Hamba Tuhan Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 10 minutes ago, Calm said: I know many do... The good news is that the current hymnbook and songbook will remain available in digital formats as well, so even when we're all singing translations of 'Betelehemu' in sacrament meeting, we'll still be able to sing 'Love at Home' at home. 1
SouthernMo Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 20 minutes ago, Calm said: I am curious, how many enjoy "Love at Home"? I don't know why, but even as a kid I hated it. In my family, it was used at times as a passive-aggressive way of telling me (or us) to stop fighting, or be quiet. I feel less of a spirit of love, and more of being misunderstood, and my needs being ignored... Oops - now you got me on my therapy couch... 1
RevTestament Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: The problem with pop songs like Glorious is that, regardless of the sentiment or message, styles and performance practices change rapidly in the pop world and don't fit well into a hymn book that will have to endure for decades. It is cool that you got to perform that piece. I seem to disagree with you. I feel that Glorious has the simple format of a traditional gospel hymn complete with refrain. Yet, it is fresh and different. I think it has staying potential. I further feel it can become a very powerful song once harmonized. If she doesn't submit a version of it, I hope the Church contacts her, and suggests it for the hymnal. Of course in the end she would probably be crushed if the Church doesn't select it, but I like it. (and I am never wrong about these things ) Quote For a long time, musicians in the Church have been under kind of a unspoken cloud of suspicion that given the reins, they would run away with the wagon. There's some basis for that fear. I'm not sure of what fear you are envisioning. I somehow don't feel that a song accepted into the Church hymnal is going to allow a musician to run away. I guess it could give the musician a certain amount of notoriety. If that person then becomes popular, they might feel they can speak out about issues. Is that what you are referring too? If the Church wants live LDS composers they might be stuck with that to a certain extent. People have opinions - including me. And if asked I will usually state my opinion even if it differs from the official narrative. I think the Church needs to give up trying to control some kind of unified or consolidated image. It has excommunicated people for speaking up, when in later times such people would not have been excommunicated. I don't particularly like that. Anyway this discussion I don't think will encourage LDS composers to submit songs. Nevertheless, I don't envision the type of composers who will submit Church hymns to be "trouble makers" like those found in pop groups like Imagine Dragons...oops. 1
Calm Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 1 minute ago, SouthernMo said: In my family, it was used at times as a passive-aggressive way of telling me (or us) to stop fighting, or be quiet. I feel less of a spirit of love, and more of being misunderstood, and my needs being ignored... Oops - now you got me on my therapy couch... I remember Grandma singing a few phrases when we were staying with her when we were older and fighting....I bet she did that when we were younger too and that is what started it. I definitely hear it in my grandma's voice, but never made that connection before. Thanks! She would also sing "have I done any good in the world today", but that doesn't do visceral for me, so probably no scolding attached.
bluebell Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 42 minutes ago, Calm said: I am curious, how many enjoy "Love at Home"? I don't know why, but even as a kid I hated it. I've never liked that song. It came on Music and the Spoken Word a year ago and my then 4 year old said under his breath "this song sucks." As far as I know he'd never even heard it before. 2
bluebell Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 3 hours ago, SouthernMo said: I voted to have “There is Sunshine in My Soul Today” removed. No false doctrine there, no misplaced worship - just annoyance with the overly chipper lyrics and tune. Its the LDS version of “Its a Small World.” Yes!
bluebell Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 I'd love for them to add Amazing Grace to the Hymnal.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 45 minutes ago, JulieM said: All it took was for someone to ask a question about the phrase in a hymn! But I find it interesting and love to learn about this. Hey, it’s a part of our history and I understand the anger and why the oath was taken. It’s cool to read the connection and helps me understand why that phrase is in the hymn! So I'm still wondering why ALarson said the so-called "oath of vengeance" bound the saints to carrying out the vengeance themselves as opposed to praying for God to do it. Perhaps it should be he that responds to this. ALarson?
