Church music
In the most recent paper edition of our diocesan newspaper, Ross Cobb says, “We need to ask if our church music really is contemporary”. Ross is the music director at St Andrew's Cathedral here in Sydney, and is across any genre you care to throw at him, whether it's pipe organ or the credibility reducing Burt Bacharach. He says:
We have created a genre that doesn't exist anywhere else and called it Christian contemporary music. What contemporary band consists of a piano, clarinet, a guitar and three singers singing in unison?
However his real question is probably whether it works, rather than whether it's contemporary. Ross says about people who visit church:
They are just flummoxed by some of our contemporary Christian songs. They are tricky to pick up and the musical backing we are providing is quite thin.
and again:
There is barely a murmur during the contemporary songs. But when we play hymns the congregation almost blows the roof off ... The unchurched don't know our contemporary songs. Why would they? But they know our great hymns. Whether that's the legacy of singing at rugby games, I don't know, but there is a common cultural currency we need to tap into for the sake of the gospel.
If music is really about serving the people we love, Ross's observations raise two questions.
- Do unchurched people who walk into our buildings enjoy what they hear?
- Do musically untaught people in our meetings enjoy singing the music we serve up to them?
That second one is not a question, by the way, about whether they like standing there listening while the band and singers up front perform the song for them. Anyone can do that. But if we are going to ask them to sing loudly enough for the encouragement of others, then they should be able to do it without being educated past the stage where they can sing along with The Wiggles, which is just before the age when most kids learn that singing out loud is not really cool.
Any other random thoughts? Let's hear them, commenters, I'm up for a chat!
Thanks Gordon,
I may not get to read the article you’re referring to, but I would be interested to know what the demographics of the church is where the hymns take the roof off.
At our Presbyterian church yesterday we sang a hymn that, while theologically wonderful, was downright hard to sing. Even at the early 9am service which has a good number of older folk. After two services I was still floundering about with the tune.
I’m sure, though, that the article would be saying something about “singability” and how old hymns we use often have that. I just wonder if that’s the advantage of age. We’ve forgotten the unsingable hymns, mostly, and know tunes like “dam-busters” extremely well.
I think some modern tunes are easier to pick up than others. “See Him Coming” is one example (I’ve picked very randomly) where the tune is easily picked up and you generally find congregations really get going with.
I remember a conversation I had many years ago in a Baptist Church I was in. A fairly new Christian was asking why we sung hymns since he found them very hard to sing. By comparison the Hillsong tunes we were doing (this is particularly the early Hillsong music) he found very easy to pick up. I remember thinking then that the Hillsong music didn’t sound like other pop music. But what it did well was use particular devices (eg. the melodies they used) that were simple enough to learn and catchy enough to remember.
You have no argument from me that we need to keep seeking singable tunes. I think the same sort of culling is happening to modern tunes as did to hymns.
Russell
At church, we were singing a song with the line “Glory to the Lamb”, when I noticed that one visitor turned to her partner and asked “Why are we singing to a Lamb?”
I think it’s helpful when our song leaders/service leaders/preachers make the effort to explain the language we use…
Compare Gordon’s statement:
But if we are going to ask them to sing loudly enough for the encouragement of others…
with this comment from the Hillsong thread:
I think people may jump to defend Hillsong also because there are some things they do very well, like their music production and the enthusiasm of the people to connect sincerely to God during singing
I guess this raises the question of why we sing at all, and suggests why there might be differences in approach to church music. Are we singing to encourage other people around us? Or are we singing to “connect to God”? If you sit on the fence and say ‘both’, then which should take precedence if they drive us to different production values?
Any learned people want to comment on that issue?
Ian: “Both!” Look at the Psalms - they vacillate infuriatingly between addressing God and addressing his gathered people, but the congregation can be encouraged by me singing to God and God can be honoured by me singing to my brothers and sisters.
I can’t think of a situation where congregational singing to “connect with God” and congregational singing “to encourage others” would drive me to different production values. It’s all congregational singing and that’s the thing the production approach needs to support. “Listening music”, which doesn’t involve singing along, is a whole different kettle of fish.
Indeed, Tom. In fact the problem arises when we drive a wedge between singing spiritual songs to one another and making melody to the Lord (Ephesians 5). The two go together. We sing to one another to teach one another as we also make melody to the Lord. When we hold these together we won’t sing tunes that congregations can’t master or lyrics that are meaningless or arcane, for then we would not be able to sing to one another. Nor would we sing thinking to ourselves: ‘This song is simply my personal praise to the Lord or even simply congregational praise to the Lord and not a song for us to sing to one another.’ (I have heard some say this sort of thing).
I think Ross has a valid point. Because of their metrical form many hymns are very easy to learn and to sing. Yes, some are complex, and some have lyrics that are unsuited to new, unchurched Christians, but for churched people in their late 40s and up hymns may have a more to offer than we may have thought.
I haven’t read this article, but from the excerpts you’ve quoted, it doesn’t sound like contemporary music so much as contemporary music done badly!
Russell,
You can read my interview with Ross Cobb (which Gordo cites) at http://www.sydneyanglicans.net
Click on the main feature pic of Ross at his organ. Then you’ll see a link to the full interview.
Otherwise…
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/time_to_harness_the_power_of_hymns/
Some random thoughts - the level of musical literacy in our country is generally very low. In comparison, you have the Welsh tradition with 4 part harmonisation as natural as cleaning the cow dung off your boots. Then you have the Eastern European system (Kodaly et al), especially under Communism, where every child was given a basic music education in primary school (and for free!!).
So we need to ensure that we use music with well-written tunes, that are singable and easily remembered if we are to encourage whole hearted and enthusiastic participation.
There are hymns and contemporary songs alike that fit this mold. Equally, there are many that while excelling in gospel centred content are most unmusically conceived and best avoided.
The reason some people find contemporary songs easier to sing than hymns is probably because they are like the pop songs around them in contemporary culture - usually quite repetitive.
As for the accompaniment, we mostly have to rely on the individual church’s resources which of course can result in oddly put together groupings. Bizarre as 3 singers in unison might be, a lead singer who can’t be heard and a drummer raising the roof is even less helpful! I personally see no need for both piano and guitar if a drummer is providing rhythm. A melody line (singer and possibly single line instrument for reinforcement), harmony (piano or guitar) and depending on the former’s skills, a drum is about as basic as you can go.
Went to a service recently where the songs were provided on a screen, via a data projector, even though there was an unused hymnbook in the pews with 4 part harmonisations of some of the songs being sung.
If the hymn books were used, musicians could sing the part that best suits their voices, and over time, many people would be able to learn how to “go and do likewise,” which would greatly enhance the music being created.
David, I think you are overly optimistic about the level of music reading ability in our country. (Might be different in Wales or eastern Europe, as Catherine points out). In most churches only some of the music team (or even none, in some places) can read music fully, let alone the congregation.
BTW my experience has always been that people with their heads up, reading from a screen, make much more sound to encourage each other than those looking down at a hymn book.
Commenting rules
If you would like your comment to be considered for publication, please observe the following rules:
Failure to adhere to these rules will result in your comment being quietly deleted.
If you want to give us feedback but don't want your comments to appear on the blog, DON'T use the form below. Instead, please send us an email or click on the button below.
Your Comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.