Outed Parodist

There might be a more normal approach to take for my first Te decet hymnus post, post-College Church. I'll get around to that later. But this one is prompted by my being "outed" as a parodist, in a comment made by my senior pastor. To be fair, Josh was highlighting things he appreciated about me, and one exhibit was this little parody I wrote to honor a colleague's change of theological conviction.

"Jay" (we'll call him Jay for purposes of this story, because that is his name) was a diligent defender of credo-baptism (baptism should only take place upon a personal confession of faith). This on a staff and in a church where we also practice paedo-baptism (infant baptism). Jay's good-natured but ardent challenges to the paedo-baptists among us are legendary.

So it was a bit of a surprise when that conviction became a matter for personal study, and a huge surprise when he switched his view entirely. Well, there really was - nor is there yet - a better response than the following:

Baby Baptizer

dedicated to Pastor Jay Thomas

with apologies to Lennon and McCartney

sung to the tune of “Paperback Writer”

Baby baptizer …

Dear Rev’rend Doctor, I have read your book,

It took me years to get, but I’m fin’lly hooked.

Based on a covenant it seems so clear,

Now I’m in your camp, and I want to be a baby baptizer.

Baby baptizer.

I would be like Calvin, Cranmer, Keller, too,

Wesley, Edwards, Packer – just  to name a few.

I can fin’lly get into that Cov’nant style,

I have changed around and I want to be a baby baptizer.

Baby baptizer.

Baby baptizer  . . .

It’s not the doctrine that I learned in school,

But my heroes do it, so I guess it’s cool.

Yeah, I used to diss it, but I’ve changed my mind;

You may be surprised, but I want to be a baby baptizer.

Baby baptizer.

I am really digging sacramental rites,

But it took some time, it wasn’t overnight.

I am still reforming, paedo-baptist here,

This is my big break, and I want to be a baby baptizer.

Baby baptizer.

Baby baptizer . . .

Baby baptizer – baby baptizer

Baby baptizer – baby baptizer

Chuck King © 2010 All rights reserved.

Integral refrains

After last week's screed about refrains lacking integrity, I want to end this brief series by celebrating hymns with refrains that work. Note that this is not a celebration of old hymns. Just this past Sunday at College Church we ended the service with a very nicely crafted hymn, copyright 2008, Jordan Kauflin's "All I Have Is Christ." (This hymn warrants a post of its own, so I'll just leave it at this shout out, for now.) Three verses that hit consistently hit all the marks are followed by a brief contrasting chorus: "Hallelujah! all I have is Christ. Hallelujah! Jesus is my life." And many of the hymns written by Stuart Townend, and by the Gettys, also are in this very serviceable structure.

Back in the day, when I took my hymnology course as an undergraduate, official (officious?) teaching held that true hymns do not have refrains. If it looks like a hymn, but has a chorus (= refrain) then it was classified as a gospel hymn. (If it was all experience and no theology, it was called a gospel song. This was a put-down.) I think we are beyond those category limitations now when talking about hymns.

Just flipping casually through my reliable Hymns for the Living Church, I note the following "classic hymns" with refrains:

• Rejoice, Ye Pure in Heart
• Great Is Thy Faithfulness (it's hard to consign this to the "gospel hymn" dustbin)
• For the Beauty of the Earth (though integrated into the end of each stanza, it's hard not to think that "Lord of all, to thee we raise this our hymn of grateful praise" as anything but a refrain. It is the quintessential integral refrain. Ditto with All Creatures of our God and King.)
• We can niggle over the DIADEM setting of All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name
• Jesus! What a Friend for Sinners

And I have only got to Hymn 100. Which is O Come, O Come, Emmanuel - with its ancient and beloved refrain, "Rejoice! rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!" And what of O Come All Ye Faithful. But maybe there we are shading the distinction between a Christmas hymn and a Christmas carol. In Adeste fidelis, it seems, we have a hymn in the form of a carol.

