Talk:Hymn tune

One reason for a separate "hymn tune" article is to clarify the distinction between "hymn" (which means the text only) and "hymn tune". As it is, many people who sing hymns have no idea that each traditional hymn tune has its own history, which typically involves several different hymns.

Excellent to have the "hymn tune" article!!! Would one of you experts move the 'Dictionary of Hymnology' to the "hymn" article? That's really where it belongs (it's entirely focused on texts). 24.7.251.127 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 1-15-2010

Another reason for treating "hymn tune" on its own it that it is a special musical form - special for being of minimal length and minimal complexity. Perhaps the only form even simpler would be the children's play-song, which, unlike the hymn tune, is usually associated with only one text. As musical forms go, some folk tunes are also among the simplest, and it could be mentioned in the hymn tune article that many hymn tunes were originally folk tunes - this is another distinctive (and interesting) feature of hymn tunes which has no counterpart for hymn texts.

Not sure what children's play-song tunes you have in mind, but I think they tend to be associated with multiple texts, too. "Twinkle, twinkle little star" is also "The alphabet song" and "Baa, baa, black sheep", and that's just the three most obvious texts in English; Mozart's variations inspired by a French text, and its use for Dutch and Hungarian Christmas songs, illustrates the tendency for simple tunes to accrete textual applications. --Haruo 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great to find a source for the "oral tradition" behind hymn tunes? I don't know of any good reference re singing the psalms in early Hebrew synagogues, etc.; does anyone know of a discussion somewhere? But with the book of Psalms being regarded as the "first hymnal", and seeing the musical instructions included (or implied) at the head of some of the psalms, it's obvious they were sung to something.... And by the way, we currently include versified psalms in hymnals as "hymns", but originally they were recognized as "psalms", rather than "hymns", because they were taken directly from the scriptural psalms, and stayed close to the originals as much as possible in the psalters that were published. Calvin said that Biblically sourced texts were the only things that should be sung in the service.... 24.7.251.127 (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 1-15-2010

Another note regarding the specialness of the hymn tune among all musical forms was stated by Ralph Vaughan Williams in the Preface to The English Hymnal: "A large body of voices singing together makes a distinctly artistic effect, though that of each individual voice might be the opposite."

Another reason hymn tunes deserve their own article is the vastness of literature which treats hymn tunes separately - such as the enormous hymn tune indexes by Temperley and Wasson, not to mention the use of hymn tunes within major orchestral musical works, without singing.

The ideal, I think, is for separate articles, with "hymn tune" cited early in the hymn article and "hymn" cited early in the "hymn tune" article.Clark Kimberling 02:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, if this article were incorporated into "Hymn" and the contents of each component adequately expanded, the result would be longer than a single article generally ought to be. --Haruo 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Another reason for maintaining the separation between the "hymn" page and the "hymn tune" page is that while there were some tunes that were closely linked with particular texts, a significant number of tunes were used with large numbers of texts. -- User:þorsHammer 0917 GMT 12 March, 2007.

This is certainly a very important point, and one not yet well addressed in this article. Indeed, this is also a reason why there should be separate articles on some of the more important hymn tunes. For example, there is an article on "Eternal Father, Strong to Save" and an article on Kipling's "Recessional", yet no article on "MELITA", to which both hymns are commonly (in UK/US and ANZAC contexts respectively) sung. --Haruo 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I submit that the assertion that "Names of hymn tunes are spelled in capital letters." overstates the case. It is true that it is a typographical convention in some, or even many, traditions to spell the names of hymn tunes on pages in hymnals with capital letters, that in the indices of tune names in the same volumes, that the initial letters of the tune name are capitalized, but the remaining letters are lower case. And at least two hymnals (Hymns Ancient and Modern, Revised, and The Hymnal, 1982) print tune names in both upper and lower case. I would note, too, that even hymnals which print the hymn tune name in all capitals, also use the same convention on hymn tune pages for the composer of the tune, and just as the indices use standard upper / lower case conventions for tune names, they do for composer names as well. In Alan Gray's A Book of Descants published in 1926 by Cambridge University press, hymn tune names are in upper and lower case, as they are in the Tenor Tune Book, published by The Faith Press in 1917 et seq.

I also question the assertion that "Congregational singing started within the Calvinist movement and later spread to other groups." Within Lutheranism, congregational singing began with Luther's German Mass of 1526, some tunes of which, for example, "All Glory be to God on High" remain in use to this day as congregational song.

--User:þorsHammer 1125 GMT 12 March, 2007.

