JO... I hope you saw my comments on your deleted thread... Your project is fantastic.

Ah, but you're not asking people to read in four-parts, just one. And, one assumes, the melody is memorized. And, if it isn't memorized, surely one has the hang of it after a verse or two. A simple horizontal line or double space after every two or three verses helps the brain to organize the text.

But, I see where you're coming from.

The only purpose of hymn numbers is to differentiate "the top" from "the bottom" of the page. If each hymn occupies a single full page (as they seem to here), having two sets of numbers is entirely unnecessary.

Friends,

I am absolutely astounded by these comments.

I thought at least SOMEBODY would say, "Hey, you forgot [ such-and-such ] a beautiful hymn, which can be used in Ordinary time!!!!"

Jeff,

The reason that no one is complaining about
hymns left out is that the hymns you put in are very, very appropriate...if you had included any "junk", then other hymns would come to mind that would be more appropriate.

It's not what is missing from today's hymnals is the problem so much as what is in them.

Great selection of hymns!

To the extent that these comments might be helpful:

a) I agree most definitely about the composer and lyricist names being way too prominent. A much smaller font is in order there, but it's still good to have that basic information -- it shows a singer and even someone without terribly much interest in music that there is a rich and long history behind these pieces. They are not yesterday's weeds from the garden. We have a... what's the word?... heritage. And not as in "Heritage Mass."

b) I have often made the mistake of including page numbers in booklets with musical selections that are also numbered, and I have never found any advantage to page numbers if each distinct item of music is numbered clearly (as one sees, e.g., in Fr. Weber's St. Louis Gradual). So my strong vote would be to number the discrete music items but not the pages.

c) I also agree that the suggested use for hymns should be placed in appendices, because what if a person wants to sing a hymn for Offertory that you suggest for the Entrance? It would almost make a regular guy in the pews think that the musicians could be making a faux pas of some kind. Also, many hymns are multi-purpose ones, and you could list them as such in appendices. There have been many times when the lists in the back of Adoremus or St. Michael's have helped me make a quick selection for a certain season or feast.

d) As I mentioned in another thread, please consider bringing out an alternative cover that is more your "classic" hymnal cover.

Thank you for this magnificent labor of love!

Numbers drive me gaga! The only reason for hymn numbers is for a hymn board or to alert people to be able to navigate to a page in a book. Presently I use three books: Choir book, organist accomp and congregational missalette. That's three different numbers for every hymn we sing. Not only that, but sometimes the hymn is not in all three sources! This drives me hymnsterical!

The LCMS sounds like the best solution to me.

Hello,

The hymnal is looking good. I do have one question though. Why is the music sometimes printed twice with different verses (like 1,2,3 then 4,5,6) underneath? Wouldn't it save a lot of space to just have the music printed once and all the verses underneath them? Personally, I find it much less confusing that way as well.

This project looks quite interesting, but I agree that it is very unhelpful to have the music for multiple verses repeated. I can see absolutely no benefit to having the music for a 6 verse hymn repeated three times with 2 verses under each. This is confusing to look at, confusing to follow and takes up too much room. I also agree with others who have expressed this opinion with regard to accompaniment for hymns. I don't want to have a 6 page accompaniment for a LM hymn that has 6 verses. That is a nuisance. I think there is a greater benefit to simplicity and having a hymn on one page. I can improvise my own alternative harmonizations or not, or use other supplementary materials for alternative harmonizations if I so choose. Sometimes less really is more! I hope that you will consider the many comments that have been made in this regard and considering changing the layout of multi-verse hymns both in your hymnal and in the accompaniment.

To be totally candid, with no lack of charity intended, the layout of hymns in this manner is one very big reason that we probably would not use this hymnal in my parish.

It wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me, but I still am upset by it. Also, I think it plays too easily into the "one or two verses and done" mentality about hymns.

Not in the interest of "fighting" or "contradicting ideas" etc., here are some clarifications (just so we can all be on the same page, pardon the pun):

jp411: I have not released any harmonizations for the hymnal at this time: not a single one. However, I hope to release some before too long.

Chonak, regarding the hymn verses, they are all numbered. After 1 comes 2, after 2 comes 3, after 3 comes 4, etc. Believe it or not, I've read your comment through twice, but I cannot see the difficulty. When you are done singing verse no. 1, simply go to verse no. 2, etc. They are all clearly marked, and I would argue it is not hard for our people to remember that 4 comes after 3, etc.

Also, someone had asked if the melodies changed. The melodies for the hymns do not change. The only reason for not printing more than 3 verses under one melody is many people have trouble when scores look like this, even when little lines or space is placed between verses:



For myself, it is simply a matter of being responsible. The so-called "traditional" arrangement of writing 5, 6, 7 verses underneath one melody arose at a time when typesetting was extremely difficult and paper extremely rare. However, nowadays we have software that can handle such things.

The "traditional" method of typesetting hymns is much easier, and approximately 3-4 times faster than what I am doing. However, since our goal is to GET PEOPLE SINGING (even folks with no musical training), I simply cannot (in good conscience) give a congregation scores that look like this:



I admit many musicians can navigate such scores. But many in our congregation lack musical training, and I would argue we have an obligation to help them in every way we can, even though it is a LOT more work.

What about this? This is readable.



I'm not sure it's necessary or beneficial to add space after every 2 verses: maybe every 3 would be better. Just consider this an illustration of the idea.

Numbers alone aren't enough to make a hymnal page easy to use. They don't compensate for difficult designs. Otherwise we'd all be happy to use English hymnals with the music printed at the top of the page and the verses all printed at the bottom -- or even on a facing page.

