Anabaptist Hymnbooks / Songbooks / Singing Schools

[eccentric_rambler]

What's wrong with preferring one style of song over another. Why is it elitism to say "the style of song in this book is not my favorite?"

Nothing is wrong with it. In some in-groups disliking certain books seems to stem from elite posturing rather than actual preference.

[joshuabgood]

What's wrong with preferring one style of song over another. Why is it elitism to say "the style of song in this book is not my favorite?"

Nothing is wrong with it. In some in-groups disliking certain books seems to stem from elite posturing rather than actual preference.

Right. And it is stated openly. Things like the Christian Hymnal being a subpar book with songs for the uneducated lower classes who like to tap their foot when they sing. Or diminishing sings with repeating choral lines juxtaposed against a melody as subpar (which is actually the African American influence). And noting approvingly that books like the red Menno Hymnal are "good music" and hymns without choruses are "better."

If it is just a matter of I like this book and out like that one and we are all good, no problem. However often it is this type of music is better than that type. That is the elitism of which some are concerned by. Same with singing styles.

[cmbl]

What's wrong with preferring one style of song over another. Why is it elitism to say "the style of song in this book is not my favorite?"

Nothing is wrong with it. In some in-groups disliking certain books seems to stem from elite posturing rather than actual preference.

Right. And it is stated openly. Things like the Christian Hymnal being a subpar book with songs for the uneducated lower classes who like to tap their foot when they sing. Or diminishing sings with repeating choral lines juxtaposed against a melody as subpar (which is actually the African American influence). And noting approvingly that books like the red Menno Hymnal are "good music" and hymns without choruses are "better."

If it is just a matter of I like this book and out like that one and we are all good, no problem. However often it is this type of music is better than that type. That is the elitism of which some are concerned by. Same with singing styles.

I am curious whether or not you would consider these statements to be elitism:

The majority of the songs in Hymns of the Church also develop a theme in both the text and the music. The music of the hymns advances the theme through varied repetitions to a definite conclusion (e.g., songs, 2, 5, 120, 141, and 261). As such, these songs reflect the timeless qualities and depth of the new song. For this reason, they should constitute the main repertoire of songs sung regularly.

A smaller proportion of the selections are gospel songs (generally songs with a refrain) that tend toward musical repetition with less variety and a conclusion with a weaker resolution. Used on an occasional basis, these songs offer a simple message for a particular need. However, a steady diet of these songs will subtly place an unbalanced focus on the experience of the worshiper rather than the worthiness of God and the Lamb. An attempt was made to avoid the cheap gospel song that replaces solemn worship with musical harangue. It is a fact that shallow music tends to support only a trite, excessively repetitious text.

In the interest of disclosure, I appreciate what John D. Martin wrote. But I also tend to tap my foot or make a beat with my hand when I sing

[cmbl]

The highbrow say "it is imbalanced because it was the work of one man". (I ain't highbrow, I'm just quoting.) There are other books I like better, but I don't get why Life Songs #2 is socially acceptable to appreciate when Zion's Praises is disdained.

I grew up with Overholt's Christian Hymnary. I know some don't like the liberties he took in editing, but I'm fond of the old book.

Yes, Life Songs #2 being socially acceptable to appreciate when Zion's Praises is disdained seems inconsistent to me.

[eccentric_rambler]

The majority of the songs in Hymns of the Church also develop a theme in both the text and the music. The music of the hymns advances the theme through varied repetitions to a definite conclusion (e.g., songs, 2, 5, 120, 141, and 261). As such, these songs reflect the timeless qualities and depth of the new song. For this reason, they should constitute the main repertoire of songs sung regularly.

A smaller proportion of the selections are gospel songs (generally songs with a refrain) that tend toward musical repetition with less variety and a conclusion with a weaker resolution. Used on an occasional basis, these songs offer a simple message for a particular need. However, a steady diet of these songs will subtly place an unbalanced focus on the experience of the worshiper rather than the worthiness of God and the Lamb. An attempt was made to avoid the cheap gospel song that replaces solemn worship with musical harangue. It is a fact that shallow music tends to support only a trite, excessively repetitious text.

In the interest of disclosure, I appreciate what John D. Martin wrote. But I also tend to tap my foot or make a beat with my hand when I sing

I agree some music is better than other music. I diverge from joshua's opinion in that I think songs without refrains are generally better. Not always, Tis the Old Time Religion, anyone? Essentially that means I agree with John D.

I also agree with Soloist that I don't really care for ZP or LF2. My complaint is the attitude that bleeds through that "only plebes like those books" or "I was going to help sing but not if you use that book".

