banner

Will We Sing?

02/20/08

Permalink 06:26:58 am, by dissidens Email , 788 words, 1128 views   English (US)
Categories: Old Main

Will We Sing?

Will we sing anything by Stuart Townend or Keith Getty in 200 years? Assuming the answer is no, why not?

I wanted to answer this question more prominently and at greater length for several reasons, first of which is that this is the sort of question we ought to be asking ourselves on hearing every new song. We ought to be exercising judgment all the time; if we are really serious about better music we must become better critics, not better consumers.

My first inclination is to say Probably Not, but I want to correct the inference that my answer might be automatically No. Some persist in the assumption that one unthinkingly prefers Bach and reflexively dislikes everything contemporary. As I've mentioned before, there is some encouraging contemporary stuff out there. I've mentioned the work of Boice and Jones explicitly.

But when I say "probably not", it's not because this is bad. I think it is quite good. In fact, if I were a fundamentalist I would hang my head in shame: after all the gaseous scolding we've heard about "Christ-honoring music", they have nothing to offer. To illustrate, I quote How Deep the Father's Love for Us and Our God Shall Supply All of Our Needs. The weakness of the second is representative of their body of work.

The better-known contributions of Townend and Getty represent a marked improvement over the fundagelical dittymeisters we've grown up with.

As they improve—which I hope they do—they may well move into a class of songwriter like Schlegel (Be Still My Soul) or Rossetti or the Bernards or Ringwaldt or Watts and Wesley, etc.

Part of the problem is that for contemporaries to achieve longevity means they have to hold up in comparison to some pretty great works; so they have their work cut out for them. Ours is not a poetic age. Imagination does not come naturally to us number one, and number two, we don't have as good an audience. It is unfair to compare Getty to Gerhardt without making allowance for this. That's why I keep stressing Eliot's point about the social function of poetry. There is such a thing as a social function of liturgy. We must be led in our feelings as well as our believings.

Having said that, a lot of what Townend and Getty do is commendable. Notice in the following song the sustained image of a man abandoned on a cross. It is not ditty-like as with the Garlock. It is not ADD/ADHD doggerel. It is not a simple assertion of platitudes, the diction is far superior, the music is a lot better, the cadence.... Notice the almost Atlas-like image in the third stanza. I doubt it was intended, and although the image struck me momentarily, I myself would not say it is defensible; but it is the sort of mind-play that thoughtful poetry encourages in us. It's something that engages the imagination.

It is very hard to predict what will last 200 years. If this had been Bach's concern, he will have been very grateful to ole Felix. What we should do is strive for something good that will last for 30 years, something we can pass to our own children. And out of that great pile of work may emerge some poetic gems that will shine for centuries.

Townend:

How deep the Father's love for us,
How vast beyond all measure,
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure.

How great the pain of searing loss,
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the chosen One,
Bring many sons to glory.

Behold the Man upon a cross,
My sin upon His shoulders.
Ashamed I hear my mocking voice
Call out among the scoffers.

It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished.
His dying breath has brought me life,
I know that it is finished.

I will not boast in anything;
No gifts, no power, no wisdom.
But I will boast in Jesus Christ
His death and resurrection.

Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer;
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom.

___________

Garlock:

Our God shall supply all of our needs-
All of our needs, Yes, all of our needs.
Our God shall supply all of our needs
According to His riches in glory.

The mercies of God ever are great-
Ever are great, Yes, ever are great.
The mercies of God ever are great-
But we must trust His Word to receive them.

So give to the Lord-All of your heart-
All of your heart, Yes, all of your heart.
So give to the Lord-All of your heart-
Then you will know His blessings forever.

Trackback address for this post:

This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

Please enter the characters from the image above. (case insensitive)

Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:

1 Comment from: Unk [Visitor] Email
You're just talking about the lyrics and not the music, right?

I was curious about this post because I'm familiar with the music of some (not much though, and perhaps not enough to even comment)of the songs you listed in the anticipating comment. It has never struck me as enduring music. I am not a musician but it seems to me in the better hymns an aptness of construction and a completeness (a beginning, a middle and an end, however brief and usually the briefer the better, for me at least) I have never observed in anything new with the notable exception of Hartmut Huschens.
PermalinkPermalink 02/20/08 @ 07:05

Reply to comment 4720 by Unk

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Comment from: exlibris [Visitor] Email
We have a phrase around here that we use for the sort of reclamation that goes on with Townend: dumpster-diving. Some things recovered from dumpsters can be quite good - like the PC my son found in one such dumpster.

We have also crafted one for Garlock: leftovers. Leftovers do not leave an adult with a positive thought, although to the teenagers who raid our 'fridge, it is just the ticket.
PermalinkPermalink 02/20/08 @ 07:33

Reply to comment 4721 by exlibris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Comment from: greg linscott [Member] Email
if we are really serious about better music we must become better critics, not better consumers.