That brief list does not include what really are perhaps best identified as "gospel hymns." Much less "gospel songs."  In an earlier post I complained about hymns that were forced into that mold, which was no better treatment than the newer clothes some standard hymns are forced to wear. This is just a brief acknowledgement that the use of a refrain in the right setting, an integral refrain, is a time-honored structure for hymns, ancient and modern. And that aptness is best seen as a refrain continues - or punctuates - the sense of each verse, without diverting attention from the sense of each verse and the overall theme of the verses. (My classic bad example is the "At the cross" with the Watts hymn, Alas, and Did My Savior Die? Compare the previously noted "Rejoice, ye pure in heart.")

A hymn with the right refrain never sounds quite right without the refrain; it never seems too long with the refrain; it is only complete with the refrain. That's a lot of marks to hit, and maybe that's why so many of our abiding hymns were authored by women and men who . . . refrained from using one.

Old hymns, New refrains

It is easy to celebrate the attention given to old hymns by churches that use contemporary music. How can we not rejoice that churches of all kinds are being nourished by the wise, biblical, enduring lyrics of Anne Steele, William Cowper, John Newton, Isaac Watts, and others? After decades of rather thin theology and aberrant scripture songs, contemporary congregational singing is being enhanced by the gifts of the past.

Often, these poems of devotional and practical theology are given new tunes. When these work, it is dynamic. Perhaps the best example of this - or, at least, the example that in a way initiated the trend - is "Before the Throne of God Above." An old (but not ancient) text, which even my generation did not know, brought to life with a new (now standard!) tune, in a pairing that really works well across generations and accompaniment styles.

Sadly, often the new tunes do not in fact work well, but that is the subject of another post.

This re-packaging of traditional hymns comes up in the present context in order to evaluate the practice - now ubiquitous - of adding material to given words with their standard tune. My previous post noted that this practice is not new. Every observation I made there may apply to what is still happening in the 21st century church. And then some. I made some allowances for the best motives, in that post; and I'll let those stand here. So when you get lost - or angry - at my rant below, I ask you to look back. Give me the benefit of the doubt. Or at least humor me.

Is there a difference between the current practice, and the 19th century, revivalist song-leaders who added refrains to the hymns of Dr. Watts? Well, there is one difference, anyway. And that is [cynicism alert!] that if I add a refrain to the words of John Wesley, I can now copyright this as a new text. If I add new music as an added refrain to the tune SLANE (Be thou my vision), I can now copyright my new song, which includes a traditional Irish melody. Sorry, I warned you about the cynicism. Go back to my previous paragraph for context!

 I actually have a greater problem with this practice, in its current form. And that is that without any significant improvement to the original, adding material to standard hymns forces those hymns into a pop song structure and undermines the structural intergrity of the original. Let me explain.

* Standard hymns are generally stanzaic, that is, a succession of verses without refrains or choruses. Some (quite a few, actually) alternate Verse/Refrain. Some contemporary songs for congregational singing share these song forms.
* Popular songs through the decades have largely been Verse/Refrain forms. To be clear, nearly all folk music songs share this structure.
* Songs in this form generally have one distinct melody for the Verse, and a different distinct melody for the Refrain (it may be a complementary or a contrasting melody).
* Most popular music song forms of the past 30+ years add to the Verses and Refrain a 3rd component, called a Bridge. The Bridge is distinguished by another (3rd) distinctive melody, is often signaled by an instrumental build-up, and represents some kind of emotional release or denouement. This is a perfectly legitimate song form. If it has become ubiquitous to the point of predictability, that is not the fault of the form.

So, my problem with some elements of the so-called "hymn revival" in contemporary worship music is when hymns are re-structured to fit this mold. Repackaged hymns - the hymns that people thought they knew when they started singing them - come out the same as the pop-form songs. Examples I have encountered recently (bear in mind that each one retains the standard text, with the typical associated tunes):

• O for a thousand tongues to sing
• Be thou my vision
• Jesus paid it all
• Amazing grace

My experience is pretty limited. And these are just the titles that spring to mind.