Bernard Gui Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, RevTestament said: It is cool that you got to perform that piece. I seem to disagree with you. I feel that Glorious has the simple format of a traditional gospel hymn complete with refrain. Yet, it is fresh and different. I think it has staying potential. I further feel it can become a very powerful song once harmonized. If she doesn't submit a version of it, I hope the Church contacts her, and suggests it for the hymnal. Of course in the end she would probably be crushed if the Church doesn't select it, but I like it. (and I am never wrong about these things ) I'm not sure of what fear you are envisioning. I somehow don't feel that a song accepted into the Church hymnal is going to allow a musician to run away. I guess it could give the musician a certain amount of notoriety. If that person then becomes popular, they might feel they can speak out about issues. Is that what you are referring too? If the Church wants live LDS composers they might be stuck with that to a certain extent. People have opinions - including me. And if asked I will usually state my opinion even if it differs from the official narrative. I think the Church needs to give up trying to control some kind of unified or consolidated image. It has excommunicated people for speaking up, when in later times such people would not have been excommunicated. I don't particularly like that. Anyway this discussion I don't think will encourage LDS composers to submit songs. Nevertheless, I don't envision the type of composers who will submit Church hymns to be "trouble makers" like those found in pop groups like Imagine Dragons...oops. The suspicion of musicians in churches goes way, way back. In early Christian days and throughout Middle Ages and Renaissance, church music was written by composers who were in the clergy. That opened up in 17 and 1800s when secular composers could write sacred music for the church or their patrons, but maintain some independence. That did not include being loose with doctrine. Dance or popular music, for example, the violin family, were not considered proper instruments for church use, but were employed by the same composers in the concert chambers. Some Christian churches forbade the performance of music in church, the use of certain instruments, and maintained strict control over the content and style of music. The Catholic Church purposely codified the use of Gregorian chant early on, and later chant was incorporated into more extensive compositions used in performance of the mass. Many famous composers wrote either exclusively for the church or extensively as commissions came their way for certain events. The Protestant movement to some extent expanded church music more into the secular area, but still there were certain norms that were expected for sacred composition. The notion of lay musicians writing for their congregations started here. JS Bach was the greatest example of a composer of sacred music who was not a church official. Much of his music was written for his family and his congregation. We LDS follow many of the Protestant traditions including lay composers, keyboard accompaniment, four-part harmony hymns, restricted use of certain instruments, hymnals in the pews, etc. Lately, those restrictions have been rapidly going away, for example hiring pastors of music and professional or highly-skilled musicians to play for services. I suspect the LDS hymnal will perpetuate four-part harmony, but that may change. Who knows? I hope they don't just take existing tunes or lyrics and give them different settings and arrangements. For example, taking Sibelius's famous tune from Finlandia and Ralph Vaughan-Williams' English folk song and setting some sacred LDS lyrics to it. Give an LDS composer a chance to write a good tune. There are so many opinions about church music, how it should be presented, who should perform it, what its role is, what it's nature should be. Musicians usually have a lot of themselves invested in their music, so they come into conflict with church leaders, as for example, expanding the types of instruments allowed, the genres that are acceptable, the style whether it should be sacred or secular. Our little disagreement over a few piddly things here is a sample of what might happen at a larger scale when a committee tries to come up with a Church-wide corpus of sacred music to be performed in our meetings - that will be approved by the General Authorities. The Brethren will keep a close eye on the musicians, as well they should, IMO, as a long-time church musician. We can be somewhat head-strong and opinionated about the wonderfulness of our art and in criticizing the local yokels. It's not going to be easy, especially if we try to cross cultural and ethnic boundaries with some sort of universal style. Gregorian chant (or Orthodox chant) comes to mind as a very powerful way other churches dealt with that. I played in a Mozart mass for a local Korean Prebyterian church recently. Before the performance, which was quite good, the stage was held by their praise band, which was not so good...musically and technically. It was somewhat painful, actually. I noticed that the older members of the congregation were staring glumly at the floor during that time, but perked up when the Mozart began. They youth had pretty much the opposite reaction. If we want the very best in sacred music, it will be found in such composers as Bach, Mozar, Bruckner, some of the Russians, etc. I doubt very much any of that will be in our new hymnal. I don't think most of our members would tolerate it. Given our manner of worship.....sacrament meeting....I don't see too many options available. God forbid we get Mormon Praise Bands. Edited June 19, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Calm said: I am curious, how many enjoy "Love at Home"? I don't know why, but even as a kid I hated it. 21 minutes ago, bluebell said: I've never liked that song. It came on Music and the Spoken Word a year ago and my then 4 year old said under his breath "this song sucks." As far as I know he'd never even heard it before. I, on the other hand, derive warm feelings and memories from that hymn and find it very appealing melodically. More indication, I suppose, that fashioning a new version of the hymnbook that is universally appealing will be no mean task. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 18 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'd love for them to add Amazing Grace to the Hymnal. Sorry, but I don't see how this is any the less monotonous, dirge-like or overdone than "Love at Home." 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said: Why would anyone hate the best song in the book? I wish we sang it more QED. I rest my case.
