In front of me are two hymnbooks of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One is the 1927 edition. It is 8″ x 5.5″. Its dark green bookcloth cover is embossed with the words Latter-day Saint Hymns and decorative scroll work of a harp and floral pattern. The front cover features a severe geometric border at its edges; the back cover has a small, round embossing of a harp at its center. It was published by the Deseret Book Company, copyrighted by Heber J. Grant, and printed by the Press of Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company. It is the hymnbook my parents grew up with.
The other hymnal will be familiar to anyone reading this newsletter. The 1985 book which includes 341 hymns, ending with God Save the King, sells for $16.95 for the coil-bound version I use at home. It has a blue-green cover with the word Hymns printed boldly in gold over an embossed relief of the Tabernacle organ pipes.
But enough of comparisons.
What will the hymnal of 2043 be like?
Entries (RSS)
January 29th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
What’s your opinion on this?
January 29th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
You are right on the money with this! One only has to look at a hymnbook from another faith to see how they have adapted their hymns to know what you speak is true. I have a Methodist and Presbyterian Hymnal in my posession. They contain many melodies from South America, China and Africa. They did not replace the old standards, but enhanced the worship through music by adding melodies that reflected the diversity of their membership. As the church continues to grow into a World church, I hope it will adapt and do the same. I just pray that leadership will embrace change rather than fear it. That is how we will survive.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Your thoughts are very good, Glen. And philosophically, I agree whole-heartedly.
But having typeset all the printed music for the Church in nearly 200 languages for the past 19 years (with emphasis on typesetting and publishing hymnbooks in all languages) the reality falls a little short of your (and my) vision.
The structure for publishing hymbooks as as follows:
1. Emerging, new languages get a collection of 35 hymns and 10 children’s songs, a predetermined set of titles with a predetermined layout.
2. When a language area is large enough to have a stake, they qualify for (among other publications) a full hymnbook of 200 hymns. Our English version has 341 hymns, but the international version is 200. (Imagine the surprise to some languages who used to have over 400 hymns in their hymnbooks have been reduced to 200.)
3. There are about 100 “standard hymns” which are included in every full hymnbook. There are about 50 additional “recommended hymns” of which nearly all are included. The last 50 or so hymns can be indigenous hymns from the language area, but with the stipulation of approval from the area presidency. There are some marvelous indigenous hymns in the LDS Swedish, Dutch, and Finnish hymnbooks, as well as others. If there isn’t a strong hymn tradition in a language area, most of the remaining 50 are chosen from the English hymnbook. In actuality, the majority of the remaining 50 hymns are selected from the English hymnbook, not indigenous hymns from the language area.
It is very, very rare that new hymns composed by language area members are included in that area’s hymnbook. The General Music Committee cites that such hymns are usually “untried” and that hymns with a more enduring history, which are beloved by the people of the area are chosen in favor of new hymns by Church members. Additionally, in most cases such new hymns by Church members in outlying areas are novice works rather than skilled compositions.
While there has been criticism that the Church dictates to other cultures their taste in hymns, this really is not the case. For example, new members in such developing areas as Africa, Russia, etc., are extremely eager to sing what the American Saints are singing. Their new found testimonies are only concerned about being included with body of Saints as a whole. It takes time for an area to develop and mature and make its own contributions to hymnody, and in time, those pieces which are enduring do come to light.
In Africa, Tonic-solfa notation is used. In Tonga, for many, many years, a different notation based on numbers was used. The Church does recognize these differences and does accomodate publishing in these differing modes. However, it is also true that many cultures using alternate notation modes are also interested and moving toward standard European musical notation practice. Historically, this is reflected throughout most of Asia.
The philosophy of your comments is strong and good, and I completely agree. Having spent nearly 20 years publishing hymns for the Church, I see the philosophy and practice don’t always meet on common ground.
From my vantage poing, I see that hymnody in the Church will remain quite conservative and be based in what is called Common Practice Method. (Standard, traditional four-part writing that we are famiiar with such as “High on the Mountain Top,” etc.) Hymns which “stretch” harmonic ideas, tread in newer, or more musically experimental territory will not likely be included in any foreseeable hymnbook. Oddly enough, it is interesting to note that our past Church Music Chairman, Michael F. Moody (Hymns, #137) wrote very interesting and unusual hymn studies earlier in his life. I have also written some very “progressive” hymns based on jazz harmonies, tall tertian chords, etc., and know of many other composers who do the same.
Although it isn’t likely to see any of these kinds of hymns any time soon in an official Church publication, we, as composers/artists need to realize that we do not need to seek endorsement from the Church to pursue, create and contribute great art. I have noted that it is always AFTER a long history of significant and beloved contributions, that such works are included, in time, to official publications.
In the meantime, we are free to fill the minds, hearts and souls of the world with our vision of music for worship, and it will, indeed, find its place in the world as well as the Church.
So if and when it feels the Church may not be giving due consideration and recognition to great contributions of music, art, etc., we need to retain our own vision and keep creating and contributing regardless of an official position.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
In commenting on Glen’s proposition, I would agree with him. After reading the response by Daniel Carter, I also agree with him that his descritpion is what actually happens. AS a visual artist, the Church does not appreciate contemporary visual art verymuch, but I discern that it appreciates visual art better from many countries, as that is emphasized in the Ensign about Church Art Exhibitions. So I will propose that music will go the way of how the Church views visual art, and be more accepting of music from other cultures where we have many members as long as it is singable and has a good tune to go by. There are lots of folk tunes that are very singable from many cultures, and some word might be put to them as a start. However, I would hope that sophisticated musical compositions from many cultures will become more included as we grow. Actually, some of the hymn that we have now are not very singable, and there as some I personally dislike a whole lot. Some of those can go in my opinion. Then there can be room for others. I do like to see that there is a song and humn writing contest each year, and people from many countries and cultures should enter. They publish that in the Ensign each year, or in case I am out of date, they used to.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“Hymnals are a reflection of the church’s population.”
Perhaps the author meant to say that they /should/ be such a reflection, which would itself be a debatable proposition, but there is certainly little evidence to support this assertion as a common practice. I rather doubt that “reflecting the population” was among the priorities given to the committee which assembled our current hymn book; in an effort to lead rather than follow, I suspect their mandates centered more around gospel accuracy of text and inherent quality and approachability of music, always understanding that sentimental attachments would also be a factor in the final decisions made by general authorities.
I also find it interesting that in my visits to other churches these newly included tunes from other cultures are very little in evidence. Yes, they’re in the book (arguably to satisfy current ideas of inclusionary political correctness) but they’re not sung with much enthusiasm or frequency by the congregations involved.
Similar principles seem to be at work in most of the wards and stakes where I visit; many of the hymns newly introduced into our 1985 book are dutifully avoided. In a few exceptional situations where trained individuals have been called to serve in chorister and organist positions, things may be better. The norm, however, does not lean in this direction.
“Will Stravinsky, Copland, Britten and Messiaen appear? The pattern of our history says yes.”
Each and every one of the composers listed, now all dead, was among the “greatest modern composers” at the time the 1985 book was compiled and not one of them made it past the gatekeepers. Of course, this is an age of specialization and it could be argued that none of these composers wrote much that was either intended for, or could easily be adapted to, use as a hymn. Some modern composers who have done work in the area of sacred music did indeed have things included in the book. Sadly, they are often among the items mentioned above which are rarely sung.
But the real arguments against either ethnic materials or “modern” composers in our hymn book comes down to the same thing: if such music sounds culturally foreign to our congregations, it will simply not have the power to lead their thoughts into heartfelt meditation upon the Savior and His redeeming Gospel. Folks will be too busy marveling over its strangeness (or being actively offended by it) to reach a point where the music could effectively, for them, enhance the message of the text.
The extremely conservative (by some standards) choices made for our 1985 book were there for a reason and that reason will apply just as much in 2043 as it did in 1985. Even if inclusion were, in fact, an “anthem of progress” (an even more debatable proposition), the general authorities do not seem persuaded that the hymn book is the proper venue for such anthems.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:28 am
I love the thoughts you pose Glen and I find as I attend LDS congregations around the world that even when it is the same hymn sung it has a very different feel when sung in another language, or by a new congregation who bring other traditions with them to the music. That’s one of the wonderful things about the church is that you can find that comforting, welcoming tradition wherever you go but it still feels so different differing many times even which part of town you’re in.
This Sunday we sang a contemporary hymn that I’d never sung before from our hymnal (one of the neglected gems). I noticed that the text and music were from this century. I viewed the hymn in a different light than some of those hymns that are from another century. Not better, but different, and somehow refreshing to know that the composition of a great hymn is not something that was restricted to those that lived in the 1800s.
Daniel Carter’s compositions and performances are still a staple for my Sabbath day.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Interesting thoughts. My response is that the ambitious trajectory hoped for in the article is not likely to be realized. And in some ways, it probably shouldn’t be. Though we see the inclusion of newer works in the 1985 hymnal and some small amount of local inclusion in our non-english hymnals (I was interested to see ‘Il est né le divin enfant’ in the Christmas section of the French hymnal recently), the 1985 hymnal actually embodies a more conservative spirit than it’s predecessors. The ‘new’ collection abandoned the choral section of more ambitious pieces and transposed many hymns to render them more playable by pianists of imtermediate abilities.
The newer compositions included in the 1985 hymnal do not push the boundaries much from a compositional standpoint. Beautiful hymns such as Thomas Durham’s “With Humble Heart” utilize common practice period harmony and part writing. I’m fairly certain that new offerings from Mormon artists to be included in the next hymnal will fall within the same parameters- parameters which function at their core to keep the hymns accessible and reasonably unified in the global sense. As one who travels a fair amount, there is something beautiful about being able to join in singing familiar songs of worship in any part of the world.
We won’t be singing hymns with 12 tone theory or 20th century extended tonality anytime soon because those qualities (despite their merits) will not yield music that is singable and comforting to those outside of the musical discipline. We won’t have hymns from Messiaen for the same reason that we only have one chorale from Bach (his most universally recognized), they are too hard for congregations to sing. There is an interesting kind of natural selection that takes place with the hymns. It’s abundantly clear which ones best succeed at becoming ’standard’- and it’s not a lowest common denominator situation. I think many of our best hymns are also the best-loved. But “I’m a pilgrim, I’m a stranger” is not going to be a standard anytime soon. I will be happy to be introduced to the new hymns that will appear whenever the hymnal does undergo a revision, and I hope there will be some cross pollination with the traditions of our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world, but I’m not expecting to be rocked by a new sound.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I find the comments striking and insightful. Thanks to all.
I wanted to add a post script, and then I will be silent and more observing…
There have been many brief conversations about a possible “revision” of the 1985 hymnbook to “remove the dead wood” and include a “hymn or two” omitted but subsequently caused remorse in leaving them out. The most obvious, as cited by members and general authorities is “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing.” There is no real explanation for leaving this one out, other than it was perceived by the General Music Committee at the time that it wasn’t that widely used. (And the room fills with noise and wonderment…)
The reality is that a revision of the 1985 hymnbook is not in the foreseeable future. The most common reason cited is the staggering growth of the Church which commands attention. The result is that in any given English speaking area, there is roughly one half to two thirds of the hymnbook that is relatively unfamiliar to the Saints. With directives from the Brethren to sing the more “familiar” hymns, this situation is not likely to go away very soon.
However, in my experience, time will produce another hymnbook that will not necessarily be “all new” but rather based on our present one, with some improvements, based on the perceptions of the General Music Committee producing it. I doubt any future hymnbook will be able to only publish “hits” and avoid the “dead wood.”
This is not all bad news, obviously. While some wonderful new hymns might be overlooked, they will find their way in time. (”Our Savior’s Love” was originally published in the Ensign in the 1970’s.) And has been mentioned, not all our new hymns in the 1985 hymnbook are “ringers” either. But we did gain a few wonderful gems along the way, and will likely collect more as time goes on.
Incidentally, the Church, nor the Ensign magazine sponsor a Church Music Contest, but there is “A Call for Submissions.” The catagories are about the same as they were in the contest version, and rules can be obtained from the Church’s website. Submission deadline is March 31st of each year. The “Awards of Distinction, Merit,” etc., are given to recipients at a special dinner, after which these compositions are performed at the Assembly Hall on Temple Square. It is generally a memorable, lovely evening, and there are always some outstanding, memorable pieces. There are no plans to publish these, with the exception of one or more of them filling a need in Church magazine publications, special celebrations, conferences, etc. However, many of the exceptional compositions do find their way into commercial publications, and hence, in time, become more valuable and recognized by the Church.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:00 am
I have read Glen’s hopes and the realities as noted by Daniel and others and I tend to subscribe to a pessimistic view in relation to a culturally reflective hymnal.
In Australia the Protestant Churches jointly published a new hymnal a few years ago “Together in Song” (nice title I think). It does include hymn tunes and new hymns from a wide cross section of our world including Aboriginal melodies and those from pacific nations together with modern hymns from Australia and New Zealand. One of the New Zealand contributions I find very moving. It is a hymn about ecology and stewardship of the environment called “Touch the Earth Lightly”. Here the music is quite traditional but the message in contemporary.
Touch the earth lightly
use the earth gently
nourish the life of
the earth in our care
There have been LDS composers who have sought to renew the settings of the original Emma Smith hymnbook texts (Christian Asplund and Lyn Carson to name two of whom I am aware) and the results are certainly interesting and some of them beautiful and musical, but they tend to be more difficult to sing and are likely to remain items of interest for well trained choirs with adventurous conductors rather than be absorbed into the canon of LDS hymns.
When I began a project to gather and record a selection of new LDS hymns several years ago, I ended up with more than 160 hymns from some 25 composers to choose from. Ultimately 23 hymns were selected, recorded and edited and, hopefully, a CD will be available shortly. Through this interesting process I found that few LDS composers considered the writing of hymns as something that attracted much of their attention because of the primacy of the 1985 hymn book. Writing hymn arrangements were of value because they might stand a chance of being used, but totally new hymns didn’t seem to make much sense.
That said, I did receive many wonderful hymns. Some were more adventurous harmonically than others and the hymns by Christian Asplund I mentioned earlier tended to be extremely modern, but most were really very traditional with the result that the CD recorded has few hymns that one could describe as “groundbreaking” although I did include one of Christian’s hymns in the form of a chant which came out rather well.
I love hymns! New, old, traditional, modern. I despair at those local leaders who narrowly proscribe “hymns of the restoration” as the only hymns to be sung. By and large, in Australia, many of the new hymns have become well absorbed into our regular sacrament meetings and Dan Carter’s “As Now We Take The Sacrament” (hymns 169), for example, is regularly sung in our ward together with the wonderful “Each Life That Touches Ours for Good” (hymns 293) and “Where Can I Turn for Peace” (hymns 129) which have been sung in every ward I have lived in since the 1980s.
I thnk we need to do more the celebrate hymn singing. This could be a wonderful interfaith activity that could prove not too threatening to local LDS leaders. Every faith has great hymns that fill one with the spirit! There is a weekly television program from the UK called “Songs of Praise” that bears witness to the power of enthusiastically sung hymns! MOdern hymns such as “Shine, Jesus, Shine” have found a firm hold in the Anglican community in Britain and yet this particular hymn was only written in 1988.
As a faith, Latter-day Saints have so streamlined their worship as to omit any opportunities to introduce new hymns to unwilling congregations so one doesn’t have to wonder as to why ony a narrow selection of well-known hymns are sung in many LDS congregations.
I continually encourage LDS composers wherever I come across them to keep writing new hymns and I maintain a collection of these as I come across them. We sing them with our Ward Choir whenever I have a chance to include them.
Will the Church change in relation to its level of musical inclusiveness - I doubt it! Does that mean we have to stop writing new hymns and finding ways of getting them into the public eye - not on your life!
February 1st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I definitely agree and disagree. Just a few of my thoughts and observations.
I think tradition is important, and the church has a history, tradition and culture which needs to be preserved and celebrated. There is a profound strength in unity, sharing similar experiences, so having a church “culture,” including music, is laudable and strengthening to saints as a people. What power in standing as a diverse body in New York but singing a hymn sung at the first temple dedication, or by Joseph Smith - a shared tradition can unite us. Tradition and culture are not only in indivdual lives and geographies, but also occur within an organization.
But of course if the gospel is meant for everyone in the human race of all cultures and traditions, and if music worship is an essential, scripturally-based, and deeply personal component of our religious practice, then it needs to be relevant to all. The savior would not agree with those who somehow think western music is better, more spiritual, or in any way preferable - in fact the music that Christ sang at the last supper and in the temple was very different and did evolve only to western 4-part hymns.
The overly-simplistic answer is that our music tradition needs to incorporate the old and the new.
As a (at least formerly serious) musician, I actually did some reading and extensive personal thought on music and religion. I’ve played and love a lot of premiers and new music. I was horrified when I went to a fireside by a “prominent” Mormon singer years ago, who went so far as to imply that the universe was founded on principles of tonality, (reasoning was something along the lines that physics proves certain intervals occur in nature yada yada, so of course the logical conclusion is non-tonality and dissonance was of the devil - sorry China, India, Middle East, and Africa at least. Let’s see, which of us was cast as Satan?). I also love the oldest classics, from Gregorian to motets to Baroque. I am of western background and tradition and upbringing so 4-part speaks well to me. I also understand that it does not speak to others in the same way. I recall Murray Boren talking of saints in Africa singing praises to Joseph Smith while beating drums around a fire in a profoundly spiritual experience. Analogously, the gospel is to be declared to everyone “in their own tongue.” I have been in conferences and sacrament meetings that were conducted in Spanish and Chinese and ASL, and I was on the receiving end of translation with or without headsets. The experience was hollow compared to the tremendous spiritual experience of an English conference session conducted by the same General Authority (including the difference in the caliber of the music). So I sympathize with those that do not share the same language, and similarly with those that do not share the same cultural affinity for a western hymn tradition.
One logistical challenge presents when there is a meeting with saints of many cultures and languages combined. There are a limited number of hymns that are published in all of the languages represented in the New York NY stake for instance, so we often are forced to sing older, more traditional standbys. When we have visiting General Authorities for stake conference, and in General Conference, generally we are asked to choose hymns from the first 60 or so, sometimes called “hymns of the Restoration.” I think that is not a reflection that we are getting more narrow, but partially logistical, partly so we can share something common that unifies us in a “church culture.” I would like a more direct source, but in my experience those from non-western musical tradition who join the church do not altogether dislike or discard the western church hymns, but appreciate joining and sharing that new common tradition of the church.
I think it is inevitable that the hymnal will evolve, but that it will evolve slowly (Daniel Carter’s comments above). But there are many ways to incorporate music than to limit the discussion to the most structured, formal part of our worship - sacrament meeting and conferences. Other appropriate musical selections can be sung as special musical numbers in Relief Society, Priesthood, Sunday School, or even sacrament meetings and conferences with the bishop or stake president’s approval. There have been many concerts in New York Stake, including a gospel festival in Harlem (very different culturally), Gladys Knight, operas, broadway concerts, orchestras, Polynesian cultural center performers, Inwood concerts, musicals. The church sponsors cultural celebrations of not only music, but other cultural expressions and traditions, in each country before temple dedications (Africa, Brazil, Scandinavia, Asia), and regular Latin/Spanish cultural gatherings now. I think more of these can be promoted.
I have been delighted that the Tabernacle choir has been stretching their repertoire and their performances more toward the edgy again. It has a great tradition of recordings, but for a couple decades centered on the 1980s was seeming to become narrow in focus and limited in repertoire - sounded like a ward choir singing a traditional hymn. Lots of new arrangements, even soloists in General Conference (collective gasp) and instrumentals, and new repertoire have been incorporated again.
More can be done. But I don’t think anything is formally in place to stop us. There are church leaders who are narrow in their likes, and may convey that when they direct a meeting. But that is a personal taste, which we should respect. Another may feel differently and be more open. In trying to be inclusive, we should also not force anything. I was a bit offended when I heard the BYU choir in Carnegie Hall a few years ago sing African-American spirituals. They sang other pieces beautifully, but this felt artificial and condescending, and performed with no soul. It felt the same way as if an atheist were trying to explain my religious beliefs to me. There are also many hymns available to us that are more diverse and edgy, but are never sung - people don’t know them or like them. Now in each of these cases I believe it’s good to attempt to educate and understand one another even if we’re off the mark initially.
Individual situations are just that, each individual and different, and can be complicated. Whatever is done given our growing diversity, some will be pleased and some will be unhappy. So again, I believe we must press forward, trying to combine our common heritage and tradition with new definitions and inputs from other cultures to build upon that heritage. I think the actual versus the perceived limitations on music in the church allow for great breadth of expression, but perhaps we shoudl not look just to our hymnals as guide.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
“Touch the earth lightly”…step gently, one, two….is part of a lullaby I used to sing to my children, recorded by Carly Simon on an old record called “Lobster Quadrille.”
I am still waiting for more of Johan Sebastian Bach to show up in the hymbooks, let alone Stravinsky! My oldest son attends a Welsh church where they sing two verses in English, and then two verses in Welsh (as they appear in their hymnal). Another son is in the bishopric of a Japanese ward, and they do much the same thing, singing half of the hymn in English and half in Japanese. Their sacramental prayers are done this way, too.
I, for one, would love to see more diversity in LDS church music. I remember when one sister played a short Mozart piece in sacrament meeting, and was was told afterward to “stick to the hymns.”
March 28th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
PS I remember my brother, as a ward chorister in California, once did a Bach chorale at Easter, with just an ordinary ward choir. As far as I know no one told him to “stick to the hymns.”
May 30th, 2008 at 4:13 am
Is anyone familiar with the hymns published by GIA (Gregorian Institute of America) and OCP (Oregon Catholic Press)? There are some wonderful selections in their publications–hymns that are amazingly beautiful and compliant with LDS doctrine. I wish we could perhaps have a supplemental hymnal with selections from these resources (including music from diverse styles).