Has anyone got to hand a copy of the New English Hymnal and can tell me what 339 and 442, and their tunes are?

I don't, but it looks like you can just Google the index. Hope that helps!

Good idea, I hadn't thought of that

I happen to know from memory what 339 is as it's Be Thou My Vision, as it's the same tune as 239 Lord of All Hopefulness.

I'll be in the sad case corner if you need me.

Yes, 442 is 'Prayer is the soul's sincere desire' to the tune Mendip (CM); looks decidedly tedious.

Even if tedious it'll be preferable to any clap-happy stuff.

But, sadly, the bastardized "English" version which puts in pointless extra syllables at the beginnings of lines just to make them fit with the altered version of the tune which Routley made for the words of "Lord of all hopefulness." Ugh!

It is equally sad that Dr Routley failed to realise that three repeated notes are a 'footprint' of many Irish folk tunes and, of course, of 'Slane'. His alterations destroy that beautiful, haunting effect.

Eric Routley was perfectly capable of writing a decent hymn tune. He wrote a good alternative to Sagina for "And can it be that I should gain..". What a shame it is that he did not give us a good new tune for "Lord of all hopefulness". (We need a better tune for "Shine, Jesus, Shine". Any volunteers?)

Barry Williams

Lord of all hopefulness is my favourite hymn, and I want it at my funeral. Something with good SATB harmony please. And instrumental parts including good one for guitar.

I think you might have come to the wrong place for that.

SB

Actually, Barry, I don't mind the tune - it's the words that make no sense to me! When we had this a few weeks ago and people STILL weren't singing, I decided it wsn't worth worrying whether they attempted things like Unde et memores, which is not difficult.

Ooops!! Just realised I am contributing to the organ forum again. So sorry. It's just you have much more interesting discussions than anyone else.....

Oh, Mel! Go on, admit it: people only like it because of the chorus. The tune for the verses is shapeless, repetitive, aimless and not worth a candle except to burn the paper its printed on.


Don't apologise! The more the merrier. It stops us going round in ever decreasing circles.

Danger of creating a monster here... Mad guitarist running riot on the organ forum.

I agree on the chorus of Shine Jesus shine. Much better than the verse, and even the words of the verses are not that memorable. Also quite awkward to sing. But the best bit surely is that you get to clap after "Shine on me"

Not even if my life depended on it!

Anyhow, it's difficult to clap when you are swinging a Thurible.

SB

Reading with interest. Some thoughts:

I think there is no getting round the fact that Shine Jesus Shine is popular and will survive, as for other Kendrick's too like Beauty for Brokenness. Lets remember that these are NOT 'modern' as is so often suggested, rather they are very 1970s.

Shine Jesus Shine is essentially a useful vehicle for the worship context in that it allows so many people to engage in singing the praises of their God, among virtually all church traditions. For the serious/professional church/cathedral organist who regards their role as a form of musical ministry, this is to be respected irrespective of personal view (note how I do not offer mine). There is also the small fact that Shine Jesus Shine is excellent theologically.

I can certainly agree with comments about the shapeless tune and the tedious clapping conventions, but lets remember that the average hymn singer won't be too bothered about that. And keeping this remotely on topic for the thread - it does not feature in NEH!

Tosher

Sadly, you're right. To paraphrase Vaughan Williams's words in the original English Hymnal, people will gladly embrace rubbish in lieu of anything better. And until they are taught to appreciate music properly by our education system - and for the most part they currently are not* - who can blame them?

*Lest anyone should think I am teacher-bashing, please rest assured that I am not pointing fingers at anyone. I am merely observing that schools have long been losing the unequal battle with the media, who carpet-bomb us with "pop" idioms and seem unable to conceive excitement in any other form.

'Shine, Jesus, Shine' is, regrettably, not a good piece. Mr Kendrick does not do his own words justice, setting them badly, in terms of rhythm, melodic shape and register. No blame attaches to him, for I understand that he has had little formal training as a composer. This would account for the inappropriate register of the opening lines, for example.

If I may, I disagree with Tosher. The theological content is poor and gives entirely the wrong impression of the Founder's message, though this approach to Christianity is common in certain styles of worship.

The item does often seem to be chosen 'to get people going'. That manner of devising worship was articulated by The Reverend Alfred C Lamb many years ago. His view was that the purpose of music in worship was to awake the worshipper's ear to receive the message. Thus anything would do that would 'turn people on'.

This amounts to the fundamental conflict between the priestly ministry, (not in the sacrificial sense), and the prophetic ministry. One is objective and the other subjective. Both achieve the conversion of souls, but only one seeks to maintain won souls in a state of grace by feeding and nourishing. St Paul refers to moving from milk to meat - I think it is in Hebrews Chapter 5, but I have no Bible to hand to check the reference. This is what the real issue is about here. Those who prefer 'stronger' material are seeking to move onward in the Christian journey, whereas others are content to remain closer to the point of first enlightenment or, as it is sometimes described, 'conversion'. St Paul is rather critical of this. It appears to have been a problem in the early church as well as nowadays.

As has been pointed out out, even the newly written pieces are very much in the early 1970s style. It is certainly not modern. However, what cannot be challenged is Mr Kendrick's sincereity and openness. He is a delightful person.



Barry Williams

Doesn't take much to get you organists excited does it?

Organists work in unique circumstances. Few other musicians would accept the terms and conditions of the average church organist.

Barry Williams

Yes, one can't beat a good bit of 'Jesus, the lightbulb' theology...

There was an incident reported by 'Peterborough' some years ago.

The Administrator of Southwark rc cathedral announced that the congregation would now sing 'Sine, Jesus, Shine'. The then Papal Legate,whose spoken English was not especially good, asked, with his radio microphone still on, why they were going to polish Jesus. Hmm!

Barry Williams

(Creeps in to say I love Unde et memores and get v annoyed when we sing "And now O father" etc to that tedious piece of Gibbons... sorry, way OT!)

[quote name='Barry Williams' date='Aug 8 2012, 10:32 AM' post='1164092']
[quote name='Vox Humana' post='1164052' date='Aug 8 2012, 01:05 AM']
[quote name='Tosher' post='1164048' date='Aug 8 2012, 12:16 AM']

If I may, I disagree with Tosher. The theological content is poor and gives entirely the wrong impression of the Founder's message, though this approach to Christianity is common in certain styles of worship.


Barry Williams
[/quote]

At least half a dozen clergy have commented on this hymn in discussion with myself in recent years and all of these mentioned how it is theologically a very good text. I presume these people were all theologically qualified.

Tosher

There's theology and theology. It all depends on your religion! Anglicanism today is in no respect the same religion as the one I knew when I was young. Its approach to worship and many of its values are totally different. As I have said before, there has been a whole reformation since I was a child - one just as fundamental as the one in the sixteenth century. The only difference is that, this time, we didn't go around killing the dissidents.

They might be, or they might not be. Whichever is the case it does not remove anyone else's right to have and to hold a view different from theirs. That also may or may not be qualified, but it does not affect the right.

One of the ills of the CofE is that too many congregations, and PCCs, become rather like 'yes-men', rubber-stamping every whim of their incumbent, in the mistaken belief that that incumbent is somehow infallible. Rather more questioning and debate would be healthy - and should be welcomed by clergy and laity alike.

Hear hear.

Knowing some of the clergy that Tosher refers to, I suspect that at least two, no, three of them have fallen under the spell of a certain Lay Reader and his wife, whose musical judgement and [Anglican] churchmanship I would seriously question.

I should add that I do not dislike the hymn in question provided it is used in moderation and at the right time and place; but it does suit some audiences rather more than others.

SB

Not being a member of the CoE, I have succumbed and Googled said hymn. The French word "malheureusement" is so much more descriptive than the English 'unfortunately'...

As I suspected, I have encountered this hymn in my cathedral days, usually at "youth" services with bands of grotesquely over-amplified guitar twangers. And no, I am not being disrespectful of different musical styles - the standard of musicianship exhibited by many of these groups is mediocre at best. This, and another one whose name I mercifully have forgotten, were a regular feature at such services and we used to dread them. The only people who seem to like them are the ident-kit clones who seem to form the bands, and the "trendy" clergy who like to think they're "in touch" by advocating them.

".....the "trendy" clergy who like to think they're "in touch" by advocating them. "

It has always concerned me that offers to present seriously modern music (e.g. heavy metal, rave, bop, etc.,) in worship has caused 'trendy'clergy (and others) to run a mile. Likewise, serious jazz in worship is unacceptable to these people. (e.g. Danckworth's Folk Mass.)

Concern is expressed by 'trendy' people that music has to be 'relevant', as though music was the only aspect of worship that mattered. As has been pointed out many times on this Board and elsewhere, a certain style of music constantly features in this 'trendyness' and it is rarely modern, even when newly written. Rather, it avoids the objective approach that seriously contemporary music provides. The words of many 'worship songs' (are not hymns and anthems also 'worship songs'?) lack challenge, but when they do have point and moment, the music fails to underline the words, ('Shine, Jesus, Shine' is a good example,) so any merit is lost.

All of this suggests making divine worship a comfort zone with music merely engaging the worshipper, rather than being an act of worship of itself. This is the point I made above with the quote from The Reverend Alfred C Lamb. I cannot help but feel that the huge (and impressive) choirs of the Billy Graham Crusades were along these lines. Certainly, it was openly admitted to be thus when the Reverend Stephen Olford conducted the 'Croydon For Christ' campaign in the 1960s.

The fundamental difference here is in the approach to worship. Is it to be objective or subjective? The latter admits of anything that will achieve the immediate purpose, whereas the former requires the exercise of reason and judgment. Some would say that it is the difference between emotion and reason.

Barry Williams

As choirboys, we were always taught that singing was the greatest form of praise.

That being the case, surely singing should always be done properly, joyfully and reverently; using only appropriate words and music?

SB