Re: Hymn tunes

Dave Singer wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Choraltalk Gateway) wrote:
>
>
> > I think someone objected to changing words used with the hymn tunes. The reason
> > English hymn tunes have names is because they are usually intended to be used
> > with any words that fit. 
>
>
> I'm not sure I agree that this is a general rule.  Perhaps the majority 
> of tunes are general-purpose, but actually a fair number of tunes were 
> written with particular texts in mind.  Indeed, their names often 
> reflect that intended association ("Darwall's 148th" was originally 
> associated with a metrical version of the 148th psalm, for example;  
> "Jerusalem" has a clear link to Blake's poem;  "Love Unknown" is the 
> theme of the associated text.)
>
> I for one am not always comfortable when tunes are taken but matched to 
> new words, when they were intentionally matched to specific words on 
> composition.  (I realize that I am not entirely aligned with current 
> practice, particularly in the Episcopal Church in the USA.)

Do know if it was the Brady & Tate or the Sternhold and Hopkins version 
of Psalm 148 that Darwell had it mind? Both are the same meter and both 
pre-date the composition of the music. 
http://www.cgmusic.com/workshop/psametre_frame.htm The words used with 
Darwell's 148th in both the 1940 and 1982 hymnal are not either, but 
rather "Ye holy angels bright." "Jerusalem" is a good tune but we can 
hardly sing those words in a church service in the U.S. Fortunatly Carl 
Daw has written new words for to go with it in the 1982 hymnal.

I never said a composer didn't have certain words in mind when writing a 
tune. I'll also say that some tune/text pairings are so strong that I 
would not want to mess with them.

I do question how many of these composers felt that only those words 
should be used, given the common English practice of separate 
composition of words & music. No matter how they felt, new words have 
been paired or written for the words to suit worship purposes. One would 
have to do a great deal of research to determine if the 1940, or any 
other hymnal, is using the words a composer had in mind.

The church would loose a lot of good music if words were never changed. 
Some hymns express theologies that are no longer deemed acceptable & we 
would loose the music along with the words if your rule was enforced. I 
would use "Once to every man and nation" with Ton-y-Botel, except that 
those aren't the original words for the tune either.

A performing choir may also want to only perform music with lyrics in 
original languages. This is not the case for hymnals. They are full of 
Welsh, German, Swedish, etc. compositions with words that may or may not 
be translations of the original words.

What about the composer who writes music for a hymn that already has a 
perfectly good tune? Why should they do that any more than someone 
inspired by a tune writing new words? Do you sing "All hail the power of 
Jesus name" to Miles Lane and nothing else?