Category Archives: Musings

Diary of a Music Transition: Part 4 (final) – the wash-up

Posted on by
1

I realised last Sunday that I’m getting on average one person per week telling me that they think the changes in our AM music have gone well.  I’m really appreciative when I hear from the folk who were previously anxious.

We were especially cautious in the first few weeks about volume and the drums.  The drummers were playing songs that a few months previously would’ve only been played on the organ, but are really written for a contemporary ensemble.  They are drummers experienced in playing contemporary songs in other services, but not to a congregation more comfortable with traditional instrumentation!  But no-one is complaining at this point.  They’re singing with joy and gladness.  I’m so thankful to God for this.

Here are some of my reflections about the transition of our AM services from 2 traditional services and 1 contemporary service to 1 blend of contemporary and traditional and 1 contemporary family oriented service:

1. Blended services allow more people to be involved in serving the congregation in music.  This obviously comes at an organisational cost, but we’ve really needed to do it to help a wide range of people (both the involved and the uninvolved) to continue to feel enfranchised.  But whereas it’s tricky to involve violinists, brass players, choral singers etc in your straight contemporary service, in a blended service, they are able to play and sing alongside drummers, bassists, keyboardists, guitarists and contemporary vocalists.

2. Blended services have shown me the value of what we’re calling “cross-over” songs.  These are songs that can be done in any of our 4 congregations, because they can be played on the organ or with a band, sung by a choir or just a couple of vocalists, and have parts for strings or other instruments as well as chords for guitarists.  These are songs like: In Christ Alone (and pretty much everything that comes from Stuart Townend or Keith Getty’s pens!), O the mercy of God, Beneath the Cross (my version), etc.  The songs on CCLI’s Song Select that give you access to both 4-part charts and a lead sheet are useful because different players can play the same song but with either dots or chords to suit them.  But the main advantage of cross-over songs is that they enable us to express unity with those in different congregations, and whenever we get congregations together for some sort of all-in activity, they have a common repertoire!

3. The organ still works a treat, but unless you’re in a cathedral, I reckon you get the greatest benefit from it when it’s not the only instrument being used in a Sunday service.  It still has an amazing way of encouraging congregational singing, just by the tones and sound energy it creates when played skilfully.  But with the exception of those people specifically looking for traditional music, most Aussies are happy for variation in instrumentation, but don’t want the music dominated by the organ.

4. It’s made me wonder if the members of our family services and youth services might actually be helped in their engagement with the beautifully rich hymn tradition if they occasionally sung them on the organ… and yet the number of skilful organists available to do this is definitely diminishing.

5. Choirs and multi-part vocal groups are a great way to involve willing, gifted people in our music and to make traditional stuff sound really good.  I’d rather have a choir singing traditional stuff than individual vocalists because it gives a “congregation-like” lead to the congregation – a gathering of singers leading a bigger gathering in singing.  I also think choirs particularly suit traditional hymns because they are usually arranged with 4 parts in the first place.

6. Before I sign off, making you think that it’s been all sunshine and light, I need to say that I actually have had negative comments.  It hurts me a little to mention this, but there’s no point hiding it… The few negative comments I have received?  They’ve come from the musicians.  These folk are part of my team and I love them to bits and am so appreciative of the ways in which they serve.  I also understand that musicians hold music more dearly than the rest of us.  If they didn’t, then I don’t think we’d get as much out of them as we do… they put so much effort in because they have a deep driving motivation to contribute to music being as good as possible.  So what do I make of this?  Well, I’m not actually unhappy about it at all.  I think I need to hear whatever it is they have to say.  I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t necessarily think that the service configuration we now have is perfect.  So I need to face the fact that any change brings strain, and as music minister, I need to bear some of that strain.  If there are people we’re disenfranchising, then I need to be challenged about that.  If there are problems or complaints about the way we’re doing things, I need to engage with them, and see if there are improvements we can make or things that need to be said so that we can all move forward together.  And don’t get me wrong, we’ve also had lots of very positive comments from the musicians too!

Well, it’s been a long process, but I’m glad we are going through it.  Our changes are not settled down yet, so there may well be more observations as the months unfold!  I’d love to hear your thoughts, particularly if your church has been through a big transition like this too…

 

Diary of a musical transition: Part 3 – why ask people to change?

Posted on by
1

I don’t like doing things that make people hurt.  I’m often more likely to back down than go through with things that I know are unpopular.  I hate seeing people in distress, especially when it’s my decisions that have brought this about.

