Spirit Vowels
I was once in a choir that was preparing a piece for a ward fireside. As we practiced, the director became quite emphatic about our vowels. While the number was not a hymn, at least strictly speaking, she complained that our “pop-y” vowels couldn’t possibly carry the spirit.This director was a great person, and her dedication to the choir helped us make some great music. What concerns me here is the idea that a particular vowel carries the spirit, and some other vowel does not. I think this is a common unstated belief, and I do not want to dismiss the idea entirely. Boyd K Packer, for instance, has this to say in his book That All May be Edified:
We have, in our instruction to the musicians of the Church, this suggestion:“Organs and pianos are the standard musical instruments used in sacrament meetings. Other instruments, such as orchestral strings, may be used when appropriate, but the music presented must be in keeping with the reverence and spirituality of the meeting. Brass and percussion instruments are generally not appropriate. (General Handbook of Instructions” [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976], p. 23.)We are under resistance from some highly trained musicians who insist that they can get as much inspiration from brass instruments or a guitar solo as from a choir. I believe that an organ perhaps could be played at a pep rally in a way to incite great enthusiasm. And I think a brass section could play a hymn in such a way as to be reverent and fitting in a worship service. But if it should happen, it would have to be an exception. We cannot convey a sacred message in an art form that is not appropriate and have anything spiritual happen. But there is a constant attempt to do it.
There is certainly a clear instruction as to the use of instruments in sacrament, and there is good reason for it. We don’t want the electric spirit boogie band in sacrament, and choice of instrument directs, certainly, the tone of musical numbers. On the other hand, the children’s songbook has chords written in, and guitar chord charts in the back. What I don’t think I’ve ever seen is anyone play the guitar in primary.
One final expreince. Peter Breinholt came to our singles stake in Arizona for a (free) concert and played a Sunday fireside in the chapel. People were shocked–some of them. I didn’t see the guitar itself as a violation of the sanctity of the chapel–or even, for that matter–contemplative music, that wasn’t specifically and obviously religious in nature. Some did.
I realize that some of this is situational. My question is, what determines these sort of situational issues. Obviously, English vowels are not the vowles of the spirit. We don’t expect those of other languages (at least if we know what we are doing) to anglicize their language to sing hymns. And those who sing in the congregation feel the spirit when they sing. I feel no need to give them diction lessons.
I realize that in Asian countries the hymns have been translated and are used for sacrament worshipm but is there potential for the use of Asian styles of musicin our worship? I was watching a Bollywood film the other night–with music that was different not only in scale, rythm, etc, but in vocal tone, as well–and wondered–what will sacrament be like in India when we begin to teach the Hindu and Muslim people?
Steve,
Insightfull post. I have been moved by the spirit by many different mediums of music, up to and including modern rock. On the other hand, much of the Mormon Pop music that continually played in Sacraments instills in me a spiritual reaction, but it is not the spirit we want in Sacrament.
I believe that my reactions depend much upon my own belief structure and biases. I personally have a problem with mormon music. I think the Church does a disservice to those of other ethnicities by depriving them of music which could move them spiritually only because it does not fit into the mold of someone in Utah/US/Canada.
Comment by Craig S. — 3/16/2006 @ 12:00 pm
You outline something that is quite institutional in our church. As an aside, I have played guitare in primary (with distortion) – you’d be surprised how sweet Follow the Prophet is to rock to…and sometimes kids need that.
The difficulty with Elder Packer’s analysis (and dare I say – church poicy) is that it is completely ethnocentric. I imagine that some Aftican cultures might respond to an organ the same way we might respond to drums. It seems a bit tragic to forbid them the use of drums in their worship.
At the same time, I sympathize with the church’s desire to keep worship music away from ska. The larger the church becomes, the more challenging this is. Is there truely something independantly spiritual about 19th century occidental congregational hymns?
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/16/2006 @ 12:44 pm
There are times when I wish the church and “The Brethren” would worry more about the doctrine and less about the nit-picky tedium of this kind of stuff. Don’t the local leaders have any inspiration as to what fits their congregation, country, ethnic culture? Give us a break!
Comment by Don — 3/16/2006 @ 1:39 pm
I want to make it clear that I don’t really have too much of a problem with the sacrament meeting policy. I do think it might change with time, and I’m interested in the ways that it has been interpreted in Asian and African cultures. I think that the policy is, in fact, less restrictive than it might be. It says brass and percussion are “generally” not acceptable. I thin that leaves things open to, say, a muted french horn in a Christmas program, or even the right sort of marimba solo–I’ve heard a few here at BYUH in devotionals that have been inspiring. It also leaves the status of guitar less absolute than I would expect. It does guard against percussion (which a guitar is, but so is a piano, really), but doesn’t mention the guitar specifically.
It is also worth considering that percussion in the way of drums, and heavy brass are quite difficult to do in a way that brings the spirit in a contemplative way. I too have felt the spirit in relation to all sorts of music, but there is a specific spirit of contemplation that is part of our sacrament meetings. Drums have the added difficulty of their having been associated with certain sorts of mystical spirituality that might make them especially worth watching closely–spiritua, but not the spirit we’re looking for.
A great question. I sometimes think that the organ might have been an inspired instrument of proper meditation–I know it would be hard for me to imagine another instrument in the temple chapels, though there were certainly some other instruments associated with the tabernacle in ancient Israel. As far as 19th-century hymns, Packer goes on to speculate that we should still be writing hymnns, and there are some good things being written, but not enough, and tradition makes it difficult to imagine what the modern hymn would be like. It will take someone with the vision to reinvent LDS worship music in ways that keep the contemplative tone and feel of cummunal knowledge that our hymns represent while adapting themselves to our lives now. As Packer advocates, perhaps this will happen when someone is dedicated enough and the time is right for the Lord to reveal new music. I’d post more of his thoughts, but they aren’t online anywhere, and it’s copywrighted material, and I wouldn’t know what parts to choose under fair use.
