Problematic hymns for congregational singing

[Sarabande]

When the small choir I sang in back in 1981 and 1982 was singing Be Not Afraid my choir director made us practice those 16th notes over and over and over and over and over, again and again and again…

To this day whenever I hear and/or sing Be Not Afraid I am mentally hearing something akin to a woodpecker knocking out those 16th notes. If I should develop some sort of dementia when I get older that song will probably be the last thing to go.

haha! Well, I’m glad the music director drilled those 16ths into your heads. At least he was teaching the correct rhythm. It reminds me of when my voice teacher drilled dotted 8ths and 16ths going up and down a diatonic scale and I had to clap the rhythms over and over because she didn’t want me to be just a singer, but also a good musician. But I now have those claps in my head all the time whenever I see them.

Lo, How a Rose is a piece of cake in comparison! (But still not a simple song for congregational singing.)

I agree with you on both counts. Piece of cake, but not necessarily a piece of cake for every congregation.

 

[agapewolf]

There is no “correct” rhythm for the different Jesuit era songs.

Classical music cannot be changed or altered. (beethoven, etc) This is not the same standard for “Be not afraid,” “eagles wings”, etc. What is written does not have to be adhered to. I change music ALL the time for the most natural way of singing it. I’ll put an extra measure or 2 in between verses if needed, also for my choir. Music is at the service of the mass, and should be flexible to be as needed. This is why the more contemporary songs work better in this way then classical for mass. One thing pounded into my head in music school and growing up in lessons is that you can improvise a pop song, but NEVER Beethoven. You cannot perform half of a movement either. So, what to do at mass when the action in the mass calls for the music to end, but the music isn’t done?

In fact, the piano music written to accompany the current songs today (meaning Haas/Jesuit/schutte, etc) are not meant to be played, unless a last resort for a pianist who cannot improvise. This is from the composer’s themselves.

 

[pnewton]

“Be Not Afraid” isn’t so bad; at least its not “On Eagles Wings” (a.k.a. “The You-Hoo Song”).

It took me a while to figure out how to pull that one off, but after having to prepare it for a funeral, I finally invested the time to learn it well. It is received pretty well at my parish.

 

[CatholicZ09]

I noticed that with certain female cantors, “On Eagle’s Wings” can be a real pain to the ear.

Starting off on a high C/D isn’t really the best idea, but it works for some, and it just doesn’t work for others. Luckily we don’t do this one too often.

I think maybe that starting off hymns on a high note might not be the smartest thing to do (“Lo, How a Rose” included).

Has anyone else also heard “Silent Night” get butchered near the end at the “sleep in heavenly peace” part? The E-flat “heavenly” part is not so bad, but sometimes it’s not so good when certain people jump from the B-flat to the D-natural on the “peace” part. I’ve heard that butchered many times before, too.

 

[DaveBj]

snip

In fact, the piano music written to accompany the current songs today (meaning Haas/Jesuit/schutte, etc) are not meant to be played, unless a last resort for a pianist who cannot improvise. This is from the composer’s themselves.

This is a very important point. I was a songwriter myself in my Protestant life, and the songs that I wrote were arrived at after a long process of improvization. For me, this process did not stop, even after I had something down on paper, and in some cases, even after the song was published. I am sure this is true of the contemporary, guitar-based (Haas/Schutte/etc.) songs that I personally love to hate. Some of those works cannot be sung without changing them (improvising), and that could confuse congregants who are trying to read what’s in the hymnal.

This is one reason why I prefer the older, established hymns.

 

[Sarabande]

This is a very important point. I was a songwriter myself in my Protestant life, and the songs that I wrote were arrived at after a long process of improvization. For me, this process did not stop, even after I had something down on paper, and in some cases, even after the song was published. I am sure this is true of the contemporary, guitar-based (Haas/Schutte/etc.) songs that I personally love to hate. Some of those works cannot be sung without changing them (improvising), and that could confuse congregants who are trying to read what’s in the hymnal.

This is one reason why I prefer the older, established hymns.

