Lord of the Dance

[benedictgal]

Here are the lyrics that are most problematic:

danced on the Sabbath and I cured the lame
The holy people said it was a shame
They ripped, they stripped, they hung me high
Left me there on the cross to die

Dance, dance, wherever you may be
I am the lord of the dance, said he
And I lead you all, wherever you may be
And I lead you all in the dance, said he

I danced on a Friday when the world turned black
It’s hard to dance with the devil on your back
They buried my body, they thought I was gone
But I am the dance, and the dance goes on

They cut me down and I leapt up high
I am the life that will never, never die
I’ll live in you if you’ll live in me
I am the Lord of the dance, said he

Now, here is a section of the false gnostic Gospel, the Acts of John:

101 ***Nothing, therefore, of the things which they will say of me have I suffered: nay, that suffering also which I showed unto thee and the rest in the dance, I will that it be called a mystery. ***For what thou art, thou seest, for I showed it thee; but what I am I alone know, and no man else. Suffer me then to keep that which is mine, and that which is thine behold thou through me, and behold me in truth, that I am, not what I said, but what thou art able to know, because thou art akin thereto. Thou hearest that I suffered, yet did I not suffer; that I suffered not, yet did I suffer; that I was pierced, yet I was not smitten; hanged, and I was not hanged; that blood flowed from me, and it flowed not; and, in a word, what they say of me, that befell me not, but what they say not, that did I suffer. Now what those things are I signify unto thee, for I know that thou wilt understand. Perceive thou therefore in me the praising (al. slaying al. rest) of the (or a) Word (Logos), the piercing of the Word, the blood of the Word, the wound of the Word, the hanging up of the Word, the suffering of the Word, the nailing (fixing) of the Word, the death of the Word. And so speak I, separating off the manhood. Perceive thou therefore in the first place of the Word; then shalt thou perceive the Lord, and in the third place the man, and what he hath suffered.

102 When he had spoken unto me these things, and others which I know not how to say as he would have me, he was taken up, no one of the multitudes having beheld him. And when I went down I laughed them all to scorn, inasmuch as he had told me the things which they have said concerning him; holding fast this one thing in myself, that the Lord contrived all things symbolically and by a dispensation toward men, for their conversion and salvation.

That is definitely not the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word and Son of the Father. The Lord of the Dance definitely quotes something, but, it is not Sacred Scripture.

 

[Pani_Rose]

You’re not advocating liturgical dance, are you, since it’s forbidden by Rome?

HEAVENS NO!!!

Someone asked for references on dance, especially about the Father dancing. I was just responding to that request. Sorry for the confusion. I am not Roman Catholic, and one thing I have fougt against in areas where I have been involved with the RC is ‘liturgical dance.’ It is approved for ‘African-American’ Churches though because it is native to their culture.

 

[dprewett]

Thanks everyone for replying. I have a tendancy to go overboard with my irritation on this type of thing. My wife asked me to back up my point that this song is an embarasment when sung at church and I think you have backed up my point. Thanks, dprewett

 

[driver9]

Ah - I didn’t realize your wife was involved. My experience is that my wife is almost always right and even when she’s not right, she still right, if you know what I mean. Good luck!

 

[Guitar]

I’m actually surprised that this hymn is still being played. I haven’t heard it done in any parish I’ve attended since grade school in the 1980s. I thought it was long dead.

You are right, it is an adaptation of a Shaker hymn. Using a melody from a Protestant hymn, etc. is not a problem as you can place text that are appropriate for a Catholic mass. It’s the text used and the way that it is performed that cheapens it. I prefer Aaron Copeland’s “Simple Gifts” (which is the original) and sung like an art song during a recital, but not appropriate for mass. From what I remember hearing “Lord of the Dance” as a kid in various churches, they’d take it at a skippy and ditzy tempo and would just sound too light and superficial, with no depth - just a fun song that would be great for kid parties, but not for mass.

I too am surprised - it died in my parish at least 15 years ago. The melody in Copeland’s hands in Appalachian Spring is as big and broad and clear and wide-open as the sky, marvellous stuff, but few parishes have a Copeland in their music cupboard. It would be easy to make it trite.

