|
07 Sep 06 - 08:27 AM (#1829151) Subject: 'All the best tunes', why should the chu From: Mo the caller Why should the church steal all the best tunes? |
|
07 Sep 06 - 08:42 AM (#1829157) Subject: RE why should the church steal all the best tunes From: Mo the caller I can understand someone like Charles Wesley taking a tune that every one was singing and setting a hymn to it. (If I remember right he set Love Divine to the tune Fairest Isle, saying "Why should the Devil have all the best tunes?") I am shocked to read in my new copy of 'english dance & song' that Vaughan Williams, who edited the English Hymnal was never a professing christian but wanted English folk tunes sung, and thought that setting hymns to them was the best way to make that happen. Does anyone agree with me that contaminating our musical heritage with religious sentiment is, on the whole, a bad thing. Some tunes (e.g. To be a Pilgrim) have become so wedded to the hymn that to use them for the origional words seem like borrowing. (My viewpoint is ex-Christian) |
|
07 Sep 06 - 08:48 AM (#1829161) Subject: RE: 'All the best tunes', why should the chu From: GUEST Dont agree and dont understand what all your fuss is about. "contaminating our musical heritage with religious sentiment" I think you have an issue you need to get over IMHO. |
|
07 Sep 06 - 09:02 AM (#1829170) Subject: RE: 'All the best tunes', why should the chu From: Paul Burke It was the Ripley Wayfarers (I think) some 35 years ago that sang the Blacksmith to the Pilgrim tune. As one who never believed a word of religion beyond the day I was old enough to think about it, I can't honestly get too worked up, anyway Catholic hymns didn't get too much of the folk thing, that was an Anglican and Methodist heist. We got Cardinal Newman and high Victorian romanticism instead. I suppose I don't sing religious songs (including Gospel) in the same way that I don't sing hunting songs- it's something that we've happily grown out of, and I don't like saying I agree with something when I don't. |
|
07 Sep 06 - 09:07 AM (#1829172) Subject: RE: 'All the best tunes', why should the chu From: M.Ted You've got a lot to learn about where music comes from, mo the caller--does Bach "contaminate our musical heritage with religious sentiment"? Many of the greatest composers wrote church music, and most of them used folk melodies--you are way out in la-la land on this-- |
|
07 Sep 06 - 09:12 AM (#1829175) Subject: RE: 'All the best tunes', why should the chu From: Mo the caller Wow, that got em started! As I said, I can understand someone putting religious words to a popular tune for religious reasons, it seemed odd that an Atheist/Agnostic should. |
|
07 Sep 06 - 09:15 AM (#1829177) Subject: RE: 'All the best tunes', why should the chu From: wysiwyg A working pro's gotta eat, Mo-- sell what they can, where they can. Historic artists' approach. Commercial sales to support the opportunity to create "truly" artistic stuff that isn't sold. ~S~ |
|
07 Sep 06 - 11:59 AM (#1829273) Subject: RE: 'All the best tunes', why should the chu From: leeneia People of today tend to think that a tune and set of words are one. For example, if someone put dirty to words to "Silent Night," he would probably be stoned. In the past, tunes and words were much less connected in people's minds. For example, scholars have found at least 88 sets of words to the Greensleeves tune, ranging from reverent to nasty. I suspect that in the 1700's and 1800's, when new denominations were starting and their humble organists did not have much learning, it was far easier to put a poem to a tune that everybody already knew. The question "why should the church steal all the tunes?" really means "why should people play what they know already?" If it burns you up, Mo, do what I have done. Study the tune, play it for a while, and see what it takes to make it sound traditional. It's fun to do. |
|
07 Sep 06 - 12:39 PM (#1829307) Subject: RE: 'All the best tunes', why should the chu From: Mo the caller Has anyone read the article yet? Sorry if my use of the word 'contaminating' upset anyone, I was trying to avoid the word 'tainting'. Is there a neutral word that describes the aftertaste left when words are changed? Think of all the Les Barker and Kipper parodies that spring to mind when anyone sings 'Let the circle be unbroken', Wild Mountain Thyme', or 'Dido Bendigo' I have no problem at all with religious people using any tune they want. It seems from the article that RVW saw the English Hymnal as a chance to give the English people back their folk heritage, do you think that was the way to go? There is a German tune 'heiden roslien' (sp?) which was used for a solemn Communion hymn, and also by Pat Shaw for a dance. I find it odd to dance to that tune. |
|
07 Sep 06 - 02:10 PM (#1829390) Subject: RE: 'All the best tunes', why should the chu From: GUEST Who says the chuch has the best music? As an atheist, with a few notable exceptions I find most hymns somewhat dreary, staid and dull, dull, dull. Now the Gaelic psalms from the Hebrides, that's another matter entirely! Jim Carroll |
|
07 Sep 06 - 02:36 PM (#1829405) Subject: RE: 'All the best tunes', why should the chu From: alanabit I raised a similar question a few years back, when I was helping my girlfriend to research rugby songs. We know that many secular tunes were adopted by the church. We also know that many hymns have been burlesqued as rugby songs. I have long wondered if there is a tune, which began life as a secular song, became a hymn and then was reclaimed as a bawdy anthem by rugby players. The idea seems plausible, but I have yet to come up with a concrete example. |
|
07 Sep 06 - 08:45 PM (#1829656) Subject: RE: 'All the best tunes', why should the chu From: Malcolm Douglas Several years before he undertook work on the new hymnal, Ralph Vaughan Williams made clear his opinion of the musicality of the 1861 Hymns Ancient and Modern; it was a very low opinion. He felt that the Salvation Army and the Lutherans had a far better grasp of the kind of music appropriate to sacred song; and that it ought to be drawn from the vigorous idiom of the people rather than from "the sentimental effusions of the Barnby school". He was the obvious person to commission to revitalise the hymn repertoire with the kind of music that speaks directly to the heart (I speak here as a long-time atheist) and he did an excellent job of it. The fact that he was himself an atheist is irrelevant; unless, perhaps, his beliefs allowed him to use more imagination than a person hide-bound by "faith" might have been able to do. I loved singing hymns at school, and most of my favourite tunes turned out to be those drawn from traditional sources. A lot of people feel the same way. Vaughan Williams did his job rather well, I'd say. Yes, I've read Julian Onderdonk's article. Had it been longer and spelled out in more detail, "Mo" might have had less difficulty with the concepts involved. I expect Jim Carroll knows that the "Gaelic Psalm" style used to be common throughout Britain, though today it only survives in remote areas. There are some useful comments on that from Vic Gammon in thread Gospel music is Gaelic? Equally, it was the new fashion for organs and "continental" musical styles that drove the church bands and the old "West Gallery" singing out of the churches and into the chapels and the pubs (depending on personal taste). Sacred music -on the demotic level- suffered badly as a result, and that was something that Vaughan Williams wanted to put right. He produced a large number of minor works based on traditional music, for choirs, schools and churches, and saw this as part of his duty to the re-vitalisation of national culture. He also did the "big" stuff, of course; but his small works have been a lot more influential than many people realise. |