sense, grammar, or scansion, and so if you find 'those' unacceptable you could use it instead.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
To change the subject ... does anyone else love the Scottish paraphrase "Behold, the mountain of the Lord" to the great tune "Glasdgow"?

It's fine until you get to the verse:

No longer hosts encountering hosts,
Their millions slain deplore;
They hang the trumpets in the hall
And study war no more.

This always makes me think of someone coming in from work, hanging up their bugle on the hat-stand, and going to make themself a nice cup of tea.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I like the substitution of "we".

The paraphrase. It used to make me think of those displays in great houses of all the paraphernalia of war in circles on the walls. Not as good as ploughshares and pruning hooks, of course.
[tangent] In the Iliad, Odysseus offers his fellow bronze age warriors a chunk of iron as a prize in games, specifically for forging into ploughshares. Weapons not mentioned. [/tangent]

[ 09. December 2014, 10:34: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To change the subject ... does anyone else love the Scottish paraphrase "Behold, the mountain of the Lord" to the great tune "Glasdgow"?

It's fine until you get to the verse:

No longer hosts encountering hosts,
Their millions slain deplore;
They hang the trumpets in the hall
And study war no more.

This always makes me think of someone coming in from work, hanging up their bugle on the hat-stand, and going to make themself a nice cup of tea.

Yes, it is a staple of Remembrance Sunday chez nous; it has a rousing tune as you say, but I can't say that it has ever made me think of hat-stands. It looks as if you know a slightly differing version (unless you are quoting from memory and inflating the casualty count ...)

No longer hosts encount'ring hosts,
shall crowds of slain deplore;
they hang the trumpet in the hall
and study war no more.

CH4 has done its damnedest, but this at least has been left unscathed, so that isn't the source of your version. I spent a few irritable moments on Sunday morning wondering quite what its editors could have had in mind when the devised their 'improvements' on Moultrie's rendition of Let all mortal flesh [Roll Eyes]

A while back the panellists on the BBC's Quote Unquote programme were asked to identify the source of this very verse. None could ...
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I went to an Advent service last week, and after noting the complete rewrite of Hills of the North so it wasn't patronisingly imperial (I missed the coral caves, though), realised with horror that I simply could not sing verse 2 of Lo, He comes with clouds descending. (This wasn't as noticeable as when I stopped singing during "In Christ Alone, because my singing voice had gone missing.)

Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.

But we aren't like that, children, are we? Now we can see what happens to the nasty people, can't we, and sing happily about it to that lovely tune.

While collecting that verse from the internet I find that at least one other verse, similarly smug about judgement of others, has never been in any hymnbook I have sung this hymn from.

I take it, therefore, that you have ripped the offending pages out of your Bible then?

quote:
"Look, he is coming with the clouds," and "every eye will see him, even those who pierced him"; and all peoples on earth "will mourn because of him." So shall it be! Amen.

Revelation 1 v 7

And also:

quote:
"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Zecharaiah 12 v 10

And not to mention the Messiah's own endorsement:


quote:
"Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

Matthew 24 v 30

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The trouble is that, whilst that verse is scriptural, most people see it as having a go at the Jews - all Jews for all time.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Look people, older hymns are poetry.

Now, you can look at many older poems and find something that doesn't chime with modern usage.

Take Wordsworth's Daffodils for example:
Nowadays we wouldn't expect to describe a large swathe of growing flowers as a 'crowd'.

Further on, it is unikely that anyone would write A poet could not but be gay, In such a jocund company; - and I'm not only referring to the fact that the word 'jocund' has largely fallen into disuse.

So: why the rush to alter hymns but we leave unmolested other poems which aren't sung to music in a church?

I'd suggest there are many, many things we would all better spend our time and energy on than worrying about the words of sung poems.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Look people, older hymns are poetry.

Now, you can look at many older poems and find something that doesn't chime with modern usage.

Take Wordsworth's Daffodils for example:
Nowadays we wouldn't expect to describe a large swathe of growing flowers as a 'crowd'.

Further on, it is unikely that anyone would write A poet could not but be gay, In such a jocund company; - and I'm not only referring to the fact that the word 'jocund' has largely fallen into disuse.

So: why the rush to alter hymns but we leave unmolested other poems which aren't sung to music in a church?

I'd suggest there are many, many things we would all better spend our time and energy on than worrying about the words of sung poems.

So very, very, very much this. Hymns are poetry, not doctrinal statements. Worry about doctrinal statements when they are made.

Current liturgy, including hymns, is utterly bedevilled, and I use the word literally, by the refusal of those who meddle with it to respect the differences between genres.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
And what is wrong, pray tell, with the Jewish people realising when Jesus returns, that he was the Messiah all along and that their leaders had indeed been wrong and misguided when they persuaded the Romans to crucify him?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And what is wrong, pray tell, with the Jewish people realising when Jesus returns, that he was the Messiah all along and that their leaders had indeed been wrong and misguided when they persuaded the Romans to crucify him?

Presume you mean to be funny and ironical with that. If not, I Don't Know Whether To Kill Myself Or Go Bowling. Just like we were when we took the tune of Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory and butchered it even worse in than our previously inappropriate summer camp song:

Jesus put some money in the Bank of Montreal,
Jesus put some money in the Bank of Montreal,
Jesus put some money in the Bank of Montreal
Jesus saves because he's a Jew


The parody goes on to rhyme Jew with screw, the massive inappropriateness of which I shall spare you, and go bowling just now.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Okay, found a Jesus-is-my-boyfriend song that is new to me:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/almost/yourloveisextravagant.html

come to think of it, it would be better if it had remained unknown to me...

I mean, what?

quote:
Your love is extravagant
Your friendship is so intimate
I find I'm moving to the rhythms of your grace
Your frequency is intoxicating, in our secret place

That's just not right.

[ 19. December 2014, 05:13: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
That is so erotic, verging on pornographic! You'd almost expect the vice squad to come rushing into church if we sang that.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The trouble is that, whilst that verse is scriptural, most people see it as having a go at the Jews - all Jews for all time.

It wouldn't feature on "most" people's radar. For those who thought about it, none (apart from a few UKIP supremacists) would read it in the way you describe. Perhaps your interpretation says more about you than anything else
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I think that's just a little bit unfair. I remember working with a Methodist colleague at Easter years ago, most certainly nothing like a Kipper or a Zionist, who was very, very worried that the words of our Maundy Thursday service might appear in any way to be anti-Semitic.

I think it may say something about one's theological background rather than one's political beliefs.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, found a Jesus-is-my-boyfriend song that is new to me:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/almost/yourloveisextravagant.html

Found it on YouTube. Sung by Casting Crowns, and I find the melody pleasant. [Smile]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DqlLAVm0cg

But the lyrics ... oh my goodness me. [Razz]

quote:
Your love is extravagant
Your friendship is so intimate
I find I'm moving to the rhythms of your grace Your frequency is intoxicating, in our secret place

That's just not right.

[Killing me]

Actually, it seems to be 'your fragrance is intoxicating, in our secret place.'

Which is just as suggestive. Oh dear. [Devil]

[ 19. December 2014, 10:07: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I sometimes think these lyric writers could do with going on a poetry writing course to learn what makes poetry and what doesn't.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The trouble is that, whilst that verse is scriptural, most people see it as having a go at the Jews - all Jews for all time.

It wouldn't feature on "most" people's radar. For those who thought about it, none (apart from a few UKIP supremacists) would read it in the way you describe. Perhaps your interpretation says more about you than anything else
Not so. Have you read accounts of Jews hiding to save their lives because of the way these lyrics are interpeted?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, found a Jesus-is-my-boyfriend song that is new to me:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/almost/yourloveisextravagant.html

come to think of it, it would be better if it had remained unknown to me...

I mean, what?

quote:
Your love is extravagant
Your friendship is so intimate
I find I'm moving to the rhythms of your grace
Your frequency is intoxicating, in our secret place

That's just not right.
I'm hoping the Church School children don't sing this with accompanying actions.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Do Murricans not appreciate the double entendre?

And WHAT is 'spread wide in the arms of Christ'

No, No, No.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Well, THIS American gets it loud and clear.

Yeccchh.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Do Murricans not appreciate the double entendre?

Why wouldn't we?
[Confused]
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, found a Jesus-is-my-boyfriend song that is new to me:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/almost/yourloveisextravagant.html

come to think of it, it would be better if it had remained unknown to me...

I mean, what?

quote:
Your love is extravagant
Your friendship is so intimate
I find I'm moving to the rhythms of your grace
Your frequency is intoxicating, in our secret place

That's just not right.
I'm hoping the Church School children don't sing this with accompanying actions.
Oh my [Ultra confused] ! I just had to look at another song on the YouTube link, Wedding Day, and the first line had me sniggering:

'There's a stirring in the throne room...'

Shipmates of a certain age may remember Major Bloodnok: oh-h-h-h-h-h, no more curried eggs for me!

And I'm afraid I kept reading it as Casting Clowns. Sorry...
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
<Haughty sniff>To the pure, all things are pure.

Clearly some Shipmates have filthy, filthy minds.

If they also have low moral standards, I'm available Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, found a Jesus-is-my-boyfriend song that is new to me:

quote:
Your love is extravagant
Your friendship is so intimate
I find I'm moving to the rhythms of your grace
Your frequency is intoxicating, in our secret place

That's just not right.
Well, Teresa of Avila and other mystics sometimes wrote with an intimacy language, Bible speaks in terms of marriage, but bride and bridegroom usually close the door to be alone, yes? Some things are not wrong in private but inappropriate for a public gathering like church!
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
The other day I sang a traditional CofE hymn which talks about a bridegroom going into his bride's virginal womb. Hang on a minute, said I! I don't attend Evensong in order to sing this sort of smut!!

[Biased]

[ 19. December 2014, 23:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Dear Lord. [Eek!]

St. Francis did vastly better...

Bobby Bare did vastly better...


Drop kick me, Jesus, through the goalposts of life

Someone on The Ship pointed this song out years ago, and I've always wondered a bit - is it seriously an actual proper song, or is he taking the piss?
That was probably me! It's a personal favourite and I love mentioning it if I possibly can.

As for your question - I think it's semi-serious. Clearly it's an absurd image, but at the same time I suspect that the underlying sentiments of the song are meant.

It's real.

http://www.discogs.com/Bobby-Bare-Dropkick-Me-Jesus/release/3435784
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I went to an Advent service last week, and after noting the complete rewrite of Hills of the North so it wasn't patronisingly imperial (I missed the coral caves, though), realised with horror that I simply could not sing verse 2 of Lo, He comes with clouds descending. (This wasn't as noticeable as when I stopped singing during "In Christ Alone, because my singing voice had gone missing.)

Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.

But we aren't like that, children, are we? Now we can see what happens to the nasty people, can't we, and sing happily about it to that lovely tune.

While collecting that verse from the internet I find that at least one other verse, similarly smug about judgement of others, has never been in any hymnbook I have sung this hymn from.

Isn't the melody to those lyrics about as incongruous as Maxwell's Silver Hammer?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The other day I sang a traditional CofE hymn which talks about a bridegroom going into his bride's virginal womb. Hang on a minute, said I! I don't attend Evensong in order to sing this sort of smut!!

[Biased]

Which one's that? And if he can get all the way up into the womb he must be a very special sort of bridegroom indeed... [Eek!]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Possibly the English re-rendering of the Conditor alme siderum Come, thou redeemer of the earth?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Lo, he abhors not the virgin's womb?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Not Advent or Christmas, but Go, labor on ends with the lines:
quote:
soon shalt thou hear the Bridegroom's voice,
the midnight peal, "Behold, I come!"

[Biased]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The other day I sang a traditional CofE hymn which talks about a bridegroom going into his bride's virginal womb. Hang on a minute, said I! I don't attend Evensong in order to sing this sort of smut!!

[Biased]

Which one's that?
I thought I'd written the number down, but I can't find it. I think it's in the early 100s of the New English Hymnal. Not a hymn I'd ever heard of before.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Is it Creator of the Stars of Night?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Well, I doubt the early 100s as those are the office hymns for Eastertide.

Hymn number 1 includes:

quote:
Thou camest Bridegroom of the Bride
or Watchet auf has a line about bridegrooms (#16)
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Is it Creator of the Stars of Night?

I think it's this one.

Maybe I've misunderstood the song (as well as mis-remembering what part of the book it was from). I'm a Methodist Hymns and Psalms girl really, and I still find the CofE stuff a bit exotic.

[Biased]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
oh, that's about leaving the womb- what a relief!
(Tho' a quick glance at Hymnary.org suggests that US Methodists and the UCC use it too. Perhaps British Methodists are, what, a little more reticent? )

[ 20. December 2014, 17:13: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Albertus

But a bridegroom can't leave the bride's womb unless he first.... etc.

Anyway, this particular hymn isn't in 'Hymns and Psalms'. It may be in the newer 'Singing the Faith', but I doubt it.

I don't know if British Methodists are more reticent than American ones, but I get the impression that American Methodism is more heavily influenced by other denominations than British Methodism is, so their most traditional congregations/hymnbooks are likely to have more songs from the Episcopalian tradition. (Similarly, in the USA there are probably more charismatic Methodists who prefer worship songs than there would be in the UK. As I say, it's just an impression.)

[ 20. December 2014, 17:30: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Are you sure it was the NEW English Hymnal?

I only ask because the old (original) English Hymnal had a splendid, if seldom sung, hymn with the immortal first lines
Behold, the Bridegroom cometh in the middle of the night
And blest is he whose loins are girt, whose lamp is burning bright


On the other hand, verse 3 of the office hymn for evenings in Advent is
Thou camest, the Bridegroom of the bride,
As drew the world to evening-tide;
Proceeding from a virgin shrine,
The spotless victim all divine.

 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Albertus

But a bridegroom can't leave the bride's womb unless he first.... etc.


And as I say, I think that being able to get all the way up there in the first place would be quite an achievement....but I think it says that He (Christ) comes out of the womb like a bridegroom leaving his chamber. Not, to me, the clearest of similes, but there you are.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I went to an Advent service last week, and after noting the complete rewrite of Hills of the North so it wasn't patronisingly imperial (I missed the coral caves, though), realised with horror that I simply could not sing verse 2 of Lo, He comes with clouds descending. (This wasn't as noticeable as when I stopped singing during "In Christ Alone, because my singing voice had gone missing.)

Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.

But we aren't like that, children, are we? Now we can see what happens to the nasty people, can't we, and sing happily about it to that lovely tune.

While collecting that verse from the internet I find that at least one other verse, similarly smug about judgement of others, has never been in any hymnbook I have sung this hymn from.

Isn't the melody to those lyrics about as incongruous as Maxwell's Silver Hammer?
In what way?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I really get wound up with Christmas carols that say the shepherds follow the star - grrrr

That's The First Nowell then.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I really get wound up with Christmas carols that say the shepherds follow the star - grrrr

That's The First Nowell then.

That bothers me rather less than "little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes" in away in a manger in or the emotional blackmail verse in once in royal.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
My mother used to dislike that verse in "Once in Royal", feeling that she was being "got at". The author is the same lady who wrote the verse in "All things bright" about rich men and poor having their estates ordered by God". I notice that the carol verse is now often skipped - oddly having taken longer than the estates verse to be dropped.

My grandmother (not mother's mother) grew up being taught that in recognition of that estate ordering she should bob a curtsey to carriage folk, God ordained born her betters. She didn't, though.

Are there any other "of her time" opinions lurking in Mrs Alexander's work aimed at Sunday School children?
 
Posted by Abigail (# 1672) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
...That bothers me rather less than "little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes" in away in a manger in or the emotional blackmail verse in once in royal.

I agree completely about that horrible verse in Once in Royal… but the 'No crying he makes' line has never worried me. I've always seen it as a snapshot of one particular occasion when the baby Jesus woke up and didn't cry rather than a statement that he never ever cried at all.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I really get wound up with Christmas carols that say the shepherds follow the star - grrrr

That's The First Nowell then.

I agree! "Baptist Praise & Worship" gets round this by beginning v.2: "And by the light of shining star ..." without in any way suggesting that the shepherds saw it!

BTW surely this carol gets things right by saying that the star "drew nigh to the northwest" - many folk seem to say that the star shone in the east, but it can't have done as that would have placed it behind the Magi!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
That bothers me rather less than "little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes" in away in a manger in or the emotional blackmail verse in once in royal.

Mind you, I don't much like the vision of heaven provided by "Once in royal" either. All waiting around in white? Sounds like a group of pharmacists who have come to work and discovered that the key-holder hasn't turned up.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
All waiting around in white? Sounds like a group of pharmacists who have come to work and discovered that the key-holder hasn't turned up.

Or a Klan meeting.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Once in royal is rather unsatisfactory on many levels, but attempts to make it better or cut out the bits people don't like aren't that felicitous either - look at the appalling amalgamation of the old verses 3 & 4 in the NEH if you don't believe me.

Look at O little town - most books have done away with the older verse 4 ('Where children pure and happy') but we keep the nonsense about the Lord being born silently in the preceding verse.

But then I try to make sure we include various things each Christmastide, including The Coventry Carol, Behold the great Creator makes and This Endris night - yes, I realise the last two use the same music.

My vote for the Christmas ditty that should be banned forever goes to Little Donkey, with Mary's boy-child and When a child is born tying for second: all are absolute tosh.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I hate that bloody donkey!! It takes as long to play the carol as it did to make the original journey!!
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
That bothers me rather less than "little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes" in away in a manger in or the emotional blackmail verse in once in royal.

Mind you, I don't much like the vision of heaven provided by "Once in royal" either. All waiting around in white? Sounds like a group of pharmacists who have come to work and discovered that the key-holder hasn't turned up.
I assumed it was a Revelation reference so deemed it ok.

As for Mrs. Alexander, I can forgive almost anything in return for her metrical version of St. Patrick's Breastplate (as I've probably said here before).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I hate that bloody donkey!! It takes as long to play the carol as it did to make the original journey!!

I will gladly consign the donkey to the knacker's yard, and while we're at it, here's a whole menagerie of other animals that deserve to go along too.

I do have vague memories of a somewhat up-tempo version of the donkey, probably sung on some children's TV show more than 30 years ago, by someone like Johnny Ball or Jeremy Irons. That wasn't so bad, but most of the time the thing is a tiresome drag.

[ 26. December 2014, 21:07: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I absolutely loathe the "Little drummer boy", so beloved by the unchurched. We even had an enquiry by someone as to why it wasn't sung at our carol service! I'm afraid any sound of ruppapumpum in my church would cause an exit stampede by the choir.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I absolutely loathe the "Little drummer boy", so beloved by the unchurched. We even had an enquiry by someone as to why it wasn't sung at our carol service! I'm afraid any sound of ruppapumpum in my church would cause an exit stampede by the choir.

It's no worse than Ding dong merrily on high for nonsense syllables (which admittedly is pretty bad).
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Can I also nominate O holy night: yes, voted 'the nation's favourite Christmas song' so should be on any delete list but just in case it slipped by...

Saccharine and musically third-rate.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I absolutely loathe the "Little drummer boy", so beloved by the unchurched. We even had an enquiry by someone as to why it wasn't sung at our carol service! I'm afraid any sound of ruppapumpum in my church would cause an exit stampede by the choir.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's no worse than Ding dong merrily on high for nonsense syllables (which admittedly is pretty bad).

The lyrics are on a par perhaps, but the tune to Ding Dong scans much better, there are some nice harmonies and it can be got on with at a reasonable pace.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The lyrics are on a par perhaps, but the tune to Ding Dong scans much better, there are some nice harmonies and it can be got on with at a reasonable pace.

Ooo! There's damning with faint praise! "At least it's quick so it's over and done with soon".
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Ooo! There's damning with faint praise!

I long to see a hymn book entitled "Faint Praise".
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I totally agree re Mrs Alexander and the Lorica.

But I've had a look at the long long list of her other work - one of which had children singing about passing the graves of the dead on their way into church. the dead who could not enjoy the sun and the flowers and so on. The St Patrick was under inspiration.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
Little Donkey pops up in 5/4 some medley or other I remember playing back in my musician days. Cue quips about it being a wonky donkey, but it made it at least a bit less banal (and there weren't words, I think - I think it was just instrumental, which improves it no end). It's never going to be a favourite though :/
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Little Donkey pops up in 5/4 some medley or other I remember playing back in my musician days.

I think that's Rutter's "The Donkey Carol".
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
Could be, y'know - in my hazy memory the dots I can picture look like an OUP edition.
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
You know, when you start truthifying Christmas Carols, you're in deep water. Meek and mild is unknown to kids- or to lots of grown-ups, for that matter.

My vote for the god-awfulest christmas song ever is
Mary, did you know. Totally gagworthy. It is a favorite of teen age girls, who are taking voice lessons, and whose mothers are planning big careers on stage for their super talented daughters.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
You know, when you start truthifying Christmas Carols, you're in deep water. Meek and mild is unknown to kids- or to lots of grown-ups, for that matter.

My vote for the god-awfulest christmas song ever is
Mary, did you know. Totally gagworthy. It is a favorite of teen age girls, who are taking voice lessons, and whose mothers are planning big careers on stage for their super talented daughters.

I love this song - pray tell, why do you detest it so?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
"I saw three ships come sailing in"

Not into Bethlehem you didn't. It's land locked.

In case you think it's camels and wise men - seeing them as ships of the desert - then think again. We don't know that there were 3 (magi only says there were more than one), nor do we know that they were Kings.

If it comes to that, we don't even know if Mary rode to Bethlehem on a donkey. It's more likely she walked.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
We used this version on Christmas Day, and it went down well.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
"I saw three ships come sailing in"

Not into Bethlehem you didn't. It's land locked.

In case you think it's camels and wise men - seeing them as ships of the desert - then think again. We don't know that there were 3 (magi only says there were more than one), nor do we know that they were Kings.

If it comes to that, we don't even know if Mary rode to Bethlehem on a donkey. It's more likely she walked.

Is it not true that ISTSCSI is actually referring to the arrival of the 3 magi's relics at Cologne cathedral?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
I can forgive Once in Royal David's City anything for 'he was little, weak, and helpless / Tears and smiles like us he knew.'
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I hate that bloody donkey!! It takes as long to play the carol as it did to make the original journey!!

I think maybe you are getting Little Donkey and Rutter's The Lame Donkey Song- the 5/4 one mixed up. I wish the Rutter donkey would move in with the Grand Canyon Suite donkey, and be never heard from again. That one is indeed many, many pages too long.

I think Little Donkey is just fine for the four and five year olds to sing at the Christmas Pageant. I like it.

Mudfrog, if you can hate the bloody donkey, I ask you to allow me the privilege to despise Mary, did you know...

The attempts from so many, to proof-text for either error or correctness are totally silly. Christmas carols are not theological documents.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
The attempts from so many, to proof-text for either error or correctness are totally silly. Christmas carols are not theological documents.

No (except for "Hark the herald angels" and "Of the Father's heart begotten"). But I don't think they should mislead either.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
In defence of 'Mary, did you know?' here's Pentatonix rocking it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifCWN5pJGIE

Gorgeous. I don't care if shipmates find this song crappy: I don't.

Same goes for 'O, holy night'. Musically third-rate my arse. I was at a Cathedral Eucharist on Christmas Eve and the choir sang it beautifully. The lyrics are both profound and moving.

That's all for now. [Biased]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I hate that bloody donkey!! It takes as long to play the carol as it did to make the original journey!!

I think maybe you are getting Little Donkey and Rutter's The Lame Donkey Song- the 5/4 one mixed up. I wish the Rutter donkey would move in with the Grand Canyon Suite donkey, and be never heard from again. That one is indeed many, many pages too long.

I think Little Donkey is just fine for the four and five year olds to sing at the Christmas Pageant. I like it.

Mudfrog, if you can hate the bloody donkey, I ask you to allow me the privilege to despise Mary, did you know...

The attempts from so many, to proof-text for either error or correctness are totally silly. Christmas carols are not theological documents.

I hate Little Donkey from the privileged position of playing it in a brass band. Just a chore to play it on cornet...

And as for your last comment about theology and Christmas carols not being theological documents, tell it to Charles [Biased]

Sorry, didn't see BTF's post before I posted this.

[ 03. January 2015, 20:54: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Salicional (# 16461) on :
 
I find the music of 'Mary, did you know' mediocre at best, but the text is worse. How could Mary NOT have known? Gabriel told her, Elizabeth told her, Simeon told her. To suggest she didn't know seems rather like an insult to her intelligence.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
can someone link to little donkey? I don't think I know it. Thanks.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Little Donkey on Youtube - it's still in copyright, so needs permission to use the words and music, although the company have always been very helpful when I've asked them.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
can someone link to little donkey? I don't think I know it. Thanks.

Where ignorance is bliss...
 
Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :
 
Lovely - really reminded me why I retired. Was that the English Hymnal I saw burning in the grate?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Salicional:
I find the music of 'Mary, did you know' mediocre at best, but the text is worse. How could Mary NOT have known? Gabriel told her, Elizabeth told her, Simeon told her. To suggest she didn't know seems rather like an insult to her intelligence.

erm... that he would walk on water? That he would heal the blind man and calm the storm?

Did Mary really understand all these things?

[ 08. January 2015, 19:52: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
can someone link to little donkey? I don't think I know it. Thanks.