I must admit, I didn’t realise that the prospect of musical change would cause pain.  I think that pain has been partly caused by the implementation of something new that people say they don’t like.  But really, I think the main cause of pain has been the fear of losing something precious.  I think the precious thing is actually not just the music, but the experience of church.  This place in which people have been meeting together in Christ’s name for many decades for some of these people… it’s kind of tied up with organ music for some reason.

I really think our memories and fond recollections are crucial to consider in any changes that we implement to how we do church.  Although these memories are not the gospel themselves, they have often been part of the means by which people have heard the gospel.  Let’s face it, they’ve been joyfully and persistently singing the great old hymns, which are full of the wonderful truths God has revealed to us about Christ and what he has done to give us hope in this life.

Of course singing involves the integration of a whole load of different musical elements to create a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts – so it is very difficult to change melodies, speed or instrumentation without giving the impression that they whole thing just isn’t the same.

So why ask people to change to contemporary music, when I know it’s likely to cause pain and a sense of loss?

  1. I don’t think it’s actually going to be as painful as people are fearing it will be.  The transitional weeks we’ve had with a band playing in the lead up to the service restructure has brought 95% positive comments.  It simply hasn’t been the wholesale stripping away that people have been worried about.  And the negative comments I have received have been mostly just saying “the jury’s still out”.
  2. I don’t plan to remove organ music altogether, since my goal is not to get rid of anything, just to rebalance.  So whilst I think there is a sense of loss that 2 out of the 4 songs will no longer be done on the organ, I think there is much to gain at the same time.
  3. Change is actually good.  It has shown us the things that we care about, and a number of people have made comments around the fact that being challenged in what they hold dearly has helpfully reminded them of what’s important.
  4. I think a blend of contemporary and traditional is actually more invitationally relevant.  We’re not talking hard core or death metal music.  We’re talking middle-of-the-road broadly accessible, contemporary songs that just happen to sound better with a band than an organ.  And let’s face it: in the wider community today, a contemporary band is a lot less alienating than a pipe organ.
  5. Doing things that aren’t our preference encourage us to love each other.  It is so important that everyone has a generous spirit in relation to music.  Music can be so divisive, but it should not be.  I want to love your music even if it’s not my preference, because I know how much it means to you.  But I’d love it if you can try to engage in my favourite music too, because you know how I connect with it.
  6. The Bible says absolutely nothing about style.  We won’t be having this conversation when the Lord returns.  We’ll be rather more preoccupied with the object of our singing than with the accompaniment.  Perhaps that should be our guide to singing this side of heaven too… let your singing be praise of Jesus.  Let your worship of him be both encouraging and uplifting to others, remembering that a focus on Christ is much more helpful to people than a focus on musical issues, no matter how important we think they might be.

 

Diary of a musical transition: Part 2 – the first week

Posted on by
Reply

We arrived an hour before the service was due to commence.  This in itself was a little unusual, because the various traditional ensembles we’ve had previously at our 10:30 service have not needed as much time to set up and run through songs.  Our normal pattern has been to have a 7 part strings group some Sundays, a 12 part choir on other Sundays, or other single instruments such as trumpet.  These groups have accompanied the organ in what has been mostly a traditional service.

But aside from the fact that we are transitioning to a blend of BOTH traditional and contemporary, meaning that we have to run through organ songs and band songs, the reality is that band songs usually take us longer to rehearse anyway.  Perhaps because the music isn’t fully written out for us and we have to arrange it on the fly; perhaps because every member of the band has an instrument that needs to be amplified differently, and this takes our sound team a while to set up.  Whatever the case, an hour was what we needed.

Our setup began, and I could sense trouble immediately.  One of the ushers setting up the church building was an elderly woman.  And she was nervous.  I could tell because she kept fidgeting and looking up at us.  And then looking around.

This is a service that has had a band before, but only ever occasionally.  And lately, people have been nervous about the impending changes, especially to musical style.

As the rehearsal progressed, the woman on ushering was getting more agitated.  The early-birds were starting to arrive, and she was greeting them with what looked like an introduction to what was likely to be a noisy and unsettling service ahead.

I needed to grab something from the back of the church, so I walked down to say hello to the usher woman.  But she spoke to me first.  “This is terribly loud, you know”, she said.  “It will be very painful for people,” was the gist of her message to me.  I assured her that we would be monitoring the volume, and that we’d make sure it’d be alright.  I then saw her speaking in firm terms with the sound operator, who happens to be the leader of our sound ministry.

Well, we sang 2 songs on the organ, and 2 songs with the band.  The songs were (in order):

  1. Name of all majesty (organ)
  2. In Christ alone (band)
  3. O the mercy of God (band)
  4. Oh Christ the same – to the tune of Danny Boy (organ)

And the music went really well.  We’d rehearsed them on the previous Thursday night, plus run through the songs during our setup period.  We had 4 experienced musicians playing in the band.  The drummer used ‘hot rods’ instead of drumsticks – they are a small bunch of bamboo rods strapped together to give a gentler sound.  We made sure they were songs that the congregation knew from being previously played on the organ.  We made sure they were songs that didn’t have lots of syncopation or unpredictability.

And the congregation?  Well they enjoyed it.  We had at least a dozen people come up to us afterwards and say how good they thought it was, and that it was a good preparation for the changes ahead on 21st October.  I’ve always believed that good quality music well suited to the group is more important than a particular style.

One of the realities of contemporary band music, is that it can get loud, especially with a decent PA system.  Getting the balance right should really be the subject of another post some time.  But we decided to measure the sound levels of all the songs – organ and band.  And the results were very interesting.

Song 1, on the organ, was the same volume as songs 2 and 3 on the band.  But song 4, on the organ, peaked at more than 10 decibels louder than anything else sung on the day.  Now 10 decibels is a very significant amount when you’re talking about the difference between 90 and 100.  Normally in our youth service, if we’re up around 100db, we’re trying to batten down the hatches.  It’s too loud for any sustained period of time.  But here at our 10:30 service, a song played on the organ, and it was just as loud.

Ok, so it was just a peak in the last verse, and perhaps various members of the congregation were trying to show just how much they love the traditional style!  But clearly volume is something that varies regardless of whether it’s old or new, organ or band.  By using hot rods on the drums, we were able to control (or even minimise) the volume of the drums, which are so important for keeping us in time and creating energy in the music, but are so often the instrument that older folk dislike the most.

But what about the elderly woman on ushering… what happened?  Well, the service was finished, I was on the platform chatting to our sound operator, and I saw her approaching.  I guess I braced myself.  Her words?  “It wasn’t too bad, actually”, which I took to be a compliment.  She reminded us that the drums wouldn’t want to go any louder, but as it was it was ok.  A big relief for us who had been praying for this.  I believe our sovereign Lord wants us united.

So why are we imposing contemporary music upon the congregations who have always sung hymns?  Next post.

Diary of a musical transition: Part 1 – the background

Posted on by
Reply

So yesterday was the first Sunday of our transitional period.  Here at Holy Trinity Adelaide, we’re currently undergoing major changes to our AM gatherings.  And one of the areas that attracted the most comment and opinion was… music.  Our big date for change is October 21st 2012.  But I don’t want to wait until then to turn people’s church music worlds upside down…

We’re going to start straight away!  Not because of a mean streak on my part.  And this isn’t spontaneous either… there’s been lots of planning.  But we have a bunch of changes that will all happen simultaneously on the 21st of October, including the service venue, the number of gatherings, the time of gatherings, the number of people in gatherings, the regularity of communion, the people we’ll be sitting next to on a Sunday, the amount of available car parking… there’s going to be a lot of adjusting to do.

So I want people to do their adjusting to music changes now, in September.  The main reason I want to do this is that I actually think the changes will be for the better for the group of 600 people that we have in our morning gatherings, and I want them to see music positively, not let it be a part of a big build-up of anxious waiting, thinking that the extent of changes is too much to handle, and that the music might just be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

It is really important for any church to care deeply about how it’s congregations sing.  Vibrant singing is a sign of the health, unity, and gospel-centredness of a church.  When people open their mouths and participate, they are saying “We are one”, and they are also saying, “Christ is glorious!”  If people are more interested in whether it’s a drumkit or a pipe organ driving the music, they have completely missed the point.  I do wonder what our approach will be to the music in heaven!?  Will we be complaining about the genre?  Giving stern looks to organists, drummers and sound operators?

So, yes, I’ve mentioned what I think have been the 3 most contentious issues: drums, organ and sound.

