Thread: Bar Tunes and Hymnody

I was recently told this...

It is my understanding that the term bar music that was used in his (Luther's and Calvin's) day did not refer to drinking bars, but was a technical term for a use of a certain structure of music containing a pattern of bars of music. Modern writings take the term completely out of context.

I always had heard the story as drinking bars and only recently heard what I think is the real history. I heard it from a professional hymn and song writer who is Lutheran, so I'm going to give him deference until I have time to research it further.

...in connection to a discussion I entered into concerning music and Hymnody. I always understood that some Hymns were put to musical arrangement that came from drinking bar songs. This was presented to me today as the possible truth to understanding that this might not be true.

What thinkest thou? I really haven't studied this topic at all. Does anyone here have any insight on this issue?

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I was recently told this...

It is my understanding that the term bar music that was used in his (Luther's and Calvin's) day did not refer to drinking bars, but was a technical term for a use of a certain structure of music containing a pattern of bars of music. Modern writings take the term completely out of context.

I always had heard the story as drinking bars and only recently heard what I think is the real history. I heard it from a professional hymn and song writer who is Lutheran, so I'm going to give him deference until I have time to research it further.

...in connection to a discussion I entered into concerning music and Hymnody. I always understood that some Hymns were put to musical arrangement that came from drinking bar songs. This was presented to me today as the possible truth to understanding that this might not be true.

What thinkest thou? I really haven't studied this topic at all. Does anyone here have any insight on this issue?

"bar form" tunes mean those that have a fixed meter... e.g. common meter, in which all the Scottish Psalter tunes are written. This is as opposed to "free form" tunes that characterize other forms of music in which there is not a repeated syllabification.

So "bar tunes" is correct - as long as you know what is meant by the term. It is NOT honky tonk music, as some claim.

I know not about hymns, but the star spangled banner got its music from "to anacreon in heaven" which is an old beer drinking song.

I did a google search on Luther and bar tunes. This seemed to be a well documented source. Mark Gibson's blog is even mentioned which surprised me since the site looks like a KJV only kinda site.

Didn’t Martin Luther use drinking and bar tunes in his music?

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I did a google search on Luther and bar tunes. This seemed to be a well documented source. Mark Gibson's blog is even mentioned which surprised me since the site looks like a KJV only kinda site.

Didn’t Martin Luther use drinking and bar tunes in his music?

The link is entirely accurate. Bar form refers to AABA form. Luther wrote most of the tunes himself to his own hymns, although a few were adapted from other church music sources, and only one was taken (not from a drinking song), but from a folk tune. CCM's claim on Luther as favoring drinking songs should by now be exposed for the wicked falsehood it is. They will riposte with this infamous rejoinder of Luther's "Why should the devil have all the best music?" But in context, Luther was not talking about taking bar music for his own, but the devil in this quotation was the Roman Catholic Church, and Luther was arguing for great new tunes composed for the Lutheran church. Luther once said, "a pastor who doesn't know anything about music is useless to me."

However, many 19th century Hymns used melodies/tunes from secular music of the day. It is my understanding that many of these may have properly been associated with saloon music.

The lyrics definitely give glory to God. As bad as I sing, the melody would probably not be detected in many cases. I'm not ready to take an exacto knife to the Trinity hymnal (or any similar) if I found that a melody knock off from a folk song, often sung in a tavern, was used in a hymn. A few of the Psalms have "to the tune of" listed, and most of the hymns were composed before the copyright laws were in place, so no Christian principle is violated here. I'm not going into RPW fine points with this. Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken wasn't ejected for being associated with Nazi Germay's national anthem. They were both based on Hayden's melody.

Going back further, to the time of the Arian controversey, did not both Arius and Athanasius try to propagate their theology by little ditties using the popular tunes of their day.

It is very difficult to compose a melody that is not in some way derivative. Unless you Bach himself you can always be accused of 'stealing'. (And some even try to accuse him) This does not mean that the melody is no 'composed'.

Besides, even in cases where new words are placed with old melodies, what difference does it make? A melody is a just pattern of pitches. There is nothing moral or immoral about a 'd' following a 'c' following a 'g' etc.

