Can We Mormons Get Our Groove On?

[Bernard Gui]

Of course, just because the words fit the meter of a particular tune does not necessarily mean that the words would be consistent with the mood of that tune.

 

One wag has suggested that Emily D-i-c-kinson's poem "Because I Could Not Stop for Death" could be sung to the tune of "Yellow Rose of Texas."

 

Also, Robert Frost's "On Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" can be set to the tune of "Hernando's Hideaway."

 

He will not see me stopping here

To watch his woods fill up with snow. Ole!

 

Couldn't agree more. Poor text + excellent melody=mediocre hymn. Excellent text + mediocre music=mediocre hymn.

Excellent text + execellent melody=excellent hymn.

 

For example, The Wintry Day Descending to Its Close, #37, and Our Savior's Love, #113, are fine examples of what LDS musicians

and poets can produce. We need more of these and perhaps future hymnals will up the quality of our hymns. I think the corpus of

our sacrament hymns, almost all written by LDS composers and poets, is exemplary.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

I'd love to see a once-a-month worship service where all believers in the Book of Mormon could come together for a night of more contemporary worship and preaching- setting aside our differences and focusing only on Jesus, the Book of Mormon, and the glorious Restoration.

 

So, what are you waiting for? Organize it!!!! And break a leg! Great idea.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

What do you think are the criteria for a good hymn?

 

 

Edited January 9, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[volgadon]

Just that the melody was derived from

 

scotland the brave

 

and although I love the hymn, I can't sing it without thinking of the pipes and drums.

Don't get me wrong...there is a place for pipes and drums....on the battlefield, but not in sacrament meeting.

 

 

I would like to see an LDS composer set it to a new melody. Something worthy of the subject.

 

The melody wasn't derived from Scotland the Brave, although both song and hymn use the same melody.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Gervin]

What we lack is the will to jettison the dross because someone in authority harbors special feelings for it, for example, How Great Thou Art, In Our Lovely Deseret, and others, so it is added to or retained in our hymnody.

Interesting.  I play in my church's praise and worship band (we hold two Sunday services with traditional hymns and one service led by a praise and worship band) and we regularly include hymns, of which "How Great Thou Art" is one.  How Great Thou Art is probably the second most popular hymn of all time behind Amazing Grace.  Hardly "dross" in the eyes and ears of this particular musician.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just that the melody was derived from

 

scotland the brave

 

and although I love the hymn, I can't sing it without thinking of the pipes and drums.

Don't get me wrong...there is a place for pipes and drums....on the battlefield, but not in sacrament meeting.

 

 

I would like to see an LDS composer set it to a new melody. Something worthy of the subject.

I see others have already mentioned this, but it was my understanding as well that the tune predates both "Scotland the Brave" and "Praise to the Man."

[Scott Lloyd]

Couldn't agree more. Poor text + excellent melody=mediocre hymn. Excellent text + mediocre music=mediocre hymn.

Excellent text + execellent melody=excellent hymn.

 

For example, The Wintry Day Descending to Its Close, #37, and Our Savior's Love, #113, are fine examples of what LDS musicians

and poets can produce. We need more of these and perhaps future hymnals will up the quality of our hymns. I think the corpus of

our sacrament hymns, almost all written by LDS composers and poets, is exemplary.

I agree with you about the two named selections above.

 

But I've got to say, some of the Alexander Schreiner material in the hymnbook -- including some among the sacrament hymns -- I find unbearably dull and ponderous.

 

It's like you said before: hard to reach a consensus on likes and dislikes in music.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Praise to the Man" has been set to other music before. Here's a version (supposedly a Nauvoo-era tune) by the group Fiddlesticks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIs09ezEWvo

 

By the way, on the subject of church hymns, BYU music professor Michael Hicks has written a great article about a fascinating, yet little-known, episode in modern Church history: the aborted revision of the hymnbook in the 1970s (the new hymnbook, which basically ignored all of the committee's recommendations, finally came out in 1985). When you read the committee's blunt assessment of beloved hymns, you can see why they quickly wore out their welcome. For example:

 

"In its report to the Twelve, the committee often used words far gentler than what it used in its internal reports, which included 'gloomy,' 'pompous,' 'choppy,' 'racis[t],' 'chauvinistic,' and even 'pantheistic.' More than one hymn they called 'musically embarrassing to the church.' They deemed 'Who’s on the Lord’s Side, Who?' to be 'amateurish, jingoist [and] self congratulatory' with music that 'sounds like a cheap London dance hall tune.'"

