24 Jul GS 2013 art 172

Posted at 18:22h in CanRC, GS 2013 by

GS 2013 Article 172 – Book of Praise – Revision of Hymn Tunes

Committee 2 presented its proposal. With a few minor changes, this was the result: 

1.         Material:

  • 1.1.      Report from the SCBP, Section 1.5 (8.2.4)
  • 1.2.      Letters from the churches at Coaldale (8.3.4.2), Grand Valley (8.3.4.5), Attercliffe (8.3.4.8), Brampton (8.3.4.10), Chilliwack (8.3.4.13), Cloverdale (8.3.4.14), Flamborough (8.3.4.18), Grand Rapids (8.3.4.20), Grassie (8.3.4.21), Lincoln (8.3.4.26), Lynden (8.3.4.28), Burlington-Rehoboth (8.3.4.30), Toronto (8.3.4.38), Willoughby Heights (8.3.4.40), Winnipeg-Grace (8.3.4.42), Calgary (8.3.4.43) and St. Albert (8.3.4.47)

2.         Observations:

  • 2.1.      Synod Burlington 2010 passed along many letters regarding the hymns to the SCBP for its consideration. The Committee reports that, subsequent to Synod 2010, it solicited feedback on the Hymn section and received many letters which were all duly considered.
  • 2.2.      Synod 2010 was informed by the SCBP via a letter to Synod dated Feb. 2010 that it intended to make changes to the musical notation of the hymns. This letter was for information only since the Committee understood that, as a rule, General Synods do not concern themselves with the technical matters and details related to musical notation (Acts of Synod Winnipeg 1989, Article 146).
  • 2.3.      In addition, the SCBP informed Synod that it would like to introduce two new hymn melodies: A rhythmic (alternate) version of the melody for the hymn Christ has risen! Hallelujah! (Hymn 26 in the 1984 edition) and a new melody – called ‘Thornbury’ for the hymn Come Praise the Holy Spirit (Hymn 37 in the 1984 edition).
  • 2.4.      Synod Burlington 2010 mandated the SCBP to incorporate the changes in musical notation as well as the addition of two new melodies, Hymns 31A and 48, in the 2010 APV (Article 123).
  • 2.5.      In May 2011, the SCBP sent a letter to the churches requesting feedback to be submitted by May 1, 2012; this generated an enormous amount of feedback from more than half of the churches. Much of the feedback received was of a critical nature. The committee also expresses it gratitude for the advice of the synodically appointed musical advisor, br. Frank Ezinga (Langley), as well as James Teitsma (Winnipeg) and Martin Jongsma (Fergus).
  • 2.6.      The SCBP observes in its Report to Synod 2013: “Looking back over the developments, the Committee now recognizes that it had underestimated the challenges of trying to implement changes to well-known melodies. It is also recognized that what the Committee believed to be improvements, were not received as such by various church accompanists…. The Committee recognizes that melodies and musical notation should not be a cause of unrest or unhappiness in the churches. In the present situation the Committee feels that the best solution will be to revert to the previous versions of hymns that were changed. Clearly, the majority of churches find the ‘old’ versions to be more singable.” As a result, the SCBP proposes to return to previous musical notations.
  • 2.7.      Observations regarding specific hymns:
    • 2.7.1.   Hymn 1: Several churches suggested minor changes to rest values which the SCBP rejects. The Church at Winnipeg-Grace endorses the current notation of 5 beats for the word “hell” (3 beats, plus the 2 rests following it) and notes it has implemented this successfully in their congregation singing with the use of a harmonization by br. Frank Ezinga. It notes that there exists a tradition of pausing after the word “hell” when the Creed is recited.
    • 2.7.2.   Hymn 2: The SCBP wants to restore rests but no breath marks. Some churches wish to revert to the 1984 version.
    • 2.7.3.   Hymn 4: One church wishes to reinstate breath marks.
    • 2.7.4.   Hymn 7: One church wishes to reinstate breath marks.
    • 2.7.5.   Hymn 12: The SCBP wants to restore rests but no breath marks.
    • 2.7.6.   Hymn 18: The SCBP admits that removing all the rests was a move that was not well received in the churches and therefore proposes to restore some of the rests. It observes that the structure of the text which consists of four parts (lines 1-2, 3-4, 5-7 and 8-10) needs to be taken into account. The SCBP proposes to restore rests after lines 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Synod Carman 2013 has also received a number of letters regarding the proposed changes.
