But words will never hurt me — NOT

We all remember “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” I am sure. Of course, as we get older we know this isn’t true; words can affect how we think of ourselves and also how one thinks of one another.

There has been considerable effort in the last few years to modify hymns (remember, hymns are the words – a particular set of of words might be used with multiple melodies) to make them “gender inclusive”. The critical word that is most often modified is man. In old English, man clearly meant a human; wyrman and wyfman would mean a male human or female human (other variants exist of these). Today this of course is not the case. The suitability for “chairman” generic was accepted by 67% of a panel (52% of the women and 72% of the men – your assignment is to figure out what proportion of the panel was female) in a study cited in the article on “man” at answers.com).

Unfortunately, when this is done in music, it can lead to some unfortunate musical consequences. For example, in the spiritual, singing “Gods got the whole world in his hands” instead of “He’s got the whole world in his hands” is awkward – the “he” (or “she” blends with the next sound. I have heard this finessed by alternating “he” and “she”. A similar example comes in the gospel hymn “His eye is on the sparrow” – The sound stop that you get with substituting “God” for “His” is not musically nice. Of course, as a male, I am much less sensitive to gender inclusiveness issue and more with the musical effects. However, two women at our Church this last Sunday were less than thrilled with the change to create the “God’s eye” version.

Years ago, I was on a committee looking at hymnbooks and there was a strong feminist on the committee. She was very enthused about making these changes, except for the hymns she particularly loved, where she wanted them to stay the same.

What can or should be done? Legally, any music under copyright cannot be changed without the permission of the author. Some authors have no problems with changing words; others, including the well-known and popular composer Daniel Gawthrop, has stated that the words must stay the way he wrote them. If you don’t like the words, pick another song is his sentiment. Another example revolves around the tune to “Edelweiss” from “Sound of Music”. In the ‘70’s there was a benediction response written to use the tune. The composer, Richard Rodgers, made it known that this was unacceptable; one could use “Edelweiss” only with Hammerstein’s words.

Clearly, in practice one could change the words for copyright music without permission. It wouldn’t be legal; I won’t presume to say whether it would be moral. There is a lot of good music that could be substituted. In older music, clearly it is legal. One must consider carefully if the substitution upsets the musical flow of the work and if it does, do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Share This

In original or in translation — yes

One of the persistent questions about choral music is should it be performed in its original language or should it be translated into the local language? The logic for translating the music is so that the audience can better understand the text. The logic for not translating it is that the translation may be less singable (Italian to English), not felicitous, lose the cleverness of the original language or just awkward. In general, for service music, except for certain well-known forms (Masses, Glorias) translation into English can convey the sentiment to a larger fraction of the audience more clearly. For example, the sentiment of How lovely is thy dwelling place is much clearer to an English-speaking audience and much more a part of a religious service than is the German. As a concert piece, Brahms Ein Deutsches Requiem may be better done in German, although even there, the significance of the text is much better transferred to an English-speaking audience in a good English translation.

Masses and Glorias generally have such a limited range of words, that it is not difficult – a movement of “Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison” is not difficult to comprehend. Also, I have seen some truly “creative” — for example the Mozart Regina Coeli was translated/reworded as Creator Father.

One can ask what the composer might want. In most cases we probably don’t know; however, in a few cases we do. Poulenc instructed that the Dialog of the Carmelites should be done in the local language. Similarly, it has been reported that when Benjamin Britten was once asked how the old English in Ceremony of Carols should be pronounced. He said, he wasn’t sure, probably how the audience could most easily understand it. (Of course, this latter case is a bit unusual in that the “Ceremony” was written onboard ship and so it wasn’t possible for him to research “correct” pronunciations).

Today, with opera supertitles, one can perform in the original language and still let the audience know what is being said. Of course, supertitles take practice to use correctly; for example, one can tend to fixate on the text of the supertitle and miss part of the drama on stage (how do you think I know).

But for music that is intended to be part of a worship experience, the determining factor must always be – what enhances the worshipful nature most effectively. In some cases, a translation does, in other cases the original text does. In my mind there is no right or wrong answer – possible better or worse – but not right or wrong. Stay tuned for the next blog; I may change my mind completely.

Share This

Introduction

Before really starting blogging, I should introduce myself so you know where I am “coming from” in my comments.

I was trained as a chemist and received a PhD in that field and then spent about 35-40 years making a living in Chemistry. I have always been interested in music and consider myself a musician, albeit an amateur one. My mother was a very good pianist – of course we didn’t recognize it; we assumed any mother could pick up any piece of music and play it. I studied clarinet through high school; after high school, I spent most of music time in choirs.

The second part of the title is “faith”. I was brought up in the Presbyterian Church and have been a member of Protestant churches ever since. Presently we are members of a theologically and socially liberal church that is part of the United Church of Christ and Christian Church – Disciples of Christ heritage.

The third part is “culture” and I guess I would say I am cultured the same way the yogurt is cultured – not quite spoiled but slightly thickened

I have had no serious training in music theory or in music history. Similarly I have had little formal education in theology so any statements/pronouncements both in music and religion are probably unencumbered by knowledge and possibly rational thought.

I would like to start this blogging gig considering words. I will be expounding on questions such as; What is the role of language? When could/should one change words? Should the original language be used or should the work be in done in translation? Of course, these will be based on my own particular (and possibly peculiar) background and frame of reference. I could say “These views are not necessarily those of Soli Deo Gloria – but they should be” but I am not certain that I believe that.

Share This

← Previous Page

Close
E-mail It