Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre [1st ed.] 9783030556082, 9783030556099

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xv
Contemporary Congregational Songs Genre Formation and Scrutiny (Daniel Thornton)....Pages 1-26
Contemporary Congregational Songs (Daniel Thornton)....Pages 27-39
The Contemporary Congregational Song Industry (Poietic Analysis Pt 1) (Daniel Thornton)....Pages 41-55
So the Songwriters Say (Poietic Analysis Pt 2) (Daniel Thornton)....Pages 57-72
The Old and New Guard: Ways of Thinking for Contemporary Congregational Songs Writers (Poietic Analysis Pt 3) (Daniel Thornton)....Pages 73-85
How Christians Feel About the Songs They Sing: Individually (Esthesic Analysis Pt 1) (Daniel Thornton)....Pages 87-108
How Christians Feel About the Songs They Sing: Corporately (Esthesic Analysis Pt 2) (Daniel Thornton)....Pages 109-119
Just Another Pop Song? The Music (Trace Analysis Pt 1) (Daniel Thornton)....Pages 121-143
Just Another Pop Song? The Lyrics (Trace Analysis Pt 2) (Daniel Thornton)....Pages 145-169
Some Individual Examples: Australia (Trace Analysis Pt 3) (Daniel Thornton)....Pages 171-183
Some Individual Examples: UK and USA (Trace Analysis Pt 4) (Daniel Thornton)....Pages 185-202
The Current and Future Contemporary Congregational Songs Genre (Daniel Thornton)....Pages 203-215
Back Matter ....Pages 217-236

Citation preview

Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre Daniel Thornton

Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre

Daniel Thornton

Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre

Daniel Thornton Alphacrucis College Parramatta, NSW, Australia

ISBN 978-3-030-55608-2    ISBN 978-3-030-55609-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

Serious academic studies of contemporary congregational music have been around since the mid-1990s. Over that time, scholars have approached the topic from a range of theological, sociological, economic, and musicological lenses. Musically, discussion has largely come out of the discipline of popular music studies, which considers the cultural/structural/political elements at work, as well as the musical. What Daniel Thornton does in this volume is take a very deep dive into the musicological while considering the everyday experiences of people as they create and perform congregational music, or engage with it spiritually, and the other folks who just ‘like it’. Although this book references and dissects many of the greatest congregational songs of our modern time, this is not a book about what is great. This is a book about what the music sounds like, what it is doing, how people are seeking to (re)produce it, and how it is affecting the lives of those who engage with it. This is a book about how everyday congregants perform this music and own it within their lives and their faith. As with much research in this discipline, Thornton brings years, dare I say decades (!), of experience as a composer, performer, and consumer of contemporary congregational music to his study. What is particularly refreshing though is that Thornton is not selling us something, or he is not writing to an agenda; he is simply telling us what is happening musically and socially. And he is proving that time and again with hard data, with research we can take into future studies as we consider how congregational music might twist and change over time. This book is undergirded by years of rigorous research and analysis. There is nothing left to chance here, no subjective opinions masquerading v

vi 

FOREWORD

as fact. This is a deeply objective, factual analysis. And that is what the (sub)discipline of congregational music is crying out for. Sure, we have seen this in more anthropological and sociological accounts, but this kind of quantifiable musicology has been rare. I write this Foreword in a fascinating time globally. Just today, in the place where I live, churches were able to accept a limited number of worshippers—but there was to be no ‘singing or chanting’. How interesting that congregational singing has been singled out as a health risk. What extra power has just been invested in the common activity of joining in (any form of) corporate singing. In the weeks prior to this, here, and around the world, churches have been delivering their liturgies, and the music that accompanies them, virtually, in an online world that we all now recognize as normal. But these external stimuli raise very real questions for congregational music. What will congregational singing look like (and sound like) in a post-COVID-19 world? What does it mean for churches if they cannot sing out loud together? Does this environment actually highlight the importance of high production values in recorded congregational song? How will people of faith adapt to a personal-only musical experience? How do congregants connect to worship in an online environment? What is achievable musically for congregants when left on their own in their lounge rooms? And dare I say it, how relevant is music to the contemporary post-COVID-19 church? Here Thornton’s volume takes on even more significance. It tells us what is achievable. It documents objectively what people do and don’t want to sing. And more than anything, this volume documents in the most timely fashion, how online communities built around contemporary congregational songs function and grow. As Thornton notes, the volume gives us a “greater understanding of this global genre, and its impact, through its texts, producers, and participant-audiences”. This volume tells us exactly what the global contemporary congregational song genre sounds like, how songs are constructed, and why people engage with them the way they do. What could be more timely than that! This is a volume of great value, and we will be richer for it analytically and practically. But it is also a volume that should make us ask, ‘what now?’ Sydney, Australia June 2020

Mark Evans

Acknowledgements

I firstly want to thank my publishing family at Palgrave Macmillan. It has been a four-year journey with quite a few rejections to find the quality academic publisher who understood and shared my vision for this monograph. I am grateful for their support, advice, and commitment. Particular thanks to Amy for your early help in bringing this to fruition. This work emerged from my original PhD studies at Macquarie University, Australia. Alphacrucis College (AC), where I worked during that time, and continue to work, was so supportive throughout the entire journey of my candidature and then additionally granted me a sabbatical in 2019 to complete the tome. I want to thank AC’s president, Steve Fogarty, who, alongside the Executive Committee and Academic Board, has championed a research culture which continues to propel the College forwards towards its envisioned future as an Australian Christian University. Additionally, thanks to the various heads of Research and the Research Committee who have allowed me to hone my scholarship through the funding of my presentations at key conferences over the past seven years. Many of my colleagues at AC have been tremendously encouraging and supportive of my growth as a scholar. I particularly want to acknowledge Lily Arasaratnam-Smith, who patiently endured much of my early embarrassing attempts at academic writing and helped me along the journey to become a scholar who no longer feels like an imposter. Senior AC scholars offered sage advice regarding the publishing process, while many peers who were also completing their terminal degrees and pursuing publishing opportunities spurred me on. I fear if I started to name them all, I would miss someone, but the entire AC family is dear to me. vii

viii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My PhD supervisor and ongoing academic mentor is Mark Evans. None of what exists within these pages would have been possible without him. One of the things I most admire about Mark is that he maintains his faith within the secular academy and has taught me that good scholarship should be justifiable to all, no matter what religious or other predispositions they consciously or subconsciously bring to the table. Most importantly, I consider him my friend. The Christian Congregational Music network has been a source of continual inspiration and challenge. My first presentation at the 2013 conference in Oxford, UK, opened my eyes to the people behind the scholarship on which I had cut my academic teeth. This network also provided me with my first opportunity to publish, a co-written book chapter in a volume edited by Tom Wagner and Anna Nekola. Additionally, after initial rejections of this current work for publication, Monique Ingalls, Allan Moore, and Lester Ruth provided important critiques of my proposal, which undoubtedly helped it towards becoming the manuscript that is now in your hands. In the early days of my scholarly development, I also connected with the UK-based Theology, Religion and Popular Culture Network under the leadership of Clive Marsh. Both he and the network have been a source of opportunity and encouragement in developing my framework for contemporary congregational songs. Before coming to the world of academia, I had spent two decades as the worship pastor in a number of churches, some pioneer works, some multi-­ campus megachurches. This book would not contain any of the rich complexity or real-world application if it wasn’t for all of those years of ministry. I thank every pastor, church, team member, and congregation member who has worshipped with me and helped me grow in my understanding of what musical worship is and what God intended it to be. I additionally thank the many congregation members from those churches and others who participated in the online survey providing vital data for this research. I would also like to personally thank Matt Crocker, Mia Fieldes, Ben Fielding, Tim Hughes, Matt Redman, and Darlene Zschech, the extraordinary and internationally prominent songwriters-worship leaders who gave me their time and honest reflections to help inform this research. Special thanks to Richard Fowler, a dear friend and fellow scholar. While I beat him to the finish line with my PhD, he can honestly take credit for much of my scholarly development, asking me innumerable hard questions which made my brain work overtime to satisfactorily answer.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

ix

More importantly, as a fellow Godly creative, he has shown me the beautiful possibilities of creativity, scholarship, and faith. If my mum were still alive, she would have been bursting with pride. She always saw more potential in me than I did in myself, as only a mother can. I also want to thank my dad, whose love of God and diligence in life is a constant inspiring standard I hope I can live up to and emulate for my own children and grandchildren. Finally, I would like to thank my family. Kris also deserves a PhD for the amount of time she allowed me to invest in study and writing. She is an extraordinary mother, wife, woman, and friend, and the significance of that on my scholarly work, though indirect, is profound. I also want to thank my beloved children (who are now all adults) and their expanding families. You keep me young and inspire me at every turn. Keep dreaming. Never give up.

Contents

1 Contemporary Congregational Songs Genre Formation and Scrutiny  1 Introduction   1 The Formation of a Genre   4 Perspectives on CCS History   7 Selected Scholarship   8 Why Music Semiology? (Texts, Writers, Audience)  14 YouTube: The Primary Text  20 Bibliography  23 2 Contemporary Congregational Songs 27 What’s in a Name?  27 Praise and Worship Theology  29 Contemporary for Whom?  30 Defining Congregational  31 Songs or Music?  32 Are the Most Sung Songs Representative of the Genre?  34 Christian Copyright Licensing International  35 Songs Under Analysis  37 Bibliography  38 3 The Contemporary Congregational Song Industry (Poietic Analysis Pt 1) 41 Introduction  41 Where Do They Come From?  42 xi

xii 

CONTENTS

Authenticity, Originality, and the Singer-Songwriter  43 The Production Milieu  48 Industry Insights  50 Bibliography  54 4 So the Songwriters Say (Poietic Analysis Pt 2) 57 Who’s Who?  57 Writing for the People  59 Performance or Participation?  65 Predicting Success  66 Conclusion  71 Bibliography  72 5 The Old and New Guard: Ways of Thinking for Contemporary Congregational Songs Writers (Poietic Analysis Pt 3) 73 Bridging Old and New  73 Theological Considerations  76 Co-writing  81 Roles and Writing  83 Poietic Conclusion  85 Bibliography  85 6 How Christians Feel About the Songs They Sing: Individually (Esthesic Analysis Pt 1) 87 Methods and Background  87 To Sing or Not to Sing  90 The Individual’s Perspective and their Voice  94 Why Christians Connect with Certain Songs  99 Bibliography 106 7 How Christians Feel About the Songs They Sing: Corporately (Esthesic Analysis Pt 2)109 Australia’s National Church Life Surveys 109 What Gathered Worshippers Really Think 110 The Other NCLS Survey and What It Reveals 114 The Big Picture of Local Churches’ Musical Worship 114 Synthesising the Individual and Corporate 117 Bibliography 119

 CONTENTS 

xiii

8 Just Another Pop Song? The Music (Trace Analysis Pt 1)121 Introduction 121 Memorable Melodies 123 Melodic Expectations 127 Catchy 129 Banal Harmony 130 The Band 136 Tempos and Time Signatures 138 Structure 140 Bibliography 141 9 Just Another Pop Song? The Lyrics (Trace Analysis Pt 2)145 Introduction 145 Counting Lyrics 145 Addressing God 147 Theology and Poetry 151 CCS Categories 157 Focus of Current CCS 161 Bibliography 166 10 Some Individual Examples: Australia (Trace Analysis Pt 3)171 The Problem with Analysing a Genre 171 Cornerstone 172 Mighty to Save 175 Oceans (Where Feet May Fail) 177 What a Beautiful Name 180 Bibliography 182 11 Some Individual Examples: UK and USA (Trace Analysis Pt 4)185 10,000 Reasons 185 Here I Am to Worship 190 How Great Is Our God 193 In Christ Alone 195 Revelation Song 199 Trace Analysis Conclusion 201 Bibliography 202

xiv 

CONTENTS

12 The Current and Future Contemporary Congregational Songs Genre203 Meaning-Making in CCS 203 Conflicting Messages 204 Ambivalence or Appropriation 206 The Evolving Genre 208 The Functional Genre 210 Where to from Here? 211 Bibliography 214 Appendix A217 Bibliography219 Index233

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 The Magisteria-Ibiza Spectrum (Marsh and Roberts, 2013, 19; excerpt from Personal Jesus by Clive Marsh and Vaughan S. Roberts, copyright © 2012. Used by permission of Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group) Fig. 8.1 D and D2 guitar fingering Fig. 9.1 Key themes/words in CCS Fig. 9.2 Four CCS lyric categories Fig. 9.3 Weight of CCS song types Fig. 9.4 Visual representation of Godhead and POV fraction Fig. 11.1 10,000 Reasons: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=DXDGE_lRI0E (Background picture)

13 135 155 160 161 164 186

xv

CHAPTER 1

Contemporary Congregational Songs Genre Formation and Scrutiny

Introduction Christians sing. Before instantly dismissing that statement as idealistic or naïve, consider both the Scriptural imperative to do so for believers and the worship practices that Christians have institutionalised over the last 2000 years. Whether one appeals to the Old Testament Scriptures, such as Psalm 96:1 “Oh, sing to the Lord a new song! Sing to the Lord, all the earth”, or the New Testament, “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord”, the edict is clear, Christians sing. They sing not only to God, and to one another, but also to themselves. Some have observed in recent times that (Western) Christians are singing less than they once did (Goddard 2016). Undoubtedly, there are Christians who feel they cannot sing or choose not to sing. Nevertheless, Christians throughout the ages have expressed their faith through song, and particularly through communal song, not just because it was a noble idea or an entertaining activity, or because their surrounding culture celebrated communal singing, but because it was a Christian mandate. The content and style of Christian song and its accompaniment (if any) have changed over time and across different cultures and traditions. The bastion of certain styles of Christian song has lasted centuries, such as Gregorian chants, the Eastern Orthodox musical traditions, or the hymns of Watts or Wesley. At other times, musical style within the church has © The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9_1

1

2 

D. THORNTON

been transient or localised. I still remember the first and only rap song that made it into our church’s roster (for a short time) in the early 1990s: “Jump To The Jam” (©1993 Paul Iannuzzelli). When songs and styles have a long life, they also gain the opportunity to be examined and analysed from various perspectives and disciplines over multiple generations. However, an emerging music genre may be left unexamined by scholars until it is quite well established or has made enough of an impact somewhere on some group of people. Indeed, academia was slow to catch up with the emergence of Rock ‘n’ Roll in the 1950s, not least because it was not seen as ‘serious’ music, and thus not deemed worthy of serious scholarship. However, by the 1980s, popular music studies had emerged with seminal research from Simon Frith, Richard Middleton, and Allan Moore, among others. Reflection necessarily follows, rather than precedes, practice, but at what distance? At what point does analysing the ‘seedling’ of a music genre produce viable insight into the ‘tree’ which it may or may not become? Contemporary congregational songs (CCS) now have some 50 years of history, of evolution, and of worship practice in contemporary expressions of Christianity. En masse, Christians sing contemporary congregational songs. Their origins may have been in Pentecostal and charismatic circles; it was what Pentecostal/charismatic Christians sang. This fastest growing strain of Christianity over the last century now represents more than 500 million adherents worldwide (Pew Research Center 2011), but the genre has had far wider implications. Hundreds of millions of Christians sing contemporary congregational songs regardless of denominational, generational, lingual, or cultural differences. It is the examination and analysis of this global genre of musical worship renewal that this volume undertakes. Key Questions and Findings There is a growing body of scholarship that addresses contemporary worship and contemporary worship practices. Is there a need for another volume? A selection of existing scholarship will be discussed later in this chapter to establish the gap in the research, and where this volume fits in the field. Before that, however, this section provides a summary of why this book is needed and what it uniquely addresses. First, is the notion that contemporary congregational songs are a musically, lyrically, and extra-­ musically definable global music genre. Many definitions of contemporary musical worship have been offered, sometimes according to music style/ (sub)genre, or where it fits in the historical timeline, or where its cultural

1  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS GENRE FORMATION… 

3

roots lie. However, the definition of contemporary congregational songs that persists across the literature is a generic one: ‘popular music with Christian lyrics’. This research, however, demonstrates that the contemporary congregational song genre, in terms of the way in which it is measured by both Christian Copyright Licensing International and YouTube, exists as a global music genre and is definable to a high degree. The great majority of congregational music-making research is about a context, most often a specific Christian gathering or group (e.g., M. Ingalls 2018). However, this analysis of the most sung CCS provides us with a global picture of the singing (Western(ised)) church which is not bound to a specific church, denomination, or location, but wherever CCS are employed or experienced. Only two scholarly volumes in the last 15 years have attempted a study of the genre not bound to a specific context: Open Up the Doors: Music in the Modern Church (Evans 2006) and The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship (Walrath and Woods 2010). These are both excellent studies, besides now being a little dated. Each volume, however, only focuses on a single region: Evans on Australia and Walrath and Woods on the USA. No published volume to this point has taken multiple region data from Christian Copyright Licensing International reports to establish and analyse the global genre. Second, the specific context (e.g., a local church) or location (e.g., a conference or concert) where contemporary congregational songs have been typically studied provides an excellent understanding of those settings. Research of this type tends to be ethnographic. In order to provide a different, complementary, and potentially contrasting lens to understand Christians’ broad engagement with the genre, this study utilises both unique primary sources and different methods. For example, Australia’s National Church Life Survey (NCLS) on contemporary worship practices (2011) is a rich source of data, never before analysed for its insights into the CCS genre. The anonymous online survey designed and employed for this study is also unique, both in construction and in the data gathered. Finally, while YouTube has been a growing resource for exploring Christians’ engagement with CCS, this study uses it as the primary text for that stage of the analysis. In summary, the different sources and contexts bring important, and previously unexplored, perspectives to the scholarly dialectic around CCS. As identified above, some sections of this research rely on data from Australian sources, and indeed, may contain a subconsciously Australian

4 

D. THORNTON

perspective of the global genre. That being said, many international data sources are also utilised, and as a scholar, composer, and worship leader, I have travelled the globe and witnessed first-hand, diverse, localised, and varied cultural expressions of CCS which inform and affirm my findings. To whatever degree a uniquely Australian perspective may still colour this research, this study provides an important counterpoint to the extant congregational music-making scholarship. It is complementary to the ethnomusicological thick descriptions of particular contexts and local expressions of contemporary worship, or to the historical accounts of the genre, or to the theological or philosophical engagements with the genre, and whatever regional influences may have informed their authors. Beyond the unique sources and methods, this research adopts a disciplinary approach that is rare in congregational music studies. The methodology of music semiology and its interdisciplinary partners will be discussed in depth later in this chapter. Here, however, I posit that the way in which this methodology builds on a musicological heritage means that the songs themselves are central to the analysis. This stands in stark contrast to much of the congregational music studies literature where little or no analysis is given of the actual music, but rather of the people who make it, or engage with it, or the environmental, ecclesial, cultural, theological, historical, or political contexts in which contemporary congregational songs occur. At the same time, this methodology does not ignore the production milieu at one end, nor the individual, subjective meaning-making at the other, which all contribute to an ongoing dialogical definition of the genre.

The Formation of a Genre When does a music genre become a music genre? Can one composer alone create and define a new genre? If so, how many works do they need to compose that fit certain criteria before it is generally accepted as a genre? Can it be a genre if it is only defined by some musical/lyrical elements? These are questions addressed by genre theory. The notion of a music genre is at once obvious and enigmatic. As fans, we instinctively recognise music in those genres with which we are familiar, and when music is not of those genres. However, defining music genres in more positive and concrete terms can be challenging. This section engages with the work of five genre theory scholars to establish contemporary congregational songs as a music genre. Frow approaches the discussion from a literary orientation, stating:

1  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS GENRE FORMATION… 

5

[G]enres, are cultural forms, dynamic and historically fluid, … guiding people’s behaviour; they are learned, and they are culturally specific; they are rooted in institutional infrastructures; they classify objects in ways that are sometimes precise, sometimes fuzzy, but always sharper at the core than at the edges; and they belong to a system of kinds, and are meaningful only in terms of the shifting differences between them. (Frow 2006, 128)

Importantly, this quote indicates that genre markers will be most evident towards the “core”. It is, of course, unrealistic to analyse every contemporary congregational song ever written, or even every contemporary congregational song that Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) represents, which is now well over half a million. For this reason, a sample must be chosen for analysis. However, according to Frow’s definition, a random sample of CCS would not provide us with the clearest picture of the CCS genre. Rather, an analysis of a sample of songs at the core of the genre would provide the greatest insight. For the global CCS genre, core songs would be those that are sung by the most Christians, across the most countries and denominations around the world; a discussion to which I will return. This quote also affirms that the CCS genre definition derived from this research is subject to the “dynamic and historically fluid” nature of genre definitions. It is only a snapshot of the genre at a moment in church and wider Western cultural history and at a specific point in the CCS scholarly discourse. Ultimately, the proposed CCS genre definition in this book needs to be in an ongoing state of contestation, re-examination, nuancing, and updating. With a more specific focus on music genres, Lena and Peterson state that they are “systems of orientations, expectations, and conventions that bind together an industry, performers, critics, and fans in making what they identify as a distinctive sort of music” (Lena and Peterson 2008, 698). The particular relationship, noted above, between music genres and industry is a focus for Negus, who recognises the co-constitutive processes of music genres shaping and being shaped by lived musical experience and “formal organization by an entertainment industry” (Negus 1999, 4). This link will be borne out in the coming chapters. Approaching music genre theories initially from their “linguistic label (a name)”, Marino, who builds on the work of Fabbri (1982) and Holt (2007), suggests they are assigned to a “set of recognizable musical features … carrying socio-cultural connotations” (Marino 2013, 7). From this vantage point, he reviews approximately 100 genre names, dividing

6 

D. THORNTON

them into six macro-classes: (1) Music (descriptive), (2) Aim (prescriptive), (3) Lyrics (thematic), (4) Culture (aggregative), (5) Geography (locative), and (6) Totem (i.e., object; symbolic) (ibid., 12). For Marino, “Christian (rock)” (which would include CCS in his taxonomy) is classified under the “Lyric (thematic)” category, which also includes the ‘Love song’ and Christmas carol. The concept that Christian music is only definable through its lyrical content is supported by other authors (e.g., Price 1999). Marino, however, goes on to propose that Christian music is neither a proper genre, nor style, but more a ‘type’ or ‘area’ of music, which he asserts is the equivalent of Shuker’s “metagenres” (2013), Holt’s “abstract genres” (2007), and Fabbri’s “superordinate categories” (2014) (ibid., 13). Such a position is not uncontested. Lena and Peterson, restricting themselves to music genres that operate in the commercial marketplace, see genres as potentially moving through four forms: Avant-garde, Scene-based, Industry-based, and finally to a Traditionalist form (2008, 700). As contemporary Christian music (CCM), and thus its subgenre, CCS, commenced as (Christian/church) ‘Scene-based’ expressions of existing genres (rock/pop/folk) rather than as a substantially new musical idiom, Lena and Peterson see CCM, and presumably CCS, as Scene-based and Industry-based forms of a music genre, still too young to arrive at its Traditionalist form (ibid., 710). Christian music, for many scholars, seems to be one of the more abstract and difficult music genres to qualify, beyond its lyrical content. However, CCS are a special case of Christian music, not specifically dealt with by any of the above-mentioned authors. A more detailed, concrete, and nuanced definition of the CCS genre is not only possible but important to the discourse. I propose the following definition: Towards its centre, the CCS genre can be defined as songs that are popular music oriented, written by Christian worshippers, relatively easily replicable in vernacular contexts, memorable, containing lyrics that are theologically resonant to their performers (congregation), and are personally meaningful. Furthermore, I posit that there are a large number of musical, lyrical, and extra-musical features, which are consistent across the corpus, and thus define the genre. The rest of this book is devoted to supporting, justifying, and extrapolating on these assertions.

1  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS GENRE FORMATION… 

7

Perspectives on CCS History Some excellent scholarship has already been published on the history of contemporary worship. Most recently, Swee Hong Lim and Lester Ruth compiled a relatively comprehensive account, even if it was US-centric, entitled Lovin’ on Jesus: A Concise History of Contemporary Worship. One of the important features of their work is to go beyond the discussions of musical style which tends to dominate contemporary worship discussions, as well as address concepts of time and space, prayer and preaching, and sacramentality. The limitations of such a history are that only two chapters can be devoted to the evolution of the contemporary congregational song genre, one from its origins through the 1980s, and the other from the 1990s to the ‘present’. Thus, only broad brushstrokes can be employed to cover the songs that have created and shaped the developing genre, which the authors acknowledge, stating, “Our goal is not an exhaustive survey of contemporary worship music but a sampling of important milestones in its history” (Lim and Ruth 2017, 60). The authors’ own backgrounds reveal a particular slant to that history. They state that the rhythm section (piano, guitar, and drums) used in the New Zealanders David and Dale Garrett’s Scripture in Song recordings of the early 1970s was a sound that was “unfamiliar to the church culture of the day but growing more familiar in popular culture” (Lim and Ruth 2017, 62). However, various strands of Pentecostalism had featured such rhythmically driven ensembles since their inception. In an account of the black Pentecostal church in America of the early 1900s, Booker speaks of “improvisation, shout-ing [sic], and drumming produced by hand-­ clapping and foot stomping … [it was] the African traditions that the plantation ‘invisible church’ had kept alive” (Booker 1988, 39). In turn, Rock ‘n’ Roll and emerging popular musics of the 1950s and 1960s owed a great deal to the influences of African American spirituals, gospel music, and particularly to Pentecostal worship (Stephens 2018). Lim and Ruth do acknowledge “corresponding” African American developments in congregational song. However, the ‘new sound’ of contemporary congregational songs emerging in the 1960s and 1970s was already embedded in a number of Pentecostal traditions and re-invigorated and expanded through the charismatic renewal of that period. From my own experience, as a child of the charismatic renewal in Australia, worship infused with popular music was not something we adopted, but rather something that was a native expression, evolving with whatever current generation was

8 

D. THORNTON

worshipping and evangelising. I certainly acknowledge that that was not the case for many traditional churches, but the charismatic churches emerging in the 1970s in Australia were birthed with such a musical orientation, owing much to Pentecostalism. In two final paragraphs, Lim and Ruth attempt to summarise various strands of development in contemporary worship music since the 2000s. While the summary is accurate and helpful, we are now talking about almost two decades of further development in the genre. The current iteration of the contemporary congregational song genre is therefore still in great need of scholarly attention, which is the focus of this study.

Selected Scholarship On the topic of contemporary worship scholarship, the majority of researchers have engaged in ethnographic/ethnomusicological or phenomenological approaches (e.g., Adnams 2008; Hall 2006; Ingalls 2008; Jennings 2008; Ingalls 2018; Ingalls and Yong 2015), which is arguably the combined result of a young research field and one that often defines itself experientially (Jennings 2014; Vondey and Mittelstadt 2013, 10). Sociology, cultural, and religious studies have informed such research, though many of these researchers consider themselves primarily as ethnomusicologists, a discipline which has been typically associated with the study of ‘other’ musics (Bohlman 2008, 100–101; Nooshin 2008, 72–73). The lens, then, is often that of the participant-­observer coming in from the outside to gain an understanding of the music and its culture, rather than of the musical native exploring music from his/ her naturally ‘emic’ perspective (Thornton 2015). Even when scholars are inside settings where CCS have infiltrated their church’s worship, as Ingalls describes (2018, 23), the resulting scholarship is not the type of ‘insider’ research that this study represents. As a child of the charismatic renewal, birthed in a charismatic church, the ‘worship wars’ were only something I heard about well into my adulthood as I engaged with churches in other denominations. I do not suppose that this experience gives me any privileged position for scholarship regarding CCS, however, it is this perspective that has been lacking in much contemporary congregational music-making scholarship and brings a needed breadth to the field. The ethnomusicological studies described above often excel at identifying specific practices and perspectives, engaging with, and extrapolating

1  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS GENRE FORMATION… 

9

upon, theoretical positions related to CCS and their communities. However, as their focus is on those communities, the songs themselves, including specific musicological concerns, are often peripheral to any analyses. There is an important place for ethnomusicological analysis in contemporary congregational songs; however, it is not the natural discipline to explore contemporary congregational songs as a genre. The following section continues the survey of historical contemporary congregational song/contemporary worship research in order to establish the need for this study and its methodology. One of the notable earlier scholars to engage with churches’ utilisation of popular music styles in worship is Harold Best, although this was not his sole focus (1993). He promulgates musical pluralism and challenges those who argue for the morality of music apart from lyrics. He also challenges preconceptions of musical value judgements; which Christians can be quick to exercise. He advocates the new, both musically and technologically. However, for all of this, he neither proposes nor exemplifies a methodology instructive for the research of contemporary congregational songs as a genre. Corbitt’s The Sound of the Harvest: Music’s Mission in Church and Culture (1998), on the other hand, provides many methodological considerations for researching congregational song. Corbitt comes closest to attempting a framework for the congregational song; it is a simple one, but still informative. He proposes three essential attributes of the effective congregational song: that they should be singable, that the music should be danceable, and that they should contain a meaningful message (1998, 265). This notion of singability is a core quality scrutinised throughout this book at each analytical level, although particularly in Chaps. 6 and 8. Corbitt’s surprising second quality—that the music should be danceable—resonates with extant scholarship on the somatic nature of popular music (Hesmondhalgh 2013, 29; Middleton 1993; Whiteley 2013), as well as with the embodied nature of Pentecostal theology (Vondey and Mittelstadt 2013, 10–12). Contemporary congregational songs’ ‘danceable’ quality has been observed by many authors (e.g., Ingalls 2008; Jennings 2014; Wagner 2013), and though still controversial as it may sometimes be, it is fundamental to the genre, if not to all of its localised expressions. Finally, the significance of ‘meaningful messages’ in CCS is one of the central concerns undergirding the chosen methodology for this research.

10 

D. THORNTON

Corbitt concludes: The meaning of music resides in people, not in sounds. In a general sense, our evaluation of music has more to do with the people who make it, perform it, and respond to it and the context in which it is performed than the music itself. (1998, 33)

In this way, Corbitt reiterates the ideas of his sociomusicological contemporaries. What is notable in his work, however, is his ability to hold in tension these sociomusicological concerns with textual analysis and music psychology. His analytical approach does have limitations. For example, Corbitt proposes that an appropriate analysis of CCS musical texts would comprise three steps. First, a non-judgemental analysis of the music, where Corbitt suggests we should ask, “What is the message of the song actually preaching?” (1998, 178). Second, the song should be “compared to both cultural norms and biblical standards” (ibid.), and finally, conclusions should be drawn about the “directives of the message”. Corbitt’s focus is clearly on the lyrical content and therefore only really useful within that scope of analysis. Even his comment that “[b]ecause texts of music are written within cultural, historical, political, and even economic contexts, their meaning must first be discovered within that context” (ibid., 181), which rewardingly could have been explored across the ‘total musical fact’, is only applied to a lyrical analysis. In affirming songs as the pre-eminent form of Christian worship, Quantz advocates more of a musicological focus, in at least the first three of the four ways he believes congregational songs can be “meaningful and effective” (Quantz 2009, 36). First, he proposes composers of vocal music adopt a limited range and tessitura. Second, he calls for congregational songs to have less rhythmic complexity than “instrumental music”. Third, he promotes melodic contours that generally favour smaller intervals, especially step movement. Finally, Quantz says that while not everyone can play a musical instrument, all can sing, thus affirming the universality of songs in worship. In agreement with at least Quantz’s first and third propositions, the vocal range and tessitura of representative CCS will be analysed, as will the intervallic structures of melody—building on the work of Schellenberg (Schellenberg 1996a, b; Schellenberg and Trehub 1996; Stalinski and Schellenberg 2010). Unfortunately, Quantz does not define which instrumental music CCS should be compared with, but given the growing rhythmic complexity of much CCS, compared to hymns, many of the most sung songs in contemporary churches may not resolve

1  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS GENRE FORMATION… 

11

his criteria. Agreement for the universality of songs in worship has already been justified earlier. Begbie’s (2007) contribution is interesting in its attempt to create, from biblical text and history, an approach involving “Christian ecology” which utilises Creation as a framework. He is particularly interested in applying this to musical theologians and theological musicians. Rather than a theology of worship, Begbie works towards a theology of music, which does not attempt to promote or demote any particular musical style. In one sense then, it lacks a ‘position’ on contemporary musical worship and the believer, except to spread a very wide interpretation of Creation and humanity’s position in the Christian ecology. Three of his notable contentions include: “[that] pieces of music typically possess an aesthetic integrity … they operate metaphorically, generating a surplus of meaning … [and that] music is very context friendly” (Begbie 2007, 57). There is a veiled warning here, as heard elsewhere, that analyses that purport positivist song meaning will quickly reveal their limitations. There is also the insight that people easily reinterpret music based on the setting in which they experience it, a notion supported by DeNora’s wider, secular sociomusicological research (2000), and examined specifically in relation to CCS lyrics in Chap. 9. Begbie advocates thinking of music in a Christian ecology that is neither escapist nor imperialist. Others who have sought an inclusive framework for Christians’ interaction with all popular music whether in consumption or creation include Faulkner (2012), Joseph (2003), Howard and Streck (2004), and Marsh and Roberts (2013). Sacramental theology is a framework through which Marsh and Roberts, and Lim and Ruth in a more limited context (2017, 121–40), explore popular music. Marsh and Roberts suggest this convergent theological approach to popular music has growing interest—that popular music can be a “channel of the self-revelation of God, or of the grace of God” (37). Their attempt to align Christian perspectives of popular music with Daniel Levitin’s The World in Six Songs (2008) is admirable, though unnecessary and from certain perspectives problematic, given Levitin’s evolutionary, and ultimately scientifically reductive orientation. However, the most compelling aspect of their work is the creation of the ‘MagisteriaIbiza Spectrum’ to describe ‘affective space’ in which people consume popular music (including CCS). The authors describe affective space as “any practice or activity that entails significant emotional engagement, through which a person can be shown to do more than just enjoying the moment” (16). The spectrum allows for a high level of complexity and

12 

D. THORNTON

potentially overwhelming configurations in examining music consumption and meaning-making (Fig. 1.1). They conclude that: [f]or those to whom music is at all significant, then, music is part of the self-­ shaping process and a means of discovering and expressing who we believe ourselves to be. In a clear sense, we are our playlists. (ibid., 111)

The relevance of this to CCS is particularly in the analysis of Christians’ reception, perception, and understanding of CCS, as undertaken in Chaps. 6 and 7. With a backdrop of the theological study of the cultural significance of popular music, Marsh and Roberts list seven functions of music: • Music orders and organises time • Music brings people together • Music exercises the body • Music expresses values • Music enables participation • Music provides a way of channelling emotion • Music can be seen to shape life (ibid., 130–132). All of these are readily applied to the live corporate1 worship experience of churches utilising CCS; alongside which, the authors identify four dominant themes in people’s use of popular music, including transcendence, embodiment, connectedness, and ritual (ibid., 146–153). Thus, while these authors do not set out to analyse CCS per se, the framework provides valuable insights and tools to do so. What is clearly missing from the literature, as discussed throughout this section, is a comprehensive analysis of contemporary congregational songs as a global music genre, which takes into account the diverse disciplinary methods which would best inform such an analysis.

1  This term is used many times throughout the book as it is commonly used by those inside contemporary church worship practices. Corporate worship refers to the worship of the gathered body of believers, most often a Sunday service, but could equally be other subsets of the local church worshipping together.

Norms

A Family

B

Reading/ arts group

Ibiza You can be “whatever you want to be”

Authenticity

“I just want to escape”

Bricolage

Play

“Experience not rules”

“It’s what I feel that matters”

“I can do what I want”

Feeling over thinking

Self-expression

“I’m here to enjoy the film”

Nonhierarchical

“Out of the box”

“Affective Space”

D

Antiauthoritarian “I know what I like”

Hybridity

“Pick ‘n’ mix”

C

Fig. 1.1  The Magisteria-Ibiza Spectrum (Marsh and Roberts, 2013, 19; excerpt from Personal Jesus by Clive Marsh and Vaughan S. Roberts, copyright © 2012. Used by permission of Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group)

Arts/Media critics

Corporate Faith community The Magisterium Mainstream Sports team Governing bodies

Generational Political party legacy Institutional Fan community Political theorists + policy-makers Group of friends ‘Web police” Conformity School/College/ Learning group Media Moguls

Magisteria

1  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS GENRE FORMATION… 

13

14 

D. THORNTON

Why Music Semiology? (Texts, Writers, Audience) Much modern scholarship is interdisciplinary. There is a recognition that siloed disciplines have honed expertise in their own methods and methodology, however, that same focus also limits the discipline’s capacity to fully investigate certain subjects. Thus, subjects with multiple facets can often benefit from interdisciplinary research. In order to bring these disciplines together, either research must be collaborative, or an individual researcher must gain a reasonable proficiency in the various methodologies she seeks to employ. Additionally, the danger of a multi-disciplinary analysis is that the researcher might ‘cherry-pick’ aspects of methods which suit her purpose, rather than allowing the methodological tools to govern her research. There is also the danger that the researcher may not be able to adequately master the intricacies of multiple methods or may not be able to facilitate a fruitful dialogue between them once the individual parts of the research are complete. An understanding of the contemporary congregational song genre is necessarily interdisciplinary. They are songs, which mean musicological methods are relevant, but they are also popular music, which requires employing broader methods from popular music studies, including sociology and cultural studies. They are highly mediated in our twenty-first-­ century world, requiring tools from media studies. CCS contain Christian lyrics, which means theological and biblical studies need to be employed. As already noted, they also historically originated from Pentecostal/charismatic settings, and are still highly influenced by them, which means Pentecostal studies has a place. At the same time, they are employed in a long line of Christian worship expressions which is the domain of liturgical studies, if not also ritual studies. Then there is the fact that they are appropriated and performed by amateur musicians and singers in diverse contexts, which means they are subject to the rubrics of vernacular music studies. To understand what CCS mean to Christians in those diverse contexts, ethnographic and cultural studies methods are important. To understand what CCS mean to those who compose, record, distribute, and promote them, qualitative methods, such as a thematic analysis of interviews, are required. There is no doubt other disciplines would also be informative. The point is that, obviously, it is impossible for a single tome to comprehensively employ the array of relevant disciplines and methods meaningfully and effectively. The question remains, what then is the ideal way to choose which disciplines/methods will provide the greatest

1  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS GENRE FORMATION… 

15

understanding of the genre within the limitations discussed? It is to this question which music semiology posed a possible answer. Meaning-making is a fundamental frame for understanding music. While music is not a language in its strict sense, it functions in ways akin to language. There is a communication from one human, or many in the case of a band or ensemble, to other humans. There are basic musical elements which are combined in myriad ways to express something. Music contains phrases, repetition, ways to emphasise, connotations, call and response, and an endless array of other facets of language, yet for all of it, music is not language, at least not with definitive meanings. For example, a C Major chord (C E G) may mean something, but it is not pre-defined, nor does every composer intend it to mean the same thing (if indeed they intend it to mean anything at all), nor does every listener interpret it the same way. It may have meaning internally within the composition, for example, in a piece in C Major, it would be the tonic chord, with all that implies depending on the genre. It may have some external reference to a simple summer’s morning, or to a positive emotion, or to a character in a story. Whatever meaning might be intended or assigned, humans make meaning from music. With these complexities in mind, a French scholar, Jean-Jacques Nattiez proposed a three-part music semiology as a way to most fruitfully analyse what he calls, the “total music fact”. Nattiez maintained that while music had the capacity “to give rise to a complex and infinite web of interpretants” (1990, 37), they could be divided into three centres of analysis which inform one another through dialogue. First, there is the composer and the production milieu that surrounds her. Nattiez called this the poietic perspective. It investigates what layers of meaning might have been intentionally or unintentionally sown into the original fabric of the music throughout the production process. As such, it involves whatever qualitative disciplinary methods which yield the inner thoughts and intents of composers, as well as methods which adequately account for the spectrum of influences surrounding the composition, production, promotion, and mediation of the music. Second, Nattiez recognised that each individual listener creates her own meaning in the music with which she engages. This, he called the esthesic perspective. People are unique and bring their own history, education, cultural heritage, personality, mood, and moment to the interpretation of music. The meanings they read into music are real for them. These meanings may change over time, or as listeners discuss their various perspectives with others, but ultimately no matter what the composer

16 

D. THORNTON

intended or the texts imply, music is meaningful because it is meaningful to the individual. Methods that reveal how people engage with and interpret particular music add a vital dimension to our understanding of that music. Third, there are the musical texts themselves, the original bastion of musicology. In the Western Art Music tradition, these texts (often the written musical score) were reified as the arbiter of all musical meaning. If it was not in the score, it was not important or authoritative. Much has changed in both scholarship and cultural practice, however, the potential is that analysis swings the other way and the texts are reduced to mere representations of music and not given due consideration for their own capacity to contain and convey meaning. This immanent or neutral level analysis, as Nattiez defines it, also involves other methods which explore potential meaning in the musical texts. Both terms, ‘immanent’ and ‘neutral level’, are less than ideal for this study. ‘Neutral’ connotes the idea of a lack of bias, and additionally may imply that the poietic and esthesic analyses are not neutral. ‘Immanent’ is better, referring to that which is inherent to the text(s). However, it also has theological implications which are called upon in this research. In order to keep the analysis of the texts separate from the theological discussion, another term is preferable. Given that this level of analysis deals with texts, written or recorded, it might have been called textual analysis. However, this term is already deeply embedded in communication research methods, and therefore, if used here, it would drag its own baggage into this level of analysis. It cannot be called the musicological level, as other disciplines are additionally required for this stage of music semiological research, such as media studies and theology. A term Nattiez also adopts in discussing this stage of the analysis is the ‘trace’. The trace is the symbolic musical form that “is embodied physically and materially … accessible to the five senses”, in other words, the musical text(s) (Nattiez 1990, 12). Though Nattiez doesn’t settle on this, it is this term, to my mind, that supplies the cleanest and clearest description of this stage of the analysis, and from this point onwards is called “trace analysis”.2 As mentioned, in this holistic approach to analysing music, the three levels of analysis are not static or definitive, but in a dialectic, constantly negotiating and renegotiating our understanding of that music. In one 2  I acknowledge that trace analysis is also a method in scientific analysis; however, it is far enough away from this field to not cause any unnecessary complexity.

