The drastic lowering of keys in hymnals over the last 50 years has dramatically reduced the singing in church, rather than increased it, as just a pitch or two lower can lodge them into an area of breaks in the voice.

If there were a physical reason that caused vocal production to drop its center, then the lower keys would make sense, like doorways needing to be taller because people got taller.

The people who made the decisions to drop the keys were not educated in vocal production. And the result of their work proves it.

Lowering all the ones in Eb to D and even C made them "easier to play". But not as carrying in a room.

I'm reminded of an organist who transposed each verse of God Of Our Fathers, normally in F, up a half step. People complained that they could not sing the final verses because they were too high. "There is NO WAY we can sing that hymn in G and Ab!"

"But I started in D."

We need to look at those hymn in their original keys and think about this.

Given that bell curves of voice distribution for women peak markedly in the mezzo range, and those for men peak heavily in the baritone range - IIRC, the reference materials indicated something like a 10/30/10/10/30/10 split SSATBB - meaning that true SATB voices are a distinct minority in distribution - what do you think are the right ranges for congregations with untrained voices?

Randolph

Although you use that Gloria in the late morning.... It might not work as well earlier in the morning. My understanding is that we definitely get complaints earlier in the morning if the opening hymn is pitched too much to the head voice in terms of tessitura, especially in the colder months. Ted offered different keys fora few tunes for this reason, as I understand it.

that hymnal has many part-writing errors

I remember friend Don Roy taking me to task for the part-writing in the earlier discussion!

noel
i really should apologize but truth is, that was fun!

Marajoy, you may have the solution. Transpose them down a fourth and an octave for the baritones, then on the next vers, take it up an octave plus a half step for the altos, then down a....

Now, having reread your post, I am not sure if you think that hymns should be transposed down since melodies are written for sopranos...

It's not that easy.

A composer, and there are much better ones than myself on this list, when writing a hymn has to compose as if she is driving a semi-truck with mirrors. The melody of a hymn is the easy part, the other parts, they are what the mirrors are for. While you are writing a melody, you are concerned that it falls in the range of singers. And the alto and tenor and bass as well.

If you write a tenor part up to E you are ok. If you write a D as a high note, that's ok. If you only take the tenors to a C, then you have problems...tenors will not like their part, you will have problems with voice leading, as you have limited yourself to a very small tonal area to write in. Take them down to e...ok, but down to d or c....tenors will be less than happy. And if you fully take advantage of your basses, writing down to a G....then lowering the soprano part a whole step drops them down to F....

A soprano melody and also part together determine exactly what notes can be written for the tenor and bass, as Hindemith wrote. It's a science, so the moment a really, really good composer writes a hymn for a key, messing with the key of it can destroy everything about it.

Dropping a hymn in pitch is not a solution. They work in certain keys. Each key, even if you are singing wiht an organ in equal temperament, still has its own character. More people than we think have relative pitch and are bothered when the music does not 'sound' right to them.

Pythagorus and others believed that each planet sounds a pitch and these pitches are all audible to us and sound a chord. We do not hear it because it has always been there, since our birth. The harmony of the spheres.

Hymns in their original keys have their own tone colors.

So you advocate dropping all hymns to be comfortable for the congregation?

Yes, drop all hymns if they go above a certain point. (but, obviously, we will have the same problem on the lower end if the melody encompasses more than an octave...)

however, I believe that our primary disagreement lies around what exactly that "comfortable point" for a congregation is. I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on that, especially since I don't think this is something that can be "fixed" or "changed" with one Mass a week on Sunday mornings!
I listen to my choir, myself, the congregation, and especially the men in the congregation who drop things an octave when they get too high, and I think a high "d" is "uncomfortably high." You are free to disagree, but even as a semi-professional singer, I will not want to be singing in your congregation on a Sunday morning, and if I had any reluctance to being at Mass, then that extra effort to reach those high notes might just be what persuades me to stop singing!

marajoy (by the way, I like your blog) it's a hard decision to adjust keys.

I've always felt it did not make a difference what keys they were in, but more and more have been confronted by people who really should not have a clue that the keys have been tampered with, but have been.

Rather than drop keys for early Masses, I propose singing hymns more appropriate for that hour. But in so many churches every Mass has to have the same music at all Masses, so this can be difficult to do.

Regarding lowering the keys of hymns because the melody ranges are too high, try this little test:

When approached by someone who levels this complaint, sit them down and pick any (any) hymn pitched in the key of E major (as many of them used to be), with the highest pitch being top-space E on the treble staff, and have the complainant (who likely can't read music, but knows that high E's a damn high note to sing) sing through a verse. They'll likely complain about how they have to strain to sing that high and how uncomfortable it is.

Then, without giving them the number in the book for "I Am the Bread of Life", start playing the refrain and have them sing it. They'll scream their brains out on the refrain, and won't care that the tessitura of that song has a nearly two-octave range, going down as low as A below middle C at the beginning of the verse and all the way up to the very same "E" they complained about in the hymn. After they've sung a verse and refrain from memory ('cuz it's one of those pesky songs they can sing without words and music for the first verse), have them take up the song book and turn to the music for it. Imagine their chagrin when they realize that it goes just as high as the hymn they complained about.

As a convert, first from the Presbyterian church where the congregation would sing in four-part harmony because the hymnals provided it, then from the Episcopal church with its vast music treasury, I only first encountered the phenomenon of "melody-only" hymnals, "text-only" song books and missalettes, and organ accompaniment books that provided "lower key" versions of hymns when I started playing for Catholic parishes. Even if the accompaniment books didn't provide a "lower key" version, often the one version that was provided was already in a lowered key for hymns that I was familiar with in my Protestant days. This is why most of the free accompaniment arrangements (T. Tertius Noble, etc.) can't be used with Catholic versions of standard hymns - the keys don't match, or the melody has been altered.

Usually the complaints about hymns have nothing to do with them being in keys that are too high. The above experiment proves it. Usually the folks who complain about the hymns being too high simply don't like hymn singing, and will come up with whatever useful red herring to excuse their lack of knowledge, appreciation or understanding of hymnody.

"The earlier the Mass... the Less there should be congregational singing."

Um, no. That's not a principle embraced by the Church in its vision for liturgical music in the OF.

Ok, so even if David Andrew's test is true...so what? If lowering an actual hymn makes it more likely that people will sing it, and that they will complain less, then WHY NOT lower it?!

But this is foolishness:


Um, no. That's not a principle embraced by the Church in its vision for liturgical music in the OF.

There WAS NO vision. The Church made the decision to drop all restrictions about music and sung texts and walk away, hoping it appears, to get rid of choirs, that even back in 1936 were said to be difficult, and let "the people do" what they wanted to do.

At first it was cool, 1906's free love and free music...and then publishers decided to take control and create a machine to seize the moment and insert a throwaway. money making pulp hymnal in the hands of every US Catholic.

And they did a pretty good job.

Remember, this was a time in which priests and nuns got to dress just like us! And stop driving black cars. And ride motorcycles!

Remove all the restrictions and make a free church!!!!

Why insist that the choir be hidden? Put them up in front of the people! LET THE PEOPLE GATHER ROUND THE ALTAR AND BE PART OF THE CONSECRATION! TRANSUBSTANTIATION IS NO LONGER A MYSTERY!

There were controls in place that made the Church The Church. And the music of the church Church Music.

Abandoning those controls was like handing teenagers their driver's license, keys to the family car and a six pack of beer.

All statements that chant and latin were to be preserved were obviously seen to be a nod to traditionalists who were old and not going to be an influence for long, so "give them a bone" by the crazies that took over.

Wow, guys and gals, this thread is humming "I wonder as I wander..."
My twopence, in bullets:
*I'm sorry, JT, I couldn't endorse an RC parish/cathedral/basillica using an SSPX hymnal, standing on general principle, no matter how competently comprised. If SSPX would "hand over" its editorial content to HHHitchcock/Adoremus, without its introduction, and it received NO/I from the local See, that would pass muster.
*Liam, nice observation about the "sisters Toolan." Very few folks know of Suzanne's sibling. I've had the pleasure of meeting them both. And I agree with your point about the counterintuitive strategy that compels the amateur to unwittingly fulfill a hymn's tessitura demands. That's also attested to by the adherence to "O say can you sing" as our national anthem- it ain't only for divas, and people will reach that Eb/En every time they're allowed to join in without the Whitney Houston hystrionics.
*Is it really ever necessary to argue the merits of hymn transposition for either the choir or congregation? Aren't there larger considerations in force when choosing hymn repertoire? If we opt for IN BABILONE because of its ease over ABBOT'S LEIGH nine times out of ten, doesn't that impoverish the standards? If you have a jones for EBENEZER or ST. PATRICK'S BREASTPLATE, how often should you impose that upon all? Then, uh, there are the texts. See "Pluth, Kathleen."
*Tessitura for choir members: if a director cannot competently coach tenors/sopranos to not try to chest down to the occasional Bb's or A's below (ALL GLORY, LAUD AND HONOR comes to mind) or altos/basses to chest up to THAXTED then the director needs some remediation, not the singers. As stated, singers do respond to iron fisted/velvet gloved leadership if the conductor has their spit together in the first place. (BTW, kudos to those who stop rehearsing a piece if they EVER hear a bass drop to the sub-octave.) I have four basses who, if left unattended, would belt out ever'thing in Mass, and we sing the waterfront of forms and styles. That's when my hand has to talk to them, in performance. And they darn sure know to watch for the talking hand via my instructions at rehearsal.
*Lastly, and I haven't mentioned this for a few years, whether any congregation takes up a chant, hymn or song, all other factors being equal, well....that's on them, not me, the organist or the choir. 'Nuff said.