 

[kristie_m]

There are so many associations that dumb song brings to mind, none of them having anything to do with the Resurrection of the Lord.

Unfortunately the first association that comes to mind is that silly Riverdance guy, leaping and lurching in a leotard like a lepruchan on 'ludes.

nice visual!!!

 

[Guitar]

It’s worth saying again that despite the use of it by a variety of folk musicians from a variety of countries, including Ireland, this is a 1960s folk song, composed by an Englishman, a lifelong Londoner, based on an American hymn tune. It’s not celtic at any stage of its origins.

Amen, brother. There is very little truly authentic Celtic anything in either Flately’s show or Riverdance. If you like fireworks (or bloodsports) find yourself a seisiun of pure-drop trad-heads one Sunday afternoon as they gather in the pub to play and ask them what they all think of Riverdance & Flately, or better yet, ask 'em to play you one of the tunes from either show.

(Mind you, Flately - I’m sure I’m spelling that wrong - is a reasonable Irish flautist, which rather surprised me. Not up there with the best of 'em, but there are plenty worse.)

 

[Cat]

I too am surprised - it died in my parish at least 15 years ago. The melody in Copeland’s hands in Appalachian Spring is as big and broad and clear and wide-open as the sky, marvellous stuff, but few parishes have a Copeland in their music cupboard. It would be easy to make it trite.

This is not totally true. The section with this Shaker melody begins softly with a light, lively SIMPLE version of the melody (“Tis a Gift to Be Simple”) and then it gradually builds into the big and broad version.

My daughter’s ballet company uses Copland’s Appalachian Suite in one of their ballets, BTW. It is also a very popular piece of music for figure skaters and synchro teams–lots of good themes, including the Simple Gifts section.

 

[Cat]

benedictgal:

I said, “I personally find stories like The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe a much more effective way to appreciate the Gospel story than just reading the Gospel story.”

YOU twisted it into:

“That is indeed a very sad commentary, to think that work of fiction is much more meaningful than the Gospel itself.”

Are you are unwilling to see the difference between what I said and what you twisted it into?

I did NOT say that a work of fiction is more meaningful than the Gospel itself. I did NOT use the word “meaningful” at all.

Deep breath.

Some people find evil in everything. In the Protestant church, we used to say that some people see a devil under every bush.

If you are unable to quote ME correctly in one sentence, and if you ascribe a totally false and unworthy interpretation to my sentence, then I am unable to accept that your quotes from this gnostic literature are correct and that your comparison of this literature to a song are valid.

Again, I remind everyone that origins of a thing or person are not necessarily a good reason to reject that thing or person. If we use that approach, then every one of us should be rejected, as all of us come from sinful origins. A song or other piece of art that was created by an sinful person with unworthy motives can be redeemed by Christians and used as a means of glorifying Our Lord.

As many of you know, Beethoven did not write music for the specific purpose of praising God, and Beethoven was not an overt Christian. But how many of us would testify to the power and majesty of his 9th Symphony hymn which we usually use with the words of Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee?

 

[Guitar]

This is not totally true. The section with this Shaker melody begins softly with a light, lively SIMPLE version of the melody (“Tis a Gift to Be Simple”) and then it gradually builds into the big and broad version.

My daughter’s ballet company uses Copland’s Appalachian Suite in one of their ballets, BTW. It is also a very popular piece of music for figure skaters and synchro teams–lots of good themes, including the Simple Gifts section.

Cat, to me broadness of tune has nothing to do with size of the orchestration … I don’t think I can put it into words but it’s an inherent characteristic of the melody itself. Even that “simple” introduction has a grandeur and “hugeness” that I can’t describe any other way. I sometimes hear a tune and think that you could play that with a single instrument or you could stack a whole philharmonic orchestra into it and the tune would carry it either way … it’s that kind of tune and that’s what I mean by breadth. I guess that won’t make much sense. Sorry. My comment was in no way a criticism of the melody, quite the opposite.

 

[Sarabande]

I too am surprised - it died in my parish at least 15 years ago. The melody in Copeland’s hands in Appalachian Spring is as big and broad and clear and wide-open as the sky, marvellous stuff, but few parishes have a Copeland in their music cupboard. It would be easy to make it trite.