1  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS GENRE FORMATION… 

17

sense, such an approach is not radical. The music sociologist, Longhurst, created on the surface a similar framework of analysing production, text, and audience (Longhurst 2014). Ethnomusicology might also approach music with these meaning-making centres in mind (Muir 2019). It is at this point that I have to confess that I am not an evangelistic music semiotician. There are many aspects to Nattiez’s methodology that are laudable, such as the even attention to three significant levels of musical signification, the ability to articulate an evolving understanding of music, the acknowledgement of the limitations of analysing music in the first place, and the expressed limitations of using language to articulate musical analysis. Additionally, such a framework gives purpose and guidance to interdisciplinary research. Nevertheless, there are limitations. Musical value is not limited to musical meaning, and musical meaning is not limited to semiology. Indeed, semiotics as a methodology is rejected by Moore in analysing meaning in popular music (Moore 2012, 9). DeNora felt the limitations of musicology’s conventional concern with the music ‘object’ which she contends “highlight[s] why semiotic analysis is not sufficient as a means of addressing the question of music’s affect in practice, music’s role in daily life” (DeNora 2000, 27). Despite this perceived weakness, DeNora seems to echo Nattiez’s esthesic understanding in this statement; “…music’s ‘effects’ come from the ways in which individuals orient to it, how they interpret it and how they place it within their personal musical maps, within the semiotic web of music and extra-­musical associations” (DeNora 2000, 61). Part of the issue with music semiology is the lack of agreement among semioticians regarding their methodology, something Nattiez spends the first half of his book clarifying. As Salgar summarises, musical semiotics is a doubly cryptic activity. Its practitioners can be seen as a group of initiates who, by an accident of fate, have acquired understandings of Western notation, harmony, counterpoint, music history, and in addition, semiology … [and] have difficulties in communicating with scholars in other fields. (Salgar 2016, 4)

Semiotics is challenging enough without the added complexity and subjectivity bought on by the nature of music and the question of music

18 

D. THORNTON

signification.3 For all of those reasons, it has fallen out of favour as a discipline, on top of which there has not risen a scholar to champion its resurrection. I do not suppose that I am such a champion or that my use of it will solve all the historical issues. However, it is arguably a useful overarching discipline to explore the contemporary congregational song genre, following in the footsteps of Evans (2006). Though Nattiez’s focus is on Western Art Music, his statement below acutely applies to the experiential and embodied nature of popular and vernacular musics, including CCS: Because it is a metalanguage, musical analysis cannot substitute for the lived experience of the musical. If analysis should achieve this substitution, that would mean that discourse is the musical piece itself. The relationship between experienced musical reality and discourse about music is necessarily an oblique one. The musical metalogue is, moreover, always full of gaps. (Nattiez 1990)

The CCS genre is so profoundly praxis-oriented and experiential, the linguistic nature of any research is faced with the inadequacies of musical analysis and discourse to articulate its multitudinous and multisensory facets. This book as musical metalogue, like all others as Nattiez states, will inevitably be “full of gaps”, which can only be bridged by actual engagement with the music itself and an experience of its contexts of performance. I trust that this book is not read in isolation to an experience of CCS in their various contexts. I additionally wish that more books examining CCS would explicitly acknowledge the limitations of language to understand the music with which the authors engage. Thus, the scholarly framework for this volume is established. The interdisciplinary methods employed throughout the music semiological analysis of each of the three layers for this research are set out in the following chapters. First, for the poietic level (Chaps. 3, 4, and 5), semi-structured interviews were conducted with six key CCS composers/worship leaders and two CCS industry veterans. To ensure a broad cross-section of perspectives, there were both female and male interviewees, representing multiple generations of CCS writers, as well as different global centres of 3  Although semiology is technically a subset of semiotics, its usage by Nattiez is not as narrow as its Saussurean origins. The subtle distinctions between semiology and semiotics, though important, are not required to be differentiated for this research. What Nattiez calls semiology is probably more accurately, semiotics.

1  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS GENRE FORMATION… 

19

CCS production. Additionally, song story videos, where publicly available, were watched and analysed for all of the most sung CCS. The next step involved applying a six-phase thematic analysis process as detailed by Braun and Clarke (2006). An inductive approach was applied to allow themes to emerge from the data (ibid., 83–84). The esthesic level of investigation poses the greatest challenge (Chaps. 6 and 7). Enough individual perspectives need to be acquired to gain the broadest possible understanding of Christians’ reception, cognition, and interpretation of CCS.  Australia’s NCLS provided an ideal source for these perspectives, given the approximately 1800 people from 20 denominations who completed the Attender Form C in 2011, specifically addressing questions around worship and music. Additionally, the Operations Survey from the same period, filled in by one person from each church involved, gave greater context and insight to Christians’ engagement with CCS in church services. The one limit to this data is that it was by and large quantitative, with questions having multiple choice or bifurcated options. While undoubtedly informative, esthesic research also benefits from qualitative data, in this case finding out what CCS Christians individually might choose to sing, and how that might sound outside of the context of a worship service. I created and conducted such a survey online, comprising written and audio-recorded sections, with 214 participants contributing. Statistical analysis of the NCLS data was undertaken using the SPSS Statistics software, and qualitative analysis was applied to the online survey. Finally, the trace analysis of the musical texts—written scores, live or recorded performances, mediated performances—require a variety of tools, including musicology, popular and vernacular music studies, theology, biblical studies, and media studies (Chaps. 8, 9, 10, and 11). Again, given the limitations of this single volume, the optimal number of songs to analyse was determined by the top songs lists of five regions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, and USA) from one of Christian Copyright Licensing International’s recent royalty reports (October 2018). Of all songs in the top 25 Church Copyright License (CCL) lists, 32 songs were highly ranked in more than one region, indicating their global status, and form the basis for the analysis of CCS as a global music genre. A discussion of how these 32 songs are representative of the genre as a whole is found in Chap. 2.

20 

D. THORNTON

YouTube: The Primary Text The question of which texts to analyse is pertinent to the trace analysis. The original recorded version of a song has its own canonical authority, but may not be the most popular, nor the version that popularised the song for local churches. The sheet music alone does not reveal crucial features of the song which are apparent in a recording or performance. The analysis of sheet music does have its place, but even then, a consistent and authorised version is required. Live performances provide vital insights into the nuances of the song and its co-performance by the congregation, which commercial recordings may obscure. Furthermore, as the stated purpose is to analyse the global CCS genre, what texts are globally available? CCLI’s SongSelect is the easy answer for the written score. SongSelect is available in all regions’ CCLI licences and is the dominant source of sheet music for licensed churches, as reported in CCLI’s reproduction licences. Furthermore, the sheet music they make available is consistent and approved by the copyright owners. However, given the way most Christians engage with CCS, the primary text needs to be some recorded version (Evans 2002, 9–10; Moore 2001; Hayward 1998), and video has clearly replaced audio as “the primary cultural object” (Auslander 2008, 106). YouTube is the pre-eminent global streaming service for the most popular recorded versions of the most sung CCS. Reports suggest that there are 900 million to 1 billion global regular users of YouTube (“IFPI Global Music Report 2016” 2016; “Recording Industry in Numbers” 2013, 26). The largest providers of music videos on YouTube are VEVO (a conglomerate content provider from Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and EMI) and Warner Music Sound. In fact, of all YouTube channels, these represent two of the top three (ibid.). Furthermore, nine of the ten most-viewed videos on YouTube are music videos. YouTube is free from the prosumer’s/produser’s perspective (Tschmuck 2012, 248). It facilitates the easy sharing of songs through social media or via URL links. It is available anytime and anywhere the Internet is accessible, given suitable bandwidth. Furthermore, this streaming music phenomenon has also become foundational in the teaching/learning of CCS. The pre-music-streaming-services practice of churches copying CDs or cassette tapes for worship team members to learn songs was complicated and ultimately illegal. CCLI has for many years been aware that such practices were at odds with copyright law, but until recently did not have

1  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS GENRE FORMATION… 

21

a viable solution. CCLI needed cooperation from both the song owner and the Master Recording owner to create a ‘rehearsal licence’ for churches, and their historical relationship had only been with song owners. In the absence of such a licence, churches look for alternatives, and YouTube provides one. Every song found in any of the CCLI ‘top songs lists’ has tens if not hundreds of representations on YouTube. The view count of CCS videos on YouTube mostly represents individual watchers. This individual activity verifies people’s engagement with specific CCS, in other words, a ‘view’ is a person watching/listening to the song. Thus, a large view count indicates a higher level of public engagement than a small view count. In this way, YouTube CCS data provides a valuable counterbalance to CCLI data, which only measures song usage inside church services. For the purpose of this research, YouTube is used to ensure that the analysed songs are representative of the global choices of individual Christians, and not just of choices made on behalf of congregations by those in charge of local corporate worship. Keil argues that “in class society the media of the dominant class must be utilised for [a vernacular] style to be legitimated” (cited in Frith 1998, 231). If Keil is right, CCS must exist on YouTube if they are to be a ‘legitimate’ popular music genre. YouTube is currently the dominant streaming media platform of global society. As CCS exist on YouTube, the form and content they assume become the legitimised version of the genre. No matter what other versions are available to consumers, CCS on YouTube are authoritative. With that in mind, and the arguments set forth above, the identified most sung global CCS from the CCLI data (discussed in Chap. 2) were cross-referenced to YouTube views. Highly viewed songs affirmed that the chosen CCS were globally representative of the genre. It is impossible to individually survey the mass YouTube audience, and it is not known whether viewers watched these mediations before they sang them in their local church, or whether they went looking for them on YouTube because they had sung them in their local church. Furthermore, this binary does not adequately address the complex ways in which viewers may ultimately come to watch a CCS video. However, it is important to establish the level of influence YouTube has in the popularisation of CCS.  None of the YouTube mediations of the most sung CCS were uploaded before 2006 and the median year was 2013. This is no doubt related to the timelines of broader streaming musical media adoption, which Holt states, “spread rapidly around 2008 and became evident to many in 2009” (Holt 2011, 51). Twelve of the 32 most sung CCS,

22 

D. THORNTON

however, were written before 2008. Many of these older songs were charting highly on the CCLI reports long before they had YouTube representation. In the pre-broadband/mobile Internet era, people’s first interaction with a song was through radio/TV, or the purchase of the CD, or the experience of the song at a conference or church service. The weight of those activities has changed. A survey by CCLI founder, Howard Rachinski (2014), indicated that the greatest method for discovering new music for churches was through the Internet (42%), although now six years on, this would undoubtedly be much higher. While that survey did not give participants the option to specify a preferred site, YouTube’s own statistics indicate its primacy in online music discovery and engagement. CCS over the last decade must have representation on YouTube to create the momentum that they now co-create through album sales, radio/ TV airtime, or conference exposure. However, these do not have to be official music videos. In fact, only half of the videos analysed were officially produced and uploaded to official channels; the other videos were uploaded by fans. Some of those were official videos ripped by fans and uploaded, such as “Mighty to Save”. However, these tended to be older uploads as worship producers have progressively realised the importance of uploading official video content as early as possible. Only a few years ago, background nature pictures with overlaid large white font lyrics were the typical YouTube mediation of popular CCS, as Chaps. 10 and 11 will attest. Why nature pictures were the background of choice for CCS fan-­ created videos is worthy of some speculation here in terms of the trace analysis. First, nature for many Christians is synonymous with Creation, no matter whether one holds to a creationist or evolutionist position in regard to its origins. The Bible confirms nature’s affirmation of God (Romans 1:20) and its role in His praise (1 Chronicles 16:33; Psalm 148; Isaiah 44:23). Second, nature pictures are so accessible, whether personally photographed or ‘Googled’. Third, there is an aesthetic beauty in nature photography that would otherwise require great skill (and time) to reproduce in drawings, paintings, or digital artwork. Moreover, copyright ownership may be more equivocal in nature photography than it is in other artistic formats. Finally, the simple white font lyrics provide a legible and satisfactory contrast to the rich colours of the background picture; the picture does not obscure or compete with the lyrics. Whatever the visual content of CCS YouTube videos is, it is subservient to the music. As Goodwin astutely observes, “in terms of their use-value

1  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS GENRE FORMATION… 

23

to the audience, music videos need to be studied primarily in relation to popular music, rather than in relation to television or cinema” (Goodwin 1993, xxii). Video content certainly adds elements of meaning and nuance to the songs, especially to ‘live worship’ videos. Nevertheless, there is a clear intent in CCS YouTube videos to champion the song itself within its genre parameters (Thornton and Evans 2015). For example, in ‘live worship’ videos, there is a conscious choice of shots to include the congregation, to project the words over the video, and thus to promote the participatory nature of CCS, a core quality of the genre. These features of CCS are further explored in the trace analysis chapters. While we might now replace the word “mechanization” with “mediatization” or at least “mediation”, in the following quote, Byrnside was insightful to declare back in 1975 that “mechanization is as important to the popularity of a given song as are its musical and textual components” (cited in Moore 2007, 170). Mediation of CCS is no longer simply an issue of distribution but a fundamental and authoritative expression of the existence of the song. Whether Christians watch YouTube versions before or after their introduction to those CCS, and whether those videos are official or fan creative/uploaded, their existence on streamed online media, YouTube, in particular, is a core feature of the genre.

Bibliography Adnams, Gordon. 2008. The Experience of Congregational Singing: An Ethno-­ Phenomenological Approach. Edmonton: University of Alberta. Auslander, Philip. 2008. Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture. 2nd ed. Abingdon/New York: Routledge. Begbie, Jeremy. 2007. Resounding Truth: Christian Wisdom in the World of Music. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Best, Harold. 1993. Music Through the Eyes of Faith. New York: HarperCollins. Bohlman, Philip V. 2008. Other Ethnomusicologies, Another Musicology: The Serious Play of Disciplinary Alterity. In The New (Ethno)Musicologies, ed. Henry Stobart, 95–116. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press. Booker, Queen. 1988. Congregational Music in a Pentecostal Church. The Black Perspective in Music 16: 31–44. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.119 1/1478088706qp063oa. Corbitt, J. Nathan. 1998. The Sound of the Harvest: Music’s Mission in Church and Culture. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

24 

D. THORNTON

DeNora, Tia. 2000. Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, Mark. 2002. Secularising the Sacred: The Impact of Geoff Bullock on the Contemporary Congregational Song in Sydney, 1990–1999. Macquarie University. ———. 2006. Open Up the Doors: Music in the Modern Church. London: Equinox Publishing Limited. Fabbri, Franco. 1982. A Theory of Musical Genres: Two Applications. In Popular Music Perspectives, ed. D Horn and Philip Tagg, 52–81. Göteborg and Exeter: International Association for the Study of Popular Music. ———. 2014. Music Taxonomies: An Overview. Presented at the Journées d’analyse musicale, Ircam, Paris. December 15. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ academia.edu.documents/38290109/Fabbri_JAM14_141215xAcademia.pdf ?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1549512799&S ignature=kKtN1wJnX2VdYgTlV9KYUaNStVE%3D&response-contentdisposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DMusic_Taxonomies_an_Overview.pdf Faulkner, Quentin. 2012. Wiser Than Despair. Religious Affections Ministries. Frith, Simon. 1998. Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular Music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Frow, John. 2006. Genre: The New Critical Idiom. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Goddard, Ruth King. 2016. Who Gets to Sing in the Kingdom? In Congregational Music-Making and Community in a Mediated Age, ed. Anna Nekola and Tom Wagner, 81–100. Abingdon: Routledge. Goodwin, Andrew. 1993. Dancing in the Distraction Factory: Music Television and Popular Culture. London: Routledge. Hall, Margaret. 2006. Today’s Song for Tomorrow’s Church: The Role Played by Contemporary Popular Music in Attracting Young People to Join the Church. PhD., Queensland: Griffith University. Hayward, Philip. 1998. Music at the Borders: Not Drowning, Waving and Their Engagement with Papua New Guinean Culture (1986–96). J. Libbey. Hesmondhalgh, David. 2013. Why Music Matters. Chichester: Wiley. Holt, Fabian. 2007. Genre in Popular Music. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. ———. 2011. Is Music Becoming More Visual? Online Video Content in the Music Industry. Visual Studies 26 (1): 50–61. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1472586X.2011.548489. Howard, Jay R., and John M. Streck. 2004. Apostles of Rock: The Splintered World of Contemporary Christian Music. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Ingalls, Monique. 2008. Awesome in This Place: Sound, Space, and Identity in Contemporary North American Evangelical Worship. University of Pennsylvania. ———. 2018. Singing the Congregation: How Contemporary Worship Music Forms Evangelical Community. New  York: Oxford University Press. https://www. amazon.com/Singing-Congregation-Contemporary-Evangelical-Communityebook/dp/B07HB4YW38/ref=sr_1_13?keywords=ethnomusicology+religio n&qid=1560749325&s=books&sr=1-13 Ingalls, Monique M., and Amos Yong, eds. 2015. The Spirit of Praise: Music and Worship in Global Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity. University Park: Penn State University Press.

1  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS GENRE FORMATION… 

25

Jennings, Mark. 2008. Won’t You Break Free?’ An Ethnography of Music and the Divine-Human Encounter at an Australian Pentecostal Church. Culture and Religion 9 (2): 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/14755610802211544. ———. 2014. Exaltation: Ecstatic Experience in Pentecostalism and Popular Music. New York: Peter Lang Pub Incorporated. Joseph, Mark. 2003. Faith, God, and Rock and Roll. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group. Lena, Jennifer C., and Richard A. Peterson. 2008. Classification as Culture: Types and Trajectories of Music Genres. American Sociological Review 73 (5): 697–718. Levitin, Daniel. 2008. The World in Six Songs: How the Musical Brain Created Human Nature. New York, NY: Penguin. Lim, Swee Hong, and Lester Ruth. 2017. Lovin’ on Jesus: A Concise History of Contemporary Worship. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Longhurst, Brian. 2014. Popular Music and Society. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Polity. Marino, Gabriele. 2013. What Kind of Genre Do You Think We Are? Genre Theories, Genre Names and Classes within Music Intermedial Ecology. In Music, Semiotics, Intermediality. Belgium. https://www.academia. edu/7067652/What_kind_of_genre_do_you_think_we_are_Genre_ theories_genre_names_and_classes_within_music_intermedial_ecology Marsh, Clive, and Vaughan S. Roberts. 2013. Personal Jesus (Engaging Culture): How Popular Music Shapes Our Souls. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Middleton, Richard. 1993. Popular Music Analysis and Musicology: Bridging the Gap. Popular Music 12 (2): 177–190. Moore, Allan F. 2001. Rock, The Primary Text: Developing a Musicology of Rock. Aldershot: Ashgate. ———., ed. 2007. Critical Essays in Popular Musicology. Hampshire: Ashgate. ———. 2012. Song Means: Analysing and Interpreting Recorded Popular Song. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate. Muir, Pauline. 2019. A Sound Ethnography. Studies in World Christianity. http:// research.gold.ac.uk/27748/ Nattiez, Jean-Jacques. 1990. Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Negus, Keith. 1999. Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. London/New York: Routledge. Nooshin, Laudan. 2008. Ethnomusicology, Alterity, and Disciplinary Identity; or ‘Do We Still Need an Ethno-?’ ‘Do We Still Need an -Ology?’. In The New (Ethno)Musicologies, ed. Henry Stobart, 71–75. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press. Pew Research Center. 2011. Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, December. http:// www.researchgate.net/profile/Conrad_Hackett/publication/264782435_ Global_Christianity_A_Report_on_the_Size_and_Distribution_of_the_ World%27s_Christian_Population/links/53eea6660cf26b9b7dcdd887.pdf

26 

D. THORNTON

Price, D. E. 1999. Higher Ground. Billboard. Quantz, Don. 2009. Canons in Collision: Hymns and Contemporary Christian Music. Liturgy 24 (4): 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/04580630903022188. Rachinski, Howard. 2014. CCLI 2014 Questionnaire. Presented at the CCLI USA Owners Meeting, Portland. Salgar, Óscar. 2016. Musical Semiotics as a Tool for the Social Study of Music. Trans. Brenda M. Romero. Ethnomusicology Translations 2: 1–33. Schellenberg, E. Glenn. 1996a. Expectancy in Melody: Tests of the ImplicationRealization Model. Cognition 58: 75–125. ———. 1996b. Simplifying the Implication-Realization Model of Melodic Expectancy. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 14 (3): 295–318. https://doi.org/10.2307/40285723. Schellenberg, E. Glenn, and Sandra E. Trehub. 1996. Children’s Discrimination of Melodic Intervals. Developmental Psychology 32 (6): 1039–1050. Shuker, Roy. 2013. Understanding Popular Music Culture. 4th ed. Abingdon: Routledge. Stalinski, Stephanie M., and E. Glenn Schellenberg. 2010. Shifting Perceptions: Developmental Changes in Judgements of Melodic Similarity. Developmental Psychology 46 (6): 1799–1803. Stephens, Randall J. 2018. The Devil’s Music: How Christians Inspired, Condemned, and Embraced Rock ‘n’ Roll. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thornton, Daniel. 2015. A Lament for Pentecostal Scholarship in Contemporary Congregational Songs. Australasian Pentecostal Studies 17 (0). http://apsjournal.com/aps/index.php/APS/article/view/9477 Thornton, Daniel, and Mark Evans. 2015. YouTube: A New Mediator of Christian Community. In Congregational Music-Making and Community in a Mediated Age, ed. Tom Wagner and Anna Nekola, 141–159. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Tschmuck, Peter. 2012. Creativity and Innovation in the Music Industry. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Vondey, Wolfgang, and Martin William Mittelstadt. 2013. The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal Scholarship: Passion for the Spirit. BRILL. Wagner, Thomas J. 2013. Hearing the Hillsong Sound: Music, Marketing, Meaning and Branded Spiritual Experience at a Transnational Megachurch. Royal Holloway University of London. http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/ files/19680902/2014wagnertphd.pdf Walrath, Brian, and Robert Woods, eds. 2010. The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Whiteley, Sheila. 2013. Sexing the Groove: Popular Music and Gender. London: Routledge.

