Hymns and their Owners (was Dean of Westminster)
Steve Faber
>
> > It's in the copyright of the URC. Anyone know whether they actually
> use
> > it?
>
> It's not in "Rejoice and Sing", the URC hymnbook, so we're unlikely to
> use
> it much, if at all.
Ah but some of us are unlikely to use it if it *is* in Rejoice and Sing!
But to answer the substantive point, no I have no idea why the URC are
claiming copyright on it. Are you sure, David? AFAIK, the URC doesn't
own copyright on any hymns, even the ones they messed about with to suit
the political correctness of the day when R&S was compiled.
(<Rant>You will gather I'm no fan of R&S: I can accept that there is a
desire in some (many?) quarters to have "inclusive" language in hymns:
"people" instead of "man" kinda thing. Most women I know don't find
"exclusive" language a problem anyway. If I were writing a hymn today,
I would choose to find gender-neutral language, but I'm not sure that we
need to butcher hymns that have stayed the test of time. What I really
object to is where the compilers have changed the plain meaning of the
hymn and altered the theology of the hymn. Sometimes this has been for
copyright reasons (it makes it cheaper to publish, apparently),
sometimes they just didn't agree with the theology that the hymn-writer
used, which begs the question 'why include it?' And what is also
irritating is when, again, for commercial reasons, they've done away
with the "proper" tune, and replaced it with one that no-body
knows/knew. Arrgghhhh!!</Rant>)
Steve
Tony Bryer
<3615C01B...@btinternet.com>
Path: ppp47-67.dial.nildram.co.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: ppp47-67.dial.nildram.co.uk
Lines: 43
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2421
In article <3615C01B...@btinternet.com>, Steve Faber wrote:
> You will gather I'm no fan of R&S: I can accept that there is a
> desire in some (many?) quarters to have "inclusive" language in hymns:
> "people" instead of "man" kinda thing.
>
I'll agree that there are a number of places where this has been done
less than tidily (Hark the herald angels sing especially). It's worth
noting too that a lot of alterations are not down to the R&S compilers,
only those marked with an asterisk, and in a number of cases hymns have
been 'altered' back to the original text. There was a piece in Reform a
year or two back where it was pointed out that if you alter an out of
copyright hymn you get a new copyright on the alterations, and in some
instances they would have used someone else's alterations but could not
agree a copyright clearance.
Music is not really my subject, but it's something we all have opinions
on. I point out to people that they think that only one tune could ever
go with 'My song is love unknown' - but it is a 'new' tune introduced
into Congregational Praise: CH had an older tune. What we stumble over
may well be the norm to the next generation. But why do they still
insist on keeping the 'wrong' tune for 'And can it be'; IMO Sagina is
the only tune (the purists keep telling me that when you have this tune
the congregation belt out the words instead of reflecting on them).
For the most part I am very happy with R&S: when choosing hymns for a
service I now endeavour to include something old, something new, a psalm
(or psalm-based hymn) and something from abroad, and can usually find
everything I need.
When the committee first published a draft list of hymns to be included
I wrote to them with a list of 30 from CP that I modestly suggested no
right thinking person could leave out. Subsequently a very good friend
and fellow church member (i.e. someone who was used to singing the same
hymns at me) looked at the list and reckoned that 5 of these should be
kept; as for the rest he wouldn't reckon them as being anything special.
If two people from the same church can feel like this my sympathies are
with the committee who had to make the final judgement.
Finally I am one of those to blame for R&S: I was a representative at
the 1986 Assembly and voted for the resolution that set it going!
Tony Bryer Twickenham URC, occasional lay preacher
Tim Haynes
> In article <JkzQ9OAU...@aldred.demon.co.uk>, David Aldred
> <da...@aldred.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > By this command in bread and cup his body and his blood we plead; what on
> > the cross he offered up is here our sacrifice indeed.
> When did anybody *ever* read the words of a hymn? You only sing them.
Last Tuesday night I had some read at me.
But what is singing? Music? Recitation? What_you_think_not_how_it_comes_out ?
~Tim
____________________________________________________________________________
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ |
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y- |
| pig...@richard.lse.ac.uk http://www.glutinous.custard.org/ |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Tony Bryer
<01bdeecb$4fcdc8a0$b933...@eusunw2528.rec.bp.com>
<N.100398....@client8301.globalnet.co.uk>
Path: ppp47-98.dial.nildram.co.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: ppp47-98.dial.nildram.co.uk
Lines: 16
Status: RO
Content-Length: 631
In article <N.100398....@client8301.globalnet.co.uk>, John Mitchell
wrote:
> > Dear Lord and father of mankind, forgive our foolish ways.
[snip]
> We had it at our wedding....
>
Wonderful hymn, but not the one I would choose for my wedding <g> (of course
I appreciate that you have to read beyond the first line). The one I
would choose in the unlikely event of having to, would be 'Brother, sister
let me serve you', one of the new hymns in R&S (from a NZ author). There's a
great challenge to men like myself brought up on the breadwinner and be
strong model, to be willing to receive as well as give.
Tony Bryer
Alan Zanker
>On 05/10/98 07:41, in message
><XsBVoAAX...@LEARPM.DEMON.CO.UK>, Peter Lear
><Mal...@LEARPM.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote:
>
>> I once got an awful rocket for announcing "Now we'll sing that much
>> loved wedding hymn, 'Through the night of doubt and sorrow'". This
>> elderly lady thought it not only unfunny but improper.:{
>
>as in v2: "Brother clasps the hand of brother...." ?
Now corrected to 'Sibling clasps the hand of sibling ...'?
Alan
--
Alan Zanker
Leeds
England
Alan Zanker
>The current Methodist hymn book "Hymns and Psalms" calls it Sagina and
>notes it was published by Thomas Campbell in his "Bouquet" (1825).
Yes, all the 23 tunes in Campbell's collection had botanical names.
Have you ever come across the new tune for 'And can it be?' in H&P -
Didsbury, by Cyril Taylor? It's much less dreary than Sagina and IMO
brings out the sense of awe and wonder reflected in Wesley's words.
(Of course, I'd be lynched if I ever released it on an unsuspecting
congregation (:-)),
Alan Zanker
>On 04/10/98 00:40, in message <VA.000002f5.0337f37a@mesh>, Tony
>Bryer <to...@sda.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The one I would choose in the unlikely event of having to, would be
>'Brother, sister let me serve you', one of the new hymns in R&S (from a
>NZ author).
<snip>
>Actually in this instance I think the change has improved it - and it is a very
>beautiful and challenging hymn.
It's become one of our congregation's favourites: but unfortunately
it's not in the Methodist 'Hymns & Psalms' - a strong 'buy'
recommendation for the supplement though, whenever it arrives,
Steve Faber
>
> Steve Faber types:
> >But to answer the substantive point, no I have no idea why the URC
> are
> >claiming copyright on it. Are you sure, David? AFAIK, the URC
> doesn't
> >own copyright on any hymns, even the ones they messed about with to
> suit
> >the political correctness of the day when R&S was compiled.
>
> quotes "Words (c) United Reform Church" immediately after the hymn,
> and
> lists the URC (of 86 Tavistock Place, WC1H 6HJ) under the
> 'acknowledgements' section at the back as having provided permission
> for
> use of the words. Could be an error, but since that's the only one
> acknowledged to the URC it seems a bit unlikely...
It is indeed an error. There is no "United Reform Church" at that
address, only the United *Reformed* Church....
But most odd, nevertheless. Still - print it as much as you like - all
the copyright royalties will be helping towards my stipend...
Steve
Steve Faber
> Again, the old stuff will be out of copyright anyway, so I don't know
> what
> you're talking about. Could you quote some specific examples from
> "Rejoice
> and Sing"?
I could quote many if I spent long enough looking through the book (I do
own a copy, even if I choose not to use it much/ever!)
"And can it be" is set to the tune "Abingdon" by Erik Routley
(1917-82). Abingdon may or may not be a fine a tune, but, to me, it
just doesn't work with the words of the hymn.
"Let there be love" by Dave Bilborough changes "may now your love sweep
this nation" to "may now your love fill all people", and "give us a
fresh understanding of brotherly love that is real" to "...neighbourly
love". What was wrong with the first of those lines? Too
nationalistic? Hardly. And the CofE (amongst many others) pray for the
nation each week or each day. The second line: surely the concept is
clear in the original wording, and implies a much stronger bind that
should be protected than "neighbourly" love to me.
"Angel voices ever singing" misses out the second verse[1] in R&S:
"Thou[2] who art beyond the farthest, Mortal eye can scan, Can it be
that THou regardest, Songs of sinful man? Can we know that Thou art
near us, And wilt hear us? Yea, we can." Important theology, wiped out
because of political correctness.