One argument for this practice (as I understand it) is that an added refrain - and/or bridge - personalizes the "wordy," "archaic," "doctrinal" text. But even in the short list of hymns just noted, is this really a problem? And if these things are problems, then why aren't people writing their own new songs that accomplish their goals without leaning on the work of their forebears? Are we standing on the shoulders of giants, or robbing them and then chopping down the beanstalk?

So I guess I want to argue the following:
First - accompany hymns any way that serves the text, allows the people to sing well, without your creativity getting in the way of the purposes of congregational song.
Second - go ahead and write new tunes for old words. Do it well. Study good models of songs meant to be sung by groups of non-trained and un-rehearsed amateurs. The solo songs of pop stars (Christian or pagan) do not work as models for group singing.
Third - if you don't like the thrust of a standard hymn, for whatever reason, don't try to fix it by adding your own material. Your material won't measure up, and the original will be cheapened. Write your own.
Fourth - listen to people singing. When you start with a known hymn, they are singing with you; when you move to the added-on refrain, they are confused; by the time you get to the bridge, no amount of build-up will keep them from being annoyed.
Finally - please, please, please: write new songs in any form/structure that works!

In addition . . .

Back to the topic of Refrains in congregational songs.Today, what about those refrains that were added to existing hymn texts?

This happened a lot in the 19th century, especially (or, specifically?) in the context of revivalist meetings. Songwriters sometimes began with the texts of existing hymns, and added a chorus (refrain). As we will see in the most familiar, abiding example, the added refrain contained very personal vocabulary and applied the "gospel" message to individuals.

In short, they editorialized or interpreted the original text with (by means of) the new material. (In an earlier post, I suggest that this is what happens with refrains in sung psalms.) The most serious consequence: whether intended or not, history may not record and I cannot judge, the added material became the chief characteristic of the song. The bulk of which, I point out immediately and obviously, was written by someone else.

If "At the Cross" is not the most familiar example, it is the one that always comes to my mind on this subject. I am happy to work from a hymnal that, although I wish the altered version were not in it at least I am happy it also has the hymn in its original form. That hymn is "Alas! and Did My Savior Bleed?" by Isaac Watts.

Alas! and did my Savior bleed?
And did my Sovereign die?
Would he devote that sacred head
For sinners such as I?
     Was it for crimes that I have done
    He groaned upon a tree?
    Amazing pity! grace unknown!
   And love beyond degree!
Well might the sun in darkness hide,
and shut his glories in,
When Christ, the mighty Maker,
died for man the creature's sin.
   But drops of grief can ne'er repay
   the debt of love I owe:
   Here, Lord, I give myself away,
   'tis all that I can do!

Thus, Isaac Watts, in 1707. To which Ralph Hudson added, in 1885, this refrain (or chorus) after each of the above stanzas:
"At the cross, at the cross where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away [rolled away].
It was there by faith I received my sight,
And now I am happy all the day!"

Let me say at first that I am sure this refrain was added with all good intention. It personalizes the hymn. It makes the cross explicit. As the author also wrote music for this version, we must also assume that he had good intentions for adding the bass and tenor lick (the repeated phrase [rolled away]). And finally, clearly he wanted to make sure that this whole bleeding cross thing wouldn't be depressing. After all, who doesn't want to be "happy all the day"?

I will give the concept this much credit: that chorus might just work if it is withheld until after the last verse. This allows the weight of Dr. Watts' hymn to do its work - harrowing the singer's heart with guilt and grace - and then allowing for a kind of ecstatic release. For all the datedness of the tune HUDSON to which "At the cross" is sung, one has to admit the refrain is a skippy little thing. I have had this song sung just this way, and I have to admit that in the right context it can be effective.

