Modernized language in hymnals

[CatholicZ09]

Hm, maybe it’s because I’ve been accustomed to OCP missal all my life, but I really don’t understand why changing “thee” to “you” is the base of an argument.

Although, I can understand changing “laud” to “praise”. That would annoy me.

 

[DaveBj]

Interesting thread. As a linguist and professional polyglot/translator, I have long been aware of the original and subsequent differences between the English “th*” pronouns and the “y*” pronouns. In normal spoken English I tend to modernize things (“you” instead of “thee”), but for some reason I am a stickler for maintaining the original words in hymn lyrics, especially when the verbal wreck-novation has destroyed the rhyme scheme.

“All glory, laud and honor to Thee, Redeemer King. . .” Sing it loud and sing it proud

 

[CoolKid8900]

Do you have a license for that? Because otherwise it’s illegal to do that unless the hymns you’re using are public domain.

Yes, we do have a license for that, and the license has to be printed on the bottom of each overhead.

 

[LRThunder]

I don’t have a problem if “thee” is changed to “you” in the hymns, but the ones that I’ve noticed tend to be gender neutral.

Example one: the hymn “Holy, Holy, Holy”: I’ve always been accustomed to the verse “though the eye of sinful man.” But the OCP book we use has the words: “though the eye made blind by sin…”

Example two: Hark the Herald Angels Sing in the OCP book also contains changes of the gender neutral variety.

 

[ProVobis]

In normal spoken English I tend to modernize things (“you” instead of “thee”), but for some reason I am a stickler for maintaining the original words in hymn lyrics, especially when the verbal wreck-novation has destroyed the rhyme scheme.

I suppose many people still do when they sing “don we now our gay apparel…” Just saying.

 

[SMHW]

ee

Few things get under my skin quite as effectively as replacing Early Modern English articles in hymnals with contemporary articles.

For example, on Palm Sunday, we sang “All Glory, Laud, and Honor,” whose first verse reads, in its original incarnation:

“All Glory, Laud, and Honor, to Thee, Redeemer King.”

All I can say is that changing the words to some of the old hymns has been around since the early 1960s. It was probably happening before that but I’m not old enough to remember.

I do know that we were singing, “All Glory, Praise, and Honor,” back when I was in grammar school. I don’t remember if it was thee or you. I started seeing Laud (in Catholic hymnals) latter when it became common for publishers to market the same materials to both Catholics and liturgical Protestants.

I have found GIA to be more likely than OCP to update the word usage of hymns in the public domain. (But I admit that is is hard to tell since OCP and GIA include so
much of each others’ materials. I don’t know whether or not they borrow each others’ versions of public domain material.)

In the case of more contemporary music it is often the original composer who updates the words to make them gender neutral.

 

[Elizium23]

Hm, maybe it’s because I’ve been accustomed to OCP missal all my life, but I really don’t understand why changing “thee” to “you” is the base of an argument.

Although, I can understand changing “laud” to “praise”. That would annoy me.

On one hand, modernizing a language is something that must always be done eventually. Since standard modern English has jettisoned “thee, thy, thou” then logic follows that translators working with updated texts must translate accordingly and not use them.

On the other hand, nobody translates or “updates” Shakespeare. Well, yes they do actually, but this only gets a “niche market” play such as the MTV-style ROMEO+JULIET starring Leo DiCaprio and Clare Danes. The likes of Beowulf and Chaucer get updated “translations” but we are likewise careful to preserve the original texts because an updated translation always loses meaning unintentionally. An updated hymn will almost always lose some of the grandeur and cleverness that was infused by the original author. IMHO, “…to thee, Redeemer King!” has something of an internal rhyme, a consonance between “ee” sounds that is pleasant to hear, and replacing “thee” with “you” breaks it up and destroys just a little bit of that hymn’s original glory.

The question is whether updating a text to modern standard usage is artistically valid. The ICEL and Vox Clara clearly decided, both in 1970 and in 2011, that the English Roman Missal should not use “thee, thy, thou”. Likewise, they are striving to work in “horizontal” inclusive language where it does not destroy meaning. It can be argued that OCP is actually in close obedience to the mind of the Church in this respect. However, not even ICEL meddled with the classic phrasing of the “Our Father” in the Mass for 2011.

