Herman G Stuempfle hymn texts
  • hcmusicguy
    Posts: 49
    I'm paging through Worship (IV) as it is one of the books we are considering switching to from Breaking Bread later this year. I notice there are seemingly dozens upon dozens of new hymn texts by this guy. Not having looked closely at all of them, the come across rather like the "story-telling" type of texts that one usually sees in the more contemporary songs (Toolan's "Two Fisherman" comes to mind)--and they seem pretty poorly written.

    I'm sure he's well respected in his field, but I'm really curious why GIA felt the need to include so many "new" texts by him (he's of a Lutheran background, BTW) while leaving out so many tried and true Catholic hymns (O Lord I Am Not Worthy, Lambilotte's Panis Angelicus, O Jesus We Adore Thee, On This Day O Beautiful Mother, a good translation of Adoro Te Devote being just a few examples).

    It's probably all in the spirit of "today's church". Good grief.

    Your thoughts?
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,594
    There was a huge move to distance Catholics from things that they had emotional attachment to - hymns, statues...
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,686
    I'm not familiar with him, but here's GIA's page devoted to Herman Stuempfle; to see the scores, you can go to the page for each hymn and "view preview".
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    I think the idea is to increase the number of what are called "hymns of the day," which reflect and often tie together the lectionary readings.

    And yeah, Noel, I'm sure GIA's business model really consists of deliberately eliminating things that people want. Yup, that's how those big corporate publishers always play it: cutting the popular in order to promote a weird niche product.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    I think the idea is to increase the number of what are called "hymns of the day," which reflect and often tie together the lectionary readings.


    This is best done with hymns that reflect the theological content of the lessons and/or draw on their imagery. This is not best done by writing a metrical paraphrase of the text.

    Just my opinion.
    Thanked by 2hcmusicguy CHGiffen
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,594
    Mark,

    And yeah, Noel, I'm sure GIA's business model really consists of deliberately eliminating things that people want. Yup, that's how those big corporate publishers always play it: cutting the popular in order to promote a weird niche product.


    Were you born before WORSHIP was published, before a need for Worship II was even conceived?

    It was not a conspiracy between publishers to eliminate those hymns, but people who advised them to get rid of them and have new, uplifting music with catchy tunes and rhythms.

    They were "cutting the popular in order to" satisfy the musicians who were running the new show.

    And that's also why chant is suddenly beginning to appear and be talked about by these same publishers.

    I'm dead certain that people told GIA that if they included these hymns they would not buy the books, just as JMO was told by people that they would not buy and recommend his VAT II hymnal if he published the hymns with verses spread across pages requiring page turns instead of all on one page, as has been the standard with US hymnals.

    The publisher gets to make the decision and lives with it.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,332
    Well, I will just say, that we just started using out St. Michael hymnals, and couldn't be happier. All the hymns are so singable right off the page. Texts are faithful and beautifully written.
    Thanked by 2Kathy Chrism
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "while leaving out so many tried and true Catholic hymns (O Lord I Am Not Worthy, Lambilotte's Panis Angelicus, O Jesus We Adore Thee, On This Day O Beautiful Mother, a good translation of Adoro Te Devote being just a few examples)."

    With the exception of Adoro Te, are these REALLY "tried and true"? (whatever that means)

    I'm reminded of the line from the New St. Basil Hymnal's preface: "some may notice an absence of good old hymns. That is because these hymns are neither good nor old."
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    You are correct Noel. That hymn layout was the deal breaker for me on the Vatican II hymnal. I can't live with it.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    Really? Having used it for several months, it's been no trouble at all for us, and as JMO suggested initially, is quite easier when singing new music, and no harder for old music.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    I tried it, but doing both organ playing and directing, I found I lost my place too easily in it. It is a non-standard format, and those of us used to the standard see no good reason to change. Some of the hymns are so old even the "old standards" seem new in comparison and my folks don't know them. I thought the selection of hymns was pretty limited, for a book that calls itself a hymnal. Granted, it does have plenty of other good things.

    We would have only bought about 500 copies, had we chosen this hymnal. So I am sure we didn't affect their business seriously by going for something else.
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    I'd rather back off this rather sensitive subject and get back to the topic at hand, which is who is the brains trust that put Worship IV together, and why did they decide, apparently quite consciously, on textual mediocrity?
    Thanked by 2Gavin CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    Who knows? Does anyone know what motivates the Big 3 publishers? Obviously, they want to sell their products, so they must have some research or marketing data behind their decisions.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    Why did they decide on textual mediocrity?