Where ignorance is bliss...
You are correct. Ignorance was bliss.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Salicional:
...'Mary, did you know'... How could Mary NOT have known? Gabriel told her, Elizabeth told her, Simeon told her. To suggest she didn't know seems rather like an insult to her intelligence.

erm... that he would walk on water? That he would heal the blind man and calm the storm?

Did Mary really understand all these things?

She had minimal idea what she was getting into, the scene at the temple when Jesus was 12 shows that.

Israel expected a messiah and Mary probably expected as she had been taught by her culture - not the Messiah they got. Bring peace and justice (which surely would mean overthrowing Rome!) yes; walk on water and get killed and resurrected, not what anyone expected. Even when Mary was sure Jesus could provide for the wedding fest (what had she seen privately before that event?), I doubt she had any idea what was coming in the next few years.

I rather like the song, except that (like O Holy Night) it's overdone these days. (Speaking of overdone, last year I attended a Christmas Eve service that did NOT include Silent Night - refreshing!)
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Salicional:
I find the music of 'Mary, did you know' mediocre at best, but the text is worse. How could Mary NOT have known? Gabriel told her, Elizabeth told her, Simeon told her. To suggest she didn't know seems rather like an insult to her intelligence.

erm... that he would walk on water? ...

Did Mary really understand all these things?

Some would seem to think she might have done
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
(Speaking of overdone, last year I attended a Christmas Eve service that did NOT include Silent Night - refreshing!)

According to our pew bulletin, we were supposed to sing it after Communion, kneeling, with the lights dim. I groaned inwardly.

Our priest apparently forgot about it and went into the Post-Communion Prayer.
[Yipee]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Some would seem to think she might have done

Brilliant.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Is Little Donkey primarily only known in Britain, or primarily in the Commonwealth? I in the US had also never heard it (although I did just listen to it on YouTube and understand why it's so unpopular on this thread).

When was it written? Was it written to perform in worship or to play on the radio? Is it associated with any particular singer or band?

I would bash it but I do live in the country that gave us "Grandma got run over by a reindeer" - which isn't a Christian song per se but who knows there might be some church that uses it.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

When was it written? Was it written to perform in worship or to play on the radio? Is it associated with any particular singer or band?

It's for the children.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
"Shine, Jesus, Shine" has been our post-Communion response since Epiphany.

I've never been more eager for Lent.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
[Eek!] you poor thing!

Mind you, one of our small singing group wanted 'Colours of Day' yesterday, but our organist reckoned not many of the congo knew it, so he chose 'And can it be' instead....phew, what a relief!

Now of course I have *two* alternate earworms going in my head, something about Colours of shiny Jesus... [Paranoid]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
"Shine, Jesus, Shine" has been our post-Communion response since Epiphany.

I've never been more eager for Lent.

I can imagine repeated renditions of Shine, Jesus, Shine being a very deep Lenten discipline (followed by I cannot tell/Danny boy for depth of discipline). I'd be begging for a scourging.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
You could always sing Sent forth by God's blessing (tune The Ash Grove) for light relief.

Or for even more scourging, add in a rendition of One more step along the world [Projectile]
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
I feel the need to confess a slight nostalgic moment on the "One more step" front....
I taught for several years in a special school and this was our School Hymn
I would have to play it on the guitar whilst all the pupils (aged 7-16) belted it out joyfully.
Does this place me completely beyond the pale, I wonder?!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
You could always sing Sent forth by God's blessing (tune The Ash Grove) for light relief.
...

Or perhaps one of the many other sets of verses that may be sung to that fine tune [Snigger]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
I feel the need to confess a slight nostalgic moment on the "One more step" front....
I taught for several years in a special school and this was our School Hymn
I would have to play it on the guitar whilst all the pupils (aged 7-16) belted it out joyfully.
Does this place me completely beyond the pale, I wonder?!

I really like 'One more step'. The lyrics are straightforward, and could apply to any Christian (certainly to me), whereas with some of the older hymns the words occasionally seem rather particular to the person who wrote them. This means you have to make more of an effort to read yourself into the context you're singing about.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
There are songs that are utterly fantastic belted out by 7 year olds backed by an enthusiastic guitar strumming that sound beyond naff on an organ with beautifully enunciated words.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
We used to sing One more step along the world at Toddler Church when children left - so moved up to school or moved away.

I'd agree with mdijon - I really didn't want to sing in church things that worked in Toddler Church. Unfortunately I walked into one service to find I was expected to lead the actions on He's got the whole world in his hands. No, I hadn't been consulted. Yes, I refused.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I've never associated 'One more step' with kids, which seems like a good thing, because a Sunday school vibe seems to be the kiss of death for hymns!
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Bad luck, One more step is in all the modern children's hymn books. I learnt it working in schools.

Btw - Toddler church =/= Sunday School - I'm referring to a midweek pram service with both parents and children. And it was one of the hymns the mothers all remembered from their school days.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Interesting. I never sang it at day school in the '70s, and it was never particularly associated with my life at Sunday school. The informal adult choir at my church used to sing it without any comment.

Maybe its kiddie connection is more of a CofE thing? I worshipped with the Methodists, and never attended a church school.

[ 08. February 2015, 13:11: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
My school used the English Hymnal and appropriate settings of the canticles by the likes of Stanford, Sumsion, etc.

I'm told there was a brief foray into something approximating Series 3 but they've gone back to a liturgy that sounds like 1928.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Meanwhile, although there was a piano at assembly for my primary school years, the rest of us plebs in the state sector were stuck with singing along with CDs, if there were any hymns at assembly. (Primary school only, no church services in any secondary I've been near and I've worked in a number of secondary schools)
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
I quite like One More Step, which we had the other week (probably at our all-age service).

Completely differently on the other hand, among the lovely hymns this morning we had St Patrick's Breastplate and Jesu Lover of my Soul [Smile]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I've never sung One More Step at church - strictly a school hymn, in the category of Lord Of The Dance.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I've never sung One More Step at church - strictly a school hymn, in the category of Lord Of The Dance.

You've never sung Lord of the Dance in church?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
You've never sung Lord of the Dance in church?

I haven't, either. I'd join Pomona as ranking it strictly school assembly material, along with "when I needed a neighbour", which I have never sung in church either.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
We had a minister whom I'm sure had shares in the music copies of Lord of the Dance. Unfortunately, this meant we were faced with singing that drivel every Easter. Now that we have a new minister, I'm 'sad' to report that the music for LOTD seems to have become lost somewhere in the choir vestry. [Snigger]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I've never sung One More Step at church - strictly a school hymn, in the category of Lord Of The Dance.

You've never sung Lord of the Dance in church?
Definitely not. I've sung it at Beer & Hymns, which may count, but not at a standard church service. Perhaps this is down to UK schoolchildren singing hymns in school - some hymns get labelled as 'school assembly hymns' and don't get used in regular church services because of that. I would be very surprised if UK churches used it outside of a children's service/uniformed group service - except if a non-churchgoing couple used it at a wedding because they remember it from school.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Interesting. I never sang it at day school in the '70s, and it was never particularly associated with my life at Sunday school. The informal adult choir at my church used to sing it without any comment.

Maybe its kiddie connection is more of a CofE thing? I worshipped with the Methodists, and never attended a church school.

I sang it at school, and I never attended a church school. It seems to be a standard primary school hymn. I was at primary school (my secondary school never had religious services) in the mid-90s to 1999, so maybe it started being used later?
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Interesting. I never sang it at day school in the '70s, and it was never particularly associated with my life at Sunday school. The informal adult choir at my church used to sing it without any comment.

Maybe its kiddie connection is more of a CofE thing? I worshipped with the Methodists, and never attended a church school.

I sang it at school, and I never attended a church school. It seems to be a standard primary school hymn. I was at primary school (my secondary school never had religious services) in the mid-90s to 1999, so maybe it started being used later?
We certainly sang 'One more step' in our non-church primary in the 70s. IIRC it was written specifically for children undergoing a particular life transition but I don't remember whether it was leaving primary or secondary school or confirmation.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I've never sung One More Step at church - strictly a school hymn, in the category of Lord Of The Dance.

Now, I do remember singing 'Lord of the Dance' at school. But I'm sure I've sung it on other occasions since then. Not really at Methodist church services though.

BTW, it should be said that 'One More Step' is in the Methodist 'Hymns and Psalms' book (1983), which was the main Methodist hymnbook until the new one came out in 2011. HP doesn't have a distinct category for 'children's hymns'.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I seem to recall Rabbi Blue saying that when he visited Sydney Carter towards the end of his life, "One More Step" was one of the things he could remember.
When I searched for confirmation, I found this quote from a Rabbi Blue gig about the song: “That says everything about religion that I ever want to say,” he said.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
We had a minister whom I'm sure had shares in the music copies of Lord of the Dance. Unfortunately, this meant we were faced with singing that drivel every Easter. Now that we have a new minister, I'm 'sad' to report that the music for LOTD seems to have become lost somewhere in the choir vestry. [Snigger]

That shouldn't be a problem. Any half decent musician can play it by ear.

Given all the world of Christian Music Drivel why anyone would pick on the Lord of the Dance is beyond me. It's hardly Spem in Allium, granted, but it's hardly Dropkick me Jesus through the Goalposts of Life either.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
What have you people against Bobby Bare's famous oeuvre?

At least it provides for the possibility of a sportsman having faith, albeit in rather simplistic fashion.

And its given many of us much innocent and wholehearted laughter over the years.

Lord of the Dance: can be found in a prominent position on the CofE's own wedding music suggestion page, along with other cringe-making numbers.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I don't see why it's so cringe-worthy. Possible a bit heretical and Shiva-esque but that's a different problem.

Maybe it's the way you are playing it. The Dubliners do a good version.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Back in Lincolshire many years ago the rector would discourage some material, including some recent hymns and songs for weddings, on the grounds that the copyright fees would be substantial.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
There's a song I like and dislike simultaneously.

We are marching in the light of God.

The lyrics:

We are marching in the light of God.
We are marching in the light of God.
We are marching in the light of God.
We are marching in the light of God.
We are marching, we are marching,
We are marching in the light of God.
We are marching, we are marching,
We are marching in the light of God.

Peppy, cheerful fun, but does it actually say anything?

Praise band does it often - two acoustic guitars hitting chords, straight rhythm, no vocal harmony.

I like it as done with instrumental and rhythmic interest but I keep wondering where are we marching, why are we marching?

Am I being too literal, just relax and enjoy the rhythm?

At least it's easy congregational singing, unlike a lot of songs these days!

[ 10. February 2015, 15:33: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I love this one too, I'm afraid! I tend to sing it or hear it sung in black or multicultural congregations.

It seems suitably meaningful to me: it says that God is always with us, no matter what we're doing. Not terribly deep or theologically complex. But let's be honest: we Christians are such a pluralistic bunch these days that it seems a bit hypocritical for us to demand too much theological complexity in our religious music. It proves our intellectual superiority if we understand complex theological ideas, but it certainly doesn't prove our orthodoxy, or the orthodoxy of our group.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Surely one could even worship without saying any words at all or use a much shorter phrase over and over. (I'm thinking taize here for instance, and have often found taize music useful in my personal devotions.)

No, if I were objecting to We are Marching, I would object to the way it's sung in the average white church. It feels like it would do much better with more movement and energy, which is probably how it was originally done. At the end of worship at the United Methodist church I attend, we have a time I call Joyful Racket where all the children, and any adults who want, get a rhythm instrument. That sort of energy does very well for Siyahamba. (Same title, original language, and that's how I think of the song since I prefer the sound of the untranslated words.)
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely one could even worship without saying any words at all or use a much shorter phrase over and over.

Why not? "I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will sing praise with the mind also" - St. Paul (1 Cor. 14:15). Some worship (especially IME in Reformed churches) can be terribly "worthy and wordy", there is a place for simply exalting in spirit as well.

[ 10. February 2015, 17:17: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Am I being too literal, just relax and enjoy the rhythm?

At once too literal and not literal enough. It's a South African song and there's a huge emotional impact to get literal about.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
I must admit that I try to avoid singing this these days, not least because I first came across it some 25 years ago, and it's not the kind of song that ages well.

I can see how it might still suit its original context in SA, but it seems increasingly false for comfortable, white, middle-class congregations to sing it. I think part of the problem for me is also connected to where and when I first sang it. I was in a charismatic Baptist church, at a time when there was a huge surge of triumphalism. We were "claiming" the Kingdom and being "prayer warriors". Well, others were. I was increasingly standing in the corner, feeling rather out of place. This song was used a lot back then because it expressed the rather militaristic mood of the time. It takes me back to that time and the unrealistic expectations that were being stoked up.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
We are Marching can be made to fit The Gummy Bear song with relative ease.

And you'll find the GB song rather more 'peppy' than We are Marching.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
it seems increasingly false for comfortable, white, middle-class congregations to sing it...

...there was a huge surge of triumphalism. We were "claiming" the Kingdom and being "prayer warriors". Well, others were. I was increasingly standing in the corner

I was unaware of the African background until I went looking for a link and heard the opening rhythm. Local praise band does it like a folk song, same feel as "this land is your land."

I think your comment about triumphalism and the contrast to what is actually going on is what makes me cringe a bit even while enjoying a bouncy cheerful song - enjoying less after band leader decreed no off-beat harmonizing, no hand drum, just straight beat melody. (The decree applies to all songs - no harmonizing, no offbeat responses, no hand instruments,those are "not worship.")

The song is a declaration of energetic triumphal movement while we just sit there and then wander over to the coffee or go to lunch. In a younger church with people bouncing and waiving hands etc it might seem less contrast to reality.

I appreciate the various comments.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Am I being too literal, just relax and enjoy the rhythm?

At once too literal and not literal enough. It's a South African song and there's a huge emotional impact to get literal about.
We have sung it in our shack sometimes, but then we have (as well as middle class white British) people who are South African, Nigerian, Sudanese, and Jamaican as well as South American, North American, Belgian and various others I can't list! it seems to go down ok [Smile] .
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It's a good vehicle for the open and joyful expression of communal praise. As seems pretty obvious from that wonderfully evocative video.

One of my favourite Desmond Tutu stories involves him leading a congregation from cathedral to streets during the apartheid era. Police and soldiers had burst into the cathedral and surrounded a congregation gathered for a peace conference and prayer meeting. Tutu advised them that they had already lost, then led the congregation to safety, singing this song as they marched out. Every time I hear this song, I remember that act of courage and my heart is warmed.

I guess the song is like a flower. In the wrong place, and certainly sung "staid and anal" it will be more weed than flower. But that is a consequence of seeking to control and bottle joy, rather then express it freely.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Belle Ringer

(The decree applies to all songs - no harmonizing, no offbeat responses, no hand instruments,those are "not worship.")

What a strange understanding of worship your band leader has. Don't imagine he reads much Old Testament! What would he think of David? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Belle Ringer

(The decree applies to all songs - no harmonizing, no offbeat responses, no hand instruments,those are "not worship.")

What a strange understanding of worship your band leader has. Don't imagine he reads much Old Testament! What would he think of David? [Ultra confused]
LOL, probably "performance, calling attention to self, not leading others in worship."

I'm just noticing how much the way a song is done can make it crappy or amazing.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I've sung We Are Marching whilst doing a conga line, singing it in a more staid environment would feel pretty cringey.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Lord of the Dance: can be found in a prominent position on the CofE's own wedding music suggestion page, along with other cringe-making numbers.

There are some alternative words to some of the CofE's more *interesting* choices of wedding music on Ally Barrett's website - part way down that page are alternative words to the tunes of Lord of the Dance, Jerusalem and All Things Bright and Beautiful intended for weddings.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Ash Wednesday--and of course the first song had to refer to Jesus "walking on this guilty sod." I cracked up and got weird looks.

Y'all Brits are ruining me.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ash Wednesday--and of course the first song had to refer to Jesus "walking on this guilty sod." I cracked up and got weird looks.

Y'all Brits are ruining me.

Thing is, over here the image of Jesus trampling over some poor sinner would actually be the primary meaning of the phrase. "Sod" for turf is very rare; a lot of people wouldn't even know that meaning.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ash Wednesday--and of course the first song had to refer to Jesus "walking on this guilty sod." I cracked up and got weird looks.

Y'all Brits are ruining me.

Ah, yes. Twila's infamous recourse to the rhyming dictionary! [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
I don't think I've ever sung this though:
http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/saint_joseph_meek_and_mild.htm
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
"Sod" for turf is very rare; a lot of people wouldn't even know that meaning.

I am still given annual amusement by the signs that appear outside the local DIY/garden type store: "SOD TODAY".
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Round here it's "turf" that would often not be used. (though grass fertilizer is sometimes sold as "turf builder"). Garden sod is the usual term.

The use of "sod" to refer to a person (in whatever sense), or sodding as an all purpose alternative to fucking, the way the brits seem to use it, is pretty much unknown as well.

John

[ 19. February 2015, 18:42: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
The use of sodding as an all purpose alternative to fucking, the way the brits seem to use it, is pretty much unknown as well.

It is an alternative to buggering.

Helpful Brit advice. [Biased]
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
The only times I seem to use sod regularly are in crossword puzzles.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
The use of sodding as an all purpose alternative to fucking, the way the brits seem to use it, is pretty much unknown as well.

It is an alternative to buggering.

Helpful Brit advice. [Biased]

Agreed. But is it an EXACT equivalent? Is telling someone to "sod off" precisely the same as telling them to "bugger off"?

Is it more rude/crude or less?

And does it make any difference which part of the UK you are in when you say it? During my time in West Yorkshire, it became very apparent that the ejaculation "Oh bugger!" was really very mild and almost completely acceptable in any situation (although I avoided using it in the presence of the bishop - but then he weren't from Yorkshire, were he).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Agreed. But is it an EXACT equivalent? Is telling someone to "sod off" precisely the same as telling them to "bugger off"?

Is it more rude/crude or less?

I think you understand the etymology.

In terms of crudeness, I'd rate "sod" as slightly milder than "bugger". (One of the biggest surprises I had on moving to the US was hearing my infant daughter's pediatrician describe her as a "cute little bugger".)

Bugger is pretty mild, though - you'd have to draw a very fine line indeed for "sod" to be acceptable, but bugger to not be.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I have no academic basis for it, but I instinctively feel that "sod off", "you dozy sod" etc. tend towards a more southern/London/home counties (or perhaps just large conurbations) and mildly lower-middle-class usage, whereas "bugger off", "you daft bugger" etc. are more commonly northern (and possibly far southern - i.e. thick accent territory) tendencies, and more likely to be both working AND upper class usages.

But that may just be a personal tic with no wider validity, with most of my family being a variety of buggers (northern) but my school mates a bunch of sods (southern).

Actually, most of my school mates were a bunch of cu^HNO CARRIER..............
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
...The use of ... sodding as an all purpose alternative to fucking...


That's pretty much what the French accuse us of, isn't it?
[Big Grin]

[ 21. February 2015, 21:05: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Not usually. Le vice anglaise is generally taken to mean a little light discipline, sometimes known as flagellation [Biased]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Oh, that too.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
It was Thinking Day today and the Rainbows sang the Arky Arky song, with a verse I'd never heard before;

The animals they came out in threesies, in threesies, threesies.
The animals they came out in threesies, in threesies, threesies
Must have been those birds and beesies, beesies
Children of the Lord.

(For non-Brits, Rainbows are the youngest of the Girl Guides).
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Without disagreeing about any of the stuff about some congregations singing some songs in ways that are sheer appropriation, it can be so perfect too. Was just reminded of something that happened a couple years ago. We were singing a song in Yoruba, and I was in the choir so I knew a few people were concerned or complaining about pronunciation. As we were singing, I saw some people come in late while we were singing said song. I saw the newcomers join in particularly excitedly with the song. It was all the more noticeable because they were so very quiet and almost unresponsive the rest of the time. I found out at coffee hour that they had recently emmigrated from Nigeria, and knew very little English. They'd come because they were of the same denomination and hoped to find a similar worship experience. Think how fun it must have been to come and hear people singing (albeit with bad pronunciation I suspect) in your own language!)
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
To change the theme: did anyone else know that Michael Saward, writer of "Christ Triumphant" and an editor of that butt of much derision, "Hymns for Today's Church", died a couple of weeks ago? I only came across it by chance (I clearly don't read the right newspapers).
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Yes - he was one of those (few at the time) evangelicals who influenced the wider church.

Before his time at St. Paul's Cathedral he was vicar of Ealing and the vicious rape pf his daughter took place in his vicarage. he was also beaten up.
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
not a crappy chorus but...
We go to a monthly tune club, where Darllenwr and a number of others learn Welsh folk tunes. The tutor has them playing phrases by ear, and then putting the whole thing together. In this month's session, she taught them a tune, had them play it slowly, then get faster. At the end, she asked if it had been too fast for anyone. Our friend Ken, who is also a Reader and a church musician remarked to Darllenwr " you can't scare us, we can cope with "You shall go out with joy!""
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
NEQ

I had to look up your 'Arky Arky' song
[Eek!] [Projectile]
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:


Bugger is pretty mild, though - you'd have to draw a very fine line indeed for "sod" to be acceptable, but bugger to not be.

Interesting. I'd say that the former is a lot milder than the latter - for example, I'd almost always use "sod" as a euphemism for "bugger" and I'd happily say the first in the office but not the second. Possibly a pond difference or just a feature of my upbringing (south eastern English)?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
To quote the hymn:
But thy couch was the sod,
O thou Son of God,
In the deserts of Galilee.


I'd say the two are interchangeable, the b word being very much in everyday parlance, and not just in that well-known military expression KBO (a favourite of Churchill, apparently) and that useful word embuggerment.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Needless to say, K*v*n M**h*w changes those lines.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Of course - what do you expect from an anagram of weak - envy him?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Also an anagram of I've weak hymn
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
NEQ

I had to look up your 'Arky Arky' song
[Eek!] [Projectile]

In fairness, it was being sung by 6 year olds. Though they were being accompanied on the guitar by our minister, and many in the congregation (including me!) were doing the hand gestures.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
NEQ

I had to look up your 'Arky Arky' song
[Eek!] [Projectile]

You have to respect a lyricist who can rhyme arky arky with barky barky, threesies with beesies, and floody floody with muddy muddy. It is a fantastic song for children and for adults who remember singing it as children.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
I'd almost always use "sod" as a euphemism for "bugger" and I'd happily say the first in the office but not the second.

Here is, apparently, the BBC's list of rude words, of somewhat recent vintage. There's some difficulty with the list, of course - "God" and "Jesus" can be swearing or not depending on context, as can several other words on the list.

But for our purposes it ranks "bugger" as very mildly ruder than "sodding".
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
NEQ

I had to look up your 'Arky Arky' song
[Eek!] [Projectile]

You have to respect a lyricist who can rhyme arky arky with barky barky, threesies with beesies, and floody floody with muddy muddy. It is a fantastic song for children and for adults who remember singing it as children.
Apart from the subject matter of course, which isn't really suitable for anyone.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
The animals came out in threesies? What did they do while on board?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
What would you do, locked up in the dark in pairs for however many nights it was?

[ 25. February 2015, 10:17: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Albertus: What would you do, locked up in the dark in pairs for however many nights it was?
Brush up on my Bible studies? [Angel]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Ah, but it hadn't been written yet then! [Smile]
Mind you, I suppose they could have got sewing and made some leisurewear. Then they could have come out in onesies.

[ 25. February 2015, 10:33: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
What rhymes with "onesies"?

The animals they came out in onesies, in onesies, onesies.
Noah, his wife, and all of their sonsies, sonsies?



My favourite rhyme is twosies / kangaroosies.

All together now! Ready to wave your arms in the air? Go!! Rise and Shine and Give God the Glory, Glory!

[ 25. February 2015, 11:19: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
My favourite rhyme is twosies / kangaroosies.

It's the syncopated rest before delivering the last word of the couplet that completes the effect - allowing a listener just enough time to wonder what the rhyme could possibly be. It's a work of art.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
What rhymes with "onesies"?

The animals they came out in onesies, in onesies, onesies.
Noah, his wife, and all of their sonsies, sonsies?



My favourite rhyme is twosies / kangaroosies.

All together now! Ready to wave your arms in the air? Go!! Rise and Shine and Give God the Glory, Glory!

[Killing me]
We used to sing rise and shine at Scripture Union camp in the 90s, it was done very unseriously as a sort of cabaret at lunchtime by the leaders and everyone joined in, even the teenagers.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
I'd almost always use "sod" as a euphemism for "bugger" and I'd happily say the first in the office but not the second.

Here is, apparently, the BBC's list of rude words, of somewhat recent vintage. There's some difficulty with the list, of course - "God" and "Jesus" can be swearing or not depending on context, as can several other words on the list.

But for our purposes it ranks "bugger" as very mildly ruder than "sodding".

Hurrah I have internalised the BBC!
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Not to do with music but 'rude' words:

Marks & Spencer has banned the use of Jesus and Christ - although you can use Prophet and Jihad...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
In what context might you use those words at M&S anyway? [Confused]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Apparently they have a floristry service which delivers (maybe they're part of Interflora?) and someone tried to send flowers to a widow "From all your friends at Christ Church" - and M&S contacted because the online ordering couldn't cope with the 'C' word and the real-person operator wouldn't agree to its use either.

