Why don't people sing?

[lak611]

Take my voice for starters - please! I’m what you’d call an alto’s alto, probably good for jazz but not much else. Something like ‘Holy God we praise your name’ would be perfectly do-able for me - IF it were only a few notes lower than played in your average parish. You think musical directors EVER consider pitching the songs just those few notes lower? :nope:

So my only options are donkey-like high notes or an even more disturbing attempt to sing half of the thing an octave lower.

A solution for that would be to have 4 part hymnals like at all the Protestant churches I have been to. I am an alto, also. I can sing in a Protestant church because I can read music, but cannot harmonize by ear. The alto part (along with soprano, tenor and bass) is in every Protestant hymnal I have seen. Unfortunately, I have never seen a Catholic hymnal with anything but the soprano part.

 

[lak611]

Yes, I find this a little amusing also. I’m a former Methodist, and Methodists are known for their singing. Not surprising, given that Charles Wesley (younger brother of John Wesley) wrote a huge number of hymns - including Hark! The Herald Angels Sing.

We had a hymnal at our church, the United Methodist Hymnal. It was absolutely chock-full of beautiful singable hymns (this site will give you an idea of what it contained), most of them old and revered. (When they tried to remove Onward Christian Soldiers from the hymnal, there was an outcry! It’s still there, LOL).

No one had to be “trained” to sing these hymns. How many people need to be trained to sing along to Hark! The Herald Angels Sing?? Catholics seem to catch on to Immaculate Mary pretty well, also. And at my TLM parish, no one had problems with the Salve Regina, either (sung all in Latin).

The nice thing about the Methodist hymnal is that it is a 4 part hymnal. I can and do sing if I go to a Methodist service.

 

[lak611]

And consider this–the whole point of a hymn is for people to all join in and sing it TOGETHER. Hymns are not meant to be sung as melodies only. Composers write hymns in several parts because they want people to work together to produce a beautiful piece of music. This involves cooperation. The sopranos and tenors carry the melody and the high notes, while the altos and basses provide the foundation.

I know this. Why, then, do the Catholic hymnals not have the 4 parts like the Protestant hymnals? I can sing in a Protestant church by following the alto part. I cannot harmonize by ear, so in a Catholic church, I’m out of luck.

 

[Sarabande]

I don’t think the problem is the range. One problem was brought up by Cat. Many just don’t know how to sing anymore. They are used to hearing people using absolute chest voice, belting, etc. in the popular music of today. It’s sometimes called “forced singing”, where the singer will manufacture this voice, pushing and forcing it out rather than let it come out organically and mentally. As Cat mentioned, the natural voice of most women is the soprano range. But I think our culture today has made singing within the natural balance of head and chest voice ‘scary’ for many people. They think that natural singing is the belting and chest voice in the lower register. It really isn’t. For generations prior to the popularity of this way of forced singing, singing in the head voice was natural. When you are trained, you learn how to balance the head voice with the rest of your body, so that it sounds fuller and richer. That can be done in private teaching, but also in choirs during warmup exercises.

Also, sometimes people think that some hymns are too high if the cantor sing all in the head voice. As an example, I’m what they call in the opera world a Mezzo-Soprano. It means Middle Soprano. I can sing either alto or soprano, but my tessitura lies a little beneath the average soprano. When I cantor, I sing the same hymns and in the exact same keys as the other cantor who is a regular soprano. What I find interesting is that parishioners have approached me and commented how they love that I sing these hymns in a “lower key” because it is easier for them to sing. I have to explain to them that I actually don’t and many are surprised when they hear this. I believe that the other cantor (who is a decent and able singer - she has a lovely voice) sounds like she is singing it really high because she sometimes sings more in her head and does not have it equally balanced to obtain depth, warmth and richness in the voice. She’s had some training, but not a lot. The warmth and depth in the voice does makes a big difference to an untrained person’s ears as what they think would be easier to sing.

