I Covet Your Thoughts On Church Music.
Now don't tune me out--If you disagree, I need your influence; I want to be persuaded.I saw the Mormon Tabernacle Choir tonight. They were excellent. I knew bass parts for most of the music, having sung for years in one of the nation's few choirs of their caliber (at HFBC). That choir no longer exists. Not that the remaining choir is not excellent. But it would take some polish to get back to that place.
Why the change? What else--the push, the drive really, all over America, to make church music more pop, more contemporary, more accessible to a crowd raised on rock and roll. And I'm not against that entirely. I agree with our pastor's slogan: "We must be spiritually deep and culturally relevant." But I'm not yet convinced that 'serious' choral music is not culturally relevant. It's a big culture, you know? Full of scholars, band geeks, music theory majors, Suzuki masters (you know who you are). Not only that, how many serious dramas come out of Hollywood with a score limited entirely to pop music? It could be argued the best storytellers in America are film directors, and how many of them would tell a powerful tale of drama or adventure without a full orchestra? And if realism is your bag, violins are no more appropriate in Middle Earth than electric guitars. Peter Jackson chose them because of the mood they create. And with all the drama in the Bible -- a battle of good and evil that exceeds even Tolkien's masterpiece -- are there no Sundays when the subject matter requires something more than guitars and reverb?
More importantly, consider what music says about God--not only in the lyrics (to which we could all pay a bit more attenton) but also in the style and dynamics. A friend dismisses some of the contemporary music that I like most with a mean phrase that is, nevertheless, apt. He calls it, 'God-is-my-girlfriend-music.' His reformed/Presbyterian crowd can tend to resist anything that smacks of contemporary pop culture, particularly if that culture is influencing the church. And what they are resisting, as I see it, is the appearance of an inappropriate coziness with God. They look at Baptists or TBN and they see people who have completely forgotten the fear of God. And what do I talk to my buddy about when we get together? Often I plead with him to remember that God is all about coziness, that He is Abba Father, He is our Shepherd, He adores us and wants to draw us to His bosom and comfort us with a gentle, quiet love. All of that is Biblical.
But when I leave my Presbyterian friend(s) I leave reminded that God is also Holy, High and Lifted Up. Sure, He is Jehovah Shammah, the One Who's Standing Near. But He is also King of Kings, the Maker of Heaven and Earth. He is Other, Separate. He is Omnipotent, Sovereign over all, whether on Earth or in the Heavenlies. And sometimes when you look at your life and the world you live in, isn't God's Sovereignty as comforting as His coziness? Isn't His big-ness as important as His tenderness?
I spent a year of college singing contemporary music in churches all over Houston. And I had fun. And I've been touched by both types of worship. Contemporary music may be best, at least for my generation(?), for nurturing a broken heart. But to inspire reverence for a God Who is Holy and Sovereign, can you beat the wonderful anthems and powerful sweeping melodies of more "traditional" church music? Or, to put it another way:
When worshipping a God who is both High and Holy and warm and cozy, don't both types of music have their place?
posted by S. at
9:26 PM
13 Comments:
Here's a list of movies with classical soundtracks, both with and without choirs: Star Wars, ET, Jaws, Superman, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, The Sugarland Express, (the Olympic fanfare), Return of the Jedi, the Reivers, Empire Strikes Back, Empire of the Sun, Close Encounters, Saving Private Ryan, Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, Hook, Seven Years in Tibet, JFK, Stepmom, 1941, Home Alone, Summon the Heroes, Rosewood, Far and Away, Born on the Fourth of July, Star Wars: the Phantom Menace, and my favorite, How the West Was Won.
All of these were scored by John Williams except How the West Was Won--which was scored by one of Williams' mentors. Obviously there are hundreds more by other composers--but these were easy to copy from my Williams CD.
If these stories merit such lush, rich scores, why do we want to reduce the Greatest Story Ever Told to what--in the eyes of movie directors' anyway--must be something less?
Again, if you disagree, tell me. Persuade me. I'd be happy to make peace with this issue.
By
S., at 1:17 PM, December 22, 2005
Well, first I don't think that John Willliams writes music that is "classical" in so many words, because he is very much contemporary by definition. Not that his style is not leaning in that direction, but I think of that music as symphonic, orchestral compositions that have some contemporary flair.
Not that I am disagreeing with you. Not yet. But if this were as simple an issue as you proport then why is it still an issue these centuries since it first came up? Why do we sing songs that were originally set to music that at the time was so contemporary as to be familiar to those who learned the tunes in the local pub?