The other two words - I'm assuming someone tried to input them using the online ordering and wasn't stopped??
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Presumably someone operating without much care and attention listed some curse words and "Jesus Christ" was one of them along with "Fuck" and "Shit". I've not heard Jihad or Mohammed used in the same way.

(I guess that people like Jesus Alemany are not getting flowers sent from M&S)
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
It's not quite a horrible hymn, but the thread I remember seeing a while ago on changes to the words of old hymns isn't immediately visible.

Verse 3 of All my hope on God is founded begins:

quote:
God's great goodness aye endureth,
deep his wisdom, passing thought:
splendour, light and life attend him,
beauty springeth out of naught.

In our modern version it has become:

quote:
God’s great goodness lasts for ever,
deep his wisdom, passing thought;
splendour, light and life attend him,
beauty springing out of naught.

Now I'm all for inclusive language, and can often manage it on the spot. If I know that hymns have been inclusified I know when to watch out for it. But the rest of the "modernisation"? What rule says we get rid of "springeth" and "endureth" but keep "naught"?

It means I have to have my head in my hymn book rather than singing up and out as I would do if I could continue to sing from memory.

Gah!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I don't know off the top of my head which hymn book that that is from, but it may be an attempt to gain a copyright in the amended version.
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I don't know off the top of my head which hymn book that that is from, but it may be an attempt to gain a copyright in the amended version.

It's from Together in Song. The practice is referred to in the linked article but, as I indicated, it's more the general farting-around-with than the inclusifying.

Of course there are odd places where the inclusive language has been done carelessly, thus changing the meaning. "Born to raise us from the earth" is not the equivalent of "born to raise the sons of earth", for example.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Indeed. One that raises my hackles is in 'City of God, How Broad and Far'- changing the line 'the true thy chartered freemen are' to something supposedly more inclusive, but missing the point that 'chartered freemen' is a metaphor with a particular meaning and that female freemen are called, um, freemen...)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Indeed. One that raises my hackles is in 'City of God, How Broad and Far'- changing the line 'the true thy chartered freemen are' to something supposedly more inclusive, but missing the point that 'chartered freemen' is a metaphor with a particular meaning and that female freemen are called, um, freemen...)

Yeah, but since most people, me included, haven't got a clue what the feck a "chartered freeman" is, it's a bit lost anyway.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, if it tickles your curiosity you can look it up. I'm sure you don't only ever expose yourself to words and expressions that you are already familiar with.

[ 19. March 2015, 12:42: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
NEQ

I had to look up your 'Arky Arky' song
[Eek!] [Projectile]

You have to respect a lyricist who can rhyme arky arky with barky barky, threesies with beesies, and floody floody with muddy muddy. It is a fantastic song for children and for adults who remember singing it as children.
You bunch of total bastards. We used to sing that pile of drivel in Sunday School. I hated it then because I thought it was patronising and irritating, and I hate it now - and because of all of you it's now running unfettered around the cavernous vacuum inside my head yelling its twee little lungs out.
<mutter mutter grumble> [Mad] [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Which just goes to show that "one person's meat is another person's poison". The point about feeling patronised is important, though, as I think it happens quite a lot in Junior Church/Sunday School.
 
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :
 
I wrote a "praise song" (not a "hymn," which is too "churchy" sounding) …

It goes like this --

Jesus, I love you so much.
Jesus, I love you so much.
You know that I love you,
I know that you love me.
Jesus, I love you so much.

Father, I love you so much … (etc.)

Spirit, I love you so much … (etc.)

Brothers, I love you so so much … (etc.)

Sisters, I love you so much … (etc.)


It could easily be transmogrified into a nature religion song too -- ("Forests, I love you so much … Oceans, I love you so much … etc …")

(Note that I have established copyright on the lyrics since 2008 …)

[ 20. March 2015, 02:44: Message edited by: Teilhard ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well, if it tickles your curiosity you can look it up. I'm sure you don't only ever expose yourself to words and expressions that you are already familiar with.

I don't expect to have to feck around with Google to understand a hymn. Especially given I don't exactly have much chance to do that between seeing the words and being expected to sing them.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
It's not that obscure a metaphor anyway. You've heard of a person being given the Freedom of a City or Borough (e.g. being made a Freeman of the City of London)? You may not know off the top of your head exactly what the rights and privileges associated with being a Freeman are or really nowadays were (heck, I don't, and I am a Freeman of the City of London) but you have a general idea that it means or historically meant some kind of special status or full citizenship of that city which others don't have. That's what it's about.

[ 20. March 2015, 11:56: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Call me dumbed down, but I prefer to sing stuff I can understand without having to research. If I have to research it, my "this is utterly irrelevant" circuits start beeping.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
What a pity.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You have to respect a lyricist who can rhyme arky arky with barky barky, threesies with beesies, and floody floody with muddy muddy.

No, really, you don't.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
What a pity.

Not really. Works for me.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Sure, each to his own. Just sounds a bit limiting to me.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I do have an understanding of what "freemen" are, or were, at least in a local context. Main advantage - no tolls, and exemption from some other city rules. Main obligation - part of the city watch and requirement to keep your weapons in good order.

Female freemen only became a thing in the twentieth century. Earlier the requirement for brute strength and a good sword arm, quite apart from social norms, excluded them.

Freemen were historically lower middle-class, or skilled working class. It wasn't a position for the aristocracy, for whom freedom from tolls made little difference, and who would have their own fighting force, rather than be part of the city watch. Ditto, it wasn't for academics or clergy, but for men capable of working with their hands. Bakers, coopers, wrights, shoemakers, weavers, butchers.

"Freemen" makes me envisage Ankh-Morpork rather than the City of God, but that might be because I haven't come across the hymn "City of God, how broad and far" before.

If I found myself singing it, I'd be intrigued by the lyrics. I think I like them.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
NEQ
I think you're confusing freemen as in not serfs, with Freemen - which is those who have been given an Honorary Freedom of X.

Freemen were those who were not obliged to labour for their hereditary lord - by which token you could say that a Prince of Wales is less a freeman than, say, your average tax inspector.

But all Princes of Wales have been Freemen (of London, Cardiff, etc, etc).

Of course, it would have helped enormously if the first category had kept the letter D which was probably in the middle of their descriptive at some point...
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Albertus said:
quote:
It's not that obscure a metaphor anyway. You've heard of a person being given the Freedom of a City or Borough (e.g. being made a Freeman of the City of London)? You may not know off the top of your head exactly what the rights and privileges associated with being a Freeman are or really nowadays were (heck, I don't, and I am a Freeman of the City of London) but you have a general idea that it means or historically meant some kind of special status or full citizenship of that city which others don't have. That's what it's about.
I was continuing on from Albertus, talking about the same sort of Freemen as I understood he was talking about.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, NEQ, that is just what I meant: thank you for setting out so succinctly what the status could entail. I think- not sure without looking it up- that in the case of the City of London at least, one had to be a Freeman to take any part in the government of the city- so pretty substantial merchants must have had the stsus from a fairly early tiime. Certainly we were free of tolls and indeed when you get your freedom certificate you also get a little red wallet to put it in, which presumably could be airily waved at the gatekeepsrs as you passed through, when such a thing was still necessary. Anyway, this is a tangent, now.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
So have you taken up your right to herd a flock of sheep over London Bridge yet, Albertus?
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
In Aberdeen, there was a fund to stop any of their widows or unmarried daughters from falling into poverty - it provided for their "poore widows and aged virgins" provided they had lived a life "frie of publict scandale"

Not sure if London likewise provided for their scandal-free virgins, but it does fit into the City of God hymn imagery.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So have you taken up your right to herd a flock of sheep over London Bridge yet, Albertus?

I did think about it, for about three seconds. Mind you, for a long sense of historical and institutional identity, how about this conversation between my cousin (who is a Freeman and was one of my sponsors) and his son, to whom my cousin had been explaining some of the rights and privileges of the City:
Son: So whay does the Queen have to ask the Lord mayor's permission to enter the City?
Cousin: Because we won the Civil War...
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Somebody in northern Norway had a brilliant idea in producing an aurora T-shirt. They printed the words "I've seen the Light" on the back. Guess my earworm.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
You won't believe this! I had to play for a wedding this afternoon and they chose the hymn 'Nearer My God to Thee' to the tune Horbury, which for those who have seen the movie 'A Night to Remember' was the hymn played as the ship went down. The words are totally inappropriate for a wedding being more suited to a funeral! The choir dissolved into giggles at rehearsal but thankfully managed straight faces for the wedding. I couldn't help but hope that the couple had a night to remember. [Snigger]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Well, Bib, at least they chose the right tune.

In the James Cameron film Titanic they used the tune Bethany which a band of mainly British musicians would never have used for that hymn.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
At the Chrism Eucharist in our cathedral, alongside a Missa Brevis by Mozart, we had a very loud 'worship group' (just to make sure you couldn't pray or contemplate) singing some excrescence with the words:

and I will ray-ayse him up
and I will ray-ayse him up on ther last day

Apart from all these rays, should it not be 'shall' not 'will'?
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Nostalgia trip or me. I haven't heard that since the '80s.

Like a lot of modern songs I think it served its purpose, and its time has gone.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Oh, and for me- Young Communicants' meetings on Sunday evenings c 1982
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Yes the cathedral called it 'modern' music 'tio reflect the diversity of the diocese'!
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
That's the one that starts "I am the bread of life...." isn't it?

Very popular in early 90s when I was going to big noisy meetings with lots of big noisy songs. It's an odd thing, and it's very high.
 
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :
 
In these parts it's known as 'Toolan's Revenge', named for both it's creator and the impossibility of singing it without the risk of burst blood vessels and/or ear drums.

We haven't sung it for many years mainly because after the 1st verse the lyrics don't fully scan with the music.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
That's the one that starts "I am the bread of life...." isn't it?

Yes
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I actually like it - tho' I think it works best if the verses are sung by a soloist and everyone else just sings the refrain. That gets over the problem with the scansion, too.

I first sung it in 1977/8 - I believe it came out of St. Michael-le-Belfry in York.

[ 06. April 2015, 10:03: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Looked it up in The Hymn Book Whose Name We Cannot Bear to Speak (you know which one I mean, Mr Mayhew) and that suggests it was written in the mid-60s.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
You're right: see here. Perhaps it came to Britain later.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Thanks for the story in the link: just goes to show that sometimes you should trust your first instincts.
Actually it's not all that bad and I have reasonably fond memories of it at a particular period and place. Not surprised to discover it's RC, though- just made for nuns to play on the guitar.

[ 06. April 2015, 19:35: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
I could see how it would work much better with the verses sung solo & refrain altogether. Yes. Much better.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
You're right: see here. Perhaps it came to Britain later.

I certainly remember singing it in the mid 70´s.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I could see how it would work much better with the verses sung solo & refrain altogether. Yes. Much better.

As a congregant of no particular musical skill or talent, I hate this. I don't want to sing hymns where the choir / soloist / whoever gets all the interesting bits, and I get the occasional repetitive "Woohoo, you're amazing, God!" or whatever.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
That's the one that starts "I am the bread of life...." isn't it?

It was sung at my mother's funeral. In my opinion it's one of the very few "Singing Nun" ditties that has any musical merit whatsoever. Like anything else, it can be sung poorly or well.

As for scansion, it's no worse than trying to squeeze a psalm into the tight corset of Anglican chant.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I could see how it would work much better with the verses sung solo & refrain altogether. Yes. Much better.

Na. The chorus is the hard bit with a high F.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Depends on the key you sing it in. I've seen a version in G which only goes up to a D. But it also goes down a long way at the beginning - some might struggle.

But the same problem is true of any hymns which have a wide tessitura - "I cannot tell" to "Londonderry Air" or "I vow to thee my country" to Holst's "Jupiter" are other cases in point.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Is it just me, or is Vaughan Williams' tune for the Easter hymn Hail Festival Day purposefully written so that even when it does fit the words it sounds like it doesn't?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I don't know if it's purposeful - but it does strike me that the note lengths and stresses don't tie in well with the words.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is it just me, or is Vaughan Williams' tune for the Easter hymn Hail Festival Day purposefully written so that even when it does fit the words it sounds like it doesn't?

Given that it's sung in procession, it's doubly difficult - older choir members shuffling round the pews, their reading glasses sdcanning the hymn book and the floor.

I don't think I've ever heard the hymn sung well.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Depends on the key you sing it in. I've seen a version in G which only goes up to a D. But it also goes down a long way at the beginning - some might struggle.

Second note would be a bottom G - I only gained the ability to sing them beyond 10am after a long throat infection. A would have been a better bet.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't know if it's purposeful - but it does strike me that the note lengths and stresses don't tie in well with the words.

To be fair to Vaughan Williams, I think the words are written to a non-iambic metre, so that finding a tune that fits the metre and feels natural was a tough task anyway.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I could see how it would work much better with the verses sung solo & refrain altogether. Yes. Much better.

As a congregant of no particular musical skill or talent, I hate this. I don't want to sing hymns where the choir / soloist / whoever gets all the interesting bits, and I get the occasional repetitive "Woohoo, you're amazing, God!" or whatever.
In general, I wholeheartedly agree. As a congregant and occasional ivory-thumper. It's why musical solos in songs also make me want to commit violence. Er, in Christian love, obv. What I bring to worship is my voice, and I get distinctly miffed to be told I can't use it. I was just thinking about the scansion (or not) of this particular song, and how to make it less tricky.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I could see how it would work much better with the verses sung solo & refrain altogether. Yes. Much better.

Na. The chorus is the hard bit with a high F.
Splitting hairs slightly, but I think I've sung it in A, so the top note is an E. Even so, yes, that's a bit high for me - my range is low alto - tenor - Barry White, depending on how much shouting I've done lately.

[ 10. April 2015, 19:23: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Dafyd
quote:
To be fair to Vaughan Williams, I think the words are written to a non-iambic metre, so that finding a tune that fits the metre and feels natural was a tough task anyway.
Not only that, he tried to have one tune that could be used for the "Englished" version of latin processionals for Easter, Ascension and Pentecost, plus one for Dedication.

The trick is to learn all the verses of each by heart (best done in childhood) [Snigger]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
he tried to have one tune that could be used for the "Englished" version of latin processionals for Easter, Ascension and Pentecost, plus one for Dedication.

Indeed - which is why we enjoyed processing at Christmas or Corpus Christi when we could sing something else.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
OK so it's Mother's Day here in Tunisia today so we were treated to this song in church. [Projectile]

My 13 yr old turned to me and said "That is sooo sickly!" The effect was somewhat enhanced by the mistyping of the words on the screen rendering it that Mum "cleans up my poo poos" as opposed to "fixes up my boo boos" ! Oh the joys of multi-cultural living where things can get severely mangled through linguistic misunderstandings!

At the end the bishop said (with a wicked sparkle in his eye) "Thanks for that very full job description of mothers!"
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Dear God in heaven [Ultra confused] [Ultra confused]

Quite apart from anything else, the word "crabby" here is associated with alcoholic ginger wine, pretty nasty stuff but which I'd be driven to if I had to listen to that crock of s**t ever again.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
AAAAARGHHH! It has become an earworm.

Serves me right for clicking. For the sake of your sanity DO NOT CLICK the above link.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Confession time.
Today, when I was supposed to be singing

I just wanna be a sheep Ba-aaa
I just wanna be a sheep Ba-aaa

I was actually singing

I just wanna be asleep Bah!
I just wanna be asleep Bah!

Anyone else not wanna be a sheep?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
O. M. G. [Projectile] [Projectile]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Do please tell me, NEQ, that that was in some kind of small childrens' service.

What about 'I just wanna sheep- Ba aaa' (come yere, my fleecy lovely...)

[ 19. July 2015, 20:56: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Do please tell me, NEQ, that that was in some kind of small childrens' service.

What about 'I just wanna sheep- Ba aaa' (come yere, my fleecy lovely...)

That's not a line that looks good with a Welsh location.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
It was the song in the children's address part of the service. It's good to be a sheep, because sheep have A Shepherd. [Smile]

The chorus is:
I just wanna be a sheep - Ba-aah x4

and verses include:

I don't wanna be a Sadducee
I don't wanna be a Sadducee
Because Sadducees are Sad You See
I just wanna be a sheep - ba-aah.
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
Oddly enough that song got mentioned in a sermon I heard today as one the minister did not like (the minister having raised sheep in 4-H was not too happy with the people as sheep metaphor in general).
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I just wanna be a sheep

The version we sing isn't quite as complicated as this version - imagine a dumbed down version of this.

Ba-aaah!

Ba-aaah!

[ 20. July 2015, 06:23: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I just wanna be a sheep

The version we sing isn't quite as complicated as this version - imagine a dumbed down version of this.

Ba-aaah!

Ba-aaah!

Oh help! Losing the will to live .... to add insult to injury the word "wanna" keeps popping up arghhhhhhhhhh! can't anyone say "want to" anymore?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Of course, you have to add "just" and "really" to the "wanna" (in any desired order) ....

[ 20. July 2015, 08:38: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Do please tell me, NEQ, that that was in some kind of small childrens' service.

What about 'I just wanna sheep- Ba aaa' (come yere, my fleecy lovely...)

That's not a line that looks good with a Welsh location.
Well, the boyo just can't help it (says Albertus, who is not actually Welsh, thus running the risk of incurring the ire of l'organist, who is...)
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I forgive you Albertus because I realise it was tongue in cheek - in fact I once gave an RC priest friend a Love Ewe inflatable (sure you can visualise!) for a significant birthday.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I just wanna be a sheep

The version we sing isn't quite as complicated as this version - imagine a dumbed down version of this.

Ba-aaah!

Ba-aaah!

Oh help! Losing the will to live .... to add insult to injury the word "wanna" keeps popping up arghhhhhhhhhh! can't anyone say "want to" anymore?
It manages to bve both infantile and anti-semitic
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Haven't watched that video- couldn't bring myself to- but the lyrics I've read just say 'don't wanna be a Pharisee/ Saducee'. Is that really any more anti-semitic than saying e.g. 'don't wanna be a Calvinist/ Trad Cath' would be anti-Christian? (i.e. not really at all)?
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
Damn and blast, I made the mistake of looking at that ghastly video! How demeaning to expose children to that rubbish which has questionable theology. The best thing to do to sheep is to pop them in the oven for a roast lamb dinner.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
What, live and whole? You scoundrel!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Haven't watched that video- couldn't bring myself to- but the lyrics I've read just say 'don't wanna be a Pharisee/ Saducee'. Is that really any more anti-semitic than saying e.g. 'don't wanna be a Calvinist/ Trad Cath' would be anti-Christian? (i.e. not really at all)?

Yes they are - pharisees are called 'not fair' and 'hypocrites; Saducees are 'sad' people.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Do they realise what "I want to be a sheep" implies to normal people?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Haven't watched that video- couldn't bring myself to- but the lyrics I've read just say 'don't wanna be a Pharisee/ Saducee'. Is that really any more anti-semitic than saying e.g. 'don't wanna be a Calvinist/ Trad Cath' would be anti-Christian? (i.e. not really at all)?

Yes they are - pharisees are called 'not fair' and 'hypocrites; Saducees are 'sad' people.
Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. AIUI Pharisees and Saducees were specific sects or movements or groups within Judaism at the time of Christ- about both of whom, IIRC, He had some critical things to say, if we are to believe the evangelists. It's an utterly crap song, superficial even by the standards of the genre, but is saying mildly rude things about two particular subsets of the followers of a religion 2000 years ago the same as attacking that religion and its followers - or indeed the ethnic/cultural group, very broadly defined, of which they are members- as a whole? And if so, why?

[ 21. July 2015, 19:46: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Judaism today is the direct descendant of the pharisaical movementm - so to insult pharisees is to insult rabbis today and Jews in general.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by bib
quote:
Damn and blast, I made the mistake of looking at that ghastly video! How demeaning to expose children to that rubbish which has questionable theology. The best thing to do to sheep is to pop them in the oven for a roast lamb dinner.
posted by Baptist Trainfan
quote:
What, live and whole? You scoundrel!
No, no, no - what do you take us for?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
You should have said ... sounds yummy!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Judaism today is the direct descendant of the pharisaical movementm - so to insult pharisees is to insult rabbis today and Jews in general.

[Roll Eyes] [Snore]
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
L'Organist, that recipe sounds gorgeous, but the song....the song...it's nearly as good - I mean awful - as Mr. Cow.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I should have said that the recipe above was for a lamb - roughly 6 months old.

For larger animals, you need longer cooking time if you stuff: alternatively you open it out (spatchcock, in effect) and cook Argentinian style.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
Or, get an Algerian to cook it for you. Best spit-roasted lamb I ever ate was cooked by an Algerian refugee, using something cobbled together from two old B&Q bbqs.
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
I've just learned of the existence of this monstrosity....

Lovely Jubbly
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
I just wish I hadn't watched the You Tube Clip. help: I don't even like David Jason or Only Fools .....
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
[Waterworks] [Projectile]
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
<Makes little list of people for whom send Doug Horley CDs would be just the perfect present>

It's fair to say that as inoffensive pap for kids, Mr Horley has some merit, and has actually penned some quite good stuff, although most of it is, I think, intended to be ephemeral and for a moment in time.

Lovely Jubbly will not be making the children's playlist at our place, though.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
I've just learned of the existence of this monstrosity....

Lovely Jubbly

I, um, I like that one. C'mon, the video's got a picture of a poo in a frame, what's not to love? [Biased]

And it's better than this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRCuR727QR8

The actual song starts at about 3:30 in, once you've got past the handy introduction and dance tutorial.....

It's awful. But it does have a great key change.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
That MUST be a p**s-take!
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Nope. It is sung, with total seriousness, round our place....
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
From the obituary of Dr Colin Hand in today's Church Times :

quote:
He gave two particular services to music in the Church of England and elsewhere. The first was as a member of the group of highly qualified musicians gathered by Kevin Mayhew Ltd to edit the music of the New Anglican Edition of Hymns Old and New, which has become very widely used. Hand was particularly active in this, and made several hymns more singable.
!!!
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
Start of term services have introduced me to "My lighthouse" by rend collective. It's one giant mixed metaphor. You don't follow lighthouses;in fact you keep your distance that's the point. Nor do they carry you to shore. I spoke to those who had chosen it afterwards and they admitted it was a mixed metaphor but felt it had enough in it to be worth singing. To me that requires leaving my brain at the door - of it doesn't make sense why sing it?

Carys
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Not come across that song, but I have always thought that about using a lighthouse as a metaphor for Jesus or the church. You're supposed to stay away from lighthouses!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Just read the lyrics. Seems trite but acceptable- apart from the lighthouse metaphor. You are my compass, my sextant, my GPS even- but not lighthouse. To be fair, i think lighthouses do serve as navigation points, but this is just lazy.

[ 05. September 2015, 08:42: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Re My Lighthouse - if you follow the beam from a lighthouse you're 99.9% guaranteed to wreck yourself on something nasty. For example, if you followed in the beam from the South Bishop Lighthouse (not to be confused with the Bishop Rock) you'd end up in the group of rocks and islets known as the Bishops and Clerks, a very nasty set of rocks about 5 miles off St Davids - and if you steered round it you'd end up on The Bitches, an even nastier hazard inshore of Ramsey Island.

As for using lighthouses as navigational aids: yes, but only to a very limited extent because you need to know the beam pattern/timings which are all different.

The metaphor of "peace in a troubled sea" doesn't work either: a troubled sea has NO peace within it, only time brings about calmer waters.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I suppose the serious point here is that this kind of song is preferred to, say, Lord Behold Us With Thy Blessing cheerfully thumped out on the piano, because some keen and damply grinning teacher thinks it is more 'relevant' and accessible to the kids. Problem is, it only takes one or two of the sharper ones to pick out the mess in the metaphor that we have identified here, and the message gets out that when you go into a church service you have to leave your brain at the door. Result: Christianity gets discredited.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I suppose the serious point here is that this kind of song is preferred to, say, Lord Behold Us With Thy Blessing cheerfully thumped out on the piano, because some keen and damply grinning teacher thinks it is more 'relevant' and accessible to the kids. Problem is, it only takes one or two of the sharper ones to pick out the mess in the metaphor that we have identified here, and the message gets out that when you go into a church service you have to leave your brain at the door. Result: Christianity gets discredited.

I think there might be an excluded middle lurking in there somewhere.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I suppose the serious point here is that this kind of song is preferred to, say, Lord Behold Us With Thy Blessing cheerfully thumped out on the piano, because some keen and damply grinning teacher thinks it is more 'relevant' and accessible to the kids. Problem is, it only takes one or two of the sharper ones to pick out the mess in the metaphor that we have identified here, and the message gets out that when you go into a church service you have to leave your brain at the door. Result: Christianity gets discredited.

News flash: You can't actually wash things in blood either. At least, not if you want them to come out whiter than snow.

I think if we start eliminating hymns and worship songs on the basis of metaphors that don't quite hold up, we would lose most of them.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
'My anchor holds within the veil' is a classic mixed metaphor.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
"My lighthouse" by rend collective. It's one giant mixed metaphor. You don't follow lighthouses;in fact you keep your distance that's the point. Nor do they carry you to shore.

Interesting discussion. I have friends who collect lighthouses (art) as symbols of being safe, being loved, peace, coming home.

Emotionally, it's the candle in the window. Because you see the light you are safe, the lighthouse keeper is assuring your safety, God is light, the strong sure beam of light in the dark night provides guidance.