Oh, yes. There is nothing wrong with the melody at all. It can be made very beautiful, deep and meaningful, as evidenced by Copeland’s arrangement of it for his art song and by his orchestral arrangement. But it can also be made into something superficial and trite, as you say, when taken control by certain composers or musicians. That was done too often at mass when this hymn used to be played. I don’t remember it being played with the depth that it required.

The text pale to the original anyway. It can’t help but make itself become fluff - at least in my opinion. Like a poor 20th c version of what you’d hear in one of those renaissance madrigals. I can picture the tenors singing in like 1/8 notes, “Skipping and dancing and turning”, then the basses singing in quarter notes “Dance. Dance. Dance.” Sopranos and altos would be singing a slightly more legato line for the melody, but they sing it very lightly and without much meaning. (We loved those fun, silly rennaissance madrigals in college and in high school, but they were always considered the fluff and fun of the concert.) I can’t help thinking that whenevever I think about “I danced in the morning…”

And I will stress that I don’t mind setting appropriate text for Catholic masses to melodies from Protestant hymns or other sources. I just mind how the melody will be treated and used and if the words are deep or just fluff.

 

[driver9]

Yes - the lyric of Lord of the Dance, where it clearly means anything, is banal. Where it isn’t banal it isn’t clear that it isn’t heretical. What is the Dance?

 

[Sarabande]

…to me broadness of tune has nothing to do with size of the orchestration … I don’t think I can put it into words but it’s an inherent characteristic of the melody itself. Even that “simple” introduction has a grandeur and “hugeness” that I can’t describe any other way…

I totally understand what you are saying here, but you are right, it is difficult to explain. (Where’s Leonard Bernstein when you need him?!?) As a musician/singer, when we “broaden the line” of the melody of an art song, the line becomes even more legato and the tempo is slightly slowed from the original set speed - almost like a Maesto tempo sometimes. There is also an added depth to the voice - and this can be done with practically any one instrument. The depth and breadth does not need to be done with increasing the size of the orchestration or piano accompiament at all. When performing “Simple Gifts”, the repeat of the first line is often times broadened to give more importance and majesty to the words and the melody. It provides a tug to the emotions. Nothing is added to the extremely simple piano accompaniment to make it more broad and deep. It’s all done with what the voice does and how both musicians (singer and pianist) inspire each other to take on this feeling of majesty and depth.

I probably didn’t explain it that well either, but Guitar, I do understand what you were saying.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal:

I said, “I personally find stories like The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe a much more effective way to appreciate the Gospel story than just reading the Gospel story.”

YOU twisted it into:

“That is indeed a very sad commentary, to think that work of fiction is much more meaningful than the Gospel itself.”

Are you are unwilling to see the difference between what I said and what you twisted it into?

I did NOT say that a work of fiction is more meaningful than the Gospel itself. I did NOT use the word “meaningful” at all.

Deep breath.

Some people find evil in everything. In the Protestant church, we used to say that some people see a devil under every bush.

If you are unable to quote ME correctly in one sentence, and if you ascribe a totally false and unworthy interpretation to my sentence, then I am unable to accept that your quotes from this gnostic literature are correct and that your comparison of this literature to a song are valid.

Again, I remind everyone that origins of a thing or person are not necessarily a good reason to reject that thing or person. If we use that approach, then every one of us should be rejected, as all of us come from sinful origins. A song or other piece of art that was created by an sinful person with unworthy motives can be redeemed by Christians and used as a means of glorifying Our Lord.

As many of you know, Beethoven did not write music for the specific purpose of praising God, and Beethoven was not an overt Christian. But how many of us would testify to the power and majesty of his 9th Symphony hymn which we usually use with the words of Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee?

Cat, you were the one who wrote those words. Go back and read your own post. No one is twisting anything if it was lifted verbatim.

Furthermore, I am still somewhat perplexed as to why you would defend such a trite and heretical song, even with the supporting material and the writer’s own explanation. Your use of Beethoven isn’t even germaine to the discussion because he didn’t write lyrics that fly in the face of authentic Catholic doctrine.