Actually, Bach did a bit of 'plagarism' himself. Air on the G String is a take off on Pachelbel's Canon in D Maj.

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

Actually, Bach did a bit of 'plagarism' himself. Air on the G String is a take off on Pachelbel's Canon in D Maj.

Not really. The chord progression is an extremely common one for the time period. Vivaldi used it approximately six thousand times in his music. The tune isn't remotely similar. For Pachelbel, the tune is tied to the chord. For Bach, it is not. And like I said, the chord progression is as common in Baroque as dirt is.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

Actually, Bach did a bit of 'plagarism' himself. Air on the G String is a take off on Pachelbel's Canon in D Maj.

Not really. The chord progression is an extremely common one for the time period. Vivaldi used it approximately six thousand times in his music. The tune isn't remotely similar. For Pachelbel, the tune is tied to the chord. For Bach, it is not. And like I said, the chord progression is as common in Baroque as dirt is.

True enough, but I wonder where he got the theme for the Eb Major fugue for organ (you know, the one that is called the St. Anne's).

It's fair to say that Bach borrowed from all sorts of sources. Everyone did in those days. It was a way of honoring other composers as well as improving on things. People who knew music could recognize such themes. It seems that the drive for originality led to the drive to mediocrity, methinks.

When I was in music school studying composition back in the 70s, all the rage was to avoid being "deriviative." Yup, that really worked. John Cage was the hero. . . .

Originally Posted by victorbravo

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

Actually, Bach did a bit of 'plagarism' himself. Air on the G String is a take off on Pachelbel's Canon in D Maj.

Not really. The chord progression is an extremely common one for the time period. Vivaldi used it approximately six thousand times in his music. The tune isn't remotely similar. For Pachelbel, the tune is tied to the chord. For Bach, it is not. And like I said, the chord progression is as common in Baroque as dirt is.

True enough, but I wonder where he got the theme for the Eb Major fugue for organ (you know, the one that is called the St. Anne's).

It's fair to say that Bach borrowed from all sorts of sources. Everyone did in those days. It was a way of honoring other composers as well as improving on things. People who knew music could recognize such themes. It seems that the drive for originality led to the drive to mediocrity, methinks.

When I was in music school studying composition back in the 70s, all the rage was to avoid being "deriviative." Yup, that really worked. John Cage was the hero. . . .

Of course Bach borrowed, as all the others did too. My point was that Bach did not steal from Pachelbel. If anything, the chord progression was part and parcel of the general musical consciousness, the "oral tradition," if you will.

Yes, John Cage is so not my hero of composition. Anyone who "composed" "Silence" ought to be shot dead, buried, dug out, resurrected, and shot again.

Will the Moderators please moderate themselves and keep this thread on track!

It appears that Randy has struck a 'chord' with the administration.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Originally Posted by victorbravo

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Not really. The chord progression is an extremely common one for the time period. Vivaldi used it approximately six thousand times in his music. The tune isn't remotely similar. For Pachelbel, the tune is tied to the chord. For Bach, it is not. And like I said, the chord progression is as common in Baroque as dirt is.

True enough, but I wonder where he got the theme for the Eb Major fugue for organ (you know, the one that is called the St. Anne's).

It's fair to say that Bach borrowed from all sorts of sources. Everyone did in those days. It was a way of honoring other composers as well as improving on things. People who knew music could recognize such themes. It seems that the drive for originality led to the drive to mediocrity, methinks.

When I was in music school studying composition back in the 70s, all the rage was to avoid being "deriviative." Yup, that really worked. John Cage was the hero. . . .

Of course Bach borrowed, as all the others did too. My point was that Bach did not steal from Pachelbel. If anything, the chord progression was part and parcel of the general musical consciousness, the "oral tradition," if you will.

Yes, John Cage is so not my hero of composition. Anyone who "composed" "Silence" ought to be shot dead, buried, dug out, resurrected, and shot again.

There is a reason that I put plagiarized in quotes. I know very well that composers borrowed, good ones still do. And, yes that type of chord progression was common in the period. I read a paper where the thesis was because of Bach's father's connection to Pachelbel that he wrote the Air to honour them both.