    • The SCBP alleges that the changes to the melody have been generally accepted by the churches. A number of churches, however, wish to revert to the 1984 version of the melody because they feel that it is more singable.
    • 2.7.7.   Hymn 20: One church wishes to reinstate breath marks.
    • 2.7.8.   Hymn 27: One church proposes to restore the 1967 version which affects only the melody in the last line.
    • 2.7.9.   Hymn 29: One church recommends bringing this hymn in line with North American Hymnals, that is, to align with the blue Psalter-Hymnal # 348 which makes it more singable.
    • 2.7.10. Hymn 30: The SCBP recommends that the churches return to the melody for this hymn as published in the Augment.
    • 2.7.11. Hymn 31A and 31B: Many churches responded negatively to the addition of Hymn 31A. Some wish to delete it altogether; others suggest that if it is retained, the churches be given both options (31A and 31B). One of the churches objects to the manner in which Hymn 31A was presented to Synod without informing the churches beforehand and for that reason alone the change should be rejected.
    • 2.7.12. Hymn 33: One church expresses its preference for the version of this hymn as it was published in the Supplement 1967 since the melody of this hymn in the APV is “very dreary for a resurrection song.”
    • 2.7.13. Hymn 37: SCBP recommends that the 1984 version should be restored but with the breath marks deleted. Some churches want the 1984 version restored which includes rests after each line.
    • 2.7.14. Hymn 40: One church suggests reverting to the 1984 version which includes breath marks and fermatas. The SCBP suggests reinstating fermatas at the end of lines 3 and 6;
    • 2.7.15. Hymn 41: One church wishes to revert to the 1984 version which includes breath marks.
    • 2.7.16  Hymn 42: SCBP proposes that the APV notation be retained because the half notes suggest a somewhat slower tempo which is fitting for the content of the hymn.
    • 2.7.17. Hymn 47: Two churches wishes to reinstate breath marks.
    • 2.7.18. Hymn 48: The SCBP proposes that the ‘Thornbury’ melody be retained because the SCBP considers the old melody to be a sad one for a joyful Pentecostal hymn. Various musical technical arguments were used to reject the old tune. By far the most churches prefer the old Hymn 37 melody or at least allow for both. One church notes correctly that Hymn 48 was introduced late without informing the churches.
    • 2.7.19. Hymn 49: One church wishes to revert to the 1984 version which includes breath marks.
    • 2.7.20. Hymn 51: One church wishes to revert to the 1984 version which includes breath marks.
    • 2.7.21. Hymn 53: The SCBP proposes to restore the fermatas at the end of lines 2, 4 and 9. One church wishes to revert to the 1984 version which includes breath marks.
    • 2.7.22. Hymn 57: One church proposes to restore the 1967 version which affects only the melody in the last line.
    • 2.7.23. Hymn 63: In response to a few churches the SCBP proposes to retain the APV version because the notation with half notes suggests a slower tempo.
    • 2.7.24. Hymn 65: In response to a few churches requesting that the last line be changed back to the 1984 version, the SCBP proposes that the APV notation be retained because they claim that the 1984 version was an error.
    • 2.7.25. Hymn 67: One church wishes to revert to the 1984 version which includes breath marks.
    • 2.7.26. Hymn 69: One church wishes to revert to the 1984 version which includes breath marks.
    • 2.7.27. Hymn 73: The SCBP proposes that the APV notation be retained because with moderate tempo the congregation will be able to sing it. Two churches wish to revert to the 1984 version which includes breath marks.
    • 2.7.28. Hymn 74: One church wishes to revert to the 1984 version which includes breath marks.
    • 2.7.29. Hymn 76: One church wishes to revert to the 1984 version which includes breath marks.
    • 2.7.30. Hymn 77: The SCBP proposes that the APV notation be retained. One church endorses the SCBP’s proposal.
    • 2.7.31. Hymn 78: The SCBP proposes to revert to the notation in the 1967 Supplement. This received endorsement by a number of churches.
    • 2.7.32. Hymn 80: One church wishes to revert to the 1984 version which includes a breath mark and a fermata.
    • 2.7.33. Hymn 82: One church proposes to alter the melody of Hymn 82, line 5 (adding a sharp to the second last note).
    • 2.7.34. Hymn 83: The SCBP proposes that the APV notation be retained (half-notes instead of quarter notes). One church agrees with the SCBP’s proposal.

