Hymn Form and the Congregation

by M. W. Bassford, from the "His Excellent Word" blog, originally published June 1, 2018, from hisexcellentword.blogspot.com/2018/06/hymn-form-and-congregation.html

When it comes to congregational worship, I believe these three things are true:

1. Content is the most important characteristic of a sacred song.
2. Structure makes content accessible.
3. Most members of a congregation are not trained singers, so unfamiliar music hinders them in their worship.

Taken together, these three things indicate that the most useful songs for the congregation contain good content in a highly structured form with music that is as easy to learn as possible.  I don’t think it’s any accident that this description matches many of the best traditional hymns.

After all, traditional hymn form didn’t fall from the sky, nor was it defined by the Pope.  Instead, it evolved in response to the needs of worshipers.  Not surprisingly, hymns bear considerable formal similarity to secular folk song.  In both cases, the circumstances demand a lyrical and musical expression that ordinary people can easily sing together. 

Consider, for instance, the hymn standard “O Thou Fount of Every Blessing”.  Like all hymn texts that have survived from the eighteenth century, the lyrics are in a regular meter.  This is critically important.  Regular meter allows congregations to sing multiple verses with different content to the same four-phrase tune.  Without perfect meter, one of three things would happen to “O Thou Fount”.

1. The tune would have to be through-composed, which (given the same three verses of content) would require the congregation to learn three times as much music to worship with equal content.  Frankly, why make non-singers jump through that hoop?
2. The lyrics would have to contain lots of repetition to allow for musical repetition.  As long as you’re singing the same words, you can use the same music (which is why many contemporary praise songs are repetitive).  However, past a certain point, repetition limits content, thereby violating Rule 1.  If you’re not singing a sacred song for the content, why are you singing it?
3. The tune would have to be an imperfect match to different verses with irregular meter.  Broken meter (when the meter varies from verse to verse) is kryptonite for congregational singing.  It causes problems even in otherwise excellent hymns such as “Follow Me”.  When severe, it can make hymns with strong content, such as “The Ninety and Nine”, practically unsingable.  Congregations much prefer to worship with hymns with regular meter because regular meter allows them to focus on content rather than rhythm, worship rather than singing.  

We see then, that the simple decision to use regular meter makes “O Thou Fount” economical in its musical demands on the congregation.  The tune, NETTLETON is similarly economical.  It’s written in rounded-bar form.  In other words, the first, second, and fourth musical phrases are identical, with the third phrase offering a musical variation.  As a result, in order to sing a full eight-line hymn (with multiple verses), the congregation only has to learn two musical phrases (one of which repeats itself three times).  Again, all other things being equal, a rounded-bar hymn tune will be twice as easy to learn as a tune of similar length with four dissimilar phrases.

As a result, “O Thou Fount” reduces musical demand both with repetition across verses and with repetition within verses.  Imagine again our one-verse, 24-line version of “O Thou Fount”.  To sing it, the congregation has to learn twelve phrases of music—six times as many as in the version we actually sing.  Song-introducers who demand that the congregation learn six times as much music for the same content clearly care more about music than content and have missed the point of worship.

The formula has worked for centuries, and it still works today.  Look at the work of Stuart Townend and Keith and Kristyn Getty.  What do you see over and over again?  “In Christ Alone”?  Regular meter, multiple verses, rounded-bar hymn tune.  “O Church, Arise”?  Regular meter, multiple verses, rounded-bar hymn tune.  “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us”?  Regular meter, multiple verses, rounded-bar hymn tune.  The same thing is true of “Jesus, Draw Me Ever Nearer” (Getty tune, lyrics by Margaret Becker).  Regular meter, multiple verses, rounded-bar hymn tune.  Congregations love these hymns because they are extremely easy even for non-singers to pick up, and the Townend-Getty circle has been smart enough to spot the pattern and exploit it.

Of course, the right form will get you only so far.  As a rule, Townend-Getty hymns have strong, appealing content to go with congregation-friendly form.  It’s possible to write vast numbers of hymns with regular meter, multiple verses, and a rounded-bar hymn tune, yet never produce anything the congregation wants to sing.  However, the farther one departs from the form, the more likely one is to write a sacred song that the congregation can’t sing (at least easily, sometimes at all), regardless of how much they might want to. 

If you’re a lyricist or a composer, write this way, or in another way that is similarly undemanding and economical.   If you’re a song-selector who is concerned with congregational singing, look for works written in this way or in a way that is similarly economical.  If you don’t, you are unwittingly building barriers between your chosen hymn and its enthusiastic adoption.

Speacial thanks to brother Matthew Bassford for giving me permission to reprint this timely (timeless?) article.

--J. Andrew Basford

Should I Lead ALL the Verses?

At the risk of seeming to be “tooting my own horn” (or sounding a trumpet before me as the hypocrites do, Matthew 6:2), I have recently been appointed as a deacon at the congregation where I am a member and, interestingly enough, have been put in charge of music and singing.  At one of my first elders-and-deacons meetings it was suggested that, among other things I should be seeking to do (like bring up new song leaders, help us learn new songs, etc.), I should try to encourage our song leaders to lead ALL the verses of the songs we sing; the song writers, poets, et al, went through a lot of work to pen these hymns and it would be a shame if we left something important out simply because we want to save time (we must be done with worship NO LATER THAN 11am, right? Gotta beat the Baptists to Cracker Barrel, after all).

Bear in mind, this was not a command from an elder, but, besides being a fellow deacon, he is elder to me (perhaps a more polite way to avoid saying "older than I") and thus deserving of my respect (Leviticus 19:32).  But is it truly necessary to sing ALL the verses of a hymn?

For one thing, a lot of hymnal publishers don't believe so.  There are many hymns in our books that (although we only see three, four, maybe as many as six verses) had beau-coup verses originally written for it. Sometimes it may be to save type setting space. In an article I wrote about the song "Come We that Love the Lord/Marching to Zion", I brought out that Isaac Watts originally wrote it under the title "Heavenly Joy on Earth;" you can read ALL TEN OF THE VERSES for it in my article, only FOUR of which we typically sing[!]. Other times, they may drop a verse or two because it is not so well know. Most hymnals I've seen omit the second of four verses to "It Is Well with My Soul" ["Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come...."], the fourth of five verses to "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross" ["His dying crimson like a robe...."], and even the third of four verses to "My Jesus, I Love Thee" ["I'll love Thee in life, I will love Thee in death...."].  As I like to think those are some of the more beautiful and often though-provoking verses of those hymns, it makes me wonder why the publishers did not use them (whether because they weren't well known or simply saving on type-setting as mentioned before). Other times, I can be grateful that a verse or two was omitted because it otherwise makes the song unscriptural and thus unprofitable for singing. The Praise for the Lord hymnal has a few examples of this where they attempt to make such songs more "palatable" by removing an offending verse.  Examples that come to mind include the original second verse of "Jesus is Coming Soon" ["Love of so many cold, losing their home of gold, This in God's Word is told, evils abound...."] and the final verse out of the original four of "Living by Faith" ["Our Lord will return to this earth some sweet day...."]. These are obvious examples where I welcome the discretion taken by the editor of the hymnal and encourage omission of such verses in your song books if they have not already been left out!

And I dare say many preachers who assign scripture readings for our young men do not seem to think we should read ALL the verses of scripture.  Out of over 31,000 verses in the Bible, I am grateful we do not try to read ALL OF THEM in one worship service.  In fact, as a smaller example, I remember one time when I was asked to read Luke 24:32.  It is the close of one of my favorite accounts of Jesus' resurrection, and I wanted to take it back to verse 13.  However, if I had gotten MY way on this, what the preacher was trying to get across, about how our hearts should burn when the scriptures are revealed to us, may have been lost in the rest of the account.

Of course, I can think of perhaps one more reason why songs originally composed with, say, ten verses usually don't have their full compliments published all at once.  Take the song "The Lord My Shepherd Is", words by Isaac Watts (unknown musical authorship, #643 in the Praise for the Lord hymnal): I enjoy the tune tremendously and Watts does a beautiful job of rewording the 23rd Psalm into more understandable English.  But we only have THREE verses (thus, this version of the song only covers Psalm 23:1-3, not the entire Psalm).  And although, Watts did reword the entire Psalm, I can see why we usually don't see all six verses published whenever I look at "The Lord's My Shepherd", words by Francis Rous and, although there are many composers who have penned music for this song, one of the more popularly sung versions I often hear is composed by John Campbell (#642 in the Praise for the Lord hymnal).  This song restates all six verses of the 23rd Psalm in only FIVE stanzas.  However, although Campbell's tune is beautiful, I find it a little wearisome when I get to the fourth verse.  Perhaps it is an example of a beautiful thought combating against a tiresome tune.

I might also mention that some verses in the songs we sing may also drive away from a point we may be wishing to make.  I enjoy all five verses of "Hallelujah! What a Savior!", but if I sing it before the Lord's Supper, often times I omit the final verse.  As we should be focusing on what Christ did for us in His sacrifice upon the cross, although the reason He did it was to help us return to Him and join Him in heaven one day, it seems distracting to me to sing, "When He comes, out glorious King, All His ransomed home to bring, Then anew this song we'll sing: 'Hallelujah! What a Savior!'"  Perhaps a good counter example would be "Only in Thee" which a fellow song leader led for the Lord's Supper.  However, he did it with only the first and LAST verses.  Considering that the final verse is the only one that even mentions the death of Christ, he could very well have gotten away with singing that verse alone!

Let me also interject one more thought on the whole issue of time, continuing from the introduction to this commentary.  I will admit that worrying about "getting out of worship on time" simply because we want to get to lunch at a decent hour can seem rather selfish (and perhaps unnecessary; the Lord told us not to worry about what we're going to eat, etc., Matthew 6:25-34).  However, there are time constraints that we might need to be aware of.  My sole example would be for one member at our congregation who is on oxygen and carries [more accurately, wheels] a portable tank with him wherever he goes.  Having relatives who have needed oxygen and having witnessed what they've gone through, particularly with only being able to "charge" their tanks for AN HOUR OR TWO, I can fully understand why this brother leaves the service every week like clockwork at 11am whether the sermon is finished or not: his LIFE DEPENDS ON IT.  I bring this up NOT to disparage the brother who leaves early for this reason or the preacher who is imparting the Word to us; it is simply something to consider for all involved.

I dare say that, yes, the poets and song writers of old went through a lot of work to create the songs, hymns, and spiritual songs we sing.  But singing ALL the verses they wrote may NOT be necessary, at least not ALL THE TIME.  I would venture to say that a song leader's decision on what (and how many) verses of different songs he is going to lead is mostly artistic license.  I do acquiesce to it possibly being a scriptural decision if there are verses of question, but for the most part, it is up to the song leader which verses he leads.  And if you recall what is said in what I have named "The Prime Directive" in many of these commentaries (in PHSS-101 and other places), as we worship in song, it is to be done in an orderly manner.  So, unless the song leader is doing something unscriptural or against doctrine, let the leader lead.