Man, you guys love destroying all of the urban myths!

I'm still waiting for someone to set the words, "as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, a sinner from purgatory springs" to the tune of "Shine Jesus Shine."

My knowledge of musicology stops at e-g-b-d-f and f-a-c-e. However, didn't some of the 19th century Gospel music draw on the idioms of Stephen Foster for its inspiration???

When I was in high school (back when we only had one President from Illinois who was born in a log cabin and rose to become the messiah of the world) they were singing "Amazing Grace" to the tune of "The House of the Rising Sun" (about a house of "ill repute").

It was my understanding that the medieval church was rather non-participatory and that Calvin helped stimulate the singing of the laity by his insistence that good singing was part of worship and the birthright of the whole congregation. His introduction of the Psalter into common usage was a great stride forward.

Lane, you have better training than any of us. What do you make of the issue of popular tunes and Christian worship?

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Man, you guys love destroying all of the urban myths!

I'm still waiting for someone to set the words, "as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, a sinner from purgatory springs" to the tune of "Shine Jesus Shine."

My knowledge of musicology stops at e-g-b-d-f and f-a-c-e. However, didn't some of the 19th century Gospel music draw on the idioms of Stephen Foster for its inspiration???

When I was in high school (back when we only had one President from Illinois who was born in a log cabin and rose to become the messiah of the world) they were singing "Amazing Grace" to the tune of "The House of the Rising Sun" (about a house of "ill repute").

It was my understanding that the medieval church was rather non-participatory and that Calvin helped stimulate the singing of the laity by his insistence that good singing was part of worship and the birthright of the whole congregation. His introduction of the Psalter into common usage was a great stride forward.

Lane, you have better training than any of us. What do you make of the issue of popular tunes and Christian worship?

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I did a google search on Luther and bar tunes. This seemed to be a well documented source. Mark Gibson's blog is even mentioned which surprised me since the site looks like a KJV only kinda site.

Didn’t Martin Luther use drinking and bar tunes in his music?

The link is entirely accurate. Bar form refers to AABA form. Luther wrote most of the tunes himself to his own hymns, although a few were adapted from other church music sources, and only one was taken (not from a drinking song), but from a folk tune. CCM's claim on Luther as favoring drinking songs should by now be exposed for the wicked falsehood it is. They will riposte with this infamous rejoinder of Luther's "Why should the devil have all the best music?" But in context, Luther was not talking about taking bar music for his own, but the devil in this quotation was the Roman Catholic Church, and Luther was arguing for great new tunes composed for the Lutheran church. Luther once said, "a pastor who doesn't know anything about music is useless to me."

I heard that quote--"Why should the devil have all the best music?"--in the context of Charles Wesley borrowing drinking songs... hmm...

A Google search reveals that William Booth also said that, as well as Charles Wesley--curiously enough, both are cited as the first to say that.

Originally Posted by http://www.jameswatkins.com/churchmusic.htm

Charles Wesley, who was the song leader for the John Wesley Evangelistic Association during the late 1700's, took English pub tunes and added Christian lyrics, many paraphrased from the Church of England's Prayer Book. Did you know you can sing "One Hundred Bottles of Beer on the Wall" to the tune of "O, For A Thousand Tongues to Sing"? Just a coincidence? I don't think so.

edit: You gotta admit, it makes it easier to teach new converts the songs... lol!

The Charles Wesley quote is untrue.
Think about it, he was a Methodist lol, back when that meant something.
But it has been documented that the quote is misattributed.
Luther did not use secular music, except for at least one tune. He changed it to on original melody after the fact. Then upon Luther's death the melody was changed by to the secular one. Sorry for the lack of footnotes.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

When I was in high school... they were singing "Amazing Grace" to the tune of "The House of the Rising Sun" (about a house of "ill repute").

I had never heard that done until about a year ago. And it was during a Sunday Worship service. I was not impressed.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

When I was in high school... they were singing "Amazing Grace" to the tune of "The House of the Rising Sun" (about a house of "ill repute").

I had never heard that done until about a year ago. And it was during a Sunday Worship service. I was not impressed.

