Curse your new-fangled hymns!

[snopes]

Comment: Can you substantiate this story? It seems fishy to me...

"I am no music scholar, but I feel I know appropriate church music when I
hear it. Last Sunday's new hymn - if you can call it that - sounded like a
sentimental love ballad one would expect to hear crooned in a saloon. If
you insist on exposing us to rubbish like this - in God's house! - don't
be surprised if many of the faithful look for a new place to worship. The
hymns we grew up with are all we need."

Of course, this letter was written in 1863, and the song they were talking
about was "Just as I Am". Here's another one...

"What is wrong with the inspiring hymns with which we grew up? When I go
to church, it is to worship God, not to be distracted with learning a new
hymn. Last Sunday's was particularly unnerving. The tune was un-singable
and the new harmonies were quite distorting."

This letter was written in 1890 and about the hymn "What A Friend We Have
In Jesus".

[trlkly]

I don't know about the veracity of the claims, but I've seen a similarly worded one about "I'll Fly Away." The idea that there are always some people in the church that are resistant to change is a longstanding one. This sounds like something that would easily ammended to fit any song you know the audience likes.

[franjava]

When my dad was a choir director/music leader at a church when I was in Jr. high, a note was given to the pastor after offering time. My wonderfully nosy mother could read over the pastor's shoulder and told us later the note said, "can we sing something we know?" How dare my dad use the WHOLE hymnal?!

[robbiev]

As trlkly said, I don't know about these particular claims, but I know music is a hot-button topic in many churches. People have all kind of odd ideas about what is and is not appropriate style (and a lot of other weird ideas).

A few years ago, there was a widespread (at least in this area) uproar about contemporary music, and quite a few people I know went around quoting the things they heard with no idea what they meant. Typical conversation:

Them: "Syncopated rhythms go against the natural heartbeat."
Me: "Really? What is a syncopated rhythm and even if it does, what does that prove?"
Them: "I don't know, but Bill Gothard says it so it must be true."
Me: "Bill Gothard says WHAT?"
Them: "That syncopated rhythm go against the natural heartbeat."
Me: "Even if that's true, what does it prove?"
Them: "I don't know, but Bill Gothard says it so it must be true."

[snopes]

"Syncopated rhythms go against the natural heartbeat."

So do pacemakers. Are we better off without them, then?

- snopes

[LyndaD]

Bill Gothard says there's only 4 'natural' rhythms. Anything other than these was bad.

It's the one thing I can remember from the seminar I attended when I was 13.

[robbiev]

Originally Posted by snopes

So do pacemakers. Are we better off without them, then? - snopes

Aaagghh! Clearly pacemakers are sent from the devil! Actually, according to the Bill Gothard logic, yes, we would be better off without them. A heart attack is merely God's way of telling you it's time to come home, therefore, anything man does to screw with that is clearly a violation of God's will. (I'm sure there at least SOMEONE who thinks like that).

Originally Posted by LyndaD

Bill Gothard says there's only 4 'natural' rhythms. Anything other than these was bad.

It's the one thing I can remember from the seminar I attended when I was 13.

You're one ahead of me. I don't think I remember anything from the seminar, and I've been to it several times. I still have the books somewhere.


ETA: Random thoughts.

I found this: "Rock music causes a mix-up in the alpha waves between the two hemispheres of the brain, resulting in what some researchers call ‘switching.’"

Of course, here's the unsaid interjection: "...and since I can use that to prove my point, those researchers must be the ones who are right."

[Silkenray]

My objections to praise songs have nothing to do with finding the style inappropriate.

Often, the actually written-down version will differ substantially in rhythm from the version recorded by the original artist - so those of us in the choir or band will be playing the written-down version, but the congregation will be singing the one they remember from the CD, which ends up just falling apart. Of course, this happens sometimes with traditional hymns. Amazing Grace is just such a one, with people not knowing whether or not to add the ornamentation. But in my experience it happens maybe 10% of the time with traditional hymns, and about 80% of the time with praise songs.

And very few modern praise songs have written harmony lines. Straight-melody songs just don't interest me from a choral perspective. But this wouldn't be a problem for other people, so I admit it's just a pet peeve.

Some of the choirs I've been in have sung almost entirely praise songs. Others have had a good mix of old and new. No choir I've been in has only sung old hymns. I prefer the middle option. Some of the new music out there is excellent, but there's no sense abandoning 500+ years of Christian musical tradition to pursue the latest flavor when both can fit quite handily in the same service - my favorite services have psalms written in the 1600s, hymns written in the 1800-1900s, and anthems from the 1750s and 1990s.

[Elkhound]

Sing a song by Fanny Crosby,
Every Sabatth day!
While the hymns you are choosing
Don't pass Fanny by!
Pastor! Pastor! Here my humble cry!
While the hymny you are choosing
Don't pass Fanny by!

Gregory the Great is no saint,
To us Protestants!
We have chucked his theology--
why must we endure his chants!
Pastor! Pastor! (etc.)

......

O for a hymn that I can sing,
That I have sung before!
A tune within a narrow range
And words I can ignore!

If it were written past 1910,
Or in a minor key.
'Tis not the will of Mighty God
That it be sung by me!

(I didn't write either of these, and I don't remember who did, but both sum up what a lot of people feel about church music. My late Grandmother, who was on the Music & Worship Committee of her [American] Baptist Church used to say that in most congregations the Music Department had better be called the War Department.

"What is the difference between a terrorist and and organist?
With a terrorist, you can sometimes negotiate.")

[Dropbear]

In the church I used to attend (a small Calvinist denomination - less than 50 churches across Australia) a very popular and charismatic minister argued long and hard for the re-introduction of the original un-syncopated versions of hymns. This was argued on various grounds - 'going back to our roots', 'syncopation makes people think of the tune more that the words', 'syncopation makes for lazy singers' etc.

Through unremitting lobbying he eventually got them included in the new hymnal - nobody liked them much but he was a force of nature and people put up with them. As far as I know they were only ever really sung in his congregation or when he was preaching elsewhere - but he did a lot of travelling so the misery was shared.

Funny thing is that while he wasn't in favour of syncopated action in church he clearly felt it was warranted in other areas of life because he was eventually ex-communicated for boinking members of his flock.

Dropbear

[robbiev]

Originally Posted by Silkenray

Often, the actually written-down version will differ substantially in rhythm from the version recorded by the original artist - so those of us in the choir or band will be playing the written-down version, but the congregation will be singing the one they remember from the CD, which ends up just falling apart.

I have noticed the same thing, and it does seem to be pretty common.

And very few modern praise songs have written harmony lines. Straight-melody songs just don't interest me from a choral perspective. But this wouldn't be a problem for other people, so I admit it's just a pet peeve.

I've noticed recently a few songs that, IMO, have the chorus and verse labeled backwards. The section labeled chorus has multiple sets of words, and the section labeled verse is the same every time. I thought it was a misprint (and it may be) but I've seen it in several different songs. I don't personally care, but it's just odd. If (and I'm saying IF) someone intentionally reversed the two just because they thought they had to be different than the norm, that would annoy me. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the song, it's just a pet peeve.

Another pet peeve is a song that is just one phrase repeated a bunch of times. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's just personal hanging munckin. Like you stated about songs having no harmony, I just don't see much musical value in singing "I could sing of your love forever" over and over for 2 1/2 minutes. That just MO, of course.

Originally Posted by Dropbear

Funny thing is...he clearly felt it was warranted in other areas of life because he was eventually ex-communicated for boinking members of his flock.

It's funny how often that seems to be the case.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by robbiev

Another pet peeve is a song that is just one phrase repeated a bunch of times. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's just personal hanging munckin. Like you stated about songs having no harmony, I just don't see much musical value in singing "I could sing of your love forever" over and over for 2 1/2 minutes. That just MO, of course.

AMEN. It always makes me think of Elijah standing back, watching the profits of Baal beseeching their god over and over to send fire. He then basically laughs and says, "Why are you repeating yourself? Couldn't your god hear you the first time?" He heard it the first time! Move on!

Also, the song with the line, "I will dance as David danced." Extra points if everyone is seated while singing. But, really, not a single person in the congregation is going to strip down buck-naked and go dancing around the church, so let's sing a new song that doesn't make me picture the choir naked.

[robbiev]

Originally Posted by Starla

...so let's sing a new song that doesn't make me picture the choir naked.

but there are some hotties in the choir at my church. It wouldn't be a bad thing.

Oh wait, crap. I just pictured some of the other folks. Ok, brain bleach time.

[trlkly]

Originally Posted by Silkenray

My objections to praise songs have nothing to do with finding the style inappropriate.

Often, the actually written-down version will differ substantially in rhythm from the version recorded by the original artist - so those of us in the choir or band will be playing the written-down version, but the congregation will be singing the one they remember from the CD, which ends up just falling apart. Of course, this happens sometimes with traditional hymns. Amazing Grace is just such a one, with people not knowing whether or not to add the ornamentation. But in my experience it happens maybe 10% of the time with traditional hymns, and about 80% of the time with praise songs.

I know what you mean. With my choir, we always have to have the director play out the parts for those of us who don't read music. We even hand out CDs where the rhythms are as written (except, maybe for a soloist. But, usually, they are allowed to improvise.)

And it does happen a lot with older hymns. You just don't realize it because you've been singing them "not-as-written" your entire life.

And very few modern praise songs have written harmony lines. Straight-melody songs just don't interest me from a choral perspective. But this wouldn't be a problem for other people, so I admit it's just a pet peeve.

Well, I've never encountered choral music written in pure unison. Usually,m if a praise song exists, somebody has a version out that uses harmonies. IN fact, sometimes I wish my choir would sing straight melody. We often aren't well blended enough to do the harmonies justice.

Some of the choirs I've been in have sung almost entirely praise songs. Others have had a good mix of old and new. No choir I've been in has only sung old hymns. I prefer the middle option. Some of the new music out there is excellent, but there's no sense abandoning 500+ years of Christian musical tradition to pursue the latest flavor when both can fit quite handily in the same service - my favorite services have psalms written in the 1600s, hymns written in the 1800-1900s, and anthems from the 1750s and 1990s.

Here I agree with you 100%, except that I'd like some 200X songs, too. So I guess that makes it 90%.

[imjustasteph]

Originally Posted by robbiev

Another pet peeve is a song that is just one phrase repeated a bunch of times.

Heh, you've reminded me of a favorite old argument that illustrated for me my mother's brand of logic.

We're coming home from church, I'm probably 8 or 9 at the time. I've talked here before about how she felt about music- my dad and brother were both going to hell for listening to that evil rock'n'roll- so I won't delve into detail.

I ask "Mama, what's bad about rock and roll anyway? I mean, I know you don't like those one people that you said when you play them backward it says 'satan' and I understand that, and ones that are bad, but when it's just a song that doesn't have anything bad in it, why do you still say it's bad just because it's rock 'n ' roll?" (Or something similar. It definitely would've been a long run-on sentence filled with clarifications or attempts thereof, to keep her from getting mad that I asked.)

"Well...one thing is that they repeat the same line over and over, like they're trying to brainwash you, get it in your head, over and over."

She's done explaining. She moves into one of her favorite songs from church:

"I love you Jesus, I love you Jee-eesus, I love you Jesus, I love you Jee-eesus...."

"But Mama....that song does the same thing."

"Well........I guess it's different when you're singing for Jesus."



She would also randomly start singing some love song, and when I asked if that song was bad, she'd explain that it wasn't since she was singing to Jesus.

[candy from strangers]

I read the thread title as "Curse your new-fangled hymens!". I need to get new contacts and/or stop snopesing while distracted.

[Silkenray]

Originally Posted by trlkly

And it does happen a lot with older hymns. You just don't realize it because you've been singing them "not-as-written" your entire life.

Oh, I realize it, because my choir director drills in the "correct" version. It still happens less than with praise songs the congregation learned from listening to a solo vocalist sing on a CD.

Well, I've never encountered choral music written in pure unison. Usually,m if a praise song exists, somebody has a version out that uses harmonies. IN fact, sometimes I wish my choir would sing straight melody. We often aren't well blended enough to do the harmonies justice.

Mostly it isn't the anthems or anything like that - but rather the hymns. Older-style hymns written for congregational singing more often than not have standard four-part harmonies written in the hymnal. Hymnals with more modern praise songs often just neglect the harmonies entirely, since many of the songs were originally written for solo voice anyway.

Now, when it comes to anthems, they will usually have harmonized and elaborated arrangements.

Here I agree with you 100%, except that I'd like some 200X songs, too. So I guess that makes it 90%.

Well, I neglected a few decades here or there. It was mainly meant for illustrative purposes.

The English church has at least 500 years of musical tradition. The services I like best cherrypick the best of each era or style.

[BlushingBride]

I have heard several people argue that we should never sing any hymns except the ones by Charles Wesley. That would get old.



I go to a very contemporary church. No organ; full rock & roll band. Coffee bar in the worship area. Video and graphics on a huge screen. That kind of contemporary. (My in-laws hate it.)

Now, having been raised on traditional hymns, I have to admit that I really, really love it when we sing a "rock" version of a tradition hymn. (Especially this awesome version of Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing, which is my favorite hymn anyway.) But you get some people who go nutty about that--kind of the reverse of the OP. "Is that a traditional song? But we don't do that here!" Still, that's much rarer.

[Brad from Georgia]

When I was a kid and the congregation was asked to sing a certain hymn penned by William Cowper, I used to do it in a ripe Bela Lugosi accent:

There is a fountain filled with blood
Drawn from Immanuel's veins;
And sinners, plunged beneath that flood,
Lose all their guilty stains:
Lose all their guilty stains,
Lose all their guilty stains;
And sinners, plunged beneath that flood,
Lose all their guilty stains....

Really ghastly imagery. Later when I studied English literature and learned about Cowper, I wasn't surprised to learn that he was certifiable and fixated on sanguinary images in his poetry.

[robbiev]

Originally Posted by imjustasteph

Heh, you've reminded me of a favorite old argument that illustrated for me my mother's brand of logic.

Interesting. It seems lots of people have that same type of logic.

I don't think there's anything wrong with one phrase songs; they're just boring to me.