I completely agree with you, Confutatis. We are not that dissimilar, it's the materials we work with that are different (printed music and people). We rely quite heavily on amateur musicians, as well as professionals with widely differing experiences. Our methods of interpretation are also different - for us, the page is less critical, changing/adding notes is a good thing for us (a lot of the time?!).

This thread has got quite sidetracked now...

A few thoughts on young people in churches, from my very limited perspective.

Firstly, young religious people fall into many categories, (with risk of stereotyping) these include those with very strong, devout faith which they are determined to spread; those with a quiet, questioning sort of faith (I would put myself in this category) and those with dying faith (having grown up knowing nothing else, and then suddenly learned to question). In terms of christianity, all three might be found in church for various reasons.

Personally I like attending services in cathedrals because they're anonamous and traditional. The music is likely to be good and there are unlikely to be any suprises (I church hop, this means I've been to some very odd services). The group in each service is likely to be larger and much more diverse, so I don't stand out at all (whether I turn up in my scruffy trainers, or have dressed for the event!)

I think this is relatively key. Young people don't seem to like being entirely surrounded by adults. They also tend to be a bit shy, paticularly about something as personal and complex as religion. In a typical church, the congregation is often small and lacking in under 30s. Even if everyone isn't staring at you, its easy to be paranoid. Churches that are well attended by young people tend to attract more young people... up to a point. (I get scared off by CU members en masse for example!) Even the most agnostic (even atheists!) of my friends are usually okay about going to church if in a group.

Add to that the embaressment of being expected to sing hymns containing incomprehensible gibberish of lyrics, cheesy music that makes you want to cringe with embaressment and other mortifying (for some teenagers) things that tend to crop up in churches (chatting with the vicar as you leave? shaking hands and hugging complete strangers while exchanging the peace? witnessing faith healing on a stage?) you can start to understand why young people can be thoroughly freaked out by attending church.

Aside from this is the factor that young people who have grown up in non-religious families often have some very strange ideas about what goes in church, and what christianity involves. I sometimes wonder where they get it from (and how missionary work can go so badly wrong)!

We only see Songs of Praise infrequently. (My best friend, bed-mate and lover and I do not have a television.) However, when we do see it we are always appalled by the sheer lack of taste. The presentations are sentimental and tawdry. (One of the presenters was awarded an Hon RSCM in Salisbury Cathedral last Saturday.) The music arrangments are far too busy and often detract from the words. The words are often altered - and very badly indeed. It does nothing for me at all.

I feel so sorry for all of you who have to put up with these deeply stressful things in church in the course of your weekly work. It is an unfortuante accident of history that organs ended up in churches. Oliver Cromwell had the right idea - he moved them to pubs.

I do not understand the mentality that permits bad music to be performed to a low standard. After all, one would not have plastic flowers in a Grade One Listed Church. Why settle for less than excellence in music? It need not be complex, but it should be good. Inflicting a low standard of performance is as bad as inflicting a poor choice on the congregation. It is public worship and incompetence will keep people away. Clearly, folk go to those places where things are done well.

The speed of response to postings on this thread indicates something of the strength of feeling about these matters.

Tamsin's comments are very telling - especially her comments about 'The Peace' which is more often a breach than an exchange. The Liturgical Commission has a lot to answer for!

Barry Williams

Sometimes I feel very drawn to the Quakers. They seem to have many excellent ideas.

They do indeed. (One of which is not to sing those atrocious worship songs. )


D'oh!


Steady on there with the detail, Barry! (And no, I'm not referring to the comment about Songs of Praise...)

The priest at the RC church I play in has a similar policy! I introduced the idea of singing parts of the Mass about a year ago (they just sang four hymns for years before then) and even now the priest occasionally starts saying "Lamb of God...", which swiftly gets played over!

I had a congregation member at said church on Sunday telling me that I'd not yet selected any Marian hymns for May (not being RC myself and having forgotten, basing the hymns on the readings), and that next week we should sing _ . There's always an answer!

I quite like the Prizeman and still play it every now and then. I do get put off by the dreadful souped up snth version they use on S of P, the original organ one isn't that bad in a sort of Mathias/Rutter sort of way.

The points about styles of worship and what is appropriate will always be an emotive subject and extract a wide range of views. If you live in a large town or city, its not an issue as there is always something that can cater for your taste. When I was a student in Edinburgh, everyone could name the right church for your preference once you had stated where you were on the candle. The problem if you live in anywhere vaguely rural, is that choice is taken away and anything more than mediocre-middle-of-the-road-try-to-cater-for-all-tastes is hard to find.



Sounds like quite a house full!

Many thanks to all who have commented on the issue I had on Sunday morning.

I agree with all points made. The said guy was not conducting 'properly', just swinging his arms to try and prove that he was right with his version of the tempo in an arrogant and patronising manner. I played over it as said and the remaining 5 verses were met with no problems!

I did indeed speak to the minister about it. She said if such an incident occurs again, to inform her immediately, so presumably that means she will have words. Indeed, this is a freak incident hence my disgust on the day, and nothing similar has ever happened (to me) in the last 2.5 years. Hopefully it will not again.