Agreed on both points. I have just recast the "capital letters" statement in a way that I think is much closer to descriptive of the facts. The "Calvinist origin" assertion I think needs to be completely replaced, since obviously there was congregational hymn-singing in Christian worship from the earliest days—after all, the New Testament states that Jesus and his disciples sang a hymn at the end of the Last Supper before leaving for the Mount of Olives (Mark 14:26)—and since what early Calvinism is most noted for is its refusal (in contradistinction to Lutherans, Moravians and even Roman Catholics) to admit congregational hymn-singing, instead limiting song in worship to the Biblical hymns and canticles in metrical redaction. --Haruo 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What?! Ridiculous!

It seems to me that, at least at present, the sentence "It is not standard practice in most traditions to print hymn tunes with texts when publishing a hymnal." is arrant nonsense. Certainly there are tunebooks with no texts, and more frequently collections of hymn texts without tunes, but it seems to me obvious that for at least the past century or perhaps two, it has indeed been standard practice in most traditions to print hymn tunes with texts when publishing hymnals. Unless someone steps forward to defend this sentence I shall try to remember to delete it soon. --Haruo 07:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

CALM DOWN! Nothing arrant about it; just wrong. Go ahead and make the change.

There may be a UK/US (or other) difference here. Here in the UK, the congregational edition is usually words-only, no tune. (True, some books issue 'melody editions', but for most of the people, most of the time, the book in their pew or seat is words-only.) But I understand that the convention in the US is for the congregational version to include melodies. (Can someone confirm?) Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There are almost no American denominational "words only" editions available (which fact Routley bemoaned). I know of only one, and I don't recall that Routley got the one he wanted for "Rejoice in the Lord." Pew editions all have some form of the music. It normally used to be (1930s and on) the full music score. Now that unison singing is the norm, some hymnals use the melody only on the hymnal page of the pew edition.

I sing in a choir (Methodist) and every US hymnbook that I've ever seen prints the text between the two staves of music. On the other hand, there is a recent trend to ignore hymnbooks altogether, printing the text in the bulletin or on a screen, and employing a tune that is already known. I suppose you could say that the wheel has come full circle.CharlesTheBold (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Early hymnals did not have music printed on the page. Since Hymns Ancient and Modern (1861) more and more hymnals did present the tunes for singing along with the hymn (text) to be sung. What you find in the pew racks today may not have the full harmonizations of a tune, but may have the melody itself (the unharmonizaed tune). Actually in this day and age, I would be surprised to find a true "words only" used for the entire congregation's singing, even though I know English hymnals have Words Only editions available.... But the organist/accompanist will undoubtedly have an Accompaniment version of the book being used, which supplies the whole harmonization for accompanying the congregation. The point here is that hymnals did not spring into being back in the 16th century with tunes printed next to the texts to be sung.24.7.251.127 (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 1-8-10

Continuing: Without an actual tally count, I would say that for most of the 20th century (say 1920 and later), the bulk of American denominational hymnals has had hymns (texts) and tunes printed where both could be seen and sung by congregation members. England has maintained printing the hymn in its true poetic form, with the tune nearby (still their presentation, right?) Generally, in American hymnals the texts are interlined (the stanzas taken apart, the words placed under the notes for singing them). Certainly by the 1930s and 1940s I would say that would be true. The music would be the four part harmonization of the tune -- SATB with the soprano singing the melody. In early times, hymns would be sung (generally) in parts, even congregation members joining in the alto, tenor, bass singing (that's why, as unison singing has become more popular, tunes have needed to be in lower keys). Some hymns would specify "In unison" where the composer called for it. Nowadays unison singing is almost always the performance preference. 24.7.251.127 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 1-8-10

All Caps

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but the all caps convention just looks out of place here. I think the convention of use in some hymnals is trumped by the Internet convention that all caps is shouting. This is a pleasant topic, after all. All caps on a computer screen looks quite jarring. Thanks.Rockhopper10r (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree: not all-caps. Here in the UK hymn books (e.g. NEH, Common Praise) use an all-caps convention when printed above the tune. But in the index (that is, when alongside other text) they print in normal type. Feline Hymnic (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Their equivalent on this side of the pond (The Hymnal, 1982) uses normal, mixed-case lettering everywhere. As for in a Wikipedia article, it just looks better. Rockhopper10r (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My whole discussion of capitals disappeared! I've got a lot to learn here.... The point is to have a hymnal page perfectly clear as to which title / credit / information applies to which item on the page (hymn or hymn tune).

HOW do I look at a preview and then go back to edit mode?????? Twice I retyped my entry, only to have it disappear.... hymnlover 1-6-2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymnlover (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

An earlier comment pointed out that Hymns Ancienct and Modern revised uses upper and lower case letters for hymn tune names and composers. I checked it out and yes that's true. But note: now the author's name is all caps. The point is to differentiate between the source of the text and the source of the tune. It seems to me a one or two word hymn tune name does not come across as a shout.... 24.7.251.127 (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)( talk 1-10-10) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.251.127 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)