Hymns are Hard to Write
By Sir Richard Terry, Mus. Doc.
"HOW can one explain to the average person the difference between a good and a bad tune?"
To a cultured person the issue is so simple that an answer is hardly required; he knows. But to the average man (timid about his own critical faculty) the answer is not so easy, since it all depends on the angle from which you approach the subject; e. g., its melody, its harmony, its rhythm, its balance of phrase, or (most debatable of all) its aesthetic or devotional appeal.
Five Essentials
Firstly then: If the melody is strongly and clearly defined, free from triviality, banality or trite cliches; if it is readily picked up by a congregation without a note of its harmony being played, it is (other things being equal) a good tune. If on the contrary its melody is weak and sentimental, if it is reminiscent of the "drawing-room song" (as too many 19th century hymn tunes are), if its intervals are awkward (necessitating the use of an instrument to make them intelligible), if a congregation finds difficulty in "picking up" the melody from merely hearing it sung (unaccompanied) by a single voice then it is a bad, or at best, an unsuitable tune.
Secondly: If the vocal harmonies or the organ accompaniments are bold, straight-forward and diatonic, it is good. If they are meretricious, "sugary" or sensuous, it is bad.
Thirdly: If its rhythms are broad and dignified and free from that form of vulgarity known as "patter", it is good. If they are jerky, "jumpy", square-cut or vague or rambling, it is bad.
Fourthly: If its phrases are ill-balanced, it is not a good tune. This point is not so easy to demonstrate in print; it is quite easy if one has a pianoforte with which to illustrate it. With a pianoforte one can demonstrate to the most indifferently-musical audience how phrases can be well or how balanced by (a) contrast (b) repetition or (c) rhyme. These three cases may be illustrated respectively (from the "good" point of view) by hymns 206, 4, and 258 in The Westminster Hymnal. A case of ill-balanced phrasing (from the melodic point of view) is that of Dykes' popular tune to the equally popular hymn "The King of Love my Shepherd is." The first and third lines of the melody are very similar but not sufficiently alike to suggest repetition (for the sake of emphasis) or sufficiently unlike to suggest contrast (for the sake of variety); the second and fourth lines are identical save that an additional note is added to line four which just upsets the balance. And so, this tune which opens so beautifully in its first two lines, grows weaker in the third and peters out lamely in the fourth.
Fifthly: In the matter of aesthetic or devotional appeal -- two points so subtle in essence, so real in effect; so unsusceptible to definition, so compelling to the sense -- nothing short of a bulky treatise could do justice to the subject. So much depends on a variety of circumstances and occasions. A tune eminently suitable to one set of circumstances may be quite out of place in another. To take one example: Sullivan wrote a rousing tune (I am aware that highbrows call it "vulgar") to "Onward Christian Soldiers." It fulfills the idea of soldiers on the march and from that point of view it is inspiring. But by singing that tune to another hymn of exactly the same metre (e.g., Caswall's "Come ye little children" or -- worse still -- Faber's "Mary dearest Mother" ) the result is grotesque in the first instance and outrageous in the second. And yet it is precisely the same tune. Which only goes to show that tunes intrinsically good in one case may prove shockingly bad in others.
The truth is that, in judging hymn tunes we seem to get "no forrader" for lack of a common denominator to our varying standards.
A hymn tune is such a simple form of musical composition that most people seem to think it must necessarily be an easy one. The reverse is the case. That is why hymn tune composition has such a fascination for the amateur and the dillettante. It is they -- with their half-baked musicianship and their unerring instinct for the second-rate -- who are the greatest obstacle to any progress in the vernacular hymnology. It is they who are the most dogmatic in the way they lay down the law to the musician and the multitude alike. It is they who cling obstinately to a type of tune (with its weak melodies and saccharine harmonies) which was the (mid-Victorian) invention of a non-Catholic religious body and which is now repudiated even by them.
Thoughtful Catholics may reasonably ask why they should be held under the yoke of that deplorable passing fashion when the non-Catholic denomination which gave it birth has shaken that yoke from off its own neck.
These well-meaning and misguided dilettanti would do well to make an historical study of hymnology. They would then find (possibly to their surprise) that it is not sufficient to put a few notes together with pleasing and "correct" harmonies and call the result a hymn tune. A vernacular hymn tune is (I repeat) not an easy thing to write; it is a specially hard one.
A Surprising Feature
Mere musicianship is not necessarily a qualification. That is the "surprise" which I promise the dilettanti who do make a serious study of the subject.
Bach is regarded as the hymn-tune writer par excellence. But how many of our dilettanti are aware that (with a few exceptions) he merely added his glorious harmonies to melodies written by lesser men? Only one of Handel's hymn tunes has survived the test of time. Mozart wrote only two hymn tunes and even they have never had a real vogue. Haydn is known by only one tune, and it is now doubted if the melody was really his. Beethoven had no flair for this form of composition. Mendelssohn's hymns are like those of Bach -- fine harmonisations of other people's melodies.
No, my good and dogmatic dilettanti, the great composers have shown us that the flair for hymn-tune composition is a special one and by no means the possession of even the greatest musician.
What, then, are we going to do about it? Ah, there's the rub! But being an incorrigible optimist I am convinced that we shall soon see daylight if we honestly look for it, and -- having found it -- keep our eyes turned always to the light.
Our present difficulty is the lack of any standard, criterion, touchstone (or whatever you like to call it). At present we have (a) the non-musical person who says he knows nothing of the subject, (b) the dilettante who says he does, and (c) the musician who says that hymn-tune composition is not necessarily a concomitant of musicianship.
Until we get some sort of fusion between these three types of mind, little can result; but I am hopeful still.
If I had the wit of a Bernard Shaw or a Chesterton, I might say something to the effect that when it comes to assessing the values of hymn-tunes there are two classes specially unqualified for the task -- the musical and the unmusical.
Think this over. It is not such a paradox as it looks.
The Caecilia, Vol. 66, No. 11 (December, 1939), pp. 451, 453.
The Universe (1933)
5 Comments:
And how does Sir Richard Terry know that Mozart or Handel even wanted to write a tune in the style of which he speaks? I have no doubt that the Western Magistri he quotes could easily write original hymn tunes in any style.
JVN
I don't have the history books that would back this up, but I would think that most every great hymn tune was originally written to accompany a particular text. N'est-ce pas?
And how does Sir Richard Terry know that Mozart or Handel even wanted to write a tune in the style of which he speaks?
This is a good point, but I think that it may be understood that Terry was not so much interested in a psychological history as we would be today; i.e., despite his ipsissima verba, I do not think that the question of will was important to him. I think that his point still stands that among all of the works of genius are not found many good hymn tunes.
Let me indulge myself in an anecdote to link the logical chain. Organ music for church is much less constrained by tradition and legislation than is vocal music, not only because of the most important and obvious question of liturgical texts, but also because much "literature" is played before and after Mass; any solo during Holy Mass properly has the quality if not the absolute esse of an improvisation.
This fact coupled with my curiosity and naivete led me to buy a volume of Beethoven for the organ sight unseen. What a disappointment; it was merely a regurgitation of "holy-ish" themes from various works and cantatas. Was the music good music? Certainly. (Were the adaptations at all organistic? I have my doubts!) Was it particularly appropriate for church? I believe that other Catholics would agree with me in saying: not particularly.
I also think that at the time that this was written, Terry had an unspoken concern about secular compositions as well as a Victorian style of music. Before St Pius' motu propio, quite a lot of operatic music (e.g., Wagner) was popular in church. How times have changed! Or have they?
I would think that most every great hymn tune was originally written to accompany a particular text.
One might think so -- because the text should always come first and in fact adapting a liturgical text to an existing tune is considered an abuse -- but I certainly would not say that the best text for a melody was cause for its composition.
Let us take a couple of examples from Terry.
I believe that his reference to Handel concerned MACCABEUS, to which "Thine be the glory, risen conquering Son" was set long afterwards.
Similarly, Hayden's AUSTRIA found its sacred text many years later in "Glorious things of thee are spoken" although because of an adaptation to the original text this melody is sung in fewer English-speaking churches the closer one is to Germany. ABBOTS LEIGH (daringly but successfully written in 3/4 time) was in fact composed in England to replace it during the second World War. Since we Americans appreciate both tunes, I think that ABBOTS LEIGH is still looking for its definitive text here in the States.
Now if someone would find a Catholic text besides that dreadful Magnificat for NEW BRITAIN, ...
adapting a liturgical text to an existing tune is considered an abuse
I'd be interested in seeing a citation for this.
I'd be interested in seeing a citation
The liturgical text has to be primary, or there is not much reason to publish it. I was merely thinking of the logical consequences of the traditional phrase "ancilla liturgiae," but why not provide specific references? Here are some which either state this rule or conform to it:
Tra le Sollecitudini
Pope St. Pius X, November 22, 1903
8. As the texts that may be rendered in music, and the order in which they are to be rendered, are determined for every liturgical function, it is not lawful to confuse this order or to change the prescribed texts for others selected at will, or to omit them either entirely or even in part, unless when the rubrics allow that some versicles of the text be supplied with the organ, while these versicles are simply recited in the choir. However, it is permissible, according to the custom of the Roman Church, to [add music in certain places].
9. The liturgical text must be sung as it is in the books, without alteration or inversion of the words, without undue repetition, without breaking syllables, and always in a manner intelligible to the faithful who listen.
De musica sacra et sacra liturgia
Sacred Congregation for Rites, September 3, 1958
21. Everything which the liturgical books prescribe to be sung, either by the priest and his ministers, or by the choir or congregation, forms an integral part of the sacred liturgy. Therefore:
a) It is strictly forbidden to change in any way the sung text, to alter or omit words, or to introduce inappropriate repetitions. This applies also to compositions of sacred polyphony, and modern sacred music: each word should be clearly, and distinctly audible.
b) It is explicitly forbidden to omit either the whole or a part of any liturgical text unless the rubrics provide for such a change.
c) But if for some reason a choir cannot sing one or another liturgical text according to the music printed in the liturgical books, the only permissible substitution is this: that it be sung either recto tono, i.e., on a straight tone, or set to one of the psalm tones. Organ accompaniment may be used. Typical reasons for permitting such a change are an insufficient number of singers, or their lack of musical training, or even, at times, the length of a particular rite or chant.
Musicam Sacram
Sacred Congregation of Rites, March 5, 1967
55. It will be for the competent territorial authority to decide whether certain vernacular texts set to music which have been handed down from former times, can in fact be used, even though they may not conform in all details with the legitimately approved versions of the liturgical texts.
121. [Addressing composers]
The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from liturgical sources.
[This last refers to extra-liturgical texts; e.g., motets or new congregational hymns sung alongside Mass. Still, the importance of primary texts is emphasized.]
_________________________________
One of the challenges of our day is that we commonly have a vernacular liturgy but we do not have an official gradual in English apart from bits and pieces of "service music" from ICEL and one complete book that could only be considered official for the general Rite by default: the Anglican Use Gradual, whose title is a reference to the Anglican adaptation of the psalm tones and the choice of the Coverdale translation, not to the selection of texts, which are precisely the same as those of the Graduale Romanum; yr humb servt can absolutely guarantee that after several hours of proofing! The Graduale Romanum has also been Englished according to the NRSV, but it has not been officially adopted for use in any diocese and many of the same people who are interested in propers are precisely those who will not touch that translation.
<