October 22, 2005
Literary analysis
This came up in the conversation that followed from my post on Wednesday, but let's actually do some comparisons of popular worship songs for their literary content. We're working under the assumption here - or at least I am - that if we're singing it in church, it should be at least as good as the lyric poetry we consume on a regular basis. So I'm going to post and discuss some lyrics below. Copyright-mongers can go hang.
"Your Mercy and Kindness" by Mark Altrogge
O Lord You are my Shepherd
In You I have no needs
You make me rest in green fields
And walk by quiet streams
O Lord You are my Shepherd
Your love restores my soul
And for Your name and glory
You show me the way to go
Chorus
Your mercy and kindness
Pursue me forever
My cup runs over with Your grace
Your mercy and kindness
Pursue me forever
And I’'ll be with You all my days
-- Verse Two
O Lord You are my Shepherd
Though I walk through death’s dark shade
Your rod and staff give comfort
I will not be afraid
O Lord You are my Shepherd
A table You have spread
In sight of all my foes Lord
And You anoint my head
We're going to assume for the sake of discussion and in order to avoid rhetorical cheap shots that the chorus won't be repeated seventeen times. Because in most churches it probably would be.
But again, leaving that be, what have we got here. Quite clearly, a setting of Psalm 23. It's not the worst I've seen, but it's nothing all that spectacular. Not much in the way of meter, a bit of rhyme, but nothing too complex. Though it's certainly possible to write a good poem without either of those, poetry without either is both easier to write but harder to write well. The grammatical structure is pretty simple, and little in the way of sentence inversion is present. It's pretty basic, and pretty prosaic. There doesn't seem to be any particular reason to divide the lines as has been done, as the rhyme and meter schemes are largely absent. This isn't an inherently bad thing, but when you put that to music it can lend itself to extended periods of no singing, which kind of defeats the purpose. But compare with the following:
The King of love my Shepherd is,
Whose goodness faileth never,
I nothing lack if I am His
And He is mine forever.
Where streams of living water flow
My ransomed soul He leadeth,
And where the verdant pastures grow,
With food celestial feedeth.
Perverse and foolish oft I strayed,
But yet in love He sought me,
And on His shoulder gently laid,
And home, rejoicing, brought me.
In death’s dark vale I fear no ill
With Thee, dear Lord, beside me;
Thy rod and staff my comfort still,
Thy cross before to guide me.
Thou spread’st a table in my sight;
Thy unction grace bestoweth;
And O what transport of delight
From Thy pure chalice floweth!
And so through all the length of days
Thy goodness faileth never;
Good Shepherd, may I sing Thy praise
Within Thy house forever.
I'd like to argue that poetically, this is just better. It's certainly more complex, and contains no repetition, which in my book is no bad thing. It's metrical. It's got a rhyme scheme. There's actually a reason to divide the verses this way, so you aren't left with long silences between phrases. It's got a nicely varied sentence structure, not to mention compound sentences and dependent/subordinate clauses. Furthermore, in an effort to distill the Psalm into what is probably a 7th grade reading level (tops), the previous song leeches out some really significant things out of the lyrics. "I'll be with you all my days" leaves out the aspect of the house of God, something which actually matters here. And somehow "you show me the way to go" doesn't have the same ring to it as "and on His shoulder gently laid, and home, rejoicing, brought me."
Let's do another one. Look for another post.
Fair use includes quotation for the purpose of critique so I think you're safe. Copyright laws are not wholly irrational :)
I'd like to take off from this series you're doing perhaps sometime and talk about what's good musically in old hymns. I see a similar thing going on, which is basically that there's complexity, there's development. Modern songs are often too lyrically and melodically homogenous. When you sing "A Mighty Fortress," for example, you feel like you're going somewhere musically and lyrically. There's a good balance between continuity and surprise.