The other problem is how a hymn is written. When it is written more like a solo with lots of jumps from low notes to “high” notes, even if it is within the range of an average churchgoer without any voice or musical training, that can sometimes be difficult to sing. I have had some people tell me that although they like “On Eagle’s Wings”, it is difficult for them to sing because it jumps down to the low A. I think because there isn’t a descent which can make it a bit easier for an untrained voice to maneuver it’s way down the scale rather than to jump down there.

 

[Sarabande]

I know this. Why, then, do the Catholic hymnals not have the 4 parts like the Protestant hymnals? I can sing in a Protestant church by following the alto part. I cannot harmonize by ear, so in a Catholic church, I’m out of luck.

I don’t know why most Catholic hymnals do not have four-part harmony. The old hymnals had the harmonies printed, so why many newer hymnals have stopped doing it is beyond me.

Our chapel used to have Hymnal called “We Celebrate” published by J.S. Paluch Company, Inc. I have an old copy of it is here and it was printed in 1986. It wasn’t the greatest hymnal, but had a lot of traditional hymns. All of the traditional hymns were printed in four-part harmony. Funnily enough, most of the newer hymns of that time did not have harmonizations. I think it was because those hymns were not composed to be sung in four-parts. Interesting. I remember when I still attended parishes and sang in the parish choirs that did mainly those newer hymns, the harmonies were usually descants or this upper voice above the melody line. It never had anything for the lower voices. Naturally, the chants in there didn’t have harmony, unless of course, they wanted to put it in organum - which is a lot of fun to do.

I think my dad is one of the only people I know at mass who actually harmonizes almost every hymn he sings. He has been doing it since I was a baby. I have never known or come across anyone else in congregations who does that by ear. (I know people can do it, but I just never met people who do it without any reservation) I only harmonize if I know the composed harmony or have music to look at, but it has always been nice hearing the only baritone in the congregation singing his own made-up harmony.

 

[LilyM]

As you can plainlyl see, the contemporary hymns are NOT written in a higher range (most are actually lower), and they are hardly written in a “coloratura” range.

As I said in my earlier post, very few hymns in the hymnal are higher than the D (one octave plus one step above Middle C), and very few are lower than the A below Middle C.

I’ve played the piano for years in churches, and I’m quite familiar with hundreds of hymns. Most are written in that very narrow range.

This should be a comfortable range for most people. There will certainly be exceptions, but most people should be able to sing all the notes in this range.

Consider this–many women are sopranos, and would find a range much lower than this very uncomfortable.

And consider this–the whole point of a hymn is for people to all join in and sing it TOGETHER. Hymns are not meant to be sung as melodies only. Composers write hymns in several parts because they want people to work together to produce a beautiful piece of music. This involves cooperation. The sopranos and tenors carry the melody and the high notes, while the altos and basses provide the foundation.

It’s an analogy of I Corinthians 12-14. We are the Body of Christ, but we are not all ears or mouths or hands. We all have a different function in the “song” of our lives. We all need to do our OWN part, not try to do a part meant for someone else.

That isn’t musical incompetence. It’s extremely competent to write pieces in parts.

Musical incompetence is not knowing how to sing those parts and refusing to learn.

And YES, I believe that in the past, people were trained how to sing. Have you ever read the Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder? She not only records a legacy of singing with her family (her father accompanied them on the violin, and her sister Mary learned to play the organ and was able to accompany them), but she also writes about the Singing School that was offered by the schoolteacher.

So why are we better than our near ancestors? I believe it is a worthy thing to learn more about proper singing, especially if we intend to use our newly-acquired skills to sing to God’s glory in the Holy Mass. If we sing correctly, we won’t be breathless at the end of a song, and we won’t have sore throat. It’s just a lot more comfortable to sing correctly.

My apologies for butchering my previous edit of this post The following portion was my reply.

Hymns are meant to be sung in parts - great. So we don’t just need training in carrying a melody, which many people can’t do at the best of times, but in part-singing as well! And I severely dispute that most women are sopranos - how is it that none of 'em can hit the high notes then? And what about the 50% of the male congregation, you can’t tell me most of 'em are tenors!