In the lead-up to this transition, some older folk have expressed a genuine dislike of the drum kit, saying that it simply cannot be used for worship.  Apart from this being a misunderstanding of both worship and music, it is an example of where individual preferences creep into our approach to church music, often trumping the more important element of serving and bearing with one another in love.

In the lead-up to this transition, some younger folk have expressed disdain for the pipe organ, thinking it stodgy, uninspiring, and capable of producing nothing more than dreary tunes and tones.  Again, people’s preferences, perhaps mixed with some bad experiences, are driving their approach to the gathering together of God’s people in response to the extraordinary gospel.

In the lead up to this transition, it has also been evident that the sound operators have a big job ahead of them.  After all, they need to take responsibility for the volume levels, even though the organist or drummer tend to dictate the baseline volume with which they must work.  That is, if you have a loud drummer, the sound person will basically be forced to mix everything else to balance with that, giving an overall loud sound.  The same can be true of the organ and any accompanying vocals, but usually the organ is built to fit the church building, and so perhaps there is less issue here.  But spare a thought for the sound people who often cop people’s passionate calls for peace and quiet!

So, what did we do yesterday, on the first Sunday of the transition?  Look out for part 2… I’ll outline the way in which we blended traditional and contemporary, and just what people thought.  Needless to say, there were some surprises…

Mark

Contemporary v Traditional: 8 reasons it’s hard to choose

Posted on by
1

Having just returned from 2 refreshing weeks of holiday, I found a message from a friend asking me about the pros and cons of traditional versus contemporary music in church.  I couldn’t resist putting a few ideas down, and thought I’d share them with you.

I’ll be upfront: I write contemporary music, I listen to mostly contemporary music, my church does mostly contemporary music (although we have a couple of congregations that do traditional, or a blend of traditional and contemporary).  But here’s the funny thing for me:  As I think back to my favourite musical moments in church, there are as many traditional moments as contemporary… perhaps even slightly more.

What about you?  I don’t think there should be a war between history and the present day.  I think the challenge for us is to connect.  But think carefully about that.  We need to be connected to our history, otherwise we have nothing.  We also need to be connected to our congregations today, as well as to those who might join our congregations tomorrow.

Call be boring, but I’m not going to come down on one side or the other.  Here are my conciliatory, complementary, and perhaps not particularly concise 8 points:

  1. There is good contemporary music and good traditional music for us to sing, but there’s also bad contemporary music and bad traditional music – I don’t think the issue is how old the music is.
  2. One of the benefits of traditional music is that you remind the listeners that we are connected historically. One of the benefits of contemporary music is that you are using sounds that connect with contemporary ears, so there’s an evangelistic benefit.
  3. One of the difficulties of doing traditional stuff is that it can sound irrelevant and archaic because it’s from a bygone era. I have a few thoughts about making it sound more relevant (see link). One of the difficulties of doing contemporary is that it can feed a desire to be fashionable, which is irrelevant to being followers of Christ.
  4. Different churches have different repertoires, with a different ratio of traditional to contemporary, which is their choice – this choice is probably something that should be discussed from time to time with a range of people from the ministers through to the parishioners.
  5. You can’t please everyone ever, and you can’t please anyone all the time. In fact, singing a style of music that we don’t like but we know that others in our congregation do like is good, because it requires love, and that’s a good thing for the church. It’s something we should all be willing to do.
  6. There’s a difference between the origin of the song and the style in which it is performed: eg contemporary songs are sometimes played on the organ or with a small classical ensemble; traditional songs can be performed by a contemporary band. We need to take account of the musical preferences and also the musical gifting of the congregation. If the musos would pull it off better in a manner in which they are skilled, it may work better to let them do this.
  7. Although the musical elements are important, lyrics are more important, because the cost of getting them wrong is greater than the cost of getting the music wrong.  Though I still think the cost of getting the music wrong is high, in particular, a massive lost opportunity to connect with people.
  8. Hymn lyrics are often more poetic and colourful (though not always); But contemporary lyrics are often more concise and simple (and not always!). People need a balance in this, because clear communication and rich expression are both essential to maintain. Try to find songs that do both.

 

What do you think?  Are there other things we can say?  Is anyone willing to say that one is better than the other?

 

 

 

 


The long arms of music

Posted on by

More and more I’m discovering that music reaches into places that nothing else can.  It is interesting that God gave us eyelids to shut out sight, but nothing equivalent to shut out sound.  Having said that, viewers of the recent royal wedding may remember junior bridesmaid Grace Van Cutsem’s efforts to block out the noise of a boisterous crowd.  Sound in general, but music in particular has a way of sneaking in and having its way with us.