I would suggest that hymnal publishers learn to recognize classic texts for their artistry and try not to mess them up too much. They do exist! I own the Adoremus hymnal, which presents great traditional hymns with their classic texts and harmonies. Corpus Christi Watershed is doing great things, and so is the Lumen Christi Missal, if you want chant and propers. If more pastors were willing to look outside the mainstream, I think they would find that there are many, many options available that are not OCP, and yet, provide comprehensive liturgical solutions for every parish.

 

[Phemie]

The question is whether updating a text to modern standard usage is artistically valid. The ICEL and Vox Clara clearly decided, both in 1970 and in 2011, that the English Roman Missal should not use “thee, thy, thou”. Likewise, they are striving to work in “horizontal” inclusive language where it does not destroy meaning. It can be argued that OCP is actually in close obedience to the mind of the Church in this respect. However, not even ICEL meddled with the classic phrasing of the “Our Father” in the Mass for 2011.

Not that they didn’t try to do so when they were translating the *Missale Romanum, editio typica altera. *

This is the response they got from the CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS in its March 2002 Prot. n. 429/02/L Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal *
*

C. The Congregation in the course of its various contacts and consultations has encountered widespread *indeed, virtually unanimous-opposition to the institution of any change in the wording of the Lord’s Prayer. More than one reader cited poignantly the experience of having seen this prayer coming to the lips of Christians who had otherwise appeared unconscious, its familiar wording having been learned by them from infancy. By contrast, the Mixed Commission’s justification for its changes, in its Third Progress Report on the Revision of the Roman Missal, seem inadequate and somewhat cerebral.

 

[hcmusicguy]

All Glory Laud and Honor to YOU doesn’t bother me…it was that way in our old Celebrating the Eucharist missalettes (Liturgical Press) back in the day, so I’m used to it like that.

GIA is definitely far worse than OCP when it comes to the gender-benders (“A Living Faith”, anyone?). My parish is considering purchasing new permanent hymnals to replace Breaking Bread later this year, and that is one of the reasons I refuse to suggest a GIA product. Even Worship…the latest edition was not an improvement over the superb 3rd edition of 1986 (and even better was Worship II from 1975, of which I was fortunate to snag a pew AND choir/accomp edition before GIA deleted them forever a few years ago).

 

[pnewton]

I guess I may be in the minority on this thread, but I really don’t hold any special affection for Elizabethan English. I know that culturally we have associated it with sounding religious, primarily because that was the era of the first printed Bibles. Not that I object to hymns written in King James English, I am just neutral on it. I sing what is written. Likewise, our language has become more gender neutral in society, so I do not object in the least to it being done in music, as long as it can be done in a way that doesn’t sound stilted.

 

[Elizium23]

I sing what is written.

This is part of the problem. I can often sing refrains and a few verses from memory, of any English hymn of most eras. When you’ve been Catholic for 41 years and a choir member for 13, a lot of this gets committed to memory. So my brain goes: SCREEECH when what is written does not correspond with what is remembered.

Does anyone remember the original “I Am the Bread of Life”, written by Suzanne Toolan? It went: “And I will raise him up, and I will raise him up, and I will raise him up on the last day.” - Remember it was written by a woman, a Sister of Mercy - very soon it became “And I will raise you up…” and was entirely rewritten in the second person.

Two things happened to this piece. It became one of the “yoo hoo” songs, an internal rhyme that is none to attractive to me personally, when “You” and “who” are directly juxtaposed. It also lost a layer of meaning, where “And I will raise him up” the “I” was God and the “him” was Jesus.

I don’t know if Toolan was asked or notified when her lyrics were changed, but it appeared to stick, because nobody sings “him” anymore. Horizontal inclusive language is fine and dandy, but I think the original author’s intent and artistic vision should be accounted for instead of steamrolling every text with it.

 

[Phemie]

This is part of the problem. I can often sing refrains and a few verses from memory, of any English hymn of most eras. When you’ve been Catholic for 41 years and a choir member for 13, a lot of this gets committed to memory. So my brain goes: SCREEECH when what is written does not correspond with what is remembered.

