Singing parts in family worship

  • Thread starter Deleted member 11889
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 11889

Guest
Does anyone here have an opinion on the matter of part-singing vs. unison singing in family worship? Neither my wife nor I are trained vocalists, but we can sight-sing and match pitch fairly well. I enjoy being able to harmonize with my wife, but have also wondered if doing so is unnecessarily ostentatious.

(Our singing is usually a cappella.)
 
Does anyone here have an opinion on the matter of part-singing vs. unison singing in family worship? Neither my wife nor I are trained vocalists, but we can sight-sing and match pitch fairly well. I enjoy being able to harmonize with my wife, but have also wondered if doing so is unnecessarily ostentatious.

(Our singing is usually a cappella.)
Part singing can be a temptation to slide into performance mode, for sure. The focus should be on the words, and if you're singing Psalms, you are engaging in worship. Calvin had the congregations sing in unison (thus the lovely and engaging Genevan melodies). But that doesn't seem to have been the way in the three kingdoms Reformation so I would say, just beware of making more of harmonies than the words and ideas you're singing. :)
 
Part singing can be a temptation to slide into performance mode, for sure. The focus should be on the words, and if you're singing Psalms, you are engaging in worship. Calvin had the congregations sing in unison (thus the lovely and engaging Genevan melodies). But that doesn't seem to have been the way in the three kingdoms Reformation so I would say, just beware of making more of harmonies than the words and ideas you're singing. :)
Good point. It can be hard to tell where the line is crossed from reveling in the material to reveling in the performing of it.
 
Some nations don't allow harmonization in the singing of national anthems, which I've always found interesting.

I'm no expert here, but it seems to me that singing in unison emphasizes unity, while harmonization and parts communicates diversity.

Not that that directly answers the question, but I think it's worth reflection.
 
My wife and daughter like to harmonize when we sing. My son and I are not musical enough, so we carry the melody. I think it adds to the enjoyment of singing together, and a beautiful sound seems an appropriate fit for words of praise.

Sometimes, we do fall into the trap of congratulating ourselves for our lovely sound rather than worshipping God. But I don't think we could solve that problem by intentionally making our singing more plain. We might just as easily fall into the trap of congratulating ourselves for being plain and "humble." The sin of self-congratulation is a danger regardless—tempting both to those who use their talents and to those who think themselves wiser for holding back. You will always have to deal with your heart on this matter, whatever your practice might be.

I suppose some individuals may find themselves especially tempted one way rather than another and might adjust their singing because of it. But in general, using our musical abilities joyfully and extensively to praise our God is a frequent biblical command and would be the norm, I would think. Holding back to avoid ostentation is not so big a theme in Scripture. Sure, it can have the appearance of an extra level of devotion (just as harmonizing might). But does it really curb the pride of the heart, or does it feed it?
 
Some nations don't allow harmonization in the singing of national anthems, which I've always found interesting.

I'm no expert here, but it seems to me that singing in unison emphasizes unity, while harmonization and parts communicates diversity.

Not that that directly answers the question, but I think it's worth reflection.
I've heard that before as well. I have also experienced that singing in harmony produces a feeling of unity and successful partnering - such as when we land on a note and we're dead in tune with each other.
 
I've heard that before as well. I have also experienced that singing in harmony produces a feeling of unity and successful partnering - such as when we land on a note and we're dead in tune with each other.
Singing, and especially singing together does something interesting to your brain, no question about that. I don't believe we're fully aware of all the effects of it. Neuroscience is only starting to gather some hints.
 
Singing, and especially singing together does something interesting to your brain, no question about that. I don't believe we're fully aware of all the effects of it. Neuroscience is only starting to gather some hints.
Neuroscience - just now starting to catch up with the ancient Greeks. :bouncy:
 
As someone with a music degree, I kind of get annoyed when people say Christian groups should only sing in unison and not harmony. (Of course, I know no one is arguing that here.) So, not to be pedantic, but singing in octaves, which men and women do of biological necessity, is singing in harmony. In music theory, unison must be the exact same pitch, not just the same pitch class.
 
On a different note to think about...I think there can be a practical benefit of singing in parts...everyone can actually participate to their vocal ability. Sometimes having the one melody can be difficult for each person to contribute...This I have come to very much appreciate singing favorites by the congregation on Bible Song requests during our Psalm request nights in our ARP congregation---oh boy are those HIGH notes...(even some too, though not to as great of a degree, in the of Book of Psalms for Worship of which the ARP psalter has many selections from it) and it can be a struggle for many people to all stay together because reaching the notes just to stay on melody can be really difficult. I am not joking when I say that I trained myself to be a soprano after years of being an alto when I joined Psalm singing churches LOL (already had a musician background, but not vocalist...but used reading skills and then self-taught with private study)! But not everyone has that luxury of being as adaptable...and it honestly might not be as sustainable as I get older just knowing how my mom's voice is now. The beauty of harmonization when done in an appropriate manner is that it is meant not just to be people doing different things, but rather being attuned to one another so that our voices mix together as one, despite having different notes. I think that's a beautiful vision of complementing one another and uniting different people together in one body :)

Also, as an aside...if you're also tone deaf or really off the beat, it's a lot easier to blend in this way so you don't feel like you're messing up the "unity" when you're the one obvious outlier. ;) I grew up with a tone deaf and off-beat father who was VERY loud in his singing in church, and I may admit that singing in harmony with my siblings and mom may have been a way to bring the unity back together so we were actually singing the same hymn at the same time by the end! haha
 
As someone with a music degree, I kind of get annoyed when people say Christian groups should only sing in unison and not harmony. (Of course, I know no one is arguing that here.) So, not to be pedantic, but singing in octaves, which men and women do of biological necessity, is singing in harmony. In music theory, unison must be the exact same pitch, not just the same pitch class.

I respectfully disagree. Singing in octaves is not harmony in any sense of the word. Harmony by definition involves the use of multiple pitch classes. An interval other than the octave is necessary for the move from homophony to polyphony. And while you are technically correct about the meaning of the word unison, it also has a colloquial definition that is very commonly known and used to mean a very specific thing.
 
On a different note to think about...I think there can be a practical benefit of singing in parts...everyone can actually participate to their vocal ability. Sometimes having the one melody can be difficult for each person to contribute...This I have come to very much appreciate singing favorites by the congregation on Bible Song requests during our Psalm request nights in our ARP congregation---oh boy are those HIGH notes...(even some too, though not to as great of a degree, in the of Book of Psalms for Worship of which the ARP psalter has many selections from it) and it can be a struggle for many people to all stay together because reaching the notes just to stay on melody can be really difficult. I am not joking when I say that I trained myself to be a soprano after years of being an alto when I joined Psalm singing churches LOL (already had a musician background, but not vocalist...but used reading skills and then self-taught with private study)! But not everyone has that luxury of being as adaptable...and it honestly might not be as sustainable as I get older just knowing how my mom's voice is now. The beauty of harmonization when done in an appropriate manner is that it is meant not just to be people doing different things, but rather being attuned to one another so that our voices mix together as one, despite having different notes. I think that's a beautiful vision of complementing one another and uniting different people together in one body :)

Also, as an aside...if you're also tone deaf or really off the beat, it's a lot easier to blend in this way so you don't feel like you're messing up the "unity" when you're the one obvious outlier. ;) I grew up with a tone deaf and off-beat father who was VERY loud in his singing in church, and I may admit that singing in harmony with my siblings and mom may have been a way to bring the unity back together so we were actually singing the same hymn at the same time by the end! haha
Hymn singing is definitely a way to learn about people close to you! My wife is a low alto and I'm awkwardly somewhere between a tenor and a bass. I've gotten better at giving appropriate starting pitches, and I'm pretty sure we're nowhere close to the actual written key of most of the hymns we sing. :D
 
Part singing helps me be able to sing out more freely. As a bass, often the higher melodies strain my voice. If you can do so, go for it. The sound of a congregation that can sing in parts sounds beautiful, and I wish that more congregations were able to do this.

As an aside, have you ever seen old hymnals with shaped notes (corresponding to solfege)? It's a lost art for sure, but intriguing.
 
Part singing helps me be able to sing out more freely. As a bass, often the higher melodies strain my voice. If you can do so, go for it. The sound of a congregation that can sing in parts sounds beautiful, and I wish that more congregations were able to do this.

As an aside, have you ever seen old hymnals with shaped notes (corresponding to solfege)? It's a lost art for sure, but intriguing.
I have, and I think the visual effect is quite lovely, in addition to the benefits that it provided to the less-musically-educated.
 
Singing in octaves is not harmony in any sense of the word. [...] Harmony by definition involves the use of multiple pitch classes.
This is just false. Harmony is simply "the musical result of tones sounding together" (Bruce Benward and Marilyn Saker, Music in Theory and Practice, 8th ed., 2 vols. [New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2009], 73). C4 and C5 on the piano are different tones, although in the same pitch class. In fact, from a pitch/tone perspective, C4 and C5 are just as much different pitches as C and C#. It's just a fact. They may blend the most harmoniously to the human ear, but they are no less different pitches. Thus, singing them together is harmony no less.

And while you are technically correct about the meaning of the word unison, it also has a colloquial definition that is very commonly known and used to mean a very specific thing.
I understand this, but I am speaking from a technical, music theory perspective. This is the study of how music actually works, not how it is colloquially understood. It is relevant to this discussion. If folks want to have a discussion about harmony, then they need to define their terms according to the music theory that has been developed and established for centuries at this point. If we don't define our terms, then conversation will never happen.
 
This is just false. Harmony is simply "the musical result of tones sounding together" (Bruce Benward and Marilyn Saker, Music in Theory and Practice, 8th ed., 2 vols. [New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2009], 73). C4 and C5 on the piano are different tones, although in the same pitch class. In fact, from a pitch/tone perspective, C4 and C5 are just as much different pitches as C and C#. It's just a fact. They may blend the most harmoniously to the human ear, but they are no less different pitches. Thus, singing them together is harmony no less.