"Once in Royal David's city": in R&s, verse 4 is a conflation of two
other verses, presumably because they didn't want to end the last verse
with "When like stars His children crowned, All in white shall wait
around." Is that (which I believe to be the original wording) supposed
ot be racist? Better theology? Arguably the latter, but since when
does poetry have to make perfect sense? ;-) Even if that was the
motivation, why make the change, since the sense of the last verse seems
disjointed to me: "Not in that poor lowly stable, With the oxen standing
by, We shall see Him, but in heaven, Set at God's right hand on high;
For he leads his people on, To the place where he has gone."
There are many other more crass examples that I can't birng to mind at
the moment. I've either expunged them from my memory, or repressed the
trauma...
As, I think, Sister Judith pointed out earlier in the thread, my
objection is not so much that the new variants and settings are
(necessarily) *wrong*, but they interrupt the concentration and flow of
worship as you suddenly come crashing back to earth as you realise
you've just sung (heartily) something very different to the rest of the
congregation. It is not a case of not concentrating on what you are
singing - quite the opposite: when you find yourself in God's presence
in worship, the *last* thing you want to do is see what your hymnbook
says you *ought* to be singing!
[1] I'm aware of the dangers of claiming canonical status of old hymns.
You correctly say that few have survived with the author's complete and
original wording, but recent and popular memory, and comparison with a
few other hymnbooks, contemporary or near-contemporary shows that there
is a verse "missing" from the hymn as most of us would know it.
[2] Capital letters used to mark the beginning of a new line for the
hymn, rather than making the post go on for ever by setting the words as
poetry....
Steve
Steve Faber
> [The compilers of Rejoice and Sing] in some
> instances they would have used someone else's alterations but could
> not
> agree a copyright clearance.
AIUI, "could not agree a copyright clearance" was less to do with "could
not get permission" and more to do with "they wanted too much money".
> [snip]But why do they still
> insist on keeping the 'wrong' tune for 'And can it be'; IMO Sagina[1] is
> the only tune (the purists keep telling me that when you have this
> tune
> the congregation belt out the words instead of reflecting on them).
I think that's a case of "tomarto" or "tomayto". Some would say a
different tune helps you to concentrate on the words, others would say
it gets in the way of worship. I sometimes use a different tune to a
well-known hymn, but I do so sparingly and with great caution, if the
tune helps the words and the style of tune supports the theme, not just
to make people hesistate and reflect. I would also be careful to point
out that is is a different tune, and ask the organist/pianist to play it
through so that people can see where to fit in words and breaths. If it
is a "different" tune set in a hymnbook, it is somewhat more difficult
to do all that...
> When the committee first published a draft list of hymns to be
> included
> I wrote to them with a list of 30 from CP that I modestly suggested no
> right thinking person could leave out. Subsequently a very good friend
> and fellow church member (i.e. someone who was used to singing the
> same
> hymns at me) looked at the list and reckoned that 5 of these should be
> kept; as for the rest he wouldn't reckon them as being anything
> special.
> If two people from the same church can feel like this my sympathies
> are
> with the committee who had to make the final judgement.
Quite. *MY* view is that they got it wrong in a number of places.
They, of course, would beg to differ!
>
> Finally I am one of those to blame for R&S: I was a representative at
> the 1986 Assembly and voted for the resolution that set it going!
I'd not boast about that if I were you....
[1] Probably my favourite hymn, and a supreme example of why the book is
generally known as "Moan and Groan" at Westminster!!
Steve
Tim Haynes
> In article <2dzA1AAl...@wood2.demon.co.uk>, da...@wood2.demon.co.uk
> (David Wood) wrote:
> > Anyway, Tim, I thought the aim was to make a joyful noise, not necessarily
> > a technically perfect one.
> Yes, but I also want to give God the best I can. Ok, in this case "the best
> I can" involved mainly looking blank and thinking "What on earth do I do
> now?" :-)
Hear hear! :)
I was contemplating a response along the lines of "for some of us, to be
joyful it has to be perfect technically"... but that wasn't quite me.
~Tim
________________________________________ pig...@richard.lse.ac.uk __________
Alan Zanker
>Alan Zanker writes
>>>as in v2: "Brother clasps the hand of brother...." ?
>>
>>Now corrected to 'Sibling clasps the hand of sibling ...'?
>>
>Oh PER-LEASE!
>That is horrendous. Lotsa folk don't even know what a sibling is.
