Herman G Stuempfle hymn texts
-
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? -
There was a huge move to distance Catholics from things that they had emotional attachment to - hymns, statues...
-
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".
-
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 -
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. -
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 -
"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." -
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 -
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 -
Ah yes, the revered
attitude which quickly resulted in the less-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."
No St. Basil Hymnal
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.With the exception of Adoro Te, are these REALLY "tried and true"?Thanked by 1Chrism -
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:
The entire preface to Worship IV can be found here: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.
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:
In my opinion, some of the comments on this forum about GIA and Worship IV are neither charitable nor helpful.Here's a routine reminder: When you post a comment, please consider whether your message is charitable and helpful before submitting.
-
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. -
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? -
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 -
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...) -
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.... -
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.
-
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. -
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. -
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 -
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.
-
"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 -
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???
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,088
- General Music Discussion7,585
- Job Openings1,299
- Management of Music Programs833
- Choral Matters519
- Church Documents and Rubrics503
- CMAA Notes291
- Events651
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony528
- Hymnody821
- Gregorian Chant: General2,579
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis354
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology57
- Vernacular Plainsong671
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant66
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire414
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,207
- Recordings222
- Music for Hispanic Ministry151
- Music Education: Children205
- Music Education: General214
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism723
- Amusements170
- General Discussion1,000
- Opinions113