| Citation |
NHG-P.764.008
3 Feb 1764:11,12 (383)
To the Printer. Sir, By inserting the following, I hope you
will offend none of your readers; I'm sure you will oblige
your humble servant, I. X.
As there seems to be of late a general concern on the
subject of singing, I think every one ought to be heard in
what he has to say on which side soever.
I profess to bear some part in the affair, but to belong
to neither of those parties which have lately been exhibited
in your paper. Mr. J. B. as shown in yours of the 13th ult.
I take to be a person of no genius, void of judgment, and
intirely unskilful in the art of singing. I believe he can
bear a part in some of the good old tunes, (and possibly he
may like to hear himself so doing.) But when he hear the
more skilful variety of a new model'd tune, he is oblig'd to
set mute; he dispairs of ever attaining to so high a pitch;
and this consideration as I take it, is what vexes him. I
would observe further, that I don't discover in him any high
degrees of sanctity, what ever himself would insinuate.
On the other hand, Mr. J. W. author of the last week's
piece in opposition to the other, I take to be one born
without a faculty for singing, but yet with a musical ear;
and so he takes that to be the best assembly-singing, to all
intents and purposes, which excites the most pleasing
sensations in him; but this also is a wrong way of
judging.--Now to have done with this, I will produce what I
apprehend to be the principal objections against the
introductions of the new tunes, and answer them as I go
along. First, it is objected that these new tunes are none
of the tunes of David. This I am sure is of itself as
ridiculous as any one thing needs to be, and so shall say
nothing in particular to it.
St. David we know used variety of music in divine praises;
and as some of it was skilful and sprightly, we have no
reason to conclude but it as much resembled a St. Martins or
an anthem, as Mear or Oxford.
2dly. It is said tunes ought not to be set in publick,
till the congregation in general are able to bear a part in
them. Ans. Does any one suppose that Canterbury and Old
Hundred, or any other old tune were never new? or that
people were in general acquainted with them before they were
used in any public worshiping-assembly? I am of opinion,
that Canterbury was as new once, as any tune can be now; and
make no doubt every body will allow, that the first regular
tunes were used in assemblies, when not near so many in
proportion could join in them, as can at this day in our new
tunes. I suppose, and not without reason, that the
introduction of the first tunes, such as Old Hundred,
Windsor, &c. gave as much offence to those who have been
used in the public assemblies to make a noise, without any
regularity or order, (which was in fact the case in antient
times) as the introduction of our new tunes in these days,
does to some of us. But to let this objection have its full
due, it is granted, that it would be unreasonable for one or
two people to entertain themselves, and vex a whole
congregation, with something which they know none but
themselves can sing: And on the contrary, that a number of
good skilful judicious singers, to whom almost the whole
part of singing is left, and without whom it would very soon
entirely decay; nay, without whom even Canterbury itself
would very hardly be dragg'd out; I say, that these should
be confined to the narrowness of bigotry and
education-prejudice is full as unreasonable and absurd.
3dly. It is urged that as singing in worshipping
assemblies is part of divine service, therefore nothing
should be used in it, but what is plain and simple, removed
from whatever has the least tendency to destroy or interrupt
a spirit of solemnity and gravity: whereas the music made
by these new tunes, is more like a merry horn-pide
[horn-pipe] or a jigg, than it is to grave psalmody. Before
a direct answer to this objection, let it be promis'd, that
as to solemnity and gravity, there should be the same in the
singing as in any other part of worship; and in the whole,
there ought to be nothing but what well consists with these:
Yet let it be noted, that the singing is praising, and
praising always implies a joyfulness and gratitude.
Now to the first part of the objection, if it can be
prov'd that these new tunes set to psalmody & well sung in
all the parts, have a greater tendency to provoke an
indecent levity, than to raise a devout, & pious
chearfulness, then that part of the objection standeth good.
As to plainness and simplicity, there is an extreme on this
hand as carefully to be avoided as that on the other; and
since it is becoming to praise in our creator with all our
heart and voice, methinks it is full as comely & proper, to
use psalmody that is the product of ingenuity and skill, as
that which is low, flat, jejeune and lazy, the effect of
indolence, carelessness and sloth.
As to the latter part of this objection, viz. that these
tunes are merry like a jigg, horn-pipe, &c. it is denied to
be true by the first part of this answer, and therefore
ought to have no distinct consideration: Yet can it be
proved that these new psalm tunes were first, or ever have
been used as music for dancing, then it is allowed there
would be some force in the objection.
4thly. It is said that in singing these new tunes, there
is so much attention given to the just timeing, turning of
the quavers, semiquavers, &c. that it is impossible the
singers should be able to give heed to the words of the
psalm.
This objection is as much against these tunes when they
shall be old, as now they are new. I believe I should not
have tho't of it, had not Mr. J. B. above-mentioned, given
sufficient reason. The result of my tho'ts upon it is, that
it is in the main a gross mistake. For my own part, I know
of no singers who pretend to make such parade of the
business. The new way appears equally easy, and as free
from vanity or pride as the old. As to the quavers,
semiquavers, &c. they are great beauties; and there is, as I
am told, no difficulty in observing them, after the tune is
well learned.----Further, the old way of singing is worse
(if there's anything bad in quavers) than the new: for
conviction, get some-body to sing over Oxford or London the
old way.----In short, all the objections against the gradual
introduction of new tunes, (which is all I would contend
for) might with the same reason have been brought against
the old ones: And so whatever emendations time makes in
other things, in singing there must have been no
improvements from the beginning of the world to this day;
and by the same rule, there must be none from this day to
its end.
In fine, there is but one system of musical rules, on
which all tunes new and old are built, all the difference
is, the last are the best, so far as they show a farther
improvement of judgment, and more refined skill.
The names of the musical notes were taken from this Latin
dispatch.
Ut quant laxis, Resonare fibris
Mira gestorum, Famuli tuorum
Solve polluti, Labiireatum
O Pater Alme.
|