CHAPTER 2

Contemporary Congregational Songs

What’s in a Name? Two issues need attention before undertaking the music semiological analysis of the global contemporary congregational song genre. First, there is the name persistently applied in the first chapter to these songs and their genre. Most of this chapter is dedicated to the important discussion of nomenclature, addressing the background and justification for the term—contemporary congregational songs. Following that is a discussion of the specific CCS that are under analysis, and how they are representative of the genre as a whole. It may at first be difficult to imagine that 32 songs could be indicative of the whole genre. However, the end of this chapter will supply the justification and arguments to support such a claim. Historically, practitioners, popular publications, industry, scholars, and you (if you have been at all involved in practising or discussing contemporary worship) have preferred alternative terms to contemporary congregational songs for this genre. ‘Praise and Worship’ (music) is probably the most utilised and problematic term, especially in the popular press, although also in scholarly literature (Hartje 2009; Walrath and Woods 2010). Other writers have used contemporary Christian worship music (CCWM) or just contemporary worship music (Frame 1997; Ingalls 2008; Redman 2002). Each of these labels has semantic and theological ambiguities which make them at least non-ideal terms, if not potentially problematic ones. © The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9_2

27

28 

D. THORNTON

Names infer, signify, and connote. They exist within a broader intricate web of semantics, language, and culture. Christians are not exempt from this complex negotiation of meaning and have wrestled with the names that define and shape their faith throughout the ages, whether they be denominational identifiers, theological concepts, Scriptural precepts, or ‘Christianese’ vernacular. It is a combination of a particular understanding of Scripture, ‘Christianese’, and the worship music industry that has burdened us with the sticky term for personal, and corporate, musical expressions of worship, namely, the genre (and practice) of ‘Praise and Worship’. In the 1960s and 1970s, the term for this emerging genre was ‘choruses’ or ‘praise choruses’ (Eskridge 2008). It differentiated these new popular music-oriented songs from traditional hymns as a contemporary musical expression of corporate worship. Over time, as practice evolved into industry and publications, the label, ‘Praise and Worship’, was adopted as the preferred term to differentiate this genre from others in the marketplace. Many popular publications of the era promoted the use of the term; Sorge’s Exploring Worship: A Practical Guide to Praise and Worship is a typical example (1987). Sorge argued that all congregational songs could be divided into either “praise” or “worship”. Furthermore, he inadvertently argued for the equivalence of those terms with song tempi—“fast” (praise) or “slow” (worship), a sadly pervasive and perpetuated conflation (Sorge 1987, 278–79). As mentioned, the term ‘Praise and Worship’ did not achieve universal consensus. Some scholars proposed alternative titles including contemporary Christian worship music, or the more concise contemporary worship music. Redman defines contemporary worship music (CWM) as “worship music in the genres of popular music produced over the past thirty years by North American Protestant recording and publishing companies, churches, and individuals” (Redman 2002, 47). However, Redman also problematically separates “the praise and worship movement” from the “contemporary worship industry” as if such a distinction were easily or obviously achievable. In a related conundrum, Wren recognises the need to distinguish between “contemporary Christian music [CCM]” (intended for professional performance) and “praise music” (Wren 2000, 131), a term he adopts from Yee (1997). This is a widely accepted delineation. However, while Wren initially uses the term “praise music”, he also sees it as problematic because “‘praise’ is not the only kind of song that is, or can be, sung [in this style]”. Thus, Wren retreats to the term “contemporary

2  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS 

29

worship music”, without correspondingly acknowledging that “worship” is not the only kind of song that is, or can be, sung in this style. Furthermore, having settled on this term, Wren immediately capitulates to Webb’s six major categories for contemporary worship music, one of which is “Praise and Worship”. Wren views “Praise and Worship” as “the largest subgroup within contemporary [worship] music” and spends the rest of the chapter effectively not addressing Webb’s broad notion of contemporary worship music, but the specific subgenre of “Praise and Worship” songs. Ingalls, in setting up her dissertation, defends the term for this genre she chooses—contemporary worship music—to use in her thesis (Ingalls 2008, 13–16). However, she is quick to recognise the challenges of such a task. She justifies her use of “contemporary worship music” through the earlier work of Frame and Redman. At the same time, she acknowledges the ubiquitous term “Praise and Worship” and points out that these are interchangeable in Walrath and Woods’ edited volume (2010). While supporting the term “contemporary worship music”, Ingalls also acknowledges some of its inadequacies as a genre descriptor, but its common usage and affirmation from other writers ultimately prevail. Like Wren, Ingalls sees “Praise and Worship” as a sub-category of contemporary worship music. The reality is that most practitioners who talk about “Praise and Worship” easily interchange the term with “contemporary worship music”, or even just “worship”. To force a distinction is not only arbitrary, but in my mind, does not advance the scholarship.

Praise and Worship Theology While the historical conjecture over the label for this genre is informative, it is ultimately the theological argument that weighs heaviest in this dialectic. Evans states “[g]iven the … biblical concepts of worship and praise, it is plainly evident that the generic ‘Praise and Worship’ tag for contemporary congregational music is misleading” (2006, 53). The terms ‘praise’, ‘worship’, or ‘praise and worship’, cannot be divorced from their theological foundations. The nature of biblical worship is described by Peterson, in his book Engaging with God, as the approach of, or engagement with, God on His terms, involving “honouring, serving and respecting him, abandoning any loyalty or devotion that hinders an exclusive relationship with him” (Peterson 2002, 283). The absence of any musical reference in this fairly typical definition of worship is noteworthy. In fact, all Hebrew and Greek

30 

D. THORNTON

words for our equivalent English word ‘worship’ are non-musical; yet, contemporary usage of the word has become synonymous with music, at least in pentecostal-charismatic1 circles. Scripture clearly indicates that music featured in both individual and corporate worship expressions, the Psalms being just one example. However, the current interchangeability of terms is neither biblical nor helpful. Recognising this, Carson notes that there is a rich theological and biblical scope for our English word ‘worship’, but we constantly skew Christians’ perceptions of the word with our usage—for example, ‘worship leader’, ‘time of worship’, and ‘worship team’ (Carson 2010). At the same time, Carson articulates the struggle to find a term for the specific activities of the gathered New Testament believers if ‘worship’ is to be awarded its broadest biblical meaning. Numerous writers raise concern over contemporary usage of the word ‘worship’ and its dislocation from biblical, theological, and historical foundations (Chant 2000; Evans 2006; Duncan 2009; Faulkner 2012). It is not that worship cannot be sung, nor that the intimate aspects of worship (surrender, adoration, devotion) are not deeply connected to the ways in which music can function for human beings. Rather, when worship is unintentionally pigeon-holed as song/singing, Christians lose the profound scope of worship and its application to their whole lives. Scholars have a responsibility to ensure that the language they use is accurate and most helpful to their readers. Thus, when discussing this genre, it is most helpful to avoid labels that perpetuate a limiting or skewed understanding of Christian worship, which the current labels, as discussed, inevitably perpetuate. With these considerations in mind, Evans posits that the most useful and accurate label for this genre is contemporary congregational songs (CCS) (2006, 45).

Contemporary for Whom? While contemporary is a relative descriptor, rather than a concrete one, it fulfils an important function within the proposed term. The median year of composition of the 32 most sung songs under analysis is 2012. In fact, 1  This non-capitalised term is coined by Ingalls to differentiate denominational or formalised Pentecostal and charismatic expressions of Christianity from those exhibiting aspects of Pentecostalism, particularly in relation to worship practices (Ingalls and Yong 2016, 4). I find it useful because my own contexts of practice extend beyond Pentecostal denominations, better fulfilling the criteria of the pentecostal-charismatic term.

2  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS 

31

besides “How Deep the Father’s Love” (1995), “How Great Thou Art” (1953), and “Shout to the Lord” (1993), none of the songs were written before 2000. This alone would justify the term contemporary compared to the age of hymns employed in traditional worship settings. Of course, contemporary also has an alternative definition, whereby things simply occur concurrently. Under that definition, whatever any congregation is singing at their next service is contemporary, including 200-year-old hymns. Clearly, such a definition is unhelpful here but must be acknowledged as a potential weakness in the choice of this identifier. Interestingly, the chosen definition of contemporary does impact the reinterpretation of old hymns. “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)” is on the most sung CCS list because as a re-imagined hymn it is newly in copyright. The re-­ imagination is not just the addition of a Chorus, but with the stylistic expression of CCS. Another argument for contemporary is that it appropriately correlates with other popular music genres, such as ‘adult contemporary’ and ‘contemporary Christian music’ (CCM). Finally, the term contemporary offers currency; it remains applicable even through the musical/lyrical evolution that has already occurred over the last 50 years and will no doubt continue. Instead of limiting the genre to a chronologically bound term, contemporary is meaningful, inclusive, and adaptable.

Defining Congregational Congregational incorporates several ideas. The Macquarie Dictionary defines congregation (the root form) as “an assembly of persons met for common religious worship”, as well as “an organisation formed for the purpose of providing for worship of God…” (“Congregation” 2009). Furthermore, under the adjectival definition of ‘congregational’, as opposed to the capitalised version referring to the denomination, the Macquarie Dictionary gives as its example ‘congregational singing’ (ibid.), thus reinforcing the colloquial connection of these words as argued for here. Congregational is the only part of the term that contextualises the songs as Christian. Admittedly, the term could be perceived as not being expressively Christian enough, or alternatively, too denominationally connotative (Congregationalism). However, the alternative term of ‘worship’ is not any more Christian. Many religions worship, but using congregational avoids the other issues already raised.

32 

D. THORNTON

Importantly, this adjective connotes the communal and cooperative nature of the songs. This book does not address Christian songs intended only for ‘professional’ performance, by ‘stars’ on a stage, despite the research identifying the porous boundaries between CCS and CCM (Ingalls 2008, 154–55; Mall 2012, 13–14; Nekola 2009, 327). Performance-oriented CCM generally engages people as an audience, but not fundamentally as contributors to, or co-performers of the songs. Bifurcation of musical performance and communal music-making is unhelpful for the boundaries are seldom so clearly delineated. Nevertheless, the communal nature of CCS is a central feature of this genre, and hence the descriptor congregational is particularly pertinent; something that alternative terms, such as ‘Praise and Worship’, only capture by implication.

Songs or Music? Song(s) is also an important term in preference to its alternative ‘music’ (e.g., contemporary worship music). To commence with the obvious, song is the more specific term, as all song is music, but not all music is song (“Music” 2009). Song typically includes the crucial additional components of both the human voice and lyrics (“Song” 2009). Lyrics are words and words denote and connote less equivocal meaning than does music alone, notwithstanding their poetic dimensions. It is this feature of Christian worship—song—as opposed to music, which authors in the field of Christian worship invariably extol. Corbitt, for example, declares, “Kingdom music is, first of all, song … song is the expressive, lyric, and symbolic language of people who live in communities of like people” (1998, 39). Many authors specifically affirm singing as a, if not the, pre-­ eminent expression of Christian worship (Best 2003, 143–44; Quantz 2009; Wren 2000). An eloquent example comes from Guthrie: The congregational song is not a metaphor of the socially and ethnically diverse church; it is this church, this body’s voice, this body made audible. The church’s song is one way that the church and the Spirit announce this unity to one another and to the wider world. (Guthrie 2011, 28)

It is not that music is unimportant; indeed, much of the debate around CCS is its musical content. Rather, I propose that music is primarily important in CCS because songs do not exist in isolation from their musical content. Put another way, ‘song and its music’ articulates the

2  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS 

33

appropriate weight of focus for this genre, rather than ‘music including song’. Of course, the term ‘pop music’ is invariably understood as pop songs, and does not appear to suffer from its imprecision, though perhaps inadvertently gives greater weight to the musical content. Such a position on the choice of song over music is not uncontested. In the process of categorising his music album, Prayerworks, Crabtree (2003) argues for music as worship even when devoid of lyrics. Indeed, musical worship goes beyond words. For example, the Psalms specifically instruct the praise of God to occur with instruments (e.g., Psalm 150), albeit, this is still a song. However, with rare exception, people have voices; a comparatively small percentage of people play musical instruments (notwithstanding that the voice is itself a musical instrument). This universality of voice (Best 2003, 145; Corbitt 1998, 33) and its capacity for both melody and meaning through lyrics makes the term song an important descriptor of the genre, and the central focus not only of this research but, arguably, of musical worship. Thus, the term contemporary congregational songs clearly and concisely articulates, like no other term in the literature, the particular genre of music which pervades contemporary Christian expressions of musical worship. It is at this point a concession should be made. In practice, it would be strange for worship leaders around the world to suddenly start communicating with their congregations in terms of the proposed genre descriptor. Can you imagine, “Let’s stand and sing these contemporary congregational songs together as we worship God!”? Utilising the term ‘worship’— “Let’s stand and worship God together as we sing”—still makes the most sense in contexts of corporate musical worship, provided the term is not limited to such practices, thus reinforcing the conflation of worship and singing. And, provided the detrimental term of ‘Praise and Worship’ is avoided or qualified. While contemporary congregational songs (CCS) is not (yet) the broadly accepted term applied to this genre, it still seems to me to be the most accurate and least confusing so far, and thus, is used throughout the rest of this book.

34 

D. THORNTON

Are the Most Sung Songs Representative of the Genre? On a personal note, I have grown up in centres of CCS production and experienced first-hand that the most sung CCS invariably become both the benchmark and the rubric with which all other songs of the genre are evaluated. I have been the worship pastor for some significant Pentecostal churches in Australia. In more than one, the Senior Pastor has had the final say in what songs are introduced to the congregation, and especially in what songs might be included on a live worship album recorded by the church worship team. Consider the nature of songwriting. When songwriters write songs, they often do so alone, or with few others, at their instrument (piano, guitar) in the privacy of some designated creative space. The initial result of such songwriting is often an average (e.g., smartphone) recording of a voice or two and an instrument. While the song might be amazing, many musically untrained Senior Pastors take one listen to such a recording and instantly dismiss the song because they consciously or subconsciously compare it with the multi-tracked, ‘live’, heavily post-produced, edited, tuned, effects-laden, mixed, and mastered worship album from *insert name of favourite CCS producer here*. I quickly learnt that a potentially great CCS that I had written generally needed at least some level of production before going to the gatekeeper for approval. And, whatever I gave to the Senior Pastor would inevitably be parsed by the latest popular release from one of the big CCS producers (e.g., Hillsong). It is perhaps not hard to get a little jaded about this process and lament the fact that a fledgling creative work with potential can be summarily judged against a highly resourced, highly produced, marketed, and mediated CCS, nevertheless, this is the reality. As with other music genres, there are exclusive scenes and subgenre expressions. This is arguably more true of CCS than other music genres as a core quality of CCS is that they are adaptable to eclectic and diverse musical environments. Almost any popular or cultural music style may, and does, interpret CCS. Furthermore, at a local level, atypical songs may be purposely employed to distinguish one local church from another or to align a local church to its denomination or network. One such example is the Australian churches near Hillsong’s main campus in the northwest of Sydney, who resolutely choose CCS which do not come from Hillsong, even though those CCS are among the most sung. Therefore, while the most sung songs undoubtedly represent the core of the genre, there is a

2  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS 

35

sense in which, as a sample, they also obscure the scope of the genre. This is an acknowledged limitation of the research. It is one of the reasons why ethnographic work in local contexts is so important to provide a sense of the scope of musical worship by Christians around the world. Someone may also take up the challenge to undertake research with the methodology employed here, but with a large and random sample of CCS to see if the findings correlate to those articulated here, or if they contradict them. This research does not attempt to be prescriptive in its definition of the genre, but rather descriptive of typical and current patterns in contemporary worship practices worldwide, because despite the impressive localised variations, there is evidently also a considerable degree of uniformity. The popular music industry provides similar examples to this where a pocket of artists may compose work that is on the margins of a particular genre, and as worthy of attention or study as their work might be, to be on the fringe is to connect with a fringe audience, and thus not typically to have a significant influence on the genre as a whole. Yes, there are exceptions even to this statement. Nevertheless, for better or worse, the most sung songs according to Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) are both the benchmarks and rubrics for the CCS genre. In other words, CCS succeed to the degree to which they conform to the most sung CCS in language, style, production, mediation, and dissemination. Of course, this is an iterative process. While the most sung CCS conform to the genre expectations, they equally shape the genre expectations as they evolve, yet they are always being shaped to a greater degree than they are shaping.

Christian Copyright Licensing International Christian Copyright Licensing International, as mentioned a number of times to this point, is a privately owned company started by Howard Rachinski in 19882 in the USA to serve the copyright compliance needs of local churches. By the early 1990s, CCLI spread its coverage to Canada, the UK, and Australia/New Zealand, and ultimately seven other global regions, and has been providing various copyright licences to churches, and other Christian gatherings, in line with the respective regional copyright laws. The majority of license fees are returned to copyright owners (writers/publishers), and a small percentage is retained for administration and growth of the organisation. Over the last 30 years, CCLI has become 2

 The kernel of CCLI was Starpraise Ministries, started by Rachinski in 1985.

36 

D. THORNTON

the central repository for CCS. It has over half a million English language congregational songs in its database. CCLI represents all of the most prominent writers and Christian music publishers and has an active policy to contact writers whose songs are reported to CCLI but are not currently represented by them. CCLI licenses over 250,000 churches with its initial and most popular Church Copyright Licence (CCL). More than 60,000 of those churches also subscribe to SongSelect, CCLI’s online repository of sheet music and lyrics. From those licences, CCLI draws different, but related data, and produces semi-annual reports. To gain some understanding of the influence and representation of CCLI, I will use a personal example. For many years, I was a member of CCLI’s Australia/New Zealand advisory council, where I was privileged to access more in-depth data than is publicly available. In 2012, there were just under 10,000 CCL licences issued in Australia/New Zealand. This is substantial, given the estimated number of churches in the region at that point was 16,000 (Christian Copyright Licensing International Pty Ltd 2013). Eighty-five per cent of these licences were issued to churches with congregations of less than 200 people across 69 denominational groups, subgroups, or church movements. Anglicans, Baptists, the Uniting Church, the Australian Christian Churches (ACC, formally Assemblies of God, AOG), and Presbyterians shared the greatest representation, 49% of all license holders. It should be noted that the top songs lists do not directly correlate to the denominational representation of churches holding CCL licences. Top songs lists are also influenced by the size of the congregation. While the exact algorithm for determining song rankings is proprietary, the general principle is that larger churches pay more, and in turn exert more influence on the reports. The irony is that larger churches are often the ones producing and distributing CCS (e.g., Hillsong Church), and at the same time, they are the ones having the most influence in reporting. This leads to them receiving the largest royalty payments to their writers/publishing arm. The return to these churches’ publishing entities is exponentially higher than their CCLI license fees, raising questions, either legitimately or vexatiously, that they unfairly benefit from their position of influence. Part of the importance of focusing on CCLI here is their substantial influence on the CCS genre. They do not instigate a song’s adoption into local churches (although even this is changing), but they do perpetuate it through their reporting and financial distribution processes, which inevitably favour larger churches. Australia’s largest churches are

2  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS 

37

predominantly Pentecostal, and Pentecostals are the second largest number of weekly church attendees in Australia (McCrindle 2014). These facts contribute to their songs featuring on the ‘top songs lists’ over the past 20 years. However, the influence of Australia’s largest Christian denomination, Catholicism (.id the population experts n.d.) is noticeably absent. One explanation is that they use older musical sources in the public domain and thus do not require CCLI licences. Another explanation is that they have historically adopted licences from other agencies that focus on liturgical material aligned with Catholic theology and practice, such as Word of Life International and LicenSing Online. As Catholic liturgy neither features nor promotes CCS (Schaefer 2008, 159–77, 191–96), this denomination’s absence, while conspicuous, affirms CCLI as an appropriate data source for CCS research.