    Why not? They are GIA after all. What should we expect from the publisher that brings us THIS?

    #frustrated
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,594
    Ah yes, the revered
    "New St. Basil Hymnal's preface: "some may notice an absence of good old hymns. That is because these hymns are neither good nor old."
    attitude which quickly resulted in the less-revered:

    No St. Basil Hymnal

    With the exception of Adoro Te, are these REALLY "tried and true"?
    They were until a bunch of know-it-all youngsters who had no respect for card-carrying and sunday-attending Catholics got their hands on the editing pen.
    Thanked by 1Chrism
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    Nice! I didn't know that this forum supported hashtags.

    #JustFoundOut

    :D
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • As some on this forum know, I was one of the five members of the above-referenced “brains trust” who put Worship IV together. The preface to the hymnal gives more information about our backgrounds:
    The hymnal committee of five chosen for Worship-Fourth Edition boasts over two hundred combined years of experience as pastoral musicians in parish, cathedral, and seminary settings, with additional experience as pastors and teachers; diocesan liturgy and music directors; staff to the liturgy secretariat of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops; composers, writers, editors, and publishers; and members, presenters, and leaders in organizations such as the National Association of Pastoral Musicians and the Hymn Society in the United States and Canada.

    To say that we decided, “apparently quite consciously, on textual mediocrity” is an inaccurate statement. The preface continues:
    Perhaps the single most defining feature of Worship-Fourth Edition is the effort the committee put into choosing high-quality hymn texts. The result is a body of hymns that are theologically sound, poetically substantive, and attuned to the needs of the rites and liturgical calendar. Each text has undergone the scrutiny of a newly formed English Text Review Committee. Hymns having more than a century of use were compared to their original versions as well as to their versions in contemporary hymnals. Some previously omitted verses were added, some original wording was restored, and other edits were made according to the best judgment of the committee. Alterations made to copyrighted texts were done with permission.
    The entire preface to Worship IV can be found here:

    http://www.giamusic.com/sacred_music/hymnals_worshipIV_preface.cfm

    I notice that the following random notice occasionally appears in the midst of comments on this CMAA forum:
    Here's a routine reminder: When you post a comment, please consider whether your message is charitable and helpful before submitting.
    In my opinion, some of the comments on this forum about GIA and Worship IV are neither charitable nor helpful.
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood redsox1
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,686
    It's easy for that to happen when people talk in generalities.

    Does anyone know how many texts by Stuempfle really are in W4? If it's "dozens", that would be seem to be an imbalance; but I'm not going to assume that hcmusicguy meant that literally.
  • hcmusicguy
    Posts: 49
    No, of course not literally.

    I can understand GIA's desire to provide a "hymn of the day" but I agree with a previous poster that this should not be done with a metrical parapharase of the day's readings. Any church musician worth his pay knows how to relate his selections to the scriptures (and the liturgical celebration/season) without resorting to parahprasing them.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    Specifics might be helpful. What do you think, Fr. Chepponis? Mightn't it be fruitful to have a civil and cordial, yet frank and independent discussion, about particular hymn texts?

    As you can see above, we speak very frankly here, even about our own. It's not considered "uncharitable" to criticize a hymnal even when it is published by a long-standing member. We are talking about a public product, not private persons. We don't have a policy of all thinking alike here.

    The committee endorses its own work in fairly high terms: "theologically sound, poetically substantive, and attuned to the needs of the rites and liturgical calendar." Wouldn't it be interesting to see if the hymns can stand up to these standards, from an independent point of view?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    By the way, according to the index, Stuempfle is responsible for (literally) 44 hymns, which, if not dozens and dozens, is certainly dozens.
    Thanked by 2chonak Earl_Grey
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    Writers of both text and music often have the highest of good intentions. Whether or not those writings hold up over time is another matter. Back in the 60's (refer all inquiries to Mellow Charles, the 60's expert) I was given hymn accompaniments to use by the pastor. They were re-harmonizations of hymns by a fellow named David Kraehenbuehl. In his forward, he mentioned the need for fresh, new harmonies to go with traditional hymns as the church marched forward under the banner of new and improved liturgy. The harmonizations were awful, and they did more to stop the congregation from singing than anything else. I threw them out and went back to traditional harmonizations. I understand he was an illustrious composer, but that particular effort didn't turn out so well.
  • rogue63
    Posts: 410
    If the Church expressly permits, under her sometimes overly legal prescriptions, "...another suitable chant..." then nearly anything can drive through that massive hole. And it is, indeed, a lacuna in the liturgy. What we in the English-speaking Catholic world lack is a sustained, living tradition of songs and singing that has been active for many centuries. Instead, we have lurched from thing to another: Victorian sentimentality, ultramontane triumphalism, Glory and Praise, Worship II-III-IV, ad nauseam. Music that should be a part of our religious culture from ages past is simply not there. Certainly, we should be able to sing hymns and other chants in Latin and English, but the short of list of liturgical things every Catholic in the US could sing would be quite short indeed.