I have been very briefly interrupted in my voluntary before for a quick 'thanks for playing' or a 'well done' type comment, which is fine as its a welcome compliment and only causes a moments lapse in concentration. Clearly, anything else is not acceptable under such circumstances and if nothing more it is damn rude.

Still, am optimistic for the future. Not playing until the start of June now unless called upon.

Thanks,
AT

Best friend, bed-mate and lover is June - my wife, organbuilder, soprano and steam engine driver. (And a lot more in church music as well.)

Barry Williams

It just doesn't get any better than that does it?

Our local steam preservation line celebrated its first direct passenger train from London over the recent Bank Holiday. It was a great source of excitment and has taken the best part of 35 years to restore what BR destroyed in 7 weeks.

I know its off topic, but we have done the whole steam trains/model railways before in another post and I know how the intersection on the Venn diagram between organists and trains is a large one!!

Well, sounds as though the minister is on your side, so that's a good thing.

From time to time (Christmas time, come to think of it ), my church has "hymn practice" for 15-20 minutes after the service ends. The organist gives a chord, people pick "their" note and put themselves roughly into groups, and away they go, with the emphasis pretty much on learning to "hear and hold" your own part against the melody.

Even one month a year spent revisiting the idea that the organist is playing 4-part harmony for a reason seems to help, and people do join in more when they feel competent.

It is easier to do this because in Japan, anybody under about 70 learned part-singing from quite an early age at school, and I often hear the 12-15 year old girls from the local middle school practicing the sop-alto parts with their friends as they walk home (yet I'm pretty sure this is *not* what they are listening to on their earphones once they get home, so not everything has to conform to widespread trends to appeal).

Or perhaps a film by Peter Greenaway?

Glad to hear things are looking up, Tosher


I know exactly the line you mean, and have seen lots of pictures in some of the magazines.

(With apologies for going off-topic - put it down to a points failure in post 65 )

That touches on a point which I've found incredibly beneficial. For the last two or three years, I've regularly led a singing rehearsal for the congregation at the beginning of services once every few weeks. The benefit of this has been twofold. Firstly - and obviously - their singing (especially of music which is new to them, of course) has increased in leaps and bounds, as has their confidence in taking a full part in the sung parts of the service.

The second point is the most relevant to this thread. Whereas - before I used to lead these rehearsals - I think a number of the congregation used to view me as the remote figure who sat at the organ loft, unleashing decibels of sound on them, playing hymns too quickly/slowly/loudly/softly (usually all at the same time!), playing loud voluntaries when they wanted to talk, and generally somewhat unapproachable, the mood of the congregation towards me over the past two or three years has changed considerably since they've got used to me leading their rehearsals. They seem to have realised that I'm actually a nice, jolly person, and not the all-powerful organist, removed from them due to the location of the organ console. They're certainly very friendly nowadays, listen to the organ voluntaries, are keen to make conversation, supportive towards concerts I put on, and I'm fortunate to have become quite a popular person among the congregation!

I can't imagine that I would ever be in receipt of 'congregational rudeness' nowadays, and would thoroughly recommend this sort of approach.

It is interesting that this thread has had 70 posts in four days. I cannot remember any other subject that has attracted such urgent attention on the Board. Perhaps that indicates the current state of affairs in the churches.

Much of the difficulty arises from an assumption that a particular style of music/liturgy/worship will attract people to church. The first and most flagrant error is the assumption that the number of bums on seats is a measure of the spiritual efficiency of the church. Another major flaw is the assumption that a 'style' attracts people. Whilst it is readily apparent that traditional music and worship done really well fills the pews or chairs, it cannot be denied that a few places where a certain type of less suitable music is performed well also attract numbers. (Tamsin's point about young people going where there is already a group of young people is relevant here.)

But should we be using music merely as a tool to bring people in? Surely, the purpose of the music is an act of worship in itself. If it does not glorify or edify we should not be performing it in public. I apply a similar argument to those who wish to have choir pews full of unwilling and unmusical children whose parents are pleased to see them up the front in robes, but do not give the committment and support necessary to ensure their regular attendance at choir practice.

The Reverend Alfred Lamb posited the theory that music is used in worship merely to quicken the congregational mind the better to receive the preacher's message. Such flagrant dishonesty would have little support in many quarters, but in practice is a subconscious motive with the more elitist styles in 'All Age Worship'. (That often means banal music, played badly by a depleted group of instrumentalists standing facing the congregation, condescending prayers and a shambolic liturgy, made up for the purpose.)

Why is it that young people flock to hear a sung Latin Mass with no hymns? One of these held recently in Brighton attracted a congregation that had many young people in it and was standing room only.