What it seems like our blog-host is saying is that we should recognize that the music of the Gettys and Townend marks a positive development in the context of other offerings including (or perhaps especially) those generally sourced in the Greenville area. That isn't necessarily an endorsement, but it is at least acknowledgment of increasing quality.

Exlibris, I am not sure why you make the somewhat condescending distinction you do in your comment. You seem to imply that the circumstances from which the former work out of are less "sanitary" than those of the latter example. Care to explain your comment a bit further?
PermalinkPermalink 02/20/08 @ 08:05

Reply to comment 4722 by greg linscott

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Comment from: exlibris [Visitor] Email
It was not my intention to give extensive commentary on this phenomenon, as it is not really my own. It seems to be the collective opinion of the more serious and reflective 20-somethings with whom I work. I don't think that these observations are meant to be condescending. I believe that they are meant to be critical. The former utilizes hubris, the latter discernment and reflection.

Many of whom I have referred to before feel like they must choose between two positions during the chapel services: 1. to sing relatively promising lyrics that come from "less 'sanitary'" quarters or 2. sing the lyrics of songs belonging to a musical tradition gone to seed - lacking in any vitality, creativity, or depth (i.e. they are trite). They are not comparing music that seems to be traversing the same continuum. This makes for a very disjointed service. One that can only be magnified by playing Arvo Part alongside of Garlock. They seem to have picked up that the choices are rather nuanced, having to weigh genetic disorders against strength disorders - or something like that. They could detect the strength of Part's music despite his connection and veneration of Benjamin Britten and all that his lifestyle included. They can detect that, perhaps, Garlock does not display the same genetic moral issues as Part, but they are left wondering because they are left with the impression that it is more venal.

I'm not sure if I clarified this or not, but we're working with limited stock here.
PermalinkPermalink 02/20/08 @ 08:45

Reply to comment 4723 by exlibris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email
Unk:

Oh sure.

I thought I had this conversation on Remonstrans, but now that you bring it up I recall it was in a private conversation.

I am not fond of the music (take Getty’s) that it tries to “speak the language of contemporary people”; contemporary styles are just ineffective, short-lived. That’s what happens when you shoot for novelty. I think the impulse as Keith has expressed it is only partially defensible. I agree with him to the degree that our music shouldn’t speak the language of Lawrence Welk or Glenn Miller. It’s not a question of whether I like it or not, it is a question of whether anyone in the next 200 years will still “speak the language”. This is exactly the trap the fundies have fallen into; now they have to scold people into listening to their old-timey musical clichés.

If we are to take Getty’s good principles at face value, then we should aim to be “forever contemporary”; we need to strive for what Barenboim loves in Beethoven: perpetual contemporaneity. And Beethoven never chased after a style in his life. Beethoven had a great deal of respect for Bach, Handel, etc., but with Ludwig you always get the impression that a “style” is good for shaking your fist at.

But the two songs I contrasted (Garlock and Townend) are, I think, one defective and the other effective, both for the text and the music considered as a whole.

exlibris:

I don’t suggest Townend or Getty be uncritically embraced. My point is that everything must be critically apprehended. How Deep is in and of itself an excellent song. I don’t think it belongs anywhere near a dumpster.

Greg:

Exactly so. That’s one reason I belabor educating our children so incessantly; we need to create an audience—a critical audience—that demands better. Credit where credit is due and encouragement where it is sorely needed. I’d much rather face the future (conceding all the differences) with a Getty or Townend that the lot that animates the CT, CCM crowd.
PermalinkPermalink 02/20/08 @ 08:49

Reply to comment 4724 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Comment from: chris [Visitor] Email
What is truly bothersome (and indicative) is that many fundamentalists I know would rather sing Townend than Garlock, but would sooner promote Garlock than Townend. They lack the bandwidth to appreciate the inherent worthiness of a thing independent of its source even if the distinction resonates in their own souls. It's like a voluntary deafness or something.
PermalinkPermalink 02/20/08 @ 14:52

Reply to comment 4725 by chris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Comment from: Observer [Visitor] Email
I agree with you, Chris. I think the reason they "would rather sing Townend than Garlock, but would sooner promote Garlock than Townend" is because they do not understand why. They don't understand why they "like" Townend better, and they don't understand why Garlock doesn't "sit right" with them. They don't know if it's the words, the music, or what that makes the two different; they just know something is different.
PermalinkPermalink 02/20/08 @ 15:10

Reply to comment 4726 by Observer

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email
Chris:

Well, what can I say other than to point out: we are dealing here with people who cannot entertain criticisms of their management styles, their children’s theater, their lackluster pulpit ministries, their banal noise-making, their movies….

And yes, it is indicative.

Observer:

Would you say that these people you have in mind are genuinely perplexed about the disparity in skill displayed in the two songs above?!

I honestly would like to believe you; that would suggest there is hope for a remedy. If these people are honestly confused, why are they so hostile to their betters?
PermalinkPermalink 02/20/08 @ 18:04

Reply to comment 4729 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Comment from: Observer [Visitor] Email
Dissidens,

I doubt many would be genuinely perplexed by the two songs above; Garlock's song is about as pithy as pithy gets. Allow me to elaborate on my point just a bit.

