Unison

Dan Kreider argues against part-singing of hymns during church:

The beauty of harmony isn’t wrong, and it doesn’t necessarily draw the mind away from the text… but it certainly can. If we are to be singing truth to God, to one another, and to ourselves, we have to consider anything that might distract us. Unison singing won’t create a spirit of worship in a distracted soul, but it is one less distraction to be managed.

This isn’t intended to apply to choir anthems, by the way (or even excellent sight-readers), only to congregational expectations.

He also argues against using hymn-singing as a tool for music literacy, which he also argues distracts from the hymns’ purpose. This hits hard for me, since I encourage my children (among others) to sing the alto part on hymns as an opportunity to practice sight-reading and harmonic listening. Am I undermining my children’s religious upbringing? Bad parent!

He’s got several other reasons, so click through to read them all before commenting.

John Howell says

May 21, 2011 at 3:42 pm

With all respect to Dan, this is an argument as old as Christianity itself. The early Church Fathers debated whether music belonged in worship AT ALL, there being no question of harmony vs. unison in their time. The arguments were just as sincere and just as well reasoned–although much more solidly grounded in scripture–but in the end they amounted to debating not music, but the weaknesses of the human condition. Dan quotes Augustine, but neglects to point out that he was conflicted, and also wrote, “Yet when I recall the tears that I shed at the song of the Church in the first days of my recovered faith, and even now as I am moved not by the song but by the things which are sung–when chanted with fluent voice and completely appropriate melody–I acknowledge the great benefit of this practice.”

Understand that Augustine’s conflict was not between unison and harmony, but whether or not music belonged in church AT ALL. St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, and Niceta of Remesiana argued in favor, arguing in effect “why should the Devil have all the good songs?”; St. Jerome argued against “those who would make of the house of God a popular theater.” Augustine was, as we see, severely conflicted, but made a point of recommending only GOOD singing–a point we all might want to ponder!

The history of music and musical styles argues strongly against Dan’s thesis. Polyphony, and therefore harmony, arose first and foremost WITHIN THE CHURCH, starting in the mid-9th century with a description of 3 types of organum as an improvised technique that was ALREADY BEING DONE. Working church musicians, where there were well-trained and competent singers, adopted harmony in PARTS of the service as adding beauty to the glorification of God, like most of the other worldly trappings of worship; a good church service is good theater, and had to be, to present and reinforce the important beliefs and the stories that supported them to a largely illiterate population.

But the 16th century saw a resurgence of exactly the same arguments that had been settled centuries before. The Protestant Reformation was, once again, conflicted. Calvin allowed only the singing of Psalms, and ONLY in unison, although he allowed harmony outside the services. Zwingli (a priest AND a musician) banned ALL music from the churches under his control. Luther (again a priest AND a musician) took the opposite side, keeping more elaborate part-music for the professional Kantori but introducing the Chorale to involve the congregation directly–and yes, sung in unison. And King Henry didn’t want to change anything, he just wanted to be in charge, but change there was as succeeding generations sought to divest themselves of “Popish” things.

And not to be outdone, the Counter-Reformationists at the Council of Trent admonished church musicians to make sure the words were not burried by the music–something already being done rather well in England by that time. Dan writes, “For music to serve its rightful purpose, it must serve the text, not distract from it.” In this, Dan echoes not only the Roman Catholic Council of Trent but the Florentine intellectuals and artists who sought to recreate ancient Greek drama–which they believed to have been sung in a declamatory style with simple accompaniment–and in the process invented both Opera and the new Baroque style!! But it should be noted that every one of these “reforms” had a half-life of little over 50 years, and went right back to an emphasis on music over text. And when Dan claims that “the musical heritage of the Reformation is one of simplicity and accessibility, and a move away from complex musical expression” I’m afraid he is simply oversimplifying a very, very complex situation, with Calvin and Zwingli on one side and Luther and Henry on the other, with many shades in between.

And just who are the people who Dan seeks to protect from the ravages of rampant harmony?!!! Certainly not the advocates of the Sacred Harp and Southern Harmony traditions, who by no stretch can be called over-educated musical snobs!! And I’m afraid that his complaint of, “We may bemoan the precipitous decline of music literacy in America – as a music educator, I certainly do. But we must resist the temptation to address this within the context of the gathered church,” is simply a straw-man argument, since I know of no sane choir director who would turn a worship service into a music theory class!

A brief personal story. My late wife and her choir parents used to take her Youth Choir to Colonial Williamsburg the weekend after school was out. They did a small concert at Bruton Parish Church and spent the next day at Busch Gardens theme park. The following year they were asked to do a Lessons & Carols service, and it was advertised to visitors. While the kids were vesting downstairs, one of the girls snuck up and peaked, and came down shaken. “It’s FULL!” was all she could say! Well, we went outside and started the Processional hymn, and halfway down the aisle realized that the audience was singing along with us, with all the fervor Dan could wish for, IN 4-PART HARMONY!!! So I guess that maybe Episcopalians are not quite as musically illiterate as whoever it is that Dan works with, who he feels can be distratcted by harmony. Diff’rent strokes, I guess.

An interesting discussion, but certainly not a new one. And one that has largely been answered not just once, but many times through history.

All the best,

John

Comments

John Howell says

May 21, 2011 at 3:42 pm

With all respect to Dan, this is an argument as old as Christianity itself. The early Church Fathers debated whether music belonged in worship AT ALL, there being no question of harmony vs. unison in their time. The arguments were just as sincere and just as well reasoned–although much more solidly grounded in scripture–but in the end they amounted to debating not music, but the weaknesses of the human condition. Dan quotes Augustine, but neglects to point out that he was conflicted, and also wrote, “Yet when I recall the tears that I shed at the song of the Church in the first days of my recovered faith, and even now as I am moved not by the song but by the things which are sung–when chanted with fluent voice and completely appropriate melody–I acknowledge the great benefit of this practice.”

Understand that Augustine’s conflict was not between unison and harmony, but whether or not music belonged in church AT ALL. St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, and Niceta of Remesiana argued in favor, arguing in effect “why should the Devil have all the good songs?”; St. Jerome argued against “those who would make of the house of God a popular theater.” Augustine was, as we see, severely conflicted, but made a point of recommending only GOOD singing–a point we all might want to ponder!

The history of music and musical styles argues strongly against Dan’s thesis. Polyphony, and therefore harmony, arose first and foremost WITHIN THE CHURCH, starting in the mid-9th century with a description of 3 types of organum as an improvised technique that was ALREADY BEING DONE. Working church musicians, where there were well-trained and competent singers, adopted harmony in PARTS of the service as adding beauty to the glorification of God, like most of the other worldly trappings of worship; a good church service is good theater, and had to be, to present and reinforce the important beliefs and the stories that supported them to a largely illiterate population.

But the 16th century saw a resurgence of exactly the same arguments that had been settled centuries before. The Protestant Reformation was, once again, conflicted. Calvin allowed only the singing of Psalms, and ONLY in unison, although he allowed harmony outside the services. Zwingli (a priest AND a musician) banned ALL music from the churches under his control. Luther (again a priest AND a musician) took the opposite side, keeping more elaborate part-music for the professional Kantori but introducing the Chorale to involve the congregation directly–and yes, sung in unison. And King Henry didn’t want to change anything, he just wanted to be in charge, but change there was as succeeding generations sought to divest themselves of “Popish” things.

And not to be outdone, the Counter-Reformationists at the Council of Trent admonished church musicians to make sure the words were not burried by the music–something already being done rather well in England by that time. Dan writes, “For music to serve its rightful purpose, it must serve the text, not distract from it.” In this, Dan echoes not only the Roman Catholic Council of Trent but the Florentine intellectuals and artists who sought to recreate ancient Greek drama–which they believed to have been sung in a declamatory style with simple accompaniment–and in the process invented both Opera and the new Baroque style!! But it should be noted that every one of these “reforms” had a half-life of little over 50 years, and went right back to an emphasis on music over text. And when Dan claims that “the musical heritage of the Reformation is one of simplicity and accessibility, and a move away from complex musical expression” I’m afraid he is simply oversimplifying a very, very complex situation, with Calvin and Zwingli on one side and Luther and Henry on the other, with many shades in between.

And just who are the people who Dan seeks to protect from the ravages of rampant harmony?!!! Certainly not the advocates of the Sacred Harp and Southern Harmony traditions, who by no stretch can be called over-educated musical snobs!! And I’m afraid that his complaint of, “We may bemoan the precipitous decline of music literacy in America – as a music educator, I certainly do. But we must resist the temptation to address this within the context of the gathered church,” is simply a straw-man argument, since I know of no sane choir director who would turn a worship service into a music theory class!

A brief personal story. My late wife and her choir parents used to take her Youth Choir to Colonial Williamsburg the weekend after school was out. They did a small concert at Bruton Parish Church and spent the next day at Busch Gardens theme park. The following year they were asked to do a Lessons & Carols service, and it was advertised to visitors. While the kids were vesting downstairs, one of the girls snuck up and peaked, and came down shaken. “It’s FULL!” was all she could say! Well, we went outside and started the Processional hymn, and halfway down the aisle realized that the audience was singing along with us, with all the fervor Dan could wish for, IN 4-PART HARMONY!!! So I guess that maybe Episcopalians are not quite as musically illiterate as whoever it is that Dan works with, who he feels can be distratcted by harmony. Diff’rent strokes, I guess.

An interesting discussion, but certainly not a new one. And one that has largely been answered not just once, but many times through history.

All the best,

John

Log in to Reply
Julia Simon says

May 21, 2011 at 1:16 pm

Even if you wanted a congregation to sing in unison, many of them can not. And that is distracting too.

Log in to Reply
Chris Humphrey says

May 21, 2011 at 11:40 am

Often times the melody does not fit well in my range. Singing it as written is too high; singing it an octave lower doesn’t always work either. Not to mention the fact that I LIKE to sing harmony!

Log in to Reply
Christina Kennedy says

May 21, 2011 at 9:14 am

I think that using unison singing to try to control how people worship is a terrible idea. If I had had to sing unison in church when I was a kid my mind would have wandered even more than it did. The challenge of singing parts kept me “in the moment” more, not less.

Log in to Reply

Unison

Connect with us!

Recent Blogs

American Choral Directors Association

Reader Interactions

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Footer

Connect with us!

Recent Blogs

American Choral Directors Association