The subject is too large to debate here, and this Board may not be the correct forum, but the current trend in the Church of England started with an appalling book entitled 'The Parish Communion - a Book of Essays' published by SPCK in 1937. In that volume it was made clear that choirs were elitism and are better confined to Morning Prayer. One dreadful essay in that book, by The Reverend W S Baker, suggests that the choir should be disbanded so that the congregation can sing better and that members of the choir who are present should only be present as ordinary members of the congregation and not as singers. This is still the general trend of many Anglican Clergy who have been trained by those who were themselves trained in the style of this book. Many otherbooks have been written on those lines since. Church architecture has been ruined by clerical vandalism in the name of liturgical reform, the liturgy itself has been altered beyond recognition and the original strong Biblical content stripped out. Now the music is attacked and the congregation expected to listen to a 'Worship Band' rather than a choir. If traditional choral music is elitism then 'Worship Bands' are also elitism - as The Reverend Peter Moger so rightly pointed out. (See post 36.)

The problem in terms of numbers is that the damage done by an unbending cleric who insists that only a 'Worship Band' style is acceptable cannot be undone. The choir disbands and is rarely reformed. The lack of formal worship and singing in schools ensures that there are now several generations unfamiliar with the sort of hymnody that was at one time commonplace. Is this why young people flock to hear music of quality in the London Churches and that place in Brighton, where God was worshipped in Latin, with the Ordinary, Propers and Motets sung by a small but efficient choir?

For the most part, I work only with professional musicians, within a traditional liturgy, playing fine organs and having appreciative clergy and congregations. I am indeed fortunate and feel for all those who have to suffer some of the dreadful things reported on this thread. I really do admire your sticking at it. I would have run a mile a long time ago.

Barry Williams

[quote name='Barry Williams' date='May 20 2009, 07:33 PM' post='828316']
it cannot be denied that a few places where a certain type of less suitable music is performed well also attract numbers.

I will assume that you weren't refering to 'Worship bands' in general in this comment! I direct music at a church where the 'worship band' is our only instrument in leading music. I work with both professional and amateur musicians, and it is my responsibility to ensure that all of our group 'perform' at a standard where people are enabled to worship God (ie. not a distraction). I completely agree with your point about the spiritual health of the church being of far more importance than 'bums on seats'. We are a reasonably large church, and, yes, our style of worship, and the quality of it, attracts people, but, far more attractive is the fact that our church is welcoming and accepting of people. It is also a place where people are welcome to find their feet in a new ministry - sometimes this means that their musicianship and skills need honing, but this is MY job! Sometimes, it may be my responsibility to enable them to find another more suitable ministry.

Again, I would ask that you don't consign to a waste bin a style of worship which is different from your own. I love and appreciate 'traditional' worship, organs, choirs, etc. etc., but, for me, a 'worship band' and contemporary worship music is the vehicle which most helps me to worship God. We must accept one anothers differences and celebrate a God who is so vast that he can be worshipped through a variety of worship genres.

[quote name='music margaret' date='May 20 2009, 06:54 PM' post='828333']
[quote name='Barry Williams' date='May 20 2009, 07:33 PM' post='828316']
it cannot be denied that a few places where a certain type of less suitable music is performed well also attract numbers.

I will assume that you weren't refering to 'Worship bands' in general in this comment! I direct music at a church where the 'worship band' is our only instrument in leading music. I work with both professional and amateur musicians, and it is my responsibility to ensure that all of our group 'perform' at a standard where people are enabled to worship God (ie. not a distraction). I completely agree with your point about the spiritual health of the church being of far more importance than 'bums on seats'. We are a reasonably large church, and, yes, our style of worship, and the quality of it, attracts people, but, far more attractive is the fact that our church is welcoming and accepting of people. It is also a place where people are welcome to find their feet in a new ministry - sometimes this means that their musicianship and skills need honing, but this is MY job! Sometimes, it may be my responsibility to enable them to find another more suitable ministry.

Again, I would ask that you don't consign to a waste bin a style of worship which is different from your own. I love and appreciate 'traditional' worship, organs, choirs, etc. etc., but, for me, a 'worship band' and contemporary worship music is the vehicle which most helps me to worship God. We must accept one anothers differences and celebrate a God who is so vast that he can be worshipped through a variety of worship genres.
[/quote]

There is no reference whatsoever to 'Worship Bands' in that paragraph, so it is impossible, under all circumstances, to make the inference you have made. (I had in mind a place where an orchestra leads the worship but the music and the way it is performed rarely underlines the words, thus defeating the object of the exercise. It is more an ecclesiastical entertainment.)

I suspect that we are far more in agreement than disagreement, but there is one huge difference between your laudable approach and mine. Whether it is with a 'Worship Group' or a traditional choir I would send the people away to learn their musical skills first. I would not accept musicians, including singers, (why do we usually mention singers separately as though they were not musicians?), unless there were already competent. I do not see my place as teaching performers how to play or sing. That should be done before they apply to join the choir, orchestra or music group.

Again, I would say that an acceptable standard is not merely when the players are not a distraction. Rather more is required. Bad performances, of whatever style, do immeasurable harm to divine worship. I maintain that music in worship should be either edifying or glorifying. If it is neither then it is better not done at all. Regrettably, the standard of the average 'Worship Group' is markedly less than the average parish organist. It is difficult enough for an organist or pianist to accompany a congregation expressively. It is even more difficult for a 'Worship Group' to do so when some of the members are having difficulty playing the notes.

Many 'Worship Songs' are simply bad theology, where there is some discernable theology in the verse or verses. They can be good. So often they are not.

When I ran a 'Worship Band' (we called it a 'Praise Group') I was severely criticised for insisting that everyone read music and played from parts. I was told, in no uncertain terms, by a lot of people, that it was not necessary to read music to be able to play sincerely. My response, that there was no objection to anyone playing, sincerely or otherwise, but that a standard was required for public performance, was not met with approval. The vicar suggested that having to learn to read music inhibited the sponteneity necessary for a 'Praise Band'. (I have had similar responses to the suggestion that reading music and taking singing lessons are necessary preliminaries to singing in a church choir.)

When we go to church we wish to sit, anonymously, (like Tamsin) and worship without the distraction of incompetent music, in any style, or of banal liturgy or bad theology. We expect the music to move us to the contemplation of things on high, not to irritate us because the performers are of insufficient standard. This is where the difference really is. There are a few churches with excellent orchestras and bands, but they are in a very small minority. Far too many 'Worship Groups' struggle with the music, standing at the front facing the congregation, repeating one or two choruses over and over again, with a small repertoire of guitar chords, carelessly amplified through inadequate equipment. We have all seen it and it is not an
edifying experience. (Neither is listening the a parish choir struggling with a complex anthem well beyond their capabilities.)

All of these comments go to an objective test of the quality of the material performed and an eqully objective test of the quality of the performance. There is no reason to permit low standards just because they are sincere.

It is matter of great regret that the excellent arrangements of traditional hymns for instruments, published by Oxford, are out of print, for these enabled competent musicians to join in with the organ and choir in traditional hymnody. The arrangments were such that any combination of players would work and the use fo the organ ensured that the enjambments, etc were properly observed, making sense fo the words for the people to sing. Anyone with about Grade Six ABRSM could join in after minimal rehearsal. They worked well and created a real Worship Band that had a reasonable standard. When those skills were transferred to the 'Chorus' type of music the standards were maintained with acceptable results. It is interesting to observe the move of the present pope away from informal worship to something very different.

Music in worship is, like liturgy, subject to fashion. The West Gallery bands were abloished for barrel organs which, in turn were replaced by 'finger' organs. We have had Geoffrey Beaumont and his imitators, Songs of Fellowship and Graham Kendrick, John Rutter and John Taverner. The better quality material will stand the test of time. It is interesting that the more durable of the 'Worship Songs' are those written over a hundred years ago, such as 'Spirit of the Living God', whereas many more recent items are already falling in popularity.

Barry Williams

Thanks for your considered response, Barry! I feel I need to point out that when I say we are open to people joining in, it is very rare that anyone with an ability that is less than at least grade 6 ABRSM, would presume to join us. This is because we do 'perform' to high standards. The training involved is in areas such as improvisation, extemporisation, transposition etc, which are skills not really tested in the classical arena. Most, if not all, my musicians have begun with a good grounding in classical music skills, but what we require in an effective worship group is far more than this!

I apologise for misunderstanding your reference. I, too, find it difficult when in any church setting and musicians are trying to achieve something which they are clearly not equipped to achieve. But we have to be realistic - not every church in the country can fill itself with highly skilled and qualified musicians. I will never belittle someone who gives of their time and efforts to enable a community to worship God, they may struggle, but if they are what is available, then I think the responsibility falls to those of us with more musical experience to offer support and training. Indeed, we as a church work proactively to support smaller churches in our surrounding area - both by providing musicians when necessary, and offering support to the available musicians in the community.

I also agree that, at times, song writing has lost theological direction, but the tide is turning on this. I need only to point you towards the works of Stuart Townend/Keith Getty, amongst others (eg In Christ Alone) to exemplify this.

I agree that much of the contemporary material will be forgotten in years to come, there is a whole room in a library in London full of Wesley era hymns that have been consigned to a dusty store room. However, there will be songs that will stand the test of time - two of my nominations would be 'King of Kings, Majesty' and 'In Christ Alone' (I have lots of others). Meanwhile, many contemporary traditional worship settings (not all) will also be forgotten in the mists of time. This was a subject which at college we entitled 'Liturgical Renewal' and has happened in all denominations and traditions throughout the ages.

This has become quite an interesting discussion, and am glad I have stimulated such activity originating from my post!

MM - we often sing 'In Christ Alone', in Songs of Fellowship book 3, and I always play it on the organ. Lovely piece in my view, and our caretaker duly informed me after my rehearsing it whilst she was cleaning that she wants it at her funeral! Indeed, whilst being an utter 'traditionalist' myself, it isn't to say that what is at present considered contemporary music cannot later become traditional, but just from an alternative era.

AT

The one you mention (of which I like the melody and have recorded it too!), but that controversial verse gets many theologians backs up!

Bravo, Barry, for a virtuoso series of posts. However I cannot help thinking that the very valid points you make will feel quite alien to those who see the purpose of church music primarily as a vehicle for self-expression. Participation, they will say, is everything, the accompanying implication usually being that the quality of the offering is quite incidental, if not irrelevant. On which point...


Regrettably, sincerity does seem to be the stock excuse trotted out when the issue of standards is raised. I don't buy it. One should not tolerate any worship, of whatever type, that isn't sincere. Sincerity in worship should be a given, a mere foundation upon which the worshipper can build a higher level of communion. To make it an end in itself is to constrict worship to a rather impoverished lowest common denominator - which is indeed often how it comes over.

I have a confession to make. In 1998 there was something published entitled 'Lambeth Praise' which was the 'hymn book' for the Lambeth conference.

BF, BM & L was very heavily involved in the editing and production of this volume which looks to me far more like a chorus book than a hymn book, and BF, BM & L features in the official credits!!!!!! (BF, BM & L was then working at the RSCM.)

I may find this almost as difficult to live down as the fact that I once directed a (very successful) 'Worship Band/Group'. I even played the guitar and drums in it from time to time.

Thank you Vox Humana for your kind words. Making 'virtuoso' speeches comes with the day job, I suppose, but I have written and lectured much on this subject, and even got hate mail as a result. How nice it is to debate things strongly on this Forum without anger arising.

It is very interesting that Music Margaret has no musicians below ABRSM Grade 6 - she tells us that no-one would presume to join! That is a standard to be held up as an example to others. However, I was taught extemporisation, transposition, score reading etc as formal classical skills and these were most certainly tested 'in the classical arena'. Are they not still part of the RCO tests and the ABRSM Grade examinations?

Enough of this now. The philosophy and ethics of religious music has to be put away for a while as some serious LRSM practise is called for - well, in the morning, after a visit to the office.

Barry Williams

In 1998 there was something published entitled 'Lambeth Praise' which was the 'hymn book' for the Lambeth conference.

...of which I have a copy

Tread very carefully! I am very well versed in the majority of schools of church music and so don't make judgements on worship traditions different to my own!

The skills I referred to in my last post are not skills that I have widely come across in the 'classical arena'. Yes, some extemporisation and transposition (score reading is not one of the skills I mentioned) is experienced as part of the training as a classical musician, I have diplomas and have studied music at university to Post-Grad level so have a reasonable experience of this, but the way in which we use them in a contemporary worship group is very different to much of what I have been taught in the classical field.

Worship is a vehicle in which an individual brings praise to God and is transformed. This certainly happens in my church, and I have no doubt that it happens in the churches of those who have contributed on this thread, we just have different genres of music to achieve this. I will not disrespect other styles of worship, I have been lucky enough to experience, appreciate, participate in, and be transformed by many, I would really appreciate it if others could do the same for mine (I know many of you probably do - thank you!)

Anyway, enough for now, I have much to do! But thanks everyone on this discussion for a really interesting and informed debate.

Em

These are just some of the problems that have arisen in preparing the scores for our 'One Hundred and Fifty Choral Choruses'. It really is appalling that anyone should publish music with so many mistakes. The scores are not adequate to form the basis of an improvised accompaniment, which some performers use, because of the notational errors. One wonders whether the editors had any training in the basic skills of editorial practice. Mistakes of that type do not appear in Common Praise, which has a fair sprinkling of choruses, etc.

I am interested in Music Margaret's comment about an apparently different use of transposition: "but the way in which we use them in a contemporary worship group is very different to much of what I have been taught in the classical field." Transposition is, surely, just what it states. Perhaps Music Margaret would kindly explain how it is used differently. It would be very interesting to know.

On the question of quality of books, and setting aside editorial matters, the hymn books published by Kevin Mayhew seem to have a very short life. The binding is as poor as the paper quality and they seem to wear out very quickly. Do other Board members find this too?

Barry Williams

Yes. KM are also not interested in knowing about their own inaccuracies - I had reason to contact them about a glaring mistake in a child's theory book - they will reprint with correction when current stocks are used.

Not impressed.

Yes, our HON full music editions all broke within 12 months of weekly usage. Eventually a kind soul stumped up the cash to have them rebound properly. Lovely hard covers and gold leaf lettering. It cost the same as buying the whole book again but we now know that these books will last (from a binding point of view at least) many, many years.

Yes, I guess my comments definately do need some explaination. No, we don't have some completely different method of transposition, or a different tonality, to that used in classical music. An example of the type of skills we use would be when we move from one song to another, eg. Finishing a song in D, starting with the material from a book such as Songs of Fellowship, having improvised around a chosen chord progression whilst children are leaving for classes, then moving into same progression but in key of E to move into an uplifting song. I also have a number of musicians who play instruments in Bb or Eb who transpose at sight, not a skill that comes readily to many grade 6 standard classically trained musicians, my professional musicians find this easier. Also, as many of these musicians improvise, they need a real grounding in the sense of key, again, a skill not massively explored by many instrumental teachers pre university level.

I am not the enemy here! My first paid job as a professional musician was as a church organist in what I could probably best describe as a middle-of- the-road rural diocese. I grew up in a christian tradition where instrumental music was a big no no, we sung unaccompanied if at all. I have been on a very interesting spiritual journey to where I now find myself. We are essentially in the same business, we just practice it differently!

I am not at all sure that the 'kind soul' did you much of a favour! Hymns Old and New seems to attract so much criticism because altered harmonies, low pitch, (it was intended for unison singing,) and some very odd changes to the words. The 'chorus' type material is badly presented, much on the lines of other volumes mentioned above and the layout does not make for easy reading.

Of the many queries that I receive about church music the majority from organists are on the lines of 'How can we get rid of HON?' It seems to attract much ire and create tension between clergy and organists.

Barry Williams

The choice of hymn book was the incumbent's. Happily we use a more traditional hymn book for non-Eucharistic services, so everyone is (mostly) happy.

This fascinating discussion has got me wondering whether differing music styles in our various churches reflect the type of worship practised.

It is interesting to read a civil exchange of polarised views. I confess I am not well travelled church wise, apart from ecumenical invitations to Methodist services or Sunday School gatherings to other parishes. I have sung in a cathedral as part of a Uni chapel choir and been to a Baptist service on occasion. I have no experience of RC services.

What has struck me is that the 'livelier' worship group i.e drumkit, flutes, Yamaha keyboard etc (often with amplification) have accompanied slightly different services to the type I am familiar with, and I'm struggling to remember just how they differ. It may be that a highly organised group of musicians inspires a particular kind of use of liturgy - or perhaps when a post becomes vacant, then the cleric who seems to fit will be appointed! We've probably all seen the kind of ad; some kind of non-stiperiary clergy superhero who will look after 8 parish churches with a variety of styles and extensive experience bidding for Heritage Funding etc....

We started all this with the chafing that seems to occur when a style of music is used that does not sit comfortably with the parish status quo. Perhaps the unease follows a change of personnel and the replacement, be it musician or clergy, follow a formula at odds with what went before.

Don't get me started on HON!! OK, I will

-poor quality binding
-alphabetical listing of hymns (insulting and non educational to the congregation, even the hymn book I was brought up on, the now terribly dated and very Ian Paisley-ish Redemtpion Hymnal had that)
-horribly PC words (see 'Angel Voices' for one of the worst)
-low keys
-poor arrangements of the better modern songs
-not an inspiring selection of modern songs


Redeeming features:

-it has the tune East Acklam in it

...erm, coudln't think of any more!

I disagree on this one. Working thru hymns for brides etc. is so much easier with an alphabetical hymn book. Answering the question "is hymn X in your book?" is a breeze compared to, say, AMR.

The whole of this thread leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is a malaise around in church music.

As an Honorary Special Adviser to the RSCM I get to hear about many problems, not all with the clergy – some organists are very naughty indeed, but the polarisation in recent years has caused a needless amount of distress.

As I have indicated before, churches (and choirs and choral traditions) never recover from the ‘Happy Clappy' onslaught. I use the term ‘Happy Clappy’ specifically to denote the insensitive, incompetent performance of banal ditties. Not, I emphasise, the type of chorus type music that many of the thinking members of this Board quite clearly carefully perform, thoughtfully and reverently, for their congregations. (Ultimately, the style is irrelevant. The standard of words and music, and the standard of performance, are greatly relevant.)

I suspect that the current generation of clergy, lacking, perhaps, the broad education of those from the 1900s to the 1950s, will have an unfortunate influence for years well beyond our lives. It has happened in the United States of America, often with disastrous results, though many of the ‘Worship Bands’ in the USA are very good indeed.

The essence of the problem is neatly summarised by Mel 2 here:

“Perhaps the unease follows a change of personnel and the replacement, be it musician or clergy, follow a formula at odds with what went before.”

There are a considerable number of clergy who feel, for whatever reason, no doubt very sincerely, that they “cannot lead worship unless we stop using ‘Thee’ and ‘Thou’.” (I have heard this, many times.) Equally, many see choirs as elitist. Music Groups can and often are equally elitist, but the issues are wider than just that.

Respect for what puts people in touch with God is essential. I recall, with some pain, the conversation a cleric had with a friend of mine. He told her that no one has the right to be put in touch with God through the Book of Common Prayer or the Authorised Version of The Bible. Music Margaret has described it well. It is about standards and respect for other traditions. The most damaging aspect is lack of respect. This leads to the golden Rule which underlines most religions, but I had better stop now……………………..

Barry Williams

I can't see the logic here, isn't that what the index is for?