That kind of thing.

What's missing is the concept that the light house exists to warn of serious danger, that you don't go to the lighthouse.

Culturally lighthouse has become a sentimental symbol of being safe, for those unaware of the danger reason lighthouses were invented. People go to a lighthouse as a tourist attraction.

The song is probably modern, written by someone with only a sentimental understanding of lighthouses.

But then, sentimentalism is what I dislike about many modern Christian songs. The old hymns have real life verses about pain and loss and death and unfairness and evil behaviors along with verses about God's love, compassion, victory, and our invitation to joy. A few sentimentals, fine, but in the "modern" service that's all we get. Lacks depth.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
LOL, I just wrote a (non-religious) song that uses the lighthouse metaphor too. The fact that it's a mixed metaphor makes it even better!

But to me, it relates to the idea of a sailor who's spent weeks at sea, finally sees the lighthouse, recognises the pattern and thinks: we're almost there. I don't know if this is at all realistic, but to me it makes sense.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
We do another Rend Collective song in church - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbdJXKqVgtg

It's alright, I suppose, and better than the lighthouse one (woah oh oh oh oh oh oh......) although there's a line about "We are your church, we are the hope on earth" which makes me laugh every time I play it.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Jemima: do you attend a church with a large and exceptional music group? If not, how on earth is something like that clip handled by the average place ?

[ 17. September 2015, 09:14: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Jemima: do you attend a church with a large and exceptional music group? If not, how on earth is something like that clip handled by the average place ?

You can do it with a single guitar, if you have to - we do at housegroup. All you have to do is edit the link instrumentals .
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Jemima: do you attend a church with a large and exceptional music group? If not, how on earth is something like that clip handled by the average place ?

Haha! No. [Big Grin] Our place is reasonably sized (80-130 at a morning service, perhaps? I don't count) and the group I murder, sorry, play that song with has: 2 singers, 1 guitarist, sometimes a bassist, sometimes a drummer and me playing the electronic piano. We are not exceptional. A couple of people who are in bands various & do open mic nights etc. The rest of us.......not.

How is it handled? Badly. I'm not convinced that it's easy for a congregation to sing, for all the same reasons that lots of other modern songs aren't easy for a congregation to sing. Certainly from where I'm sitting at the piano I can't hear people singing as well as if we did, I dunno, Crown him with many crowns or another well known hymn.

But there we are. Our congregation is a very mixed bunch, and apparently there are people who like to try to sing like Mumford & Sons really really needing their dinner. I once watched a documentary about a rock band* touring America. There were great rows about what to play in the tour bus, eventually resolved by only playing songs that everyone hated. So 20 trucking greats it was. Sometimes I think we do the church version of that...

*The Wonder Stuff, since you ask.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Well, we don't have even the potential for a music group, not if we're realistic.

On paper we have available (potentially): french horn, 'cello, violin, recorders (all), orchestral percussion, piano, harp, drum kit, in addition to a rather fine classical organ. In reality, one person covers 7 of those; 3 of the 4 pianists are over 85; the kit drummer is tetraplegic, the clarinetist is only grade 1.

On the other hand we have a good choir of 22 adults (max) and 7 children who can sing stuff from Dunstable, Dufay and Gregorian chant to Tavener, Messiaen and Pärt. And we don't limit ourselves to liturgical music - we do a mean version of The Teddy Bears' Picnic and our Chattanooga Choo-Choo is pretty good too, plus four of the men are word and note perfect on Coward's Stately Homes of England.

[ 17. September 2015, 22:04: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Jemima: do you attend a church with a large and exceptional music group? If not, how on earth is something like that clip handled by the average place ?

You can do it with a single guitar, if you have to - we do at housegroup. All you have to do is edit the link instrumentals .
What Jolly Jape said. We have a lot of musicians, and can field a very good band when required, but generally are spread thinner and with more mixed ensembles. However, as long as you have a moderately competent rhythm guitarist you can pull off a perfectly acceptable "Build your kingdom here".

Drop the key and it's fine for congregational singing too - we generally play the capo chords without bothering with the actual capo.

The thing to remember with a lot of the modern songs is that for a congregation you're not trying to reproduce the CD version faithfully, you're taking the bones of it and often dropping the instrumental interludes etc. Or at least you are at our place.

I could (and have) led a church service in that particular song as a singer/guitarist with one other singer and one other instrument and it worked fine. And I'm no great shakes.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I watched that Build Your Kingdom video and was reminded of a Bellowhead set. Bellowhead sings (still are until April/May) basic folk songs with funky arrangements. Taking that song back down would end up with something less busy and more singable. Interestingly, during the instrumental interludes Bellowhead obviously work together to improvise. There was none of that on the video, just the leaping around, brass section and similar arrangement.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I find the Rend clip a bit alarming. The lead singer appears as though he has a serious neurological disorder(apologies to him if he actually does) as he sems unable to sing without jerking his head and legs. Maybe it is written into the score as essential to performance. [Killing me]
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

On the other hand we have a good choir of 22 adults (max) and 7 children who can sing stuff from Dunstable, Dufay and Gregorian chant to Tavener, Messiaen and Pärt. And we don't limit ourselves to liturgical music - we do a mean version of The Teddy Bears' Picnic and our Chattanooga Choo-Choo is pretty good too, plus four of the men are word and note perfect on Coward's Stately Homes of England.

L'organist, that sounds fabulous - I'd pay money to hear your choir [Big Grin]

Our organist is leaving, and for his last Sunday service (on Sunday [Frown] ) he has chosen some of his favourites, among which are:

Praise, my soul, the King of heaven
Jesu, Lover of my soul
My song is love unknown

Great tunes, wonderful words all, full of (as Belle Ringer said) pain, loss, compassion, victory....

I looked at the Rent Collective clips but had to turn them off. I'm afraid I was a bit stunned.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:

Praise, my soul, the King of heaven
Jesu, Lover of my soul
My song is love unknown

I like those. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
I looked at the Rent Collective clips but had to turn them off. I'm afraid I was a bit stunned.

I find that particular Rend Collective song unexceptional, and also completely unsingable by even your most enthusiastic charismatic congregation. But the song itself, and the style, is inoffensive. Unremarkable, though.
(Sorry, Rend. [Hot and Hormonal] I do quite like 'Alabaster' though.)
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
As a matter of, as it were, professional interest, why unsingable? You have to watch where you breathe a bit, but no more so than with say, "Come down, O love Divine", and it's not got a stupid range, as has, say, Tim Hughes "O happy day", or, more traditionally, any hymn using Londonderry Aire as a melody. You have to be a reasonable rhythym guitarist to keep the pace up throughout the song, but it shouldn't be a problem from a congregational pov.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I watched that Build Your Kingdom video and was reminded of a Bellowhead set. Bellowhead sings (still are until April/May) basic folk songs with funky arrangements. Taking that song back down would end up with something less busy and more singable. Interestingly, during the instrumental interludes Bellowhead obviously work together to improvise. There was none of that on the video, just the leaping around, brass section and similar arrangement.

Bellowhead are, of course, seriously competent musicians - although I find their live shows a bit too loud!
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Hahaha! I was just about to cry "sacrilege!" [Biased] Bellowhead are amazing (declaration of interest, I've seen them live about a million times and was singing along with gusto to a recent album only this very morning). They also have a very well developed sense of fun.

RC are not, and do not. [Razz]
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
L'organist - I would love to come to your church & hear your choir. A previous rector did away with the choir perhaps 20 years ago now. So we have very few one who could sing Part or Durufle, and no one to marshall them.

We also don't have any sort of music director, and I think that would help with the music group stuff too. I'm a basically competent ivory thumper, nothing more. I wouldn't consider myself a musician. What we need is someone who can work with the songs - make them singable, transpose if needs be, help the rest of us work out how to make them go, rather than me making it up from youtube videos monthly, which is what I currently do.

We have an ad hoc choir at Christmas, and a small group of people take it in turns to take on the carol service. It is monumentally stressful - I've done it once in the last 10 years and have no wish to do so again. My friend has recently resurrected (hur hur) the notion of a choir, but is very very keen that it is "community choir" like. Most people can read music, but I don't think she expects them to. She teaches parts and chooses music which sounds impressive even though it's fairly simple. She is, frankly, a bit of a genius.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Ahh, poor Rend Collective! They are very very popular with all the ~yoof I know, particularly the Norn Iron ones. I'd rather listen to them than innumerable breathy American CCM artists (although I love Lauren Daigle and Hillsong United).
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Australian
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Hillsong has Australian origins but I was under the impression that Hillsong United as a group includes members from elsewhere.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
....Hillsong United...

Terrible football team.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't find the Rend Collective thing 'alarming', just bloody boring ...

I'm fine with Bellowhead or folky/punky things in other contexts but not in substandard Christian chorus ones ...

It's confession time. I'm fed up of the whole kit and kaboodle of worship songs and choruses. Sure, they have their place - but I'd rather do without them.

An RC priest I met recently who is quite active in ecumenical dialogue - and in social action too, working with all sorts of agencies and people from all sorts of theological backgrounds or none - observed sorrowfully, 'I'd done with all this band-led worship. I go to these ecumenical gatherings and sooner or later, whoever is hosting it, you know what you're going to get - some band getting up and singing at you for half and hour ... There's not interaction, no real means of engaging or participating in it ... other than to sing the same trite words over and over and over ...'

As one might imagine, this chap found more Catholic forms of worship more 'tactile' and three-dimensional.

Sure, it's difficult to think what could be done in an ecumenical context where we aren't admitted to the eucharistic table other than to sing songs, pray prayers and make declarations of intent of some form or other ...

But even so, I found myself sympathising. I used to be into it back in the day but these days I find band-led worship a real turn off - irrespective of how well or badly it's done. Sorry. But there it is.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
...there shall be much joy in heaven over a sinner that repenteth...

Some of us have been saying this for years: still, better that people get there in the end than not at all.

IIRC London's two north bank cathedrals, St Paul's and Westminster, used to have an elegant solution to the potential pitfalls posed by the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity: their two choirs used to 'do a swap' so that Westminster sang Vespers at St Paul's and then Westminster's mosaic walls would resound to the sound of Anglican chant when St Paul's choir sang Evensong there.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Context is everything. Bellowhead are to be enjoyed whilst jumping up and down, post a pint or two, singing along lustily to songs about whisky & prostitution, worshipping at the feet of the brass section, and swooning over other members of the band.

Church singing less so.

L'organist makes an interesting point though about repentance and returning to the One True Way [Biased] What do you do once you have no music director, no one to conduct the Durufle, and no one who knows how to sing it?

I don't like modern worship songs and never really have. I'd always assumed that was largely down to musical snobbery on my part. But other members of my congregation really enjoy them. They won't be repenting any time soon.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Enjoyed isn't the word I wanted, on reflection. Experienced, perhaps. Participated in.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Context is everything. Singing worship songs with a bunch of gay evangelical young people who have been banned from serving coffee in their church let alone leading worship, yet treasure their worship sessions as a group together - that's special, and it's a different atmosphere to your average Sunday evo service. It's not my own preference for 'usual' Sunday worship, but then I have many friends who would be really put off by my preferences (plainchant in monastic chapels, and then sung Mass).

The words or even the music style are totally secondary to the atmosphere and/or individual context of worship.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
These discussions remind me that living in an urban area has many advantages. One of them is that it's fairly easy to find a church that focuses on traditional hymns with traditional accompaniment. There are plenty of alternatives to churches with a taste for (bad or badly sung) worship songs!
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The fact is though, that it's often the churches with the crappy choruses who are doing the most evangelism and - increasingly - social action these days.

I agree that context can cover a multitude of sins ... [Biased]

I put up with crappy choruses and so on for a lot longer than I would have done otherwise because the rest of what was going on compensated for them ...
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I keep having to delete posts here lest they become too Hellish, as whilst I thoroughly understand this thread, at the same time it does rankle with me as being more "profound snobby attitude problem" rather than "unrest" at times. And I look at myself in the mirror as much as any other participant.

That said, I do think there are a number of factors that come into play that are easily overlooked, beyond mere personal preference. In part I think music/songs can perform very different functions and roles within a service. The more I'm involved, and the more I think about it, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that a lot of modern worship songs aren't actually for the same thing that a lot of hymns are.

Thus, if you have a particular expectation of the shape a service should have, what it is "for", and what makes it "work", you can't just swap a Wesley for a Redman or a Kendrick etc., in either direction. They engage one in different ways, for different reasons, and to some extent with different intentions and outcomes.

None of which is to say that there isn't a wealth of both ancient and modern dross at which to point and laugh, but that the tendency to consider all modern-ish output dross shows a weakness or narrowness of understanding; sometimes it's just that one doesn't grock the context for appropriate use. (And of course, very often it's used inappropriately).
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
..the more I'm coming to the conclusion that a lot of modern worship songs aren't actually for the same thing that a lot of hymns are.

This is really intriguing. Could you expand on it a bit, please?

[Guilty as charged to music snobbery. I'm a recovering music snob. I lapse. A lot. [Biased] ]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I know I'm not the person who said that, but generally hymns are for teaching and worship songs are for straight-up emotional worship. In my experience. They're light on theology because they're supposed to be - those who prefer them wouldn't expect a song to have perfect theology, it's about emotion.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Largely what Pomona said, but with a bit more nuance and range. The good old hymns that form the classic hymn prayer sandwich are designed to contain a lot of teaching because for many it would be all three teaching they got bar a short not necessarily great sermon or homily.

In the contexts I'm most familiar with on modern songs there's often good, quite extensive, but still accessible preaching and songs can form part of something else. Not just as crude as creating atmosphere (or emotional manipulation), not as cynical as giving an emotional jolly or"experience", but kind of related in a positive way. For me they are more suited to being used in either blocks, or quite deliberately as part of a broader narrative or flow through a service, expressing a prayerful response, or answering a thread raised in a talk or other part of the service.

To some extent hymns are often like section markers in a service; they break up the other components and also stand in their own right. Songs (for me) work best when they are a deliberate and intrinsic component of a flowing narrative from start to end, both lyrically and musically.

I can flow fairly happily between either mode, although am not great with extremes of either. And, bizarrely, am increasingly aware that whatever the service it's like I both need to attend them and simultaneously find them counter productive. Pity the people who have to suffer the services I lead with that messed up conflict [Smile]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
I think that's spot-on, Snags. I think one additional dynamic concerning contemporary worship styles is that of a shared understanding of musical language. It's more than an emotional connection, rather a case of singing in our mother tongue, so to speak. The tropes of contemporary music are a vital part of that communication process for those who have been raised in an environment where rock and pop have been the musical "common tongue". Indeed, a popular contemporary worship song will often have a structure which would allow the person singing a song for the first time to predict where the song is going melodically before it actually gets there. It's a question of people owning the music. This also works lyrically. Are some of the lyrics banal, sure, but then so is much of the conversation around the dinner table, and "dinner table" intimacy with God is something towards which I, at least, aspire.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I am really pleased that, at last, this debate is talking about the issues that matter, rather than focussing on what music is "good" and "bad" or on what is "worthy" and "unworthy". It is most refreshing! So [Overused] to the last few posters.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
A hymn is a single course a a meal. A really meaty one is like a roast beef dinner. If you tried to sing hymns for half an hour solid, you'd probably have fun (particularly if accompanied by beer!) but there would be just too many ideas to engage with spiritually.

Worship songs are more like a tapas or mezze style meal. Each one has some ideas to grab onto, and if one isn't to your taste, there's another one coming along.

They are used in very different ways and for different purposes. And of course, there are good and bad examples of both!
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Aside: apologies for the barely coherent previous post of mine. I really must make it a policy not to post from the phone, where editing/proofing is a pain!
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Thanks ever so much Snags, Pomona, Jolly Jape & GillH. What you've written is really insightful and helpful to me. There's a great deal to think over, and I shall go away and do that.

Before I do, though, a couple of things that spring to mind..

1. From Snags earlier on:
quote:
Thus, if you have a particular expectation of the shape a service should have, what it is "for", and what makes it "work", you can't just swap a Wesley for a Redman or a Kendrick etc., in either direction. They engage one in different ways, for different reasons, and to some extent with different intentions and outcomes.

This may be one thing we do "wrong". We maintain a fairly traditional service structure (ish) - Welcome, opening hymn / song, confession & absolution, followed by a worship bit. This tends only to be 3 songs though, and I wonder if one is planning a meze (thanks, GillH!) it should be longer. Or the whole service should be rejigged. [Biased]

2. From Jolly Jape
quote:

Indeed, a popular contemporary worship song will often have a structure which would allow the person singing a song for the first time to predict where the song is going melodically before it actually gets there.

Now, here I am not so sure. Or at any rate, this is where a skilled worship leader / musician corraller / whatever has their worth. Because the music we have to work with (when we do!) is transcribed accurately from live performance, there are idiosyncrasies that no congregation would spot, even if you're sure where the tune is going. Take for example, Bless the Lord o My Soul. Very decent tune as it goes - but there's a surprise 2 beats that no one expects in every verse, some verses have extra gaps, that's before you get to an instrumental bit. (This is all from my ageing memory and therefore unlikely to be 100% accurate). Whoever's in charge needs to fiddle with the song to make it the congregation's own.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Amen to fiddling. We will often cut bridges, particularly if they're pointless, and drop instrumental interludes. Bless The Lord has no irregularities when we do it, although it does have the rests with the (3) kick drum beats; if you don't have a drummer you need someone to do something to carry through that.

We also regularly transpose to better keys for normal folk, and have no shame at all about changing the repeats or order from the ' official' one if need be. The leader will also tell the projectionist what the intended structure is too (we're quite uptight and a lot of folk don't like the free wheeling approach) so generally the congregation get good cues from leader and screen together. If you don't have a strong leader or known structure it can be awful.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think that's all fair enough, Snags (and those who have agreed).

Again, it's a contextual thing.

The only caveat I'd make - and it's not meant as a criticism, more an observation - is that whatever the style of music or worship, whatever is the prevalent mode wherever we happen to be, all participants have to acclimatise to it somehow or other ... none of it is is 'natural'.

So the style and tempo of contemporary worship songs may prove easier for people to connect with than - say, an ancient liturgy or an 18th century anthem - but how far do we take these things?

In our parish they have separate 9am and 11am services - the first more traditional (but still snake-belly low) the second more 'contemporary'.

During the summer they combine the two for a 10am service which - generally successfully - fuses the two styles.

My wife plays the organ at the 9am every 3 weeks or so and this summer, during the 10am season as it were - she was asked NOT to play a voluntary at the end (which she does very well) just in case it 'put off the 11am crowd ...'

[Mad]

What the ...?!

Is anyone seriously telling me that a short but splendid bit of Bach or whatever is going to upset the 11am crowd (who've already had 2 or 3 of their favourite worship songs during the service as well as 2 traditional hymns) so much that they'll never darken the doors of the church again? [Ultra confused]

Likewise, I used to lead the intercessions at times during the 11am services but was asked not to do so any longer (I tend to do them in a more traditional way but with some improvisation) but to do them at the 9am instead ...

Sure - these things work both ways and I remember a former Baptist girl who was literally poked with an umbrella by one of the old ladies in the congregation because she had raised her hands charismatic style during a worship song ...

[Big Grin]

On balance, I think Snags and Pomana, Jolly Jape and others have struck a ... well, a more balanced note ... but I am increasingly wary of the way that contemporary worship songs are going. I don't object to them in principle, nor do I object to Taize and other repetitive forms of church music - but I dunno ... I dunno ... [Paranoid]

I'm not a music snob - or at least, I don't think I am - and like to think I'm pretty eclectic - you'll find a range of genres on my CD rack - but ...

There's a balance somewhere of course.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
My problem, I think, GillH is that rather than being treated as tapas, people treat the worship song medleys as the 'main meal.'

As my elderly aunts used to say of certain meals, 'it doesn't stay by you.'

Yes, done well they can work together and build on a theme and so on - but more commonly, I think, they are simply strung together because people know them and are familiar with the tunes.

In some congregations they are used to make people think they're somehow lively and cutting-edge ... as if these things are of recent provenance rather than 30 or 40 years old in some instances.

Mind you, that IS recent as far as some are concerned ...

I've got to be honest, as much as I understand the reasoning and the purpose, I just can't be fussed at all with the worship song medley style these days. I find myself twiddling my thumbs and waiting for them to end so we can move onto the main course or something more substantial, something that will 'stay by you' - like the eucharist rather than a series of trite, zone-out, switch-off-your-brain choruses that are either frankly embarrassing or which don't actually lead anywhere ...

I'm sorry, but there it is.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Re-reading my previous post, I'm conscious that it comes over somewhat curmugeonly - which isn't how I intended it.

The thing is, it's very difficult to explain exactly what it is that doesn't 'get' me with contemporary worship songs and choruses without it sounding like a value judgement or that I'm suggesting that the entire ethos is somehow deficient.

I do think it goes beyond issues of personal taste, though and issues of musical style. The kind of worship song medley and 'tapas' or 'meze' approach (nice analogy GillH) does make sense within its own frame of reference and within its own terms - but I suspect I'm no longer operating within that frame of reference or on those terms.

I've shifted.

That need not imply any 'lack' or 'immaturity' if you like with the worship song genre itself - although I think it does work better in a 20-somethings/30 somethings context than elsewhere.

To an extent, it's like anything else - you get out of it what you put in - but in recent years whenever I've attended a happy-clappy style service which subsists on a 'meze' or 'tapas' style diet I've come away feeling singularly unimpressed or 'unfulfilled' if I can put it that way - not that corporate worship is a matter of personal fulfillment of course.

Although I'm familiar with it, recognise all the 'cues' and 'move' and shifts and changes of mood etc (and I don't mean this in a manipulative way necessarily) I feel just as alien in that form of worship these days as I first did when I attended a full-on spikey, high up the candle chant-fest.

I don't feel 'got at' by it, I don't feel offended by it - I simply feel, 'been there, done that ...' or somewhat indifferent towards it. I no longer see the point. I don't want to manufacture some kind of 'buzz' by suspending my critical faculties and riding the wave of it - which is what I used to do. The whole style and approach leaves me cold.

That doesn't mean it can't be meaningful or helpful for anyone else but it wouldn't trouble me in the least if I never attended worship-band led worship ever again. It just doesn't 'stay by me.'
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I recall a colleague who went to a house church fellowship and who told me during a discussion of worship songs that each year they went to a conference where they were given a new set of songs, which completely replaced the previous set, regardless of quality. I found this odd.

I grew up looking at the dates of the authors of the wonderful hymns that had come down the centuries. The ephemeral nature of the songs seemed strange.

But I hadn't heard them.

[ 25. September 2015, 18:56: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, that used to happen but in practice the new songs from the Bible Weeks did tend to co-exist with earlier ones - but it wouldn't surprise me if some churches had a worship song clear-out once a year.

The house-churches tended to develop their own material and to be fair, they did suit the context and did express a particular 'line' and ecclesiology / theology. They used to catch-on more widely and it always struck me as incongruous to some extent when I heard the same songs sung in charismatic Anglican churches, for instance.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Gamaliel, I don't think anyone's disputing (or seeking to invalidate) your experience or your response/reaction/current 'position'/feelings/whatever term one wishes to hang on these things. My comments certainly aren't intended as a spirited defence (of anything), more an observation, and an (unaccustomed) attempt to add some perspective and be positive.

It's all too easy to point and laugh, to be derogatory, to belittle and tear down. And some things I think would benefit from being torn down. But ... if one isn't careful it becomes a positive feedback loop, and it doesn't take too long until one craps over anything and everything just from force of habit, and that's very destructive. "One" used very deliberately in that paragraph because I'm addressing it genuinely generally, in many ways to the whole concept of the thread, not to any individual (other than myself, as I find cynicism, sarcasm, and 'witty word play' with a negative or sardonic bent to be my natural metier, particularly conversationally. It can be amusing, but it's not edifying).

Funnily enough I actually have a lot of sympathy with what I think your personal position is, although my journey didn't start as far along the charismatic axis as yours, and isn't taking me up the candle in the same way now. Nevertheless, the things I used to think mattered I increasingly realise don't. Or at least, they don't matter for the reasons I thought they did. So on both an emotional and an intellectual level I find myself most comfortable, and most able to engage with a service that has more of a 'block' structure, but utterly alienated by the style of delivery and the underlying assumptions that often seem to be bundled with that in the settings where it's common.

Equally, I find myself engaging best (generally) with a contemporary style, including re-workings of old hymns, but am also deeply repelled by the whole CCM 'scene' and dismissive of the vast majority of the output. And I do love a good blast of organ from time to time (fnarr. Sorry.).

Corporate worship is a weird old business. Personally I've come to a point where I think that too often we approach it, both practically and conceptually, on an Old Testament "Temple" model - coming to 'meet with God', propitiation, duty etc. - when actually post-resurrection it should be about encouragement and community (in the broadest sense, so it can include celebration, mourning, exhortation, challenge etc.). I have a lot of sympathy for the basic position Vaughn Roberts outlines in "True Worship" whilst not sharing his snooty dislike of the modern [Smile]

Songs, church, what we call 'worship' ... it's a lot like people really. People are great. People are bloody awful. Both these things are true, simultaneously. Argh, etc.!
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
For people from memorialist backgrounds, how does this affect the music being the emotional highpoint of the service rather than eg the Eucharist?
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I'm coming to the conclusion that a lot of modern worship songs aren't actually for the same thing that a lot of hymns are.