That’s also what I see with some of those hymns. Of course, it makes sense to have to change some of those hymns to make it easier for the congregation to sing, but if it is improvised so much to the point that it doesn’t match what’s in the hymnal, I believe, only based on the congregations I know, that it defeats the purpose of congregational singing. And not all “contemporary” hymns written in the last 40+ years have difficult rhythms or are problematic in other areas. So whether or not you like them, they are still simple to sing as written in the hymnal. And, as we see with “Lo, How A Rose”, some of the older hymns can also be difficult. Although I also like the hymn, “Comfort, Comfort, Ye My People”, it is difficult for congregational singing due to the rhythms in it. But I believe it was originally composed for choir. They simplified it by taking out the harmonies for the lower voices, but it is still difficult and I would not choose it as a piece for congregation because of it.

To me, it makes more sense to just initially write the music so that it is simple for a congregation or use older hymns that are already simple. Then, if the musicians wants to use it as a solo or instrumental, they can “dress it up”. So much of vocal music and instrumental solo music from the past allowed for this. The initial melody was simple and then the soloist could add fiorature, coloratura, cadenzas, etc. to make it more interesting and show their musical chops. You’d see this a lot in music written in the a-b-a form from the Baroque and Classical periods and even during the early Romantic period, especially for vocal repertoire. It was constant improvisation, within the confines of the music, of course, which was expected and encouraged by many of the composers of the time. And sometimes people’s improvisations completely changed the sound of the original music. But that’s for solo music, not for hymn music meant for congregation.

Now what I was talking about was more of an extreme, but I have heard similar things with those newer hymns or even the older, established hymns by the musicians. The improvising styles if different from what I mentioned above. Although I can appreciate what they are doing, you just sit there hearing the people around you trying to sing the hymn like they thought it was supposed to be done and then something completely different, yet not what is written in the hymnal being played by the musicians. If the congregation gets thrown off and doesn’t sing, then it again defeat the purpose of congregational singing.

 

[Sarabande]

There is no “correct” rhythm for the different Jesuit era songs.

Classical music cannot be changed or altered. (beethoven, etc) This is not the same standard for “Be not afraid,” “eagles wings”, etc. What is written does not have to be adhered to. I change music ALL the time for the most natural way of singing it. I’ll put an extra measure or 2 in between verses if needed, also for my choir. Music is at the service of the mass, and should be flexible to be as needed. This is why the more contemporary songs work better in this way then classical for mass. One thing pounded into my head in music school and growing up in lessons is that you can improvise a pop song, but NEVER Beethoven. You cannot perform half of a movement either. So, what to do at mass when the action in the mass calls for the music to end, but the music isn’t done?

I know Agapewolf knows this, but it’s also important to note that most of the classical vocal sacred literature was not meant for congregational singing, but for choirs and soloists. I think it’s safe to say that many parishes don’t often or ever “perform” this kind of music because they don’t have the musicianship or the musicians or the funds available. (How many parishes do vocal literature by composers like Palestrina, Tallis, Bruckner, Mozart, etc.?) A couple of the parishes where I currently work do, but even then we won’t do that kind of music for the entire mass or at every mass because we do want to make it congregational singing. And the only time they do choral masses is for special masses for the visiting bishop or archbishop or for Chrstmas/Easter, etc.

In other parishes, you could possibly have organists who play classical organ literature as preludes and postludes or during the Offertory in which I’ve often heard the organists be able to place a cadence in the middle of the music when needed, but what we mostly have in many parishes is hymn literature. None of the hymns, whether old or new, are really considered classical music, although a good composer or music writer could adapt those hymns to be more “classical” or “contemporary”. (I’ve heard a completely contemporary version once of “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” pretty interesting… although, another hymn I don’t really think works well for congregational singing… better for choir. )

 

[agapewolf]

This is a very important point. I was a songwriter myself in my Protestant life, and the songs that I wrote were arrived at after a long process of improvization. For me, this process did not stop, even after I had something down on paper, and in some cases, even after the song was published. I am sure this is true of the contemporary, guitar-based (Haas/Schutte/etc.) songs that I personally love to hate. Some of those works cannot be sung without changing them (improvising), and that could confuse congregants who are trying to read what’s in the hymnal.

This is one reason why I prefer the older, established hymns.