So, where is the index in AMR? At the front or at the back? What about NEH? etc etc
What a palaver.
Such a relief to just open the hymn book and find the hymn without having to do an indirect lookup.
Imagine you want to drive to, say Norwich. Is it efficient to drive to Liverpool first and then ask for directions?...
Resources such as Sunday by Sunday are excellent for teasing out the correct seasonal selections. I don't see a need to organise a hymn book by such fixed categorisation. Tastes and seasons change. Don't the later editions of NEH provide some kind of more modern lectionary so you can choose the right hymns for the season? Isn't this proof that their original pigeonholing is outdated?
Furthermore, how much of a % of, say, AMR is 'General Hymns' ?....

I'm not sure I'd agree, Confutatis. A case in point: Last week I was teaching a pupil at one of her churches which uses Hymns Old & New. She wanted to prepare some hymns for Trinity Sunday at her other church. We looked in HON for suitable hymns, but I couldn't think of the titles of more than one or two suitable ones. Whilst she tried to look up suitable hymns in the hopelessly complicated index of themes at the back of the book, I went to the vestry, returned with a copy of Hymns Ancient and Modern Revised, opened it up in the right place (very easy to find as much of the book is arranged in liturgical seasons), and was able to suggest several suitable hymns straight away.

[/quote]
Last week I was teaching a pupil at one of her churches which uses Hymns Old & New. She wanted to prepare some hymns for Trinity Sunday at her other church. We looked in HON for suitable hymns, but I couldn't think of the titles of more than one or two suitable ones. Whilst she tried to look up suitable hymns in the hopelessly complicated index of themes at the back of the book, I went to the vestry, returned with a copy of Hymns Ancient and Modern Revised, opened it up in the right place (very easy to find as much of the book is arranged in liturgical seasons), and was able to suggest several suitable hymns straight away.
[/quote]

In my copy of 'Hymns Old and New' which is not the latest edition there is a section in the index headed 'The Holy Trinity' giving a selection (not large, I admit) of suitable Trinity hymns.

Yes, she found this eventually after having flicked through a number of the 'cigarette paper' pages at the back of the book - by which time I'd already beaten her to it (even having had to walk to the vestry and find the book) by finding all the Trinity hymns in AMR in one single block, and had them all immediately to hand without having to turn to individual page numbers spread throughout the book....

As a humble church goer progressively disenchanted with the standard of church music to the point where I can feel nearer to God with a good record I just want to say thank you to Barry Williams for carrying the torch.

I have nothing to add to the wealth of good wisdom and good humour in this thread except to say that I have found reading it most consoling. It is consoling to know that one is not alone in one's opinions and that there are people out there trying to save what is saveable in the fine tradition of the finest church music.

That, in some ways, is the saddest part. Not only the loss of tradition (always hard to restart) but the loss of opportunity. Barry and I disagree slightly on children in choirs (but with the valid point that you need the parents to be equally supportive, both in the ethos and aims of the choir, but also getting the kids there to rehearsals and services), but now there is so little singing in schools, this, for some, is the only opportunity they might have to sing decent music. Of the 35 kids I left behind in my last post, I've had kids go on to organ and choral scholarships, but more importantly, a number eventually became confirmed, an opportunity previously denied to them as parents had almost never set foot in a church.

There are loads of us carrying the torch, as it happens! Even if a number of well-intentioned people sometimes put in a lot of effort to try and blow it out....

Thank you for your kinds words.

This is all a basic matter of religion. The Book of Common Prayer, wherein are found liturgies compiled wholly from Holy Scripture, has been, with the Authorised Version of the Bible, a highly successful instrument of the Holy Spirit for some hundreds of years. There is will always be, as with music, new forms and, thankfully, effective new forms of worship. No-one is suggesting that we should not have the new. But it really needs to be new.

There is no need to destroy the existing and effective means of divine worship merely to make room for the new. This is what has happened quite a lot recently in the Church of England, both over liturgy and over music. There is a culture that says " You should not find that form of service/music helpful." (I have actually heard that said by an Anglican Bishop who was very much behind Common Worship.)


The Church Times this week carries an article that states there is an increase in the number of boy and girl choristers in Anglican Cathedrals. I have written above about the increase in cathedral worship in recent years, matched by a decrease in attendance at parish churches. A year or two ago a Dean imposed a change from traditional language for the main Holy Communion service to the so-called 'modern' language form at the main cathedral Holy Communion. The decrease in numbers at that service has been matched by an increase in the attendance at Morning Prayer - commonly termed 'Matins' - a term not officially used since the Prayer Book of 1552 became legal. (I have given the original spelling.)

An unhappy example is a local church where for many years they had a successful and well attended congregational 'Evensong'. The Canticles and Psalms were sung to simple chants and hymns were chosen to match the excellent preaching. A new vicar bowed to the immense pressure of a certain 'lay' reader to replace it, every Sunday evening, with a ''Healing Service'. No-one would have minded a Healing Service once a month, but it simply displaced Evensong every Sunday evening. The Healing Service collapsed after a year for want of attendees. It proved impossible to resurrect Evensong. How often we have seen that happen with choirs and fine music traditions!


