"Classical" music in church

[Pastor Larry]

Many people don't distinguish betwen Isaac Watts or Fanny Crosby. But the fact is that they are separated by 200 years from each other, and their music styles are dramatically different.

I don't think Watts or Crosby wrote much music that survived, if they wrote any at all (as a sacred music minor should already know). They were known for their words. In fact, in "The Hymnal for Worship and Celebration" there are 15 songs by Watts and 16 by Crosby. In every single case, the music was written by someone else.

That said, the music styles are very different, as is the poetry that is set to the music. But neither Watts nor Crosby are to blame for that.

Do you know of any music which Watts or Crosby wrote? I am not aware of any, but I may have missed some.

This supports the fact that music is subjective, dependent upon the listener, and prone to change over time

Or does it support the fact that today's listener is uneducated and insensitive to bad music? I think this modern generation is so insensitive to inferior things in the arts. This generation is not well-trained in that area and so the bad stuff looks good because it "feels good," even though it is inferior in many cases.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I don't think Watts or Crosby wrote much music that survived, if they wrote any at all (as a sacred music minor should already know). They were known for their words. In fact, in "The Hymnal for Worship and Celebration" there are 15 songs by Watts and 16 by Crosby. In every single case, the music was written by someone else.

Doh! You got me!!! Right between the shoulder blades!!! Someone check my pulse!!!

Of note, however, is that the hymn tunes that their words are set to are similarly written in the same era (for example, "Blessed Assurance, penned in 1873, was set to an 1873 tune by Phoebe Knapp).

That said, the music styles are very different, as is the poetry that is set to the music. But neither Watts nor Crosby are to blame for that.

Correct. Watts and Crosby, as well as the various hymn tune composers of their respective days, were alll beholden to the art forms of the time.

Or does it support the fact that today's listener is uneducated and insensitive to bad music?

I think that, in addition to my point, it also can support the notion that listeners are uneducated and insensitive to music in general, whether it be good or bad. That, in and of itself, is not an indicator of a musical selections' worthiness for the church setting, nor is said worthiness going to apply to every piece in the same manner in every setting in every church.

 

[Aaron]

Okay, can you find any of Watts' hymns that sound like madrigals or operas regardless of who wrote the tunes?

Again, hymns were distinct from the "popular" styles of the day.

 

[tenor]

 

[tenor]

Originally posted by Aaron:
Okay, can you find any of Watts' hymns that sound like madrigals or operas regardless of who wrote the tunes?

Again, hymns were distinct from the "popular" styles of the day.

Give me your source please..... Other than the one you always send us to.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by tenor:
Give me your source please..... Other than the one you always send us to.

Tenor, check out your local church hymnal, and you'll find the dates of the hymn tunes at the top of every hymn. With some searching, you'll be able to recognize the differing styles in each era.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by tenor:
Give me your source please..... Other than the one you always send us to.

I asked first.

 

[tenor]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tenor:
Give me your source please..... Other than the one you always send us to.

Tenor, check out your local church hymnal, and you'll find the dates of the hymn tunes at the top of every hymn. With some searching, you'll be able to recognize the differing styles in each era. </font>[/QUOTE]I know this.

My point is that the music of much of hymnody was influenced in some way by the popular (folk)and/or art music of th day. I never said it was identical. Sometimes, at least up until the 19th Century, the church often influenced the popular and art music of its day.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by tenor:
Sometimes, at least up until the 19th Century, the church often influenced the popular and art music of its day.

Now this is an important distinction to make, especially when we realize that secularism is a relatively new development in Western society. What made Western culture so great and the stabilizing force in the world today is that, despite her errors and weaknesses, Western culture was shaped by the Church.

Righteousness exalteth a nation.

And this is the proper role of the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth.

What CCM is doing is turning this role upside down, and fantastic claims about history are being made (e.g., the Church has always helped herself to the popular styles of the day) to justify it.

Actually, it's the moral upheaval of the 60's and 70's that is the driving force of the movements in modern worship.

 

[Eric B]

So it's either the Western Culture, or the Church, (not sure which you are referring to) that gets a pass on "her errors and weaknesses", while only the later society is culpable for its sins.
Just ask the victims of the medieval Church and the colonizers, etc. how nice and pure they were. (Well, I guess the victims of the colonizers deserved it, as you have basically said in the past, but what about those persecuted by the Church? (Which was wedded to the culture, which sounds like Rev.17 if I ever heard it!))
Or maybe, the combined corrupted Western Culture and church so distorted the Gospel, that that is a big part of what led people to rebel and throw off organized Christianity. This lowers God's standards! Whoever kee[ps the whole Law and offends in one point is guily of all. No grading on a curve! Then, Jesus says to whom much is given, much is expected. You have it completely backwards. The Western Church/culture could do anything it wanted, (just a long as they listened to the right music, and gave lip service to God) but it's the unbelievers/modern generations who should have still known better!
We're just repeating lock, stock and barrel the errors of Israel, esp. in Christ's time. When they saw Christ upsetting their whole moralistic scheme, they thought he was bringing a curse on the righteous nation too. Everyone else's fault!

I have just come out of a heated debate on the NY Times board over Intelligent Design. I would like to see you go over there and argue that God is true because of the righteousness of the past, because this type of rhetoric from the Church makes it so much harder to witness to them!