opinion re: church music...

[markd]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi AST...
Don't know of any scientific or Barna Research papers on it, but as a participant for about 25 years in the contemporary Christian music movement, it seems there has been a steady improvement in the quality of writing, lyrics, playing, recording and distribution systems for the music.

Of course wouldn't we expect that? Isn't maturity a good thing?

It's fun to watch the musical growth of artists like Chris Tomlin. By himself he wrote sincere songs with good theological content. On "Arriving" he is working with other folks who "get" music and the musical quality has taken a giant leap forward.

[trpullen]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi TR...
I think you are wrong. But I'm not intending to be mean about it.

If we can't change anything, then we can't change key or melody or harmony or arrangement.

Key etc are OK. Arrangement is OK to a certain point. Adding or changing copyrighted lyrics...is not.

By illegal, I mean copyright infringement. Take copyright infringement any way you like but it could land you in a civil court paying $$$$.

[trpullen]

Originally Posted by cotten

Take "You Lift Me Up" for instance. Great song! It's been beautifully recorded by people with high tenor voices. Ask a congregation that loves that song to try to sing it themselves, and it's impossible.

cotten

And (to quote the Princess Bride), you have fallen prey to one of the classic blunders. The first is to never get into a land war in Asia.....

Anyway, You Lift Me Up and in later posts, I read I Can Only Imagine, are not congregational songs and not because they are in the wrong key. The content and the feel of the song is not congregational material. It is special music at best. Certain songs are written to be sung by groups, some are not. Those are not.

[SNaP2it]

Originally Posted by trpullen

I read I Can Only Imagine, are not congregational songs and not because they are in the wrong key. The content and the feel of the song is not congregational material. It is special music at best. Certain songs are written to be sung by groups, some are not. Those are not.

I disagree. I used that song in worship many times. As far as key (E), unless you try to sing the last verse an octave up, it is reasonable for most of the congregation. I am a baritone/tenor and could sing it fine. As for content, the thought of leaving this earth which is not my home and being in the presence of the Lord is exciting, stirring, and touches my heart. "Surrounded by Your glory, what will my heart feel; will I dance for You Jesus, or in awe of You be still? Will I stand in Your presence, or to my knees will I fall; will I sing hallelujah, will I be able to speak at all?" Those are words directed from my heart straight to God. And you say that isn't a worship song? I don't know how you can say that. It makes my heart groan inside of me, makes my soul yearn, and causes me to cry almost every time I sing it.

[Joe F]

Preach on Brother!

That is correct. Although I mentioned earlier that trying to copy the Mercy Me version of I can only imagine would be near impossible due to their very high finish, I have been toying with a milder version I heard a local country artist do. It stays in the same key throughout. I am going to try it first as a band special and see how it goes and then based on that, see how it goes with adding the choir next time around, and finally, putting the words up on the screen during one of our evening services and seeing how the congregation handles it. They mastered Petra's "Take Me In" so I have high hopes for them.

[wthurman]

I am thoroughly enjoying reading this thread.

However, discussions about "what worship is or isn't" even in terms of music, is Loading Dock material. It's a fine line to skirt because of personal beliefs and the setting being discussed, and the subject demands a balance to keep it within the rules.

Please bear that in mind. I would rather not move this thread, personally.

Thanks!

[trpullen]

Originally Posted by SNaP2it

And you say that isn't a worship song? I don't know how you can say that. It makes my heart groan inside of me, makes my soul yearn, and causes me to cry almost every time I sing it.

I said it is not a congregational song. I think it is very worshipful just not intended for a group to sing.

[trpullen]

Originally Posted by Thumper

I am thoroughly enjoying reading this thread.

However, discussions about "what worship is or isn't" even in terms of music, is Loading Dock material. It's a fine line to skirt because of personal beliefs and the setting being discussed, and the subject demands a balance to keep it within the rules.

Please bear that in mind. I would rather not move this thread, personally.

Thanks!

I am talking about what is or is not suited for group singing in a strictly mechanical perspective.

[SNaP2it]

Originally Posted by trpullen

I said it is not a congregational song. I think it is very worshipful just not intended for a group to sing.

Fair enough. I misinterpreted when you said it was not congregational. We sang it as a congregational song, as worship, and it always seemed to stir people. Sorry. It's all gravy .

[wthurman]

Originally Posted by trpullen

I am talking about what is or is not suited for group singing in a strictly mechanical perspective.

No worries, Tom!

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by trpullen

...By illegal, I mean copyright infringement. Take copyright infringement any way you like but it could land you in a civil court paying $$$$.

Hi TRP...
Still waiting for you to show me that changing a word or line of lyrics is infringement.

<chomp chomp chomp...this crow sure is tasty>

See next post.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by trpullen

Key etc are OK. Arrangement is OK to a certain point. Adding or changing copyrighted lyrics...is not.

By illegal, I mean copyright infringement. Take copyright infringement any way you like but it could land you in a civil court paying $$$$.

Hi Thomas R. Pullen...
The original branch of this discussion was over poorly written songs and/or performed songs - where I suggested we could just change lyrics or leave out parts of a song.

I've been doing some investigating and you are correct, at least about lyric changes...sorry for the argument. It can be infringement of copyright to change lyrics...

Here's what I found so far...
It is infringement of copyright to change lyrics if the copyright is registered before any infringement occurs. It would require permission from the author of a registered copyrighted song to change the ''essential'' melody or the lyrics. Songwriters have not much of a leg to stand on if the work is not registered.

So we should ask before altering songs.
I have permission from quite a few song writers already to perform their songs and record them. I will make sure to extend the discussions a bit further in the future to include any alterations, because if I understand the law...to leave out verses or sections could be infringement. To change notes in the melody is wrong. To change the original intent of the song without permission is wrong.

If you change a song to ''an essentially different but similar song derived from [a copyrighted and registered] song... you need permission from the author (current copyright holder) of the song [brackets mine for context and clarity]. This is specifically in reference to melodies and lyrics.

Changing keys or arrangements is not listed in anything I've found so far.

So now some questions...
How much latitude do we have in performing music without stretching the copyright rules? If we like a song but don't like all the content, may we leave out sections and/or verses without ''permission'' (written or verbal according to law) from the copyright holder?

• If not...would that imply we could no longer sing only hymn verses 1, 3 & 5 if a hymn is copyrighted? Must we do all 7 printed verses?
• Can songs be grouped in medleys with an acknowledgement note (credit) at the end of the medley listing all licensing info, or do they have to be ''broken out'' individually?
• Is it legal to perform ''Amazing Grace'' to the tune of House of the Rising Son?'' in a small group sponsored by a church?
• Can Worship Bands (or any performer in a public service) legally perform secular tunes ''adapted'' for church?
• Can you play a CD through the system (or an iPod or cassette) before and after meetings?

Actually I find this all pretty interesting. I'm sure we've been operating in ignorance (which is offered no latitude under law). So how far do we go to make it ''right?''

[michaelw]

if it's to the note and letter in order to be "correct",
imho, i think it's missing the point (purpose actually)

grace like rain -
our worship team runs it at about quadruple speed
and when it ramps up, again probably double that,
adding additional choruses

if a word is missed or "wrong" - it happens
i think joe f mentioned it before
we're only there to guide and
then we get out of the way

revolutionary love at no one like You tempo -
we have no choice but to let it go

[ParleyDee]

Originally Posted by geardaddy

My personal opinion is that music ministers have no taste in music … these guys seem to be typically a little nerdy, and into vocal stuff, and don't really understand...

Coming in really late on this one … I personally wasn't offended by this, I just put it down to hasty wording, which Geardaddy has amended since. It's been an interesting thread.

Maybe I'm wandering off the track a bit … whatever the track is by now … and we don't use the style of church music I thought was in question … but I do think *some* music ministers have little taste *for* music, if you see the difference.

Out here in the 'burbs, there are frequently music team members who didn't come to ministry through a love of or grounding in music, in *addition* to a faith-based motivation. They are not music *appreciators* or music *lovers*. They don't voluntarily, actively, critically listen to good recordings and performances of organ/choral/guitar/band/insert-genre-here and don't spend time "soaking up" the style through their ears. Many's the organ player who quit piano lessons in childhood, was pressed into service by a minister who heard they used to play, and whose personal interest in music stops at "easy listening" background radio - the glories of the organ repertoire bore them rigid. There are teenagers given a donated beater and a chord chart because the youth group wants to field a music group on Sundays and the group leader's been told guitar's the easiest instrument to learn. Or choir members who joined up for the social aspect, and just want to sing along like they're still in the congregation, dependent on hearing their neighbour first and lagging rather than confidently leading.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing. It gives many churches the only music they've got, for which they are very grateful. Some press-gang victims gain confidence and derive a lot of satisfaction from a task they'd never have put themselves up for. Where a church has a critical mass of more "solid" musicians, many not-so-musical people make a big contribution when they swell the ranks and add their enthusiasm and are not loaded up beyond their capabilities.

But when the person on the organ bench/choir pew/guitar stool has no passion for or grounding in the very thing they're doing - which in my experience is not uncommon - I don’t see how they can be expected to develop a sense of appropriate style and that musical "good taste" called "musicianship", which is quite separate to technical ability. It's sensing when a fill or chord progression or rhythm is at odds with the character of the piece or adds clutter, when cathedral choir enunciation is appropriate and when it sounds embarrassingly stilted, when that piece with catchy syncopation you heard somewhere else in 4-part a cappella will sound laughable rendered by your "strictly classical" organist and cantor, how far you can simplify something you're struggling with before it lapses into bad taste, when you just can't make a piece work on your instrument with your current capabilities and you should leave it alone … I can understand how sometimes this doesn't grow in the absence of a deep personal love of music.

Vocal stuff on the other hand is something everyone can "do" to some extent. Most of us are born able to get some noise from our vocal chords. Not so guitar or keyboard. It's quite understandable that some music ministers would concentrate on vocal stuff. (Ever been in a band with a really good lead singer who has no clue at all about the issues the rest of the band have to sort out?) Depending on the resources available, I wouldn't necessarily hold it against them.

The nerdy bit, I can't comment on. (Aren't you pleased? )

One more thing before I quit pounding the keyboard … I personally have a problem with the "make a joyful noise unto the Lord" school of thought. I understand the sentiment when people say that because of the particular motivation for church music, the intent in our hearts is what matters and the music shouldn't be judged in secular performance terms. I've lost count of the times I've heard "but we're judging by human standards, not by Jesus' standards" when a poor musician or incomprehensible lector has been criticised. Yes, as a worship leader I have to have a right heart and spirit and all that, but I *also* have to facilitate the congregation's worship - that's my particular responsibility. If I have a voice like a corncrake and am in the congregation, then I should "make a joyful noise" and it's nobody's business to stop me. But if I get up in front of the mike sounding like that or play like I'm wearing mittens, I stop everyone else's prayer dead on the spot. I'm a menace, not a minister, no matter how right-spirited I am. Surely recognising whether or not you are sufficiently competent is part of being well-intentioned in a leadership role. (Says she who now knows she didn't always recognise this in herself!)

Church music is not concert music or entertainment music - we hear this often and probably all know of highly skilled musos who are a disaster in church. But sometimes we get too far away from the fact that it is still *music*, and that there are some basic skills common to all types of music without which it all disintegrates.

Which loops back to my first point above about church musicians who are there because of their faith but not *also* through a love of music itself.

(All done now. )

[ParleyDee]

Changing keys or arrangements is not listed in anything I've found so far.

If it's of interest, Larry, I can tell you that as far as arrangements are concerned, for the purposes of playing in your own church and paid service playing elsewhere, GIA will probably grant permission as long as you reproduce the full copyright notice and a notice saying "arranged by Joe Blot with permission" on the charts themselves and in any service bulletins used. They don't want to see the arrangement but want to discuss it further if you intend to publish, distribute or record the arrangement. OCP require you to submit the full arrangement for consideration by one of their editors before permission is granted to use it in public. Presumably they also require the same copyright notice. They're two pretty big outfits, so that's probably two typical reponses. What the law actually says I don't know but I know that's how these two publishers apply it.