Of course I do agree that the music can be very moving in that style, especially to those who really appreciate it. Yet there are many who do not appreciate the style in any way more than simply superficially, and they are those who find that sort of music to be less worshipful, less meaningful, and less worshipful, because they do not know how to hear it in the heart. You agree that one must worship in spirit and in truth, but to ask someone who associates that music with something other than what he means by worship is to ask that person to worship without spirit or truth. That is not a reflection on the spirituality of the person so much as upon the associations he has made with music.
I for one love classical music. It does have a way of stirring my soul, but there is very little that makes me want to literally bow down on my knees and cry "HOLY" to God like singing a song of worship like "The Wonderful Cross" the way Matt Redmon does it in a worship setting (with a guitar and even some drums and tamborines). I can honestly say that the way I feel like I worship when I participate in worship like that on any given Sunday happens so much less often when I attend a more traditional service. The main reason for me is that in the one I participate, while in the other I have a hard time not spectating. That is not true for everyone. I know that there are those who have never liked the music that I like and cannot feel close to God when it is what is going on; maybe it is too loud or too fast, or too different. I understand that. But that doesn't change the reality that there are many who have left churches simply because they felt distant in worship and a more contemporary style draws one into participation that is both communal and solitary at the same moment. For your friend to refer to this type of music as "God-is-my-girlfriend (or boyfriend for that matter)-music" is simply ridiculous, and it shows a true lack of objectivity in the evaluation. It smacks of cultural bias and piety, and it leans even towards outright arrogance. But that's between the two of you, and I ought to stay out of it. But I stand by the opinion (don't I always).
An example:
"holy is the Lord God Almighty/the earth is filled with His glory/ holy is the Lord God Almighty/the earth is filled with His glory/and together we sing."
So there aren't 4 verses. So what. How many verses did we cover in the sermon that was over 30 minutes? Two? I think that those who criticize these songs for not being deep enough due to lack of lengthy theological texts are ignoring that most of them are taken directly from the Bible. How deep do we need to go? Are we next going to be singing verses taken from Spurgeon's Commentary? I know that is silly to propose that, but if the Scripture is not suficient, then what is? The heart. And that is what God searches and knows, and He knows when we worship Him and when we are only going through the motions. And He knows when we are trying to worship and have trouble and will guide us to know how we can worship Him if that is what we seek.
So as you can see, this is not an issue that is easily remedied nor will it be. And that is quite acceptable. It is a culturally based thing I believe, and just as we would never ask someone from a vegetarian culture to change simply because this is cattle country, we cannot expect people to want to give up that which is close to the heart when it comes to approaching the throne of His Majesty.
By
The Doctor, at 10:42 PM, December 22, 2005
Wow! No thesis from me. Just turn down the volume and nix the drums (except for certain songs, but few) and I'm o.k. But many of those songs with multiple verses instead of one line over and over and over are poetry that most of us could never approach. I could write a praise song, I think, but
"Crown Him with Many Crowns," "Oh,
For a Thousand Tongues to Sing," and "Holy, Holy, Holy," among others, should cause any believer to worship with passion, I think.
Especially if there are no drums!
By
Anonymous, at 9:02 AM, December 23, 2005
I hear you, and I agree with that thinking. I have heard even some of the more mundane-sounding hymns given new life and importance simply by setting them to new music, just so they don't sound like forced-rhyme poetry. You know what I mean, as when a child is reading a poem in the sing-song meter of something that was forced into bending to the structure of iambic pentameter when it really just needs a little less structure to be brilliant on its own. Many of those hymns are excellent poems, but what I mean is that sometimes the music applies the structure that is not as apparent when interpreted orally. Take the Battle hymn of the Republic as an example: I read that aloud for a class at a Baptist university and many had never noticed most of it before, simply because when sung, sometimes the emphasis is on the musical performance and not the truth behind the music.
By
The Doctor, at 9:55 AM, December 23, 2005
DSW--You seem to be responding to a lot of things I neither wrote nor have ever said. Lyrics never crossed my mind, for example. I wrote what I did already assuming we agree on the need for lyrics that are not theologically unsound, and that's all. Some are better than others--but I was not thinking about lyrics (or how many verses we sing) when writing the above.
Nor am I suggesting replacing contemporary music with classical. (And I call it that for lack of a better word--like John Williams, most church music now referred to as 'traditional' is equally contemporary.) But again, as I said, I like and have been touched by songs written in both styles. What I am responding to is what I perceive as a desire to rid the global church completely of hymns, choirs, organs, etc. I like both and both have their place. No song has touched me more this Christmas season than Avalon's "I Couldn't Face My Life Tomorrow" or whatever the title is.
Nor do I "proport" this to be an issue that's easily solved; for we who like both styles the issue is anything but easy. What I fear most is the easy solution: play nothing but Christian pop and (snap!) problem solved.
(It is interesting that you bring up negative associations. Considering the two styles in question, do you believe there are more people who have negative associations with church music? Seriously? Among people of all age groups, or just those under 40? Anyway, them's your words. I'm not touching that argument.)
And I may have misspoken. The phrase 'God is my girlfriend music' was not original with my Presbyterian friend. He was telling me what he heard from a friend of his, and I don't remember what song we were talking about, but it couldn't have been anything like the Redmond song you quoted or I would have had to argue with him. I think it was something on KSBJ--one of those songs on the "B" side of the record, not a great hit, and not the sort of thing anyone would sing in a worship service. Please don't be offended.
Finally, you note that this is a culturally-based thing. And that's just my point: fully-orchestrated music is a huge part of our culture. Not only that, it is one of the most moving parts. To depart from the discussion of Christian music briefly, in the secular world I am sure that people are moved much more often and more deeply by music in a classical style--provided it is attached to a story--than by pop/rock music. (Again, speaking only of secular music.) Otherwise, why do movie directors employ such a style? And Broadway, whatever the masses may think, is still selling thousands of tickets for millions of dollars every night and weekend. And people turn to this kind of music in part BECAUSE it deeply moves them. --And these are the same people who grew up on/with the Rolling Stones and the Beatles. Similarly, I listen to everything, as I know you do. But I am rarely moved by secular pop music. Motivated, maybe. I may drive faster. I like some songs an awful lot for any number of reasons. (Did Heart sing the one about "I'm living in a powder keg and givin' off sparks/I really need you tonight..." That song is so sad and so well sung. It's ALMOST moving.)
Anyway, I think music is without-doubt the most emotional/emotive of the arts. And although logic and reason are important, God gave us the gift of music for worship, more than for any other reason--and some of that has to do with the emotion it evokes. That may say nothing to help point toward one style or the other. I realize both evoke emotion. I just wonder if we aren't missing something if we write off the orchestra and choir sound and limit ourselves to six or eight musicians and a handful of singers.
By the way, could the defensiveness of your response have something to do with the twelve years you spent glued to that violin, Suzuki Boy? (Count your blessings, maestro.)
By
S., at 8:45 PM, December 23, 2005
Cliff, I agree on both counts.
On a certain level, you do want to just reach people. But I read recently what I thought was a good point--people, even the unchurched or the never-churched, don't really demand the same music they hear all week when they come to church. Instead, they rightly expect something different, or at least, they are open to it. After all, if you're a seeker, you're looking for something you don't already have.
I realize that is an oversimplification, and that while many may be seeking spiritual or moral guidance they are not necessarily seeking to change their musical taste. I realize that. And we need to meet people where they are, to some degree. But my feeling is that they are not entirely averse to change, and being in church, they are not as against a John Williams-esque score as one might think. If a fully-orchestrated, lush score is good enough for our most popular films, why not for worship--at least part of the time.
Again, I would never surrender much of contemporary music. I would never accept the loss of "Shout to the Lord," or "The Wonderful Cross" (Tomlin version), or "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever," or "Awesome God," or "Legacy" or "This is Your Life." But that raises another question--the interaction of christian pop on the radio and the inability of most congregations to sing it, such as in the last two listed above. But bands can manage those songs, and people can follow along.
Anyway, as I've been saying all along, I like both and I'm just concerned that a fork in the road is coming and someone's going to make me choose....
(Thanks for the comments!)
By
S., at 12:12 PM, December 30, 2005
Sigh...
Why would you need to choose?
Music is music...
Music itself has no religious underpining, it is the listener who fills this gap. The mind is made to interpret. It is for the listener regardless of associations and standards. A point for shepards not the sheep.
By
BD, at 11:11 AM, January 03, 2006
I actually am not sure I agree with music having no religious underpinning. Of course, if it does, they're mighty subtle. But there have always been theories... It makes no difference to me though.
As for choosing, many churches now offer all of one style in one service and all of another style in another service, and you can't get both. I think that's my beef...
By
S., at 12:05 PM, January 03, 2006
Well indeed, it appears to the religious everything should have a religious underpinning. Whether the reality would equal it or not...
