Sigh. That eagerness is in your imagination, but your original comment certainly has a strong and unconventional point of view.
“You disagree with my taste in music. Fine. That’s your right. Just as it is my right to ignore your snotty and supercilious belittling of my taste.” – Michael
Really? Where do I belittle your musical taste? I disagree with your condemnation of a tune almost universally admired, at least in my prior experience. But what I find frustrating is not your musical taste; it’s how quickly you resort to personal insults in response to disagreement. Resorting to phrases like “snotty and supercilious” certainly does nothing for the case you’re trying to make. Is your taste that fragile, that when you express contrarian views, you can’t take the inevitable heat in response?
“Indeed, I get a dose of that just about every week at Mass in my very own parish, where the music choices–and the musicians–are almost never completely to my liking.” – Michael
Maybe you should consider adjusting your liking. It’s what most serious musicians do, in the face of repeated evidence that their tastes are at odds with their colleagues’ tastes. I said “most”: some musicians instead become conductors.
The real irony, Michael, is that I like you, or at least I like your web persona. But your propensity to resort quickly to personally insulting language in response to otherwise polite strong disagreement is awfully tough to take. Not every strong disagreement on an issue has to be a basis for personal conflict.
As usual, Michael, I leave you with the last word… unless you use it to condemn the FSM or something equally blasphemous. 🙂
]]>In case you hadn’t noticed, however, this is neither a church nor a concert hall. I have not been asked (or paid) to perform here, so your analogy doesn’t really hold. It is also common practice, on the intertubes, to let your readers know what they’re in for when they click on a link. You disagree with my taste in music. Fine. That’s your right. Just as it is my right to ignore your snotty and supercilious belittling of my taste.
]]>My point stands, that other people, including many musicians, partake of each other’s sacred music in a less judgmental way, not expecting it will suit their own tastes, musical or theological, but performing it and paying loving or at least respectful attention to it nonetheless. And you, Michael, are fortunate that we do so, however reluctant you are to admit it.
—
Bryan, thanks; I learned several things from your comment. “House of the Rising Sun” reminds me just a tiny bit of the tunes in shaped-note hymnals in and around Kentucky; I wonder if there’s a connection there. I was fortunate in college to have some friends who did shaped-note singing; now that was a good cleaning of the ears for those of us steeped in common-practice tonality! 🙂
Using the same tune for different texts is, of course, extremely common in the UU tradition, and the hymnal has been recompiled and republished not less often than once or twice a century. It’s hard on people who prefer their traditions cast in stone, but not many such people become UUs anyway. To each his or her own.
]]>The lyrics are based on a prayer of King David and were written at the end of the 18th century. Because the author is associated with the abolition movement, the lyrics jumped to the US along with the movement.
The Blind Boys of Alabama sing the traditional rural Southern black version of the hymn, to the tune of “House of the Rising Sun”. This is a practice that is still common today in the rural South, where there were more guitars than pipes, and not many read music. You are apt to hear familiar hymns sung to different tunes all the time, but in a nation with a national anthem sung to the tune of an old drinking song, people should show a little understanding for the practice.
]]>Don’t like it? don’t listen; nobody’s forcing you. But kindly refrain from taking a whack at the music or the musicians.
]]>I loathe that tune. Not to mention the theology behind it. Even bagpipes can’t make it palatable.
]]>