3.         Considerations:

  • 3.1.      The SCBP received many letters from the churches re: the hymn melodies. It is clear from its report that the SCBP carried out its mandate and duly considered this extensive feedback. Much appreciation should be directed to the SCBP, as well as to its advisors for their expertise and devotion to this task.
  • 3.2.      Synod Winnipeg 1989 decided that matters of musical notation should be left up to the SCBP and therefore the musical notation changes recommended by the SCBP should be accepted unless compelling evidence to the contrary is presented.
  • 3.3.      Because the introduction of new hymn melodies was met with significant resistance, caution must be exercised prior to adopting new hymns.
  • 3.4.      Regarding specific hymns:
    • 3.4.1.   Hymn 1: The SCBP is correct in its conclusion and its recommendation should be adopted.
    • 3.4.2.   Hymn 2: The SCBP is correct in its conclusion and its recommendation should be adopted.
    • 3.4.3.   Hymn 4: Whether or not breath marks are included does not impact how the hymn is sung.
    • 3.4.4.   Hymn 7: Whether or not breath marks are included does not impact how the hymn is sung.
    • 3.4.5.   Hymn 12: The SCBP is correct in its conclusion and its recommendation should be adopted.
    • 3.4.6.   Hymn 18: The SCBP’s proposal regarding reinstating the rests sufficiently follows the text of the Hymn and therefore should be approved. The 1984 version is well-known and appreciated and the subtle changes to the melody create confusion and thus are not justified.
    • 3.4.7.   Hymn 20: The breath mark after line 2 is not necessary.
    • 3.4.8.   Hymn 27: There is no compelling reason not to adopt this hymn in the APV.
    • 3.4.9.   Hymn 29: The version in the blue Psalter Hymnal #348 may be easier to sing but it has not been presented to the churches for consideration. This can be done by a church in future by following the ecclesiastical route (see Acts 2013, Article 125, Consideration 4.5).
    • 3.4.10. Hymn 30: There is no reason to reject the SCBP’s proposal.
    • 3.4.11. Hymn 31A and B: The response from the churches strongly suggests that the alternate melody (A) was neither necessary nor an improvement. The original (B) version was well-loved and there is no need to offer a new or alternate melody.
    • 3.4.12. Hymn 33: This church should have submitted this suggestion to the SCBP much earlier in the process of revision.
    • 3.4.13. Hymn 37: After reviewing the SCBP’s proposal for the 1984 notation (without rests) and the churches desire for the 1984 Version with rests, the latter position is more convincing.
    • 3.4.14. Hymn 40: The SCBP’s proposal is acceptable.
    • 3.4.15. Hymn 41: Whether or not breath marks are included does not impact how the hymn is sung.
    • 3.4.16. Hymn 42: The SCBP’s proposal is acceptable.
    • 3.4.17. Hymn 47: There is no need to reinstate breath marks. Whether or not breath marks are included does not impact how the hymn is sung.
    • 3.4.18. Hymn 48: The response from the churches strongly suggests that the ‘Thornbury’ melody was neither necessary nor an improvement. The original version was well-loved and there is no need to offer a new or alternate melody.
    • 3.4.19. Hymn 49: There is a legitimate need for a rest or a breath mark after the second line.
    • 3.4.20. Hymn 51: The SCBP’s proposal is acceptable. Whether or not breath marks are included does not impact how the hymn is sung.
    • 3.4.21. Hymn 53: The need for fermatas is compelling here. Thus the SCBP’s proposal is warranted.
    • 3.4.22. Hymn 57: There is no compelling reason not to adopt this hymn in the APV.
    • 3.4.23. Hymn 63: The SCBP’s proposal is convincing.
    • 3.4.24. Hymn 65: The 1984 version is well-loved and well-known and should be reinstated.
    • 3.4.25. Hymn 67: Whether or not breath marks are included does not impact how the hymn is sung and thus the APV can stand.
    • 3.4.26. Hymn 69: Whether or not breath marks are included does not impact how the hymn is sung and thus the APV can stand.
    • 3.4.27. Hymn 73: Fermatas should be inserted on lines 2, 4 and 6 for ease of singing.
    • 3.4.28. Hymn 74: Fermatas should be inserted after lines 2 and 4 for ease of singing.
    • 3.4.29. Hymn 76: Whether or not breath marks are included does not impact how the hymn is sung and thus the APV can stand.
    • 3.4.30. Hymn 77: The SCBP’s proposal is sufficiently convincing.
    • 3.4.31. Hymn 78: The SCBP’s proposal is sufficiently convincing.
    • 3.4.32. Hymn 80: Whether or not breath marks are included does not impact how the hymn is sung and thus the APV can stand.
    • 3.4.33. Hymn 82: No reason is given to change the notation in the APV.
    • 3.4.34. Hymn 83: The SCBP’s position is sufficient.

4.         Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

  • 4.1.      To thank the SCBP for its work and to thank advisors Dr. Karen Dieleman, Dr. Benne Faber, Dr. Deanna Smid, Dr. Jannes Smith, Dr. Cornelis Van Dam, Dr. William Helder, Frank Ezinga, James Teitsma and Martin Jongsma;
  • 4.2.      To direct the SCBP to implement the recommendations listed in its report, incorporating the following specific instructions:
    • 4.2.1.   Hymn 1: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.2.   Hymn 2: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.3.   Hymn 4: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.4.   Hymn 7: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.5.   Hymn 12: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.6.   Hymn 18: revert to the 1984 version of this melody;
    • 4.2.7.   Hymn 20: retain the APV version and not reinstate the breath mark after the second line;
    • 4.2.8.   Hymn 27: retain the APV version of this melody;
    • 4.2.9.   Hymn 29: retain the APV version of this melody;
    • 4.2.10. Hymn 30: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.11. Hymn 31: adopt the B version only of this melody;
    • 4.2.12. Hymn 33: retain the APV version of this melody;
    • 4.2.13. Hymn 37: revert to the 1984 version of this melody;
    • 4.2.14. Hymn 40: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.15. Hymn 41: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.16. Hymn 42: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.17. Hymn 47: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.18. Hymn 48: revert to the 1984 version of this melody;
    • 4.2.19. Hymn 49: retain the APV version, but insert a rest or breath mark after the second line;
    • 4.2.20. Hymn 51: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.21. Hymn 53: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.22. Hymn 57: retain the APV version of this melody;
    • 4.2.23. Hymn 63: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.24. Hymn 65: revert to the 1984 version of this melody;
    • 4.2.25. Hymn 67: retain the APV version of this melody;
    • 4.2.26. Hymn 69: retain the APV version of this melody;
    • 4.2.27. Hymn 73: retain the APV version, but fermatas should be inserted after lines 2,4 and 6;
    • 4.2.28. Hymn 74: retain the APV version, but fermatas should be inserted after lines 2 and 4;
    • 4.2.29. Hymn 76: retain the APV version of this melody;
    • 4.2.30. Hymn 77: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.31. Hymn 78: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
    • 4.2.32. Hymn 80: retain the APV version of this melody;
    • 4.2.33. Hymn 82: retain the APV version of this melody;
    • 4.2.34. Hymn 83: adopt the SCBP recommendations;
  • 4.3.      To adopt the melodies of the hymns as presented, along with the incorporated changes under 4.2, as definitive in the final edition of the Book of Praise.
  • 4.4.      That any further changes should be made in accordance with the Acts of Synod Carman 2013, Article 125, Recommendation 4.5.

ADOPTED

Print page