James MacMillan's thoughts on Bind Us Together

[Nick Baty]

Removed

[The original poster has removed his post - Musicus, moderator]

[dunstan]

All comes back to a throwaway remark I heard made by an elderly (now deceased) Jesuit when told it was important to bridge the generation gap

"It's not a generation gap, it's a taste gap."

[monty]

I feel sorry when brides ask for Bind Us Together at their wedding as it is one of the few hymns they can remember from school.

So is it their fault or the teachers?

[nazard]

I wonder why "Bind us together" was singled out as worthy of mention. Bad though it is, there are a great many worse. It does have a bit of a tune and it does keep moving. It also mentions God.

Brides have a problem with the current lack of knowledge of hymns in the population in general. One in our church chose a popular carol for wedding in summer because she thought that it was the only hymn tune a lot of the guests would know, and that only because it is widely used for parodies.

[dunstan]

I wonder why "Bind us together" was singled out as worthy of mention. Bad though it is, there are a great many worse. It does have a bit of a tune and it does keep moving. It also mentions God.

Because it is usually accompanied by guitars, the chorus being limitted to I V, and the verse only going as far as I IV V ? No harmonic interest whatsoever.

[Benevenio]

Then perhaps he should come and hear a guitarist with a bit more imagination. I agree, to play it as written is dull. So whenever we use it - which, I hasten to add, is almost never (over dead bodies come to mind) - the chords get reharmonised, and the instrumentation varied from verse to verse.

Perhaps this is to miss the point though? We are in a period of great change following Vatican II. Still in it. It may take as long as 100 years to come to fruition and settle down. Part of this is the arrival of new music from a different tradition to that prior to 1963. Some of that music is truly terrible, and it will be forgotten; we only think that stuff from 1684 (date used advisedly) is fantastic because the dross from that period has been long forgotten. But if we look back only 100 years, there is still examples of sentimental drivel in our hymnbooks which is as bad as Bind Us Together, both in the text and in the music. And, there is some good music being written now which will stand the test of time. Sure, it isn't Bach; but then, he doesn't play my music, so why should I play his?

There are equal reservations, by the way, about some of MacMillan's own music - for example the St Anne's mass. This always stikes me as kinda twee and its Scotch snaps (schnapps?) don't sit easily on this (admittedly English) ear. I use that slightly less than Bind Us Together.

It isn't the fault of the guitarists and instrumental groups but of the Church who have not supported them in developing the role of the guitarist - or for that matter organists, singers etc - as liturgical, pastoral musician. If the Church has low expectations of its music ministers and does not train them adequately, then the Church will end up the poorer for it. For a solution, I'd suggest shutting Catholic schools and sticking the money we don't spend on those into "the source and summit of the Christian life", in formation for assembly, lay ministers and priests alike. As it is, we hear the phrase (source and summit) trotted out, but are left with the distinct impression that that is not what is really believed.

[sidvicius]

Nothing really new here I think, although the debate does seem to be polarising between the 'organ camp' and the 'guitar camp', with points in between ignored completely, as is typical for media-driven hyperbole. I'm a little more surprised that "make me a channel" was marked, but dunstan is right. I think MacMillan's 'venom' is aimed more at what I call the new evangelical 'services' so often cited on telly as examples of "Hey, religion is actually pretty cool and vibrant". They have full electric bands and colourful spotlights and such.

I don't want to go down the obvious path of denigrating all that because clearly it satisfies some peoples' needs. Recently I was at an evensong where some unholy squawks emanated from the organ, that certainly found no place in my churched ears. It turned out to be a demanding piece by a modern composer (sorry - can't recall who) and the player used it as his carte blanche, end-of-service slot to clean out the pipes and challenge his musical training. But that didn't stop it sounding awful and jarring in this context.

What I'm trying to say is, it's not a question of what it's played on, it's how it is played, and my ears give me the impression that organs are difficult instruments to 'keep in check'. I suppose the temptation to pull out all those sexy stops can be quite overpowering. I am guilty of clanging my triangle with a little too much gusto sometimes.

[dunstan]

Hmm, "Make me a channel" is a difficult one to play presentably - I ended up rearranging it because I wasn't happy with any of the published arrangements. Since reading this thread I've experimented with "Bind us Together", but it's a difficult one to crack.

I was surprised a few weeks ago to have an adverse comment about "Though the Mountains may Fall" - a member of the congregation found it bland and trite. Still, the award for best put down still has to go to "That was a nice selection of Church of England hymns we had today, Dunstan".

[dmu3tem]

I note that the thrust of many comments here focus on the quality of performance and arrangement of music. In other words, perceptions of the worth of such music are in part determined by how effectively it is executed. If that is so, you might be interested in looking at and - better still - adding your technical wisdom to the 'tips for composing and arranging' thread.

Thomas Muir

[sidvicius]

...the worth of such music are in part determined by how effectively it is executed.

Yes - the arrangement and delivery of the music should be such that it draws the message of the hymn text to the full attention of the person singing. One difficulty here is that the delivery is very much dependant on the player's interpretation of the arrangement!

I wonder then if MacMillan's qualm is not so much that "x is a terrible hymn", but more that "x sounds terrible regardless of how one arranges it for organ, therefore we should bin it" ? That would suggest he is falling into the 'organ only please, we're catholics' camp, and I hope that is not the case. I know the organ is held in high steam and all that, though no-one's ever been able to given a satisfactory reason for this. Yes they are amazing instruments, but then so is a brass band or a full choir (or even a well-meaning congregation), and these are much more of a community effort. Not wishing to 'dis' all the organists out there, but there's room for a little more variety in my church.

[Dot]

Gosh, sid: was going to add a response earlier and then up popped another post from you, to which I must respond too. Well done for including "even a well meaning congregation" as worthy contributors to the music. I would judge an accompaniment, to a large extent, by how well it supports a well meaning congregation, or even a reluctant congregation. The ability to support a cantor without overwhelming them is also important when considering an arrangement.

"That was a nice selection of Church of England hymns we had today, Dunstan".

Well, I'd have wanted to slap whoever said that. I had a similar reaction, though it wasn't a put down, after one Mass in summer when I was the only musician around and I played for an extremely reluctant congregation. After Mass, some well-meaning ladies smiled and beckoned me over. "We didn't know that last one", they said, "but we shall ask our choir mistress to look at it." Turned out they were talking about some words in Celebration for Everyone to the tune of Abbot's Leigh. I was astounded they didn't know the tune. Perhaps it wasn't Catholic enough for them!

Sid on his washboard leading a hearty response from the congregation is just as worthy as the mighty organ with all its (loud) voices or the cleverly reworked chords of the skilled guitarist. Whenever I write accompaniments nowadays I try to keep them simple and supportive, but that's possibly because I'm not a virtuosu on any instrument. And I'm sorry Thomas, but I don't have anything worthy to add to your thread at the moment.

Dot

[sidvicius]

I guess the response to smartalec comments about CofE hymns could be to apologise profusely and promise a proper Catholic mass next week - with no hymns at all and an extended homily. How long would it be before they came creeping humbly back to request a return to the old format.... Dot, while I may have suggested a preference for more 'physical' persuasive measures in the past, it is rarely constructive and I have found psychological warfare to be a far more creative weapon!
The store of good music provided by the Church of England is something Catholics - those in England at least! - should rightly treasure, until such time as they ask us not to, or we can provide more composers of the calibre of Marty Haugen (that great Catholic writer ) to fill the chasm that would be left if we emptied that store.