Comments for sursumcorda.salemsattic.com/post/once-more-unto-the-breach

Comment #2373

2011-05-06T18:47:37Z

I just wanted to chime in that I know Dr. Gordon. He was one of my professors at Grove City College. I enjoyed his class on the book of John very much.

Comment #2372

2011-04-25T20:15:11Z

My impression is that the differences often go beyond merely musical style. Praise songs seem to be more visceral, more spontaneous personal outbursts in reaction to a personal God experience. If you're there, or have experienced something that resonates with what the writer is after, it can be powerful. If you haven't, it can be boring after a few repetitions.

Hymns often come with more reflected text, with a more theological bent and higher poetic ambition (at least as determined by strictness of rhyme and measure). Hymns can be boring when you hope to experience something or sing something that reflects your experience. Instead, hymns tend to remind and teach, and when you're ready for that, they can be powerful.

Mind you, I have only spoken about the lyrics, not the music. All Irishoboe's questions remain unanswered: Why do we sing (aside from the implied commands)? Why do we have music, and what should it accomplish? The discussion over "hard," "easy," "familiar," and the like should only be tackled once we've settled on the foundational questions; along with "hard" and "easy" we can then also begin debating "who" and "how" (and "how much").

Comment #2371

2011-04-25T17:38:30Z

Another thought. Gordon said, "I spent years cultivating a taste for Brahms, whom I now love." But Brahms stays Brahms.

With Heather's help, I spent one Lent cultivating a taste for pop Christian worship music in hopes of being able to worship with less distraction in churches where that genre is sung. I was pleased with the effort and largely successful: I found myself enjoying many of the songs and singing them easily.

But it wasn't long before the songs and styles I had learned to like became "too old." Our own church, in particular, switched to a whole new set and style of songs, with those I had worked so hard to appreciate relegated to whatever trash heap receives pop songs when they are no longer popular. I won't say my work (and Heather's) was entirely wasted, but that's a depressingly short return for the investment.

Comment #2370

2011-04-23T22:39:57Z

Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic ... to me it's flavors of ice cream. All worthwhile, all delicious :)

I once told some kids at school who had asked my opinion on it:

"My opinion? It's like if we all decided - right now - to go to Dairy Queen ((kids cheering)) ... not, we're not. ((awwwww)) But IF we did, some might take a car, a truck, a bike ... Others might walk, or take a bus. Some might take US 192, other Tenth Street ... HOW we get there might be a little different variation on the same basic path, but we're all trying to get to the same destination.

And the same ice creamy goodness at the end of the trip.

KID: So can we go to Dairy Queen now?

LOL.

Comment #2369

2011-04-22T15:51:58Z

Both Eric's and Bill's comments clearly illustrate Gordon's point that our taste in music has been largely determined by commercial pop culture. As he says, "People reach a point where nothing but pop music sounds like music." It is important to acknowledge that we must work with the situation that exists, and do what is necessary to speak to each person in his own "heart language." That's the raison d'être of Wycliffe Bible Translators, after all. But it is one thing to meet people where they are, and quite another to leave them there. We think Luther still has something important to say to us; why not Bach? (Well, okay, Bill might not agree about Luther...but how about Aquinas?) It seems the height of chronological snobbery to reject out of hand the contributions of the past, not to mention toying with the Fifth Commandment (Fourth if you're Catholic or Lutheran).

Comment #2368

2011-04-22T13:23:12Z

As a Catholic, I think we often get stuck in our traditions and rituals, and don't allow ourselves to adapt enough.

The kids aren't singing folk songs any longer. Oh, they do in church, but that's forced on them and frankly, they don't even pay attention to the meaning of the song or prayer any longer.

Yet, when I play some of the new "hard" rock Christian music, they go "Hey! I like that song!". Even Octane, one of Sirius/XM satellite radio's hardest channels, plays bands like Skillet and Red, and they're as Christian Rock as they get ...

I play both bands at the ice rink public sessions, and watch as kids sing along with "Awake and Alive", "Hero", and other songs where the lyrics are noticeably Christian:

AWAKE AND ALIVE by Skillet

"I'm at war with the world

'Cause I ain't never gonna sell my soul

I've already made up my mind

No matter what, I can't be bought or sold

When my faith is getting weak

And I feel like giving in

You breathe into me again..."

So my opinion is ... we shouldn't get stuck on the format if the message is right. And sometimes, just sometimes, if done correctly, you can slip the message into the conversation with music without bashing someone over the head with a bible. When I tell someone that AWAKE AND ALIVE is a Christian song, for example, I often get ... "It is?"

Comment #2367

2011-04-21T15:38:23Z

The interesting thing about your comment, Eric, is that SursumCorda could say the exact same thing replacing "old" with "new" and exchanging one genre with the other. A music theorist might have the authority to decide why one genre is easier than another, but if someone says "this is hard for me" we should avoid being so egotistical as to say we know better than they do what is hard or easy for them. Part of why the music in church discussion often disintegrates is that neither side feels heard. If we could get to the point where people of opposite opinions feel respected and listened to, I wonder what the core issues would really be. Is it whether we should sing hard music in church? Is it whether we should let the world's music influence church music? Is it that people disagree on the purpose of music in the church in the first place? Why is music even in church? These questions hardly ever get addressed because the more surface problems are dismissed as invalid. I think some people do try to dig deeper, but as soon as they show themselves to be on the "other side" they more likely than not loose their audience. But is there space in a CT article to build up your opponents before presenting contrary opinion? But is there any point if you don't?

Comment #2366

2011-04-21T00:35:54Z

As someone who grew up in the Episcopal tradition where we are often locked into a liturgy straight out of the Reformation, I "get" the problem modern folk have with old church music. I know for a fact we drive people away with the good old, unsingable, unhmmable, 7-verse hymns we insist on using. They're very comforting for those of us who have been going for 50 years, but they undermine our desire to be a welcoming church. If I want to be musically challenged I'll take a course at the local college. If I want to be inspired, give me something I can sing.

Comment #2365

2011-04-20T19:10:48Z

I don't find "praise music" unfathomable; I find unknown ones pretty easy to guess, but that's probably due to a combination of familiarity and cliché writing.

What I regret with the loss of four-part harmony is that nearly all melodies are a bit too high for my taste, and generally the refrain is higher than the verse and gets repeated more often. I guess it stretches my range, but it doesn't make singing particularly pleasant.

Comment #2364

2011-04-20T18:56:54Z

Add another one to your list of people who find the modern songs unfathomable without the music.