Posted by: Evan Donovan at October 22, 2005 10:43 PMThe first reads the way I hear people talking around me today. The second is slightly better (to me) than if it were in Latin. Slightly. "Thy unction grace bestoweth"... Give me a break. I'm sorry, but I don't really want to sing things I have to analyze. It's hard enough as it is analyzing things I *do* understand (so as to ensure that I feel comfortable singing what the song says). I agree the song is more understandable (to me) than Shakespeare, but then I'm not a Shakespeare type of guy either.
I guess I'm just a "you enjoy *your* style and I'll enjoy mine" type of guy.
--
RDS
Randy: the first certainly does sound more like today's vernacular, it's true, but most people today are only borderline literate. The second selection uses some archaic verbs, but come on, it's not that hard. If I didn't know better I'd accuse you of conspicuous laziness.
Posted by: ryan at October 24, 2005 05:03 PMRyan, just as you reminded me that I might not know you like I thought I did as your prof, you might not know me post-Covenant&PCA. Conspicuous laziness is probably an apt description. But it's intentional. Let's see... "most people today are only borderline literate"... leads me to wonder what Jesus would have done with all those people? Reach them where they were with stories? or other-language-filled exegeses of obscure OT passages? Extrapolate to music. QED. (or is it C3PO? I forget :-) )
On the original thread (see? laziness... I won't go back there, but will instead just continue this post), there were lots of aspersions on the motivations for the emergent folk. I seem to recall something like "water it down to fill the seats" or some-such. Not at all my experience at Imago Dei... I realized after a couple of weeks there that the pastor was about to encounter the infamous "dishonoring of their bodies among themselves", and was curious how he would handle the passage. After all, in "Blue Like Jazz", Miller (properly, IMHO) decries how the "evangelical movement" makes pariahs out of homosexuals. So I was curious how it would be preached.
Frankly, I thought it was preached better than I've ever heard it preached. There was love and grace, of course, but *no one* got off in that sermon... it was balanced, and addressed directly the sin of all the behaviors deigned as such in that scripture (including the ones usually held up as somehow worse than the others mentioned there).
I was surprised. I thought it would have just been a "lightening of emphases" or somesuch. Instead, the pastor hit it head on. But he did it with a love that I've seen lacking in many similar sermons, even by people who I know are loving of all sinners.
My wife (who is always more perceptive about such things) came to the conclusion that Imago Dei was busting the doors with the people that go there because those people hate the hypocrisy so rampant in traditional churches.
And, finally, I was blown away by the music at Imago Dei... Very high quality! It was rock, plain and simple (and loud, but good loud), but very high quality rock. In the last set we heard there (we've found a church "close enough" nearer home now), they did an excellent rendition of "O the Deep Deep Love of Jesus"... Excellent!
But I could do without the images/icons... but that's just my opinion.
--
RDS
Randy: There's a big difference between giving people food they're capable of digesting and excusing irredeemably bad verse. It's entirely possible to do the former while avoiding the latter. The poem I referenced used archaic verbage. There are plenty that don't. "Crown Him with Many Crowns" comes to mind, as does "How Firm a Foundation". There's a significant body of good Christian poetry that remains simple. Why not stick to the good stuff?
But you're right: I really don't have any idea what goes on at your church, but if you'll notice, I don't think I ever criticized it either. Not as such, anyway. Am I suspicious of the "emerging church" movement as a whole, especially in the theories behind its purposed solutions? Yes. But I'll generally agree with them as to their analysis of the problems of the contemporary church. My argument has always been that their starting point is good - the modern church does need a corrective - but that their solution is wrongheaded - we need to look into our own history, not into secular culture. I'd argue that any criticism I've leveled against your church is rooted more firmly in your perception than my writing.
Like I've said elsewhere, I don't really care what instruments you play as long as you're good at them and they create an atmosphere of worship (I'll still want to say that there's certain things that are just too distracting or chaotic to really work, but I'll call those on a case-by-case basis). Contemporary instruments and styles are just fine, provided you don't suck. But that seems to be the trick, doesn't it?
Posted by: ryan at October 25, 2005 11:58 AMso it comes down to personal taste?
Posted by: bobw at October 25, 2005 12:29 PMNot as far as I can tell.
Posted by: ryan at October 25, 2005 03:42 PM