 

LOL.

 

By the way, included in the print version of the article (but absent from the online version) is an excerpt from the committee's 1975 draft of "Proposed Disposition of the Materials in the Present Hymnbook." It is provided below for your amusement/edification.

Interesting.

 

Seems like the 1970s committee was -- dare I say it? -- a bit snooty.

 

I understand the 1985 hymnal was the product of a committee called subsequently to the one to which you refer above.

 

I've mentioned this here before, but "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" which has great popularity in the Church now, was omitted when the 1985 hymnbook was compiled, because it was scarcely ever sung prior to then.

 

I've seen conspiracy theories about it being jettisoned because it was too Protestant, or some such thing, but the reality is not nearly that nefarious. The hymn simply didn't have legs until Mack Wilberg got hold of it.

[Bernard Gui]

Interesting.  I play in my church's praise and worship band (we hold two Sunday services with traditional hymns and one service led by a praise and worship band) and we regularly include hymns, of which "How Great Thou Art" is one.  How Great Thou Art is probably the second most popular hymn of all time behind Amazing Grace.  Hardly "dross" in the eyes and ears of this particular musician.

Hence my repeated statement...there is no accounting for musical taste and our willingness to go to battle to protect it.

[Bernard Gui]

I agree with you about the two named selections above.

 

But I've got to say, some of the Alexander Schreiner material in the hymnbook -- including some among the sacrament hymns -- I find unbearably dull and ponderous.

 

It's like you said before: hard to reach a consensus on likes and dislikes in music.

Amen and amen.

[Gervin]

Hence my repeated statement...there is no accounting for musical taste and our willingness to go to battle to protect it.

<retract> 

Edited January 10, 2014 by Gervin

[danielwoods]

Having served in a Bishopric for some time, I can tell you there are some guidelines that are heavily leaned upon. That doesn't mean there isn't room for some expansion from time to time but one has to be careful how it's done.

 

From the Church handbook of instructions:

 

Guidelines for Choosing Appropriate Music for Church Worship Services

All Church music should be consistent with the following guidelines.

The hymns are the basic music for worship services and are standard for all congregational singing. In addition, other appropriate selections may be used for prelude and postlude music, choir music, and special musical presentations. If musical selections other than the hymns are used, they should be in keeping with the spirit of the hymns. Texts should be doctrinally correct. (See “Hymns for Congregations,” Hymns, 380–81.)

Secular music should not replace sacred music in Sunday meetings. Some religiously oriented music presented in a popular style is not appropriate for sacrament meetings. Also, much sacred music that is suitable for concerts and recitals is not appropriate for a Latter-day Saint worship service.

Music in Church meetings should not draw attention to itself or be for demonstration. This music is for worship, not performance.

Organs and pianos, or their electronic equivalents, are the standard instruments used in Church meetings. If other instruments are used, their use should be in keeping with the spirit of the meeting. Instruments with a prominent or less worshipful sound, such as most brass and percussion, are not appropriate for sacrament meeting.

 

I'm really curious what a worshipful sound is, verses a "less worshipful sound" - it says like most brass and percussion... this is unclear to me as to what makes a brass or percussion less worshipful?

[wenglund]

I'm really curious what a worshipful sound is, verses a "less worshipful sound"...

 

Could it have anything to do with sounding brace and tickling symbols? (! Cor. 13:1)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[danielwoods]

Could it have anything to do with sounding brace and tickling symbols? (! Cor. 13:1)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can appreciate the idea that some music doesn't worship God. However, music is like a language, and if a person is using his cymbal or brass instruments with the intent of worshiping God, what makes it less worshipful than other instruments? 

[Calm]

I can appreciate the idea that some music doesn't worship God. However, music is like a language, and if a person is using his cymbal or brass instruments with the intent of worshiping God, what makes it less worshipful than other instruments?

It may be worshipful for him, but just like language if those surrounding one do not share the same understanding of that language, communication is lacking...in this case spiritual communication. In group worship, one should choose, IMO, what best communicates the Spirit for that group and does not interfere with it (including by creating overwhelming emotion that might drown out the "still, small voice"). Edited January 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

It may be worshipful for him, but just like language if those surrounding one do not share the same understanding of that language, communication is lacking...in this case spiritual communication. In group worship, one should choose, IMO, what best communicates the Spirit for that group and does not interfere with it (including by creating overwhelming emotion that might drown out the "still, small voice").