You completely missed what I said. I said the ACCOMPANIMENT is improvised.

That doesn’t change the singing, and with a good accompanist, can actually aid in the singing together. I do it all the time at my parish. And my parish sings really really well. It doesn’t confuse my parish one bit.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Has anyone else also heard “Silent Night” get butchered near the end at the “sleep in heavenly peace” part? The E-flat “heavenly” part is not so bad, but sometimes it’s not so good when certain people jump from the B-flat to the D-natural on the “peace” part. I’ve heard that butchered many times before, too.

In many European parishes, the first “Sleep in heavenly peace” line is sung a minor third lower than we typically sing it. For example, if the hymn is being sung in the key of C, we sing those notes as “D-DF-DBC-E” and they would sing “B-BD-CBC-E.” It is much easier to sing by those with a limited range.

Regarding “Lo, How a Rose E’er Blooming,” I have never had a problem with a parish singing it correctly after they have learned it. One thing that helps is to play it on an organ (guitars are simply too hard to follow melody, as their primary function is percussive) and to play the whole song through as an introduction. If a parish can master the strange rhythm of “Gift of Finest Wheat,” this song is a piece of cake.

 

[Sarabande]

You completely missed what I said. I said the ACCOMPANIMENT is improvised.

That doesn’t change the singing, and with a good accompanist, can actually aid in the singing together. I do it all the time at my parish. And my parish sings really really well. It doesn’t confuse my parish one bit.

While I appreciate and can understand when improvisation can be made to accompaniments and still keeping the integrity of the melody (I’ve worked with a few pianists and organists who do this with new and old hymns in both the “contemporary” and “classical” ways and it can work well) what I think people are talking about is when the rhythms of the actual melody that the congregation sings are changed because the original is too difficult for them to pick up. That does happen a lot with some hymns… even older ones (Comfort, Comfort is one example where I’ve seen that happen.) Then you also have those who even change a lot of the melody to the point that it actually doesn’t sound like the original hymn which can confuse a congregation even more.

I think it’s fine if someone wants to improvise on the accompaniment without disrupting/confusing the melody line. Composers have allowed for things like that in different ways for centuries, especially for specific periods. But if we have to modify the actual melody line with easier rhythms or whatever else to make it easier for the congregation, maybe it should have been simplified more by the composer or the arranger of the choral piece made into a hymn, or maybe just not use it for congregational singing altogether (depending on the congregation, of course.)

Ok… well, I have a little one needing my attention. Have to sign off here for a while.

 

[countertenor]

Bluntly, if the congregation either cannot our does not join in, it’s not appropriate for liturgical use.

If it requires training, it’s not appropriate for liturgical use.

“liturgy” is “the work of the people.”. It is not a place for professionalsto be plying their trade, or for anyone to have “her” solo.

When the people are siting and listening to someone perform, it is a failure, and I fervent ion is required.

If you’re doing something musically that the congregation cannot, KNOCK THAT OFF

hawk

Dochawk,

The Latin Church has actually divided the sections of the the liturgy so that certain parts are proper to the people and certain parts are proper to the choir. While, most Latin Catholics I have encountered don’t know this, and don’t know what parts belong to the choir or the people, the division is technically still there.

 

[agapewolf]

and people here are talking about the music as if its some classical piece that cannot be changed, and I’m saying that is not true.

 

[Sarabande]

and people here are talking about the music as if its some classical piece that cannot be changed, and I’m saying that is not true.

Again, I think most are talking about changing the rhythm/melody of the hymn line… not changes in the accompaniment that you were talking about in your previous post. I may have brought up examples of how even classical composers expected musicians to improvise on their music, especially during certain periods, to show that it’s not a new phenomenon as I think some people do believe that it’s only with modern music this has been done. But I don’t even include classical pieces for today because most parishes don’t play classical sacred music as it is mainly for choral, vocal solos and instrumentals.

For those who are actually thinking what Agapewolf commented above, there is a difference with improvising on the accompaniment (which there is usually no problem with affecting the melody line that the congregation sings) to actually changing the rhythms and sometimes even the melody of the line the congregation sings usually to make it easier for the congregation.