    Can we really get upset about the options offered to us by publishers? Take the example of the Ruthenians, with a long living tradition of a sung liturgy, everywhere, by all. English-speaking Catholic, more or less, regard a sung liturgy as a nice show and are unwilling to open their mouths to take part. Publishers are not to blame for long-standing historical and cultural problems. Besides, hymns are not really a part of Mass---they belong to the Office.

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    Hymns did belong to the Office, but I am afraid they are now "tradition" in the U.S. mass. I don't see them going away. Consequently, they should be the best hymns we can find, not the worst.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Gavin
  • rogue63
    Posts: 410
    Fair enough---hymns are a part of what we do, but I'm just sayin' that we can't complain too much about published hymnals since we really lack a long-standing living tradition of what to put in them.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    I agree. It almost seems that U.S. liturgy as practiced is known for what it has borrowed from others, not from what has been passed down over generations.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    Just to refine what has been said, we do in fact have a long-standing living tradition of what to put into hymnals. The office hymns are a living tradition. If we're going to substitute another apt song, why not draw from them--or take them as a model.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Earl_Grey
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    I understand what you are saying, Kathy. But I am willing to bet most Catholic musicians have never seen the office hymns. For whatever reason, the Office has never really caught on in the U.S. as a devotion. It is too bad, really.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    Also: hymns have been being sung at (Low) Mass for hundreds of years, all over Europe. With the possible exception of converted Native Americans who were taught Gregorian Chant translated by French Jesuits, the musical heritage of virtually all American Catholics includes hymn singing at Mass.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    But I am willing to bet most Catholic musicians have never seen the office hymns.


    Just the ones who grew up with an Anglican or Episcopalian Hymnal.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    Yep! As I have maintained for years, the Anglican liturgy should have been our model for English masses.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Gavin
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    Of the Father's love begotten
    Christ is made the sure foundation
    Creator of the stars of night
    Savior of the nations, come

    --All office hymns
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    Of the Father's love begotten
    Christ is made the sure foundation
    Creator of the stars of night
    Savior of the nations, come

    --All office hymns


    And all more likely to be sung at St. Serious Episcopal Church than at the local Catholic Community of St. Spirit-of-Vatican-Two
    Thanked by 3Kathy CHGiffen Spriggo
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    True dat.

    Do y'all have an Episcopal version of NPM? Or is it mostly AGO?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    Most Episcopal musicians I know of are members of AGO.
    There is some kind of Anglican Musicians something or other- but they don't seem very active.

    They (Episcopal Musicians) also (for the most part) don't seem to know squat about Liturgy.

    Hymns are often selected by priests (who have the same problem), based on the (often quite meaningless) recommendations of http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/

    Anthems seemed to be picked out based on the Choir director's musical ambitions.

    There are High church Anglo-Catholic parishes that do some version of the Propers (G Chant, English plainchant, Anglican Chant, Metrical Psalmody, etc), but most parishes that I have managed to come in contact with suffer from most of the same poor-programming problems as Roman Catholic parishes, with two exceptions:
    -the pointless drivel is 75 years older, and so (on first glance) seems more churchy
    -everyone is totally convinced that what they are doing is serious and traditional, and that the Roman Catholics are tacky-as-all-get out. Which tends to be like the pot call the kettle a cooking implement.

    The model for both mainstream American RC and average-parish Episcopalian liturgy was "low Mass with hymns." Which was always terrible.

    RC's, at least, had the benefit of Vatican 2 and the liturgical movement that followed, so (at least in theory, and in practice in some locales) the range of musical styles and appropriate-to-the-lessons texts developed, along with a (like it or not) sense that hymns and other "selected" music was part of the liturgy.

    The Episcopal Church had no such process, so the late-19th Century Low Mass - with all its disconnectedness and pointless hymn singing- prevailed in most places.

    (This is all just my ongoing interpretation based on what I see and experience. I don't know if there is much like a definitive history of this stuff...)
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    Yep! As I have maintained for years, the Anglican liturgy should have been our model for English masses.