I have never heard 'Amaziing Grace' sung to 'the House of the Rising Sun' but have sung 'When I Survey the Wondrous Cross' to this tune.

Tunes work both ways. We often sing 'Thine be the Glory' yet this tune was written to celebrate someone who would now be classed as a war criminal and in a recent BBC poll was named one of the 10 worst Britons of the whole millenium. That is the Duke of Cumberland, otherwise known as 'the butcher' due to his treatment of the clansmen after their defeat at Culloden.

Its not the tune but the words that count. Indeed there is something symbolic in using a tune that once had non-Christian or even un-Christian lyrics and using the same tune to sing praise to God. That is what the Lord does with people, he changes their song.

'He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God' (Ps 40.3)

Here my deal with Contemporary Christian Music. It's just like Voltaire said about the Holy Roman Empire: it is neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. The same is true of CCM: it is neither contemporary (all 70's music), nor Christian (in most cases; there are a few Scripture songs in CCM), nor music.

This last I will stake myself on, for this reason: music is structured according to phrases. In fact, the parallel of music to language is rather intense: notes=letters, chords=words, phrases=clauses, periods of music=sentences, sections=paragraphs, you get the picture. The beauty of a musical phrase is in an arch shape. It has a rising action, a point of some sort of height (whether dynamically, or pitch, or rhythmic, or chordal, some point of highest tension), and a resolution, which is usually much shorter than the buildup. These phrases, or musical sentences, are then concatenated together to form a far larger arch shape that extends the entire length of the piece or song or hymn.

Unfortunately, most CCM does not have anything close to this kind of structure. Instead, the structure is very much a moment by moment tension and release, more like jazz. The phrases have zero arch, and much in the way of repeated notes (many hymns do this, too, especially in the revivalist hymn tradition, which was never meant to be kept for posterity!). And it all looks the same, with the very same chord structure for practically every song. Furthermore, it is not conducive to congregational singing. Congregations cannot do that kind of syncopation very well. It winds up being a solo sung (usually poorly!) by the song leader up in the front, wailing away on his guitar with no one else participating. They don't usually give the music to the people, only the words, so the congregation cannot learn the music. I have almost never seen CCM even performed well (and I use the word "performance" on purpose). It's a performance, not worship, and it's usually done poorly.

Now, there are rare exceptions within the CCM movement, and there are also plenty of bad hymns. I have found the best traditions of hymnody to be the English Anglican tradition, the German Lutheran tradition, the Genevan Psalter, the Scottish Psalter, and the earlier American hymns. These traditions were usually written by folks who knew what music was. They were actual composers. I have little love for the revivalist tradition (where the theology is often bad, also!) or CCM. It has gotten to the point where, if they will not provide me the music, I refuse to sing.

There are several modern hymn writers doing good things. I think of Paul Jones at Tenth Presbyterian Church, who has written (Boice wrote the words) Hymn for a Modern Reformation, an excellent compilation of about 15 hymns (I was in the choir at the time they recorded the hymns for a CD), based on the 5 solas, and the 5 points of Calvinism. Also, I think that Getty's hymn "In Christ Alone" is a good modern example of a hymn that has the proper musical structure (not to mention great words).

. . . music is structured according to phrases. In fact, the parallel of music to language is rather intense: notes=letters, chords=words, phrases=clauses, periods of music=sentences, sections=paragraphs, you get the picture. The beauty of a musical phrase is in an arch shape. It has a rising action, a point of some sort of height (whether dynamically, or pitch, or rhythmic, or chordal, some point of highest tension), and a resolution, which is usually much shorter than the buildup. These phrases, or musical sentences, are then concatenated together to form a far larger arch shape that extends the entire length of the piece or song or hymn.

Unfortunately, most CCM does not have anything close to this kind of structure. Instead, the structure is very much a moment by moment tension and release, more like jazz. The phrases have zero arch, and much in the way of repeated notes (many hymns do this, too, especially in the revivalist hymn tradition, which was never meant to be kept for posterity!). And it all looks the same, with the very same chord structure for practically every song.

Thanks for this.

I agree with Lane.