But sung as intended, the chorus constantly interrupts the work of the original, unrefrained text. Emotionally, we are whipsawed between the confrontation of the cross and the ecstasy of relief. The cross, thus, loses its power, and the refrain - which, by the way, you must notice, is as long as the verse -  has the perhaps unintended effect of standing on a par with the verses. Thus the hymn is weakened, and the refrain is annoying.

Why, it is only fair to ask, didn't Mr. Ralph E. Hudson take the trouble to write his own happy gospel song of light and an unburdened heart? Give him this credit: he started with great material. Consider the historical environment wherein the hymns of Dr. Watts were among the most well-known songs in the English-speaking world. Perhaps, even, we may propose that Hudson had to meet a specific "felt need" in the camp-meeting, but was theologically sound enough to retain sound devotional theology. And maybe it "worked" for his purposes.

But my point is simply that Hudson actually undercut the original, and Hymns for the Living Church notwithstanding, eventually "At the cross" will finally drop out of use, while "Alas! and Did My Savior Bleed?" (generally sung to MARTYRDOM, in 4/4 or more thoughtfully in 6/4) abides.

Does this matter? I think it does. And in a later post I will show how this same approach is undercutting old hymns being modified by the so-called "hymn revival" in contemporary worship music.

Sidetracked . . . to India!

I shall, indeed, return to my excellent intentions to write more about Refrains.

But a word of explanation may be in order about the gap between May and August.

It is a gap the shape of India. Or at least the shape of an amazing trip I took to India with 8 high school students and 2 other adults, to work with 3 Christian workers there.

I've been writing about that trip, at my other blog.All those posts, in "Awesome Adventures" for July and August, are about India. And there is some musical connection.But I plan to return to this site within the week.

Cheers,

Refraining

Sunday the Choir sang a nice setting of Psalm 27: "The Lord Is My Saving Light" by Andrew Witchger (GIA). I have always liked this gospel-tinged psalm for cantor/choir/congregation, but we hadn't used it with full choir until this Sunday. It sings well, is easy for the congregation to pick up and enjoy, and it sticks with you. It helps when your accompanist can play off the page and bring some serious gospel into it.

Sunday brought all that. It was a good way to deliver the pulpit to our guest preacher, who preached the same psalm.

I rarely program a piece in worship to which I am not committed. I don't think I've ever been embarrassed about something I've used in worship. I'll use this piece again.

But it raised questions that I have regarding psalm singing, and the role/function of refrains in hymns generally. So here we go, returning to te decet hymnus with a little series of reflections on these matters.

Briefly, at first, the use of a Refrain in psalm settings. The refrain is the (usually shorter) bit of text and tune that repeats without alteration between stanzas of a song, hymn, psalm, or poem. In some settings, the refrain may be called the chorus. (As in, "everybody join in on the chorus now!") When a refrain is added to the spoken or sung setting of a Psalm, it serves to emphasize what an editor or composer considers the main idea of that psalm. It is, in short, an editorial comment or commentary on the psalm.

Often, this structure provides a reliable guide to the meaning of the psalm; it can be a valuable interpretive aid. Sometimes the psalm itself suggests that this kind of repetition was intended by the biblical author. I believe that is one of the reasonable interpretations of the word "Selah" in the psalter.

Psalm 27 does not happen to have a "Selah," though, so a setting like this excellent one does have some "explaining to do." I'll return to that later in this series, when I spend more time on the singing of psalms. For now, I'm just enjoying how the refrain from Sunday continues to sing in my head, and to draw my attention to the full Psalm.

Messiah for Easter

Well, we are just days - hours! - from performing Parts 2 and 3 of "Messiah" at College Church. I have spent my writing time this winter and spring, on "Messiah," at my College Church site: Knowing the Score. This week I posted the last one in ther run-up to our April 1 performance.

I'm looking forward to being back on this site in April!