I'm officially dangerous, Noel. MRI taken last week, waiting for orthodoc (pun alert) to return from Rio to determine if I have blown my rotator! But, I take the arm out of its nest while the laptop is on my.....legs. (I really don't have a lap as much as a burial mound anymore.) Six weeks in a sling so far sucks wind. Take heart my Knoxville friend that the silver lining prevents me from strapping on my stratocaster. But I do miss playing my flute. Side benefit, I think all conductors should consider wearing a sling now and then without the requisite injury. One handed conducting can prove a blessing in disguise for many of us. I do notice the differences between conductors at colloquium when they switch from chirononmy to conducting. Less can often prove to be more if your brain will mitigate the body's impulses to paint huge murals in front of their singers while you should be decorating Faberge eggs.
The less is more principle was brought home to me by singing in Mahrt's choir this year.

Charles,

One of my best musical experiences was singing the Duruflé Requiem many years ago with Theodore Marier conducting left handed. His broken right arm was in a sling. It confirmed your less-is-more theory.

Actually, there is a significant body of hymnody that was developed for congregations that sang SATB.

But more important is the fact that The People have largely outsourced their music - that is, they have increasingly foregone singing for listening. A lot of this has to do with the snowball effect of broadcast media (let's mark that as radio in the 1920s), but also public music education is much less vigorous than it used to be in the first decades of the broadcast revolution.

The subset of congregants who sing/play music outside of worship is much smaller than it used to be. That is a rotting core, and it has a significant effect on the ability of the congregation to sing.

It also doesn't help when fathers don't model singing for their sons. (My father, coming from a solid German-American Catholic family, did model that - even he stuck out in the 1960s; it's only gotten worse since.)

Actually, there is a significant body of hymnody that was developed for congregations that sang SATB

I find it funny that Catholics can't even imagine such a thing happening. In the Baptist Church of my youth, this was the norm for every song, every Sunday: four parts. Everyone in the congregation adopted a vocal part as part of his or her identity. I didn't know this was unusual until I found myself in the Catholic world. I gather that Protestants are now facing similar problems today of widespread musical ignorance.

"But all these Popes seem to have other ideals in mind."

Indeed.

Jeffrey Tucker hit the nail squarely on the head.

In the U.S. around 1800, a large proportion of Protestant hymnals (and even some of the Catholic material...what little there was) contained very lengthy introductions on musical rudiments, notation, vocal production, etc. They sometimes included excurses on the spiritual, physical, and intellectual benefits of singing, and ministers were preaching this from the pulpit. Going to church meant singing a part, not only because it was who you were, but because it made you a better person.

Some of that thinking stuck around, but most of it didn't. Witness that the United Methodist Hymnal still contains John Wesley's directions for singing (in addition to 4-part writing most of the time). These thoughts could apply equally to Protestant hymnody or to Gregorian chant:

"If [singing] is a cross to you, take it up, and you will find it a blessing."

"Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing him more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your heart is not carried away with the sound, but offered to God continually; so shall your singing be such as the Lord will approve here, and reward you when he cometh in the clouds of heaven."

speaking of CofC
example of hymnal:

http://books.simonandschuster.com/Songs-of-Faith-Praise-Shaped-Note/Alton-Howard/9781582293233

Noel:

because (as has been already stated on this thread---see Jeffrey's post right above yours and several others,) people in the congregation *used* to sing in 4 parts, and now they don't. that is why it makes sense to lower hymns.

And also, I admit that I don't understand a ton about tuning and temperaments, but why are you so focused on the "tonal center" and the sound of the key that a piece is in? If you were to play a piece in a Werkmeister temperament, it's already going to sound a LOT different even in the same key as the same piece on a meantone temperament instrument. (does that mean that Bach-style organs should never be used to accompany hymns? hmm... lol)
I have trouble believing that congregations could possibly become as attached to particular keys for particular hymns as you make it sound.

I think the congregation doesn't sense anything about keys other than range - it's either in a range they can sing, or it isn't. They don't get tonal centers or temperaments. Isn't it amazing how things of such importance to persnickety musicians are of little consequence to the vast majority of people? I also don't remember singing anything in 4 parts in Catholic liturgy or devotions. I remember unison singing which was the tradition for both chants and hymns. I think some of those 4-part advocates may be transplants from Protestantism where that was the norm.

Not an insult, but a fact. Over the years, i have seen music education for children cut back to the point that congregations grow up no longer knowing music very well. Oh, they know what they like to hear, but have no understanding of how it is produced. It amazes me, but some seem to think the process is almost magical. Of course, it isn't. It just takes years of work and practice to be decent at it. But I would maintain that 4-part congregational singing is not really a Catholic tradition in the U.S. Is there really any reason why it should be, other than we musicians might enjoy hearing it?