I understand this, but I am speaking from a technical, music theory perspective. This is the study of how music actually works, not how it is colloquially understood. It is relevant to this discussion. If folks want to have a discussion about harmony, then they need to define their terms according to the music theory that has been developed and established for centuries at this point. If we don't define our terms, then conversation will never happen.
For purposes of psalm- and hymn-singing, the distinction is between whether we sing the same melodic line / pitch class or whether we sing parts. My question was not asked from a technical, music theory perspective, but from the perspective of average congregants / families singing. For the purposes of this question, unison and octave singing are functionally equivalent, as opposed to part singing. Your definition of harmony is so broad that it would also apply to different instruments playing in unison, such as a piano and a clarinet, which have different overtone series. That's fine, but I am not using the word "harmony" in that sense. I am using harmony to specifically mean the singing of multiple independent melodic lines / voices-parts. This is a valid and contextually appropriate use of the term "harmony", as well as of the term "unison".
 
For purposes of psalm- and hymn-singing, the distinction is between whether we sing the same melodic line / pitch class or whether we sing parts. My question was not asked from a technical, music theory perspective, but from the perspective of average congregants / families singing. For the purposes of this question, unison and octave singing are functionally equivalent, as opposed to part singing. Your definition of harmony is so broad that it would also apply to different instruments playing in unison, such as a piano and a clarinet, which have different overtone series. That's fine, but I am not using the word "harmony" in that sense. I am using harmony to specifically mean the singing of multiple independent melodic lines / voices-parts. This is a valid and contextually appropriate use of the term "harmony", as well as of the term "unison".

"The practice of singing hymns in unison has been a common one for many years, especially in churches where the congregation really knows the spiritual uplift to be gained from such a custom. I recall the thrilling effect produced by some seven hundred undergraduates singing in unison... It was not only the unisonal singing that moved one, but also the masterful, free organ accompaniments improvised by Charles Villiers Stanford. As his assistant, from 1890 to 1892, I came under the inspiring influence of this outstanding church musician; and ever since that time it has been my practice to encourage unison singing..."
- T. Tertius Noble, Preface to "Free Organ Accompaniments to One Hundred Well-Known Hymn Tunes"
I understand all this, brother. That's exactly why I said in my original post, "Of course, I know no one is arguing that here." My post was not made against anyone in this thread. Rather, it was simply a perspective of someone who has been classically trained when dealing with these particular musical questions and issues. That's all.
 
I know that you're not arguing for or against either position, nor do I take you to be arguing against anybody in this thread. My contention is simply that my usage of the terms "unison" and "harmony" is perfectly appropriate to this context and, in fact, more appropriate than technical definitions that don't have relevance to the matter at hand. For the matter at hand, the distinction is between singing the same melodic line, regardless of register, commonly referred to as "unison" singing, and singing different melodic lines, commonly referred to as singing in "harmony" or "parts".
 
I know that you're not arguing for or against either position, nor do I take you to be arguing against anybody in this thread. My contention is simply that my usage of the terms "unison" and "harmony" is perfectly appropriate to this context and, in fact, more appropriate than technical definitions that don't have relevance to the matter at hand. For the matter at hand, the distinction is between singing the same melodic line, regardless of register, commonly referred to as "unison" singing, and singing different melodic lines, commonly referred to as singing in "harmony" or "parts".
Yes. Again, I understand.
 
Part singing helps me be able to sing out more freely. As a bass, often the higher melodies strain my voice.
This. Most definitely this. I can't tell you how many men just kind of mumble along because they don't have the range to hit higher notes and then they flop back and forth between octaves and think they are bad at singing. But give them some notes that are meant for their range and they are singing joyfully and clearly.

I sing bass because it's comfortable (although I'm more of a baritone).
 
As an aside, have you ever seen old hymnals with shaped notes (corresponding to solfege)? It's a lost art for sure, but intriguing.

Rod and Staff still publish their primary aged music curriculum with shaped notes. It’s what we’ve been using at home. I believe their hymnals are still published with their distinctive notes. Just an FYI! :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Does anyone here have an opinion on the matter of part-singing vs. unison singing in family worship?

To the specific question of part-singing in family worship.... I typically do not, since I'm leading. I'm also the only one in the family that can sight sing, so no one else is likely to sing parts (or at least the official ones). However, on occasion I have sung the bass line on the last verse or something if the tune is very well-known to us. I do it as much to give my voice a rest as I do for added "richness".
 
To the specific question of part-singing in family worship.... I typically do not, since I'm leading. I'm also the only one in the family that can sight sing, so no one else is likely to sing parts (or at least the official ones). However, on occasion I have sung the bass line on the last verse or something if the tune is very well-known to us. I do it as much to give my voice a rest as I do for added "richness".
Likewise, I do it all the time. I often sing a different part on the next verse. My wife does the same thing. We sometimes end up with a tenor/alto duet, which is pretty cool.

I'll sing bass, tenor, alto, or soprano (the women's parts an octave lower).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top