Browsing through Youtube I came across this kind of singing of the Psalms.
Though this music and singing has a wonder and a beauty of its own, it was because the church choirs (only) sang thus, that Calvin contracted out the writing of singable tunes for Congregational singing.
Some of his criteria
- all tunes within one octave range
- only 1/2 and 1/4 notes.
- manageable intervals
- rhythm (Elizabeth one scorned them as the "Genevan Jigs". Apparently she preferred the other style!)
- one syllable -- one note (only broken once or twice in the Genevan Psalter)
This makes the Genevans eminently singable in congregational worship!
The first from Westminster Cathedral (Roman): the second from Westminster Abbey (Anglican)
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
And let me add a third one :-) Congregational singing in a Reformed church in Canada (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgnDrr2Sw2Y)
YouTube has stopped working for me. Is the first video Anglican chant? That's my guess from the picture, but I can't get the video to play. (Sigh.)
It seems to me that chant and metrical psalmody are two related but different things, both valuable. Maybe they're roughly equivalent to Scripture reading and sermon.
A metrical psalm, such as the ones in the Book of Praise, necessarily involves paraphrase. You simply cannot fit a word-for-word translation of a psalm into a metre consistently, without adding or subtracting from it -- let alone fit it in and make it rhyme. Psalm 23 in the Genevan is half again as long as it is in the Bible. =)
It seems to me that we need BOTH. It's good to sing metrical psalms. But we really ought to teach the congregation to chant the psalms vigorously (and watching an Anglican boys choir warble away may not be the best preparation to do so or the best model to have in mind).
Why chant? Well, you could sing a through-composed song, and some good ones exist, but they're very hard to learn. Chant is easy to learn and still gives you a word-for-word rendition of God's Word.
Why settle for less?
I was glancing at your blog again this evening, and noticed this entry once more.
After the example of Anglican chant, you wrote: "Though this music and singing has a wonder and a beauty of its own, it was because the church choirs (only) sang thus, that Calvin contracted out the writing of singable tunes for Congregational singing."
But Calvin wasn't reacting to this sort of chant at all. He was reacting to the sort of thing where a single syllable would be stretched over several notes, something more like (the worst) of Gregorian chant.
But this sort of chant -- Anglican chant -- is very straightforward, not much more advanced (though more beautiful) than simply reading the text.
Both forms are beautiful. There is no obstacle to good congregational chanting; they must only learn how to do it. The first (Roman) example could be improved by a pastor/choir/congregation antiphonal rendition, i.e. an alternation between the groups of the various couplets.
The second example is also beautiful, but would be greatly enhanced, in my opinion, by an antiphonal rendering of the Psalm verses and the singing of a "Gloria" at the end to give it a fully Christological and NT application. These two traditions can peacefully coexist.
Mark Veenman
Sorry, I couldn't get the second youtube to play. How foolish. Ok, the Anglican example was indeed antiphonal with the choir on vs. 3. Still, the two styles could be used in a church service to the edification of the people and to the praise of God....
Mark Veenman
Post a Comment