Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'll add that I love many of the Genevan tunes, but there are so many that it's prohibitive to learn one every time I want to sing a particular Psalm. I don't necessarily have an attachment to common meter tunes, it's just convenient having all the Psalms in one meter so that tunes can be easily swapped.
The new edition is wonderful, but I am not thrilled with all of the hymns also included in the 2014 Book of Praise.
Thanks, I was unaware of the New Genevan Psalter. I will forward that to an Anglican rector who is looking for something more contemporary then Coverdale.In that case, there is also the New Genevan Psalter, which only contains the Psalms. Info about that here.
Sadly, I suspect most people here are not familiar with the Genevan psalter in English. I've grown up with it and love it.
In a previous thread on singing whole Psalms in a service I noted that it doesn't take as long to sing at least some of the Psalm selections in the Genevan as it does in the 1650 SMV; and that the free-flowing style and interesting tunes might help the singer have more 'staying power' in singing a longer Psalm. Any thoughts on that, and what has been the practice of your denomination in singing the longer Psalms in their entirety?
Yes, I have seen stand alone editions of the Psalter found in the Book of Common Prayer [99%+ of which is Coverdale] in both Anglican Chant and Plainsong ChantAre there any stand-alone printings of the A.V. or Coverdale Psalter available?
Sadly, I suspect most people here are not familiar with the Genevan psalter in English. I've grown up with it and love it. I appreciate the Scottish metrical psalter too, but one gravitates to the familiar. Growing up, we often complained about some of the archaic language. As I came to study Hebrew, I also noticed that some of our rhymings weren't all that accurate (some were taken over from the work of Dewey Westra for the CRC Psalter). However, since 2014, there is a new edition of the Genevan Psalter in English that has both more contemporary English and more accurate renditions. You can find more information here.
I think that if one is in a church that sings these tunes, they wouldn't be much more difficult than learning the various metrical melodies. I find them very well-fitted to the various Psalms they're assigned to. Like most of the older metrical melodies they're easy on the voice, since they mimic chanting.The tunes are many, and are difficult for Westerners due to the various modes in which they are set.
I'd like to hear more on the accuracy of the translations. I guess the translations are now based on the critical text as opposed to the MT?
By MT do you mean "Majority" or "Masoretic"? I thought pretty much all the OT translations came from essentially the same text and it was the NT translations that differed on textual families.
I do think that CM is especially detrimental to longer psalms, where due to the naturally slow pace and the short stanzas most congregations seem to have simply given up singing the psalm in its entirety. While I understand the appeal of CM-only for some people, I think a better solution is to have a few different meters sprinkled more or less evenly throughout. Not only does they fit some psalms better, but most people already know many tunes of different meters from hymns. Some psalters have gone overboard with dozens of different meters, but I think just CM is equally extreme.
I think that if one is in a church that sings these tunes, they wouldn't be much more difficult than learning the various metrical melodies. I find them very well-fitted to the various Psalms they're assigned to. Like most of the older metrical melodies they're easy on the voice, since they mimic chanting.
I'd like to hear more on the accuracy of the translations.
As far as the accuracy, I'd maintain that the 2014 edition of the Genevan psalms is as accurate as the Scottish Metrical Psalter. The 1984 edition definitely had problems, but the vast majority of these have been rectified.
I'm curious what you mean by "accuracy" here, I tried looking up the 2014 edition but I'm not sure if that's on the site you linked to or if the various translations are older editions. Regardless, do you mean more of an accuracy of ideas or a formal equivalence accuracy?
Many of the psalters I've reviewed do a fairly good job of getting across the concept, but often words or ideas are missed to fit the meter. For example Psalm 25
"To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul.
O my God in you I trust;"
Is translated in "Sing Psalms" as
"To you, O LORD, I lift my soul;
I trust in you continually"
Which gets the idea across but omits "God" in the second line (obviously it's implied from the first). So pretty accurate in the concept but perhaps not as much in wording. Is that the case with the Genevan 2014? What do you believe to be accurate?
As I think I said on another thread, working on a psalter for my church which draws from a number of psalters (see below), I guess I was naive as far as word for word accuracy in translations in various psalters. They all tend to have at least some selections where in serving the meter words are added or subtracted and there is more a thought equivalence as Logan notes. In redoing selections from scratch or modifying others (like 1912) it was clear how difficult the job is to make singable text. So I don't want to overly fault this since I sure don't have the gifts to do such work. I do think those that hold to exclusive psalmody should tend to let accuracy govern over easily adding or subtracting words to serve the meter. But as I say, I was naive about the difficulties.
[The Lakewood Psalter has selections from Book of Praise of the Canadian Reformed Churches,
Scottish Psalter, 1614, alt.; Scottish Psalter, 1615; Scottish Psalter, 1641,; alt.; The Book of Psalms for Singing, 1973; The Book of Psalms for Worship, 2009; The Psalter, 1871, 1912, and alt.; Trinity Psalter and some work by individuals.]
I'm curious what you mean by "accuracy" here, I tried looking up the 2014 edition but I'm not sure if that's on the site you linked to or if the various translations are older editions. Regardless, do you mean more of an accuracy of ideas or a formal equivalence accuracy? [...]
So pretty accurate in the concept but perhaps not as much in wording. Is that the case with the Genevan 2014? What do you believe to be accurate?