JMO: Yes, I know (now) that the music doesn't change every verse or two. But -- and I suspect I wouldn't be alone -- it's the very reprinting of the music that tricks me into thinking that there will be something different. When you say (e.g., O God Our Help in Ages Past), "Here is the music for verse 1, and here's the music for verse 2, and then here's the music for verses 3 and 4, and lastly the music for verses 5 and 6," I just naturally assume there's some rational reason to be given four (and not one or six) versions of the music. What is comforting, I think, for congregational singers is to get to the end of verse 1 and be able to know that you have sung it through, now you know the tune, and you just have to go back to the beginning and repeat it with different words. The mere fact of having to read "new" (at least, for all I know it might be new) music for new verses forces me to keep looking back up at the notes and singing from them instead of feeling comfortable about the tune. I guess if someone announces beforehand, "The music is exactly the same for all six verses, so don't worry about the extra ones that are printed out" then my problem goes away, but when the announcement is "Our recessional hymn is #112," then I, sitting in the congregation, have no idea what to expect.

And although your graphic is illustrative of an obnoxious problem for T and B singers (believe me, I know; I hate reading any lyrics above the staff, let alone six or seven lines up), when only the melody is printed, and the words below, the problem is insignificant. By the time you get to verse three or four, you will know how the song goes and have decreasing recourse to the music.

As a final point, take hymn #115, To Jesus Christ Our Sovereign King (the remark applies to several other hymns here). Due to your method of reprinting the verses, you have elected to put the refrain at the top of the page. But no one would ever sing the refrain first. You sing it after each verse. So what is it doing as the first thing on the page? I assume you didn't want it to get lost and forgotten about between verses 1 and 2, but the price for this is having it in an illogical place, requiring people to skip the first two lines of music on the page in order to start the hymn. The standard method of printing avoids these problems altogether, since all three verses are collected together and the refrain is simply printed after them where you would expect it.

BTW, at the end of verse 5 in O God Our Help, the lyric should be "dies at the opening (sometimes given as op'ning) day," not "dies at the opening."

I don't know who these people are who get confused by traditional layout. Maybe they reside in the Erie diocese?

I think bunching up verses at the bottom of the page is no more helpful. People need to see words under music to sing confidently, especially if there are any awkward text meter changes.

And the other point made above (that the presentation suggests changing music) is dead on.

Dear Jeff,

While most hymnals do provide a number on each line of each stanza and a marker for, usually, stanza three, still, I find the way you have formatted the stanzas much easier to follow, especially for elderly folks. I am personally in total support of how you have formatted the stanzas ... thank you and great work ... I appreciate all your hard work an dedication to this landmark work.

Blessings,
Bob
Costa Mesa, CA

I agree, Gavin. Most people in the congregation aren't looking at the melody line at all because they cannot read music. Some will look at it while they are singing the first verse. And, as you say, after that, if it is a good hymn there will not even be need to look at the music. What people are reading is the text, and having all of the verses lined up makes for the most intuitive presentation. People will naturally expect that the music for verse 3 is as it was for verse 2, because the words for verse 3 are right underneath the words for verse 2. I agree that the proposed layout is attempting to answer a problem that does not exist (i.e., that people cannot sing verses 3-6 of a strophic hymn if they are all lined up under the melody line.)

By the time you get to verse three or four, you will know how the song goes and have decreasing recourse to the music.

Bingo.

Chonak, dear friend, I know that we are all allowed to have our own opinions.

My opinion is that when the verses are written the traditional way, the eye has to go "up and down, up and down" to read the notes and music.



jp411, the refrain in the wrong spot can be fixed. Thanks!

Why look at the melody at all by the 4th verse? With a good tune, when you've heard it twice you can sing it.

Again, we are all entitled to our opinions, and I strongly disagree with that statement.

However, I grant you that, were this the case, I would be incredibly foolish to continue to put words under melody. I would simply do what the New English Hymnal does, and write the words in prose form.

I would like to share with you a note I got from a PROFESSIONAL choir director who has conducted Church choirs for more than three (3) different denominations including Anglican (and is now Catholic, by the way):

This looks to me like an excellent group of hymns and texts. It's such a pleasure to see the 'real' words in so many of the ones I've had memorized from 30 and 40 years ago.

You are very wise to take the time to put the words under the notes. I've never been in a church where verses were printed at the bottom of the page where congregational singing was a success. In fact, you can test it and watch the singing drop out when they have to manage a 5th or 6th verse of something that it's stupefyingly familiar. Even the choirs complain.

Again, each will have his own opinion, and this is normal.

I'm with JMO on this. Some tunes are really easy to pick up, sure. But I've had more than a few frightening experiences with hymn that the parish was... less familiar with....
Organ plays through once. Verse 1 goes okay...
And then each subsequent verse gets worse instead of better, as the words get further and further away from the music.
Not every hymn tune is Nettleton or Old 100th.

Is there a rationale for this?

Absolutely: the preference is always to have but one text per melody. When this is not possible, it becomes necessary to start "doubling" and or "tripling."

The first verses are "favored" because those are the ones most often sung, and if the melody is unfamiliar, this will help as well.

JMO, test your theory: play a familiar tune not on the page (and in the same meter, of course) and see what the congregation sings. If they sing what is played on the organ, the layout doesn't really matter in the end.

Again, I appreciate and learn from all these comments: please keep them coming!

Thanks, Michael. Someone else suggested this, too. I was simply following the way they do it in the "Hymnal 1982." I will evaluate the pro's and con's of this change. thanks!

Conventions become conventions for a reason.

JMO, we love you, and we love your work. As we hammer away at this point, please remember that we are doing so because we all want to see this hymnal in many, many pews by this time next year!