For Agapewolf - I understand when a composer means for the instrumentalist to improvise or “dress up” the accompaniment as I’ve seen it done so often with contemporary music and even with many of the compositions I work with from the Baroque and Classical periods, but do they also mean for the musicians performing the music to actually change the rhythms and the melody of the actual line that the congregation is singing? If that is the case, then fine, that’s what they want. But it can lead to confusion and I have heard it happen at many of the parishes I’ve worked at or attended regularly or as a visitor.

To me, it just makes more sense to make the melody line that the congregation sings simple so that it doesn’t have to be modified and mostly everyone can sing. The rest of it can be improvised, modified, etc. to help and/or add to the music.

For the record, getting back to the OP of “Lo! How A Rose” I don’t actually consider the hymn, itself, as classical music. It was originally just a hymn with one single melody and people have dressed it up and composed for it in certain styles, mostly in the western art music/classical style… thus the most popular Praetorius harmonization of that piece.

 

[DaveBj]

You completely missed what I said. I said the ACCOMPANIMENT is improvised.

That doesn’t change the singing, and with a good accompanist, can actually aid in the singing together. I do it all the time at my parish. And my parish sings really really well. It doesn’t confuse my parish one bit.

You’re right, I missed that. Sorry.

 

[FrancisB]

There is no “correct” rhythm for the different Jesuit era songs.

Classical music cannot be changed or altered. (beethoven, etc) This is not the same standard for “Be not afraid,” “eagles wings”, etc. What is written does not have to be adhered to. I change music ALL the time for the most natural way of singing it. I’ll put an extra measure or 2 in between verses if needed, also for my choir. Music is at the service of the mass, and should be flexible to be as needed. This is why the more contemporary songs work better in this way then classical for mass. One thing pounded into my head in music school and growing up in lessons is that you can improvise a pop song, but NEVER Beethoven. You cannot perform half of a movement either. So, what to do at mass when the action in the mass calls for the music to end, but the music isn’t done?

In fact, the piano music written to accompany the current songs today (meaning Haas/Jesuit/schutte, etc) are not meant to be played, unless a last resort for a pianist who cannot improvise. This is from the composer’s themselves.

False. Clearly you have not studied “classical” music. This is why these discussions become impossible. You are so far afield from what any classically-trained liturgical musician would think that it is nearly impossible to set the record straight. Let me try to set the record straight working backwards from your false premise to the truth, which is quite distant.

1. **The rhythms cannot be changed. ** While it is true in some limited degree that the typical performances of many orchestral masses do not change the notes on the page, we must be careful to understand that the notes on the page reflect the creation of the editor, not the composer. If we were to perform from the original sources, we would quickly find that in many cases the rhythms were not completely written out (insofar as ornaments were left to the interpretation of the performer, not the composer, and only indicated that there were to be inflections). Furthermore, no great classically-trained singer performs the rhythms as they are written at all times or fails to add his or her own ornaments to them. This is in fact the same practice of many folk singers, although they are afraid to add their own interpretation to older music since they (mistakenly) think that this was not the typical practice of the time. The rhythms can and should be changed and the melody ornamented within the context of the style. That is why different performances of the same opera aria or art song will sound differently.
2. The accompaniment was written out. Over the course of classical music history, this practice became more common, so that by around 1850 it was normative, but for the same reason that folk-style piano parts are written to-day: so that lesser musicians could read something if they could not improvise. The original organ parts were completely improvised, but when this proved too difficult, a system called “figured bass” was created for all of the keyboard instruments (primarily the harpsichord and organ). It was a fixed bass line with figures (numbers) underneath it suggesting the harmony. While most modern editions of older music include “realised figured bass” (i.e. complete keyboard accompaniment), this was not the original practice. Organists–indeed all keyboard players–were expected to improvise. It is still a requirement to join the organists’ guild. While some composers did view their own accompaniments as superior to what any organist could improvise, organists did not often agree, and many still alter accompaniments by changing registrations, leaving out notes or adding ornaments, changing rhythms, and in some cases altering harmony. The more traditional the music, the more necessary–that’s right necessary-- this is.
3. Orchestral masses represent the traditional music of the mass. Orchestral masses are beautiful. They were written by some of the greatest composers of the classical tradition. They are essentially opera masses, and they are just as secular as the folk masses. In fact the very documents that suggest that folk masses are inappropriate for use in church were written to remove the orchestral masses. It would be unfair for anyone to claim that folk music is out but true classical music is in. The authentic music of the church isn’t Beethoven, Schubert, Haydn, or Mozart. It was mostly written by anonymous composers and little-known figures. It was simple music for simple Catholics. It was plainsong and simple music like the Cecilian Movement put out. They held up the elaborate music of the Gregorian tradition and the Renaissance masters as ideals, but understood that it was not possible for most parishes to achieve that. Instead of using something completely different, they used simplified chant and simplified polyphony. The use of the organ here was necessary, but it required either improvisation or the use of written-out accompaniments by arrangers because the old music did not have any organ parts written out for it.