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
generally hymns are for teaching and worship songs are for straight-up emotional worship.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
one additional dynamic concerning contemporary worship styles is that of a shared understanding of musical language. It's more than an emotional connection, rather a case of singing in our mother tongue, so to speak.

And something else I'm trying to put my finger on, this conversation is helping. The "praise band" and I parted company not at the first or second band leader but the third, because something significant had changed. My named "sin" was tossing a descant on the recessional "I'll fly away", which I had done the three previous times (twice in rehearsal and once in a service), so it wasn't blindsiding. (Or was my "sin" that 4 people each individually came to the band area afterward and right in front of the leader told me how much better the group sounded with me back in it again).

I was told harmony is not worship, it's performance, and will not be tolerated.

If a cheerful peppy song at recessional time must not be done in anything but straight melody, then the concept of "what kinds of music convey worship" is not agreed.

This is sort of like the "language" comment I quote above, but a little different, and might explain why in some churches the music all sounds alike - whether it's all 4/4 hymns at a slow pace or all syncopated gospel music or all contemporary tunes with nondescript melodies that fade into one another -- it's because the song selector feels only one style or pace or sound of music conveys worship.

I grew up in "all slow 4/4 hymns" church, I called the music boring but they called it "stately" or "majestic," which suggests the music committee felt that was the one true music sound for worship. It's wasn't the "language" listened to at home, it was specifically the "language" considered appropriate for a church service.

[ 26. September 2015, 04:36: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
My personal view remains that your band leader was a tosser [Smile]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Corporate worship is a weird old business. Personally I've come to a point where I think that too often we approach it, both practically and conceptually, on an Old Testament "Temple" model - coming to 'meet with God', propitiation, duty etc. - when actually post-resurrection it should be about encouragement and community (in the broadest sense, so it can include celebration, mourning, exhortation, challenge etc.).

I'm going to break a long period of lurking to shout 'Amen!' to this. IMO the New Testament understanding, with the giving of the Holy Spirit, is that God is with us all the time*, so any talk of meeting with God in worship is potentially misleading.

Also, on a point mentioned a bit further upthread, I recently read this (in Selling Worship by Pete Ward, p198):

quote:
Charismatic worship songs function in worship in an altogether different manner to hymns or the older style of spiritual song. The charismatic worship song is not primarily a means to teach doctrine. Neither is it a way to create a flow or to punctuate worship. While singing in charismatic worship may generate a feeling of togetherness, the songs are not primarily meant as a means to generate this feeling. The contemporary worship song occupies a particular space in charismatic spirituality: it is the means to a personal encounter with God.
I think this is spot-on, though I'm far from 100% in favour of the move - like Snags said, I think our singing together should be far more about mutual encouragement than it usually is in practice.


*There are even foreshadowings of this idea in the Old Testament. 'Where can I go from your presence?' in Psalm 103 (or is it 139?) for example.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Also, on a point mentioned a bit further upthread, I recently read this (in Selling Worship by Pete Ward, p198):

quote:
The contemporary worship song occupies a particular space in charismatic spirituality: it is the means to a personal encounter with God.
I think this is spot-on...


To focus just on this bit, this is what I can't understand - when I've been in places that use worship songs all I think about is: hmm, I don't care for these words/this banal tune/the leader is singing in a key I can't reach/why is he doing a guitar riff there/etc.etc.

But when I'm singing something like I heard the voice of Jesus say; or I bind unto myself today; or Thine be the glory, then I feel able to experience a more 'personal encounter with God' as quoted above. The words, the music, the emotion built therein, all focus the heart and mind and spirit on God, and I'm afraid that (perhaps I'm still a music snob but) I don't get that with worship songs.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
My discomfort with the worship song model of service is that there are never any pauses or silences. The whole thing is orchestrated to involve everyone continuously. When I attend these services I get more and more uncomfortable and frustrated and I sit wondering about space for anyone to hear the still small voice.

(And yes God is everywhere. But we, generally, are usually buzzing and busy, connected at all times. For me the traditional services, monastic offices and Taizé build space to enable God encounters, a time away from that busyness. Recreating that busyness in a service feels counterproductive.)
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Fair comments, Snags and believe you me, I do have a lot of sympathy with what you're saying - it's simply that online communication of this kind tends to 'foreground' the snarkier elements of what I'm trying to say ... to abuse a noun into a verb ... (which is an even greater sin than anything that goes on in CCM ... [Big Grin] )

I think Curiosity Killed has raised a good point - and I think that holds irrespective of how far up or down the candle we find ourselves.

I think there's something very profound in the Quaker silence, for instance, and they can't be accused of being high up the candle - indeed, some would consider them so 'low' as to have dropped off the bottom end completely ...

I don't disagree in principal with South Coast Kevin's point about mutual encouragement either - and it's great to hear you break your silence, Kevin - we've had our disagreements but you're one of the Shipmates I've always held in high esteem.

[Overused]

However, I think there's a balance between something that is so 'Godward' in worship that the sense of mutuality is lost - and something so overly communal that it becomes all about 'us' ...

Striking that balance - in whatever setting - is always going to be difficult.

Again, I'm with Curiosity Killed on there being a sense of deliberate drawing aside in times of worship (however it's done) and yes, whilst it's true that God is 'everywhere present and fillest all things' (panentheism is where it's at for me, folks!) it is helpful to set time aside to deliberately remember that.

I remain married to my wife throughout the year, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't go out for a meal on our anniversary or mark the occasion in some way.

It's another of these both/and not either/or things.

I agree with Snags and GillH and others that the worship-song block model can be done well - and that on its own terms there can be as much skill, musicianship and thought going into it as there can be in other kinds of worship service ... whether Alt Worship, the traditional non-conformist hymn-sandwich or one of the historic liturgies ...

Conversely, some of the traditional liturgies can be run through 'off-pat' and I've known some that have been conducted as if they were a racing commentary - as if they're dashing through to get to the finishing line as quickly as possible ...

However, as counter-intuitive as it may sound - and I've certainly found it so as I've dabbled and dipped into various traditions - I now find a greater sense of 'liberty' and 'space' in a traditional liturgy than I do in a worship chorus block or apparently free-flow charismatic service.

YMMV.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Hurrah for agreeing violently.

Although I don't get why flow can't include silence; that always bugs me. I use silence a lot when I lead, and I usually think it's the best part of the service. I'm building up the courage to say "Welcome! Now we're going to sit in silence for an hour" [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
They'd boot you into the Quaker Meeting House ...

Unsurprisingly perhaps, a few non-conformist ministers I know who've engaged in occasional 'pulpit-sharing' ecumenical initiatives have told me how 'liberating' they've found it when it was their turn to 'lead' in an Anglican setting when they realised that it was all nicely laid out and ready for them - they had the 'script' there and didn't need to do all the faff and preparation.

Tell it not in Gath, but I attended a URC service a while back where the minister had clearly spent ages preparing the service-plan and the liturgy - and it was still dire. I left wondering why he'd bothered. Why write your own communion service (with some dubious theology) when there are plenty of off-the-shelf ones you can use that do the job a whole lot better?

[Biased] [Razz]

I'd have happily swapped an hour's silence for the service he'd concocted.

Similarly, at our parish church when they have the 'time of confession', instead of using the words on the service sheet (or from the service books) the vicar or whoever is leading - sometimes it's 'lay-led' - insists on going on and on and on and on using his own form of words and form of confession ...

Why? What's the point?

There's a perfectly good range of prayers of General Confession in the service books. Why does he think that whatever he comes up with is going to be any better? I simply switch off. It's counter-productive. Spontaneous prayers aren't worth the paper they're written on ...

[Razz]

Of course, it all depends on context. But if you've got a prayer book why not bloomin' well use it? That's what it's for.

I can see that having a 'leader' who leads things differently each week gives a semblance of variety - but I've long since given up on hearing anything new, different or even particularly inspiring in some of the more apparently fluid and spontaneous set-ups - all they seem to do is say the same sort of thing each week anyway ... or variations on a theme. That's fair enough, but all they end up doing is replacing a set liturgy with one that is equally as familiar and same-y yet with a passing semblance of spontaneity and apparent innovation.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
For people from memorialist backgrounds, how does this affect the music being the emotional highpoint of the service rather than eg the Eucharist?

I am not a memorialist.

For me, music is why I bother going to church (when I do). Music is how I "connect to God" in church or at home. The Eucharist is an emotional low, a long dead time just sitting around waiting your turn to get up and do a long slow walk and wait again for a token crumb that will probably leave a crumb in my throat and make me cough at the next song instead of being able to sing it to God.

Is your question based in a flawed assumption that the Eucharist is the high point for all believers in (some variation of) Real Presence?

For my Non-Denomination friends, the high point is the sermon. They want a church where they will feel "fed," by a long "deep" God-aware sermon that calls them to holier living and assures them of God's love. Music is enjoyed but it's not the high point.

Doing music is my Eucharist. Music is or can be Eucharistic for some other people, too -- if I sing a solo totally focused on God instead of on the notes, a few people will come after saying they heard God in the singing. They don't say that when my singing is just a pretty voice.

Some people find God's presence in Eucharist, some in other things, just as real and just as present.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
For people from memorialist backgrounds, how does this affect the music being the emotional highpoint of the service rather than eg the Eucharist?

I am not a memorialist.

For me, music is why I bother going to church (when I do). Music is how I "connect to God" in church or at home. The Eucharist is an emotional low, a long dead time just sitting around waiting your turn to get up and do a long slow walk and wait again for a token crumb that will probably leave a crumb in my throat and make me cough at the next song instead of being able to sing it to God.

Is your question based in a flawed assumption that the Eucharist is the high point for all believers in (some variation of) Real Presence?

For my Non-Denomination friends, the high point is the sermon. They want a church where they will feel "fed," by a long "deep" God-aware sermon that calls them to holier living and assures them of God's love. Music is enjoyed but it's not the high point.

Doing music is my Eucharist. Music is or can be Eucharistic for some other people, too -- if I sing a solo totally focused on God instead of on the notes, a few people will come after saying they heard God in the singing. They don't say that when my singing is just a pretty voice.

Some people find God's presence in Eucharist, some in other things, just as real and just as present.

Sorry, but I don't understand your response at all. If you believe in the Real Presence in whatever way, how can the Eucharist possibly be a low point? If meeting the Real Presence of God is a low point then that is rather worrying. That isn't to say that you can't also mmeet God in the music or elsewhere, but if you do believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, it should be a high point by default - unless for whatever reason encountering God is a negative thing for you? It makes no sense to me, sorry.

Your latter point is rather what I meant - for people for whom there is no Real Presence in Holy Communion, naturally they encounter the Real Presence in other formats such as music. So your response would make perfect sense if you were a memorialist, but to me it makes no sense if you are not.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sounds like memorialism to me.

Thing is, the Eucharist is no different in its outward or tactile and experiential aspects for memorialists or Real Presence types. The bread can still stick in your throat or cause you to cough whatever your eucharistic theology.

That's not the point.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Right, I'm not sure any Real Presence theology allows for the Host being a 'token crumb'. Surely if it's a token then that's memorialism?

You can have very 'realised' memorialism, eg how the Brethren do it - but it's still memorialism.

Edited to add: nice to see you back SCK [Smile]

[ 26. September 2015, 19:04: Message edited by: Pomona ]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Right, I'm not sure any Real Presence theology allows for the Host being a 'token crumb'. Surely if it's a token then that's memorialism?

I was describing the physical aspect used to convey the real presence. It's called a feast but we are physically given just a tiny piece of physical bread or cracker, a token of the feast, which causes physical crumb that sometimes gets stuck in the physical throat. That God is fully present in that physical token of the feast and in the physical crumbs causing the physical coughing, I agree. I used to be memorialist, got corrected by experience. [Smile]

Discussion about God's just as real presence in other than Eucharist is way off topic.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok. I don't doubt that God is 'in' your solos, Belle Ringer, just as I don't doubt that he's involved in the way Snags shapes and leads the worship in his context.

But for me part of the whole eucharistic thing is that it takes attention from us and our abilities - God-given though these are - and places it beyond ourselves on what Christ has done and that we cannot do.

Whether this is celebrated with hells, robes and incense or wirh the minimum of ceremony, that point remains. I'm less worried about it being a crumb or a wafer rather than a three-course banquet - it's what it signifies and what it effects - but you know all that ...

YMMV but it's the Mystery that's important rather than the experience. We none of us live on a high-octane cloud of spiritual transcendence 24/7.

However we cut it, our public worship should convey something if the 'Mystery of godliness ... He [God] appeared in a body ...'.

Of course,there are different ways of doing that and we need a range of means - the public reading of scripture, song, the kind of mutual encouragement SCK has mentioned, preaching, teaching, the eucharist ...

There is wriggle-room but how tightly we set the framework is bound to vary across and within traditions.

Within reason, crap, like beauty, is in the eye of the heholder to a certain extent.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I have to say, as a rule I would tend to avoid incorporating hells into a service.

Not a hard and fast thing, just a guideline.

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

Yes, I spotted my typo too late!

Mind you, the Mystery Worshipper template does contain a question about what aspects of services might might us feel like we were in 'the other place ...'

[Big Grin]

Incidentally, my elderly evangelical Anglican mother-in-law clearly found the presence of bells and smells distinctly 'hellish' the other Sunday when I took her on a visit to the liberal catholic Anglican parish here. She's a regular at the evangelical Anglican parish but I sometimes take her to other churches when she has a fancy to go.

She said all the prayers and so on but didn't go forward to receive when it was time for communion. She didn't say anything at the time but later told my wife that the incense had put her off - although why that was any more or less apparent in the communion line (or semi-circle, it's done 'in the round') than where she was sitting I don't know ...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I see that K*v*n M*yh*w are advertising for a sales rep in the South of England. Seems like a heaven sent opportunity for soemone to get the job and do it in a way that ensures that no-one ever buys any of their stock .
 
Posted by Japes (# 5358) on :
 
Next time we use the harvest song "God almighty set a rainbow" I am refusing to use the tune to which it is set. (Clementine)

I don't care if "People know the tune and the children can use the percussion instruments.". They were too busy giggling and trying not to sing the Clementine words. The less said about the tambourines which had been liberated from their dark cupboard, the better.

We can use "Daily, Daily" instead and I can sing "Ye who own the faith of Jesus" under my breath to keep me calm.

Still, the other percussion instruments seem to have mysteriously vanished and I am not complaining.

[ 11. October 2015, 17:55: Message edited by: Japes ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I'm still shuddering from our primary school's rendition of the Cauliflowers fluffy nonsense last weekend. Not a wide choice for a school without a music specialist - the rhythms are quite complicated and the intervals aren't too easy either. Still, I suppose its better than their contribution a couple of years ago which was all about pollution, prompting one of our local farmers to walk out of church.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
No mention of God there, I see. What's wrong with We plough the fields and scatter or Come ye thankful people, come, anyway?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
We got We plough the fields, Come, ye thankful people come, Think of a world without any flowers and Cauliflowers fluffy for lay-led, all-age harvest today. The organist come music leader set Cauliflowers fluffy for the orchestral band and piano with a very clear bridge.

(And a talk on poverty and sharing based on a re-enactment of Stone Soup that had me giggling before the guy one side of me started adding pantomime asides, which set the friend off on my other side. It spread so a group of us not ended up not behaving well. Shame one of the others was sworn in as something major at the end of the service.)
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
But- unless there are some additional words which i have not found online- is 'cauliflowers fluffy' in any sense actually a hymn or worship song, since it appears not to contain the slightest or most oblique reference to God?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
"The broadbeans are sleeping in the blankety bed" - I wonder what naughty word was edited out and substituted by "blanket"?

Yes, God (or even a Creator) does seem to be notably absent (I don't know the song at all).

This perhaps does display the dilemma that we also feel at All-age services: the children who only come at these times know a completely different repertoire of songs to the adults. You can say, "We'll only have the well-known Christian hymns" but this completely alienates the children. Or you have school assembly songs which are unfamiliar to the adults and may not be very "Christian".

We've struggled with this for years; it may be less of a problem where CofE churches have linked schools and there is much more of a two-way flow in worship.

[ 12. October 2015, 08:36: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
But it didn't use to be such a problem, because there was some overlap between ordinary school assembly hymns and the more general repertoire: or at least there was in my ordinary county (non CofE) primary school 40 years ago.
(Actually I rather like 'blankety bed' in itself: often thought I could happily snuggle down in a giant broad bean pod.)

[ 12. October 2015, 08:47: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I don't disagree; but we have to work with the situation as it is today. So what's the answer, Shipmates?

(P.S. My bed is not "blanket" but "duvety").
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not sure there is an answer - unless we all become Orthodox and only sing things that are in the Vespers and Liturgy and which are 1,000 or so years old. The tunes themselves are a lot more recent - most of the Russian ones are from about 1820 onwards.

As for the rest of us ... as I've observed here before, here in suburban/semi rural Cheshire those who dislike drum'n'bass or liturgical innovation of any kind, tend to flee to rural Zoars out in the countryside - temporarily swelling the congregations of village parish churches within easy striking distance (until such time as they shrug off this mortal coil).

Those parishes slightly further out of range have tiny congregations.

The non-conformists - mainly Methodists hereabouts - get around it by arranging special services for those who like the more contemporary songs - whilst keeping their main services fairly traditional in a hymn-prayer-sandwich sense.

Other than coming on here and perennially bleating about the issue, which is cathartic if nothing else, I'm not sure what we CAN do ... the genie is out of the bottle, Pandora's Box is open ...

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As I've observed here before, here in suburban/semi rural Cheshire those who dislike drum'n'bass or liturgical innovation of any kind, tend to flee to rural Zoars out in the countryside - temporarily swelling the congregations of village parish churches within easy striking distance (until such time as they shrug off this mortal coil).

There is a village URC not far from here which has grown considerably over recent years with disaffected Nonconformists. It's actually a nice church to be in (but don't mention modern music!)
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, the answer to the disconnection of school worship songs from the main repertoire rather lies in the hands of the schools. But that in turn requires the schools to be abit less embarrassed about school worship (and perhaps also a bit less patronising in their ideas about what young children can cope with), which in turn requires some changes in the views that many teachers, like many others, hold about the place of cultural and ritual (in its widest sense) relgion, which requires... and so on and so on.
But then if you're having the children into a church service, why not use that as an opportunity to expand the repertoire (one familiar one, to them, and one that's new to them)? The answer, I suspect, is 'can't be arsed'.

[ 12. October 2015, 11:33: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure there is an answer - unless we all become Orthodox and only sing things that are in the Vespers and Liturgy and which are 1,000 or so years old. The tunes themselves are a lot more recent - most of the Russian ones are from about 1820 onwards.

It's suddenly seeming an attractive option
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I've been asked to sing in a special Evensong to mark that church's 150 years of their choir. However, that church rarely has a choir these days, having opted for a music group and what they call praise music. They have decided to sing hymns for this special service, but I'm horrified with the selection. I really don't think that at such a service of celebration it is appropriate to sing Kendrick's hymn "Beauty for brokenness, hope for despair, Lord in the suffering this is our prayer" It is all so dreary and miserable for such and occasion. I think I might be too unwell to participate that evening.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well, the answer to the disconnection of school worship songs from the main repertoire rather lies in the hands of the schools.

While I see your point, I think that, if churches are seeking to reach out and communicate to unchurched people, it is up to us to use the music they know - or, at least, seek to meet them half-way. Why should schools (especially non-church ones in a secular or multicultural setting) learn the Church's songs, except to educate the children about this country's Christian heritage?

[ 12. October 2015, 13:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, you've given half the answer yourself. I believe that part of education is about cultural transmission.
But to come back to the particular crappy chorus that sparked this off, having a so-called worship song that doesn't mention God is the worst of both worlds.

[ 12. October 2015, 16:05: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I've been asked to sing in a special Evensong to mark that church's 150 years of their choir. However, that church rarely has a choir these days, having opted for a music group and what they call praise music. They have decided to sing hymns for this special service, but I'm horrified with the selection. I really don't think that at such a service of celebration it is appropriate to sing Kendrick's hymn "Beauty for brokenness, hope for despair, Lord in the suffering this is our prayer" It is all so dreary and miserable for such and occasion. I think I might be too unwell to participate that evening.

Is there a particular reason why this song was chosen? Maybe the organisers want to acknowledge that the choir has been through tough times, which would seem to be the case if the church doesn't really have a functioning choir any more. Or maybe the church itself has had difficulties to face. If so, it's reasonable for the event to recognise this, and not just focus on the jolly things.

Anyway, so long as this isn't the last hymn of the service it won't be so bad!
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm still shuddering from our primary school's rendition of the Cauliflowers fluffy nonsense last weekend. Not a wide choice for a school without a music specialist - the rhythms are quite complicated and the intervals aren't too easy either. Still, I suppose its better than their contribution a couple of years ago which was all about pollution, prompting one of our local farmers to walk out of church.

I have never heard Cauliflowers Fluffy, but the title alone doesn't give great promise.

However I am a little puzzled by the reaction of the farmer to the year before - part of celebrating Harvest is remembering our responsibility to care for a planet entrusted to us by God, and given Laudato Si the connections between Christianity and ecological concerns could not be stronger. I am not doubting that there was dreadful music used, but pollution is a entirely appropriate topic for a Harvest Festival. Ignoring it rather guarantees that there won't be many more harvests to create a festival for. Farmers surely must care about that!
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure there is an answer - unless we all become Orthodox and only sing things that are in the Vespers and Liturgy and which are 1,000 or so years old. The tunes themselves are a lot more recent - most of the Russian ones are from about 1820 onwards.

As for the rest of us ... as I've observed here before, here in suburban/semi rural Cheshire those who dislike drum'n'bass or liturgical innovation of any kind, tend to flee to rural Zoars out in the countryside - temporarily swelling the congregations of village parish churches within easy striking distance (until such time as they shrug off this mortal coil).

Those parishes slightly further out of range have tiny congregations.

The non-conformists - mainly Methodists hereabouts - get around it by arranging special services for those who like the more contemporary songs - whilst keeping their main services fairly traditional in a hymn-prayer-sandwich sense.

Other than coming on here and perennially bleating about the issue, which is cathartic if nothing else, I'm not sure what we CAN do ... the genie is out of the bottle, Pandora's Box is open ...

[Big Grin]

I do love the image of a pastor/vicar who thinks he's really cool (and for some reason they are almost always male clergy) by putting on drum n bass nights (at least 10? 12? years out of fashion) while the actual yoof put on their own grime worship or whatever. I have a friend who's really into skating (as in skateboarding not ice skating) and organised herself a pilgrimage where she skated most of the route where possible. Ten times more authentic than cringey 'down with the kids' pastors.
 
Posted by Japes (# 5358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

I have never heard Cauliflowers Fluffy,

Let me help you change that.

I had dislodged it from my mind, but as I've been ear-wormed with it since being reminded of the existence of the song, I'm sharing it with you.

[ 13. October 2015, 06:19: Message edited by: Japes ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I am a little puzzled by the reaction of the farmer to the year before - ... pollution is a entirely appropriate topic for a Harvest Festival. Ignoring it rather guarantees that there won't be many more harvests to create a festival for. Farmers surely must care about that!

Are we sure he walked out because he was a farmer and felt that the focus of the service was wrong? Or was it more because, like so many people, he had huge folk-expectations about Harvest Festival and was angry when they were not fulfilled?
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Japes:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

I have never heard Cauliflowers Fluffy,

Let me help you change that.
For all the bile that this song has generated against modern worship the song does not seem that modern to me. As pop music styles tend to change every three and a half years schools are better off not being too contemporary in any case. I can imagine this style of song being sung by Millicent Martin on TW3. It seems to be of that era.

Just to be fair, the absence of God in the lyrics does not mean the song is inappropriate, it all depends on the context in which it is used. (I'd prefer that context to be a service that I don't attend though.)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Japes:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

I have never heard Cauliflowers Fluffy,

Let me help you change that.
For all the bile that this song has generated against modern worship the song does not seem that modern to me. As pop music styles tend to change every three and a half years
Do they? Bloody hip-hop, techno and all that sails in it seems to have held sway with little change for about the last 30 years. It went Bum shitty bum shitty bum shitty bum in 1988 and it's still going Bum shitty bum shitty bum shitty bum now.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Quotes file [Smile]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
For all the bile that ['Cauliflowers Fluffy'] has generated against modern worship the song does not seem that modern to me. As pop music styles tend to change every three and a half years schools are better off not being too contemporary in any case. I can imagine this style of song being sung by Millicent Martin on TW3. It seems to be of that era.

Just to be fair, the absence of God in the lyrics does not mean the song is inappropriate, it all depends on the context in which it is used. (I'd prefer that context to be a service that I don't attend though.)

I've just listened to 'Cauliflowers Fluffy', and it seems like one more cheerful kids' song. It has a lot of likes, so someone approves of it!

The strange thing about it, though, is that it's just a list of fruit and veg, with no element of thanksgiving attached, not even to Mother Nature let alone to God. It could have been written by the BBC to teach infants what food looks like!

Songs that are vague about God are, I imagine, appealing to primary schools because they don't risk offending parents who are non-religious or who follow a different religion, whereas Christians can always claim that God is implicit in the lyrics even if he's not mentioned directly. It's surely a win-win situation for the writers.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"The broadbeans...