 

Ok. And in our culture, for example, rock music is the language of most if not a large percentage of the population, yet this is not deemed worshipful? 

 

My other point is that worship is for God, not other people. The statement was that some instruments have a "less worshipful sound." How could this be if worship is directed to God, and he looks at the intent of the heart? 

[volgadon]

Ok. And in our culture, for example, rock music is the language of most if not a large percentage of the population, yet this is not deemed worshipful? 

 

My other point is that worship is for God, not other people. The statement was that some instruments have a "less worshipful sound." How could this be if worship is directed to God, and he looks at the intent of the heart? 

 

It depends on the idiom. For example, the Who's Love Reign O'er Me turns more to church music than to rock.

 

God looks at the intent of the heart, but our ears are not nearly as insightful as that.

Edited January 12, 2014 by volgadon

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with you about the two named selections above.

 

But I've got to say, some of the Alexander Schreiner material in the hymnbook -- including some among the sacrament hymns -- I find unbearably dull and ponderous.

Having said this, I've got to repent somewhat and say that we sang an Alexander Schreiner hymn as the sacrament hymn during our meeting today. I have loved it from childhood and will go on loving it. It is a classic in Mormon hymnody.

 

What was it, you ask? "While of These Emblems We Partake." #174.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok. And in our culture, for example, rock music is the language of most if not a large percentage of the population, yet this is not deemed worshipful? 

 

My other point is that worship is for God, not other people. The statement was that some instruments have a "less worshipful sound." How could this be if worship is directed to God, and he looks at the intent of the heart? 

The association the music carries to us fallible mortals makes a great deal of difference.

 

I grew up listening to rock and roll. I still enjoy it to a great extent and even play and sing it around the house with acoustic guitar.

 

But I have to say that rock music has been associated with less-wholesome or evil stimuli to such an extent that to adopt it for worship services would be problematic, to say the least.

[danielwoods]

It depends on the idiom. For example, the Who's Love Reign O'er Me turns more to church music than to rock.

 

God looks at the intent of the heart, but our ears are not nearly as insightful as that.

 

Thank God, since it's not our ears who we are singing to, but God himself. 

 

 

The association the music carries to us fallible mortals makes a great deal of difference.

 

I grew up listening to rock and roll. I still enjoy it to a great extent and even play and sing it around the house with acoustic guitar.

 

But I have to say that rock music has been associated with less-wholesome or evil stimuli to such an extent that to adopt it for worship services would be problematic, to say the least.

 

I'm unclear on what exactly what would be problematic about using rock music for worship? 

[Scott Lloyd]

Thank God, since it's not our ears who we are singing to, but God himself. 

 

 

 

I'm unclear on what exactly what would be problematic about using rock music for worship? 

I think calmoriah and I have both already answered that. The problem is the unsavory association it might bring to the minds of some of the congregants. Music or other stimuli that potentially hinder some of the people in the meeting from enjoying the sublime peace and serenity that a worship service should bring to all present could hardly be pleasing to our Father in Heaven.

[danielwoods]

I think calmoriah and I have both already answered that. The problem is the unsavory association it might bring to the minds of some of the congregants. Music or other stimuli that potentially hinder some of the people in the meeting from enjoying the sublime peace and serenity that a worship service should bring to all present could hardly be pleasing to our Father in Heaven.

 

So it sounds like the basis for discouraging other music is how it makes other people feel? 

[Calm]

So it sounds like the basis for discouraging other music is how it makes other people feel? 

If one wants to worship by oneself, one doesn't have to be concerned about how others might react to one's behaviour.  If one wants to worship with people, it is generally a good idea not to engage in behaviour that creates for them a lack of spirit rather than one that invites the spirit.

 

Since what does this varies from person to person, it is easiest to simply abide by the faith community's usual standard unless the group is very small and one can take the time to ask and prepare such as in a family home evening or empty nester gathering.  I assume other faiths' study groups often have music during their time so this could be a chance to try some new stuff if all are agreeable in the smaller group.

Edited January 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

So it sounds like the basis for discouraging other music is how it makes other people feel? 

One basis for controlling our behavior in all respects at a worship service is how it makes others feel.

 

That is why we don't chat loudly with a neighbor while the sermon or prayer is being delivered. That's why we are encouraged to join in the singing of hymns, thereby promoting a feeling of unity among the congregation. That's why we remove crying children from the room if we cannot immediately calm them down.

 

It's a matter of courtesy, mutual respect, patience, obeying the golden rule, serving others by helping to ensure their experience at the worship service is optimal.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd