Re: [Worship] Re-Arranging Musical Liturature

[Dean Thomas <deanthom@mindspring.com>]

**************************************************
       Looking for praise and worship music products?
                      Visit our list sponsor at:
                  http://www.worshipmusic.com
     **************************************************

Melanie King wrote in response to Earl:

> I was taught in my classical training...that the composers expected 
> their written music to be
> merely a jumping off point...to say that a hymn needs to be maintained 
> in its original form - just exactly what is that? How do you know what 
> the composer intended the instruments to do? Do we even know that the 
> harmonizations in the traditional hymnal were written by the composer 
> of the tune?

Well, said fellow KC-ite.

In my own studies in Music History, a few notable notables stand out.

Handel in writing about some of his works very much expected that 
instruments other than those specified would be used. He was not so vain 
or naive as to expect that music, musicians and instruments would not 
evolve. He was watching the beginnings, along with JS Bach, of the 
demise of the harpsichord and other plucked keyed instruments in favor 
of what would become the piano. More powerful instruments were already 
coming forth.

Beethoven wrote piano music to fit the instrument that was in place at 
the time. A student of piano evolution can tell you when the piece was 
written because of the date on the piano that had those extreme keys.

Bach wrote using his own themes regularly. Teleman, too. They created 
motifs that are still being used. Bach wrote some pretty naked stuff 
because he had some pretty naked orchestras. Then he rewrote them when 
the instrumentation filled out.

Mozart, if I remember correctly was one who was adamant that the pieces 
be played EXACTLY as written. He heard them in his head a certain way 
and that was the way God intended them to be communicated. One of the 
few times the boy used God's name in a positive sense, if I remember the 
biography.

Most of the solo instrumental stuff written from early baroque through 
the romantic era expected that the soloist would expound on the music to 
show off his/her virtuosity or at least his/her passionate side. 
Cadenzas, ornamentation, fills and frills were the norm. Most baroque 
stuff was repeated section by section so that the first time through you 
heard a pretty unadorned rendition, but the second time, you might 
recognize only the chords. Eat your heart out Charlie Parker, you were 
not the first to totally obliterate a melody!

HOWEVER, I do believe that there is a middle ground. Change is not a bad 
thing, so long as it does good things. To take a hymn and change the 
harmonies sufficiently that those who might normally sing "parts" 
completely out of the game might ruin the experience for them. To 
distort the melody so that folks can't find it to sing along is not 
merely changing it. To replace the melody with another that also 
complements the words is something that can bring new life to an old 
lyric. To take a hymn or chorus whose melody never did fit the words and 
underscore the words with music appropriate to the lyric is a WONDERFUL 
thing, IMHO.
-- 
Blessings!

Dean Thomas
ZionFire
http://www.ZionFire.com
deanthom@mindspring.com