Comment by Steve H — 3/16/2006 @ 2:10 pm
I have run the gamut from feeling that the Brethren were over-stepping their authority on this topic, to now wishing the Brethren would clamp down permanently on JKP ever being performed again in a Sacrament meeting.
I try not to be a musical elitist; really I do. But I have learned over a career of twenty-five years as either a Ward or Stake Music Chair, or even just a choir director, that simple and humble always wins the day. Much like the Gospel itself. It was no surprise, for example, that when we dedicated the Newport Beach Temple, the planners mandated songs from either the Hymn book, or the Church-published “Choirbook.”
I don’t think it has anything to do with how we form our vowel tones. It has everything to do with realizing that we as choristers are merely mouthpieces for a more significant voice than our collective one. When we approach Sacrament music with that attitude, the Spirit presents himself.
By the way, there’s a far more prosaic reason those “guitar” chords exist in the songbook: some pianists can’t really read music, but they know their chords. If they know what chord they’re supposed to be in, they can fake their way through pretty much any song.
Also, to partially answer Don, local leaders often do experience inspiration that trumps what our General Authorities often preach. Just a couple of years ago I was counselled by our Bishop to be a little more “lenient” on choices for our Christmas program, so that more people would enjoy the meeting. He knew that we frequently get folks in that meeting that may only show up one other time in a given year. So, against my own judgement, I followed Bishop’s counsel and, to my knowledge, no one left the Church. Me? I hit the TUMS when I got home.
No pain, no gain. It’s heck to be a curmudgeon at my age.
Comment by Woody — 3/16/2006 @ 2:42 pm
Woody, that is a really great comment and I have shared very simmilar sentiments. By chance, I just had lunch with someone who spent some time in Africa and attended service meetings there. He mentioned that the African Saints had, shall we say, adapted the way in which music is used in the services. Pretty cool stuff.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/16/2006 @ 4:59 pm
Woody,
I agree that simple is better. I have problems with the over-the-top operatic thing in church as much as the JKP thing. One of the points Packer makes in his book is that artists become too focused on creating great art and forget that creating inspiring art is more important.
As far as the chords, I realize that the chords in the songs can be used for a variety of purposes, but in the back of the book there is actually a chord chart that gives fingerings for guitar. It’s quite helpful in justifying a healthy dose of practice time on Sundays, but also genuinely useful in that I figure I’ll never learn (or actually spend the money on) a piano, but with a guitar, my family can sing with accompaniment. I just figure primary/firesides/etc. might be appropriate venues for such uplifting music that might not be appropriate for sacrament. Of course, I was once accused of sacrelidge for suggesting that if the whole world was mormon, the muppets might do the primary songs. don’t know how I’d take it now if they did, but I think they would.
Comment by Steve H — 3/16/2006 @ 5:40 pm
Familiarity is the most important thing in church music to me. I simply don’t enjoy any music as much on the first hearing as I will when I become familiar with it. When music has words, I want to be able to understand the words. I dislike it when a choir performs a song I have never heard and I can’t understand a thing they are saying because they are trying so hard to sing pretty.
It is almost always harder to understand the words when they are being sung. For this reason, I have often thought it would be cool to have the words projected on the wall in time with the music in karaoke fashion. Too bad that using a projector during sacrament meeting is also frowned upon.
Comment by Bradley Ross — 3/18/2006 @ 9:48 am
Sacrament meeting music is “worship in search of a word”. Congregational music is that part of the meeting where everyone can participate. It is active instead of passive worship. If the special music makes you uncomfortable, (too schmaltzy, too much like a performance, too pop like) then it is not appropriate and detracts from the spirit. I have a problem when the performers of the special music use the aisle up to the podium like a red carpet and they are making a grand entrance. It detracts. Music is to strengthen not lessen the reverence of the meeting. Music should also be a means of teaching the doctrine of the kingdom. I have a feeling that the brethren want us to safe guard the sanctity of the meeting that is a sacrament service.
Comment by jns — 3/18/2006 @ 8:38 pm
Wait–what guitar chords in hymn books? I’ve only ever seen them in the children’s songbook. Why is it the spirit can only be expressed through european white cultural traditions?
Comment by MC — 3/8/2007 @ 9:25 pm
Old blog, I realize, and I’d hate to beat a dead horse.
Musical instruments and musical styles carry with them a series of implications and subconscious references. I believe the Church’s conservative policy recognizes that in our worship services, those references should eliminate mundane (read “worldly”) distractions as much as possible, so as to invoke worshipful meditation. A guitar solo can easily call to mind the plethora of rock/pop music common today. Brass instruments can call to mind jazz and/or militarism. Of course, all instruments could do similar things. One interlocutor has asked if there is anything sacrosanct about the organ. My question to that person would be this: what major cultural venues have come to be associated with organ music other than church services? I can think of very few. As to music from other cultures, we ought to adopt an attitude of seeking and promoting the best. The occidental music tradition is indeed noble in its own right in that it uncovered a wide gamut of melodic and harmonic possibilities, based on the physics of sound itself. It represents knowledge inspired from on high, if you will, and can be used and abused accordingly, as most of the other tenets we adhere to. Certainly I think we need a cultural re-enlightenment with regards to the sacred/popular (i.e. “Mo-pop”) music we espouse. I, too, have seen Peter Breinholt’s fireside and didn’t think to get offended, but when we as a people don’t reach any higher for cultural appreciation, we egregiously disregard the 13th Article of Faith.
Comment by MST — 9/2/2007 @ 10:08 am