PipeChat Digest #3413 - Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Re: Anglican hymnals
  by "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com>
Anglican Hymnals
  by "David Baker" <dbaker@lawyers.com>
Re: Anglican hymnals
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Notes on Ancient Hymns, Hymn Writers and Church History
  by "Ray Kimber" <ray@kimber.com>
Re: Anglican hymnals
  by "Douglas A. Campbell" <dougcampbell@juno.com>
Klais pipe organ in Singapore
  by "Judy A. Ollikkala" <71431.2534@compuserve.com>
Re: Anglican Hymnals
  by <Chicaleee@aol.com>

(back) Subject: Re: Anglican hymnals From: "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:55:47 -0600     Bud wrote:   > 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.   The fact that the material for the Eucharist is printed with the same engraving chracteristics (point size, &c.) as the canticles Bud is = referring to, would seem to disfavor the conspiracy theory.   > [Regarding] 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 ...   but quite frankly, given that most of the parishes are not going to use = the material in the back of the accompanist volume (really, now how many parishes have need for a musical setting of the "Order of Service for Noonday", or Compline?) very often, if at all, I would argue that the arrangement by which these items were distributed is the most reasonable. The material is there, together with permission to reproduce, for those parishes which choose to use it, and those who don't won't be paying for more than a copy or two of it.   I would point out that like the Lutheran books of about the same Period ("Lutheran Book of Worship" and "Lutheran Worship"), the H82 was printed during a transitional period in the printing industry, during which traditional engraving and printing processes were being replaced by = computer typesetting and printing, and frankly, IMO, the latter processes were just not quite yet up to speed, or else the people running them were not quite adept at using them to produce the output that matched that of the earlier generation of books.   Another factor to consider, IMO, is that in the Episcopal Church in the U.S., in any event, an entire hymnal generation was skipped; given a = hymnal revision in 1896, one in 1916, (20 years later), one in 1940 (24 years) = and then, 1982 (42 years), so that there was no continuity at all between the groups preparing the two books, as there had been with the1916 and 1940, where Douglas was involved with both books. But the Lutherans now in the ELCA had this continuity, as there were people who were involved with both the 1950's era SBH, and the LBW of some 20 years later, and many Lutherans have an even greater dislike for LBW than Episcopalians have for the H82.   Frankly, some of this is just a matter of what one is accustomed to, and = how flexible we are. The H40 deviated in substantial respects from the H16; I've heard people complain that the material in H82 is arranged by = element, instead of in services, as in H40; but H16 was arranged by element, so printing "services" was a change for that book. H40 used the quarter note (crochet) as the basic unit of pulse, instead of the half note (minim) favored in the 1916, and in English books up until more recently (my copy = of HAMR) is uses minims, but the newest volume I own, the current HA&M styled "Common Praise" uses quarter notes, and a different engraving style than = the earlier books; more elegant in appearance, but arguably harder to read, especially in low-light situations.   ns      
(back) Subject: Anglican Hymnals From: "David Baker" <dbaker@lawyers.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:21:38 -0500   It's not an anglican hymnal, but I think that the Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs hymnal, created by Theodore Marier while at St. Paul's = R.C. in Cambridge, Mass., is a very good hymnal. It even has all the psalms pointed to psalm tones with (for the most part) quite singable refrains. = I think it is not published at the moment, as a new edition is in = preparation for the near future.   David Baker    
(back) Subject: Re: Anglican hymnals From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:46:44 -0800       "Jonathan B. Hall" wrote: > > Me again! > > Sorry, Bud comes across in a very definite, convincing way, but he's > still wrong. Entertaining, but wrong. <Grin,> <grin>, and more > <grin>, but still wrong. And now he's back on PipeChat, spreading ill > will and religious tension again.   I endeavoured to engage in a reasoned discussion of the merits (and demerits) of various Anglican hymnals. I fail to understand how that is "spreading ill-will and religious tension."   > > I'm not going to go point by point through what he correctly calls his > "rant", but, again, I'm going to stick up for my denominational hymnal > where I feel it's being unfairly attacked. > > You have to know, first of all, that Bud is NOT--repeat, NOT--a member > of the Episcopal Church. He belongs to a splinter group called the > Anglican Catholic Church in America, a sect that is NOT in communion > with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA OR with > Archbishop of Canterbury. They look and feel kind of old-line > Episcopalian, with a dash of old-line Catholicism; but they are very > definitely their own distinct operation, answering to no one else in > the world but themselves.   Um, exactly WHAT does that have to do with the typefaces and pointing used in the Hymnal 1982?   > > They're sort of comparable to the Old Catholic Church, the Old Roman > Catholic Church (the Ultrajectines), the various splinter "continuing" > Anglican ecclesial bodies, the Society of Pius X, The Ave Maria Chapel > of Westbury and Father Gommar De Pauw, The Church of France, and other > frankly dubious spin-off churches. I don't personally trust them > because they are too small, too particularized, and too sure that they > have THE TRUTH.   I'm not going to dignify that with an answer. NOWHERE in my former post did I in any WAY attack the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, or Dr. Hall's affiliation with it. Kindly do me the same courtesy.   > > But hey, it's a free country, and they're entitled to believe that they > alone, a handful of conservative Republicans in California, understand > the teachings of a blue-collar Jewish rabbi of two thousand years ago. > Why not. It's California.   I'm glad that Dr. Hall is so familiar with the demographics of my parish; unfortunately, it happens to be made up of "ALL sorts and conditions" ... races, political affiliations, etc.   > > BUT...Given that Bud isn't a member of the church he's criticizing, but > of a small sect that amalgamates Tridentine Catholicism and 1940 Prayer > Book worship (and a bit of Baptist tremolo) to its own particular > liking, it's a little unfair of him to keep pitching a bitch over MY > denomination's hymnal. He left my church; that's his privilege. But I > wish he'd stop trying to 'bust' us for alleged 'sins' against faith and > worship. It's all a bunch of nonsense.   Faith and worship? I don't like the ENGRAVING!!! and the EDITING!!! What, pray, does THAT have to do with FAITH or WORSHIP?   > > Anyway, here are a few reasoned and well-informed criticisms of Bud's > very doctrinaire inaccuracies. > > >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. > > --But if "each succeeding Episcopal hymnal" MUST offer a new system of > pointing, how does this make the 1982 especially bad? Is Bud going to > go back to 16th century sources to make sure he's getting "the real > thing?" Is Bud absolutely and totally sure--as a "professional > typesetter" and NOT as a scholar!--that the old book is right and the > new book is wrong? Is there a single *fact* given here besides "I > don't like new things?" And anyway, parishes have in fact come along > very nicely with the new system.   Um, my credentials are in order, and, as a matter of fact, I HAVE gone back to the original 16th century versions of Anglican chant. It's a well-known fact that both text underlay AND pointing (if indeed there WAS any) was not condified in any coherent way until the 19th century.   > > >I'm not big on conspiracy theories, > > --Oh, heaven forbid! > > >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. > > --You must be joking. The Eucharist is indeed the proper principal > service on Sundays. That is the LAW of the church! And what about the > NEW EUCHARISTIC MUSIC--how does that encourage a comfort level with > Eucharist? How can you accuse the church of this kind of cynicism? > EVERYONE was asked to change in 1979 and thereabouts, and your group > decided it wouldn't. Fine--it's a free country. But drop these > ridiculous arguments!   I wasn't speaking of the new music for the Eucharist ... the less said about it, the better (for the most part). I was speaking of the music for Morning Prayer and the decline in that service following the introduction of the new Hymnal.   Hmmm ... sale of hymnals and prayer books benefits the Church Pension Fund; MILLIONS were embezzled from the Church Pension Fund by an unscrupulous employee of Church Center; the Pension Fund received a HUGE influx of cash from the sale of the new prayer book and hymnal. Of COURSE there's no connection. Right. > > >Now, I'm in AGREEMENT that the Eucharist SHOULD be the principal > service, > > --Now he tells us! Then what's the problem?   I have never said otherwise. What I was SAYING was that Morning Prayer parishes should have been allowed to continue.   > > >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. > > --Selling points? Who's selling anything? You have over and over and > over again, well past the point of ad nauseam, lectured three different > Lists on the internet about the Holiness of Obedience to Higher Church > Authority. That's when you're feeling Catholick, at least. Why don't > you bow your head to church authority now? Selling points?! Anyway, > there IS still a choice, and this nonsense about small print is > laughable.   I find it VERY illuminating that Dr. Hall (and others) have suddenly come to this very Roman Catholic understanding of the nature of obedience to ecclesiastic authority. Despite his comments about the Anglican Catholic Church, we hold no such view.   As to the small print, I'm 58 years old; I wear trifocals; my vision is corrected to something CLOSE to 20/20; I have GREAT difficulty reading the print in the Hymnal 1982. That is a PASTORAL concern that should be addressed. Hello! Aging boomers?   > > --And what does ANY of this have to do with your announcement that you > were a "professional typesetter" for years? Oh, whatever.   Um, it has to do with knowing how to set text and music so people can READ it.   > > >Now ... on to the CONTENTS: first of all, Canon Douglas must be > spinning in his GRAVE at what they've done to the plainsong. > > --Hogwash. A pesky fact from a pesky Pisky: Canon Charles Winfred > Douglas, the guiding force behind the 1940 Hymnal and an indisputably > great scholar and churchman, WAS NOT INFALLIBLE! Maybe if the Anglican > Catholic Church in America doesn't recognize Papal infallibility, it > shouldn't insist on Douglas' infallibility either. Maybe scholarship > has improved, maybe other styles and practices in this big church of > ours (not yours) have informed these decisions. Maybe the good Canon's > decisions didn't need to stand for all time. Often enough, I choose to > point the psalmody myself. You got a problem with that?   Nope. I do the same. I wasn't speaking of the psalmody. I never claimed Canon Douglas was infallible. Don't put words into my mouth. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself.   > > >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; > > --I don't know who's complaining over on Anglican-Music besides you, > but the complaints are SPECIOUS. My volunteers have not the slightest > problem reading this system. It's quick, easy, and intuitive. Bud is > making, as usual, a mountain out of a molehill!   I think not. If Anglican-Music has archives, if you'll look there you'll find a very LIVELY discussion about this issue, among quite a few members.   > > >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. > > --Rot! There are phrase marks all over the place to suggest the > original neums, and the Liber and Kyriale are still in print for the > truly curious. But chant does NOT require any particular > harmonization, AND the Solesmes method is largely DISCREDITED by recent > scholarship! Can't you see? Bud is throwing a big word at you and > hoping you won't ask any questions!   On the contrary, ask away. I have, on commission, transcribed pieces from the Graduale Triplex. I am WELL-aware of the newer Solesmes theories. I never said the chant required any particular harmonization; I merely said that it would be nice to be able to find the downbeat so one could change chords on it.   As to the older Solesmes Method being discredited, I can only point out that for VOLUNTEER CHOIRS WHO SING CHANT (and that's what the discussion was ABOUT, as I recall), the "old" Solesmes Method remains the only one whereby a choir that reads MODERN notation can take up a MODERN notation chant in the Solesmes notation and SIGHT-READ it without any explanation beyond what to do with the makras and episemas ... and, as a matter of fact, BECAUSE of my middle-aged choir and the poor lighting the choir loft, I don't EMPLOY those marks ... I write OUT episemas in note values, the way the AVERAGE choir would sing them.   If I had four HIGHLY-trained chanters, I would undoubtedly turn them loose to use the new Solesmes method on the Gradual and Alleluia verses; but I don't. It's my impression that the rhythmic subtleties of the Graduale Triplex would be VERY difficult for a CHOIR, unless (like Fr. Columba's choir at St. Meinrad) they sing together every DAY.   > > For the record, the full-blown Solesmes system, which I know very well, > is a great way to learn the French Romantic esthetic, but NOT the > plainchant! It's downright fanciful! The ictus system is essentially > 19th century. Doesn't Bud know this?   "The little man who isn't there" ... yes I know ... did I ever say otherwise? I never claimed AUTHENTICITY for the "old" Solesmes Method; rather PRACTICALITY for a choir that proposes to sing at least the Gregorian Introits, Alleluia melodies, and Communions every Sunday with only a two-and-a-half hour rehearsal (which is more than most people have). > > >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. > > --Rubbish. We do no such thing. Eighth notes have black heads too, if > you'll recall; and chant is rhythmical but not metrical, so a white > head is not necessarily exactly double a black head. As I said above, > the note-head system is easy and intuitive. Bud is just back to his > old mean trick of attacking the mainstream Episcopal Church with > made-up stuff, as he does on more lists all the time. Do we really > have to put up with much more of this from him?   Um ... so I'm not allowed to discuss different methods and theories of Gregorian Chant notation without having it twisted into an ATTACK on the Episcopal Church? INteresting ... > > >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? > > --I don't know, Bud, and obviously you don't care enough to find out! > It's that "WHY" you asked that could have led to your greater > credibility as a church musician, had you bothered to find an answer. > Tell you what--I will personally find out why the note was changed, OK? > > --Here. Listen. I've just been on the phone with Roy Kehl, FAGO, a > member of the 1982 Hymnal Committee. What a shame you've never > cultivated an acquaintance with these smart people. His comments have > to do with improving the textual underlay of "Heaven and earth" and the > subsequent text--quite a bit more than one note, actually. > > If you disagree, why not talk to Bruce Ford, who did the new underlay? > He's a brilliant man, deeply grounded in the chant tradition. Why cut > yourself off and make a fool of yourself by complaining, and misstating > the "problem"?   Underlay of English texts to Latin melodies is ... well, among other things, it's a matter of taste. Dr. Palmer chose to preserve the groupings of the neums in The Plainchant Gradual; others chose to pay more attention to the WORD-accents in English. I take a middle ground; IF the neums can be preserved without breaking them up, fine; if they CAN'T without resulting in a long melisma on "er", for instance, then I will break them up.   I DID bother to check the Sanctus of Mass IX against the Latin original. I didn't find one solution more SATISFACTORY than the other. I merely pointed out that it was CONFUSING to CHANGE solutions to a well-known Sanctus melody.   > > >Fortunately I hadn't printed the congregational booklets (grin). > Congregations who KNOW Missa Marialis know Canon Douglas' > transcription. > > --Oh, the infallible Canon Douglas again. I should have known. You > ascribe to him a wisdom you deny to everyone else in the world. He > didn't write the chant, he just transcribed and adapted it. As the > text changed to include the Benedictus qui venit, Ford came up with a > better adaptation. Are you mad that nobody consulted you on this?   Once again, Dr. Hall misses my point. I have no quarrel with Bruce Ford's scholarship; what I'm questioning is the PASTORAL appropriateness of offering a SLIGHTLY different version of a chant that was VERY familiar to Episcopalians.   > > AND it's not really the 'Missa Marialis!' It's properly called the > 'Missa IX Cum Jubilo.' Douglas made up the new name. What do you say > to that? Actually, the Ford re-write is essentially the Missa Cum > Jubilo Sanctus restored! So are you Catholic or not?   Oh please. I've performed Durufle's Messe cum jubilo; I know what the proper name is. I also know that the colloquial names of the most familiar Gregorian Masses among Anglicans are:   Paschalis - Mass I - lux et origo Solemnis - Mass II - fons bonitatis Apostolis - Mass IV - Cunctipotens Genitor Deus, the c.f. for most of the French organ Masses De Angelis - Mass VIII - de Angelis Marialis - Mass IX - cum jubilo, printed with the Gloria in excelsis of Mass X in the Hymnal 1940 Dominicis - Mass XI - Orbis factor Penitentialis - Mass XVII - no name given in the Solesmes books for the Kyrie   Again with the personal attacks ... what on EARTH does what I call a particular Gregorian Mass have to do with my catholicity?? > > >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. > > --Who says? And which side are you on, Bud, the side of accuracy and > correctness or the side of pastoral comfort?   PASTORAL COMFORT, ALWAYS.   You switch sides as it > suits your argument.   NOT TRUE.   If the V-I Amen isn't CORRECT, why do you support > it? Have you NEVER forced a weird liturgical thingum on your parish > because it's MORE CORRECT than those Heathens in the Episcopal Church?   Nope. Never have. Never will. Wouldn't be PERMITTED to. I don't run the liturgy. The rector does. I do what he tells me to do.   > I have a STACK of your old emails that BRAG of just that.   If you mean teaching them to sing Psalms, that was at the rector's behest; and after some initial grumbling, they took to it enthusiastically. I can't imagine what else you might be speaking of.   > > >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. > > --No, let's not go there. I have some issues with this too. My > congregation knows how to read, and they don't usually screw up the > texts in the hymnal, even if they're unfamiliar...one exception being > the admittedly unfortunate "Angels We Have Heard on High." I do really > dislike that version. > > --In short, Bud, it doesn't sound like you have a whole lot of > reasonable complaints against the 1982 Hymnal, except you are too > stubborn and too proud to accept it. You seem to have a lot of baggage > against the Episcopal Church--which is understandable and OK, only > don't hide it under false scholarship. I stand by my recommendation > and endorsement of the Hymnal 1982 of the Episcopal Church.   And I stand by my comments, which have nothing whatsoever to do with baggage.   > > >End of rant (grin). > > ---Is that a promise? > > >Cheers, > > Bud, who's just a simple village organist, and perhaps doesn't > understand these things > > --Agreed! > > Jon, a big city organist who's studied his butt off and DOES understand > these things. > > I'll stop if you will! :) >   My organ teachers: Ramona Cruikshank Beard; Fenner Douglass; Roberta Gary; Robert Anderson; Bernard Lagace   My improvisation teacher: Gerre Hancock   My Chant teacher: Fr. John de Deo, OFM, the Pontifical Gregorian Institute, Rome   My choral conducting teachers: Herman Gunter, Robert Fountain, Lloyd Pfautsch   My rector in high school was an organ pupil of T. Tertius Noble; he taught me service-playing   I was privileged to know Dr. Healy Willan in the last years of his life, and to spend time at St. Mary Magdalene in Toronto, observing one of the finest church music programs in North America.   While at Old St. Mary's RC in Cincinnati, I conducted the first American performance of Marc-Antoine Charpentier's Mass for Two Choirs and Two Orchestras, and the first Cincinnati performance of Durufle's Messe cum jubilo.   You (or anyone else on this list) is welcome to verify any of the above.   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Notes on Ancient Hymns, Hymn Writers and Church History From: "Ray Kimber" <ray@kimber.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:51:09 -0700   Hello List,   Notes on Ancient Hymns, Hymn Writers and Church History by James Ostler   Privately published by the author's daughters   I have a book of the above title and wonder if anyone on the list has a copy. It has no date of publish but seems to be from about 1920.   It is 344 pages, with the following chapter titles:   The 1st to 10th Centuries The Latin Hymns Psalmody in Britain Ancient Hymns in the Congregational Hymnary and others Hymns of the Early Church and their Authors The Reformation The Seventeenth Centruy in Europe The Seventeenth Century in Britain Hymnody in Britain English Hymns in the Hymnary The Great Revival After Watts The Olney Hymns   I'm interested only from a listeners point of view. I enjoy reading the posts on this chat list and was thumbing through this book, thought I = would ask if anyone has read it.   Kind regards,   Ray Kimber    
(back) Subject: Re: Anglican hymnals From: "Douglas A. Campbell" <dougcampbell@juno.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:10:09 -0500   Dear List,   In discussions of Anglican Hymnals (recent and past) there has never been mentioned the only English Hymnal that I own: "Songs of Praise" Oxford University Press 1926, revised and enlarged 1932, edited by RVW and Martin Shaw.   I am curious if anyone is familiar with this book and your comments.       Douglas A. Campbell Skaneateles, NY   ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com  
(back) Subject: Klais pipe organ in Singapore From: "Judy A. Ollikkala" <71431.2534@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:06:52 -0500   My son in Singapore gave me a newspaper article on the opening of the new Concert Hall in the Esplanade Theatres on the Bay in Singapore, dated mid-October 2002. The Hall seats 2000 and was designed by " renowned American acoustician Russell Johnson, age 78", and has a pipe organ by Johannes Klais Orgelbau of Germany. "12 m high, with 4,740 pipes, made up of 40,000 pieces of different materials including oak, tin, lead, leather, felt, bone, and ebony. It weighs as much as five elephants. "The Gallery adds a further 200 seats for the choir. The stage can house = an orchestra of up to 120 musicians."   Judy Ollikkala  
(back) Subject: Re: Anglican Hymnals From: <Chicaleee@aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:37:56 EST     --part1_19c.101acce6.2b6a0624_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   I am surprised at the number of hymns in the 1982 that are also in the Baptist Hymnal. When I read the order of services from the Liturgical churches and RC, some of the hymns are the same we have used that Sunday. =   The Music Director and I follow the Church year with the music. Lee   --part1_19c.101acce6.2b6a0624_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT COLOR=3D"#400040" SIZE=3D2 = FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">I am surprised at the = number of hymns in the 1982 that are also in the Baptist Hymnal.&nbsp; = When I read the order of services from the Liturgical churches and RC, = some of the hymns are the same we have used that Sunday.&nbsp; The Music = Director and I follow the Church year with the music.&nbsp; = Lee</FONT></HTML>   --part1_19c.101acce6.2b6a0624_boundary--