Songs Under Analysis There are 32 songs under analysis in this book (Appendix A). These are globally prominent CCS and arguably the most sung CCS in churches worldwide during the research period. The non-Western church is now much larger than Western Christendom, and while CCLI has made some headway in licensing churches in regions such as South Korea, Brazil, and Singapore, there are substantial portions of the church unrepresented in their data, such as those in China and India. There are multiple complexities contributing to the reasons why CCLI is unable to license churches in all regions across the globe, and the result is that songs sung only in an un-licensed region may never appear on CCLI top songs lists. That being said, songs have tended to move from Western production centres, specifically, the USA, the UK, and Australia, to churches worldwide, being translated officially or unofficially as the locality demands. If the opposite does occur, it certainly does not have the influence of the Western production centres mentioned. No CCS translated from Mandarin, or Hindi, or even Spanish have found their way to the top songs lists of the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. The most recent CCL and SongSelect data from these five regions are the basis for the analysis in this book. Between the top 25 songs from CCL and SongSelect across five regions, there could potentially be 250 different songs. There were in fact only 45 different songs, demonstrating the global alignment of CCS, at least across those regions. Put another way, between any two lists, there was at least an 80% similarity. At the same time, 13 of those 45 were only on a single

38 

D. THORNTON

region’s list. While they were often not far from the top 25 on other regions’ lists in order to ensure that only the most globally recognised and implemented songs were analysed, songs were only included which appeared on at least two regions’ top 25 songs lists, resulting in 32 CCS. Thirteen of the 32 CCS appeared on all ten top songs lists. That is to say, over a third of the songs are extensively global CCS. A cursory search of YouTube reveals that this is not just when the songs are sung in English. These global CCS are translated into myriad languages as mentioned above. Without detracting from the extraordinary diversity of contemporary musical worship expressions in local churches around the world, these are the songs that reflect the current global genre and that are under analysis for the rest of this book.

Bibliography Best, Harold M. 2003. Unceasing Worship: Biblical Perspectives on Worship and the Arts. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Carson, D.A., ed. 2010. Worship by the Book. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Chant, Barry. 2000. Returning the Church. http://www.barrychant.com/articles/retuningthechurch.pdf Christian Copyright Licensing International Pty Ltd. 2013. CCLI 19th Annual Advisory Council Meeting  – Asia/Pacific Region Report. Christian Copyright Licensing International Pty Ltd. Corbitt, J. Nathan. 1998. The Sound of the Harvest: Music’s Mission in Church and Culture. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Crabtree, Jeffrey. 2003. Placing Non-congregational Music in a Congregational Setting. Macquarie University. Duncan, Ligon. 2009. Traditional Evangelical Worship. In Perspectives on Christian Worship: 5 Views, ed. Matt Pinson. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group. Eskridge, Larry. 2008. The ‘Praise and Worship’ Revolution. Christian History | Learn the History of Christianity & the Church. October 29. http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/october/praise-and-worship-revolution.html Evans, Mark. 2006. Open Up the Doors: Music in the Modern Church. London: Equinox Publishing Limited. Faulkner, Quentin. 2012. Wiser Than Despair. Religious Affections Ministries. Frame, John M. 1997. Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense. Phillipsburg: P&R Pub. Guthrie, Steven. 2011. United We Sing: Music and Community. The Christian C 128 (1). http://find.galegroup.com.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/gtx/infomark.do?&source=gale&srcprod=EAIM&prodId=EAIM&userGroupName= macquarie&tabID=T002&docId=A248263085&type=retrieve&contentSet=I AC-Documents&version=1.0

2  CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONGS 

39

Hartje, Gesa F. 2009. Keeping in Tune with the Times—Praise & Worship Music as Today’s Evangelical Hymnody in North America. Dialog 48 (4): 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6385.2009.00485.x. Ingalls, Monique. 2008. Awesome in This Place: Sound, Space, and Identity in Contemporary North American Evangelical Worship. University of Pennsylvania. Mall, Andrew. 2012. ‘The Stars Are Underground’: Undergrounds, Mainstreams, and Christian Popular Music. PhD, Chicago: University of Chicago. McCrindle, Mark. 2014. A Demographic Snapshot of Christianity and Church Attenders in Australia. http://www.mccrindle.com.au/resources/ A-Demographic-snapshot-of-Christianity-and-church-attenders-inAustralia_McCrindle.pdf “Music.” 2009. Macquarie Dictionary, Fifth, 1101. Sydney: Macquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Ltd. Nekola, Anna. 2009. Between This World and the Next: The Musical ‘Worship Wars’ and Evangelical Ideology in the United States, 1960–2005. PhD., University of Wisconsin-Madison. Peterson, David G. 2002. Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Quantz, Don. 2009. Canons in Collision: Hymns and Contemporary Christian Music. Liturgy 24 (4): 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/04580630903022188. Redman, Robb. 2002. The Great Worship Awakening: Singing a New Song in the Postmodern Church. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ. Schaefer, Edward. 2008. Catholic Music Through the Ages: Balancing the Needs of a Worshipping Church. Mundelein: Liturgy Training Publications. “Song.” 2009. Macquarie Dictionary, Fifth, 1569. Sydney: Macquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Ltd. Sorge, Bob. 1987. Exploring Worship: A Practical Guide to Praise & Worship. Kansas City: Oasis House. Walrath, Brian, and Robert Woods, eds. 2010. The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Wren, Brian A. 2000. Praying Twice: The Music and Words of Congregational Song. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Yee, Russell M. 1997. Shared Meaning and Significance Inn Congregational Singing. The Hymn 48 (2): 7–11.

CHAPTER 3

The Contemporary Congregational Song Industry (Poietic Analysis Pt 1)

Introduction The central question of the poietic analysis is to ask, “What do these songs mean to those who wrote/recorded/produced them, and how does the wider production milieu contribute those meanings?” This question is answered over the next three chapters. In this chapter, the origins and production contexts of the most sung CCS are examined. Popular music studies literature is also engaged with to compare CCS with the broader popular music industry to which it, at least in part, belongs. The last section of this chapter, alongside Chaps. 4 and 5, analyses the interviews conducted with CCS industry veterans and current prominent CCS writers to compare and contrast their perspectives and reflections. The interviews were semi-structured, facilitating comparable responses across core questions, as well as latitude for individuals to reflect on their own journey, writing/producing processes, and their unique contexts. The application of Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis process involved the transcription of interviews, followed by data familiarisation. Generating initial codes from interesting features of the data followed through an inductive approach, as opposed to prescribing codes based on previous research or the expectations of the researcher. After which, the method involved searching, reviewing, and defining themes, culminating in the final report (Braun and Clarke 2006, 83–84).

© The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9_3

41

42 

D. THORNTON

Where Do They Come From? In terms of the broad regions from which the most sung songs emerge, 16 of them are from the USA, 10 from Australia, and 6 from the UK. Canada and New Zealand had representation in their respective regions, but not beyond, at least not in the top 25. Australia is clearly over-represented when one considers the comparative size of the Christian population in each region. This worldwide impact from Australia is solely because of Hillsong Church. There are of course other significant producers of CCS in Australia, such as PlanetShakers and Citipointe, to name but two, and many of them have considerable international influence. Nevertheless, when it comes to the most sung CCS around the globe, all of the ten from Australia are from Hillsong.1 I have written elsewhere about how significant a dominance Hillsong exerts and how it came about (Thornton 2017). Among CCS producers in the USA, there has been more diversity. Bethel Church in Redding, California, has emerged as a dominant producer of CCS in recent years. Their youth outreach ministry, Jesus Culture, brought special prominence to the church through its worship albums, especially from their 2010 Album, Come Away (Live), onwards. However, in more recent years, Bethel has become a hub for a collective of CCS writers and artists, who are less subsumed by the church label than those in Hillsong. The Bethel platform is certainly used as a point of authorisation and promotion; however, the individual artists often retain their identities as artists beyond that platform. Seven of the 32 can be traced to Bethel, which is the most of any US CCS producer. Elevation Church, Charlotte, NC, a relatively new megachurch in the USA of over 18,000 congregants, accounts for 2 of the 32. Beyond that, the church producers are less prominent than the individual writers/artists for the rest of the most sung songs. For example, two of the songs have Chris Tomlin as a co-writer. These songs were certainly prominent at Passion Church (and at the Passion Conferences); however, the prominence of the church entity is arguably secondary to that of the artist, Chris Tomlin, which brings us to a discussion of the individual writers. There are 58 writers across 32 songs. Of those 58, only 5 are female— less than 10%. Such an inequity is not only in the CCS genre. Studies of royalty payments to composers through APRA/AMCOS (the Australian 1  I include “Shout to the Lord” in that list, even though it is no longer assigned to Hillsong Publishing, as it was originally released and promoted by Hillsong.

3  THE CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONG INDUSTRY (POIETIC… 

43

performing and mechanical rights licensing association) showed that women represented only 20% of their distribution (Cunningham, Higgs, and Australia Council 2010; Throsby and Zednik 2010). As male dominated as that domain still is, it is twice the female representation (as a percentage) compared to that of the CCS genre. There is a systemic and chronic under-representation of women in the broader music industry, yet the percentage of females taking music in their final high school years is roughly equal to males (Cooper et al. 2017). One might hope that the fact that there are more female attendees of church than male (Powell 2017), there would be a greater degree of female contribution to worship. Clearly, that is not the case based on the most sung CCS. Of course, there is the added complexity of some Christian denominations that still maintain the apostle Paul’s edict that women should not preach (1 Timothy 2:12), which they extended to any platform ministry (including leading worship). Whatever the reason, this is an area worthy of more attention and action. While it is hardly a consolation, women are slightly more prominent on the stage in the performances/recordings of the most sung CCS.  Nine of the 32 songs (28%) featured a female worship leader (vocalist).

Authenticity, Originality, and the Singer-Songwriter For a genre that purports to be so congregationally centred, all the recordings analysed feature a soloist. They might be called a worship leader, and they might be marketed under the banner of a church (e.g., Hillsong) or movement (e.g., Soul Survivor), but in industry terms, they are artists. This complex identity is further explored in this section, and again from the singer/songwriter perspectives in Chap. 5. Twenty of the 32 representative CCS are recorded/sung by one of the songwriters in the worship leader or lead vocal role. In fact, about two-­ thirds of the writers from the representative list are also worship leaders and vocal artists in their own right, even when they do not feature on the dominant recording. An example of this is “Who You Say I Am”, where Ben Fielding and Reuben Morgan are the composers yet the recording features Brooke Ligertwood as worship leader. It should also be noted that where non-worship leaders are co-writers, there is always another co-­ writer who is a worship leader or, in industry terms, a singer-songwriter.

44 

D. THORNTON

Moore notes that singer-songwriters often engender an ascribed authenticity in popular music discourses (Moore 2002, 211). Such authenticity is important to the CCS genre because composers are presumably believers and worshippers, writing as an expression of their own genuine faith. If a CCS writer were seen to be ‘only in it for the money’, and thus, inauthentic, it is unlikely their songs would be appropriated by many churches. In fact, there have been two relatively recent cases where large numbers of local churches have quickly removed songs by popular CCS writers/worship leaders when those artists’ public moral failures have come to light or their profession of faith has changed. Singing the songs of those who have had an affair, have misappropriated funds, or have seemingly grossly misled their followers is seen in many churches as endorsing their behaviour and, thus, untenable. CCS are not just good songs or bad songs, for better or worse, they are extensions of a believer in a local church context authentically expressing their genuine faith. Many CCS are initially written for a specific church context, a fact borne out in many of the ‘song story’ videos. All of the Hillsong songs are first taught to Hillsong Church in the year preceding the live/studio recording. Tim Hughes wrote and ‘tested’ songs with the congregation he served at Holy Trinity Brompton (UK).2 Chris Tomlin does the same at his home church (Passion City Church, Atlanta, GA, USA). There is undeniably a commercial incentive for writing songs that will be awarded prominence on these influential platforms. Nevertheless, the notion of the singer-songwriter embedded in a local church context engenders a perceived authenticity and validity to contribute to the genre in a way that other Christian artists do not. The current close alignment between singer/worship leader, CCS songwriter, and local church, then, is not aberrant; rather it is a feature of the genre. Historically, there are exceptions. In the 1980s, for example, some CCM artists, whose prominence was not related to a local church, produced CCS that were broadly adopted by local churches (Amy Grant’s “El Shaddai” written by Thompson and Card (1981, 1982), Michael W. Smith’s “How Majestic Is Your Name” (1981), or Keith Green’s “O Lord You’re Beautiful” (1980)). Even in recent years CCM artists have produced ‘worship’ albums containing CCS, for example, Newsboys’ God’s Not Dead (2011), but at the core of the genre, the singer/worship l­eader/

2

 Tim Hughes moved to Birmingham in 2015 to become the priest-in-charge at St Luke’s.

3  THE CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONG INDUSTRY (POIETIC… 

45

songwriter/local church member dominates. This perception is arguably stronger in the UK and Australia than in the USA, but dominant nevertheless. Authenticity has been an extensively analysed theme in popular music studies (Frith 1998; 1996; Middleton 1990; Moore 2002; Moore 2001, 2007, 2012) as it has also been in CCS. According to Ingalls, the discourse of authenticity is used to legitimate worship practices in which musical style, performance spaces, and social roles are adopted from the performance spaces of mainstream popular music but then are reframed or denied. (Ingalls 2008, 239)

While a discourse of authenticity may be used this way, it is not its common use among current CCS songwriters/worship leaders. In the past, the emphasis was on appropriating and reframing what was once considered ‘the world’s’ music. However, most of the current generation of CCS writers/worship leaders do not perceive the need to justify their choices of musical style or performance in worship. The authenticity discourse within popular music studies has also focused on notions of originality which bears attention when examining CCS. Originality in CCS is not a notable feature, nor central to its dialectic of authenticity, as Frith similarly notes for the musical genre of pastiche (1996) and Moore addresses in his discussion of intertextuality and hypertextuality in popular music (2012, 271–73). Solis also explores alternative understandings of authenticity, proposing that sometimes rock covers provide their own way of creating personal authenticity for the performer (2010, 300). Thus, the adaptation of traditional hymns in CCS (e.g., “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)” or “Cornerstone”) does not de-­ authenticate the songs or artists, but potentially lends them credibility through the existing authority of revered texts and institutionalised liturgical practices. Similarly, many CCS borrow (or only slightly adapt) lyric phrases from earlier CCS, which while arguably diminishing their originality, can again enhance their standing. The historically established phrases carry connotations and context that already have legitimacy through previous acceptance/usage. As Levitin states, “[w]hen we love a piece of music, it reminds us of other music we have heard … Your brain on music is all about … connections” (2011, 192). Thus, musical/lyrical connections to previously accepted music/lyrics continually reinforce one’s

46 

D. THORNTON

emotional connectedness to them, as well as reinforcing their doctrinal orthodoxy (accurate or otherwise) through lyric repetition. This self-perpetuating reinforcement of musical connections bears further comment. Popular CCS utilise a musical canvas intended for predominantly untrained singers to access with some degree of ease. Additionally, they need to be reproduced by often informally trained musicians. This musical canvas is meant to align with the majority of the congregations’ personal musical schemas, as Levitin calls them. One’s personal musical schema is a spectrum between musical pieces one finds too simple, and thus predictable and boring, and those one finds too complex, unpredictable, and thus undesirable (Levitin 2011, 235). This is not a new idea. Over 25 years ago, Best outlined a similar concept directly relating to the writing of songs for church worship. He articulated it as a tension between familiarity and newness with the additional parameter of “appropriateness” (H. Best 1993, 187–94). Best summarised that both familiar or diaconal music and new or prophetic music serve the purpose of the gathered church. Others have noted this ideal tension in popular music. In popular cultural studies, Frith reflects: “How should we rate the pleasures of novelty and repetition? … the importance of all popular genres is that they set up expectations, and disappointment is likely both when they are not met and when they are met all too predictably” (Frith 1998, 94). In summary, there is an ongoing contest in popular music generally, and CCS specifically, between the novel and the predictable. Lyrical or musical simplicity and repetition in CCS may be perceived as a lack of originality, but they exist in a constantly negotiated tension between the expected and the unexpected that constitute an individual’s personal musical schema, and the aggregate of a local congregation’s musical schema. Presented in these terms, a lack of perceived musical/lyrical innovation is not necessarily detrimental to the CCS genre. This raises an issue for researchers in the field. Musicologists, for example, who explore this genre will inevitably have a much higher level of musical training than the average congregant, and, therefore, will have a different musical schema, one which probably prefers greater musical complexity and creativity. The danger is that the scholar will judge CCS based not on the musical schemas of the target audience but on their own, in which CCS will always fall short of music ‘worthy’ of real analysis. This is what Evans refers to when he states:

3  THE CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONG INDUSTRY (POIETIC… 

47

There is a very real danger that we have allowed the current congregational music that proliferates in our churches … to become kitsch, to become the everyday music we are somehow embarrassed about analysing. This is not the fault of those outside the Church; it is the responsibility of those of us within the Church, who deal in researching and teaching about contemporary Christian Music, to not shy away from the everyday musical experiences of our local congregations. (Evans 2006, 12–13)

This is another reason why the three-part analytical framework employed in this research is helpful in understanding the genre. It not only examines the content and messages in the texts where musicology might understate or underestimate their significance but is moderated by also seeking to understand the composers’ perspectives, as well as the way in which CCS’ audience perceive, understand, and interpret these songs. I would argue that personal musical schemas are one of the key underlying and yet neglected factors behind the ‘worship wars’. The worship wars were not just a generational, denominational, ecclesial, or theological disagreement, they were personal. At a subconscious level, people’s personal musical schemas immediately reacted in either a hard rejection or enthusiastic embrace (or a response somewhere along that spectrum) of new musical styles introduced as expressions of Christian worship. With that predisposition in place, conscious arguments were then mustered to support one side or another. Ultimately, arguments on either side may be quite convincing and valid; however, they were seldom the instigator for drawing up battle lines despite what the respective protagonists may claim. A diverse community’s musical schemas mean it is impossible, not just difficult, for musical style to connect with all congregants. Nevertheless, most senior leaders in churches are trying to create an environment which connects with as many congregants as possible, as well as potential new members. Such a disposition supports the argument for CCS adopting musical language that might be considered excessively ‘middle-of-the-­ road’; music that potentially connects with the greatest number of congregants. The musical style of CCS does evolve, but slowly. Each new generation is enculturated into certain musical sounds and syntax, and this brings gradual change to the genre. One such example is a comparison between the musical style of Hillsong Church’s live worship albums, with that of Hillsong United (the next generation) albums, or the new Hillsong Young and Free (the newest generation) albums. Hillsong United has ‘heavier’ guitar-driven sounds than Hillsong Church live worship albums,

48 

D. THORNTON

and no choir. Hillsong Young and Free have more electronic/loop-driven, ‘dance’ styles with younger vocal timbres than ‘live’ or ‘United’.

