NorthernTenor wrote:On reading this thread, I'm sorry to say I'm reminded of the sheer futility of polishing a substance whose colloquial name aptly describes many of the words and settings produced and commended by members and friends of this august society.
VML wrote:Music is for the ears. Singing is mostly best learned aurally if possible. Writing music down was and is a way to preserve it and, ok, keep it fairly consistent. But did Bach and Mozart always play things exactly as they had written?
My reference to the folk process comes from the fact that I am very involved in folk song, not from any labelling of hymn book songs or tunes, some of which may be neither folk nor hymns..
Folk, in the context of the process, is people.
Chant also went through a process of being totally aural. Then a way was found to write it down. Someone please correct me if I have this wrong.
alan29 wrote:What about the scotch snap at the end of the chorus in "Take our bread?"
Hare wrote:alan29 wrote:What about the scotch snap at the end of the chorus in "Take our bread?"
Not experienced that - but even I leave out the curious rest in the middle of the verse of this; congregations would never last 2 beats, and it seems meaningless...
Oh - and how about the triplet quavers in "Living Lord" becoming a crotchet and 2 quavers.......?
Nick Baty wrote:The trick is to write it as crotchets and quavers and give them a couple of gins – then you'll hear them sing it as triplets! But, seriously, is there really any such thing as singing it wrong?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests