Music is for the ears. Singing is mostly best learned aurally if possible. Writing music down was and is a way to preserve it and, ok, keep it fairly consistent. But did Bach and Mozart always play things exactly as they had written? My reference to the folk process comes from the fact that I am very involved in folk song, not from any labelling of hymn book songs or tunes, some of which may be neither folk nor hymns..
Folk, in the context of the process, is people.
Chant also went through a process of being totally aural. Then a way was found to write it down. Someone please correct me if I have this wrong.
NorthernTenor wrote:On reading this thread, I'm sorry to say I'm reminded of the sheer futility of polishing a substance whose colloquial name aptly describes many of the words and settings produced and commended by members and friends of this august society.
The USE of settings / hymns / whatever, that might be - or perceived to be - of inferior quality should not necessarily condemn those that select them or authorise their use. I have a very free hand in the choice of music, supported by my PP, but if I were to exclude certain pieces on grounds of merit, I would not be serving the parish community by banishing well-liked things. I believe in a "give and take" approach; give people plenty of what they like (and probably "speaks" to them) and I find them more receptive to new ideas. eg - we made a 100% change to settings of the new translation at the beginning of last September, and I now have 3 settings up and running and have not had a word of complaint.
VML wrote:Music is for the ears. Singing is mostly best learned aurally if possible. Writing music down was and is a way to preserve it and, ok, keep it fairly consistent. But did Bach and Mozart always play things exactly as they had written? My reference to the folk process comes from the fact that I am very involved in folk song, not from any labelling of hymn book songs or tunes, some of which may be neither folk nor hymns..
Folk, in the context of the process, is people.
Chant also went through a process of being totally aural. Then a way was found to write it down. Someone please correct me if I have this wrong.
Thats quite right, and is why there are such variations between regions. Those of us who compose ....... do any of us play exactly what we have written?
alan29 wrote:What about the scotch snap at the end of the chorus in "Take our bread?"
Not experienced that - but even I leave out the curious rest in the middle of the verse of this; congregations would never last 2 beats, and it seems meaningless...
Oh - and how about the triplet quavers in "Living Lord" becoming a crotchet and 2 quavers.......?
This morning I heard several different interpretations of 'Be not afraid' from where I was standing; organist on my right playing as written, a couple of people, in the choir, off to my left doing their own thing (despite them being at practice when we stopped, several times, to try and get the timing right);that coupled with what the congregation were singing made for some interesting syncopation.
alan29 wrote:What about the scotch snap at the end of the chorus in "Take our bread?"
Not experienced that - but even I leave out the curious rest in the middle of the verse of this; congregations would never last 2 beats, and it seems meaningless...
Oh - and how about the triplet quavers in "Living Lord" becoming a crotchet and 2 quavers.......?
.... or quaver, crotchet, quaver. That happens quite a lot when congregations are confronted with a lurking triplet.
The trick is to write it as crotchets and quavers and give them a couple of gins – then you'll hear them sing it as triplets! But, seriously, is there really any such thing as singing it wrong?
Nick Baty wrote:The trick is to write it as crotchets and quavers and give them a couple of gins – then you'll hear them sing it as triplets! But, seriously, is there really any such thing as singing it wrong?
