PipeChat Digest #3134 - Saturday, September 21, 2002
 
Diane Bish Concert Tonight (Chicago Area)(cross posted)
  by "jch" <opus1100@catoe.org>
Hollywood High School
  by <OrganMD@aol.com>
Re: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Re: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole
  by "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu>
 

(back) Subject: Diane Bish Concert Tonight (Chicago Area)(cross posted) From: "jch" <opus1100@catoe.org> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 07:12:24 -0500   Diane Bish in Concert Saturday, September 21, 7:30 p.m.; Sanctuary Diane Bish, syndicated television host of "The Joy of Music" featured on religious and PBS stations around the globe will be performing on the = newly renovated Austin Organ. Tickets $15 for adults and $12 for children, students and seniors.   Allen recently added 40 digital ranks and new 4 manual console to the 4/80 =   Austin pipe organ and this concert is sponsored by the local Allen dealer, =   "Beautiful Sound, Inc., to dedicate the new additions   Christ Church of Oakbrook, 31st and York Rd., Oakbrook, Il (630) 654-1882   jch    
(back) Subject: Hollywood High School From: <OrganMD@aol.com> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 11:15:27 EDT     --part1_1ad.8d9bad9.2abde70f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   Hi Gang......   Just a reminder.......Austin Organs, Inc. is presenting Felix Hell in a concert of rededication at Hollywood High School, Los Angeles, CA on = October 4, 2002, at 7:00 PM. It should be an exciting evening! This concert is = free to the public!   I hope to see many of you there.   Bill Hesterman   --part1_1ad.8d9bad9.2abde70f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D3>Hi Gang......<BR> <BR> Just a reminder.......Austin Organs, Inc. is presenting Felix Hell in a = concert of rededication at Hollywood High School, Los Angeles, CA on = October 4, 2002, at 7:00 PM.&nbsp; It should be an exciting evening!&nbsp; = This concert is free to the public!<BR> <BR> I hope to see many of you there.<BR> <BR> Bill Hesterman</FONT></HTML>   --part1_1ad.8d9bad9.2abde70f_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 12:07:35 -0400   > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not = understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.   --B_3115454855_7319198 Content-type: text/plain; charset=3D"ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable   On 6/13/02 3:39 PM, "MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com" <MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com> wrote:   [well, it=3DB9s below]   Jeremy, your approach is very much like ours. We keep changing things = left and right, constantly. With the result that after a couple of years of this, we bounce around among settings and parts of settings, quite willy-nilly, and nobody even notices it any more. [This applies even to ceremonial: We distribute the Eucharist at least three or four different ways, and it just doesn=3DB9t matter which way we do it on any given = Sunday. People just DO it. Nobody even notices if we sing the Communion hymn in Latin or the Agnus Dei in Spanish; we just do it.) Our Sunday crowd is 20-35% visitors (tourist area, Manhattan), and even the visitors seem to = go with the flow just fine. Our cantor is constantly composing new stuff, = and we=3DB9ll use his new Agnus Dei or Sanctus or Acclamaations for three to = five Sundays and then drop it for six months=3D8Bbut we can return to it at any = time without batting an eye. We=3DB9re NOT keen on any WOV settings (use them = only experimentally now and then); but our main objection to them is distaste = fo=3D r the translations rather than lack of affection for the music per se.   Alan Freed, digging in old mail files Saint Luke=3DB9s Church (ELCA) Manhattan   > In a message dated 6/13/2002 11:44:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, = DrB88@aol=3D ..com > writes: >=3D20 >=3D20 > My fear would be that too frequent a change could result in worshipers = be=3D ing > unable to focus on their purpose---worship---because they are too = preoccu=3D pied > with the vehicle of expression. The balance here will be different in = ev=3D ery > parish, I imagine, but is a worthy consideration. >=3D20 >=3D20 > You're missing my very point which was, in essence, if you keep throwing = =3D new > stuff out there, there comes a point where you've/they've got a (prepare = =3D for > musicians' buzzword) REPERTOIRE from which to choose. That is what I = was > trying to convey from the example of my own church. We're now to that = po=3D int > where no part of the service music is ever the same from week to week, = ye=3D t all > of the music is "in the repertoire" and, therefore, doesn't cause the = lac=3D k of > focus you fear. >=3D20 > The way I implemented it was to throw in ONE new movement - let's say a > Sanctus, sing it for three weeks in a row, then throw in a different = Glor=3D ia or > something, run it for three weeks while still running the Sanctus, then = d=3D rop > back to the well known Sanctus on the third week of the new Gloria, then = =3D add > another different part the next week......etc., etc., etc. There was = alw=3D ays > one new part somewhere that ran for 3 weeks, but ALWAYS reverting back = to=3D the > well known version after that run. After about six months of = that.....gu=3D ess > what.....you have LOTS of new things that the people now "know". I know = =3D all > that was confusing, but hopefully you get the idea. >=3D20 > So, that's why I say, "setting" six is the long-awaited license to go = for=3D it!! > Now, changing entire SETTINGS frequently....yes, that would probably be = a > negative jolt....which is why I've always had a problem with the whole > "setting" thing. To change, you had to change everything, and of course > that's overwhelming for people. >=3D20 > "setting" six.....you've heard about it, you've read about it, go for = it!=3D ~ :-) >=3D20 > Jeremy=3D20 >=3D20     --B_3115454855_7319198 Content-type: text/html; charset=3D"ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable   <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman">On 6/13/02 3:39 PM, = &quot;MyrtleBeachMusic@aol=3D ..com&quot; &lt;MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com&gt; wrote:<BR> <BR> [well, it&#8217;s below]<BR> <BR> Jeremy, your approach is very much like ours. &nbsp;We keep changing = things=3D left and right, constantly. &nbsp;With the result that after a couple of = ye=3D ars of this, we bounce around among settings and parts of settings, quite = wi=3D lly-nilly, and nobody even notices it any more. &nbsp;[This applies even = to =3D ceremonial: &nbsp;We distribute the Eucharist at least three or four = differe=3D nt ways, and it just doesn&#8217;t matter which way we do it on any given = Su=3D nday. &nbsp;People just DO it. &nbsp;Nobody even notices if we sing the = Comm=3D union hymn in Latin or the Agnus Dei in Spanish; we just do it.) &nbsp;Our = S=3D unday crowd is 20-35% visitors (tourist area, Manhattan), and even the = visit=3D ors seem to go with the flow just fine. &nbsp;Our cantor is constantly = compo=3D sing new stuff, and we&#8217;ll use his new Agnus Dei or Sanctus or = Acclamaa=3D tions for three to five Sundays and then drop it for six months&#8212;but = we=3D can return to it at any time without batting an eye. &nbsp;We&#8217;re = NOT =3D keen on any WOV settings (use them only experimentally now and then); but = ou=3D r main objection to them is distaste for the translations rather than lack = o=3D f affection for the music per se.<BR> <BR> Alan Freed, digging in old mail files<BR> Saint Luke&#8217;s Church (ELCA)<BR> Manhattan<BR> <BR> </FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3D3D"2">In = a message=3D dated 6/13/2002 11:44:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, DrB88@aol.com = writes:<BR=3D > <BR> <BR> My fear would be that too frequent a change could result in worshipers = bein=3D g unable to focus on their purpose---worship---because they are too = preoccup=3D ied with the vehicle of expression. &nbsp;The balance here will be = different=3D in every parish, I imagine, but is a worthy consideration. &nbsp;<BR> </FONT><BR> </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D3D"Arial"><BR> You're missing my very point which was, in essence, if you keep throwing = ne=3D w stuff out there, there comes a point where you've/they've got a (prepare = f=3D or musicians' buzzword) REPERTOIRE from which to choose. &nbsp;That is = what =3D I was trying to convey from the example of my own church. &nbsp;We're now = to=3D that point where no part of the service music is ever the same from week = to=3D week, yet all of the music is &quot;in the repertoire&quot; and, = therefore,=3D doesn't cause the lack of focus you fear.<BR> <BR> The way I implemented it was to throw in ONE new movement - let's say a = San=3D ctus, sing it for three weeks in a row, then throw in a different Gloria = or =3D something, run it for three weeks while still running the Sanctus, then = drop=3D back to the well known Sanctus on the third week of the new Gloria, then = ad=3D d another different part the next week......etc., etc., etc. &nbsp;There = was=3D always one new part somewhere that ran for 3 weeks, but ALWAYS reverting = ba=3D ck to the well known version after that run. &nbsp;After about six months = of=3D that.....guess what.....you have LOTS of new things that the people now = &qu=3D ot;know&quot;. &nbsp;I know all that was confusing, but hopefully you get = th=3D e idea.<BR> <BR> So, that's why I say, &quot;setting&quot; six is the long-awaited license = t=3D o go for it!! &nbsp;Now, changing entire SETTINGS frequently....yes, that = wo=3D uld probably be a negative jolt....which is why I've always had a problem = wi=3D th the whole &quot;setting&quot; thing. &nbsp;To change, you had to change = e=3D verything, and of course that's overwhelming for people.<BR> <BR> &quot;setting&quot; six.....you've heard about it, you've read about it, = go=3D for it!~ :-)<BR> <BR> Jeremy</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman"> <BR> </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman"><BR> </FONT> </BODY> </HTML>     --B_3115454855_7319198--    