I wasn't being serious (at least, I hope I wasn't!)
David Quinton
wrote:
>On 05/10/98 07:41, in message
><XsBVoAAX...@LEARPM.DEMON.CO.UK>, Peter Lear
><Mal...@LEARPM.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote:
>
>> I once got an awful rocket for announcing "Now we'll sing that much
>> loved wedding hymn, 'Through the night of doubt and sorrow'". This
>> elderly lady thought it not only unfunny but improper.:{
>
>as in v2: "Brother clasps the hand of brother...." ?
<aside> Aeons ago, as a chorister in our Church in D*** ( *s just in
case he's still alive!), there was a miserable, screeching old Tenor,
who went by the name of Ernest.
Very nastily we arranged for *everyone* in the Choir to stay silent
during the word "Earnest" in the line:-
"One the earnest looking forward"
VERY funny (and very cruel and sad - in retrospect!)
</aside>
--
David Quinton - The Business Organisation Ltd.
(but I speak only for myself; and that's E&OE!)
WWW <http://www.almac.co.uk/dating/dating.htm>
Alan Zanker
>"And can it be" is set to the tune "Abingdon" by Erik Routley
>(1917-82). Abingdon may or may not be a fine a tune, but, to me, it
>just doesn't work with the words of the hymn.
Erik Routley composed the tune in 1944 specifically for that hymn. In
one of his books he prints the music of 'Sagina' as an example of the
worst kind of hymn-tune then extant (perhaps he was fortunate to die
in 1982!).
'Abingdon' *is* a fine tune: it appears three times in Hymns & Psalms,
the most appropriate stting being to Brian Wren's 'Lord God, your love
has called us here' (Wren dedicated the words to Routley) - but not to
'And can it be?'.
David Anderson
polyphonic at the end, which works very well if the congregation know
what they are doing. (Unfortunately they are never told and have to
work it out for themselves.)
My chains fell off My heart was free
M y c h a i n s fell off, M y h e a r t was free
(approx from memory)
Which one is that? (because I like it)
David Anderson
Alan Zanker
>The only tune I know for 'And can it be' is the bouncy one that goes
>polyphonic at the end, which works very well if the congregation know
>what they are doing. (Unfortunately they are never told and have to
>work it out for themselves.)
> My chains fell off My heart was free
>M y c h a i n s fell off, M y h e a r t was free
>(approx from memory)
>
>Which one is that? (because I like it)
Sagina, aka Sagiora, aka Campbell's Bouquet
Alan Zanker
>"Angel voices ever singing" misses out the second verse[1] in R&S:
>"Thou[2] who art beyond the farthest, Mortal eye can scan, Can it be
>that THou regardest, Songs of sinful man? Can we know that Thou art
>near us, And wilt hear us? Yea, we can." Important theology, wiped out
>because of political correctness.
I suspect it's more because of (a) the profusion of the archaic 2nd
singular (OK - the odd 'Thou' is probably acceptable but that verse is
really over the top) and (b) the theologically doubtful suggestion
that God is in outer space ...
Alan Zanker
>It's the only one I know, too, and if, as the Venerable Archdeacon
>indicates, it is indeed Sagina, then Erik Routley should be hung, drawn and
>quartered for a pompous ass. It is singable, memorable and rousing - what
>more do you want?
Music?
Alan (self-confessed snob)
David Anderson
hymns, then you can use it as often as you like.
b) since it is explicitly stated that God is near the congregation, I
think that the suggestion that God is in outer space as well is merely
orthodox theology. :)
David Anderson
Alan Zanker
>a) if you have a convention that you can use the 2nd person singular in
>hymns, then you can use it as often as you like.
But what was perfectly acceptable in Lancashire in 1861 may just seem
quaint in Brighton (or even Leeds) in the 1990s.
>b) since it is explicitly stated that God is near the congregation, I
>think that the suggestion that God is in outer space as well is merely
>orthodox theology. :)
Point taken - serves me right for trying to be clever (:-)
Alan
Tony Bryer
<3619ED49...@btinternet.com>
<361c3fbf...@news.demon.co.uk>
<N.100898....@client830d.globalnet.co.uk>
Path: ppp47-46.dial.nildram.co.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: ppp47-46.dial.nildram.co.uk
Lines: 16
Status: RO
Content-Length: 715
In article <N.100898....@client830d.globalnet.co.uk>, John Mitchell
wrote:
> Wren never forgot the lesson, and (IMHO) is now one of the best hymn
> writers around. As it happens "Lord God your love has called us here" is one
> of my favourite hymns of his.