Of course, so do words.  Words can cut me or soothe me, make me wise or lead me astray, bore me, tire me, or inform me, either of the loftiest complexity or of the most mundane necessity.  Words carry meaning: we process and respond.

But music’s assault on my mind and my heart is unique.  It is disarming.  It seems to connect directly with my emotions.  It’s almost as if I don’t get the same opportunity to process cognitively as I would with words.  And when I do try to process the music, sometimes its power can slip away.

Some music makes me crunch up my face with distaste; some makes me feel like moving around and dancing; some music makes me want to sing; some music even brings me to tears.

Music is used by advertisers and film-makers because it seems to help their respective causes.  Nothing like a painful jingle… we might not like hearing it repeatedly, but we’ll never be able to forget it, and neither will we be able to forget its association with a particular product.

Film music is often not so memorable.  But I’m not sure it’s meant to be.  When the film-maker wants us to feel the emotions of a particular story or event more deeply, it seems that there are some fairly tried and true methods of using music to do so.

Funnily enough, we don’t always agree on “what is music”.  I remember older relatives criticising music of the youth for having no melody; or for being too unpleasant to listen to; how could it be in the same category as their own favourites?

To some extent music gives us a soundtrack for our lives, not just our movies.  We remember events by songs we were listening to; we remember songs by the people we associate them with.  Often the words aren’t even remotely important.  Although sometimes they are made many times more important by the tunes to which we sang them.

I read not long ago a quote from Yip Harburg, the lyricist of the song “Over the rainbow”: Words make you think a thought; music makes you feel a feeling; a song makes you feel a thought.

It’s a slight exaggeration.  I’ve certainly had words spoken to me that make me feel a feeling.  But Harburg does point us to the fact that song is so important in human life.  When words and music are joined together, we are in for a wild ride.

So for the church, this a treasure given straight from the hand of God.  We have words of eternal life, and a language that speaks directly to our hearts.  How could we possibly go wrong?  Surely this means that our churches are full of meaningful, passionate response to the gospel!

Well, yes they are.  In every congregation in which I’ve ever led singing, there have been people who have been demonstrably affected by the singing of the gospel of Jesus.  People of all walks of life are impacted by our songs: regulars and visitors, professionals and blue collars, men and women, old and young.  I am always heartened to see people who may not fit easily in a social sense singing their hearts out: people with disabilities, people who struggle socially, people who have suffered severely or carry great burdens.

And yet, sometimes things do go wrong with our music.  Sometimes we fear its effects on our hearts and tone it down; sometimes we take advantage of its ability to affect people’s hearts and wind it up.  Sometimes we are just too caught up in ourselves for the songs about the gospel to affect us and it doesn’t matter how good the singing is: our hearts and minds are elsewhere.

I love it when our pastors and congregational leaders lead us without fear, without manipulation, and without self-absorption.  Just as God reaches out to us with the long arms of the gospel of Jesus, so he also uses the long arms of music to reach into our souls.

 

Cool ~ Relevant … what’s the difference?

Posted on by

What’s the difference between cool and relevant?  Honestly, I’m not asking because I’m worried about my image or my fashion.  Gave up that fight ages ago…

I’m asking because so many people in Christian churches, and especially the music scene, seem to be doing their best to be cool.  Is this helping us connect with the world in which we live?

For years, a couple of Christian friends have been telling me that one of the things we should be doing is showing the world that we can be cool too.  Oh dear… even the idea of that sounds lame.  I mean surely you either are cool or you’re not.  I’m not entirely sure what cool is, but whatever it is, it seems to be something that you’ve either got or you don’t.  Perhaps it’s some level of confidence or an ability to be yourself in a way that makes people want to be like you.

What do you think cool is?

One thing’s for sure, there seems to be a contradiction in terms when we say, “I can be cool too”.  The point is, the cool ones are the ones everyone else wants to be like.

So what is it to be relevant then?  And is it any better than being cool?  Lots of churches are trying to be relevant to the communities in which they operate, and I’m often seeing genuinely good attempts to understand out context and connect ourselves with it.

For example, the city workers’ ministry that my colleague Craig Broman works with hosts events that regularly have as many non-Christians as Christians, partly because of the fact that something about these events has connected with the people being invited.

I wouldn’t say the events are uncool, but they’re certainly not trying to be cool.  And yet the proof is in the pudding: they’re getting people along…

I wonder if relevance is something we should be aiming for in our outreach to our community and in our music, more than coolness?  Perhaps it’s ok for us to be doing contemporary music, because it’s one of the languages of our generation…  Perhaps the thing about relevance is that it something we do for the purpose of communication and connection?

On the other hand, my gut tells me that ‘coolness’ (I hate the term, actually) is something that is all about trying to impress.  On this reckoning, trying to be cool might actually harm our efforts to be proclaiming Jesus to the world, because the very essence of Jesus’ ministry was not about trying to impress people, rather it was trying to love them and reach out to them.

He actually never said, “I am the Messiah, isn’t that cool” or even anything remotely like that.  He definitely sought to communicate his identity, which he did by asking pointed questions and by performing miraculous signs.  And he definitely did want people to follow him and to be like him… but it certainly wasn’t about trying to be popular.

No sooner had his disciple Peter acknowledged to him that Jesus was indeed the longed-for Messiah, Jesus told him about the way of the cross, the way of sacrifice: of laying down your life for others.  Those who want to be like him are to be like him in this.  Those who want to proclaim Jesus will have no hope if they are trying to impress.  I can’t see how trying to be hip will ever win anyone for Christ.  It’s almost pointing people in exactly the opposite direction…

Do you remember the song “Jesus was way cool” by King Missile?  I think it missed the point.

So I’m wondering if relevance is about connecting and communicating with people, whereas coolness is about impressing them.  No wonder I feel so weird about the whole idea of coolness in the first place.

What do you think?

Should we re-arrange old hymns?

Posted on by

At Men’s Katoomba Convention over the past three weeks, I’ve been overseeing the singing, and the most controversial aspect of what we did was… the old hymns. It’s actually not a surprise in one sense, although in the past I have often felt that I’ve struck a good approach to singing them. So it was interesting to be faced with a number of quite heated discussions about this in the wash-up.

My view is that if traditional hymns are to be sung traditionally, then they need traditional orchestration and instrumentation. You need an organ or a choir or a range of orchestral instruments, or some combination of the above. This is because they usually have a harmonic structure that lends themselves to these kinds of sounds.

In particular, there are usually 4 parts written out: the melody itself, the bass line, plus an alto and tenor line which harmonises with both of the other lines. This means that an alto in a choir is able to sing quite an interesting line of music with melodic movement, which is sympathetic with the lines that the basses, tenors and sopranos are singing. The same is true for a viola line or a trumpet part – the parts working together CREATE the harmonic movement, and therefore considerable musical interest. The chords flow out of the parts; they do not dictate the parts.

In contrast, in contemporary music (thinking especially of the rock/pop idiom that so much contemporary congregational worship music represents), it’s all about the chords, not the parts. The chords dictate any parts that the members of the band may play.

So therefore I believe that playing traditional songs with a band cannot be done properly without either making a mess or making some changes!

Here’s what I mean. Many of our contemporary song books such as The Source or Songs of Fellowship retain the traditional choral parts of the old hymns, but place chord symbols above the stave at the points where the harmonies imply a changed chord. This is indeed helpful in the situation where a church band consists of perhaps a guitar player (who needs the chords) and a classically trained pianist (who needs all the parts). Other instruments can easily be added, such as bass, which would also follow the guitar chords, or singers, strings players, horn players etc, who would be able to play one of the written parts.

Theoretically, this is fantastic. It can allow our church music to be inclusive of a wide range of musicians, regardless of the type of instrument they play. Traditional instruments can be blended together with contemporary instruments.

The problem is that, musically-speaking, it’s a recipe for a great big mess. Rather than parts being clearly heard and implying chordal changes, they are competing with the instruments (like guitars and synths) that pound out the chords. Worse, if a bass player cannot read the musical notes and simply plays the chords, there will be a monumental clash with any other instrument playing the bass line, such as an organ/piano, cello, or trombone. There is no subtlety left, unless something is done to reduce the competition between the different types of instruments.

Styles have developed throughout the history of music, and have often happened because of happy accidents. However, this is an unhappy accident! In an effort to maintain the use of hymns in an era where organs and choirs have given way to bands, we’ve come up with not a new style, but a rejection of stylistic distinctives, and therefore a problem for our listeners: it just doesn’t sound that good.

Perhaps you may say that you’ve heard bands just playing the traditional chords with the other instruments stripped away? I certainly have. The problem with this is that rather than the sweet lyrical interaction of harmonising melody lines, you’ve got the “clunk, clunk, clunk” of continually changing chords. The hymns weren’t meant to be played like that. The effect is that old hymns are made to sound more pompous than they need to sound.

I think we have a choice of two ways to approach the old hymns. Either do them with traditional arrangements and therefore also traditional instrumentation, or change the harmonic structure to fit the contemporary band. In my music ministry, I do both. 2 of our weekly services have a traditional feel to them. I have maintained the pipe organ as the main accompanying instrument, but added a range of other instruments to the rosters. We have a strings group that has 8 players and plays once per month. We also have a small once-a-month choir. I am working at pulling together some brass to make an additional group. The congregations love this kind of variety, and it really allows the old hymns to flourish in the way in which they were intended.

However at our other 3 services each week, there is a contemporary feel. We still want to do the old hymns because they are often very singable, connect us with our spiritual ancestors, and so passionately and richly express the wonders of our life in Christ together. So we do them with contemporary arrangements. For the lovers of the old harmonisations (a group which includes myself), this can be quite confronting, because it sounds a bit different. But if the arrangements are done well – in particular if the chord progression chosen properly SERVES the melody it is written to – it can revitalise an old melody.

I think the best thing about coming up with good new arrangements of hymns is that it allows a very wide range of age groups to sing the same songs. That is no small benefit.

Many churches have been torn apart over music, and it is undoubtedly the work of Satan, causing us to be more pre-occupied with the little stuff than the big stuff. Nevertheless, not every discussion about these things should be labelled the work of the Devil! Music raises many closely held opinions and feelings, and we must all listen to each other. Just because I have made these decisions for my own music ministries doesn’t mean that I’ll never change my mind or my approach. I must be humble, but also act with conviction.

At Men’s Convention we did 5 old hymns to my own new arrangements. Some of them worked better than others. The most striking thing was that we had some people asking us for the arrangements, and we had other people saying that the treatment of the old hymns was disappointing (putting it nicely!). Here I have tried to express some of the reasons why our music group took the approach we did. One thing that I do take great comfort from, however, is that on average these older songs produced a much higher volume level from the crowd than much of the more contemporary stuff! We need to keep balancing our music programs with old and new material to ensure we’re connecting with our various generations. But we really should be looking at ways of making these old hymns continue to have relevance in our churches today.

For your interest, the hymns we rearranged and played at MKC 2010 were:

  1. It is well with my soul
  2. Amazing Grace (using Chris Tomlin’s recent re-arrangement)
  3. Be thou my vision
  4. Holy holy holy
  5. Guide me O thou great Jehovah
  6. Stand up, stand up for Jesus

A New Biblical Focus at Hillsong?

Posted on by

I haven’t even finished listening to this new Hillsong DVD yet, and I just have to start writing about how good it is. Something seems quite different from previous offerings. It’s almost as if there’s been a kind of … maturing.

Hillsong Church has been doing amazing things in the world of Christian praise and worship music for decades. Who am I to talk about the maturing of a church who has put as much effort as they have into the ministry of music, connecting with so many people in our generation who have remained untouched by mainstream churches?

But the fact remains: I have to say that the most recent album Faith + Hope + Love from Hillsong shows signs of a bright new focus. It’s as if (as we’d expect from any professing Christians) they’ve taken on board critiques, and asked themselves, “What actually do we stand for, and what are we prepared to let go of?”

I have at times joined the chorus of complaint. Rarely have my complaints focussed on musical issues. Every Hillsong DVD has taught me something new to help me in my own music ministry, and I have often picked one or two songs from each of their albums for us to do in our church in Adelaide.

Nor have I ever been able to point the finger at anyone but myself and our own traditions when it comes to the enthusiasm of their congregations and the praise leaders on the Hillsong stage. Sure, there are significant differences in our church backgrounds, but we all know that God calls us all to love him with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength.

For me, the biggest area of frustration with Hillsong albums thus far has been the emphasis of many of their songs not so much on God himself, but on the worshipper.

This is a somewhat subjective judgement in an area where balance for any church is hard to maintain. It’s not just as simple as removing the word “I” from your songs. The Psalms regularly use that little word, and there’s no point us trying to outdo them in correctness.

However, from the Psalms we learn that God is the centre of everything. Every personal statement, reflection or intention in the psalms is a response to the character and works of the almighty, merciful God. This response in the Psalms is always generously supported by lashings of awe-filling descriptions of God and reminders of his promises.

The overwhelming sense I had listening through the songs on Faith + Hope + Love is that they sound so much like the Bible. The songs are full of praise of God. The word “you” is sung over and over with passion, sincerity, and truthfulness. A wide range of biblical ideas and themes is there for our encouragement, including the overall theme of faith, hope and love from 1 Cor 13.

Lyrically, my favourite song on the album is “His glory appears”, by Marty Sampson and Darlene Zschech. It shows a balance of simplicity and life-giving theology.

You gave me hope, you made me whole at the cross
You took my place, you showed me grace at the cross
Where you died for me.
And his glory appears, like the light from the sun
Age to age he shines, look to the skies, hear the angels’ cry
Singing holy is the Lord.

In general, the singing of the congregation seems to be a higher priority on this DVD than previously. A number of the arrangements are stripped back to make the unamplified voices the priority, the mix generally picks up the congregation, and often the song leaders actually step away from the microphones to hear the sound of the crowd. This is a good thing! It is after all meant to be led praise, rather than watched praise.

And this, of course, raises the question of the extremely high production and performance values, and whether these things are a distraction. However, I really think they’ve done well to engage 10,000 people. The reality is that interaction for a crowd of that size is a different ballgame from your average 200 or so in a church building. At the Sydney Entertainment Centre, I’d imagine that involving the crowd just would not be possible without some degree of animated performance from the front. In the end, the true motivations of any of us ministering in front of a crowd are known best by our heavenly Father.

Perhaps there are various critiques we could make of this album. I’m sure the production team themselves would have a list of things they’d do differently next time. However I feel that this is a time to acknowledge some really good things.

I do wonder whether at times we find ourselves looking on with jealousy at Hillsong’s successes and writing our own mental lists of the things they’re not doing right, perhaps even to help us to feel better about our own more modest successes. But a more godly approach is for us to pray for them. And I believe some of my own prayers of the last couple of years are being answered.

Will you join with me in continuing to pray for our brothers and sisters at Hillsong and in other high profile churches? May God prosper their ministry and our fellowship together in the gospel!

Should songleaders close their eyes?

Posted on by

I think that in song leading, there are 2 things going on. First, the leader is indeed worshipping God individually, and I think needs to be sincere and to sing from the heart. People in the congregation take their lead from this, and join in. When we all do that together, our worship takes on one aspect of its corporate dimension.

In that sense, I am not too fussed about eyes closed, hands clapping or in the air. I’m much more interested in the person displaying an overall appearance that is convincing! (eg smiles in songs of joy, reflective looks in reflective songs etc). A parallel example might be leading the congregation in prayer, where your own physical approach to prayer will help people in their prayer. Some do it with eyes open, others with eyes closed.

The second thing that’s going on for songleaders though is a communication with the congregation. Not only are we expecting them to copy us, but we’re also deliberately trying to get a message across to people. Music is a ministry of proclaiming the word, in a similar but not identical way to preaching, or bible reading. I reckon that in this aspect of the role we benefit from eyes open, since it’s hard to communicate to someone in front of you when your eyes are closed. I do sometimes find it difficult when I’m in a congregation to engage with the song leaders if they’re closing their eyes to me.

To make the point another way, another important aspect of our corporate worship is the actual focus on our togetherness. In our awareness and engaging with each other, we build one another up in the truths of the gospel. When we do this, God is worshipped, a point that the New Testament makes very clear (eg the sheep and the goats story in Matt 25, where in serving Jesus’ brothers, you are serving Jesus himself).

My own practice is that my eyes will be open and shut at different times when I sing, depending on the situation. If I’m doing an item, especially one that is personal and individual, often I’ll sing with my eyes shut, but never for the whole song, because I still feel that there’s a communication element to it. Most congregational songs I’ll have my eyes open for the majority of it, but at times when I’m particularly aware of God’s interest in me personally, my eyes will shut for parts of it.

At my own church, I don’t tend to make rules about what people can and can’t do. This seems to me to be unnecessary and can I think smother the ministry of music! We try to think about what we’re actually doing when we lead singing, and leave it to individual songleaders to make up their minds.