Does anyone remember the original “I Am the Bread of Life”, written by Suzanne Toolan? It went: “And I will raise him up, and I will raise him up, and I will raise him up on the last day.” - Remember it was written by a woman, a Sister of Mercy - very soon it became “And I will raise you up…” and was entirely rewritten in the second person.

Two things happened to this piece. It became one of the “yoo hoo” songs, an internal rhyme that is none to attractive to me personally, when “You” and “who” are directly juxtaposed. It also lost a layer of meaning, where “And I will raise him up” the “I” was God and the “him” was Jesus.

I don’t know if Toolan was asked or notified when her lyrics were changed, but it appeared to stick, because nobody sings “him” anymore. Horizontal inclusive language is fine and dandy, but I think the original author’s intent and artistic vision should be accounted for instead of steamrolling every text with it.

Our hymnal still has he/him at least in the first verse and the refrain.

But I don’t think you’re correct about the level of meaning.

The song lifted the words of Jesus in John 6:35-40

In the first 4 verses & the refrain the speaker is Jesus and we are the ones who will be raised up on the last day. The final verse is our profession of faith in what we have heard Jesus speak.

 

[hcmusicguy]

This is part of the problem. I can often sing refrains and a few verses from memory, of any English hymn of most eras. When you’ve been Catholic for 41 years and a choir member for 13, a lot of this gets committed to memory. So my brain goes: SCREEECH when what is written does not correspond with what is remembered.

Does anyone remember the original “I Am the Bread of Life”, written by Suzanne Toolan? It went: “And I will raise him up, and I will raise him up, and I will raise him up on the last day.” - Remember it was written by a woman, a Sister of Mercy - very soon it became “And I will raise you up…” and was entirely rewritten in the second person.

Two things happened to this piece. It became one of the “yoo hoo” songs, an internal rhyme that is none to attractive to me personally, when “You” and “who” are directly juxtaposed. It also lost a layer of meaning, where “And I will raise him up” the “I” was God and the “him” was Jesus.

I don’t know if Toolan was asked or notified when her lyrics were changed, but it appeared to stick, because nobody sings “him” anymore. Horizontal inclusive language is fine and dandy, but I think the original author’s intent and artistic vision should be accounted for instead of steamrolling every text with it.

I’m not old enough to remember singing it this way, so in this case at least, the updated language doesn’t really bother me. However, I am very much aware of Toolan’s original lyrics, as the hymn does appear as such in a few hymnals in my collection: Worship II (GIA), and Book of Sacred Song (LitPress) to name a couple–both are pre-1980. It also used to be in a higher key, going all the way up to F in Worship II, as I seem to recall. It has been in its current form since at least Worship 3 in 1986, the only modifications since (that I am aware of) being an “updated” accompaniment in Gather.

 

[Sarabande]

I don’t like the modernisation of language in hymns or making the text in hymns gender neutral. I was a child when people started getting overly sensitive about gender specific hymns. We learned them all one way and then suddenly were told that we had to change what we learned. I knew what was meant when they used “men” and I’m fairly certain all of my classmates did as well. People assign negative connotations to it. I wasn’t offended as a kid that they didn’t include “women” or said, “all”.

We also all knew what “thee” and “thou” meant as well. It wasn’t like we were confused. To me, it’s just as silly as someone taking a new hymn written in modern language and changing the language to sound like the language of the older hymns. Why change the words? The majority of people understand what it all means. I didn’t know about people changing “All Glory, Laud and Honor” to “All Glory, Praise and Honor”. It doesn’t sound right. Why did they do it? Do they think that people are that dumb we wouldn’t know what the word, “laud” meant? I guess this is just a product of how our society is going in regards to education. Make everything “easier” so that that we don’t have to work our poor, little brains too much. In doing so, we are actually making a more ignorant society. I’m already seeing it in the younger generations and I bet the generation before mine saw it with us as well.

Sorry, but when I see things like this essentially dumbed down in our hymnals, either due to trying to be politically correct or because it is assumed people won’t know certain vocabulary, it just reminds me of how intellectually lazy and poor our country is becoming and how quickly people buy into it. We are a lot more intelligent than this, people.

 

[ProVobis]

Do they think that people are that dumb we wouldn’t know what the word, “laud” meant? I guess this is just a product of how our society is going in regards to education. Make everything “easier” so that that we don’t have to work our poor, little brains too much. In doing so, we are actually making a more ignorant society. I’m already seeing it in the younger generations and I bet the generation before mine saw it with us as well.

Can’t the same thing be said about the “Dominus vobiscum” way back in the 60’s? I’ll bet it insulted the intelligence of many to have simple Latin phrases translated as though no one understood what they meant in the Latin. The word “laud” comes from laudare in the Latin, BTW. But you knew that.

 

[Sarabande]

Can’t the same thing be said about the “Dominus vobiscum” way back in the 60’s? I’ll bet it insulted the intelligence of many to have simple Latin phrases translated as though no one understood what they meant in the Latin. The word “laud” comes from laudare in the Latin, BTW. But you knew that.

Sure, I’m sure it did insult people’s intelligence, but I wasn’t alive back then and wasn’t raised with the mass in Latin, so I can’t speak for myself. But we’re not talking about switching from one language to another. We’re talking about changing one English word for another because of the thought that people wouldn’t know what the English, word, “laud” meant.

And, yes, I did know that “laud” came from laudare. Since you brought it up, the requirement for me to study languages for my training as a classical singer has been helpful for me in terms of figuring out the meanings of certain words in different languages, as well as being able to understand what I am singing in the art songs, Latin sacred works, concert repertoire and operas that I perform and to make my way around European countries without feeling completely loss, albeit, probably speaking like a pre-school kid , but that’s neither here nor there with what I was talking about. It’s not about people being able to understand multiple languages. This is about only the English language. I have a problem with people changing “laud” to “praise” or other similar changes as if people don’t understand a different English word. That’s assuming stupidity on the reader. I do believe that the loss of learning Latin in both Public and Private schools is a pity, though, especially in terms of being able to figure out the meanings of words in their native language, but that’s for another thread.

 

[ProVobis]

Sure, I’m sure it did insult people’s intelligence, but I wasn’t alive back then and wasn’t raised with the mass in Latin, so I can’t speak for myself. But we’re not talking about switching from one language to another. We’re talking about changing one English word for another because of the thought that people wouldn’t know what the English, word, “laud” meant.

And, yes, I did know that “laud” came from laudare. Since you brought it up, the requirement for me to study languages for my training as a classical singer has been helpful for me in terms of figuring out the meanings of certain words in different languages, as well as being able to understand what I am singing in the art songs, Latin sacred works, concert repertoire and operas that I perform and to make my way around European countries without feeling completely loss, albeit, probably speaking like a pre-school kid , but that’s neither here nor there with what I was talking about. It’s not about people being able to understand multiple languages. This is about only the English language. I have a problem with people changing “laud” to “praise” or other similar changes as if people don’t understand a different English word. That’s assuming stupidity on the reader. I do believe that the loss of learning Latin in both Public and Private schools is a pity, though, especially in terms of being able to figure out the meanings of words in their native language, but that’s for another thread.

For the record, I’m on your side on this. Laud is laud and praise is praise. Though they may be one-syllable synonyms, they produce different sound waves, the poetry is altered, and tradition is destroyed. But then someone who is not into arts or music, those mean nothing to them. And I know you’re heavily into music.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

I sing hymns from memory, so if there is modernized language, I don’t sing it that way.I keep the thee’s, thou’s, and ye’s.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

OCP is owned by the very liberal Archdiocese of Portland, which just last week received a young and quite orthodox new archbishop. Given the pastoral letter on sacred music that he issued to his former diocese, I fully expect that OCP is in for a much-needed overhaul.

 

[Phemie]

OCP is owned by the very liberal Archdiocese of Portland, which just last week received a young and quite orthodox new archbishop. Given the pastoral letter on sacred music that he issued to his former diocese, I fully expect that OCP is in for a much-needed overhaul.

One can only hope and pray.