Bernard Gui Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Mate, you clearly need some more sunshine in your soul! QED. I rest my case.
Bernard Gui Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 27 minutes ago, bluebell said: I've never liked that song. It came on Music and the Spoken Word a year ago and my then 4 year old said under his breath "this song sucks." As far as I know he'd never even heard it before. QED. I rest my case.
Bernard Gui Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 24 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'd love for them to add Amazing Grace to the Hymnal. QED. I rest my case.
Bernard Gui Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 54 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: The good news is that the current hymnbook and songbook will remain available in digital formats as well, so even when we're all singing translations of 'Betelehemu' in sacrament meeting, we'll still be able to sing 'Love at Home' at home. QED. I rest my case. It was odd to see an all-white choir imitating an African choir doing this in a recent concert. Something about "cultural appropriation" came to mind. It just didn't work.
Bernard Gui Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Sorry, but I don't see how this is any the less monotonous, dirge-like or overdone than "Love at Home." Yeah, but it's got BAGPIPES!!! How cool is that? QED. I rest my case. Edited June 19, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Scott Lloyd Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Yeah, but it's got BAGPIPES!!! How cool is that? QED. I rest my case. So does "Praise to the Man." 2
Paiute Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 8 hours ago, smac97 said: Our ward's bishop just got a notice from the Church that it will be revising the hymnbook and children's songbook. Here's the relevant bit: .... Thanks, -Smac I received the email directly from the Church. One can sign up for them.
Paiute Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 7 hours ago, The Nehor said: What kind of traitor does not love “God Save the Queen”? It may be a King quite soon. 1
Paiute Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 6 hours ago, ksfisher said: In my mind there is a real distinction between praising a man, in this case Joseph Smith, and worshiping the Savior. Should "Rock of Ages" be removed because we don't praise or worship rocks? 1
Paiute Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said: Hi Scott. I understand your PoV, I simply disagree. The false doctrine I am referring to is the idea that the earth will atone for the blood of Joseph. I take this to mean that the earth will pay a price for the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. I find this idea completely unscriptural and unsupported by any official teachings of the Church. Thus, false doctrine. I don't dispute that this view was held by some (many?) early Latter-day Saints after the painful loss of the Prophet, but none of these teachings have been accepted as doctrines of the Church. D&C 135:7 D&C 42:18 - Murder isn't covered by the Atonement; reason why King David will inherit the Telestial Kingdom, therefore the earth or the inhabitants responsible will atone for that sin as mentioned in the hymn. The Book of Mormon has more examples: Gideon, the Prophet Abinadi...Alma 25:7-9 seed of Amulon hunted even in the days of the Prophet Mormon. Edited June 19, 2018 by Paiute
RevTestament Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: The suspicion of musicians in churches goes way, way back. In early Christian days and throughout Middle Ages and Renaissance, church music was written by composers who were in the clergy. That opened up in 17 and 1800s when secular composers could write sacred music for the church or their patrons, but maintain some independence. That did not include being loose with doctrine. Dance or popular music, for example, the violin family, were not considered proper instruments for church use, but were employed by the same composers in the concert chambers. Some Christian churches forbade the performance of music in church, the use of certain instruments, and maintained strict control over the content and style of music. The Catholic Church purposely codified the use of Gregorian chant early on, and later chant was incorporated into more extensive compositions used in performance of the mass. Many famous composers wrote either exclusively for the church or extensively as commissions came their way for certain events. The Protestant movement to some extent expanded church music more into the secular area, but still there were certain norms that were expected for sacred composition. The notion of lay musicians writing for their congregations started here. JS Bach was the greatest example of a composer of sacred music who was not a church official. Much of his music was written for his family and his congregation. We LDS follow many of the Protestant traditions including lay composers, keyboard accompaniment, four-part harmony hymns, restricted use of certain instruments, hymnals in the pews, etc. Lately, those restrictions have been