"We'll only have the well-known Christian hymns" but this completely alienates the children. Or you have school assembly songs which are unfamiliar to the adults and may not be very "Christian".

C-Fluffy is at least 25 years old. So probably a fair number of the parents know it too.
(I've had the 'the apples are'&'broad beans' bouncing in my head a year or two, waiting for me to put it with the rest of the song, so hopefully that can be exorcised now)
In fairness to primary school, a lot of them weren't as bad as I remembered them at the time. Or rather I've realised it's an impossible situation, and got more realistic standards.
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
I've sung 'Cauliflowers Fluffy' many times at school assemblies when my kids were at primary school (C of E) ... in fact the song was called 'Paintbox' for some reason, and I am embarrassed to admit that I hadn't even registered that it didn't mention God at all. It was just one of those cheerful school songs like 'Autumn Days'
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There are collections of songs suitable for primary schools with words for projection and a CD for the music, sold to the many many primary schools required to engage in a daily act of worship without musicians to lead music. I know Cauliflowers Fluffy or Paintbox from working in primary schools, along with a whole lot of other cheerful songs that may or may not have a Christian message. From the volume of singing I was one of the few in church who did know it, but I can't sing, so I mime.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
C-Fluffy is at least 25 years old. So probably a fair number of the parents know it too.

Although popular churches may attract many nuclear families, a lot of congregations are dominated by middle aged and older people, even though there are children who attend.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Japes:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

I have never heard Cauliflowers Fluffy,

Let me help you change that.
For all the bile that this song has generated against modern worship the song does not seem that modern to me. As pop music styles tend to change every three and a half years
Do they? Bloody hip-hop, techno and all that sails in it seems to have held sway with little change for about the last 30 years. It went Bum shitty bum shitty bum shitty bum in 1988 and it's still going Bum shitty bum shitty bum shitty bum now.
Can't speak about techno, but ummm hip-hop has changed massively?

Hip-hop is a genre based in Black emancipation and social commentary. Nice job reducing the voice of disenfranchised Black youth to 'bum shitty bum' [Roll Eyes] .
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
quote:
Pomona:
Hip-hop is a genre based in Black emancipation and social commentary. Nice job reducing the voice of disenfranchised Black youth to 'bum shitty bum' [Roll Eyes] .

Not everything in the world has to be dreadfully earnest all of the time.

Also, something may well have very worthy origins yet still sound like utter shit to folk, what with music being such a subjective thing (hence this entire thread, arguably) [Smile]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
What I thought ironic about your statement, Snags, is that it is a very much an older person type comment. And older people tend to resist change
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I'm very much a middle-aged person, and whilst not typical, self-awareness compels me to say probably not as a-typical as I'd hope.

I'm certainly not resistant to change. Generally I'm quite comfortable with change, particularly musically.

I don't particularly like hip-hop as a genre, musically, although I can cope with most anything in small doses. But not liking hip-hop musically isn't the same as having no sympathy for any of the social/political/cultural roots. Don't think I could fairly lay claim to empathy, what with being decidedly white, middle-class and non-urban, but sympathy, yes.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What I thought ironic about your statement, Snags, is that it is a very much an older person type comment. And older people tend to resist change

Wrong! Middle-aged people tend to be resistant to change. Old people know that their days are numbered and that change has to happen.
(Generalisations, of course but it's my experience.)
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Indeed, although with advancing longevity I think the window is sliding upwards.

Those most resistant to change at church are certainly those who are me+5 to me+20; I'm entering the danger zone. However, I'm not sure that thinking a reaction to a simplistic dissing of hip-hop is a touch over-earnest necessarily equates to being anti-change. Still, maybe I'm more pipe and slippers then I realised. As long as I don't have to start liking Horlicks I can probably cope.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
As surely as the Grim Reaper, a liking for Horlicks will come ...

(Mind you, I can't remember the last time I drank any - it must have been as a child. Funny how Horlicks was a kids' drink at one time ... as well as something old biddies drank before they went to bed. But they used to drink Manns too ...)
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
My wife drinks Ovaltine - does that count? (I can't stand the stuff).
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Does she drink Manns?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Japes:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

I have never heard Cauliflowers Fluffy,

Let me help you change that.
For all the bile that this song has generated against modern worship the song does not seem that modern to me. As pop music styles tend to change every three and a half years
Do they? Bloody hip-hop, techno and all that sails in it seems to have held sway with little change for about the last 30 years. It went Bum shitty bum shitty bum shitty bum in 1988 and it's still going Bum shitty bum shitty bum shitty bum now.
Can't speak about techno, but ummm hip-hop has changed massively?

Hip-hop is a genre based in Black emancipation and social commentary. Nice job reducing the voice of disenfranchised Black youth to 'bum shitty bum' [Roll Eyes] .

I'm supposed to like it because of who's playing it? Sorry, Pomona, but it's always sounded shite to me regardless. I can't make myself like it any more than I can make myself like Cinzano.

If I described it the way I did because of its origins, you'd have a point. But I didn't. I gave an (admittedly subjective, because it's an artform innit) assessment of how it sounds to me.

[ 19. October 2015, 11:45: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
It's a very diverse genre, and I doubt you've heard it all.

Sorry but it's very common for genres of music associated with Black people to be dismissed as unimportant or not as musically accomplished as 'proper' (ie White) music.

It's one thing for it to not be your favourite kind of music (it isn't mine) but that doesn't mean you can't appreciate the cultural and musical influence that hip-hop has had generally. Hip-hop's legacy deserves respect regardless of whether it's your preferred type of music or not, which means not making derogatory comments like 'bum shitty bum'.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Pomona:
Hip-hop is a genre based in Black emancipation and social commentary. Nice job reducing the voice of disenfranchised Black youth to 'bum shitty bum' [Roll Eyes] .

Not everything in the world has to be dreadfully earnest all of the time.

Also, something may well have very worthy origins yet still sound like utter shit to folk, what with music being such a subjective thing (hence this entire thread, arguably) [Smile]

Except that demonising hip-hop has been used to demonise Black youth (playing into the 'thug' stereotype for example), who in case you haven't noticed, haven't had a brilliant time in recent years. Dismissing hip-hop and other genres associated with Black people as unimportant compared to Important White Music IS part of culturally-accepted racism. You can appreciate the legacy and cultural importance of hip-hop without dismissing it as bad. There is cultural baggage surrounding Black music that means that it's not just about what it sounds like. If something has brought cultural value to the world then arguably it can't inherently be bad.

There is a world of difference between understanding and appreciating the importance of hip-hop while not being a fan, and making derogatory comments about it as an entire genre (despite its diversity).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
You can appreciate the legacy and cultural importance of hip-hop without dismissing it as bad.

Or you can recognize that it has cultural importance and think that it's bad.

quote:

There is cultural baggage surrounding Black music that means that it's not just about what it sounds like.

But here's the thing - I don't care about its cultural baggage - I care about whether it's enjoyable to listen to, which means that, qua music, I only care about what it sounds like. I'm not at all interested in listening to socially important bad music.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Pomona, does this mean you are insisting we accept and celebrate Gangsta Rap in all its glory because of its origins in the black community?

There's a Purgatory thread in this - but I don't have time to set it up until next week, in half term.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
It's a very diverse genre, and I doubt you've heard it all.

I've not tried every type of fish, but all the ones I've tried I've hated so I don't bother any more. Same with Hip-Hop

quote:
Sorry but it's very common for genres of music associated with Black people to be dismissed as unimportant or not as musically accomplished as 'proper' (ie White) music.
I didn't say it's unimportant or not accomplished. I said that I dislike it and I fail to personally appreciate the musical accomplishment. I can tell it takes some skill; I couldn't do it, but the end result is for me like the finest fish pie - it may take a Rick Stern to make it, but I'd still have to chuck it straight in the bin.

quote:
It's one thing for it to not be your favourite kind of music (it isn't mine) but that doesn't mean you can't appreciate the cultural and musical influence that hip-hop has had generally. Hip-hop's legacy deserves respect regardless of whether it's your preferred type of music or not, which means not making derogatory comments like 'bum shitty bum'.
I do apologise for honestly telling you how it sounds to me. People have seldom held back from telling me what they think of the music I like, and I don't see why this form should get special treatment.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Pomona:
Hip-hop is a genre based in Black emancipation and social commentary. Nice job reducing the voice of disenfranchised Black youth to 'bum shitty bum' [Roll Eyes] .

Not everything in the world has to be dreadfully earnest all of the time.

Also, something may well have very worthy origins yet still sound like utter shit to folk, what with music being such a subjective thing (hence this entire thread, arguably) [Smile]

Except that demonising hip-hop has been used to demonise Black youth (playing into the 'thug' stereotype for example), who in case you haven't noticed, haven't had a brilliant time in recent years. Dismissing hip-hop and other genres associated with Black people as unimportant compared to Important White Music IS part of culturally-accepted racism. You can appreciate the legacy and cultural importance of hip-hop without dismissing it as bad. There is cultural baggage surrounding Black music that means that it's not just about what it sounds like. If something has brought cultural value to the world then arguably it can't inherently be bad.

There is a world of difference between understanding and appreciating the importance of hip-hop while not being a fan, and making derogatory comments about it as an entire genre (despite its diversity).

There is also a world of difference between saying "Personally, I think this is crap" in the sense of "I'm terribly sorry old chap, but this particular form of music is not to my personal taste, and I am expressing this in the vernacular" and demonising it. Which is really where the comment about not everything having to be desperately earnest stems from.

It is actually possible to have a personal subjective opinion on something as music independent of one's opinion on whether or not a particular people group have had the shitty end of the stick.

When my dear old dad said "Dear God in heaven, how can you listen to that shit, it's just noise, it's not even music?" he wasn't making a sweeping dismissal or demonisation of teenagers, counter-culture, rock'n'roll, the delta blues roots it was (mis)appropriated from or anything else. He was merely expressing the opinion that my music of choice was marginally less enjoyable to him than listening to static at full volume.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
I'm not sure that not liking hip hop (even all of it) necessarily means that one has somehow bought into cultural racism. And I don't agree that an art form which has brought something cultural to the world "can't be inherently bad" because "inherently bad" is so hard to describe when it comes to something as subjective as music. I'm not really sure what inherently bad means in that context. I don't like most 20th century modern classical music, even though it is, so people more learned would say, brought culturally Good Things to the development of music.

I hope that I appreciate reasonably well (for a middle aged, middle class white woman) the cultural good things that rap & hip hop have brought to music. And I do love a little bit of Public Enemy. But that's as far as it goes for me. I like even less the sort of super-smooth bump n grind r'n'b soul that was superpopular when I was younger. I really don't like it. It's not some culturally superior important white music thing - I find it overly sexual, altogether a bit shit in its treatment of women, and very dull indeed to listen to.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting

If it's not being played in church, it doesn't belong here. Please start a new thread in Purgatory for discussing what people think of hip hop etc.

thanks,
Louise
DH Host
hosting off
 
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


We none of us live on a high-octane cloud of spiritual transcendence 24/7.


Yup - all need a few hours sleep...
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
We have been asked to sing the hymn 'I sing a song of the saints of God' for All Saints Day, but all in the choir doubled up in mirth and incredulity at the line "and one was a doctor, and one was a queen and one was a shepherdess on the green". I guess when it was written the word meanings were quite different. I dread to think what will eventuate in church tomorrow when the lines are reached in the singing. [Killing me]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Don't forget to check out the author's name ...
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
If any of you are interested there is an excellent article in the latest edition of The Catholic Herald about music in the RC church with the writer suggesting that lousy music may be one of the reasons why the pews are emptying.
 
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :
 
Thanks to L'organist for that reference. I read it rather quickly (on afternoon break at work). But the author is mistaken in thinking Bad Music is just a Catholic problem--maybe a bigger problem there because of the size of the Church. But the stuff he describes--awful "folk" music, guitar strumming, sentimental lyrics and crap music (hi there Marty Haugen, this is to your address)--is mainly what drove me out of the Lutheran church where I'd been a member for twelve years. And we had influential parishioners who campaigned against Bach and Buxtehude!

Where did this pernicious claim that one composition is as good as any other originate? As Duke Ellington said, there's good music and there's bad music and you can tell the difference by listening. [Overused]
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Very belated apologies to Louise for the detour.

Back on track: Some bizarre thing this Sunday "God's love is big
God's love is great
God's love is fab
And he's my mate". [Help]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I have a friend who likes to make spoof worship songs. None of his are as bad as that.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I'd make a pretty substantial bet that the music for it is as horrendous as the words.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
I have sung it. However, it was a Holiday Bible Club song and those are always the pits. I think their real role is to make the leaders look so naff that the kids laugh and then the leaders can pretend the kids are enjoying themselves.

Jengie
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If any of you are interested there is an excellent article in the latest edition of The Catholic Herald about music in the RC church with the writer suggesting that lousy music may be one of the reasons why the pews are emptying.

But most growing churches use this music too.

The problem is not the music but that churches are allowing guitarists who can barely string three chords together, or even tune their instruments, and have no experience of playing in front of people to lead the worship.

I would say that it is badly played music rather than the music itself that is at fault.

Psalm 33:3 "Playing skilfully on an instrument of music" springs to mind. [my bold].
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Quite frankly, unless the music is absolutely terrible, IME it's almost never the music that drives people out of church.

In a small minority of cases it may cause someone to opt to attend a different church, but not to leave altogether. Saying otherwise seems to me to be blame-shifting away from a whole combination of things of which the music is only a (usually) small part: preaching, teaching, pastoral care, sense of fellowship and acceptance, love, community etc.

People will tolerate all kinds of music they don't like, or is low rent, if the basic church is good and effective.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Snags
quote:
In a small minority of cases it may cause someone to opt to attend a different church, but not to leave altogether. Saying otherwise seems to me to be blame-shifting away from a whole combination of things of which the music is only a (usually) small part: preaching, teaching, pastoral care, sense of fellowship and acceptance, love, community etc.
Not my experience at all - in any case, you're talking about people who already come, while ignoring that fact that many who don't attend are actively discouraged/ put off by the lousy music. And I mean that in every sense: doggerel words (frequently theologically illiterate too), dire music, less-than-competent performers (sometimes too a 'Cantor' with a bucket load of self-belief and nil talent), etc, etc, etc.

What is worse is that in many areas there have been not only thriving choirs but churches that have been a beacon of musical excellence which have been systematically destroyed in the name of some spurious 'relevance' by clergy with little, if any, knowledge of either music or poetry, performance or quality. Frankly, if a cultural history of the late 20th century were to be written the Church - of England and Rome - would be up there as one of the greatest perpetrators of cultural vandalism.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

But most growing churches use this music too.

The problem is not the music but that churches are allowing guitarists who can barely string three chords together, or even tune their instruments, and have no experience of playing in front of people to lead the worship.

The problem with this line of argument is that the skill requirement doesn't scale in the same way. Modern genres end up requiring more musical accompaniment (as they move away from common meter) and end up mandating 'leading' of a more direct kind (due to the rhythmic shifts and copious use of melisma). In which case a the gap between a smaller and larger congregation is likely to be even more pronounced than it was previously.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In many areas there have been not only thriving choirs but churches that have been a beacon of musical excellence which have been systematically destroyed in the name of some spurious 'relevance' by clergy with little, if any, knowledge of either music or poetry, performance or quality.

It surprises me to hear that if a church is 'thriving' then the minister doesn't just leave things well alone. Why fix what's not broken? Just to keep up with the charismatic Joneses down the road?
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
L'organist:
quote:

Not my experience at all - in any case, you're talking about people who already come, while ignoring that fact that many who don't attend are actively discouraged/ put off by the lousy music.

Mileage obviously varies, but of all the very many reasons I have been given for people not wishing to attend church, lousy music has never come up.

Mostly it's because church is irrelevant, they don't believe, it's boring, they don't feel comfortable, they have no touching point, they perceive no need etc. Not "well, I'm really interested in God and Jesus and faith, and I love hearing a good preach and meeting with people, but the music's a bit cheesy so it's game over for me, I'm afraid".

I'll accept that it could well be a contributing factor, but I very much doubt it's the overriding one for most folk.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[/b]

It surprises me to hear that if a church is 'thriving' then the minister doesn't just leave things well alone. Why fix what's not broken? Just to keep up with the charismatic Joneses down the road? [/QUOTE]

I think L'Organist is right, it can and does happen ... but usually there are a combination of circumstances, not just ministerial whim. The powers-that-be in the CofE (and Church in Wales too, judging by L'Organist's comments) are so desperate to get bums on seats that they think that by dumbing things down they'll attract more people across the threshold.

Here aboard Ship, Chorister is someone who has lived through 'worship wars' in her previous parish ... when a new incumbent came in and trying to spice everything up and make it more charismatic ...

I've also met charismatic clergy who have gone into a medieval parish church like a bull in a china shop and tried to turn it into Holy Trinity Brompton - regardless of the wishes of the congregation. I know one such who is no longer in the CofE but in some whacky, loopy-doopy outfit that I'd have thought strange even in my more full-on restorationist house-church days ...

L'Organist will correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression I get is the barging in and trying to inculcate my own views/churchmanship thing isn't as common as it once was ...

I can also give examples of the opposite tendency, with Anglo-Catholic, high as kite clergy trying to drag low/MoTR parishes higher up the candle ... and meeting similar opposition/disapproval.

I've been accused of cultural snobbery here aboard Ship a few times - but I think this issue goes deeper than that - it's about having a lack of respect for other people's positions/viewpoints and trying to impose one's own whether they like it or not.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And yes, I think Snags is right, the music is only one of a range of factors that puts people off church - or rather, doesn't attract them in the first place.

The reality is that there's no pleasing everyone. A devout Anglican I worked with once who attended a relatively thriving parish church in a former Yorkshire mill town told me that none of her relatives went because they didn't like to 'share the peace' ... the shaking hands with strangers thing was too much for them.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
We've had a case of a clergy person moving into a medium-sized parish near here and ridding themselves of organist, choir, the only person in the music group with any talent, plus two out of three Readers in under 3 years.

Colateral damage - in the shape of those who were sacked/alienated being related to people with other jobs in the parish - has been that there is now no Sunday School, creche or youth club. The informal toddler group is still hanging in with the help of the one remaining Reader but the PP has them in their sights as well.

Of the musicians, all have found a welcome at other places within a reasonable distance (yes, some in my own choir); one of the sacked Readers is now number 2 in the Cathedral's chaplaincy team, the triumvirate who headed up creche, SS and youth group have been welcomed as a team by a neighbouring parish (in which one of them already lived). The outlook for the toddler group isn't looking rosy because the PP refuses to advertise that it exists and as the children get to school age they don't go.

The bishop is officially 'concerned' but the PP immediately claimed to be stressed when the damage was brought up and took 3 months off as sick.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Vicars with all this energy to meddle ought to be sent to one of the many failing CofE congregations that need re-vitalising, not to comfortable churches with excellent choirs.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Eek, that does sound somewhat grim.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Vicars with all this energy to meddle ought to be sent to one of the many failing CofE congregations that need re-vitalising, not to comfortable churches with excellent choirs.

[Overused]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Svitlana 2
quote:
Vicars with all this energy to meddle ought to be sent to one of the many failing CofE congregations that need re-vitalising, not to comfortable churches with excellent choirs.
Ah, but the incumbent in question gave as their rationale for the wholesale blood-letting that the parish needed 'spiritual renewal' and so, after a fallow 6 months, launched a half-arsed version of the Alpha Course but without the catering. I'm reliably informed it hasn't been a huge success. (Meanwhile my spies at Diocesan House tell me that after 3 years their former parish is starting to show signs of renewed life, they having done much the same thing there.)
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Oh, I don't doubt that the ventures you describe were justified as necessary by those in charge. (Although running an Alpha course surely doesn't mean you have to disband the choir??)

The cynic in me imagines that some of these ministers want to embark on a grand mission for the church, but want to pursue it in as comfortable an environment as possible. I mean, who wants to have to inconvenience themselves (and their families) in a parish/circuit/congregation that's seriously struggling?

I should think the majority of CofE churches are in need of 'spiritual renewal'. The same could be said for most congregations in most denominations in the country. The question is which churches (or parishes) are picked out for special attention, and why.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
We've had a case of a clergy person moving into a medium-sized parish near here and ridding themselves of organist, choir, the only person in the music group with any talent, plus two out of three Readers in under 3 years.

Colateral damage - in the shape of those who were sacked/alienated being related to people with other jobs in the parish - has been that there is now no Sunday School, creche or youth club. The informal toddler group is still hanging in with the help of the one remaining Reader but the PP has them in their sights as well.

Of the musicians, all have found a welcome at other places within a reasonable distance (yes, some in my own choir); one of the sacked Readers is now number 2 in the Cathedral's chaplaincy team, the triumvirate who headed up creche, SS and youth group have been welcomed as a team by a neighbouring parish (in which one of them already lived). The outlook for the toddler group isn't looking rosy because the PP refuses to advertise that it exists and as the children get to school age they don't go.

The bishop is officially 'concerned' but the PP immediately claimed to be stressed when the damage was brought up and took 3 months off as sick.

Granted this kind of thing happens in IME - but it is far from the only reason why there are issues and divisions in churches. It's fairly common, again in IME, for "music" to be a presenting and public issue when the real concerns are somewhat under the surface.

Yes there are Vicars, Ministers who railroad over the wishes of people. There are also people in churches who hold onto power like grim death and likewise manipulators and gossips behind the scenes who spread their poison and remain invisible. It soemtimes takes a crisis to reveal self interest and the church can be all the better for it if the issues of (perhaps) geneerations are finally addressed.

If it helps the discussion, I am the person who left the church because of the music and, no I wasn't trying to change anything (I wasn't in a position to). The music was pretty similar to the church we'd moved away from for work reasons.

A market town church with a choir that was just bad, dominated by cliques and people who wanted to run the whole show. Not very welcoming for a family new to the congregation.

[ 25. November 2015, 06:20: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I've seen the "new clergy person determined to change things" - the interim guy was high church and that's how he does church, even demanding purchase of expensive ornate garments and banning any modern anthems as "concertizing the worship." But people knew they'd just have to wait a year or so. Attendance dropped but promptly resumed after the new "permanent" clergy arrived.

I've seen "kill the choir" happen by ignorance. The search committee announced ahey needed to offer more money to get the clergy person they wanted so the vestry fired the choir director and added his pay to the new clergy package. We choir members were told via email that we should continue being the choir with no director - not just somehow for a week or two but apparently permanently. The director was given 2 days notice.

Most choir members dropped out of choir in protest of the brutality of such a sudden firing when there was no misconduct cause. Also, none of us felt competent to lead and certainly didn't want the work and the being on the hot seat for complaints about music.

Half of the members have not returned even though a competent (but reluctant) volunteer stepped up and did it for 2 years, and when she quit the vestry couldn't find another volunteer and hired a director.

I asked my piano teacher what would have been going on in the heads of the vestry that they would expect a choir used to depending on a highly trained leader to function with no leader. He said people commonly think music just happens. They sing in the shower, choirs sing in church, they think it's the same thing.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think it was Tom Smail, the veteran Church of Scotland renewalist - and author of some pretty impressive books - who wrote that choirs and music can be the 'septic focii' for disagreements within congregations - and which bring other issues to the surface ...

As ExclamationMark says, it often isn't about the music per se, but the music acts as the public outlet/focus for long-standing grievances of one form or other ... whether justified or otherwise.

These things work both ways, there can certainly be domineering and even down-right abusive congregations just as there can be control-freak leaders/ministers.

As a general rule of thumb, on the ministerial side I think that the very nature of things means that those who throw their weight around musically speaking are most likely to come from either the evangelical end of the spectrum or the higher-end of things ... why? Because both these churchmanships/persuasions tend to have distinct musical styles/preferences which are sometimes taken by their proponents as some kind of indicator of spiritual life or progress.

So, for instance, I've heard our vicar say in response to a question as to whether the church website ought to have pictures of people raising their hands charismatic style in worship, 'Well, that's where we'd like people to be and that's what we'd be aiming at, but it's not right for everyone ...'

Which sounds accommodating but the sub-text there is that charismatic style worship is the ideal and something to aim for ...

Conversely, of course, those from a more sacramentalist background will often obsess about minor details of rubric and presentation ...

I don't know what can be done about that - you can't expect people - whether charismatic or Anglo-Catholic (or both [Biased] ) to readily abandon styles of worship they believe to be important.

It'd be easy to say that the charismatic types should only go to charismatic parishes and the more sacramental types to higher-church parishes but life isn't as clear-cut as that - and in the CofE things are even messier ... [Big Grin]

There'll be parallel issues in Baptist and other Free Churches too.

I know plenty of evangelical clergy who have started out all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, trying to run Alpha courses in traditional rural parishes and the like - only to find that it doesn't work.

I'm sure there are plenty of nose-bleed high Anglican clergy who have similarly tried to drag MoTR or low-church parishes up the candle and given it up as a bad job.

What I do find odd is when there are supposed to be different types of service in the same parish and the incumbent does the same thing at each ... I kid you not - it does happen.

My brother visited a parish in South Wales where they had a Family Service with such jolly-japes as a three-legged race down the aisle to illustrate the sermon about relying on one another's support ...