The Production Milieu All of the representative CCS have been produced and released in the form of commercial albums of professional quality, which are often financially backed by churches of significant influence (Wagner 2013, 4; Witvliet 1999) and further underwritten or enhanced (through marketing and distribution) by major record labels (Howard and Streck 2004, 87). Of course, the current writer/artist heavyweights of the industry (e.g., Tomlin, Redman, Morgan) have not always held such influence. Three decades ago it was the likes of Don Moen, Graham Kendrick, and Geoff Bullock. The point is that while key CCS writers/worship leaders have discreet seasons of influence, they share many features. Dominant CCS producers/performers promote their songs through networks of influential churches/movements and cross- or non-denomination conferences (e.g., Hillsong Conference, Passion Conference, and Soul Survivor), as well as regular national and international tours (e.g., Jesus Culture, Chris Tomlin, Matt Redman), not to mention the exponentially growing priority of streaming media sites and services. Celebrification of worship leaders and CCS writers inevitably feeds into the discourse (Ingalls 2008; Price 2003; Teoh 2005; Wagner 2013). “Our God” (©2010 Jonas Myrin, Jesse Reeves, Matt Redman, and Chris Tomlin) is an interesting case study. Only a few years ago, this song had the most views on YouTube3 (over 20 million at the time), even though it was an unofficial fan-created and uploaded video. Neither the artistry of the visual content nor production can account for such high traffic to this song; other highly produced music videos for CCS have substantially lower view counts. It is also not a representation of this YouTube channel’s general traffic. Their next most watched video had a comparatively meagre 61,000 views. It is the song itself and its trans-continental authorship that have engendered such engagement. Redman is UK-based, Myrin although originally a Swede, now in Berlin, was UK-based for many years (at Hillsong London), while Tomlin and Reeves are based in the USA.  All these writers are prominent in the genre, and Redman and 3  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlA5IDnpGhc. This video has since been forcibly removed, and an official video uploaded https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJpt1hSYf2o

3  THE CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONG INDUSTRY (POIETIC… 

49

Tomlin have influential platforms as artists/worship leaders. Having cowritten this song there were undoubtedly multiple fronts for marketing. In addition, other major artists have covered this song (Israel Houghton, Love God. Love People. (The London Sessions)) and promoted it from other significant ministry platforms (e.g., Houghton at Lakewood Church, Houston, Texas, and Steffany Frizzell at Bethel Church, Redding, California). The celebrification of worship leaders, whether as an industry imperative or perhaps a religious reflection of star-driven secular pop culture, clearly plays some part in at least the initial prominence of this song. For better or worse, celebrity worship leaders are often inextricably involved in creating, reinforcing, and validating the platforms described above. High profile worship leaders not only have their own authorising platforms but invite other high profile or emerging high profile worship leaders to their events, both affirming their place and the place of their ‘guests’ in the CCS aristocracy. According to Wagner, “it would be disingenuous for Hillsong’s worship leaders to deny that they are famous. Hillsong’s worship leaders therefore speak openly and often about the dangers of success, always taking care to acknowledge the true ‘Famous One’” (2013, 76–77). As a result, there is an ambivalence among ‘famous’ composers/worship leaders. On the one hand, while they are aware of other’s perceptions, they do not project themselves as ‘famous’, nor do they actively promote their own fame. On the other hand, the touring, interviews, social media presence, and protecting their authorising platforms (such as their church or conference platforms) is clearly brand building. They are quick to deflect the worship that might settle on them as songwriters/worship leaders and to redirect it to God, the object of Christian worship. In practice, they perform in contexts that inevitably promote their persona. Popular music performance contexts undoubtedly confuse issues surrounding fame and celebrification of worship leaders, and given the connection between the genre, its audience/performers, and its relationship to Western popular music, this ongoing process of negotiation is to be expected. Many of these CCS songwriters/worship leaders do engage in aspects of the perceived paraphernalia of success. They are financially rewarded, given large international platform opportunities, and featured visually or nominally in advertising related to their own worship products or related worship commodities. At the same time, any direct contact with these people reveals a complex and ambivalent relationship they have with their

50 

D. THORNTON

perceived ‘fame’, with their prominence, with their songs and the industry that perpetuates them, and with the congregations that sing them.

Industry Insights As discussed, Nattiez’s vision for poietic analysis goes beyond the composers themselves to encompass the spectrum of production influences, processes, and personnel. With this in mind, I have spoken with many industry veterans, among them, I will focus here on Malcolm Du Plessis (USA/ UK) and Les Moir (UK). They each have over 30 years of anecdotes about how various songs, albums, or artists emerged, and the corresponding changes in the worship music industry over that period. I mention four of their stories here as examples of poietic forces contributing to CCS creation, production, and meaning-making. Du Plessis tells his version of the story behind “In Christ Alone”. He says that he introduced Keith Getty to Stuart Townend. Getty was a classical musician who had long held Townend’s writing in high esteem, especially his song, “How Deep the Father’s Love”. Du Plessis suggested they might do some co-writing together, confirmed by Townend on a ‘story behind the song’ YouTube video (Story Behind the Song In Christ Alone Stuart Townend, 2009), adding that Getty was not impressed with many of the CCS that were being written, and sent Townend three melodies on a CD. The first of these inspired Townend to write lyrics that were “enduring and classic” like the melody itself. Such a scenario indicates the influence of industry personnel to influence collaborations as they also influence the writing process, as the following story exemplifies. Du Plessis first offered the opportunity to write a song for the trailer of the movie Amazing Grace to Townend, but when he turned it down, Du Plessis offered the opportunity to Tomlin. Tomlin’s approach to this ‘soundtrack’ (“Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)”) has profoundly impacted the CCS landscape, with new CCS hybridising traditional hymns in abundance in more recent years. Out of the original six stanzas of the hymn, Tomlin/Giglio chose to use only four. The use of all six Verses/stanzas would have pushed the boundaries of standard CCS forms. Three or four Verses for current CCS are common (seven of the representative list contain three Verses, and seven contain four). Typically, four Verses are grouped into two lots of two. No CCS on the list contain more than four Verses. Hence, the following Verses of “Amazing Grace” were not included:

3  THE CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONG INDUSTRY (POIETIC… 

51

Through many dangers, toils and snares, I have already come; ’Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far, and grace will lead me home.     And; Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail, and mortal life shall cease, I shall possess, within the veil, a life of joy and peace.

A further popular final Verse added sometime after 1790 and recorded in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) was also left out even though it appears commonly in contemporary versions of the hymn: When we’ve been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise than when we’d first begun.

The exclusion of this Verse is multifaceted. First, it is a triumphant eschatological proclamation that does not fit with the more intimate and testimonial orientation of the rest of the Tomlin/Giglio version. In fact, they choose not to end on the Chorus with the declarative “Unending love, amazing grace”; but rather with the final line of the fourth Verse: Will be forever mine Will be forever mine You are forever mine

This both personalises and brings immediacy to the finally present-­ tense lyrics. Second, in a brief radio interview, Tomlin presented the rationale for his decision (Tomlin 2011). He noted that during his research of this song, he discovered that the popular last Verse (“When we’ve been there…”) was not in Newton’s original version, and he resonated with the idea of reinstating Newton’s original final Verse. Of course, the song was for a movie which featured Newton’s life. Like the story of “In Christ Alone”, Moir tells a story about the collaboration that produced “10,000 Reasons”. All 12 songs had been signed off for Redman’s 2011 worship album by Moir, Louis Giglio, and two others, and “10,000 Reasons” was not among them, it had not yet been written. Myrin was brought in to help refine some of the songs during the final stages of rehearsing for the recording. On his first day there, he mentioned to Redman that he had a great idea for a song, but Redman was fairly focused on the task at hand—preparing for the recording—apart

52 

D. THORNTON

from which, the powers that be had already “signed off” on the album songs. On the second day, Myrin again tried to bring his song idea to the table, but Redman was adamant that there were more important things to focus on at that moment. By the third day, things were progressing well, and Redman had relaxed somewhat and finally gave Myrin the opportunity to present his idea. Myrin started to sing the Chorus of “10,000 Reasons”. Instantly, Redman liked it and they went away and wrote the Verses, and the rest, as they say, is history. The point to be made here is one Hughes picks up on in the next chapter, but one which centres on notions of formulaic success. Even after the song was written, Redman concedes that he did not expect it to become as popular as it has become. While the profile of someone like Redman does give the opportunity for a song to receive prominence and initial momentum, ultimately, the songs themselves seem to arbitrate at least some measure of their own success. Moir has played a significant role among the most influential CCS writers/artists of the UK since Graham Kendrick; Moir was music director under Kendrick for the inaugural Soul Survivor Events (1992–1996). I was interested in his observations of the changing landscape of CCS over the past two decades. He believes collaborative writing has been one of the biggest changes to the genre over that period. Steve McPherson, head of Hillsong Publishing, also affirmed this increased collaborative writing practice at a Worship Central event in Manly, Australia (7 March 2015). McPherson commented that secular music industry colleagues were impressed by the collaborative spirit of CCS writers, and wished they had such willing levels of collaboration without the egos and territorial disputes and distrust that mark much of the secular music industry. One possible interpretation of this trend is to point to the existing communal nature of faith and church. Why should collaborative writing not be a feature of CCS when it is a feature of the faith it represents? A less flattering interpretation may be that industry gatekeepers (such as megachurch record labels/publishers) require a new generation of songwriters/worship leaders to be tethered to those who are firmly entrenched in the system; that it is risky to singularly promote a talented individual as the face of a prominent church, who does not yet have a proven track record. Whatever the reason, collaborative writing seems to be firmly entrenched in the current contemporary congregational song genre, which in turn has a direct impact on what those songs mean. Returning to Moir, his observation of UK CCS writers was that there was a pre-Kevin Prosch period and a post-Kevin Prosch period. He believes

3  THE CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONG INDUSTRY (POIETIC… 

53

that Prosch, the American worship leader, musician, and composer, who released some relatively radical expressions of CCS back in the mid- to late 1990s, left an indelible mark on the next generation of UK writers, such as Redman and Martin Smith. This is not an isolated story. The complex influences of both secular and sacred artists on CCS writers have shaped the genre. Industry plays an important role in CCS, and one of the key players in the last two decades has been CCLI. Moir observed that he sees no conflict between industry imperatives (to maximise returns to stakeholders) and the purity of motive among songwriters/worship leaders/artists. He rationalises his position referencing Nehemiah 13, where the full-time support of the Levites was reinstated. While he acknowledges that CCLI plays a significant role in supporting the industry, he rejects the idea that current writers are overly influenced by potential financial rewards. In my interview with Hughes, he spent some time talking about this current state of affairs: Of course, where there’s money, there’s going to be bad motives. So you’ve got to be careful. But look at the top 25 of CCLI, you know, most of those songs … [are] great songs … [T]he good thing about the CCLI [top songs list], is … it’s what really connects with people, it resonates, [and] ultimately it’s what people love to worship to … [I]n many ways it probably is the best indicator of what really connects.

The premise that CCLI data is representative of Christian practices and preferences worldwide is a foundational hypothesis for this research. At the same time, in recent years, CCLI has become far more proactive in promoting certain CCS through SongSelect and CCLITV. Where CCLI in the past was a relatively neutral party in measuring songs’ impact, it is no longer at arm’s length to the songs it measures. If it actively promotes songs to CCLI license holders, then it at least potentially influences license holders’ appropriation of those songs. If those songs become prominent on CCLI top songs lists, to what degree is it a result of CCLI’s earlier influence? The intertwined webs of production, promotion, distribution, and measurement are not unique to CCS. The old adage ‘success breeds success’ has been utilised by the secular pop industry for decades by manipulating early prominence of albums/songs on Billboard charts (or similar) to give them the initial profile and momentum which they know has the

54 

D. THORNTON

potential to multiply. The question remains as to whether this kind of perhaps benign manipulation is acceptable in the CCS genre. After all, why shouldn’t prominent and proven songwriters be promoted when CCLI already knows their previous songs have been widely and meaningfully adopted around the world? Conversely, even though CCLI does not benefit directly from any of its promotions of CCS, such an agency that measures song use and collects and distributes royalties should ideally be independent from influencing churches’ adoption of songs.

Bibliography Best, Harold. 1993. Music Through the Eyes of Faith. New York: HarperCollins. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.119 1/1478088706qp063oa. Cooper, Rae, Amanda Coles, and Sally Hanna-Osbourne. 2017. Skipping a Beat: Assessing the State of Gender Equality in the Australian Music Industry. The University of Sydney Business School. Evans, Mark. 2006. Open Up the Doors: Music in the Modern Church. London: Equinox Publishing Limited. Frith, Simon. 1996. Music and Identity. In Questions of Cultural Identity: SAGE Publications, ed. Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay, 108–127. London: SAGE. ———. 1998. Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular Music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Howard, Jay R., and John M. Streck. 2004. Apostles of Rock: The Splintered World of Contemporary Christian Music. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Ingalls, Monique. 2008. Awesome in This Place: Sound, Space, and Identity in Contemporary North American Evangelical Worship. University of Pennsylvania. Levitin, Daniel J. 2011. This Is Your Brain on Music: Understanding a Human Obsession. Limited: Atlantic Books. Middleton, Richard. 1990. Studying Popular Music. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Moore, Allan F. 2001. Rock, The Primary Text: Developing a Musicology of Rock. Aldershot: Ashgate. ———. 2002. Authenticity as Authentication. Popular Music 21 (02): 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261143002002131. ———., ed. 2007. Critical Essays in Popular Musicology. Hampshire: Ashgate. ———. 2012. Song Means: Analysing and Interpreting Recorded Popular Song. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate.

3  THE CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL SONG INDUSTRY (POIETIC… 

55

Powell, Ruth. 2017. Fact: More Women Go to Church than Men. Eternity News. August 2. https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/fact-more-women-goto-church-than-men/, https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/fact-morewomen-go-to-church-than-men/ Price, D.  E. 2003. Praise and Worship Genre Blessed with Global Growth. Billboard. Solis, Gabriel. 2010. I Did It My Way: Rock and the Logic of Covers. Popular Music and Society 33 (3): 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03007760903523351. Story Behind The Song In Christ Alone Stuart Townend. 2009. http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=TpipuCeGQn4&feature=youtube_gdata_player Teoh, Hannah. 2005. Worshipping the Worshipper: When Worship Leaders Become Famous. Papers from the Trans-Tasman Research Symposium, “Emerging Research in Media, Religion and Culture.” http://search.informit.com.au.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/fullText;dn=038905051200287;res=IELHSS Thornton, Daniel. 2017. On Hillsong’s Continued Reign over the Australian Contemporary Congregational Song Genre. Perfect Beat 17 (2): 164–182. Throsby, David, and Anita Zednik. 2010. An Economic Study of Professional Artists in Australia. http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0007/79108/Do_you_really_expect_to_get_paid.pdf Tomlin, Chris. 2011. Chris Tomlin | Chris Tomlin—STORY BEHIND THE SONG: “Amazing Grace” | TodaysChristianMusic.Com. CCM Radio Magazine. http://www.todayschristianmusic.com/artists/chris-tomlin/audio/ chris-tomlin-story-behind-the-song-amazing-grace/ Wagner, Thomas J. 2013. Hearing the Hillsong Sound: Music, Marketing, Meaning and Branded Spiritual Experience at a Transnational Megachurch. Royal Holloway University of London. http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/files/ 19680902/2014wagnertphd.pdf Witvliet, John D. 1999. The Blessing and Band of the North American Megachurch: Implications for Twenty-First Century Congregational Song. The Hymn 50 (1): 6–14.

CHAPTER 4

So the Songwriters Say (Poietic Analysis Pt 2)

Who’s Who? The analysis of CCS texts is relatively straightforward; they all are accessible and have comparable formats on both YouTube and SongSelect. CCS writers, however, are not all accessible either because they are unwilling to be interviewed or because they are hidden behind layers of management. Additionally, many of the 58 writers have only a single song on the list to their credit, which, while not diminishing their contribution, needs to be taken into account when trying to understand poietic perspectives of the genre as a whole. Apart from which, even if all CCS composers from the most sung songs list were willing and available, to fully interview 58 writers would be unfeasible for such a project as this. Therefore, to explore the poietic perspective, beyond the industry representatives already identified, a threefold approach was adopted. First, six prominent CCS composers were interviewed; two from the UK (Tim Hughes and Matt Redman), one from the USA (although originally from Australia) (Mia Fieldes), and three from Australia (Matt Crocker, Ben Fielding, and Darlene Zschech). At least three of those are household names among evangelical Christians. Crocker, Fieldes, Fielding, and Zschech have all emerged from Hillsong, and while Mia Fieldes may be less familiar to some, she currently has 4 songs in the Church Copyright License Top 100 (USA) and 302 songs to her credit on SongSelect. She was also the first writer to be signed for all her future works by Hillsong Publishing and has co-written with many © The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9_4

57

58 

D. THORNTON

prominent CCS writers around the world, including Lincoln Brewster, Matt Maher, Don Moen, Chris Quilala, and Henry Seeley, to name a few. While the interviewees are Hillsong-heavy, Zschech and Fieldes are now linked to other churches, and the female perspective is important in this male-dominated industry. Second, I viewed all ‘song story’ videos that were available for the top songs. All but five of the most sung CCS had ‘song story’ videos on YouTube, featuring one of their writers/worship leaders. Two other songs had transcribed interviews on websites. Only three songs had no online record of a backstory or interview with the composer(s) about the song: “How Great Thou Art”, “King of My Heart”, and “Man of Sorrows”. The reason for such an absence with “How Great Thou Art” is self-­ explanatory, the composer has been dead for almost 30 years, but for the other two it is less clear. Hillsong, especially in recent years, has been highly proactive in providing extra resources for songs it releases, including song backstories. Apparently, in this case, such a resource simply never made it to production. It seems the only song story for any song on Hillsong’s 2013 Glorious Ruins album is for “Anchor”, which is on the Hillsong blog site written by co-author, Ben Fielding. With the swift moving machine that Hillsong Music is, focus and resources are quickly moved to the next project, and probably explains why they have not gone back to create the “Man of Sorrows” song story account despite its subsequent enduring success. As for “King of My Heart”, Sarah and John Mark McMillan have only one other song in the top 2000 CCL (USA), “Sing My Love”, and only five co-written songs on SongSelect. The production machine that often drives CCS story videos may simply not be there given John Mark’s focus on works beyond this genre. By and large, the most sung CCS have song story videos. Such resources must be approached cautiously as they only provide a prepared song backstory designed with an audience in mind. Alone, they would shed only some light on the poietic analysis. However, with other research sources, song stories provide a valuable additional resource with which to appreciate the full poietic picture. Third, as an active composer, worship leader, and producer of over 30 years, I bring personal experiences and understanding of the writing, recording, marketing, distribution, and performing processes of CCS within Australia’s largest Pentecostal movement (Australian Christian Churches) from pioneer church plants to multi-site megachurches. As mentioned, I was also on the CCLI Asia/Pacific advisory council for many

4  SO THE SONGWRITERS SAY (POIETIC ANALYSIS PT 2) 

59

years and was privileged to see the inner workings of church licensing and royalty distribution. Moreover, in the last eight years, I have developed and taught dozens of subjects on contemporary worship practices, songwriting, lyrics and theology, and related topics to students at Alphacrucis College, where I am the Head of Worship. Such course development and teaching has required ongoing up-to-date research about the current poietic processes of CCS. A résumé is not the intention of this section, but rather to establish the broad foundation upon which this poietic analysis is conducted.

Writing for the People Key CCS composers endeavour to write in a way they believe will be accessible for Christians from diverse denominations and demographics. The amount of times song story videos included composers saying how ‘simple’ or ‘easy’ a song was to play is almost embarrassing, yet this is the consistent narrative for the genre. It is also a testimony to the vernacular music nature of the genre. Were CCS only popular music, the constant affirmation of easily playable or singable songs would not make sense. Popular music artists may write playable or singable songs, but if they do, it is primarily because that’s the music they like to create, rather than it being a fundamental quality of their genre. Crocker, aware of the musically, financially, and technologically resourced environment in which he writes songs (Hillsong Church), says he is always considering how local (and often far less resourced) church worship teams will be able to reproduce his songs. Thus, he states his “goal for a congregational song [is] for everyone and anyone to be able to understand it and outwork it in their own … place of worship”.1 This kind of statement should not be read as CCS composers pandering to perceived inferior musical minds. In fact, Hughes somewhat jokingly made the point that if a song worked for his “average voice” and musical ability, it will work for many. Redman similarly jokes that he is not a great guitarist and “moves his capo around a lot. I don’t even read music!” This quite common lack of formal musical training undoubtedly contributes to these composers’ musical schemas (discussed in the previous chapter) and 1  All quotes in Chaps. 4 and 5 are cited from the 2014/2015 interviews I conducted with CCS writers (Hughes 2014; Fielding 2014; Zschech 2015; Fieldes 2014; Redman 2014; Crocker 2014).

60 

D. THORNTON

positions them potentially closer to the musical schema of the average congregant. Greater alignment of musical schemas between congregation and composer means that those composers would tend to intuitively write songs that connect with their congregations. Put another way, the more formal musical training one has, the more likely their musical schema will be different to those with no formal musical training, and thus, the composer with significant formal musical training probably has to work harder to write for the tastes of an average congregation. Of course, part of such self-effacing comments from Hughes and Redman above is about negotiating the conflicted notions of celebrity and worshipper. ‘Famous’ CCS songwriters/worship leaders necessarily exude an air of humility; and this humility, genuine or practised, inherent or trained, is important to the genre. For whatever performance attributes are appropriated from secular popular culture in musical worship, such as the performance persona or the attention on the performer through lighting, video cameras, and large screens, there is an unstated demand that they remember for whom the worship is. Evident humility is the genre’s (or, more personally, the church’s) response to the celebrification dynamic addressed in the previous chapter. Many CCS songwriters/worship leaders see their role and ‘products’ as their opportunity to serve the church, as Zschech confirms: “If I am writing specifically for the congregation, then I feel it is my role to serve them well by ensuring the melody is singable” (original emphasis). Fieldes similarly states that “my highest goal is always accessibility when it comes to songs that are for a corporate worship environment”. However, accessibility can quickly become predictability, a potential hazard on which all the interviewed songwriters commented, and on which Brooke Ligertwood alludes to in her discussion of harmony in “What a Beautiful Name”.2 Crocker spoke of it in terms of maintaining the “easy and accessible” while simultaneously pushing musical boundaries. Redman’s perspective was similar: So, it’s that thing of trying to be pastoral, but trying to push forward. I think C.S. Lewis said: “We need to remind ourselves that Jesus’ charge to Peter was to feed my sheep, not try experiments on my rats.” So there’s that side of it … but there’s the other side as well, where you want to be creative, you want to push the boundaries. 2

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6snOj0oZDU

4  SO THE SONGWRITERS SAY (POIETIC ANALYSIS PT 2) 

61

Hughes also spoke of wanting to consistently press creative boundaries, noting that there was a danger in presuming, based on past experiences, what will or will not work congregationally. He recounts watching tens of thousands of people singing along to an Arctic Monkeys’ song at a recent Glastonbury Festival (UK). He noted that the song was quite fast and syncopated, yet people seemed to sing the song with ease and enthusiasm. Armed with this analogy, Hughes suggests CCS writers need to keep pressing the musical/lyrical boundaries. He further states: I often think about the hymn writers. So many of them were kicked out the church for their songs being offensive, melodies that they didn’t like, lyrics and style; Isaac Watts, John Wesley, Charles Wesley, all the staples now. I don’t hear enough of “we must kick that Hillsong out! Or that Matt Redman or Martin Smith”. Maybe we’ve all gone a bit safe.

While hyperbolic, the creative tension is real and present for CCS composers and underlines one of the forces at work in the ongoing evolution of the genre. It should be noted that when these composers speak of pressing musical boundaries, they are not talking about any musically radical departure from the genre boundaries defined in this book. Rather, they are describing variations that still fit comfortably within the wider popular music canvas. One way to achieve the ‘new’ without affecting the musical status quo is through lyrical creativity, as Crocker observed: I understand that we are writing songs for the Church to sing as one to Jesus, but I find the songs that people usually latch onto the most … are the ones that sound like they are new and have a different way of saying something we have said a million times.

Musically, however, he maintained: One of the things I try to do is keep the melody within a [singable] range. Being a guy, I’ve found F#[4] is quite high for most males, so I try not to write any melodies higher than that, and I don’t have a low voice so I never go too low either when I’m writing. Then if that song wants to translate to a female vocal they can change the key and generally it works.

Limitations of melodic range are commonly discussed, although by no means unanimously agreed upon. Hughes proposes to “never go above a top E[4] and preferably not above top D[4]”, although he also notes that

62 

D. THORNTON

his range is higher than most, spanning a low Bb[3] to a top B[4]. It was similar for Fielding who said: A chorus that’s hitting an E[4] in the upper register [is] probably going to be too high for most guys to sing. And if the verse drops below the E[3], I think … it’s going to be difficult to carry momentum … you’re going to lose people.

Fielding, though, is not consistent with his own rules. His song “This I Believe (The Creed)” goes up to G[4] and the entire Chorus lingers around E[4]. With regard to melodic range, Fielding is not alone in his proposition to limit songs to one octave; Fieldes concurs: “I think it’s great to have beautiful soaring melodies, but for a congregation I try and keep melodies as close to one octave in range as I can.” The nominal ideal of an octave range for congregational song is inconsistent across the three avenues of analysis. Chapter 5 will establish that most people when singing unaccompanied do sing within the span of an octave. However, Chap. 6 will reveal that 88% of the most sung songs have a range of an octave or greater. Fielding further suggests that ideal melodic writing is that which can be easily harmonised. He felt that well-constructed congregational melodies will be naturally harmonisable even by untrained singers. This notion was based on his experiences of growing up in a Baptist context, where specific moments of congregational harmonisation impacted his personal spiritual journey. Within this creative-accessible tension, Redman reflects that he often employs musical limitations for certain songs that he perceives as having potential to work across generations. Again, Redman bends his own rules with such songs as “10,000 Reasons” where the melodic range is a Major 10th. Fielding, perhaps explaining this phenomenon, suggested that while he tried to write within restricted vocal ranges, sometimes there were exceptions where a melody just “seems to work”. An example he provides is “All Things New” (2013), co-written with Dean Ussher, which has a range of a Perfect 11th. In Amanda Fergusson’s book Songs of Heaven: Writing Songs for Contemporary Worship, there is a quote from Marty Sampson (a prolific (ex-)writer and worship leader best known for his work with Hillsong United) that perhaps summarises the various perspectives:

4  SO THE SONGWRITERS SAY (POIETIC ANALYSIS PT 2) 

63

If there is one word I could use to describe effective songwriting, it’s BALANCE [original emphasis]. Great melodies, but easy to sing. Interesting chord changes, but not too many in one song. Simple lyrics, but profound thoughts. Balance. (Sampson quoted in Fergusson 2005, 60)

The simplicity of the suggestion for balance, of course, belies the great challenge of actualising it. Fielding discusses finding such a balance in relation to his song “Anchor”, where the bridge consists of a large intervallic leap on the words “all my hope” (8, 7, 3). He noted that the congregation tended to sing the melody as 8, 7, 7, but for him as the songwriter this felt too predictable and unoriginal. He makes a similar observation from the domain of rhythm: I think there are constraints on what a lot of people can sing [rhythmically]. We actually just wrote a song, did a little bit at our Youth encounter, and it’s got this sort of “Maroon 5” kind of rhythm in it … and it’s cool, but it’s difficult for 5000 people to sing together. But … you can still write interesting syncopated melodies and rhythms if they’re well structured … memorability becomes imperative.

Indeed, memorability was a key finding in the esthesic analysis of people’s connections to a song (Chap. 8). Creating memorable songs was a concern for all interviewees. Each of them spoke of their testing processes, most of which centred on their local churches. Some (Crocker, Redman, and Zschech) also spoke of a wider test audience, including friends, worship leaders, fellow songwriters, and pastors. Before being tested on a congregation, songs were also invariably workshopped with a band. Fielding explores this practice: Sometimes when you have a song that’s solid and works, when you start to put it with the band, you realise the different parts of it that are deficient. So some of the melodies you thought were strong start to feel like they’re tired or laboured, or they don’t flow as well as you thought. So that can be a really important part of the process.

In contrast, Hughes warns that there is a “danger of rushing too quickly into the… arrangements [and] … production, because great production can disguise or hide a pretty weak song”. He further suggests that it is important to ‘sit’ on songs for at least a few weeks to see if they still

64 

D. THORNTON

resonate after that time, as the initial creative urge tends to be accompanied by a euphoria that can obscure a song’s enduring value. Hughes also offered this perspective regarding the testing of songs: I’ve got four young kids; [aged] six, five, three, and one. And they’ll often hear demos, rough mixes of the songs, playing in the kitchen. And I’ve noticed the last two records, they’ve always picked out the big songs. On the latest record Love Shines Through the song that’s … been sung most by churches is “At Your Name” and again, you’d hear them walking around the house “Yahweh, Yahweh”.

Intervallically, CCS are as simple as many nursery rhymes (as analysed in Chap. 8). Thus, perhaps it is not surprising that children would pick up on the most singable of these songs. Furthermore, children are often overt with their likes and dislikes which potentially provides more honest feedback than one might otherwise receive from adults. Whatever testing precedes the song’s introduction to the congregation, it is this final arbiter that all writers agreed is authoritative. Zschech says, “When I am confident, I will bring them to the church. For corporate worship, the church are the ones that decide if a song will really help them engage in prayerful worship.” Fieldes concurs: Church is always the decider. You can usually tell after [a couple of] times whether or not people are behind the song or not. And if they’re not, I don’t force them, I just write better songs.

Note that while other gatekeepers may influence the creation of CCS, it is not industry heavyweights who ultimately determine a song’s opportunity for success. The local church where new CCS are introduced and tested is the central location for determining the song’s future trajectory. As indicated, one of the outcomes of the testing process reveals the degree to which some songs are more performance-oriented than participatory from an audience/congregational perspective. One of the fundamental distinctions between the contemporary Christian music (CCM) genre and the CCS genre is this notion of CCS’ communal performance by all worshippers. The slippery definitions of songs oriented for solo performance versus participatory CCS are explored by the interviewees next.

4  SO THE SONGWRITERS SAY (POIETIC ANALYSIS PT 2) 

65

Performance or Participation? As mentioned earlier, Fielding felt that an indication of strong participation in a song is when people quickly and spontaneously add harmonies. With that in mind, he reminisces: [O]ne of the things we’ll often do … just before we sing them in the service [is] gather the choir and … we’ll sing through it again, so everyone’s familiar with the melody. And that to me is one of the best gauges of whether the song’s going to work, because when you hear the choir sing it, you hear whether … people start to sing harmonies.

In contrast, Fielding observes that when he writes for contexts outside of congregational worship, he thinks quite differently about the process: I’m looking in that setting for more interest. So almost deliberately going “what could I do that would be not what you’re expecting?” So it’s almost like the antithesis of what I’d be doing [when writing CCS].

Crocker, while differentiating performance from congregational songs, is quick to qualify: “That doesn’t make [performance songs] any less powerful or more valuable, but … the criterion of congregational songs is that the congregation can actually sing them.” Similarly, Zschech proposes: To me, a congregational song needs to be able to gather people in the song. When I am singing a solo song, I’m not thinking about limiting the melody to invite others to join in. [However] … when leading worship, my voice is the last thing I am thinking about. The key of the song is not about it suiting me; it has to be the best for the congregation.

It is interesting that this notion of a ‘singable key’ is perpetuated by CCS writers given the findings of the esthesic analysis (Chap. 6). Nevertheless, it is a perennial part of any conversation around vernacular group singing. Fieldes also talked about taking more liberties in solo performance songs, but suggested that “relatable themes and singable melodies” are always relevant to good songwriting. While Redman feels his own focus and strength is in congregational writing, he made the point that many of his peers excelled at both performance-­oriented and congregational songs. He concludes:

66 

D. THORNTON

I love to see people singing together. I love when these truths hit people deep down in the congregation. I love it just in those kind of corporate moments where we’re all one voice, one choir. So I try to think that way a lot.

The valuing of participation over solo performance within this genre is uncontested, and there are clearly both theoretical and practical measures employed to encourage optimal engagement from congregants. From a poietic perspective, a hard-to-sing song is not a good CCS. Contemporary congregational songs are singable, however, that might be measured, and despite those who suggest otherwise.

Predicting Success CCS writers find the concept of predicting the success of their songs problematic. On the one hand, writing for ‘success’ conjures notions of ‘selling out’ and thus no longer being ‘authentic’ as a songwriter (Moore 2002). Furthermore, the notion of Spirit-inspired writing in service to the body of Christ seems at odds with CCS writers also composing with the goal of mass approval. On the other hand, they seem genuinely surprised at the success of some of their songs, and thus reticent to predict future success. This notwithstanding the fact that every one of the interviewees is backed by large music publishers whose express aim is to exploit the copyrighted works they represent, and thus it is the publishers’ job to pursue the potential success of their writers’ songs. Hughes told the tale of his 2007 worship album entitled Holding Nothing Back, which was based on the thought that the title track was a key song and that its theme ran through the rest of the album. However, the most prominent song from that album turned out to be the opening track “Happy Day”, which when he went to do the next ‘best of’ album was clearly “the song everyone knew” and thus became the title track to that release of 2009. Hughes goes on to surmise that one never really knows which songs are going to take off, and therefore “do you [just] write something for your church, and if it works here, then I guess, you assume it will work for the world”. Hughes continued: I thought “Here I Am to Worship” was rubbish and sat on it for nine months maybe. I just thought it was boring, not much of a lift. And then I did it at the end of a service, and my pastor was like, “You have to do that

4  SO THE SONGWRITERS SAY (POIETIC ANALYSIS PT 2) 

67

every time you lead worship … for however long”. So, I’ve learnt not to fully trust my judgement on it.

He went on to admit that he feels he has written numerous ‘better’ songs than “Here I Am to Worship”, but that when it comes down to it, it’s got to be something of an anointing, or a ‘God thing’ that you don’t quite understand why, you know I didn’t work any harder on that, I didn’t feel any more spiritually close to God during the writing of that. I think one of the best songs I’ve written is a song called “Be My Everything” … but it’s not been one of the bigger ones.

I posed the possibility to Hughes that part of the success of many CCS was their profile on prominent ministry platforms (significant churches, conferences, events). Hughes agreed that worship leaders were more likely to introduce songs they had experienced in a large live worship environment, rather than those they had only heard on a recording. Thus, with “the Hillsongs, the Passions, you’ve got a massive advantage, cause you’re gathering … [more] people … and there’s nothing wrong with that, that’s just the reality”. It is interesting that Hughes feels the need to qualify the statement with “there’s nothing wrong with that”, as if it somehow needs justification. The reality is that only a select few get to utilise these platforms as already discussed. If this access is not solely based on the merit of the songs or artists, then perhaps some justification is perceived to be warranted. Hughes, however, balances that thought with his experience of “Here I Am to Worship”: I was at university studying History when I wrote it, no one had a clue who I was, and yet you see this song … I guess I can only understand it as God took hold of it and it goes all over the place. Michael W. Smith’s recording it, Darlene’s recording it, everyone’s recording it. You know I just sat in my room at Watford thinking “this is crazy!” So I guess my view has always been, if God’s on a song, it could go anywhere, it really could … I think the whole CCLI thing in one sense, you know, is the top CCLI song the best song? Is it the song God loves most? Almost definitely not. You know, for whatever reason it’s the song of the moment. But I don’t want to value my worth as a songwriter based on that.

Indeed, while CCLI data plays an important role in this research, there is no suggestion that the most sung songs are the 32 best CCS ever

68 

D. THORNTON

written, though they are demonstrably the most popular at the time of writing. Furthermore, any suggestion that CCS writers are pursuing CCLI acclamation is immediately rejected by them. Having said that, Hughes does level such an accusation against the “American scene”, stating: I guess I’ve never ever wanted to get to the place where I’m writing to have another big CCLI song, that actually I’m writing because that’s what’s pouring out, and that’s what feels is connecting, or is part of the journey of our church here. And trusting God. I’ve seen it a fair bit, particularly in the American scene, where everyone is trying to write the big CCLI track and the songs seem hollow to me.

He is quick to exempt Chris Tomlin from that category, stating he is a “genuine and humble worshipper, who writes from a pure motivation”. That Hughes should feel the need to exonerate Tomlin bears comment. Tomlin has been a pre-eminent figure of the CCS genre and industry in the USA for over a decade now. To make a comment about the “American scene” inevitably implicates Tomlin. Even so, why should Hughes only single out Tomlin? There are arguably other CCS writers who are not primarily commercially motivated. It gives some indication of the real or perceived CCS elite. Hughes and Tomlin would have shared many platforms over the years, platforms shared by few others. Thus, for Hughes an exoneration of Tomlin is personal, as well as professional. Les Moir also inferred CCS writers in the USA tend to demonstrate a higher pecuniary focus than their counterparts in the UK. How much of that is real, and how much is perception is unknowable, but the perception exists. With millions of dollars of passive royalty income yearly flowing into the pockets of the most sung CCS composers, it is difficult not to address such a powerful motivator for composing and promoting one’s songs. Yet, all interviewees were careful to skirt issues of financial gain from the CCS industry. Setting aside the financial implications of CCS success for a moment, Redman echoes Hughes: I just honestly just try to write my heart out now, not trying to be a predictor of what’s going to work, what doesn’t work. A couple of songs that have gone out the furthest for me and the widest, “10,000 Reasons” and “Heart of Worship” … I didn’t have a huge amount of confidence in either of them, if I’m being totally candid. I thought “10,000 Reasons” was maybe a bit too simple, there’s nothing progressive. It didn’t even have a Bridge or a [Pre-]Chorus, there’s only 4 chords or so. Was it too folky? I didn’t know.

4  SO THE SONGWRITERS SAY (POIETIC ANALYSIS PT 2) 

69

And “Heart of Worship” I thought might have been too personal. So it’s interesting. I think what you’ve got to try to do is write your heart out, but serve the people.

Key CCS composers clearly feel more comfortable articulating songwriting as an act of service to God and to Christians, or a personal expression of faith, rather than as a potential career, opportunity for prominence, or purely artistic endeavour. Despite this, CCS writers actively pursuing the creation of catchy, memorable, and ultimately popular songs for congregational worship. Fielding reflects on “Mighty to Save”, an exemplar of such songs: When we [Morgan and Fielding] were writing … our goal was to write something that we felt … would be approachable for anybody to sing, [at] any of our services, [in] any context … And that it was saying timeless things, but it had enough about it that was interesting. That was our basic criteria. And so, we worked for three or four months … a lot on that song. I’d hate to think how many different verses and bridges and whatever … and so when that song was finished, I probably would say I knew there was something good about it, because of the feedback we were getting from people that I respect like Joel [Houston] and Darls [Zschech]. But I think also by the time you get that far into the process, you’ve lost objectivity a little bit. And so I was not sick of the song, but sick of the process of it, to the point where I was like, I don’t really know any more. And then obviously when the first time we did it in church, I was like, “Oh wow! There’s something special here.” And then over the next few weeks you go “OK, there’s something really special!”

Despite Fielding’s evident confidence in “Mighty to Save”, he still wanted to equivocate over its success, stating, “So that’s a success story that probably was a bit of a… there’s that mysterious element about it”. Fielding was still the most up front of the interviewees in discussing success prediction. When working on “This I Believe (The Creed)”, Fielding recalled: I sang the first bit of the Chorus, I was like … “that could be the concept”, and I was ready to move on. And Matty [Crocker] was like, “no actually I think that could be it” … Having pretty much finished that song, I remember writing to Cass [Langton] saying, “I may have just written the best song I think I’ll ever write.” … I like that the chorus has an ascending melody. I

70 

D. THORNTON

like the way that it emphasises the name of Jesus at the end of the Chorus … I like that the Chorus is probably the most solid … it’s all very solid theology, but there’s something almost more … there’s an ease about the theology of the Chorus, “I believe in God the Father”.

Yet again, Fielding finishes by moderating his confidence and affirms a common refrain from CCS writers: I’m completely dependent on God for anything that’s good … I know I could get really distracted by going, well … what’s the formula? And I don’t think there is one.

All writers want to eschew the notion of a formula for CCS, for such a notion instantly diminishes their original creative effort, potential divine inspiration, and perhaps impinges on their sense of authenticity. However, clearly, the genre definition within the pages of this book would suggest that musically, lyrically, and extra-musically, there are formulaic elements, if not a consciously superimposed or premeditated CCS writing formula. Zschech speaks to more practical elements of a song’s success: There are so many songs I thought would work that didn’t, and vice versa. Sometimes, there are great songs that because they are taught poorly, or the melody is not in place when it is taught, we can set songs up to fail very easily. Workshopping songs away from a service is a great idea. Take the time if possible to really sort out melody, feel, instrumentation, etc.

She goes on to talk about Joel Houston’s song, “Everyday” (1999), which was quite wordy and rhythmically complicated, yet it “took off like wildfire”, again affirming that ultimately CCS success is not in a formula or predetermined process. Crocker also spoke of a recent experience of unexpected song success: I would say “Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)” more than any song I’ve been a part of was one that far surpassed any expectations. We liked the song a lot but never could have imagined it becoming as influential as it has become. We were even told that it wouldn’t work on radio or in a congregational setting, but God has taken it and really used it as a vessel to open people’s hearts towards his purpose for their lives.

4  SO THE SONGWRITERS SAY (POIETIC ANALYSIS PT 2) 

71

Fieldes discussed the fact that she writes over 100 songs every year, and with such a slew of works, the majority do not make it onto albums, let alone achieve the popularity or acclaim for which she thought some had the potential. In reflecting on this, she believes that she knows when a song has potential, but rationalises their regular lack of success stating: [S]ome of those have been just down to timing and sometimes the song just wasn’t as strong as I thought it was … [But] if it’s meant to work, God will make a way, and in the meantime, [I] write a new song.