Improvisation is the ancient practice of the church. It was used both vocally and instrumentally and applied to chant, polyphony, and homophony. The invention of harmony–a uniquely Catholic event that happened at Notre Dame in Paris-- occurred because of the vocal improvisations that occurred there based on plainsong. In other words, without vocal improvisation and plainsong, we wouldn’t have any concept of chords; they simply did not exist until French Catholics created them by experimenting with church music. That said, they were experimenting with plainsong, not the latest hits of the troubadours or minstrels.

 

[agapewolf]

False. Clearly you have not studied “classical” music. This is why these discussions become impossible. You are so far afield from what any classically-trained liturgical musician would think that it is nearly impossible to set the record straight. Let me try to set the record straight working backwards from your false premise to the truth, which is quite distant.

.

And clearly you haven’t followed the discussion and are taking me too literally. I have a DEGREE in music, thank you. I’ve studied it extensively. What I am talking about is a very narrow window in response to specific points brought up by specific posts.

Your condescending post is not needed.

 

[SMHW]

On a purely practical level…

The amount of improvisation that can be done at a given Mass --regardless of the style of music-- is going to depend on a number of factors. I think the biggest factor is going to be the number of musicians involved. A second factor will be the ability of those musicians to communicate with each other.

If you have a single musician then that person has the ability to take considerable liberties. But if you have more than one then things get a bit more complicated. (Anyone who has ever been to a parish where the accompanist and the cantor get out of sync with each other and can’t figure out how to get back together understands what I mean; accompanying a singer is a skill that doesn’t come automatically with proficiency on an instrument.) If you have choir which sings in harmony and/or small orchestra playing at Mass then there are even more issues.

My parish makes use of a wide range of musical styles. It’s not that unusual to hear Palestrina and Haas at the same Mass. (And the Mass parts are often chanted). The more classical pieces are usually done just as arranged because to do otherwise would be too difficult to communicate to the various voice parts. But if it’s a hymn or contemporary piece then it is common to add a musical interlude between verses or to cut out a coda if we are running long. We are fortunate to have accompanists who know how to work together.

 

[FrancisB]

And clearly you haven’t followed the discussion and are taking me too literally. I have a DEGREE in music, thank you. I’ve studied it extensively. What I am talking about is a very narrow window in response to specific points brought up by specific posts.

Your condescending post is not needed.

So I should understand that all as sarcasm? It didn’t come across as such. What you said was simply not true, not even in the “very narrow window” in which it was presented.

 

[agapewolf]

So I should understand that all as sarcasm? It didn’t come across as such. What you said was simply not true, not even in the “very narrow window” in which it was presented.

No it wasn’t sarcasm and you know it. It IS true in the manner I was addressing.

 

[FrancisB]

No it wasn’t sarcasm and you know it. It IS true in the manner I was addressing.

Having re-read your post and several before it, looking for the context in which that might have been true, I am still baffled. What you said just simply is not an accurate reflection of music history. It may be an accurate view of an untrained musician’s view of music history, but if that was your intent, you are only reinforcing a misconception. You honestly have me confused, Agapewolf. I was being condescending because you were passing on bad information as though it were true. Now I’m just confused as to how you can say that it was anything other than the appropriate response, so please explain yourself so we can discuss it.