Regardless of whether hymns are meant to be sung in parts, those parts aren’t put in the hymnals for us to sing. That being the case, cater for the majority of your congregation who can’t or won’t be able to hit the high notes you seem to think are normal.

And if your information about ranges is accurate, all that proves is that ALL of 'em as set in your OCP hymnal are set too darn high for the average range of the modern person, even if they’re within the same range as the average older hymn. Again, it won’t kill anyone to play 'em lower, rather have botched low notes than unreachable high notes any day.

If you want me to sing parts, fine, at the very least give me the parts in the hymnal so that I can learn to do so!

And of course everyone was fortunate enough to own violins and organs in the days of Laura Ingalls Wilder. :nope: If you’re a professional musician then you must know as I do that both musical instruments and musical training were then and still are now, pretty darned expensive in the best of circumstances.

And you’re assuming that all could afford to attend school in the first place before the late 1800s when it became compulsory and free or low-cost. Let alone shell out more money or taking the time from necessary work for extra curricular singing lessons after school.

Give me a break. Laura Ingalls Wilder was in the privileged minority in being able to read and write sufficiently to write her own books, let alone having any greater learning.

 

[Sarabande]

Hymns are meant to be sung in parts - great. So we don’t just need training in carrying a melody, which many people can’t do at the best of times, but in part-singing as well! And I severely dispute that most women are sopranos - how is it that none of 'em can hit the high notes then?

I have explained in my previous post regarding your soprano question. I think it has something to do with culture today of singing, more so than anything else. Also, the range for most hymns are set in the lower and middle voices. Altos’ range in many musical compositions can go from low F at the lowest to the E above C above middle C. Most hymns sit within that range. Those hymns do not go into the soprano range. I do know that most women are naturally sopranos. There are always more sopranos than altos in choirs - in any choir I’ve ever sung in whether a volunteer untrained choir, a high school choir or a professional choir.

And what about the 50% of the male congregation, you can’t tell me most of 'em are tenors!

Actually, most men’s natural voices are of baritones or basses - not tenors. Tenors are always hard to come by as they are an unusual voice - so even mediocre tenors can get a good amount of singing jobs. The same with mezzos or altos. They are hard to come by as well, whereas sopranos are “a dime a dozen” and much more competitive.

And if your information about ranges is accurate, all that proves is that ALL of 'em as set in your OCP hymnal are set too darn high for the average range of the modern person, even if they’re within the same range as the average older hymn. Again, it won’t kill anyone to play 'em lower, rather have botched low notes than unreachable high notes any day.

I don’t like OCP either and very happy we don’t have OCP books at our church. But many of those hymns are set in the lower and middle range of the voice. Again, I believe it is the way it is sung and how our culture today has given this attitude of singing all in chest voice. Also, if the cantor sings in head voice, it will sound too high and too hard to sing. If the cantor sings with a balanced voice of depth, it “settles” the congregant’s mind and helps them believe that it is lower, when it isn’t. (see my previous post with more explanation on this.)

 

[LilyM]

I do know that most women are naturally sopranos. There are always more sopranos than altos in choirs - in any choir I’ve ever sung in whether a volunteer untrained choir, a high school choir or a professional choir.

Uh-huh. That’s true, but it’s not proof that most women are sopranos. For one thing women who can hit the higher notes are more sought after and more likely to be singled out for their singing. Hence the divas and heroines in the operatic and music-theatre world are most always sopranos - the minor and comic parts usually reserved for the lower voices. The only notable exception being Bizet’s Carmen - who then again isn’t a typical heroine, rather a flawed femme fatale (literally).

For another thing, choirs need more of the higher-pitched voices, since higher pitch usually means lesser volume and power, to balance the lower voices. Meaning more sopranos to get the balance right, not more sopranos because there are more of 'em.