(back) Subject: Re: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole From: "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 12:47:33 -0400   > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not = understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.   --MS_Mac_OE_3115457253_290833_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset=3D"ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable   Dear all and especially Lutherans, Over the summer I thought it would be a good idea, at least for the = sake of variety, to introduce setting 5 in WOV, but then backed off when I was told in a church council meeting that if we made that switch, some people would get upset and leave. Then a member of the worship and music committee, where I had first pitched the idea, decided to really push for changing to setting 5. I had given up on it, but he hadn't. So we may go to it in October, if the church council in its October meeting decides to = g=3D o ahead. I really don't care. If they're so neurotic about change that people would walk out, the hell (pardon the expression) with it. I sure wish we could be as open to new things as St. Luke's. You have = t=3D o bear in mind that this is a church where about ten years ago when a = previou=3D s pastor on his first Sunday asked those on the back pews to move forward, some of them got mad and left the church. And he lost his job. Jeez! I talked to the music director of the other Lutheran church in town (a Missouri synod--we're ELCA) recently, and he said they have no problem = with singing all the settings in the LBW and all the ones in WOV. Who says Missouri Synod types are more uptight than ELCA's? Rather the opposite around here. Of course, he was once the music director where I am, but = got in a fight with the pastor of that time in front of the choir and left for the Lutheran church where he is now, taking almost half the congregation with him. The pastor here mentioned to me in August that it would be nice if the congregation sang the Lord's Prayer every once in a while. Alarmed that what he had in mind was the Alfred Hay Malotte (I suspect he thinks that = is the only music to which it is legally permissible to sing it, for when I told him I'd have to look for a good setting he asked me what the word "setting" meant), which is such an icon it should be given a rest of about = =3D a century, I went home and immediately wrote my own setting, which must be rather good because he says he loves it. So we will introduce that Sept. 27, when, because its a fifth Sunday, we will have a "hymn sing," inviting folks to suggest any hymn they care to sing. I'll suggest we sing = Runyon's version of the Lord's Prayer.... After writing that, the next week I decided just for fun to compose a new setting of the entire liturgy, according to the texts given in the LBW. So if any of you would like to = tr=3D y something a little different, let me know. It takes WOV a step further, = bu=3D t more in the direction of Gershwin than Marty Haugen. I couldn't help but put in some flavor of the old standards of American popular music I love = to play at home.     Randy Runyon Music Director Zion Lutheran Church Hamilton, Ohio runyonr@muohio.edu       on 9/21/02 12:07 PM, Alan Freed at acfreed0904@earthlink.net wrote:   On 6/13/02 3:39 PM, "MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com" <MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com> wrote:   [well, it=3DB9s below]   Jeremy, your approach is very much like ours. We keep changing things = left and right, constantly. With the result that after a couple of years of this, we bounce around among settings and parts of settings, quite willy-nilly, and nobody even notices it any more. [This applies even to ceremonial: We distribute the Eucharist at least three or four different ways, and it just doesn=3DB9t matter which way we do it on any given = Sunday. People just DO it. Nobody even notices if we sing the Communion hymn in Latin or the Agnus Dei in Spanish; we just do it.) Our Sunday crowd is 20-35% visitors (tourist area, Manhattan), and even the visitors seem to = go with the flow just fine. Our cantor is constantly composing new stuff, = and we=3DB9ll use his new Agnus Dei or Sanctus or Acclamaations for three to five Sundays and then drop it for six months=3D8Bbut we can return to it at any = time without batting an eye. We=3DB9re NOT keen on any WOV settings (use them = only experimentally now and then); but our main objection to them is distaste = fo=3D r the translations rather than lack of affection for the music per se.   Alan Freed, digging in old mail files Saint Luke=3DB9s Church (ELCA) Manhattan   In a message dated 6/13/2002 11:44:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, DrB88@aol.com writes:     My fear would be that too frequent a change could result in worshipers = bein=3D g unable to focus on their purpose---worship---because they are too preoccupied with the vehicle of expression. The balance here will be different in every parish, I imagine, but is a worthy consideration.     You're missing my very point which was, in essence, if you keep throwing = ne=3D w stuff out there, there comes a point where you've/they've got a (prepare = fo=3D r musicians' buzzword) REPERTOIRE from which to choose. That is what I was trying to convey from the example of my own church. We're now to that = poin=3D t where no part of the service music is ever the same from week to week, yet all of the music is "in the repertoire" and, therefore, doesn't cause the lack of focus you fear.   The way I implemented it was to throw in ONE new movement - let's say a Sanctus, sing it for three weeks in a row, then throw in a different = Gloria or something, run it for three weeks while still running the Sanctus, then drop back to the well known Sanctus on the third week of the new Gloria, then add another different part the next week......etc., etc., etc. There was always one new part somewhere that ran for 3 weeks, but ALWAYS = revertin=3D g back to the well known version after that run. After about six months of that.....guess what.....you have LOTS of new things that the people now "know". I know all that was confusing, but hopefully you get the idea.   So, that's why I say, "setting" six is the long-awaited license to go for it!! Now, changing entire SETTINGS frequently....yes, that would probably be a negative jolt....which is why I've always had a problem with the = whole "setting" thing. To change, you had to change everything, and of course that's overwhelming for people.   "setting" six.....you've heard about it, you've read about it, go for it!~ :-)   Jeremy=3D20           --MS_Mac_OE_3115457253_290833_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset=3D"ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable   <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Dear all and especially Lutherans,<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Over the summer I thought it would be a good idea, at = le=3D ast for the sake of variety, to introduce setting 5 in WOV, but then = backed =3D off when I was told in a church council meeting that if we made that = switch,=3D some people would get upset and leave. &nbsp;Then a member of the worship = a=3D nd music committee, where I had first pitched the idea, decided to really = pu=3D sh for changing to setting 5. &nbsp;I had given up on it, but he hadn't. = &nb=3D sp;So we may go to it in October, if the church council in its October = meeti=3D ng decides to go ahead. &nbsp;I really don't care. &nbsp;If they're so = neuro=3D tic about change that people would walk out, the hell (pardon the = expression=3D ) with it.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I sure wish we could be as open to new things as St. = Luk=3D e's. &nbsp;You have to bear in mind that this is a church where about ten = ye=3D ars ago when a previous pastor on his first Sunday asked those on the back = p=3D ews to move forward, some of them got mad and left the church. &nbsp;And = he =3D lost his job. &nbsp;Jeez!<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I talked to the music director of the other Lutheran = chu=3D rch in town (a Missouri synod--we're ELCA) recently, and he said they have = n=3D o problem with singing all the settings in the LBW and all the ones in = WOV. =3D &nbsp;Who says Missouri Synod types are more uptight than ELCA's? &nbsp;Rath=3D er the opposite around here. &nbsp;Of course, he was once the music = director=3D where I am, but got in a fight with the pastor of that time in front of = the=3D choir and left for the Lutheran church where he is now, taking almost = half =3D the congregation with him.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The pastor here mentioned to me in August that it would = =3D be nice if the congregation sang the Lord's Prayer every once in a while. = &n=3D bsp;Alarmed that what he had in mind was the Alfred Hay Malotte (I suspect = h=3D e thinks that is the only music to which it is legally permissible to sing = i=3D t, for when I told him I'd have to look for a good setting he asked me = what =3D the word &quot;setting&quot; meant), which is such an icon it should be = give=3D n a rest of about a century, I went home and immediately wrote my own = settin=3D g, which must &nbsp;be rather good because he says he loves it. &nbsp;So = we =3D will introduce that Sept. 27, when, because its a fifth Sunday, we will = have=3D a &quot;hymn sing,&quot; inviting folks to suggest any hymn they care to = si=3D ng. &nbsp;I'll suggest we sing Runyon's version of the Lord's Prayer.... = &nb=3D sp;After writing that, the next week I decided just for fun to compose a = new=3D setting of the entire liturgy, according to the texts given in the LBW. = &nb=3D sp;So if any of you would like to try something a little different, let me = k=3D now. &nbsp;It takes WOV a step further, but more in the direction of = Gershwi=3D n than Marty Haugen. &nbsp;I couldn't help but put in some flavor of the = old=3D standards of American popular music I love to play at home.<BR> <BR> <BR> Randy Runyon<BR> Music Director<BR> Zion Lutheran Church<BR> Hamilton, Ohio<BR> runyonr@muohio.edu<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> on 9/21/02 12:07 PM, Alan Freed at acfreed0904@earthlink.net wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman">On 6/13/02 3:39 PM, = &quot;MyrtleBe=3D achMusic@aol.com&quot; &lt;MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com&gt; wrote:<BR> <BR> [well, it=3DB9s below]<BR> <BR> Jeremy, your approach is very much like ours. &nbsp;We keep changing = things=3D left and right, constantly. &nbsp;With the result that after a couple of = ye=3D ars of this, we bounce around among settings and parts of settings, quite = wi=3D lly-nilly, and nobody even notices it any more. &nbsp;[This applies even = to =3D ceremonial: &nbsp;We distribute the Eucharist at least three or four = differe=3D nt ways, and it just doesn=3DB9t matter which way we do it on any given = Sunday. =3D &nbsp;People just DO it. &nbsp;Nobody even notices if we sing the = Communion =3D hymn in Latin or the Agnus Dei in Spanish; we just do it.) &nbsp;Our = Sunday =3D crowd is 20-35% visitors (tourist area, Manhattan), and even the visitors = se=3D em to go with the flow just fine. &nbsp;Our cantor is constantly composing = n=3D ew stuff, and we=3DB9ll use his new Agnus Dei or Sanctus or Acclamaations = for th=3D ree to five Sundays and then drop it for six months=3D8Bbut we can return = to it =3D at any time without batting an eye. &nbsp;We=3DB9re NOT keen on any WOV = settings=3D (use them only experimentally now and then); but our main objection to = them=3D is distaste for the translations rather than lack of affection for the = musi=3D c per se.<BR> <BR> Alan Freed, digging in old mail files<BR> Saint Luke=3DB9s Church (ELCA)<BR> Manhattan<BR> <BR> </FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3D3D"2">In = a message=3D dated 6/13/2002 11:44:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, DrB88@aol.com = writes:<BR=3D > <BR> <BR> My fear would be that too frequent a change could result in worshipers = bein=3D g unable to focus on their purpose---worship---because they are too = preoccup=3D ied with the vehicle of expression. &nbsp;The balance here will be = different=3D in every parish, I imagine, but is a worthy consideration. &nbsp;<BR> </FONT><BR> </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D3D"Arial"><BR> You're missing my very point which was, in essence, if you keep throwing = ne=3D w stuff out there, there comes a point where you've/they've got a (prepare = f=3D or musicians' buzzword) REPERTOIRE from which to choose. &nbsp;That is what =3D I was trying to convey from the example of my own church. &nbsp;We're now = to=3D that point where no part of the service music is ever the same from week = to=3D week, yet all of the music is &quot;in the repertoire&quot; and, = therefore,=3D doesn't cause the lack of focus you fear.<BR> <BR> The way I implemented it was to throw in ONE new movement - let's say a = San=3D ctus, sing it for three weeks in a row, then throw in a different Gloria = or =3D something, run it for three weeks while still running the Sanctus, then = drop=3D back to the well known Sanctus on the third week of the new Gloria, then = ad=3D d another different part the next week......etc., etc., etc. &nbsp;There = was=3D always one new part somewhere that ran for 3 weeks, but ALWAYS reverting = ba=3D ck to the well known version after that run. &nbsp;After about six months = of=3D that.....guess what.....you have LOTS of new things that the people now = &qu=3D ot;know&quot;. &nbsp;I know all that was confusing, but hopefully you get = th=3D e idea.<BR> <BR> So, that's why I say, &quot;setting&quot; six is the long-awaited license = t=3D o go for it!! &nbsp;Now, changing entire SETTINGS frequently....yes, that = wo=3D uld probably be a negative jolt....which is why I've always had a problem = wi=3D th the whole &quot;setting&quot; thing. &nbsp;To change, you had to change = e=3D verything, and of course that's overwhelming for people.<BR> <BR> &quot;setting&quot; six.....you've heard about it, you've read about it, = go=3D for it!~ :-)<BR> <BR> Jeremy</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman"> <BR> </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D3D"Times New Roman"><BR> </FONT><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> </BODY> </HTML>     --MS_Mac_OE_3115457253_290833_MIME_Part--