Unwilling to join in with the 'little actions' and the puerile songs, he returned earlier the following Sunday for the apparently more traditional service - only to find ... guess what? The vicar pulled the same stunt there and they had the action songs and all the daft malarkey running up and down the aisles ...

[Roll Eyes]

The bloke was clearly out to impose a clap-hands here comes Charlie style on both services ...

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
jolly-japes
You rang? [Devil]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Seems a bit strange to have the same person lead two very different kinds of service. The leader is obviously going to like one better than the other. And the temptation will always be there to use the same material for each.

Still, I can imagine quite a few Methodist ministers getting away with organising a three-legged race during all-age worship at a 'traditional' Methodist church. The older people might squirm, but they know the score; this is the sort of thing that happens when the kids are around.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I think that's where being a good leader/contributor comes in. If you can't see that the needs of the service/situation outweigh your own personal preferences you're in the wrong role. And if you're a one-trick pony, you should restrict yourself to occasions where that's the right trick [Smile]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I suppose it's a matter of necessity. Very few churches have enough of their own preachers or ministers to be able to insure that different weekly services can be led by different people.

From the Ship I also understand that CofE clergy are expected to be able to conduct worship in a different tradition from their own. I'm sure there are many advantages to this, but one disadvantage is surely that some of them risk finding themselves regularly uninspired, paid to go through the motions rather than engaging emotionally or spiritually with what the job requires of them. But I suppose that's a risk all clergy take anyway.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
All the more reason for having a relatively limited range of variation from a standard liturgical form, at least for the principal services. At least that way everybody knows what they're in for, and clergy are less likely to fall into the trap of thinking that what happens depends on them.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
But the CofE has become a broad church. Its historical liturgies and musical choices don't necessarily fit well with the diversity that has developed and may continue to develop.

I agree it might be easier for casual visitors if they knew what they were going to get in any given CofE church. But you could deal with that by simply putting more detail on church notice boards and on websites! Reducing diversity isn't the answer, IMO.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I think the differenc between us is that I am one of those who sees churches, and perhaps specifically churches like the CofE, as institutions which are in a sense independent of the particular choices and views of those who attend their servcies at any given time, whereas AIUI you see churches as being to some extent expressions of worshippers' choices. I am not saying that either view is right or wrong, merely that our ecclesiology seems to be different.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
My point about the three-legged race and similar jolly-japes (hi Jolly Japes, nice to see you! [Big Grin] ) in the all-age service is that this particular incumbent then proceeded to introduce similar stunts into the early, apparently more traditional service.

It didn't seem to occur to him that the whole point of an earlier more traditional style service was for the benefit of those who don't want to go to all-age services and be subjected to mind-rotting three-legged races and such like malarkey.

The idiot wanted to impose his own frivolous liturgical tastes onto everybody else, whether they liked it or not ...

I suspect I'm somewhere between Albertus and SvitlanaV2 on this one ...but you'd have to drag me kicking and screaming into an all-age service these days and although I was a card-carrying charismatic for many years it wouldn't worry me in the least if I never attended another charismatic service ever again ...

I probably wouldn't run screaming into the street, but I wouldn't be a happy bunny ...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Just as a tangent: why are things apparently aimed exclusively at small children billed as 'all age'? Why is it assumed that adults might get something out of them, when nobody assumes (perhaps rightly) that small children will get something out of, say, Choral Mattins? Is this just a lazy and/or stupid belief that inclusivity is easy and achieved by simply going for the lowest common denominator all the time, when actually achieving something that really does cast the net wide requires a great deal of skill and careful planning ?

[ 27. November 2015, 14:20: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think both ends of the spectrum could be accused of wanting to 'reduce diversity'.

The charismatics want everyone to be like them.

So do many of the High Church people.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I think that's right, Albertus. 'All-age' is a synonym for infantile.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Albertus

Re your earlier post:

I can see how cathedrals and other historically significant - and well-funded - churches might feel obliged to maintain a specific way of being regardless of who attends or doesn't attend their services. In that sense, cathedral worship isn't personalised by those who participate in it. But I can't see how that would work for the majority of churches, perhaps even for the majority of CofE churches, today.

Speaking for myself, I currently attend CofE worship fully accepting that I have no influence over what happens there (i.e. during worship). But in order to belong in a proper sense I'd eventually have to attend a church where I did feel I could have a say.

[ 27. November 2015, 14:58: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
But it shouldn't need to be. Truly skilled practitioners can offer something which "everyone can approach at their own level". But it's a rare gift to be able to do that!

Perhaps a more realistic compromise is a service where there is a "bit" for everyone, and the others are asked to quietly watch the sections that aren't directly "aimed" at them.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I agree entirely, BT.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Albertus

Re your earlier post:

I can see how cathedrals and other historically significant - and well-funded - churches might feel obliged to maintain a specific way of being regardless of who attends or doesn't attend their services. In that sense, cathedral worship isn't personalised by those who participate in it. But I can't see how that would work for the majority of churches, perhaps even for the majority of CofE churches, today.

Speaking for myself, I currently attend CofE worship fully accepting that I have no influence over what happens there (i.e. during worship). But in order to belong in a proper sense I'd eventually have to attend a church where I did feel I could have a say.

Of course your worship has to be attuned to your people. But I believe it's also, in the CofE at least, about participating in the worship of the Church more widely. So you need a balance between these things, which IMO means a basic standard of practice, at least for principal services, with a certain but bounded degree of room for variation- Up, Down or indeed sideways.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Truly skilled practitioners can offer something which "everyone can approach at their own level". But it's a rare gift to be able to do that!

Perhaps a more realistic compromise is a service where there is a "bit" for everyone, and the others are asked to quietly watch the sections that aren't directly "aimed" at them.

I'd be interested to know how this would work. The problem these days, of course, is that people have short attention spans. 'Quietly' watching stuff that doesn't interest you isn't what happens in our culture. You might as well give people time out so they can check their phones!

I know of a church in my city that has worship via 'stations'. Different things happen in different parts of the building, all at the same time. The main sanctuary is where people start, and traditional worship continues there. Then these who want to can go off to do other things worshipfully in other rooms. I really must get to this church so I can see how it works, but the problem I can think of straight away is that it's likely to absorb a huge amount of manpower and resources.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Truly skilled practitioners can offer something which "everyone can approach at their own level". But it's a rare gift to be able to do that!

Perhaps a more realistic compromise is a service where there is a "bit" for everyone, and the others are asked to quietly watch the sections that aren't directly "aimed" at them.

I'd be interested to know how this would work. The problem these days, of course, is that people have short attention spans. 'Quietly' watching stuff that doesn't interest you isn't what happens in our culture. You might as well give people time out so they can check their phones!

I know of a church in my city that has worship via 'stations'. Different things happen in different parts of the building, all at the same time. The main sanctuary is where people start, and traditional worship continues there. Then these who want to can go off to do other things worshipfully in other rooms. I really must get to this church so I can see how it works, but the problem I can think of straight away is that it's likely to absorb a huge amount of manpower and resources.

It works by having people who know what they're doing do it [Smile]

As others have said, true All Age Worship can be great, but is very difficult to do, and not many folk have the necessary gifting/skill-sets (or interest to develop them, perhaps). Also, I think it's fair to say that to some extent the potential for success is going to be modified by the wider tradition within which you sit. If you're in a tradition where the only "proper" service is one done to a very clear and strict pattern, including structure, forms of words etc. then it is and it is, and that's that in terms of content (although delivery can be widely different, I suspect).

If you come from a lower background where you need to include certain elements, but exactly how is open, you have more leeway to do something that can work for everyone, more or less. "All Age" doesn't have to be a synonym for "primary school", even if it's often much abused in that way.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I also feel people have different needs during worship at different times in life's journey. I see myself as having gone through 4 stages. As a child I attended very traditional middle of the road Anglican services - I'm not sure there were any other kinds on offer. In my teens I embraced the more casual offering with music that was often more of a dance than a song- very much a product of the 60s. In my 20s and 30s, I struggled to get to church because of the demands of a young family and was often found leading/teaching Sunday School rather than going to church. Life was chaotic as I'm sure every parent can attest to. Now as a mature adult with no kids left at home and lots of grandchildren, I seek the more contemplative style of worship as is found in the Anglo Catholic parish I attend. I have a deep love of good music, particularly classics and relate to the quiet times for prayer and the silences offered. I find that I now loathe an extra busy church with lots of noise, pop music and little time to reflect. I'm happy for other churches to cater to the teenage style worship of my youth, just not my church thank you. It saddens me that many choose to create churches that are clones of ech other without recognising that people aren't all the same and have different needs, particularly as they age.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
It saddens me that many choose to create churches that are clones of each other without recognising that people aren't all the same and have different needs, particularly as they age.

Most British churches are more likely to be clones of each other in the sense of leaning towards meeting the needs of older attenders. This is because churchgoers here are generally quite a bit older than the wider population.

Complaints about the rash of bad worship music indicate to me that the writer lives in an area with a younger than average churchgoing demographic and a higher than average church attendance.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
But perhaps, if at all, only marginally so. It only takes a determined minister/ music leader and a few people willing to go along with him/her to introduce a new style of music, for better or for worse.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Well maybe in Anglicans but it took three ministers in my home congregation to cut the number of hymns sung from five to four on a Sunday. The congregation simply waited for the minister to leave and returned the number to five. The third succeeded only because she changed the fifth hymn to a psalm (often read responsorially).

Jengie
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I'm tempted to ask if your "Notes for Visiting Preachers" included the rubric, "These notes are only a guide, please feel free to amend them as the Holy Spirit may lead" ... and what happened if someone took their advice and Changed Things?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Oh c'mon, Baptist Trainfan, we all know that the Holy Spirit wrote the Book of Common Prayer ...

[Biased]
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm tempted to ask if your "Notes for Visiting Preachers" included the rubric, "These notes are only a guide, please feel free to amend them as the Holy Spirit may lead" ... and what happened if someone took their advice and Changed Things?

Probably, and congregation would overlook it as a faux pas of not being familiar with how things are done here. The way you tolerate guests putting milk and tea in the cup in the wrong order. After all it is not likely they will be leading worship next week.

The congregation did have "Children's Address: (if there are no children the worship leader may do what he likes)". That lasted until my Dad threatened to bring a good bottle or whisky and invite all members of the congregation to come and join him in a tipple in the vestry.

Jengie

[ 01. December 2015, 09:34: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
It saddens me that many choose to create churches that are clones of each other without recognising that people aren't all the same and have different needs, particularly as they age.

Most British churches are more likely to be clones of each other in the sense of leaning towards meeting the needs of older attenders. This is because churchgoers here are generally quite a bit older than the wider population.

Complaints about the rash of bad worship music indicate to me that the writer lives in an area with a younger than average churchgoing demographic and a higher than average church attendance.

Not necessarily. An organ that needs £10,000 that no-one's got spending on it and a choir of three elderly ladies who could once sing but possibly that was just before the relief of Mafeking and one old man who never got this part singing thing worked out can be pretty dire as well, albeit in a different way.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Well maybe in Anglicans ...

Even in your own tradition, Jengie. At least, AIUI that's what happened at the URC/PCW church Mrs A's parents attend (with decreasing frequency nowadays).
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Did you read the rest of the post? The clergy made changes, they were promptly undone in the vacancy.

Jengie

[ 01. December 2015, 16:51: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I don't know whether you meant it to, Jengie, but that came across as rather tetchy.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
An organ that needs £10,000 that no-one's got spending on it and a choir of three elderly ladies who could once sing but possibly that was just before the relief of Mafeking and one old man who never got this part singing thing worked out can be pretty dire as well, albeit in a different way.

One might well find three warbling old ladies and an organ that needs repairing quite unpleasant to listen to, but it's plain to see that the complaints here are mostly about modern worship music.

The difference is that one situation represents a choice, and the other is about making do with a bad situation. Few people on the Ship want to knock a church when it's down, but a church that deliberately decides in favour of bad music (as some would see it) when other options are available is another matter.

[ 01. December 2015, 23:50: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I disagree. Continuing to use a knackered organ and pointless choir is a choice. The better way of "making do" would be to use the piano and disband the choir.

These things are always choices. My personal experience is that church music is either modern and crap, old and crap, or old and good but beyond most church musicians to play. There are exceptions, of course, and my view may be coloured by my nature as a miserable git, but I'm actually quite relieved that we don't do singing in our church much. We have an African setting for the Sanctus and which you can sing along with if you like, but that's about it. I like it that way, despite being a musician.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I agree, KL.

The point is that there seems to be a widespread feeling that if music is "done for the Lord" then it matters not if it is done badly, or that what is done is done well but the material is terrible.

I'm not against modern stuff but I do expect it to be of a certain standard, both of words and music, and I've been (and still am) fortunate to work for clergy who back that up.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not sure that objections simply focus on whether music is modern or not - ancient and modern - but it's more an issue of style and content.

There is plenty of modern sacred music that never sees the light of day in either the youthful, vibrant evangelical charismatic congregations nor the more liberal, MoTR or traditional ones ...

In all these cases the 'best' music and best arrangements are obviously going to be found where the resources exist to provide and sustain them - whether that be a cathedral or a large and lively evangelical congregation.

The problem on both sides of the ancient/modern divide is one or resources and training to a certain extent. Some modern 'classical' arrangements are frankly unsingable beyond trained professional choirs.

The converse is the case in a different kind of way among the charismatic evangelicals ... some of the arrangements can and do sound impressive at a large rally with all the PA gear and the trimmings ... but when congregations attempt to replicate that with 30 people and - horror of horrors - perhaps even a backing track, the effect is pretty grim.

There's also the issue that some - but by no means all - contemporary worship-songs and choruses can be pretty vapid in content and also down-right manipulative ... but this is a view that's been aired many times before.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Some of the arrangements can and do sound impressive at a large rally with all the PA gear and the trimmings ... but when congregations attempt to replicate that with 30 people and - horror of horrors - perhaps even a backing track, the effect is pretty grim.

Even worse when you've just got an elderly lady who was reputedly good on the violin half-a-century ago (but no-one remembers), a 6 year-old recorder player who can only play three notes "because we must include the children", and the euphonium player from the local brass band because he'd be mortally offended and walk out of the church if you didn't ask him to play.

Such are the realities of church life in many places ... and that's the point I'm trying to make. There may be a real tension between "ideal" and "authentic"; and, for good reasons or bad, there may be times when the latter should be allowed to win.

[ 02. December 2015, 12:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Continuing to use a knackered organ and pointless choir is a choice. The better way of "making do" would be to use the piano and disband the choir.

These things are always choices. My personal experience is that church music is either modern and crap, old and crap, or old and good but beyond most church musicians to play.

I quite agree that church music can be old and crap. I didn't say otherwise. But I don't think it's necessarily the case that a church with a crap choir and crap organ is going to be much better if the music played on the piano.

However, perhaps I'm not really aware how these things are likely to work in the CofE. In the Methodist congregations I've come across, 'bad music' would often be an issue because the church has become very weak and few of the available and affordable alternatives would be better. For example, if the organ is crap because of lack of funds, the piano probably hasn't been tuned for a while either. Or the pianist herself might not be all that great. The congregation might be singing unaccompanied, or - as in one case I came across - you'd have a hippy on a pair of bongos as accompaniment throughout the service. Some of us would quite like this. Many would just see it as making do. Some would call it ... crap.

Not bothering with singing at all is an option, but not a mainstream one.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Also gaining in popularity are electronic accompaniments, sort of ecclesiastical karaoke. I guess they're better than nothing for congregations that just can't afford organ (or decent piano) and organist and who have no choirs, but I dearly hope never to belong to a church that uses one. I'm very lucky to have a church that's very supportive of our music program.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I'm very lucky to have a church that's very supportive of our music program.

You've very lucky to attend a church with the necessary manpower and resources, and where the congregation is sufficiently united in its approach to music.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The thing is, though, SvitlanaV2, there are some traditions which don't go in for accompanied singing - most Orthodox jurisdictions of course - and, from what I can gather, still a small number of ultra-traditional Protestant sects in the USA.

They face a similar issue. Even if they don't have a piano to tune or bongo drums to bong, they are at the mercy of a cantor or someone to lead the chant - who may or may not be particularly good or gifted at it.

I've heard Orthodox chant which has lifted me to the heavens ... I've heard other examples that sound as if they've emanated from the other place ...

I agree with you that not-singing at all is an option. I don't see why there should be any problem about that. I've been to university chaplaincy services in the past where nobody has sung a note but everyone has followed an order of service either from one of the prayer books or prepared especially for the occasion.

Do those of us who follow a 'daily office' sing it? Or do we 'say' it?

I can't speak for anyone else but I do both - but I wouldn't sing particularly loudly if there were someone else in the house at the time.

I really don't see what's wrong with people gathering and working their way through Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer or whatever else from one of the service books - be it the Book of Common Prayer, Common Worship or whatever the equivalent might be in whatever church or denomination we are talking about.

We don't have to sing hymns, we don't have to sing worship songs and choruses. Why not simply 'do' some of the set prayers? All you need is a prayer book for goodness sake or a set of photocopied sheets.

I mean, it's not rocket-science is it? I'm part of a voluntary editorial team for a Christian magazine. When we gather for our annual residential meeting - and also to a shorter extent in our other meetings - we'll have a time of reflection and prayer. Someone brings a prepared mini-service and we go through it. I led it once, using the Anglican compline service adapted for the purpose. A Methodist minister led it on another occasion using some prayers she'd written and prepared. I don't think any of us sang a note - well, I tell a lie, I did chant one of the office hymns ... but then again, I probably didn't sing a note ... at least not the right ones ... [Biased]

What's wrong with a few hand-outs with some words on? Why do we need an accordion, a harmonium, a synthesiser or an organ, a bass guitar - or the curious tone of the cornet, clarinet and big trombone/ Fiddle, cello, big bass drum,
Bassoon, flute and euphonium ...


[Big Grin]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
If you can gather at least two or three others who are of like mind you can have group worship of whatever kind you like. No disagreement there.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I'm very lucky to have a church that's very supportive of our music program.

You've very lucky to attend a church with the necessary manpower and resources, and where the congregation is sufficiently united in its approach to music.
Yes, I really am.
[Axe murder]
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
So this evening I decided to dip my toes for one last time (we return to the UK soon) into the waters of the missionary fellowship here in our town- it's full of some lovely people but the worship style is not really my cup of tea at all...
Thankfully the woman leading the music tonight has a beautiful alto voice so it sounded good but I struggled nonetheless with singing some of the stuff.

However over the course of the evening I discovered a new survival technique- I simply changed the I in most of the songs to we and it automatically lifted them beyond the embarrassing "love song to Jesus" thingy to more like creedal statements which I am much more at ease with singing in a corporate setting. There were a few moments where it still didn't work and I had to stop singing as I just couldn't do it but in the main it really did change things for me.

Very interesting
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Over the course of the evening I discovered a new survival technique- I simply changed the I in most of the songs to we and it automatically lifted them beyond the embarrassing "love song to Jesus" thingy to more like creedal statements which I am much more at ease with singing in a corporate setting.

A year ago the local clergy person and "worship leader" had a row, clergy wanted some "we" songs instead of all "I" songs, song leader said there is no such thing as "we worship," each person individually worships God.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I've said it before and doubtless will say it again: Your worship leader is a prick.

He does know it's called Corporate Worship?
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I've said it before and doubtless will say it again: Your worship leader is a prick.

He does know it's called Corporate Worship?

He came from a different tradition where I guess the idea that we are in this together, or that one person's faith helps carry another person through hard times, is a foreign concept. He is now gone. Replacement and I have, uhm, parted ways. Which is why I have to learn Sandy Patty's Via Dolorosa for Good Friday in a friend's church (that has no choir and I guess no local soloists). Until now I managed to avoid that song; maybe having to learn it will help me figure out why I don't like it.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Why I don't like Via Dolorosa:

There's no tune.

There are notes, and a bit of repeat, but it's more like recitative than song. To me.

But then, in a broad over-generalization, to me "modern worship music" all "sounds alike" - no solid distinctive tune that sticks in the head, so maybe it's just a genre I don't "get."
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
I've just googled Via Dolorosa out of curiosity and managed to watch just over a minute on YouTube...dear oh dear. I second Belle Ringer's opinion.

Yet Tallis, or Bach, or plainsong, or Taize chant, or Blues (just a few examples)...all these have passion, emotion, not to mention good *tunes* that reach into your heart and soul.

Good luck with that on Good Friday, Belle Ringer [Ultra confused] !
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Also gaining in popularity are electronic accompaniments, sort of ecclesiastical karaoke. I guess they're better than nothing for congregations that just can't afford organ (or decent piano) and organist and who have no choirs, but I dearly hope never to belong to a church that uses one. I'm very lucky to have a church that's very supportive of our music program.

In my experience, they're not better than nothing. An a cappella service, or a service which is completely said, would be far better.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
I've just googled Via Dolorosa out of curiosity and managed to watch just over a minute on YouTube...dear oh dear. I second Belle Ringer's opinion.

Here's a different Via Dolorosa I like, learned it decades ago, haven't gotten anyone local to listen. Poor recording of decent song (I think I learned it without the "sacred head now wounded" part, but it was long ago, I could be wrong.)

To be fair, if I want to propose something not currently common, I need to speak up a couple months ahead, most church program planners don't like "last minute" suggestions. And by the time someone suggests I come sing a solo, they are on a deadline to turn in the program and don't have time to listen to an unfamiliar song or work out an accompaniment.

Maybe I'll write my own via dolorosa - I'm hardly a great composer but hearing stuff in church that I know "even I can do better than that!" gets me writing a few per a year and people mostly seem to like them OK. I can probably do better than the Sandy Patty one - and so probably can you (generic you)!
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
That's rather lovely, Belle Ringer, and although the words are a bit fuzzy to make out it has a decent tune, and I could listen to it with interest. I liked the accompaniment too. The 'sacred head, sore wounded' bit made me a bit tearful... [Frown]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Ouch - frankly both versions leave me [Projectile]

The first I got on YouTube (by some loung chanteuse named Sandy Patti) had an accompaniment more usually found in the theme for a spaghetti western.

Frankly it makes you realise you could do a lot worse than a simple plainsong version of the Reproaches.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Also gaining in popularity are electronic accompaniments, sort of ecclesiastical karaoke. I guess they're better than nothing for congregations that just can't afford organ (or decent piano) and organist and who have no choirs, but I dearly hope never to belong to a church that uses one. I'm very lucky to have a church that's very supportive of our music program.

In my experience, they're not better than nothing. An a cappella service, or a service which is completely said, would be far better.
Dunno, IME, unless you've got at least one assertive singer with a good sense of pitch, a cappella gets you:

- First verse starts about a third too low.
- Congregation knows something has gone wrong and begins to drag and mumble.
- Each verse consequently loses a semitone in pitch.
- Expect to lose another semitone if the last note of each verse is different from the first note of the next.
- Everything sounds dreary and miserable.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Dunno, IME, unless you've got at least one assertive singer with a good sense of pitch, a cappella gets you:

- First verse starts about a third too low.
- Congregation knows something has gone wrong and begins to drag and mumble.
- Each verse consequently loses a semitone in pitch.
- Expect to lose another semitone if the last note of each verse is different from the first note of the next.
- Everything sounds dreary and miserable.

Or the exact opposite happens and it starts out too high and gets higher and higher so people try to screech out the top notes and can't hit them. (It happens with the U.S. national anthem a lot.)
 
Posted by Scots lass (# 2699) on :
 
We were at a wedding on Saturday, and I came across this horror for the first time. To the tune of "Morning Has Broken", which didn't help it any. Mercifully the other hymns chosen were better (if wedding cliches), and my husband has a nice singing voice which made it bearable...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
!! Don't know whether to [Killing me] or [Projectile]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
That song is indeed a horror, but so is having a wedding on Holy Saturday (IMHO).
[Biased]
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scots lass:
We were at a wedding on Saturday, and I came across this horror for the first time. To the tune of "Morning Has Broken", which didn't help it any. Mercifully the other hymns chosen were better (if wedding cliches), and my husband has a nice singing voice which made it bearable...

I thought I had heard its all at marriages, but this, this... this actually makes me a little sad and I cannot figure out why.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Because it was written by Fotherington-Thomas, who, as any fule kno, is wet and weedy?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I'd rather hear Molesworth 2 pla "Fairy Bells"
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Having a) come across a Molesworth reference online somewhere, and b) heard a programme on it the other day, I have gathered up all my copies of the books and am currently halfway through "How to be Topp" - again.
It was years before I understood about Gabbitas and Thring, who did not trouble the state appointment system at all.
And I was interested to find Molesworth had headed his Latin play "Hogwarts".
Agree completely re Molesworth 2 and his musical repertoire.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
25 years ago I actually, in the grand tradition of unemployed Oxbridge graduates with not much clue of what to do, registered with Gabbitas Thring. Got an interview and a couple of other invitations from them, too, tho' something else came up.

Gabbitas creeps round the wood one way

Thring creeps round the other

Gabbitas and Thring trap a young man and lead him off to be a master
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Tee hee. I've got past them now, but not finished the book yet.

Incidentally, I would not have got the Mrs Joyful prize for raffia work. I still have the mat I made aged seven and a bit. It is four inches across. Everyone else's were placemat sized, though one turned into a bowl. I am still slower than everyone else, and I don't know why. I must be in a different space-time continuum, because I am doing what I am doing all the time.