    "Anglican Liturgy" is a very sketchy concept (see above).

    I'm sure you mean, "High Church Anglo-Catholic Liturgy, a la The English Missal."


    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    Oh yeah! High Church Anglican.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    Which, of course, was a deliberate attempt on the part of a certain group of Anglicans to re-construct the best version of Roman Catholic cathedral liturgy into their own context. They imported a (mostly unrealized) ideal, and then created a new ideal which has also gone mostly unrealized except in a few places.

    In my under-informed opinion: The biggest obstacle to the spread of High Church liturgy and the liturgical practices of Anglo-Catholicism wasn't the evangelical/puritan/reform movement(s) that was opposed to it, but rather the inertia of small-minded provincial parishes that don't have any particular desire to change anything about whatever i is they happen to be doing.

    I think there is a similar issue in American Catholicism. The renewal and reform movements of the 60s and 70s are not then "enemy" (so to speak) of the new liturgical movement- indeed, the very notion that regular people should care about this stuff and that change is possible and sometimes desirable- is a much-needed product of that time. No, the "enemy" (so to speak) is the small-minded provincialism of regular parish leadership. Whatever we're doing right now is fine. Everyone here already likes it. God doesn't care that much what we sing....
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,127
    Adam et al,

    1)The Association of Anglican Musicians (AAM) is a very active group and has a long and solid history.

    2)Many of my Anglican music friends choose the hymnody. To say the priests do it is VERY inaccurate. I teach a local Anglican priest singing and she would bewail your statement. I have many Episcopal priest friends who also do not choose hymns, though they like to know what the musician is doing.

    3) Please read the history of the Oxford movement (19th century)to get a better consciousness of the questions surrounding the Anglican world. Its really when you get the three Churches: the High Church, the Broad Church and the low Church. Sadly, I am afraid its where the RCs are headed in this country.

    4) There are many guides for choosing motet and anthem material. The yearly choirmaster's handbook is just one such guide. Also, the Royal School of Church Music publishes materials for these questions.

    And while I have some knowledge of the Anglicans, I am by no means exhaustive. But my Anglican friends would have some problems with the above statements.

  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    I have no doubt that my statements above are somewhat wildly inaccurate, depending on where you happen to be standing. TEC, like most large churches, is not monolithic. But what I described above IS what I have seen in a number of parishes.

    More specifically....


    1)The Association of Anglican Musicians (AAM) is a very active group and has a long and solid history.

    -I don't know anyone who is a member of this group. That doesn't mean they aren't active. It just means they aren't ubiquitous, the way NPM seems to be.

    2)Many of my Anglican music friends choose the hymnody. To say the priests do it is VERY inaccurate. I teach a local Anglican priest singing and she would bewail your statement. I have many Episcopal priest friends who also do not choose hymns, though they like to know what the musician is doing.

    -The canons of the Episcopal Church specifically state that the priest selects the music, and may seek out assistance by people skilled in music. Moreover, the "typical" word (that I have heard used) for a musician at an Episcopal church is "organist" (not Music Director or even Choir Director), suggesting that the job is to accompany hymns selected by other people. I've even experienced a few places where the priest thought it his job to announce the hymns.

    -Additionally, I can't tell you the number of times I have thought "what in the world does this hymn have to do with ANYTHING AT ALL?"


    3) Please read the history of the Oxford movement (19th century)to get a better consciousness of the questions surrounding the Anglican world. Its really when you get the three Churches: the High Church, the Broad Church and the low Church. Sadly, I am afraid its where the RCs are headed in this country.

    -I would love to know more about Oxford movement. If you can direct me to a book or two on the subject, I'd me most grateful.

    4) There are many guides for choosing motet and anthem material. The yearly choirmaster's handbook is just one such guide. Also, the Royal School of Church Music publishes materials for these questions.

    -Yes, I'm familiar with those publications. But again- I can't tell you the number of times I have been simply confused by seemingly random, performance-oriented anthem selections. Also, I attended an RSCM week-long at King's College. Great music. Terrible liturgy. It was clear that music for the sake of music was the driving force behind every selection.

    The fact that some parishes do a good job, and that organizations exist which promote a sensible approach to liturgy is no proof of what is typical- as CMAA's existence (or even NPM's existence) is no indication that the average Catholic parish is doing anything reasonable or sensible (even from a folk/contemporary paradigm).