Some songs are better. Some books have a higher number of better songs. Don't be a snob about either. That about sums it up.

[ohio jones]

More elitism:

The most unfortunate part is as we drifted away from true worship, we exchanged the hymnbooks for gospel songbooks like Zion’s Praise and the Christian Hymnal. If you have any knowledge of hymnody, you won’t call them a hymnbook. Do they have a place in our churches? Absolutely, just leave them in the bookrack for the morning worship. When you have an inspirational song service or prayer meeting you can use them. Why can we use them then? Because prayer meeting and song services are not worship services.

I do think we need to distinguish between Cat and Dog songs, so I guess there can be Cat and Dog songbooks.

[ken_sylvania]

What's wrong with preferring one style of song over another. Why is it elitism to say "the style of song in this book is not my favorite?"

Nothing is wrong with it. In some in-groups disliking certain books seems to stem from elite posturing rather than actual preference.

Right. And it is stated openly. Things like the Christian Hymnal being a subpar book with songs for the uneducated lower classes who like to tap their foot when they sing. Or diminishing sings with repeating choral lines juxtaposed against a melody as subpar (which is actually the African American influence). And noting approvingly that books like the red Menno Hymnal are "good music" and hymns without choruses are "better."

If it is just a matter of I like this book and out like that one and we are all good, no problem. However often it is this type of music is better than that type. That is the elitism of which some are concerned by. Same with singing styles.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as certain styles of music or certain singing styles being better than others? That all differences are simply a matter of opinion rather than actually matters of substance?

[Judas Maccabeus]

I find the red Mennoite Hymnal and the Purple Martin just a bit too eclectic and too unrelatable for most folks.

If it weren't for the patriotic songs I like the Songs of Faith and Praise and the newer addition Worship and Praise, better as they include new songs like There is a Redeemer and Behold Our God etc.

I would love to banish that hymnal from our racks. Not only is it full of “gospel songs “ instead of hymns, but alters words to fit the Stone-Campbell theology from which it originated. It has more than its share of nationalistic hymns, especially the last one in the book.

The off red Mennonite Hymnal “ is the one I prefer, followed by the Oberholt “Christian Hymnary.” The “Purple Martin “ would be a third choice.

Now if I could effectively lead 408 in the Christian Hymnary……….I would be a happy man.

[joshuabgood]

I find the red Mennoite Hymnal and the Purple Martin just a bit too eclectic and too unrelatable for most folks.

If it weren't for the patriotic songs I like the Songs of Faith and Praise and the newer addition Worship and Praise, better as they include new songs like There is a Redeemer and Behold Our God etc.

I would love to banish that hymnal from our racks. Not only is it full of “gospel songs “ instead of hymns, but alters words to fit the Stone-Campbell theology from which it originated. It has more than its share of nationalistic hymns, especially the last one in the book.

The off red Mennonite Hymnal “ is the one I prefer, followed by the Oberholt “Christian Hymnary.” The “Purple Martin “ would be a third choice.

Now if I could effectively lead 408 in the Christian Hymnary……….I would be a happy man.

I appreciate the intent of some of the altered text, for instance the second verse of To God be the Glory, however I generally don't like changing song texts. I'd rather sing them the way they were...and let it go as poetic license and minor theological quibbles. That even goes for "the wrath of God was satisfied" versus the alternate, "the love of God was magnified" in the Getty hymn.

[joshuabgood]

Nothing is wrong with it. In some in-groups disliking certain books seems to stem from elite posturing rather than actual preference.

Right. And it is stated openly. Things like the Christian Hymnal being a subpar book with songs for the uneducated lower classes who like to tap their foot when they sing. Or diminishing sings with repeating choral lines juxtaposed against a melody as subpar (which is actually the African American influence). And noting approvingly that books like the red Menno Hymnal are "good music" and hymns without choruses are "better."

If it is just a matter of I like this book and out like that one and we are all good, no problem. However often it is this type of music is better than that type. That is the elitism of which some are concerned by. Same with singing styles.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as certain styles of music or certain singing styles being better than others? That all differences are simply a matter of opinion rather than actually matters of substance?

Yes. Basically. Some folks look down on bluegrass as an example, but the singing of Ralph Stanley and Ricky Skaggs, others, are very inspired by...I know I am.

I would add I am classically trained as a vocalist and was something of an opera soloist at one time...so it isn't that I fail to appreciate European classical music. I love it. But I reject the elitism. Simple texts, like he's got the whole world, can be very powerful, or texts like God is so good.