Mad Sigismund will be along in a minute, accusing me of tangents.

[ 30. March 2016, 12:45: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The Head Girl at my sisters' school was Grabber's doppelganger and played the violin in a manner all her own.

I was never the recipient of a prize for raffia work, but I did win the Woodwork Prize, much to my amazement.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
In about '87 I won the someone-or-other prize for Geography - but on speech day (speech day! with speeches in Latin! what universe was I in, and how then did I come to inhabit the one I live in these days?) I went on a shopping trip to Romford with a crowd of Norwegian young people who were staying at our church, and who wanted to buy leather trousers (hey, it must have been an EU trade-war thing). I forgot to come home, until much later when I turned up and encountered Mother in the front room wearing a big hat and acting rather frosty...
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I know it's probably heresy to include Wesley in this list, but ...

I'm one of those people who's a little uncomfortable with that line in 'In Christ Alone'. Imagine my surprise, therefore, to be confronted with 'And can it be' a few weeks ago, to find that the editor had reinstated a hitherto unsuspected sixth verse, usually omitted from most hymn books:
quote:

Still the small inward voice I hear,
That whispers all my sins forgiven;
Still the atoning blood is near,
That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.


 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
And can it be... Wonderful hymn (in fact we have it down for this weekend) but there is always hot debate about which lines to sing at the end of the verse.

After listening to endless bickering I've finally got them to see that there is a refrain (looked into old sources, etc) so now everyone uses the proper two lines at the end of each verse
quote:
Amazing love! how can it be
That thou, my God, should'st die for me!

Now all it needs is for the illiterate loons who produce stuff for the BBC's Songs of Praise to get it right...
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I'd rather hear Molesworth 2 pla "Fairy Bells"

quote:
Piano then goes WAM PLUNK BISH BASH ZUNK while all boys dance like mad bells jangle dogs yap babes cry squadron of heavy bombmers fly overhead rane fall molesworth 2 get strangled in mayploe (...)

Piano then finish RUNK DUNK RILLY ME RE etc and burst into flames

seems appropriate for "wonky worship-songs"*.

==

*And took me three leafings-through to find in The Compleet Molesworth

[spell-check is IMPOSSIBLE for quotes chiz]

[ 22. April 2016, 11:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
[Overused]
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scots lass:
We were at a wedding on Saturday, and I came across this horror for the first time. To the tune of "Morning Has Broken", which didn't help it any. Mercifully the other hymns chosen were better (if wedding cliches), and my husband has a nice singing voice which made it bearable...

Ok - I admit it. I have actually officiated at TWO weddings where this was sung.

The first wedding was of a couple of more mature years (hem hem) who were both remarrying after divorce. One was a regular attender at the church and (for reasons beyond my ken) was absolutely adamant that this hymn be sung. So we did.

On the second occasion (about three years later), I must bear part of the blame. I had given the couple a whole pile of orders of service from previous weddings, so that they could see what they needed to think about. Without realising it, one of the orders of service was for the wedding where we had sung "Come to a Wedding". The next thing I knew, the bride was phoning me excitedly to say that she had found the most perfect hymn to sing - guess which one it was.....

To be honest, I'm not sure it is any worse than singing "I vow to thee my country", "Sing Hosanna" or "One more step along the world I go".
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Blah-dee Hell ... that's awful ...
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Oh my goodness, I liked "Sing Hosanna" when we did it at school, in parts. And "One more step", also at school. (And I think Rabbi Blue liked that one, too, as he mentioned it when writing about Sydney Carter's last illness.)
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I used to like 'Sing Hosanna' too- in primary school assembly. And that's where it belongs.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
'Sing Hosanna' is a fairly normal song in the British Methodist Church. Perhaps more popular during all age worship, but I'm not sure if that makes much of a difference.

As for that wedding song, it's a good choice if the gathered visitors are not church folk. Everyone will know the tune.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Hmm. Yes. There is so much that is hugely admirable about British Methodism; but it does tend to suffer a bit from the common delusion that 'Christian' = 'relentlessly cheerful & nice'. [Biased]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
And yet again church people (folk [Eek!] ) have this quaint belief that everyone will know the tune for Morning has broken - Bunessan - presumably because Mr Steven Georgiou aka Cat Stevens & Yusuf Islam) took it into the top 40 in 1971.

But that was 25 years ago - and in any case Bunessan played on an organ doesn't sound like that.

Worst wedding "song" I've had to deal with was an appalling number about the wedding at Cana to the tune of Morningtown Ride [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
'Folk' has a nice, quaint, rather old-fashioned feel to it - perfect for the kinds of people who still go to church in our illustrious country! [Smile]

As for 'Morning Has Broken' being an old tune, that's obviously all relative. It's not as old as the music that you like, is it?

I agree that it's perhaps not the right tune for a grand country wedding in an ancient church. I was thinking of something a little more humble.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Svitlana: you and I live in the same country: in my part of the world the inhabitants don't tend to use the term 'folk', associating it with either traditional dancing or tunes.

Bunessan modern! It is an old Scots gaelic tune first noted down in the mid-19th century, but probably much older than that.

As for "It's not as old as the music that you like, is it?" You have no idea of my musical taste, either on a personal level or in my work. As it happens a glance through the current music list shows tunes and music from 8th century plainsong to stuff written in 2014.

What I was getting at is that there is a quaint belief that schools still use things like the tune for Morning has Broken and Tell out my soul for assembly but they don't - having junior members of our choir who attend a number of local primary schools I can tell you that none of the current lot had ever heard either tune before hearing it at church.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, 'folk' meaning 'people' - certainly to this southern Englishman that usage flags up a certain kind of arty-wooden-pendant-cross-on-a-leather-bootlace, hand-thrown-earthenware-coffee-mug, home-eucharist-all-sitting-in-a-circle-on-the-floor, Sound-of-Living-Waters....well, if you were there or thereabouts, you'll get the picture. Pretty much the vibe of the Young Communicants group I used to go to c1981.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

As for "It's not as old as the music that you like, is it?" You have no idea of my musical taste, either on a personal level or in my work. As it happens a glance through the current music list shows tunes and music from 8th century plainsong to stuff written in 2014.

What I was getting at is that there is a quaint belief that schools still use things like the tune for Morning has Broken and Tell out my soul for assembly but they don't - having junior members of our choir who attend a number of local primary schools I can tell you that none of the current lot had ever heard either tune before hearing it at church.

On this thread you mostly seem to criticise modern church music rather than older tunes, so that's what I was thinking of. But yes, I'm sure there are many excellent modern composers.

Regarding schoolchildren, not many of them would recognise any kind of church music these days, I imagine, but CofE schools are probably a different kettle of fish.

I don't see many kids at weddings these days, though.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
(Except that quite a few couples wait to get married until their own kids are old enough to take part ...).
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've got to the age where I attend more funerals than weddings, but I can't say I've noticed that kids are less evident at weddings than they used to be.

If friends and relatives of the happy couple have got kids, they'll still take them to the wedding, surely?

[Confused]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Around here the local CofE schools are no different from the others, at least at primary level.

At secondary level - well, our local CofE comprehensive doesn't hold assemblies at all: they reckon an assembly is covered by a form teacher taking the register and dishing out notices. Once a term there is a house eucharist, but that is voluntary.

As for children at weddings, they're only going to be there if they are invited, and many modern couples choose not to have children - I suspect because of the reversion to a sit-down meal at the wedding reception. In my day there was a sumptuous meal but it was a buffet and rather more relaxed, but today its all seating plans and if the wedding is at noon they still expect you to be there for an evening do until the early hours [Ultra confused]

Something that is being requested more for weddings is the twee We pledge to one another: quite apart from the fact that it is written as for the happy couple alone singing it, it is pure Patience Strong. I'm sure it was written with the best of intentions but really...

Worst thing I've heard this wedding 'season'? Try this horror (first two verses only) which was read by a pair of the happy couple's friends
quote:
He never leaves the seat up
Or wet towels upon the floor
The toothpaste has the lid on
And he always shuts the door!

She’s very clean and tidy
Though she may sometimes delude
Leave your things out at your peril
In a second they’ll have moved!

And on and on it went, ever more banal and toe-curling. It was the only reading at a wedding certified as being according to the 'rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. [Projectile]
 
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
[Projectile] indeed!
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
From an Australian mate of mine, it's a thing down there, really

The scheming elders challenged Christ:
“What do you have to say?
We caught her in adultery.
We’ll stone her here today.
Come, teacher, speak! Why hesitate?
We know what Moses said.
The law is clear, her guilt is known,
And she will soon be dead.”
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Back to the 'come to a wedding' thing. Occurred to me today that it is of course well suited to be played waveringly on the flute by the same rather drippy friend of the happy couple who will massacre a bit of Pachelbel while the registers are being signed.
As for the ghastliness cited by l'o: oh for a vicar with the balls to say 'if you want that (certainly, if you want nothing but that) you can sod off to the country house hotel down the road'.

[ 24. April 2016, 14:02: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Scots lass (# 2699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Back to the 'come to a wedding' thing. Occurred to me today that it is of course well suited to be played waveringly on the flute by the same rather drippy friend of the happy couple who will massacre a bit of Pachelbel while the registers are being signed.
As for the ghastliness cited by l'o: oh for a vicar with the balls to say 'if you want that (certainly, if you want nothing but that) you can sod off to the country house hotel down the road'.

Oddly, the wedding where I came across it also had Pachelbel during the register signing. Mercifully on the organ, not a badly played flute! The whole wedding felt like it was based on what a church wedding ought to be like, rather than things the couple actually liked themselves. But then we were fortunate enough to have friends who were professional musicians and my husband's church choir take care of all the (very carefully chosen) music in my own wedding, so I thought there was a risk I was just being a bit snobbish. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the hymn is an abomination!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
As for the ghastliness cited by l'o: oh for a vicar with the balls to say 'if you want that (certainly, if you want nothing but that) you can sod off to the country house hotel down the road'.

This surely is the nub of the matter. If we want non-churched folk to have weddings in our churches, then we must "bend" to suit them to a greater or lesser degree - although it irks me when they think they can just use the church as a "venue" and boss us around.

Conversely, we may want to be very strict and ask "why" they want a church wedding if they do not share our Faith? Unfortunately, while we may say that we are protecting their integrity by sending them to the hotel down the road, they will probably see it as a rejection by the Church.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Most of these hymns are suggested on the CofE website on how to plan a wedding
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Only 30% of weddings in England and Wales now include a religious ceremony, so that must mean relatively few churches are troubled by couples who have poor taste in hymns. Maybe the problem is now likely to be concentrated in churches of a very particular type - very picturesque and semi-rural, perhaps? CofE, obviously. I think most of the other denominations have less exalted expectations.

[ 24. April 2016, 15:35: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Oh, I agree with BT that we need to 'bend' a bit. that's fine. But people marrying in church need to understand that it's not quite the same thing as getting married in a country house hotel: that they may need to bend a bit as well.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
But few of the songs mentioned above are disagreeable based on CofE (or other mainstream Christian) doctrines. They're disagreeable mainly on the grounds of taste. But taste changes all the time, and it varies from person to person.

There's also a class element to it, and one can't help but see a cleavage between the class-influenced taste preferences of the CofE's leaders and cultural arbiters, and of the people who might come forward for a church wedding. (And I'm not talking primarily about what people earn. It all seems more subtle than that.)

Perhaps one problem for the CofE is that as a national institution people think they somehow 'own' it. They see it as a public service, like the NHS. If they want songs set to pop tunes, or something they sang in school assembly back in 1985, they can't see why they shouldn't get what they want.

Reduce the number of hymns sung during weddings then there won't be so much to disagree about.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Reduce the number of hymns sung during weddings then there won't be so much to disagree about.

Of course there would. Because a couple is completely free to do that right now. The hymns are all optional - there's no need to have any singing at all in a C of E wedding. Certainly it is usual to sing hymns, but if a couple don't want hymns then that's perfectly possible.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I wonder how many actually cut the hymns out entirely? There must be couples who feel that having communal singing at a church wedding is somehow the done thing, even if neither they nor their visitors are really into singing, or church music.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
There is a taste thing, you're right, and that really comes into its own where something like the toe-curling piece of tweeness that l'o mentioned rears its ugly head. But the thing is, if you are going to have any 'secular' readings or music (and my real shock was that that should have been included but no Bible reading at all), it's very difficult to draw a line on taste grounds: if you'd be happy with a Shakespeare sonnet you probably can't really say that you won't have some piece of utter cack if it means a lot to the couple. (Well, I suppose you might draw the line at something like 'We're a great team/You're my best buddy/I often dream/ Of you in the nuddy', but short of that.)And I imagine that most clergy are perfectly used to taking weddings and funerals which have features which they consider tasteless, so long as they're not doctrinally unacceptable. That's ministry for you. You have to let people have it and it's right that you have to.

[ 24. April 2016, 19:38: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I have helped at a wedding with no hymns. They are not required in a CofE wedding.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Curiosity killed
quote:
Most of these hymns are suggested on the CofE website on how to plan a wedding
I know. It doesn't make them any better, or even suitable, it just goes to show that whoever drew up the list has either had their critical faculties removed or is indeed the real-life caricature of the stuck-in-the-70s 'trendy' vicar.

If you think I'm being harsh, pause and reflect on what level - other than perhaps a passing slight familiarity with the tune - is Lord of the Dance a natural fit for a wedding. Frankly I can make a better case for O love that wilt not let me go and that has always been more associated with funerals.

As for the other music - ever heard of anyone walking out of church at the end of a wedding to Debussy's Clair de lune? Me neither.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh, I agree with BT that we need to 'bend' a bit. that's fine. But people marrying in church need to understand that it's not quite the same thing as getting married in a country house hotel: that they may need to bend a bit as well.

Agreed.

And, while we're at it - could we please have a moratorium on 1 Corinthians 13 which is NOT ABOUT WEDDINGS.

[ 24. April 2016, 22:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I wonder how many actually cut the hymns out entirely? There must be couples who feel that having communal singing at a church wedding is somehow the done thing, even if neither they nor their visitors are really into singing, or church music.

I think this cultural memory of what a wedding looks like is the only possible explanation for some weddings that happen. Everybody's seen weddings in films and on TV - they start "Dearly beloved", there's a bunch of mumbling, a bit of singing, and a public snog.

I was a guest at one (entirely secular) wedding where the assembled guests were invited to sing "When I'm 64" a cappella. This was a dismal failure, as it transpired that whilst most people more or less knew the tune for the verses, nobody at all could sing the bridges (words were provided, but no music - perhaps not the wisest choice) and there was no accompanist to keep it going.

The B&G were both honest atheists, and not going to pretend to a faith they didn't have in order to put on the traditional churchy trappings, but I can only explain the singalong with some kind of cultural imprinting of what weddings look like.
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

And, while we're at it - could we please have a moratorium on 1 Corinthians 13 which is NOT ABOUT WEDDINGS.

No we couldn't. It might not be about weddings but it is about love. As long as some people consider love to be an important aspect of marriage then you'll be stuck with people wanting this to be read at their weddings. How can
quote:
4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
be inappropriate?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I don't object to that bit, not at all - of course. But do we have to have the whole chapter, including the bit about "tongues", which is utterly incomprehensible to most people? The reading is being taken out of context.
 
Posted by Salicional (# 16461) on :
 
I don't think Paul is talking about love in the romantic sense in this chapter. Older translations use the word 'charity', which has an entirely different connotation -- more like how to get along with people you might secretly despise.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Surely the point of 1 Cor. 13 is that it comes between 1 Cor. 12 & 14 ... it's about the loving use of charismata in a Church which was "hot" on spiritual gifts but extremely poor on motivation, relationships and humility. Obviously the principles of love can be applied to other contexts, but that's not why it was written.

[ 25. April 2016, 17:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
But what would be an appropriate Bible reading about romantic love? Something from the Song of Solomon?? St. Paul telling wives to submit to their husbands, and husbands to love their wives???

I think either would be okay, but it occurs to me that the Bible isn't 'safe' enough for most weddings.

But this thread is about music, and I have a business idea for someone: if you enjoy writing songs you could publish a book of lovey-dovey, CofE-friendly, alternative lyrics for well-known hymn tunes. You could even provide a bespoke service for bridal couples who want something extra special....
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But what would be an appropriate Bible reading about romantic love? Something from the Song of Solomon?? St. Paul telling wives to submit to their husbands, and husbands to love their wives???

We had Song of Solomon 8:6–7 at our wedding:
quote:
Set me as a seal upon your heart,
as a seal upon your arm;
for love is strong as death,
passion fierce as the grave.
Its flashes are flashes of fire,
a raging flame.

Many waters cannot quench love,
neither can floods drown it.
If one offered for love
all the wealth of one’s house,
it would be utterly scorned.

And I'll admit it, we also had I Corinthians 13. Yes, we understood the original intent and context, as I imagine did many there. (Lots of clergy and others with substantial theological education in attendance.) But I have a hard time imagining words more apropos for those beginning married life than those quoted by Jonah the Whale above. To me, its use at weddings suggests something like the home as the place we practice love most intentionally, but with the expectation that doing so strengthens our expression of love in wider contexts.

I suspect Paul wouldn't mind—well, at least once he got past the fact that people are still getting married at all.

[ 25. April 2016, 18:40: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
 
Posted by Salicional (# 16461) on :
 
I've often thought that 'Fight the Good Fight' would be very appropriate for weddings. (Sung to Duke Street, of course.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The 1 Cor 13 thing. I think I read it first in "The Road less Travelled". The understanding that the journey from falling in love to loving is difficult and problematic in our culture, because people are confused about the difference between romantic attraction and loving, 1 Cor 13 style.

Rather than have it at weddings though, it would be helpful for any couple to spend some preparatory time before the wedding (quite a lot of time actually) in considering its merits and asking the questions. Do we love each other that way? Can we love each other that way?

It's reckoned to have been a very early Christian song, or hymn. I suppose some crappy songs and choruses have been made up around it, but the original remains sublime.

[ 25. April 2016, 21:06: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I was actually asked to play Fight the Good Fight at a wedding some years ago. I believe that the couple is no longer a couple. [Killing me]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I was actually asked to play Fight the Good Fight at a wedding some years ago. I believe that the couple is no longer a couple. [Killing me]

Maybe their processional hymn should have been "Turn back, o man..."
[Biased]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I actually had a Vicar friend who conducted a wedding in which the bride "stood up" the groom at the altar. When he was asked, "Do you take ...?", he answered, "I do". But when she was asked, she said, "No".

I agree that it's better to say "no" rather than get caught in the wrong marriage, but why couldn't she have decided sooner?

One elderly guest, not realising what had happened but surprised that the service had lasted under 15 minutes, was heard to say,"These Anglican weddings ain't half nifty".

But it's sad rather than funny.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I've seen onward Christian soldiers for the entry of the bride. They had Glorious things of thee to Austria for the recessional.

They are still together and apparently very happy.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I've seen onward Christian soldiers for the entry of the bride. They had Glorious things of thee to Austria for the recessional.

Just be glad they used "Glorious Things..." instead of "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" for the lyrics.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I don't mind the tune Austria for a hymn. It's quite a reasonable tune, even if I wouldn't usually associate it with a wedding. It might have sounded more militaristic having had Onward Christian Soldiers before it.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
A month ago I attended a wedding abroad at which the single hymn was 'We pledge to one another', sung to the tune of 'I vow to thee my country'. The heaviness of the tune and the patriotic associations didn't appeal to me, I must admit.

Interestingly, the couple and most of their guests were religious people, so I'm wondering why something more traditional and 'churchy' wasn't chosen.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
The tune may be a little heavy but it has in itself unimpeachably lefty associations: it's called 'Thaxted' because Holst lived in the village and was a mate of Conrad Noel, the Red Vicar there.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
“Set me as a seal” were the words of an anthem set by William Walton for the wedding of Lady Mabel Fox Strangeways at a fashionable London church. I believe Walton and Lady Mabel had been recent lovers.
 
Posted by Salicional (# 16461) on :
 
We also had the 'set me as a seal' reading at our wedding. Most appropriately, the friend of ours who read it was the owner of a plumbing business.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Salicional:
We also had the 'set me as a seal' reading at our wedding. Most appropriately, the friend of ours who read it was the owner of a plumbing business.

A zoo keeper would have been even better.
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
“Set me as a seal” were the words of an anthem set by William Walton for the wedding of Lady Mabel Fox Strangeways at a fashionable London church. I believe Walton and Lady Mabel had been recent lovers.

"Lady Mabel Fox Strangeways". That's very nearly a graffito, isn't it? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Actually it was the groom's mother, Viscountess Wimborne, who was the Walton link.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I was actually asked to play Fight the Good Fight at a wedding some years ago. I believe that the couple is no longer a couple. [Killing me]

Maybe their processional hymn should have been "Turn back, o man..."
[Biased]

When I was a kid the organist was about to get married to one of the women in the choir. Some in the choir said that we should sing "Led like a lamb to the slaughter" in the wedding.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A month ago I attended a wedding abroad at which the single hymn was 'We pledge to one another', sung to the tune of 'I vow to thee my country'. The heaviness of the tune and the patriotic associations didn't appeal to me, I must admit.

The author is a member of a United Reformed Church in London. I don't know her, but I wonder if one of the reasons she wrote the hymn was to "liberate" the tune from its patriotic associations? - even though (as also with "Land of hope and glory" and "Austria") the music didn't originally have them anyway?

P.S. It's in "Singing the Faith".

[ 05. May 2016, 07:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
That's very interesting. The couple (and their families) have nothing whatsoever to do with the URC, and would find its theology very different from their own. I suppose they just wanted to find a tune and a lyric that they liked.

As it happens, I don't know 'Singing the Faith' very well as I started worshipping mostly outside the Methodist Church at about the same time that it was introduced. For me, 'Hymns and Psalms' is the Methodist hymnbook.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
quote:
Maybe their processional hymn should have been "Turn back, o man..."
We got married in my wife's RC church in Dublin. It was Lent (I know, I know - but I didn't know then, and nor did she apparently) and across the altar was a whacking great sign saying 'REPENT'.

As to music, we had (amongst other hymns - congregational singing itself being a bit of a proddy statement in a Dublin RC wedding) 'What will our greeting be, sign of our unity...one church one Lord'. Looking back I think her family must have felt they'd been invaded by (anti-) imperial storm troopers in the vanguard of muscular ecumenism. A younger groom could have excused such vanity [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I've just been sent the list of music for our Deanery Confirmation next month [Eek!]

There is a weirdness about it: hymns at opening, offertory and end are all standard, but at communion it is wall-to-wall worship songs, including an offering from Mr Kend***k and a horror called Only by Grace which sounds like something written for the Mike Sammes Singers.

So to add to the horror of the Supermarket Sweep style preferred by the presiding bishop we have stuck-in-the-70s drivel plonked in the middle of O Praise ye the Lord to the tune by Parry and Ave verum corpus by Mozart - and all to be rounded off by yours truly playing Bach's Komm, heiliger Geist from the Leipzig chorales.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Why is it "weird"? I think it's a genuine attempt to cover the musical breadth of the Deanery churches.

I realise that it may not be what you like - but that's a different matter. And it's very likely that traditional hymns will be just as "weird" to some of the candidates as worship songs are to you.

By the way, "Only by grace" dates from (or, at least, was copyrighted in) 1989.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
But it doesn't: there is one deanery church which uses this kind of thing - the one where the service is being held - and they have only one candidate for confirmation out of c50. The other deanery churches are all fairly standard, using either New English Hymnal or A&M.

As for my taste, I think whoever chose the hymns could have been more imaginative but at least what they've chosen will be well known.

Only by Grace may have been written in 1989 but it still sounds like 70s 'Easy Listening'.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But it doesn't: there is one deanery church which uses this kind of thing - the one where the service is being held - and they have only one candidate for confirmation out of c50.

Could I phrase this as "during communion, the host church is providing a selection of music in its usual style"?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, you can't change it. So I'd advise an obvious non-participation, to encourage others who feel as you do about it: arms firmly folded (if sitting)or hanging down with hands clasped in front of you (if standing), mouth firmly shut, gaze fixed somewhere half-way to the ceiling. Works for me.

[ 20. May 2016, 21:39: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Really? I don't know how the living God would be served by that approach.

Unless you believe that such music is actually blasphemous I don't know how you could justify attending a church service and behaving in such a way. For a start, how would such obvious non-participation encourage the people being confirmed?

(Please forgive me if I've missed the joke here. An emoticon would help.)
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I'd advise an obvious non-participation, to encourage others who feel as you do about it: arms firmly folded (if sitting)or hanging down with hands clasped in front of you (if standing), mouth firmly shut, gaze fixed somewhere half-way to the ceiling.

Really? I don't know how the living God would be served by that approach.
He is served by your silent prayer: "Forgive them, Father, for they don't know what they are doing."
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Quite so.
I was not joking at all. But perhaps on reflection, as it is a confirmation and as Svitlana reminds us the candidates are quite rightly the ones who should be centre stage (and as it is not your own church, so you are in the position of being to some extent a guest), such an obvious display of non-participation might be a little too much on this occasion. In that case, silent prayer would do it. But the point is that you don't have to join in.

[ 21. May 2016, 08:42: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
The Jeremy Corby