    Which is kinda my whole point:
    The vast majority of liturgical experiences, in any tradition, are poorly conceived, poorly executed, and poorly attended. People like to do whatever it is they did last year, or what they incorrectly remember doing when they were kids, or whatever they happened to be doing 20 minutes before YOU CRAZY YOUNG PERSON got there. This has always been, and will continue to be, the way it is.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    Of course- my experience with Episcopal Liturgy is about as indicative of "the norm" as my experience with Roman Catholic liturgy. A drop in the the ocean...

    Someone really needs to do a vast study of such things. I don't think anyone REALLY knows what's going on.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,686
    Maybe hcmusicguy is barking up the wrong tree. Most of the Eucharistic and Marian titles he mentions aren't just absent from Worship IV; they weren't even in Worship II (1975). They were left out of the project 40 years ago.

    Of these:

    O Lord I Am Not Worthy
    Panis Angelicus
    O Jesus We Adore Thee
    On This Day O Beautiful Mother
    Adoro Te Devote

    Only Adoro te devote has been in the book, with a different English translation in every edition.

    So there isn't really reason to feel disappointed by the lack of these devotional favorites. We just need to set our expectations appropriately.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    In relation to the not-original-but-still-relevant gistof this conversation before the things that annoy me took over my keyboard...

    It seems to me that Anglo-Catholics managed to do the best job of anyone of bringing vernacular hymnody into a "High Mass" approach to liturgy, combining the Propers-and-Choral-Music paradigm with congregational singing in a way that is better than anything I've seen elsewhere.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,681
    A comma was dropped from "O This Day O Beautiful Mother}:

    On this day" IS in Worship II (no. 219), also in I & III. "O beautiful Mother" is another hymn, not in Worship II (or I or III).
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,686
    "On this day, the first of days" (#219 in Worship II) ≠ "On this day, O beautiful Mother".
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    On this day, the first of days is an office hymn (rather freely translated).
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,357
    This is more like it

    The first of all the days is here,
    the day God made the world appear,
    the day His rising made us free,
    and vanquished death in victory.

    Our sleepiness is put to flight,
    so let us speedily alight
    to watch and seek the night hours through
    as Prophets from of old would do.

    May God be list’ning as we stand,
    and forward stretch his strong right hand,
    that cleansed of stains, we may arise
    enthroned by Christ among the skies.

    So that the Lord in kindness may,
    in this most sacred time of day,
    the favors of the blessed bring
    to those who through the silence sing.

    All glory to the Father be
    and to His Son eternally,
    whom with the Spirit we adore
    forever and forevermore.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,681
    My mistake. I did not know the hymn "On this day, O beautiful Mother"
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "the "enemy" (so to speak) is the small-minded provincialism of regular parish leadership."

    Or, as I've often said, our opposing force is conservatism, not liberalism. The conservatism of resisting change, of wanting to do things the same way they've always been.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • hcmusicguy
    Posts: 49
    Maybe hcmusicguy is barking up the wrong tree. Most of the Eucharistic and Marian titles he mentions aren't just absent from Worship IV; they weren't even in Worship II (1975). They were left out of the project 40 years ago.

    Of these:

    O Lord I Am Not Worthy
    Panis Angelicus
    O Jesus We Adore Thee
    On This Day O Beautiful Mother
    Adoro Te Devote

    Only Adoro te devote has been in the book, with a different English translation in every edition.

    So there isn't really reason to feel disappointed by the lack of these devotional favorites. We just need to set our expectations appropriately.

    I'm not lamenting the absence of these hymns specifically. I have several copies of W2 and 3 in my hymnal library, and have used W3 extensively in a previous parish. So I knew not to expect them in W4 (although it doesn't hurt to wish, especially since some of them did appear in other more recent GIA books!). I'm using these examples to highlight and question the apparent "need" to include newly- (and, IMO, poorly-) written hymn texts by Stuempfle, Dufner, and others, not to mention the constant politicizing and dumming-down of existing texts (Faith of our Fathers, All Creatures, I Received, etc.) and the perpetuation of theologially questionable material (Sing a New Church), while neglecting well known and worthy entries in the repertoire--both chant and metered hymnody.

    I agree on Adoro Te..... The Latin is pretty consistent wherever it's found, but as far as English texts, well that's another story....PMB had one, W3 had another, Collegeville has 2, Gather has 2 (one Eucharist and one funeral text; both metered, I might add). OCP uses a few still different ones in Breaking Bread/Muzak Issue). W4 yet another.
    Can't we just pick one and go with it???
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    Adoro Te..... English texts... pick one and go with it?


    For all my problems with the 1982, I am of the opinion that its translation of Adoro Te Devote is one of the best around.