By
BD, at 2:57 PM, January 04, 2006
John Williams bores the tears outta me. His music is manipulative...movies use it to give you the UMPH so that the rubber shark actually scares you. The Shining (Nicolson's version) isn't scary at all without the music. That being said, the comparison with Hollywood score and church music traditionale doesn't mix with me. Hollywood is fake and emotional and greedy and proud. Opera is the same way (Worked with an opera co. for 7 years...set designer. I have never seen so many puffed up prima-donnas in me life! Ego drives the productions, from the unionised orchestra to the half-bassed chorus. (what they didn't have enough basses) I've only known one church choir, and I grew up with only one foot in it and one foot out of it. I spent hours of my life listening to the Tenors not-hit the note right over and over. I listened to the director chide the Sopranos, try to revv up the Altos and Bark at the Basses who were so bored they were making up funny lyrics to the hymns. (My favorite: It is swell, with my soooul.) I remember hearing the Adults tell us on a Choir Mission trip that our motivation was to help the Baptist Effort in Spain 7 Italy (and get away with as much JADRO as you could stuffle in yer duffle) I know that contemporary groups practice too, heck, I rehearse every day almost, but there is something about Worship that needs to be unrehearsed, and humble. I love certain Hymns, I enjoy contemporary worship, I prefer Bluegrass and folk music that is Jesus Driven but noone listens to me. I used to walk thru the halls at school humming Jesus' People music when I was a kid. I guess what I am trying to say is...what is an "Ebeneezer" and why would you lift it up when the Angels were falling on their Prostates?
No wait! I meant to say, that common folk are enjoying church in a different light because they are participants, interactive, you might say, and feel drawn in rather than sung over. I realise that you are from a choir family, Stephen, and its part of your rich cultural upbringing. Part of my family is rooted firmly in the Choral-is-better because that is their way of life. I love shakespeare, but know that I will never perform it, again...not because its not valid and I don't love it, but because my audience demands something that they can experience without having to decifer a Hamlet with an East texas drawl. Singing with a choir drowns out the participant, makes him check himself on notes and key, and loses the intimacy that comes from singing Jesus loves me - to Jesus. And lose the Tympany! Dayum, the Tympany! (Teehee-Mrs Dennis'Mom)
A few years ago I went to a church service in England, where they were preaching the EVIL of the Guitar in church. I went again last Sept. and the guitar was the only instrument used. Someday it will be the Keytar!
By
Anonymous, at 12:27 AM, January 24, 2006
Hey Sploosh! What a treat--and just when I was musing about your having been abducted. Of all the posts here, you want to talk about church music? What about Les Mis?
Well anyway, as for Williams being manipulative, I think that can be said about most music, especially movie scores, but also such things as Tchaikovsky's score to the ballet that became Fantasia, and many other great works. Manipulative may be a matter of perspective. I mean, some people--no, make that most people--want to be manipulated by the arts, as long as it is subtle enough to be described as being "moved." But what I find subtly moving, you may find manipulative. Best example is the music behind any horror movie. It's ridiculous camp if you mute the score.
That said, I think John Williams is better than most and church music of any style would do well to be worthy of the comparison.
If manipulation is your beef, there's plenty of it in most churches, most services--at least for someone with sensibilities as refined as yours.
You can criticize opera all you want; I've never been a serious fan, just a dabbler. As for puffed-up egos, most stages and back-stages are full of them, especially among the lost.
But I'm not sure I follow your comments about Spain and Italy. I was there too. But you can be so dadgummed cynical, you know? (Do you think having Aunt Joan and Cousin Dana so involved makes you more comfortable heaving the big buckets of criticism? Or maybe you've been doing that since you were a kid to sort of distance yourself from the 'Brunson Establishment'? (I have no idea, mind you--just speculating.) But I was in the youth choir and the adult choir for many, many years and I never saw things they way you do.
For example, the comment about 'helping the Baptist effort' is not only accurate, but probably a reflection of Gerald's generation. They just talked that way, where you and I would be more ecumenical and say we were there to spread the gospel and support the missionary efforts. But that's semantics--the goals were identical.
As for bored basses making up their own lines, I think they were just cutting up as usual. Having fun--you know, what most people love to do with the creative buddies. If you sat through an entire rehearsal, then you know intense musical work was being done too.
I love the Ebeneezer passage. You can't fool me--I know you get the reference. The only solo I ever performed in a church was that song: "Prone to wander, Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love..." what great lines. (Puts me in mind of 'Dr. Wanderlust.')
