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

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?

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.

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/

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.