Actually, most men’s natural voices are of baritones or basses - not tenors. Tenors are always hard to come by as they are an unusual voice - so even mediocre tenors can get a good amount of singing jobs. The same with mezzos or altos. They are hard to come by as well, whereas sopranos are “a dime a dozen” and much more competitive.

Mediocre mezzos and altos can get lots of singing work? When 99.9% of major parts in opera and musical theatre (not to mention the vast majority of ‘showpiece’ arias and tunes) are written for sopranos? Doesn’t compute

 

[Sarabande]

And of course everyone was fortunate enough to own violins and organs in the days of Laura Ingalls Wilder. :nope: If you’re a professional musician then you must know as I do that both musical instruments and musical training were then and still are now, pretty darned expensive in the best of circumstances.

And you’re assuming that all could afford to attend school in the first place before the late 1800s when it became compulsory and free or low-cost. Let alone shell out more money or taking the time from necessary work for extra curricular singing lessons after school…

I read the Little House books literally five times from 2nd grade through 4th grade and was absolutely crazed about Prairie living and history from 8 to 18. Firstly, if Mary did play the organ she would have only been able to play it in a church as her family was so poor they would not have been able to afford to own a home organ. Also, a lot of those Prairie churches didn’t really have the money to buy organs. Any lessons would have been very few and far between as well. During most of the time before she went blind, they lived in areas not near a church to attend weekly Sunday services as they were Methodists, so she would not have been able to practice. Pa played his “violin” as a “fiddle” and he most likely never had any lessons, but did it by ear. He most likely learned all of the songs and dance tunes of the time. Any training in singing would have been nill. It was her “church culture” of everyone singing the hymns that helped with them singing. Again, women were not afraid to sing in “head voice” back then as belting and chest singing was not popular or known.

And lastly, I believe it really was more of the culture of the time and way of life. The only kind of musical entertainment was through live music, so people either sang in groups together or improvised on instruments if they were too poor to get lessons. The wealthier and middle classes almost always took music lessons. BUT I really think that was NOT the case of the Ingalls family. Based on the books and the bio I read on them, they would not have had the money to afford lessons or special training at all. I mean, for goodness sake, they lived in a dirt house and had to resort to burning hay for heat, waking up with snow on their beds, and living day by day sometimes not knowing if they would have enough to eat sometimes. So, I highly doubt Laura Ingalls Wilder and her family ever had singing or musical training.

 

[Sarabande]

Uh-huh. That’s true, but it’s not proof that most women are sopranos. For one thing women who can hit the higher notes are more sought after and more likely to be singled out for their singing. Hence the divas and heroines in the operatic and music-theatre world are most always sopranos - the minor and comic parts usually reserved for the lower voices. The only notable exception being Bizet’s Carmen - who then again isn’t a typical heroine, rather a flawed femme fatale (literally).

Yes, it’s true there are probably more soprano roles, but actually, there are many lead mezzo roles - Not just Carmen. Almost all of Rossini’s heroines were written for mezzo. I sing many of those arias. Many of Donizetti’s roles and roles created during the early 1800s were actually for a mezzo, but for some reason the soprano took them over. Richard Strauss wrote gorgeous parts for the mezzo which equal with the sopranos. You also have Handel which can be sung by mezzos or sopranos. Mezzos, especially lyric mezzos like me, can also switch up, so they have a slightly larger repertoire.

For another thing, choirs need more of the higher-pitched voices, since higher pitch usually means lesser volume and power, to balance the lower voices. Meaning more sopranos to get the balance right, not more sopranos because there are more of 'em.

I don’t believe that is true. Having sung in both volunteer and professional choirs, directors always talk about problems of trying to find more altos to sing. I always had to switch singing alto or soprano if they didn’t have enough altos.

