Mars Hill Church in Seattle (Mark Driscoll's church) have been producing some amazing worship music, and a lot of it is now available for download with a suggested donation.
I have recently downloaded their Rain City Hymnal EP, which is a collection of traditional hymns that have been rearranged, the Red Letter album, and the Good Friday Live Worship album. They have all blown my mind.
The interesting thing about them is this: it is always very obvious what Scripture passages the lyrics come from, the hymns all use the traditional words (thees and thous, and other very evocative, profound English words and phrases that have fallen out of common use) but the music is the edgiest, most creative combination of synths and grinding electric guitars, earth-shifting bass and gut-thumping drumming I have heard in ages! It seems like they're channeling the Seattle-sound in a big way. The version of Psalm 51 sounds like they had Soundgarden as the backing band!
You can read an interview with one of the worship pastors and band frontmen here.
Music like this, however, can raise some issues for us as local church musicians. Here are some helpful suggestions for things we can learn from this approach to church music.
- DON'T try and mimic what is done at Mars Hill, unless you have some phenomenal rock musicians with pro quality gear, a 10, 000W PA system, a congregation of 3, 000.
- DO learn to use what resources you have, just like Mars Hill has done. When you do a good job with what you have, you will have a solid foundation to build on. Jesus said in Luke 16 "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much". If all you have now is a violin and a guitar and singer or two, work hard with that and ask God to bless you with more.
- DON'T use heavy rock for your worship services because that's what Mars Hill is doing.
- DO think about your congregation and what music would suit them best. If it is heavy rock, then pursue that.
- DON'T think that the only way to present these songs is to do them the same way Mars Hill have done.
- DO learn to separate out the song itself. Use the chords that are downloadable from their website and try and do the song with just a voice and an acoustic guitar or piano. The strength of a good song is its ability to "carry" in a variety of musical contexts, not just the one it is written in.
Lastly,
- DON"T get discouraged that your church's music will never be like Mars Hill's.
- DO listen to these songs to be encouraged, get ideas and learn a thing or two about the variety that can be present in the music Christians use to worship God.
Posts
Thanks again Clint for some well thought out and helpful comments. I've been really enjoying the Rain City Hymnal for a while now. It's one of the best produced Christian albums I've heard for a while. And as a grunge-goth (probably not the right categories) album it's brilliant. It does get me thinking though.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, is there a difference between good listening music and good congregational music. As much as I love RCY, there are very few songs that I think would translate well into congregational singing - even in the Seatle culture. Try singing along to Soundgarden or Pearl Jam - not so easy. Certainly, it's not the lyrics that you're conscious of. Here, I think is where many churches today are going wrong. Music teams are listening to great produced music off great albums and trying to repeat the sound in the congregation. The result is quality listening music that doesn't sing well. It's too loud, too complicated, too instrumental, too band driven and doesn't facilitate singing to one another. In many churches, singing becomes a spectator sport. And where the band is young and enthusiastic, anyone over 25 feels out of place.
I would think that for singing in the church to do its work, songs need to have a good singable melody, a simple structure, a middle of the road appeal etc. Tree63 or Chris Tomlin live is not the sound we're looking for in the church (I don't think).
Another question I have is about the archaic language used. This is a difficult one. I'm all for rich imagery and good poetry. But we do live in a literary-challenged age. Very few people can make sense even of simple poetry today. People's vocabulary is generally very limited. I wonder whether old-style lyrics always communicate truth most effectively. For a song to engage with someone, I think it firstly needs to be understood and the singer needs to be able to relate to it. I guess my rule of thumb would be leave lyrics as they are unless they are a barrier to communicating truth. if revising outdated pronouns, phrases and imagery will better communicate the truth of Scripture, let's do it. But it's got to be done well.
The other comment I have about RCY is that I'm not sure the music always fits the lyrics well. A dark sound and mood doesn't seem appropriate with the celebratory and uplifting lyrics of some of the hymns.
Last comment: have you listen to an of Indelible Grace's stuff? They produced some great modern versions of old hymns. Thanks again for stirring the pot. Sorry for the lengthy comment!
Not at all! If the comment engages then it's great. I completely agree with you about singability. Like you say, RCH and the others are good listening music, but might not make such great singing music.
ReplyDeleteMy suspicion (and anyone who knows better should correct this) is that Mars Hill is a predominantly young church, and probably doesn't do much singing themselves (though you can hear them belting on How Deep The Father's Love).
It does become a chick and egg question though. Do you create music to relate to your community, or do you create music that is accessible for all and have a more balanced congregation but end up disenfranchising your immediate mission field. Hmmm...
As for archaic language there are two points of concern that I have. Firstly, the church exists to some extent as God's "Redemption Machine" in the world, empowered by his Spirit. As much as we want to redeem the music of culture, maybe we should also think about redeeming the language of our culture, not just in our songs, but also in our preaching, Bible Studies, etc. For intance, "hast" is a silly old word, but "wrath", "atonement" and "justification" are all words which have fallen out of use, but which have such profound and concise meaning in the context of our faith that we often use them and then teach their meaning.
There are instances when it does need to be done, but you are right, it should be done well, which is frought with difficulty. Perhaps it would be better to find a better song? (or write one...)
As for mood - I have never heard so many songs for worship played in a minor key!
I will look out for Indelible Grace (another archaic word there, but a very good one!) I will also continue to stir the pot - please keep trying to grab the spoon ;)
Sorry. That should have been 'chicken' and egg. Oh boy.
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts. I agree with reclaiming theological words and concepts. But here are a couple of classic "huh?" lines that I can think of from well known hymns:
ReplyDelete- Crown him the Lord of years, the Potentate of time (Crown him with many crowns)
- Sinners whose love can ne'er forget the wormwood and the gall (All hail the power of Jesus' name)
- Here I raise mine Ebenezer (Come thou fount of every blessing)
- Casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea (Holy, holy, holy)
- Be this while life is mine my canticle divine (When morning gilds the skies)
I'm sure there are other good ones ...
Oh yes! You should have read of Nick Page's "Now We Come To A Time of Nonsense".
ReplyDeleteMost of those words can be found in a current English dictionary. An important question to ask is if we lose anything by using the words "king" or "ruler" instead of "potentate" (other than a syllable or two to complete the meter!).
Wormwood and gall are straight out of the KJV, so would perhaps be appropriate for a church which uses that translation exclusively.
Ebenezer! This is the 'stone of help' from 1 Sam 7v12, commemorating a victory for God's people. I'm divided on this one. One the one hand it makes sense for a very Biblically literate congregation, which we should always strive to be. On the other hand, it is very difficult for anyone in the course of the song to get their head around the semantics of what's being said.
Yes, we need to move on from archaic language in many cases. The danger is when we "move on" from really good, profound and descriptive language.