Four-Part Harmony?

[The Original Secession]

Would anyone happen to know the history of singing or for that matter not singing parts in a cappella worship?


I know in some quarters singing of parts during public worship has become quite popular. I believe that singing the melody and not parts would be the historic practice. Though, I am not sure of this. If anyone can provide history and even better Scripture to show whether singing parts is acceptable or not, it would be much appreciated.

 

[greenbaggins]

Harmony developed in the Middle Ages with the practice of singing a fifth up or down from the chant. It was called "organum." The two parts only moved in a similar direction. Later, the two parts were allowed to diverge and go in different directions. This is the origin of counterpoint (one voice in one note being arranged in complementary fashion to one note in another part). Gradually counterpoint developed in complexity until the height of Middle Ages church music in that of Palestrina. The harmonic overtones (something revealed in nature, not Scripture) controlled what was possible in Western harmony.

Since musical harmony in Western music is informed by nature, not by Scripture, it does not seem to me that the question is really all that apropos. The only Scriptural indications we have at all are the inscriptions at the beginning of individual Psalms, and there is considerable debate about what they even mean (and there is nothing approaching a consensus). And since the EP position typically also argues against instruments, since they are seen to be part of temple worship, and therefore not germane to New Testament worship, it would seem to me that there is no evidence one way or the other.

Speaking as a musician, it seems absurd to me to make any claim one way or the other on this question, since the nature of harmony is not controlled by Scripture, but by natural revelation. The RPCNA's Psalter is written in 4-part harmony. To just about any musician, the idea that a church could only sing one line of music and is not allowed to sing in harmony is roughly similar to the idea that moving a heavy piece of furniture requires people who have no arms.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Would anyone happen to know the history of singing or for that matter not singing parts in a cappella worship?


I know in some quarters singing of parts during public worship has become quite popular. I believe that singing the melody and not parts would be the historic practice. Though, I am not sure of this. If anyone can provide history and even better Scripture to show whether singing parts is acceptable or not, it would be much appreciated.

I’ve often read that Calvin didn’t permit harmony parts sung in Geneva for purposes of modesty and keeping away distraction, and that the lovely movement of the Genevan melodies are genius for supplying the same ‘emotional’ aspect of the music that singing parts seems to supply.

I’ve never been able to find an authoritative source for that assertion on Calvin’s reasoning, but I do believe it’s certain that parts weren’t sung in public worship in Geneva (?).

I have to admit I haven’t dug in to try to also learn a history of parts singing in, especially Scotland, during the reformation. It would be interesting to know if there was any discussion or concern.

I’ve had conversations with friends at church about, just practically, the potential for distraction away from the desirable lowly, undivided-in-heart speaking/praying of the truths one is singing, when singing of parts is added. There seems to be no way my own ear doesn’t grab onto it and listen to it and notice it, and get distracted away from the words being offered, and friends generally agreed. I’m a musician, and singing harmony was always a special delight, and I would think that it’s the same delight (and thus a potential distraction) for any singer who so loves it. Performance comes into one’s singing unavoidably?

Perhaps it’s an issue the visible church will someday take in hand to study.

 

[Romans922]

I'm sort of against harmonies in worship since most of the time (not all) those singing harmonies are not focusing on the words.

I will note: a cappella has its origin "in the chapel/church".

 

[Afterthought]

Harmonies do make the singing more pleasant to listen to, which is part of the "teaching and admonishing one another." However, some can be distracted while singing them. For me, if someone pitches a psalm too high, I find it helpful to grab on to a harmony part so that I'm not distracted with trying to hold my pitch. Of course, if tunes were not pitched too high or if they were kept within a certain range (and the melody placed at the tenor line), perhaps there would be no disadvantages to unison singing. There are definitely people who get way too into harmonies though, that I sometimes wonder if the words have been forgotten (same could be said about tunes in general though).

Pros and cons. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another.

 

[jwithnell]

I am an alto who has the top third of her range cut off during allergy season. I am far more distracted trying to make decisions during worship such as: should I just shriek and hope for the best or go silent for a measure or two or three? Here's someone impatiently waiting for the red Trinity hymnals to wear out.

 

[Miss Marple]

I am an alto who has the top third of her range cut off during allergy season. I am far more distracted trying to make decisions during worship such as: should I just shriek and hope for the best or go silent for a measure or two or three? Here's someone impatiently waiting for the red Trinity hymnals to wear out.

My fellow challenged one, sing tenor when necessary! That's what I do; it's fun.

 

[En Kristo]

I love the red Trinity hymnal.

 

[Joshua]

Seven is the number of perfection; ergo, seven-part harmony is the only lawful expression of song. Seven-part or none. It's settled.

 

[En Kristo]

Once a song is picked for congregational singing, I don’t think it right for someone to bind the conscience of another on the question of singing harmony. One persons distraction is another person’s worship. Even people who are tone deaf monotones are encouraged to sing. Besides, I am a bass who can rarely manage singing in the range of the melody.

 

[greenbaggins]

If one could get distracted by four part harmony, one could get equally distracted by only one part. Therefore, the words should not be set to music at all, on that argument. Such arguments also forget that harmony, when used properly, enhances the meaning and impact of the words. Why anyone would set the words over against harmony is beyond this musician to comprehend.

 

[jwithnell]

My fellow challenged one, sing tenor when necessary! That's what I do; it's fun.

That's not my range either. Alto is fine, most hymns in unison are too high.

 

[VictorBravo]

Here's someone impatiently waiting for the red Trinity hymnals to wear out.

An aside, but the red Trinity is often a half or full step lower than the Blue one. “Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken.” That high E flat is hard enough, a high F in the Blue is out of reach for 3/4 of our folks.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I’ve often read that Calvin didn’t permit harmony parts sung in Geneva for purposes of modesty and keeping away distraction, and that the lovely movement of the Genevan melodies are genius for supplying the same ‘emotional’ aspect of the music that singing parts seems to supply.

"Make a joyful noise unto Yehovah" (Psalm 100.1) is my goal in worship. I do not personally enjoy most of the 4-part acapella around me - it's not that I don't enjoy hearing it, I am just rather indifferent to it. I find it hard to focus on the words of the psalm while trying to follow my "part." I do love many of the older, simple melodies simply because they are simple and allow me to concentrate on the words I am singing.

 

[jwithnell]

An aside, but the red Trinity is often a half or full step lower than the Blue one. “Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken.” That high E flat is hard enough, a high F in the Blue is out of reach for 3/4 of our folks.

The blue had very few in unison as does the new burgandy hymnal. In my home we go between them all but, since we only have two bass, a tenor and an alto left at home, the melody gets dropped often during family worship. In well-written tunes it doesn't always matter.

Strangely, for all their musical glory, the Lutherans may have pushed the no-parts idea mentioned in the OP. My Mom was reared thinking maybe it wasn't right. I've seen Diedrich Bonhoeffer write this.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Here's a tantalizing sentence from this Wikipedia article:

"Polyphony was incorporated into editions of the Psalter from 1625, but usually with the congregation singing the melody and trained singers the contra-tenor, treble and bass parts.[16] However, the triumph of the Presbyterians in the National Covenant of 1638 led to the end of polyphony and a new psalter in common metre, but without tunes, was published in 1650."

A quick look around garnered no further light on it.