There is little doubt that the modern liturgical movement, based on misconceptions of well over one hundred years ago, has destroyed many effective vehicles of worship. The stories of disenfranchised worshippers are legion. Many relate to inappropriate 'modern' music done badly and an even larger number to the liturgies for which modernity is claimed. Board members may find it intereseting that the language of Common Worship (and its predecessors, the Alternative Service Book and Series 3) owe far too much to Cranmer's syntax. They have just done it very badly, whilst rejecting good modern liturgical prose. It mirrors what has occured in music, where poor quality material is offered under the label 'contemporary' when despite the fact that it has been recently written, it is seriously dated. There is much superb contemporary church music, but it is often too challenging for those who prefer the comfort of the easy 1970s 'Folk Style'.

The real message of Christianity (i.e. what Jesus taught rather than what came later with St Paul,) is a massive challenge and needs integrity. Any attempt to water it down or make it comfortable simply dilutes the message. Surrounding worship with 'easy' tunes and oft repeated phrases also tends to induce an almost pseudo-hypnotic effect of feeling good, rather than the real challenging message of Jesus. (The current Taize music is my pet hate for this. Gelineau, however, is magnificent. It is fine contemporary congregational music which places the words first, is totally original in style and will not date. It admits of simple instrumental accompaniments, yet works well unaccompanied.)

But the pseudo-hypnotic style of worship is back to the 'puppy basket' - offering milk when we should be offering meat. St Paul wrote vehemently against this. Some churches have even given people a second (i.e.'new') baptism - actually attempting to repeat the 'conversion' experience. This simply perpetuates an earlier stage in the Christian life. When translated into music it is the equivalent 'easy' styles I mentioned above.

Anyway, I have occupied far too much space on this Board of late. I await the complaints about loquacious lawyers opining overmuch about liturgy and music. You can now guess what my PhD thesis was on!

Barry Williams

Hmm, I suspect much what you say echoes to a certain extend with many of us. You're just rather more informed, so are able to express it more technically(?!) that I am.

I'm feeling short changed now! A second conversion experience?! I never even got the first one, faith just crept up on me. More seriously though, one of the reasons I am hestitant to commit to becoming a member of any congregation is because I so unsettled by much of what I encounter in churches. I wonder how many other people out there are in similar situations?

tamsin, there is so much that I can't sign up to, but I still turn up and grit my teeth during the Peace and cross my fingers during the Creed. (You can't escape unmolested even on an organ stool, I find!)

I suspect cathedral services are popular because they are done well, on the whole, are soothing to the psyche and it is easy to be anonymous; I just have this uneasy feeling that the more rough-hewn parish church experience when you come up close and personal with some irksome people is more authentic (if less aesthetically pleasing) and true to the gospel.

The challenge is to try and bring some essence of heaven to even the murkiest corners (and mine is pretty murky!) by giving our very best.

Nothing wrong with that! Lots of people never have a "Road to Damascus" experience.

The trouble with not committing to a particular congregation is that you aren't able to influence the worship in any church. Once you become a regular worshipper you can give your views and maybe make a difference. Of course, you'd have to be careful to choose a church where worship isn't a million miles from what you'd like it to be!

"Liturgical renewal is a sign of the churches will to live" - Gelineau. I uphold contemporary worship music, but acknowledge a respect for, and a need to preserve, more traditional forms of worship. I think the problem really comes when a well meaning member of clergy wants to bring in the 'trendy' at a place where the more traditional clearly belongs. In all honesty, I would feel short changed if I attended my local cathedral this weekend to find the choir and organ replaced by a worship band, even a brilliant one! Not because it's a lower form of worship, just because it would not be what I was expecting.

We should not dismiss folk styles out of hand - the root of much of the finest of classical music can be found in folk traditions.

As for theology, we are bound to have very different polarised views. I have learned over many years that because someone holds a different view, does not necessarily make them wrong! There is nothing that will drive the masses away from church more than fellow christians tearing at the meat of their faith, so I won't be going there!

I have said much on contemporary worship, it has been refreshing to discuss this topic with people who have a different view to my own. I am happy to discuss my own form of worship, from the perspective that I have a very firm grounding in, and appreciation for, varieties of worship styles. As a student of liturgy, I was incouraged to visit a wide variety of churches with an open mind - this I did and I learned much! I would recommend this to all - there is a lot to learn, and for those who are less sure of their place, perhaps you will find a place.

Me for one.

A good way to make them be quiet (at least for a couple of minutes) is to stop abruptly and then they tend to all shut up and wonder why the muzack has stopped and wonder if something is about to happen.

I find that if you get louder they just talk louder.



You could ask the advisors if they know where you can attend an English Missal Mass, or ask whether they have a statue of Our Lady as you would like to say the rosary before the service.

You talking about CUs, makes me wonder if I shouldn't go in for a bit of CU baiting again - can be tremendous fun. They seem to have a space for scripture but not reason or tradition, then they go and have hours of bible study without anyone vaguely qualified leading it, and they don't seem to appreciate me saying that this could be leading them into heresy! On the other hand, I used to find them quite generous in distributing free jam doughnuts - have to get the priorities right!