Mediocre mezzos and altos can get lots of singing work? When 99.9% of major parts in opera and musical theatre (not to mention the vast majority of ‘showpiece’ arias and tunes) are written for sopranos? Doesn’t compute

I don’t mean this in any lack of respect, but do you work in the opera world and are you an opera singer? I’m a professional opera singer and have sung and studied here in the states and in Europe. I believe I have some expertise in this. I know that it is truth. There aren’t as many mezzos or altos in the world, so it is a lot easier for a mezzo than a soprano to get a part. It’s still a very tough road to haul, but in terms of competition, it isn’t as difficult. Also, as I explained, if you perform in the opera world, you would know that 99.9% of arias are not just for sopranos. I wouldn’t have so much repertoire if that was truly the case.

But I think we’re going off topic. Again, the soprano range is above the range of what is written in the hymns. The range in hymnody is always in the middle or lower voice - never in the soprano range. A typical alto range is from low F to the E, so even if you don’t believe that most women are sopranos the music isn’t written in the soprano range anyway.

And please, I hope I’m not sounding like I’m arguing or being rude. I don’t mean to be. Here’s my smiley face to prove it. God bless.

P.S. I didn’t mean that mediocre mezzos could get the jobs. A mezzo still needs to be darn good. I only meant that for tenors. There are more mezzos than there are tenors, so mediocre tenors can them much easier than mezzos. Sorry I didn’t make myself more clear on that.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

But I think we’re going off topic. Again, the soprano range is above the range of what is written in the hymns. The range in hymnody is always in the middle or lower voice - never in the soprano range. A typical alto range is from low F to the E, so even if you don’t believe that most women are sopranos the music isn’t written in the soprano range anyway.

Feel free to continue this discussion here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=200103

P.S. - I straddle the line between tenor and baritone (more baritone).

 

[ATeNumquam]

I haven’t read through all the posts, so may be repeating other folks’ comments.

My impression is that US Catholics use hymnals (? correct?)

About 20 years ago NZ parishes in general gradually switched to having the words of the hymns on an overhead projector, with the screen being usually on the left hand side of the church down from the sanctuary. It made a huge difference in getting people to sing - and they do, men included!
No one has to find the hymn in the book, everyone’s heads are up looking at the words, so they are not singing “downwards”, the words are large, and the projector-operator keeps the sheets well positioned to follow along.

It kinds of draws everyone into singing.

And the screen is not obtrusive, really. It is only in use during Mass.
Every parish I have ever been to sings with gusto, but just after Vatican II, when I entered the Church, no one sang, and as an ex-Anglican, I found it strange.

 

[LilyM]

Yes, it’s true there are probably more soprano roles, but actually, there are many lead mezzo roles - Not just Carmen. Almost all of Rossini’s heroines were written for mezzo. I sing many of those arias. Many of Donizetti’s roles and roles created during the early 1800s were actually for a mezzo, but for some reason the soprano took them over. Richard Strauss wrote gorgeous parts for the mezzo which equal with the sopranos. You also have Handel which can be sung by mezzos or sopranos. Mezzos, especially lyric mezzos like me, can also switch up, so they have a slightly larger repertoire.

I don’t believe that is true. Having sung in both volunteer and professional choirs, directors always talk about problems of trying to find more altos to sing. I always had to switch singing alto or soprano if they didn’t have enough altos.

I don’t mean this in any lack of respect, but do you work in the opera world and are you an opera singer? I’m a professional opera singer and have sung and studied here in the states and in Europe. I believe I have some expertise in this. I know that it is truth. There aren’t as many mezzos or altos in the world, so it is a lot easier for a mezzo than a soprano to get a part. It’s still a very tough road to haul, but in terms of competition, it isn’t as difficult. Also, as I explained, if you perform in the opera world, you would know that 99.9% of arias are not just for sopranos. I wouldn’t have so much repertoire if that was truly the case.

But I think we’re going off topic. Again, the soprano range is above the range of what is written in the hymns. The range in hymnody is always in the middle or lower voice - never in the soprano range. A typical alto range is from low F to the E, so even if you don’t believe that most women are sopranos the music isn’t written in the soprano range anyway.

And please, I hope I’m not sounding like I’m arguing or being rude. I don’t mean to be. Here’s my smiley face to prove it. God bless.

P.S. I didn’t mean that mediocre mezzos could get the jobs. A mezzo still needs to be darn good. I only meant that for tenors. There are more mezzos than there are tenors, so mediocre tenors can them much easier than mezzos. Sorry I didn’t make myself more clear on that.

In this case I defer to superior wisdom and experience :tiphat: - obviously this old dog still has a few things to learn

 

[Al_Masetti]

No idea if this comment is helpful or not.

When I was in Catholic school, we “studied” singing. Actually, everyone studied music (and did a lot of singing, as well). [That was in addition to a full spectrum of math and science, literature and history, and languages.]

Anyway, it seemed that everyone knew how to read music well enough to sing along. How to carry notes. There was instruction in breathing and pronouncing the words (we sang in English and in Latin).

No idea what folks get in school nowadays.

[However, I still am forbidden to sing in church because the cost of replacing cracked windows creates an unsustainable Earth.]

 

[BobintheSprings]

This string of responses is truly amazing!

Go to a celebration of real importance to you:
A wedding feast
A 50th weddeing anniversary
An important achievement.

Everyone is having a good time.
Everyone is HAVING FUN!!!
There is an (dare I say it) emotional connection of warmth and love

An important person to this event calls everyone to attention. Raise your glasses, drink a toast! Let’s sing “Ole Lang zine” (sp?). Or perhaps the bride and groom dance to their favorite love song.

Now let’s interpret some of these responses below:
I won’t sing to such a ****** band;
I’ll raise my glass but I won’t be caught saying, “cheers”
I don’t think “cheers” was a word used in the ancient days by holy people.

Let’s get real people! This mass is the greatest celebration we will ever attend. Let’s put our pettiness aside; let’s not worry too much -or at least at this feast- about the lyrics; Let’s stop looking at the band, the celebrant, or even ourselves.

What happens if you have the opportunity to go to the final banquet at the end times and find that the tune or words sound bitter to you? Will you fade away back into purgatory?

How about lifting your eyes WITH LOVING PASSION to our Lord!
How about singing (at least the responses, the Gloria, and any other song that remotely sounds familiar JUST OUT OF LOVE of our GOD!

This “culture” of not singing that was mentioned is not common to every Catholic church. It is not common to every non denominational church. Many people in many churches today honor the Host of the banquet in spirit and truth.

Does anyone here think that the Spirit of God so bland, so narrow as to encourage a single person not to sing?

Please, SING!

Sorry that I sometimes feel embarrassed to be singing at church when so many around me are not. It is a form of selfish pride. But when I see the Lord’s face in Church, I can’t help it. I MUST sing in worship and prayer.

Always rejoicing in the Lord,
Bob

 

[Cat]

In this case I defer to superior wisdom and experience :tiphat: - obviously this old dog still has a few things to learn

We all have many things to learn, and we should be open to learning them.

I didn’t learn how to sing correctly until I was in my 40s. I was hired to play for several excellent choirs, and the director did a lot of warmups and vocal training in the group setting. Even though I was sitting at the piano accompanying the warmups, I soaked in the information and utilized it.

BTW, I’ve read the Little House books and most of the adjunct books many, many MANY times, at least once a year since childhood. The Ingalls family was extremely poor; they nearly starved during the Long Winter. They didn’t have professional lessons but they did sing as a family and Pa and Ma Ingalls trained the girls (there’s a passage where Pae tells Laura to move her pitch up to B flat).

And the story of the acquisition of the Ingalls family organ is an extremely touching one. Blind sister Mary went to college–the entire family sacrificed to earn the tuition to send here–they even sold the family cow. It was at the College for the Blind in Vinton, Iowa, where Mary learned to play the organ. Pa and Ma decide to buy an organ so that Mary can play it when she comes home (they know that she will live at home always after she graduates from college, since no one back then married a blind woman–the tv show was waaay off!). Pa, Ma, and Laura all go to work to earn the money to buy the organ–Laura doesn’t even think of keeping any of her earnings for herself. And eventually after two years of saving, they pay for the organ, and when Mary gets home she is so excited.

That organ is currently in one of the Ingalls family museums–I can’t remember if it’s in De Smet or down in Mansfield.

The point is, people sang well back then because that was their “entertainment.” In today’s culture, most families don’t entertain themselves by singing together, and that’s one of the major reasons, IMO, why people don’t sing in church.

Did you all know that IBM has a corporate song? My husband remembers singing it years ago when he first joined IBM. There are films of the men (in their white shirts and ties!) all singing lustily! Now if someone suggested singing the IBM corporate song at a company event, people would have them straitjacketed and hauled away for their own safety! Corporate singing is simply not done in our culture anymore!

Our family sings together–one of the reasons I love it when my younger daughter comes home for a visit is that I can sit down at the piano and accompany her as she sings through oratorio solos, opera areas (she is a soprano, but the teachers haven’t decided what kind yet, as she’s only 21!), gospel songs (she does Sandi Patty like Sandi Patty!), and folk songs. The whole family enjoys this concert!

 

[BobintheSprings]

Cat,

Thanks for your reply. A house with music and singing is one that expresses its joy for life. There is a reason God put singing into our lives.

Bob

 

[BobintheSprings]

BTW:

Sorry to introduce another subject but it does relate: I teach 9th grade RE. I’ve started the practice of beginning each class with singing songs of worship with these young people. Most do not have the family tradition of singing -or if they do, are not comfortable even at home with singing. What’s great is, from the very first class I notice that they are singing! and worshipping!

-so much for not having the tradition. As parents we need to take the steps that Cat takes in her home. We also need to get involved in the religious education programs (particularly the after school programs for kids not in Catholic schools). By doing this, we move out of our little comfort zones. We risk. We grow. We pray together. And we become co-creators with God in His Kingdom!

Wishing God’s joy to the partakers of this forum,
Bob

 

[TMC]

This string of responses is truly amazing!

Go to a celebration of real importance to you:
A wedding feast
A 50th weddeing anniversary
An important achievement.

Everyone is having a good time.
Everyone is HAVING FUN!!!
There is an (dare I say it) emotional connection of warmth and love

An important person to this event calls everyone to attention. Raise your glasses, drink a toast! Let’s sing “Ole Lang zine” (sp?). Or perhaps the bride and groom dance to their favorite love song.

Now let’s interpret some of these responses below:
I won’t sing to such a ****** band;
I’ll raise my glass but I won’t be caught saying, “cheers”
I don’t think “cheers” was a word used in the ancient days by holy people.

Let’s get real people! This mass is the greatest celebration we will ever attend. Let’s put our pettiness aside; let’s not worry too much -or at least at this feast- about the lyrics; Let’s stop looking at the band, the celebrant, or even ourselves.

What happens if you have the opportunity to go to the final banquet at the end times and find that the tune or words sound bitter to you? Will you fade away back into purgatory?

How about lifting your eyes WITH LOVING PASSION to our Lord!
How about singing (at least the responses, the Gloria, and any other song that remotely sounds familiar JUST OUT OF LOVE of our GOD!

This “culture” of not singing that was mentioned is not common to every Catholic church. It is not common to every non denominational church. Many people in many churches today honor the Host of the banquet in spirit and truth.

Does anyone here think that the Spirit of God so bland, so narrow as to encourage a single person not to sing?

Please, SING!

Sorry that I sometimes feel embarrassed to be singing at church when so many around me are not. It is a form of selfish pride. But when I see the Lord’s face in Church, I can’t help it. I MUST sing in worship and prayer.

Always rejoicing in the Lord,
Bob

Great points Bob. Thanks for reminding us why we are singing in the first place!

 

[pixie]

Personally I just don’t sing because I sound like a sick cat…It’s that simple.