Many fundamentalists grow up listening to Garlock and Hamilton and are told this is good, God-honoring worship music. If they are not told that explicitly, they implicitly infer that, since they sing their songs so much. So, when songs like "How Deep" and "In Christ Alone" are sung, they notice the difference, both lyrically and musically, but they don't really understand the difference. They will still think Patch and Garlock are OK because that is what they have always known. Put another way, they'll accept the new stuff, but they wouldn't really think to stop singing the other stuff.

This is just my thought on how others view it. If I were to ask most people around me, "Hey, what do you think is wrong with Frank Garlock and Ron Hamilton music?" I'd get a blank stare. Not enough people think critically about the music they sing in worship to the Almighty. It's a sad fact, but I think it is true. This site has helped me to that end. As I've mentioned before, I'm trying to get people to read this site, if for no other reason than to get them thinking about worship and music and culture. So in all sincerity, thanks for the work you do here. It has impacted how I think about and evaluate many things, but especially music.
PermalinkPermalink 02/20/08 @ 19:56

Reply to comment 4730 by Observer

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Comment from: David [Visitor] Email
exlibris. adj. 1, windbag. 2, one who purports to know more than he actually does.
PermalinkPermalink 02/21/08 @ 03:54

Reply to comment 4731 by David

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email
CORRIGENDUM:

I don’t know if David is an emergent—or the student of an emergent—but a definition that begins with “one who…” would properly follow a noun rather than an adjective.
PermalinkPermalink 02/21/08 @ 07:53

Reply to comment 4732 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Comment from: exlibris [Visitor] Email
David:

I'll take it that you didn't like my comment, but apparently I'm too full of myself to really know why. So, you didn't bother to explain.

I won't bother to respond to the truth or error of you comment.

PermalinkPermalink 02/21/08 @ 08:04

Reply to comment 4733 by exlibris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 Comment from: David [Visitor] Email
exlibris:
Withdrawn. Impulsive and wrongful response -posted before I had thought.

Probably guilty of the label I gave you.
PermalinkPermalink 02/21/08 @ 08:38

Reply to comment 4734 by David

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Comment from: exlibris [Visitor] Email
Easily forgiven on my part, and I will readily admit that when it comes to music, I've waded in about as far as I can.

Music and aesthetics are not my forte, but I am interested in learning and discussing as far as my microscopic understanding will propel me.
PermalinkPermalink 02/21/08 @ 08:55

Reply to comment 4735 by exlibris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Comment from: Regulative [Visitor] Email
What impression would you have from this quote? Does it sound positive to you? Just your impression. Don't google it first, please.

"Check out the psalm-like lament of "Kyrie" (with the Stevie Wonder feel), and the great duet with Lou Fellingham,"
PermalinkPermalink 02/22/08 @ 22:40

Reply to comment 4742 by Regulative

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email
It’s really tough to do justice to a quote that short and without context. It could be offered sardonically, in which case it might well strike me “positively”.

But as it stands, it strikes me as the typical patter used by hustlers to market someone’s “project”. I know who Stevie Wonder is but don’t know enough of his singing for the phrase to be meaningful. I don’t think I ever heard him do anything that would act as a useful modifier to the phrase “psalm-like lament”.

I know nothing of Lou Fellingham. At least not that I’m aware of.
PermalinkPermalink 02/23/08 @ 06:31

Reply to comment 4743 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 Comment from: Regulative [Visitor] Email
Thanks.

Here's the whole quote:

This is the brand new album from Stuart Townend, and his first in studio for 4 years. It features some songs that are getting used in various churches, including "The power of the cross" and "See what a morning". But it's also got some great new material. Check out the psalm-like lament of "Kyrie" (with the Stevie Wonder feel), and the great duet with Lou Fellingham, "Every promise". This album definitely sounds different. It's distinctly piano- rather than guitar-driven, which immediately sets it apart from most worship albums. A lot of it has the Ben Folds style piano/bass/drums feel, but then there are some majestic strings on it - more reminiscent of Rufus Wainright! Produced by brilliant arranger and keyboard player Mark Edwards, Psalm 23 is nothing short of gorgeous, and The Power of the Cross is deeply moving. And Beloved And Blessed is... well, different! In a genre where MOR seems the safe way to success, this is a brave, magnificent album. (Andrew Sutton)
PermalinkPermalink 02/23/08 @ 20:40

Reply to comment 4746 by Regulative

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Comment from: dissidens [Member] Email
Atrocious.

I just listened to the snippet (the Kyrie).

It is interesting, the comment “piano- rather than guitar-driven”. This is the life of the musical cliché.
PermalinkPermalink 02/24/08 @ 08:20

Reply to comment 4748 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, a>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

Please enter the characters from the image above. (case insensitive)

Remonstrans

July 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 << <   > >>
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Archives

Search

Categories

XML Feeds

What is RSS?

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 24

powered by
b2evolution