rapidly going away, for example hiring pastors of music and professional or highly-skilled musicians to play for services. I suspect the LDS hymnal will perpetuate four-part harmony, but that may change. Who knows? I hope they don't just take existing tunes or lyrics and give them different settings and arrangements. For example, taking Sibelius's famous tune from Finlandia and Ralph Vaughan-Williams' English folk song and setting some sacred LDS lyrics to it. Give an LDS composer a chance to write a good tune. There are so many opinions about church music, how it should be presented, who should perform it, what its role is, what it's nature should be. Musicians usually have a lot of themselves invested in their music, so they come into conflict with church leaders, as for example, expanding the types of instruments allowed, the genres that are acceptable, the style whether it should be sacred or secular. Our little disagreement over a few piddly things here is a sample of what might happen at a larger scale when a committee tries to come up with a Church-wide corpus of sacred music to be performed in our meetings - that will be approved by the General Authorities. The Brethren will keep a close eye on the musicians, as well they should, IMO, as a long-time church musician. We can be somewhat head-strong and opinionated about the wonderfulness of our art and in criticizing the local yokels. It's not going to be easy, especially if we try to cross cultural and ethnic boundaries with some sort of universal style. Gregorian chant (or Orthodox chant) comes to mind as a very powerful way other churches dealt with that. I played in a Mozart mass for a local Korean Prebyterian church recently. Before the performance, which was quite good, the stage was held by their praise band, which was not so good...musically and technically. It was somewhat painful, actually. I noticed that the older members of the congregation were staring glumly at the floor during that time, but perked up when the Mozart began. They youth had pretty much the opposite reaction. If we want the very best in sacred music, it will be found in such composers as Bach, Mozar, Bruckner, some of the Russians, etc. I doubt very much any of that will be in our new hymnal. I don't think most of our members would tolerate it. Given our manner of worship.....sacrament meeting....I don't see too many options available. God forbid we get Mormon Praise Bands. I see the apparent effort to have some kind of uniform hymnal for the whole Church, yet in different languages, to be almost an impossible task. You are a musician - you should warn the Church against that I think. Sometimes it is just impossible to carry a melody into different languages. Melodies are written to emphasize certain sounds, and for certain syllables. That all changes when one tries to translate words and meanings - not a task I envy. I think that is an extremely difficult or near impossible task to do well. Plus different cultures just seem to like different types of music. I love Scottish bagpipes, but they make some people gag. I like bluegrass, and don't like contemporary jazz, whereas the average black guy is probably going to be the opposite. The gospel hymns in our Hymnal were written essentially by Teutons. I don't know that Indians or Africans particularly care for that type of music. Are we really going to try to write songs for the peoples of the whole world? Good luck with that. I think the Church better be prepared to have different hymns in hymnals for each language. Maybe some songs will successfully cross over, but that is not a task I would like to attempt. I don't think we should aim for complete agreement on an English hymnal either, and that is one of the reasons why I think it needs to be more inclusive. Maybe just a majority vote of a music committee should be good enough to include a song. Then there is more chance for people to like something in the hymnal. I think music is an area where some diversity is good. However, once a song gets in the hymnal I think the composer needs to be prepared to give up "rights" to it. They shouldn't be trying to dictate how local congregations use their piece/hymn. If a composer demands that kind of control, I think their piece should not be considered. To me the Church seems overly controlling about music in sacrament meeting, but I do think like you the Church should maintain some control - at least in the selection of the hymns in the hymnal. Like you I don't want to see sacrament meeting turned into a modern "praise music" service. However, more diversity in the Hymnal will at least allow some additional diversity in local ward meetings, which I believe will potentially please more people. 1
The Nehor Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Repent. Nah, I will just hope it gets fixed in the resurrection like any shortcoming tied to a clearly defective physical such as liking reality shows or a taste for Ayn Rand.
Bernard Gui Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 2 hours ago, Calm said: I am curious, how many enjoy "Love at Home"? I don't know why, but even as a kid I hated it. QED.
Recommended Posts