As I wrote in my earlier posts, we need to leave sentimental attachment to a song behind and examine it on its own merits, or, as in the case of the Lord of the Dance, its demerits. Simply defending a song because you like it and not even examining the content doesn’t make sense. There are people who use “Imagine” by John Lennon in retreat settings. “Imagine there is no heaven” isn’t exactly conducive to prayerful reflection because it is the opposite of what we believe. It’s the same thing with the Lord of the Dance.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes - the lyric of Lord of the Dance, where it clearly means anything, is banal. Where it isn’t banal it isn’t clear that it isn’t heretical. What is the Dance?

The heretical Acts of John aren’t necessarily clear what this “dance” is either. Again, the whole thing reduces the great acts of our Redemption to a leap and a prance. That does not make for good Catholic theology.

 

[patches]

Plus “Lord of the Dance” reduces the the glory of Our Lord’s passion and resurrection to a cute little sing-songy aw shucks sort of affair with the whole “it’s hard to dance with the devil on your back thing…” what scriptural passage was that adopted from again???

Hear! hear! Someone suggested we do this a while back, and my reply was “over my dead body.” The passion is no “dance,” and to reduce Jesus horrible ordeal to something this trite is nothing short of blasphemy. This should be the “poster child” song for the liturgical music reform movement!

 

[driver9]

The dance during which Jesus sings a gnostic song to the Father in the Apocryphal Acts of John is surely enigmatic. Dancing is something that accompanies Jesus song to the Father prior to his Passion and it is the way in which he invites his disciples to participate. The dancing that Jesus initiates is apparently shared by cosmological elements taken from gnostic myth. So, in a sense, “the dance” is a gnostic liturgical action that separates the gnostics from those who do not dance (presumably “ordinary” christians) and reveals to the initiates special knowledge about the cosmos and about Jesus relationship to them.

In the hymn, Lord of the Dance, I’m really not sure what “the (cosmic) Dance” is at all or what theology underlies its imagery. It surely isn’t clearly, orthodox christianity. I said earlier in the discussion that it seems to me that it may well be both pantheist and docetic.

 

[benedictgal]

Hear! hear! Someone suggested we do this a while back, and my reply was “over my dead body.” The passion is no “dance,” and to reduce Jesus horrible ordeal to something this trite is nothing short of blasphemy. This should be the “poster child” song for the liturgical music reform movement!

Amen to that one, Patches!

Now, what to do about this horrid and abysmal song? OCP has it in its hymnals and it’s one of the few “adult” songs that has found its way into the kiddie song book (Rise Up and Sing). Should a letter-writing campaign commence to tell OCP to remove it? Or to whom should one write regarding this ditty?

Enough people made a big stink about the happy, clappy and nappy Gloria that Christopher Walker wrote and OCP wound up having to remove it from the service music section and place it in the hymns bracket. However, it doesn’t even work as a hymn.

 

[Cat]

Arrgh!!!

Will someone else besides benedictgal PLEASE tell me whether or not I am insane?!!

If I am unable to read my own posts, then I should definitely NOT be at work today in a hospital!

I posted: “I personally find stories like The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe a much more effective way to appreciate the Gospel story than just reading the Gospel story.”

benedictgirl turned it into: “That is indeed a very sad commentary, to think that work of fiction is much more meaningful than the Gospel itself.”

The two sentences have different words. Right?

The words are DIFFERENT? Right?

They are NOT the same sentence? Right??

Or am I being utterly dyslexic? Insane? Have I lost touch with the real world? (I do have psychosis in my family tree, so my question is a serious one. I’m not sure I will recognize when I lose it entirely, so I hope someone will be kind enough to tell me and take me somewhere where I can get help!)

I’m getting just a little scared here. Have I lost touch with reality and I’m reading two sentences completely wrong? PLEASE someone read the two sentences and assure me that I am correct, that they are two DIFFERENT sentences!! Please.

Thank you for helping out.

 

[driver9]

You find children’s fiction a better way to appreciate the Gospel story than just reading the Gospels. Have I got it right?