PipeChat Digest #3411 - Wednesday, January 29, 2003
 
Re: Ok, what exactly are you all doing...
  by "Scott Rollins" <srollins@primus.ca>
Bish Date
  by <doubltrump@aol.com>
Re: The English Hymnal
  by "John Foss" <harfo32@hotmail.com>
Re: Bish Date
  by "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu>
RE: Contemporary organ music
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
Re: Czech Republic Organ
  by "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk>
re cameron carpenter
  by "Jonathan B. Hall" <jonathan@jonathanbhall.com>
Anglican Hymnals
  by "Jonathan B. Hall" <jonathan@jonathanbhall.com>
RE: Anglican hymnals
  by "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu>
Transcriptions - was re cameron carpenter
  by "David Carter" <davidorganist2002@yahoo.com>
Anglican hymnals
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Ok, what exactly are you all doing...
  by <Cremona502@cs.com>
RE: Anglican hymnals
  by "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu>
Re: Transcriptions - was re cameron carpenter
  by <Gfc234@aol.com>
Re: Anglican hymnals
  by "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
 

(back) Subject: Re: Ok, what exactly are you all doing... From: "Scott Rollins" <srollins@primus.ca> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:51:15 -0500 (EST)   Today, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:   > Also worth acquiring, IMO, is the 1930's era Canadian Anglican hymnal, > also called "Common Praise."   Actually, I believe its full title is the "Book of Common Praise," with "Common Praise" appearing on the spine.   "Common Praise" (this time, I believe, without the "Book of") is also the name of the new Canadian Anglican hymnal, published in the mid-to-late '90s. (The other hymnal which the Anglican Church of Canada had a part in was "The Hymn Book" jointly with the United Church of Canada, in about 1971.)   Just so nobody gets a nasty surprise if they order the wrong book.   Scott   Scott Rollins * srollins@primus.ca * Arnprior, Ontario, Canada Organist/Choir Director, Grace-St. Andrew's United Church ------------------------------------------------------------------- "There's a clarity in letter writing that goes beyond all forms of communication." -- DB    
(back) Subject: Bish Date From: <doubltrump@aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:14:00 -0500   Dear List,   I am on yet another quest for a collegue; the birth year of Concert = Organist Diane Bish. Inquiring minds want to know for program notes... but = you can reply privately for her sake.   Any assistance is appreciated.   T. White Dir. of Music Bridgehampton Pres. Ch. Bridgehampton, NY  
(back) Subject: Re: The English Hymnal From: "John Foss" <harfo32@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:39:34 +0000     I haven't got a copy to hand, but I believe that the English Hymnal was jointly edited by Vaughan Williams and my Great Uncle, Hubert Foss. John Foss     www.johnfoss.gr         _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail    
(back) Subject: Re: Bish Date From: "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:24:17 -0500   According to John Henderson's book it is 1941.     Randy Runyon Music Director Zion Lutheran Church Hamilton, Ohio runyonr@muohio.edu             on 1/29/03 8:14 AM, doubltrump@aol.com at doubltrump@aol.com wrote:   > Dear List, > > I am on yet another quest for a collegue; the birth year of Concert = Organist > Diane Bish. Inquiring minds want to know for program notes... but you = can > reply privately for her sake. > > Any assistance is appreciated. > > T. White > Dir. of Music > Bridgehampton Pres. Ch. > Bridgehampton, NY > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org >    
(back) Subject: RE: Contemporary organ music From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:38:25 +0000 (GMT)   Hello,   A fine reply from Paul Emmons, and one which "struck a chord" here in the UK as much as will in the US.   I shall have to think about this in depth, but I suspect that "churches" will have only a marginal impact on any renaissance. I feel that the churches are actually PART of the problem........   Regards,   Colin MItchell UK   --- "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> wrote: > Artistic styles inevitably reflect the surrounding > culture. When a > civilization is in decline, its art becomes crude > and bizarre. Art is > prophetic, like the canaries in a coal mine. Don't > just blame the canaries > when they keel over, or wring your hands in > puzzlement. Look to your oxygen > supply. >     __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Re: Czech Republic Organ From: "Colin Mitchell" <cmys13085@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:44:51 +0000 (GMT)   Hello,   For a long time I had hoped that people would look at organ music from Central Europe........and finally, here we are.   There IS life beyond Bach and Vierne!   Regards,   Colin Mitchell UK --- Antoni Scott <ascott@ptd.net> wrote:     > > I was glad to hear that you have other recordings of > Jiri Ropek>   The most outstanding > recording I have > heard in many years is the Josef Klicka (1855-1937) > composition "Concert > Fantasy on the St. Wenceslas Choral, Hymne Czech, > op. 65". One member, > very generously sent me the sheet music to this > piece. For sure, it is > one of those "listen alone, turn up the volume" > pieces. I highly > recommend this to any of the PipeChat Members. >     __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: re cameron carpenter From: "Jonathan B. Hall" <jonathan@jonathanbhall.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:27:24 -0800 (PST)   Dear List:   First of all, I must offer a public apology to Felix Hell.   Felix, I have re-read my last paragraph (with the infamous "kiddies" remark) and I don't blame you a bit for being annoyed with me. I'm sorry--you were not on my mind at all when I wrote that. Please don't be angry with me. Anyone who can say, as you do, that you intend to study for the next 60 years is NOT a kid(die)--but rather a serious colleague who happens to still be a teenager! You have a terrific attitude, and I share it--even though, if you have 60 years, I only have 35! :)   Obviously, my "prescription" for transposing hymns wasn't meant for you! Rather, it reflects my concern that we not lose sight of the basics. The original Subject of my post has, in my view, not only lost sight of the basics, but he never grasped them to begin with, and he seems to think the basics are for lesser beings than himself. This offends me on a professional level as well as a personal one.   This list, too, has spent a lot of time hashing over the idea of "mediocrity" of late. I suggest, again, that focusing on the basics is the first and best cure for mediocrity. It goes without saying that you, Felix, are not mediocre!   By all accounts, you are deeply devoted to serious organ performance, and I stand by you 100 percent on that. You are also known to be a respectful, courteous and affable person, and I respect you--highly--for that as well.   By all accounts, as well, Mr. Carpenter is a very different kind of organist and person than you are. I won't go into detail publicly--yet--about the pressure I've gotten to hire him to play at Epiphany, but I will say it has been distasteful. I believe I'm entitled to express these views in the manner I've chosen, and I could say a lot more.   Felix, I have no issue with anybody's age or youth, religion, nationality, or sexuality--nor with anybody's level of skill or career profile. I have an issue, frankly, with one thing only--what in plain New Yorkese is called "bullshit." I don't think you appreciate BS any more than I do. Again, I'm very sorry to have offended you. I hope we can move forward happily from here.   To the List, I have to also repeat my concern that we not allow our profession to be dishonored by over-investment in novelty or in setting aside serious performance in favor of spectacle. Why are the very same musical practices that exposed Wendy Carlos to ridicule being held up as appropriate for Cameron Carpenter? Why do we say that Schoenberg has violated the E-flat prelude and fugue by his orchestrations, but don't hold our own recitalists to the same standard? By what principle are we being guided here?   If we accept Carpenter's registrations for Widor, then we have to accept Schoenberg's and Carlos' versions of Bach--don't we?     Wishing you all the best from a still-frozen New York City--     Jon(athan)  
(back) Subject: Anglican Hymnals From: "Jonathan B. Hall" <jonathan@jonathanbhall.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:43:38 -0800 (PST)   Hi, List--   The question has been asked about Episcopalian/Anglican hymnals of the "good old" variety.   Bud put his two cents in thusly:   >FORGET the Episcopal Hymnal 1982 ... not worth the paper it's printed on, not unlike the new Lutheran books (grin).     --Well, of course, this is a highly colored opinion, and also inaccurate! (I guess it's *my* turn to be annoyed now!) An anecdote will illustrate my point:   Our parish just had its 170th birthday. We were founded on Epiphany, January 6, in the year 1833. On Sunday, February 9, we have planned (coinciding with our delayed parish birthday celebration) to sing hymns at the 11 AM Service that would have been available to the parish at its founding. We want to sing what Fr. Lot Jones, D.D., our Founder, might have sung in 1833 on the Lower East Side. I thought I'd be in for a hard time--so many people crab about the 1982 Hymnal, that it's a "betrayal" of the "glorious heritage" blah blah blah and so on. I figured I might need to make a trip to General Seminary to copy out authentic hymns of the period.   It turns out that, first of all, the hymnal available to our parish in 1833 would have been the "Prayer Book Collection" authorized by General Convention in 1826 and bound up with the Book of Common Prayer. It consisted of 212 texts and a number of tunes printed separately--texts and tunes still being totally un-linked at the time. In 1833, a "hymn" really meant a "hymn text;" the tune was secondary, and as long as the words fit the tune all was well.   But I have found *so many hymns* in the 1982 that we already had in 1826 that I have to spread this project out over at least two Sundays to get them all in! It's possible that the tunes are different; but many of these tunes predate 1833 anyway! Amazing.   Here's what I've planned for February 9:   Processional: The Spacious Firmament on High (unchanged since the 1789 hymn collection, and in every Episcopal hymnal since)   Sequence: When Jesus Left His Father's Throne (to a more recent tune, "Kingsfold," from the 1906 English Hymnal; but the text was adopted in 1826)   Offertory Anthem: My Faith Looks Up to Thee (not in the 1826 collection, but *is* in the 1982! Composed in 1833, text by Ray Palmer of New York City, so there is at least a tenuous link to our founding)   Communion: My God, Thy Table Now Is Spread (included since 1789)   Recessional: Thou Art the Way (included since 1826)   On February 16, we'll include a remarkable hymn by Henry Ustick Onderdonk, a great early American bishop and hymn-writer; his "How Wondrous and Great" was in the 1826. Also "Oh, for a Closer Walk with God," "Jesus, Lover of My Soul," and "God Moves in a Mysterious Way," all 1826 or 1789 alumni, will have their moments of glory!   What a rich heritage, sitting in every pew of my church! And what a fascinating reminder that the Episcopalian hymn heritage in America is heavily indebted to Watts, Wesley, the Olney poets, and other sources. We have both a Catholic and a Protestant heritage, and both serve us well. (In 1833, what we had was mainly Protestant, as you can see.)   The 1982 Hymnal, in a word, for all its flaws in service repertoire, does represent a remarkable continuity with the hymnic heritage of the Episcopal Church. It is most DEFINITELY worth the paper it's printed on, and a heck of a lot more.   When the original poster asks about "good old hymns," perhaps he has something more specific in mind that I'm not addressing--Onward, Christian Soldiers and America the Beautiful, perhaps? But if he really means "good old hymns," the 1982 is a remarkably strong source for these, and I can indeed recommend it.   I **really hope** we're not going back to Anglican flame-wars on this list!!   All best, again, from a chilly (and broad-church)Manhattan   JH  
(back) Subject: RE: Anglican hymnals From: "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:50:25 -0500   Although there is probably less and less discipline everywhere as to what hymns and hymnals are authorized, you should know that the Hymnal 1982, = like the Hymnal 1940 and the Hymnal 1916 before it, is the one standard for = U.S. Episcopal churches. However, there has never been one standard in the = same manner for the Church of England. The hymnal used tends to vary according to party and other characteristics of an individual parish or chapel. = Hymns Ancient and Modern "Standard edition" came out in the 19th century and was originally decidedly high-church; however, over the years, it was adopted more and more by low-church parishes so that eventually it was considered = a low-church book. (Maybe this is an indication of how victorious high churchmanship actually became, when you consider what things were like in the 1830s :-) The English Hymnal became the new high-church favorite = when it came out. It is more uncompromising in its musical and textual standards, whereas the A&M editors have been somewhat more willing to make alterations and use material for what they consider to be pastoral or populist reasons. The gesture of the English Hymnal in that direction = was to include an appendix containing "tunes that do not fit into the general scheme of the book." By that the editors meant that they considered them inferior material, but were including them out of deference to requests or expecations from some people.   (We can see in the Hymnal 1982 which approach is currently ascendent; and the numerous "supplements" since that even more freely distort classic material to cater to whatever political pique someone wants to affect = serve, one would think, as an amusing _reductio ad absurdam_ for the ultimate bankruptcy of that approach.)   Nevertheless, both the standard and revised (in the early 1950s) editions = of Hymns Ancient and Modern are good to have. The Revised edition is = basically a different book. The Anglican Hymn Book is a recent product of the lowor broad-church folks. There is also a New English Hymnal. I am not aware = of anyone that actually uses Songs of Syon in the pews anymore, yet it was still in print as late as the early 1980s and is very interesting to have for its office hymns, plainchant, etc. It is definitely Anglo-Catholic = with an antiquarian flavor-- Sarum use, perhaps? On a more modernist but, I think, solid and interesting level, with editorship as distinguished as = the English Hymnal, is Songs of Praise, which came out perhaps in the 1930s. = It quickly became a favorite in school chapels, where enthusiastic teenage men's voices belting out a sturdy unison melody could make for quite a thrilling experience given a little special attention. If you can find = it, the Plainsong Hymn Book (an early twentith-century project of the Hymns Ancient and Modern editors and publishers) is also worthwhile. I was able to obtain a copy only because Gerald Knight and I went rummaging around = for some in the cellar of Addington Palace one memorable evening after dinner!      
(back) Subject: Transcriptions - was re cameron carpenter From: "David Carter" <davidorganist2002@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:20:11 -0800 (PST)   I have a CD at home of Bach transcriptions for orchestra - Bach Transcriptions L.A. Philharmonic Cond. Esa-Pekka Salonen Contents: 1. Bach's Toccata and fugue in D minor (BWV 565) - Leopold Stokowski 2. Transcription for orchestra of Bach's Fantasia & Fugue in C minor (BWV = 537), Op. 86 - Edward Elgar 3. Fuga (Ricercata) a 6 voci for orchestra (arr. from Bach's Musical = Offering) - Anton Webern 4. Transcription for orchestra of Bach's Prelude & Fugue in E flat major - = Arnold Schoenberg 5. Bach's "Little" fugue in G minor (BWV 578) - Leopold Stokowski 6. Suite from works by Bach, 4 movements for orchestra, harpsichord & = organ - Gustav Mahler   Unfortunately, I haven't had an opportunity to listen to this yet. = However, I'm definitely looking forward to it. I enjoy transcriptions immensely, regardless of the = original source/target instrumentation. They make me think about the music, and I usually 'hear' = new things when I listen to them. The 'Switched-On Bach' albums ignited my passion for the music of = Bach. When I listen to those pieces in their original instrumentation, I appreciate the music = even more.   My reason for posting this ramble, I guess, is to encourage all to keep an = open mind regarding non-traditional interpretations of the music that we all enjoy. If you = don't like it, turn it off.   If an audience at an organ concert goes wild for a particular performance, = it can't be all that bad, since that audience will likely return to hear more organ.   David Carter, hoping you all can tolerate my rambling here. In foggy Sacramento, where the state budget has really gone to = *&^%*&^@%@%^.     __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Anglican hymnals From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:09:02 -0800   I was for many years a professional typesetter in a graphics house that produced work of the highest quality ... Supreme Court briefs, small press runs of scholarly books, etc. ... and, as some of you know, I currently do free-lance music engraving, using Sibelius.   Even a cursory examination of the quality of work in the Hymnal 1982 with that contained in the Hymnal 1940 will reveal some glaring flaws, putting aside for the moment the CONTENT of the former book.   I well remember when I first encountered the Hymnal 1982 ... a friend's parish had just unpacked them and put them in the pews. I was sitting in the back of the church waiting for him to finish giving an organ lesson so we could go to lunch. I picked up the book and started thumbing through it ... my IMMEDIATE reaction, sitting in the relatively dim light of that historic Gothic church (the lanterns were ON in the nave) was, "the average age of this congregation is 50+ ... how in the WORLD are they going to READ this in this light?" As my friend's church was still a Morning Prayer parish at the time, I was naturally curious about the pointing of the Canticles. Even with my bifocals, *I* couldn't read them OR puzzle out the pointing.   It's a given that each succeeding Episcopal hymnal seemingly MUST offer a new system of "improved" pointing, and the Hymnal 1982 is no exception. But why change the pointing of the familiar Canticles? Right or wrong, those parishes that continued to sing Morning Prayer were going to sing the Venite the way they KNEW it.   I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but my more cynical side suspects that the Canticles were re-pointed and made more difficult to read (10 or 11-point type??!!) in order to force the issue of the Eucharist as the proper principal service on Sundays. Now, I'm in AGREEMENT that the Eucharist SHOULD be the principal service, but one of the selling points of the new Prayer Book and Hymnal was that they (supposedly) allowed congregations the CHOICE of retaining familiar language and music, as well as Morning Prayer in those low-church parishes where it was well-beloved.   Now ... on to the CONTENTS: first of all, Canon Douglas must be spinning in his GRAVE at what they've done to the plainsong. In discussing on another list what notation I should use for my Gradual Psalms, the most frequent complaint about the ones issued by Church Hymnal Corp. was the German note-head-only notation. Amateur volunteer choirs (who make up the BULK of US Episcopal choirs) find it EXTREMELY difficult to read; organists trained in the Solesmes rhythmic method find it difficult or impossible to find the ictus so as to know when to change the chords, since the note-head-only notation gives no indication of what the original neums were. The same complaint was leveled against the plainsong notation in the Hymnal 1982.   Consider this: our eyes instinctively read BLACK note-heads (absent any kind of flags or stems) as QUARTER notes; we read WHITE notes as HALF notes or WHOLE notes; yet in the notation employed in the Hymnal 1982, we are to read the BLACK notes as EIGHTH notes, and the WHITE notes as QUARTER notes. VOLUNTEER choirs have no IDEA what to do with THAT.   I discovered one particularly jarring oddity when I was making a congregational edition of Missa Marialis ... the Hymnal 1982 happened to be handy, so I took the Sanctus melody from there. When I handed out 8 1/2 x 11 copies to the choir, and we ran through it, we discovered it was different BY ONE NOTE (!). WHY? Fortunately I hadn't printed the congregational booklets (grin). Congregations who KNOW Missa Marialis know Canon Douglas' transcription.   The same thing is true of the Scottish Chant Gloria in excelsis. Yes, I KNOW that the V-I "amen" at the end isn't CORRECT, but congregations who continued to sing Scottish Chant are NOT going to switch over to the new pointing of the last phrase just because the editors put it into the Hymnal 1982. They're going to sing it from MEMORY.   I'm not going to join the battle about altering older hymn texts to fit current ideas of political correctness / inclusive language. We use the Hymnal 1940; we don't DO it. I'm ALL FOR *new* hymn texts being written in inclusive language, if that's what's wanted; but time and again I've heard congregations sing what they KNOW ("Good Christian MEN, Rejoice") rather than what's on the printed page ("Good Christian FRIENDS, Rejoice"), which leads to confusion, to say the least.   I will grant that we've never REALLY found a satisfactory way to present liturgical materials, other than the old Burgess Liturgical Choir Books (and even those didn't contain the LITURGY, just the MUSIC), or what we do currently at our parish: print the ENTIRE service, words and music (melody line only) in order, in a congregational booklet. But the liturgical music section in the back of the Organist's Edition is a needle-in-a-haystack proposition. And why, for HEAVEN'S sake, is that section only included in the ORGANIST'S Edition? What are CHOIRS supposed to do? Yes, I know, it gives permission to reprint it, but if they were going to INCLUDE it, why didn't they include it in the Choir and Pew Editions as well? Not all parishes have a full-time organist, a state-of-the-art copier, and an office staff to produce these things ...   End of rant (grin).   Cheers,   Bud, who's just a simple village organist, and perhaps doesn't understand these things    
(back) Subject: Re: Ok, what exactly are you all doing... From: <Cremona502@cs.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:11:00 EST     --part1_1ec.867e53.2b698144_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   Justin, My recommendation for purchasing the Episcopal Hymnal 1982, is to purchase =   the HYMNBOOK, not the Hymnal 1982. The difference is that the HymnBOOK = has only the hymns in harmony form and costs (I hope) less than $20. The = Hymnal 1982 (pew edition) has unison hymns without accompaniment, only the melody =   line, but contains service music. The Accompaniment Edition of the Hymnal =   1982 has all of the hymns with accompaniments as well as all of the = service music and is very expensive as well as cumbersome (two volumes).     Bruce, with Miles, Molly and Degui in the Muttastery at Howling Acres http://members.tripod.com/Brucon502     --part1_1ec.867e53.2b698144_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2>Justin, <BR>My recommendation for purchasing the Episcopal Hymnal 1982, is to = purchase the HYMNBOOK, not the Hymnal 1982. &nbsp;&nbsp;The difference is = that the HymnBOOK has only the hymns in harmony form and costs (I hope) = less than $20. &nbsp;&nbsp;The Hymnal 1982 (pew edition) has unison hymns = without accompaniment, only the melody line, but contains service music. = &nbsp;The Accompaniment Edition of the Hymnal 1982 has all of the hymns = with accompaniments as well as all of the service music and is very = expensive as well as cumbersome (two volumes). <BR> <BR> <BR>Bruce, with Miles, Molly and Degui &nbsp;in the Muttastery at Howling = Acres http://members.tripod.com/Brucon502 = &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <BR></FONT></HTML>   --part1_1ec.867e53.2b698144_boundary--  
(back) Subject: RE: Anglican hymnals From: "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:28:46 -0500   >The 1933 revised edition of The English Hymnal is the standard by which all others are judged. RVW was the musical editor. The original edition was 1906.   Bud, can you tell us, or speculate, as to why the English Hymnal contained the minor propers (words only, no music) with hymn numbers?   There are, or were, canons in the American Episcopal Church to the effect that the Book of Common Prayer should be used for orders of worship, = except that hymns from the authorized hymnal could be added at such-and-such = points (which happened to include, roughly, where we sing the introit, gradual, offertory, and communion verses). Similarly, texts of choral music had to come from the Bible, the Prayer Book, or the hymnal. Many of the minor propers didn't come directly from any of these sources, so their use was, strictly speaking, illegal. However, if they were put in the HYMNAL, then they could legally serve as the texts of choral pieces, or even of congregational and priestly utterances for that matter.   This might have made perfect (if devious) sense in the U.S. if it ever had come to pass, and I used to assume that this was why it was done in the English hymnal. However, I don't know whether the Church of England is actually governed by any such canonical premise. In the 19th century, of course, the bishops personally had a lot of power over what parishes in their dioceses did, and if a bishop was determined to stamp out any strayings in Popish directions, he could probably do it or at least cause much trouble, hymnal or no hymnal.   So why were the words of the minor proper put in the English hymnal? Was = it mere convenience? It's difficult to see how it can serve convenience or = an obvious practical purpose when there is no music with them.   Paul    
(back) Subject: Re: Transcriptions - was re cameron carpenter From: <Gfc234@aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:43:50 EST     --part1_12a.21687f0b.2b6988f6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   I am less than thrilled by the pieces they chose to transcribe. greg   --part1_12a.21687f0b.2b6988f6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2>I am less than thrilled = by the pieces they chose to transcribe. <BR>greg</FONT></HTML>   --part1_12a.21687f0b.2b6988f6_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re: Anglican hymnals From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:24:04 +1300   >End of rant (grin). >Cheers, >Bud, who's just a simple village organist, and perhaps doesn't understand these things   As I've told you before, Bud, and others have done so as well, you understand a helluva lot more than most folk and have the ability to put = it into interesting words. Don't be too modest - you have no need to be.   Politically-correct language is a wonderful topic as it occasions great amounts of heat and precious little light.   Imagine the first of line Poverty -   "All poor men and humble" might become "All financially-disadvantaged and those of low self-esteem with insufficient self-acknowledgement" or somesuch.   Ross