Finally, I must say I too love Shakespeare. And yours is certainly NOT an East Texas accent. (Aren't you still struggling to adopt an American accent, Mr. two-ah-bettah-than-wan?)
But you seem to argue that material should be 'dumbed down' to whatever audiences want. That may be true in the theater, to some extent. But when people come to church they come as seekers. I think they are more willing to try to get it, to try to follow Shakespeare, or his musical equivalent (don't ask me what that may be). We should not assume everyone comes to church to be entertained and lolled. It's not television. Seekers may very well be seeking something greater than what they already know day-to-day. Not necessarily--but don't sell them short.
In fact, (and you know this) the only audience at church is God. The rest of us are the worshippers--which is analagous to the performers. (But it's a performance where heart matters most and musicianship matters a little less.)
Now, tell me what you think of Les Mis., and when are you going to read the book?
By
S., at 9:06 AM, January 24, 2006
I am glad to be welcomed so Joyfully...it makes me feel welcome.
Know that I am only trying to convince you since you blogged...
"But I'm not yet convinced that 'serious' choral music is not culturally relevant."
But the scores for these movies are based - not on insopiration- but a Director saying I want a suprise here. They use the edited film to record the score as well.
I love my family's involvement in the choir, and I was in the choir, that is why I am not cynical, but truthful...ask me when we're face to face for a list of events that happened on that trip and you be the judge...
as for the value Spain and Italy trip...Derouen looked at me and said...We will NEVER do one of these again! It was an extravagant shopping trip!
I was bored because the Basses always sang the same thing...You know that Tenors and sopranos get the really challenging stuff. We were always strong and on because Basses are the Football players of the choral world. I learned the difference when I sang baritone at MHS Chorale.
Individually, ask your highschool students in S,S, what Ebeneezer means to them and then ask them what they lift up to God. I know what defenestrate means as well...and eructate...and dawdle...and frotuer. But they ain't worship words to me.
I am curious why everyone who prefers Hymns & Shakespeare thinks anything else is Dumbed down. have you Born many fardles of late? How great thou art (x5) in a modern verse would be "God yer great, God yer great, Mah Soul Sings, God yer great god yer great...hey God, Yer great!" THAT is dumbed down. Arthur Miller used modern American in a 1500's story The Crucible...it is one of the smartest pieces of Theater there is. Easy for anyone to follow so that the GET the story. Noone is confounded by the truth of the message at curtain. Noone is going,"hey, why'd they burn them witched?" I someone came to me SEEKING information, I wouldn't tell them in Old english, Poetic metaphors, or carrying palm leaves. I DO however do all of these in my Theater Company, where people come for Artistic Enrichment.
Audience...yet HOW many times was the Choier told, "you need to smile...wear the same clothes...enunciate, the congregation can't understand you...do not sing that word in a Texas Drawl" If the Audience is God, why did it feel like showbiz?
By
Anonymous, at 2:21 PM, January 24, 2006
Whoops. I apparently lost my reply to the above. Consarnit.
I know they use the movie to write the score--as they did when Tchaikovsky wrote the ballet I mentioned (not a movie, of course).
And I would not speak Elizabethan English to high school students--I save that for my own kids. And yes, I've born fardels. I'm bearing a load lately that might push Hamlet over the edge.... (But that's beside the point, right?)
I don't think it's dumbing down to avoid Shakespearean English or to not sing hymns about the stone of Ebeneezer. But to avoid those things because they include too many big words, well that's just not the sort of policy I would want to institute as a rule. People need balance. Like the way Pastor Gregg may speak on church history, but he'll skip a week between those sermons.
I can't defend the Spain trip or the topless European beaches or a choir that feels like a performance.
But on that latter note, there is--as all concerned know--an obvious tension between performance values and worship. That is, we never ask bad singers to lead worship, and the good ones that do are still expected to rehearse, to sing well, to play in tune, and to smile or otherwise emote a bit as the music might dictate. It's a constant tension for those up in front. But one thing that helps is remembering Whom we serve.
In fact, that seems to be the only way to resolve all this--if we remember Whom we serve and put all the baggage aside, we can worship together whatever the musical style.
Finally, (speaking only for myself) I would just affirm that Gerald's ministry, regardless of the back stories I may not be privy to, always moved me to GENUINE worship. Otherwise I'm sure I would never have had much use for it. It was never only about the music.
By
S., at 8:29 AM, January 25, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home