>
I can never sing this hymn without remembering going to our URC Synod meeting
c. March 1986. Two days before I had crashed off a ladder and was still pretty
shaken up. The verse containing the stanza "we come with self-inflicted wounds"
was definitely sung with feeling!
Tony Bryer
P.S. If the formatting of this message is screwed up, I do not know why. I use
Virtual Access and messages posted to all other newsgroups appear as written.
David Anderson
>
> David Anderson <d.g.an...@susx.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >a) if you have a convention that you can use the 2nd person singular in
> >hymns, then you can use it as often as you like.
>
> But what was perfectly acceptable in Lancashire in 1861 may just seem
> quaint in Brighton (or even Leeds) in the 1990s.
>
for the dialect of their parishioners, but I suspect that they did it
because of the usage of the KJV and the poetic conventions of the time.
(assuming I've understood the point that you're making.)
David Anderson
Alan Zanker
>In article <N.100898....@client830d.globalnet.co.uk>, John Mitchell
>wrote:
>> Wren never forgot the lesson, and (IMHO) is now one of the best hymn
>> writers around. As it happens "Lord God your love has called us here" is one
>> of my favourite hymns of his.
>>
>I can never sing this hymn without remembering going to our URC Synod meeting
>c. March 1986. Two days before I had crashed off a ladder and was still pretty
>shaken up. The verse containing the stanza "we come with self-inflicted wounds"
>was definitely sung with feeling!
I think the ending of the following verse is splendid:
'We strain to glimpse your mercy-seat,
And find you kneeling at our feet.'
>P.S. If the formatting of this message is screwed up, I do not know why. I use
>Virtual Access and messages posted to all other newsgroups appear as written.
It looks OK here,
Alan Zanker
>Alan Zanker wrote:
>> But what was perfectly acceptable in Lancashire in 1861 may just seem
>> quaint in Brighton (or even Leeds) in the 1990s.
>>
>I'd like to think that Victorian hymn writers used 'thou' out of respect
>for the dialect of their parishioners, but I suspect that they did it
>because of the usage of the KJV and the poetic conventions of the time.
>(assuming I've understood the point that you're making.)
I'm not sure you have - the original suggestion (from Steve Faber) was
that the verse had been omitted from a recent hymn-book because of
political correctness; my view was rather that it was because the
language (particularly the number of 'Thou's etc) seemed particularly
old-fashioned.
Alan Zanker
>The Vicar and I were discussing how to render the last verse of Luther's
>great hymn "A Safe Stronghold" more acceptable to those...ok, one
>person....in the congregation with a bee in her bonnet about PC.
>
>Luther (translated) wrote:
>
>"And though they take our life,
>goods, honour, children, wife."
I don't think it's so much PC as the fact that women can't (in most
churches!) really sing the verse sensibly. Rupert E Davies amended it
for Hymns & Psalms: the revised version reads:
'And though before our eyes
All that we dearly prize
They seize beyond recall,
Yet is their profit small:
God's kingdom ours remaineth.'
>We got as far as:
>
>"And though they take our house,
>goods honour children, spouse."
>
>when we decided to chicken out and omit the entire verse....
May be the right decision - it's been argued that that verse wasn't in
Luther's original, though all the modern German books include it.
To be PC the last word of the second line should be 'partner' - but
how you'd then end the first line is a problem (:-)
Steve Faber
> To be PC the last word of the second line should be 'partner' - but
> how you'd then end the first line is a problem (:-)
Yes, that occurred to me as well. Is "partner" one of those words that
you can't rhyme properly, like orange?
FWIW, I think Hymns & Psalms may have it right here. I think in this
case it is less a matter of PC, but of sense. "Wife" cannot equal
"husband" in the same way that "man" can equal "man/woman" or "humanity"
(or other synonyms.) I think the sense of the verse and the theology
behind it is too important to lose by just dropping it.
Steve
Alan Zanker
>Alan Zanker wrote:
>> To be PC the last word of the second line should be 'partner' - but
>> how you'd then end the first line is a problem (:-)
>
>Yes, that occurred to me as well. Is "partner" one of those words that
>you can't rhyme properly, like orange?
Gardener? Sort of destroys Luther's meaning though (:-). OTOH if we
substituted 'mate' for 'spouse' or 'partner' there are loads of
possibilities ...!