Appropriate songs for primary schools

[gwyn]

I'm listening to a tape of songs aimed at primary schools recorded by the Sion Community, the tape is entitled May Your Life in This world be a Happy One. There are some interesting songs on it. One. for example, "Who's the King of the Jungle? Who's the King of Me? J-E-S-U-S! He's the King of Me." Profound words that will, I'm sure, sustain them well into their frail dotages.

Can anyone suggest suitable songs that will spiritually nourish and edify primary school kids?

[Merseysider]

Modern six-year-olds don't know what they're missing. How I loved standing in the school hall, staring at that terrifyingly gory crucifix and singing: "To that cross my sins have nailed him, still he bleeds and dies for me". Great tune too!

[gwyn]

Abso-bally-lutleigh. M.

I learned a lot of hymns and songs as a child, often not fully understanding them. Now however, those same hymns and songs - firmly rooted in my memory from my schooldays - supply a measureless depth of scripture quotes, prayer, metrical psalmody. They have sustained me in times of despair, been my songs of joy in times of rejoicing and thanksgiving.

It's probably true to say that much of my Christian faith has been instilled through them.

I'm not wholly convinced that "Who's the King of the Jungle?" will have the same profound effect on the soon-to-be adults of the next decade or so, though I won't underestimate the power of the Holy Spirt in this.

[presbyter]

"To that cross my sins have nailed him, still he bleeds and dies for me"

"still" as in not moving - static?
"still" as if "bleeds" is a continuous present - he is bleeding now?
"still" as in "nevertheless"?

Bit hard for a six year old to interpret!


where was I?

"If I were a wiggly, wiggly worm......... "

[Tsume Tsuyu]

Okay, here's what I think: Primary school encompasses ages 4 to 11. At 4 or 5, I don't think there's anything especially wrong with songs like the jungle song. Children begin their musical journey with nursery rhymes and progress to – well, I suppose it depends – modern popular music or possibly more heavyweight stuff. I suppose it makes sense, then, to begin their religious musical journey with simple, easy to sing 'Jesus' ditties. The problem arises when these songs remain their staple diet throughout primary school. By 7 or 8, children are well able to cope with material that is more demanding, both musically and lyrically. Children have a good ear generally and will pick up a tune quickly if it's catchy, even if it musically challenging. As for the words, they understand more than we give them credit for by that age!

I'm not a fan of most of the collections designed to use with children and would prefer, instead, to pick and choose suitable songs from those we regularly use. Marty Haugen's 'Gather Us In' for instance, Chris Walker's 'Take The Word of God' (with words written by a young person), or Bernadette Farrell's 'God Has Chosen Me'. You might need to take the children through the words once, but that's all.

If I had to choose songs written specifically for children, I'd probably plump for Bernadette Farrell's 'Share The Light' collection which includes some good songs that can be sung by adults and children alike – 'I Have Called You By Your Name' is a good example. Other collections for children that I've heard are definitely more suited to infant school age than junior school age.

[Merseysider]

And there's some lovely stuff in Hymns Old & New Liturgical:

Caterpiller, caterpiller, munching, munching,
ate through a leaf or two,
for caterpiller, caterpiller, munching, munching,
didn't have a lot to do.

Sweet.
Nearly as good as:

Goliath was big and Goliath was strong,
his sword was sharp and his spear was long;
he bragged and boasted but he was wrong:
bigger isn't always best!
Chorus (without laughing)
Bigger isn't always best!
Bigger isn't always best!
God told David, "Don't be afraid,
Bigger isn't always best!

and one of my all time faves:

The world is full of smelly feet,
weary from the dusty street.
The world is full of smelly feet,
we'll wash them for each other.

I agree with TT – give me Bernadette Farrell's music for children anytime!

[docmattc]

Goliath was big and Goliath was strong,
his sword was sharp and his spear was long;
he bragged and boasted but he was wrong:
bigger isn't always best!
Chorus (without laughing)
Bigger isn't always best!
Bigger isn't always best!
God told David, "Don't be afraid,
Bigger isn't always best!

Almost a single entendre!

TT I was going to post earlier exactly what you said. Start with simple concepts- "God loves me" for instance (apparently the entirety of Cardinal Hume's sermon to some children once) but the music should progress with the kids. If it doesn't, the older kids will be patronised.

[Merseysider]

As the late Eileen Faux once said to me:
"We don't give children simple maths.
We don't give children simple history.
Why do we give them simple music?"

[Julie-AnnG]

Top of my list has to be Bernadette's 'Share the Light'. The children love the songs, and love signing the actions too. And, as TT says, the collection works every bit as well with adults.

I had great success with the psalms in Christopher Walker's 'Music for Children's Liturgy of the Word' too. It's a collection well worth looking at. Never forget the moment when the group I'd been taking for choir stood up in church and sang 'We Praise You, O God' with such enthusiasm.

My moan, though, would be that so often the music taught in schools these days is taught by teachers, not by musicians. I don't feel it bodes well for the future.

[dunstan]

Abso-bally-lutleigh. M.

I learned a lot of hymns and songs as a child, often not fully understanding them. Now however, those same hymns and songs - firmly rooted in my memory from my schooldays - supply a measureless depth of scripture quotes, prayer, metrical psalmody. They have sustained me in times of despair, been my songs of joy in times of rejoicing and thanksgiving.

Ah, the old question: what is the value children get from rote learning words which they won't understand until they're older. Are we trying to nurture the children's souls at the open and unsophisticated level at which they are, or are we laying down complex material which will, like a fine wine, mature and develop and give great nourishment in later life? Even that great friend of the Church, Philip Pullman was recently writing that it is valuable for children to sing lines such as:

hath 'stablished it fast by His changeless decree

for their aesthetic merits, even though the language is beyond them. Children shouldn't just be singing "mood music" which washes over them, but nor do we need to agonise about immediate accessibility.

So there can be an effective mixture: firstly of good material to which children can immediately relate, and secondly of material which is going to stay with them through life. Either way, there's no place for some of the dumbed down, banal excrescences which a generation has been exposed to.

[contrabordun]

As the late Eileen Faux once said to me:
"We don't give children simple maths."

er...yes we do...

[docmattc]

As the late Eileen Faux once said to me:
"We don't give children simple maths."

er...yes we do...

The trouble with the word simple is its can mean both foundational and dumbed down.
We give children foundational maths not dumbed down maths. The same should be true of religion. Foundational stuff is useful in its own right and can be built on later. I could never have done calculus, for instance, without basic arithmetic, but the arithmetic still comes in handy of itself even if I don't feel the need to dash off a quick integration!
As an aside, when we say music on this thread we need to be clear whether we mean music as in tune and harmony or music as in message that the piece is getting across and the language used to convey it (or both)

[presbyter]

Even that great friend of the Church, Philip Pullman was recently writing that it is valuable for children to sing lines such as:

hath 'stablished it fast by His changeless decree

for their aesthetic merits, even though the language is beyond them.

Don't take this line of argument too far though. Just because a passage is peppered with archaism, that does not in itself guarantee aesthetic merit ... and how does one measure that objectively anyway?

Secondly - we used to try this kind of approach with catechetics and the Penny Catechism. I have elderly parishioners who can still rattle off many of the questions and answers but they don't necessarily know what the answers mean.

Try one - a theological virtue - what is Prudence? What's your answer, just off the top of your head? No cheating and going to dictionaries.

[dunstan]

Try one - a theological virtue - what is Prudence? What's your answer, just off the top of your head? No cheating and going to dictionaries.

Off the top of my head, the exercise of wisdom and good judgement

Check dictionary... Not too far off.

As for the substantive point, I'm not arguing that there's particular merit in using archaic language per se, but nor does our devotion have to be expressed in a range of subcultural vernaculars, be they "child friendly language", folksiness or rapper speak. And elderly pensioners not knowing the meaning of some of the entries in the catechism doesn't necessarily mean that the catechism should be changed - by the same token, my 14 year old son is currently looking at Macbeth, and Shakespeare's language needs explaining.

I still find the first verse of "Who is she that stands triumphant" one of the finest uses of rhetorical questions ever written, though nobody would write like that today.

[presbyter]

"Who is she that stands triumphant" one of the finest uses of rhetorical questions ever written, though nobody would write like that today.

Fabulous tune too (memories of a former existence with a choir of nine to thirteen year old boys raising the roof with this)