The need to refine songs is a theme taken up by Crocker: There’s definitely been a few songs that haven’t quite gone as I thought they would. There’s one song I wrote called You Love Me which isn’t published that I really thought was one of my best songs. Looking back now I can see that it probably needed a bit more work to make it better, and if I took the idea to someone else to help write it, it probably would have been a much better song.

This constant commitment to improving songs is a well-worn trope for songwriting success, and stables like Hillsong do require considerable song refinement. However, extensive editing is clearly not the central reason for their success or otherwise. Note again the theme of divine intervention for songs to achieve their zenith, from both Fieldes and Crocker. From the perspective of all interviewees, CCS success as a goal is a dangerous one, and a folly, given that their experiences have not always been consistent with their personal judgement. Moreover, the term ‘success’ and its connotations are complicated for these writers. Yet, they still retain an inherent awareness of a song’s potential and, arguably, pursue the writing of such songs.

Conclusion This section of the poietic analysis has engaged with influential voices among CCS composers and drawn out key elements of their meaning-­ making process regarding the songs they write/record. CCS composers unequivocally write for congregations to sing their songs, initially their own congregations, but also often with some sense of the wider church. They have their own guidelines for writing and processes through which

72 

D. THORNTON

they determine the potential of their songs. While these may differ from composer to composer, and they may even break their own rules along the way, they consciously try to write memorable and meaningful songs which find some balance between the predictable and the new. Additionally, there is always a caveat to the potential success of any CCS, involving a divine element. The next chapter continues probing these voices for their perspectives on other aspects of the production domain.

Bibliography Crocker, Matt. 2014. Personal Interview for Poietic Analysis of CCS. Email. Fergusson, Amanda. 2005. Songs of Heaven: Writing Songs for Contemporary Worship. Hillsong Music Australia. Fieldes, Mia. 2014. Personal Interview for poietic analysis of CCS. Email. Fielding, Ben. 2014. Personal Interview for poietic analysis of CCS. Audio recording. Hughes, Tim. 2014. Personal Interview for poietic analysis of CCS. Audio recording. Moore, Allan F. 2002. Authenticity as Authentication. Popular Music 21 (02): 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261143002002131. Redman, Matt. 2014. Personal interview for poietic analysis of CCS. Audio recording. Zschech, Darlene. 2015. Personal interview for Poietic Analysis of CCS. Email.

CHAPTER 5

The Old and New Guard: Ways of Thinking for Contemporary Congregational Songs Writers (Poietic Analysis Pt 3)

Bridging Old and New One of the advantages of interviewing different generations of CCS composers from different denominational heritages was the opportunity to explore how the CCS genre has evolved over the last few decades, and particularly, the way in which that has impacted the writing of CCS and the way in which CCS composers currently think about what they do. Hybridisation of traditional (typically hymns) and contemporary congregational songs have demonstrably impacted the worship landscape in the last decade or so (e.g., “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)” or “Cornerstone”). The interviewees, many of whom have engaged in these techniques, were asked to comment on this trend and the rationale for such approaches to CCS composition. Crocker was the only one who initially responded in the negative, stating “it’s very important to keep progressing and challenging the status quo of what a congregational song should sound like”. However, he equally contended: The hymns that we refer to as traditional were also once considered contemporary. I like when a song of such long influence is given new life again. A song like Amazing Grace is so well loved because it spoke so deeply to people at a level that they were on. And people are still on that level today, so it’s a song that still impacts people years and years later.

© The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9_5

73

74 

D. THORNTON

Even with Crocker’s emphasis on the new, writers’ perspectives on bridging old and new, traditional and contemporary, were unanimously positive. Interviewees did not position this type of writing as a cheap form of creativity, capitalising on existing authority and nostalgia to propel newly copyrighted works to prominence, although, arguably, this has been the case for some of these hybrid works. Rather, there was almost a reification of the practice, as if it somehow embodied the perfect union of generations within the church. Zschech states: I simply love when the traditional and the contemporary are beautifully interwoven. The truth is that the message is unchanging and always life giving. The great writers weave the ancient and timeless songs into the fresh so seamlessly, that it is truly inspiring. The other thing that it does, is that it brings the generations together … what a joy and privilege.

Fieldes concurs: I love it. I always say “there’s nothing new under the sun, but there are plenty of new ways of saying old things”. I love taking something old and trying to say it in a new way that people can grab a hold of. I think people love hearing something familiar in songs.

The practice is not only with hymns of previous centuries either. It was the Passion version of “In Christ Alone” from their 2013 album Let the Future Begin, which brought this relatively recent hymn-like CCS into a more contemporary format. Such versioning practices affirm CCS’ place within the wider popular music studies discourse. Solis observes that the “rock [genre] … is defined by musical covers”, further stating: Rather than making the performers seem to give up their rugged, self-­ creating individualism, covers show strong rock musicians … [who have] the ability to imbue someone else’s song with some measure of their own, new authorship and authority. (Solis 2010, 301)

For CCS writers, the old tends to be renegotiated in light of the new. That is to say, they tend not to write new lyrics for traditional-sounding hymns; the sound itself must be updated. “Cornerstone” and “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)” are examples of such a technique. Other writers have tried the opposite approach, adopting more traditional melodic and structural, as well as lyrical dimensions, to make the new

5  THE OLD AND NEW GUARD: WAYS OF THINKING… 

75

sound old in effect (or at least aligned with traditional hymns). Examples of this include “In Christ Alone” and “How Deep the Father’s Love”. As Passion have recently demonstrated, the division between these two approaches is subtle, and easily shifted, as exemplified in their additional Bridge and Instrumental arrangement of “In Christ Alone”. This is another reason for the perennial success of “How Great Thou Art”, which although hymn-like, contains a simple Chorus which can easily be modified harmonically and instrumentally to align with a contemporary sound. The perspectives of Hughes and Redman are important here. They both grew up within more traditional ecclesial cultures (Church of England) yet have managed to establish a contemporary musical expression within these traditional contexts. Redman reflects: I think it’s just a question of treasuring what’s come before. Seeing it not as ‘dead weight’ but seeing it as treasure. Seeing it as heritage, and not just history... It’s one of the distinctives of the church. It’s not a music club … We’re actually standing on the shoulders of those who poured their hearts out to the same God. It’s remarkable to me, that things the Psalmist wrote 3000 years ago are still pertinent today.

In one respect, it is curious that the new and old so happily co-exist for these writers, given the original acrimony that existed between them at the birth of contemporary congregational songs, and fuelled the ‘worship wars’ of the last few decades. However, CCS have now had over 50 years to establish their influence and to differentiate themselves from that which came before. Thus, after establishing their distinct musical and lyrical properties, and their place in Christian musical worship, CCS writers now unselfconsciously re-engage with hymns in a new hybridity. At the same time, the generation of CCS writers who grew up in traditional churches, but were impacted by CCS, have equally closed the gap from the other side. Hughes, an exemplar of bridging from traditional to contemporary, recounts: I remember when I started travelling to America with these songs … people would say … “I love this, it feels like there’s a richness or a hymnal feel in the lyrics”. That wasn’t conscious, but I guess I grew up, similar to Matt [Redman] as well, singing these hymns and so it’s kind of part of my heritage, who I am … More recently, I thought, let’s try to take that sort of hymn[-hybrid approach]. We’re working on a song called “Abide

76 

D. THORNTON

(With  Me)” and there’s something in that that’s really worked. I mean, some of these words are amazing … “Cornerstone’s” a classic isn’t it?

While the considerable success of Tomlin’s “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)” has given impetus to many CCS writers to capitalise on works that are now out of copyright (like “Cornerstone” or “Abide (With Me)”), Hughes goes on to warn about using this technique as a formula. For all of their affirmation of this writing technique, none of the writers like to think of CCS as formulaic. As discussed, formulas are perceived as inherently un-creative and perhaps inauthentic. At the same time, these composers clearly rely, consciously or unconsciously, on familiar patterns and models of writing, as Chaps. 6 and 7 will attest.

Theological Considerations One of the benefits of the hymn-CCS hybrid, as highlighted above, is the rich historical theological resource that writers can access. Related to this, is a broader discussion about theology and lyrics in CCS, especially surrounding two of the key contentions in much of popular and scholarly literature: First, CCS lyrics are too ‘me-focused’, and second, they treat God too intimately. While extensive discussion of this topic will occur in the lyrical analyses of Chap. 9, below are the perspectives of key CCS writers/worship leaders. Most writers had not contemplated the way they engaged with personal pronoun usage (e.g., I/We or You/Him). Hughes said, “I think in terms of the direction towards God … I guess I haven’t analysed [my songs]. I wouldn’t really know up front, but it’s what feels right.” Fieldes responded with an equally personal perspective, “I think how you see God often determines some of that. I often address Him directly because that’s how I talk to Him every day.” Regarding personal pronouns, her response was that “it depends on the theme of the song for me. Is it a personal idea or is it a corporate idea?” Redman similarly initially downplayed the potential significance of terms of address, stating, “It doesn’t fuss me too much because the Psalmist is all over the place with that kind of thing.” Hughes also employed the Psalmist analogy regarding the use of first-person singular and plural pronouns. However, when pressed further for their thoughts about the language CCS employ to talk about the worshipper, and the One worshipped, writers responded. Redman suggested:

5  THE OLD AND NEW GUARD: WAYS OF THINKING… 

77

There’s definitely a power in speaking [directly] to God. I mean when I pray, I don’t pray about God, generally, I tend to pray to God. So, I kind of like to take that same approach when I’m writing. But now and again there’s a time when it seems … more fitting to proclaim ‘Him’.

In practice, Redman’s two most popular recent songs, “10,000 Reasons” and “Blessed Be Your Name”, address God both directly (second-­ person pronouns) and indirectly (third-person pronouns). Hughes expressed the desire not to lose the personal confessions of faith in song (using I, me, my), and recognised that many of his most loved songs were from that personal perspective (“Here I Am to Worship”, “Beautiful One”, “Happy Day”). At the same time, he was concerned about the level of individualism and potential sentimentality that first-­ person pronoun usage might foster. This has led him in recent times to focus more on using plural personal pronouns to remind Christians of their communal faith, and the unifying force of singing together ‘as a people’. Redman similarly stated, “I think sometimes things sound so powerful when they’re personal. But then we are part of a family, we’re not doing this on our own.” It is clearly a challenging aspect of lyric writing, as Fielding also articulates: I think it’s good to be a little bit consistent. But because you’re in a corporate context predominantly, to sing “I believe in God the Father” … that is the actual Creed itself, which is why we constructed it [The song, “This I Believe”] like that … We did say “should it be, we believe?” and I was like “no, let’s keep it like the original Creed”. But the power in it is when you do that together, it is a ‘we’. So it’s a collection of I’s which is the ‘we’. So I love that, but I see the power in doing both.

Like Redman, Fielding was comfortable with the use of both secondand third-person addresses to the Godhead, which he furnished with the following anecdote. Someone had recorded “Mighty to Save” with the lyrics “You are mighty to save” rather than the original “He is mighty to save”, but Fielding felt such changes were entirely acceptable. He did, however, admit it was a problem from a copyright perspective. His final musing was that ‘He’ was best utilised for more declarative songs and ‘You’ for more intimate songs. In contrast, Zschech, who represents a previous generation of CCS composers, had this to say:

78 

D. THORNTON

Over the years I’ve had thousands of letters from people saying to me that our style of worship songwriting has helped them move from singing about God, to bringing God very close … referring to Him as Lord and friend. I think that this has really been part of the whirlwind of growth in worship music over the last twenty years. Emmanuel … God with us. A continued revelation of Jesus is premium for us all.

Such a statement reveals the generational distinction between these two writers. For Zschech’s era of CCS composers, it was particularly important to bring personal perspectives and intimacy with God into congregational song lyrics, in contrast to traditional worship music that was perceived to be more stoic, objective, and austere. The charismatic renewal which birthed Hillsong’s parent church, Sydney Christian Life Centre, was experiential and embodied in its faith. Early CCS adopted this personalisation of faith in their lyrics to which Zschech was an heir. The following generation of writers did not have the same battle of differentiation to fight, and therefore have become more pragmatic about how they choose to address God in their lyrics. Zschech was also more definitive on the appropriate use of singular or plural personal pronouns. Her admonition was that writers should not mix them together but keep the perspectives consistent within songs. It is perhaps harder to link this to a generational perspective. However, much post-modern thinking about the individual and society has recognised its fluidity and plurality (Benhabib 1992; Green 1997), and perhaps such thinking is subtly influencing, or simply describing, the mindset of current CCS writers, and thus their relaxed and fluid approach to personal pronoun use in lyrics. Hughes went on to talk about other lyric content, stating: You know, familiarity breeds contempt, so I do think that we get stuck in a lot of the same old stuff [lyrically]. I also think sometimes this is where we need to be a bit more brave. Sometimes we assume that if we have “that” word in, the congregation can’t sing it. And obviously there are some you wouldn’t [use]. We were in this time of worship the other day, much more freestyle and spontaneous and I ended up singing these lines: I don’t need a six pack, I don’t need money Cause I’ve got you, I’ve got You And I just thought, I don’t think I’d put that into a final song, but the truth is that’s what most people are spending their time thinking about; am I toned? Am I buffed? How wealthy am I? What’s the size of my house?

5  THE OLD AND NEW GUARD: WAYS OF THINKING… 

79

What’s the success of my career? But for some reason we think, we can’t sing that, even though that’s what everyone’s grappling with.

He summarises: “That’s why I often listen to [secular] pop songs. I think sometimes there’s much more honesty in those lyrics than you see in the church.” This could be interpreted as a fairly harsh critique of his fellow CCS composers. However, the tension between the actual and ideal, the ‘now and the not-yet’ of Christian faith, is an ongoing struggle for composers who want to express a real and relevant Christianity. The tensions involved in lyrical choices within CCS are further developed in the analysis of CCS lyrics in Chap. 9. Because CCS are an expression of faith that writers place in the mouths of congregations, all of the writers felt the need to have theological ‘gatekeepers’ who could assess the lyrical content of their songs. As Zschech said, “[w]orship has always helped shape people’s theology, so it’s pretty important we get it right”. For Hillsong songwriters, the key theological gatekeepers are Robert and Amanda Fergusson. There is clearly a very positive relationship with these pastors, for example, Crocker states, “there’s no substitute for Robert and Amanda Fergusson. They are incredible and I would never feel a song is completely finished without their consent.” Fieldes concurs, “I am really grateful to have … people like Robert and Amanda Fergusson … I’m always thinking, ‘What would Robert and Amanda say if I sent them this lyric?’” It should be noted that the Fergussons also come under harsh criticism by some for their role in Hillsong CCS lyrics, but what editorial powers do they actually exert? Fielding tells the story of Robert’s contribution to “Mighty to Save”: The original [opening] lyric was “Everyone needs compassion, need more than religion, let mercy fall on me”. And in the context of the lyric, it kind of makes sense, ’cause it’s about compassion, it’s not about religion. And Reuben [Morgan] and I thought it was brilliant, it was genius! And Robert reads it and is just like, “No. Well Christianity’s religion, so what are you proposing?” And we’re like, “well, sure”. He was like … “I understand what you’re saying, but not everyone’s going to understand it. And you potentially limit the scope of the song.” So in retrospect, I think he was right.

Even with such affirmation of these theological gatekeepers, and the lyric-reviewing process, Fielding reflects:

80 

D. THORNTON

I think he’s [Robert’s] got a tough job, because by the time he sees it, we’re like, this is finished, it’s laboured, it can’t get any better, and I … can’t bear the thought of having to [keep editing it]… So then for him to come back and say, “that doesn’t make sense”, can be pretty crushing … like I don’t know how I can re-approach this. But it’s always been helpful.

Hughes general assessment is that “a lot of writers have been stronger with melodies than … with lyrics”, and therefore having theological mentors and monitors is perhaps more important than many songwriters understand. The interviewees, however, all spoke positively of the various vetting and editing processes they have in place. Fieldes notes that her “songs also often go through so many channels before being recorded— Writer, Worship Leader, Pastor, Publisher, Producer etc.”. Through this potentially rigorous process, lyrics have the opportunity to be challenged, tested, and changed. Although even given this process, theology is still often questioned in even the most popular of CCS. The irony of popular CCS lyrics being theologically questionable is that for a CCS to appear in the top 25 songs of CCLI’s CCL or SongSelect reports across multiple regions, the song has to have been adopted by tens of thousands of churches and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Christians. Is it possible that so many theologically trained pastors across so many denominational perspectives are unable to identify questionable theology before it is welcomed into their congregations? And once introduced, do local church pastors not have the authority to permit or bar songs from their congregation’s worship? Alternatively, because such songs are meaningful to those choosing them, are pastors reticent to call the theological implications into question? Is it that the industry (including certain CCS producing megachurches) has too much sway and that everyone assumes that someone else has already vetted the lyrics? Or is it just that the poetic nature of lyrics is understood to require a subjective interpretation, and thus, it is not perceived to be a battle worth fighting unless the lyrics are outright heresy? These are important questions. In order to answer them, the poietic perspective just outlined will be compared and contrasted to the trace analysis in Chap. 9.

5  THE OLD AND NEW GUARD: WAYS OF THINKING… 

81

Co-writing Co-writing, among other things, is yet another form of vetting, as musical and lyrical ideas are affirmed, transformed, or rejected by peers. As mentioned, co-writing in CCS is a feature that has had a marked increase over the last decade, and all of the key CCS writers lauded the practice. Crocker says: I love co-writing. I think the more people (the right people) there are involved with the song, helps the chances of the song being more effective and powerful … I also think co-writing helps with the end goal of a congregational song. We usually keep each other in check with where the song is heading, and if it’s still going where it needs to go.

Zschech agrees: Co-writes are wonderful. I think of the scripture that says “one can put a thousand to flight, two … ten thousand”. When you bring more than one idea, more than one person’s musical preferences to the table, and if you enter the writing moment with a SECURE outlook, and with the song’s best interest at heart … then when the ideas flow it is SO exciting!

This is an interesting scripture reference from Deuteronomy 32:30. It refers to God’s judgement against Israel, yet it is commonly used in Pentecostal settings in the reverse sense to affirm God’s support and blessing on unity. Fieldes goes as far as to say: I actually haven’t written a song by myself in about five years. I’m a huge fan of co-writing and a big believer that it makes songs better. I think welcoming what other people bring and working together is actually such a Kingdom principle.

It is somewhat ironic that many of these key CCS composers were brought to prominence through singularly authored works—Zschech’s “Shout to the Lord”, Hughes’ “Here I Am to Worship”, or Redman’s “Heart of Worship”. Each of these examples is from a previous era of CCS, while newer writers have been baptised into a more collaborative ethos. However, the reasons for and ramifications of such a shift were not considered by any of the interviewees. From an industry perspective, it

82 

D. THORNTON

clearly exposes songs to a wider potential audience through multiple platforms promoting. Multiple authorship also inevitably foregrounds some contributors (e.g., prominent worship leaders, such as Chris Tomlin) and backgrounds others. The question of whether this affects any sense of authenticity (perceived or otherwise) in the songs is again ignored or assumed to be negligible. Some interviewees were aware of potential weaknesses in co-writing, as Hughes articulates: So I think with the co-writing, there’s obviously so much that’s good about it … I guess the danger can be, maybe the songs become a bit less deep, because maybe you’re a bit less [likely] to fully go there with someone else [that] perhaps you don’t know so well. Maybe you get a bit lazy in songwriting “well they’ll finish it off”. You know, they say it’s good, it must be … when deep down you think, “man, I could do much better”.

Fielding notes another potential weakness: So I think you are trying to write something you’ll both love, which means you do throw out really good ideas. And maybe if you added another party that was listening to your writing session, they could probably take the ideas that you throw out that were really good and write good songs with them. … that’s part of the challenge of the subjective process. I’m sure I’ve lost good ideas through that.

Finally, Zschech notes the specific challenge of egos within the co-­ writing context: “You can’t … co-write with anyone who’s going to be offended if you don’t like the idea coming from them.” Creative collaboration is clearly most fertile in open environments of both benevolent honesty and goodwill. An example of a healthy form of tension in collaborative CCS writing was described by Hughes: [Martin Smith and I] did a lot together on this album Love Shine Through. And one of the great tensions that I really enjoyed is … I’d be writing thinking, “can the church, my congregation, sing this? Can I see them singing this?” And Martin’s thinking, “does it move me? Am I feeling emotionally connected to this?” … so there’s actually a really good [creative] tension.

A final comment from Redman flowed out of this question around co-­ writing, but it captured a common theme among the key CCS writers.

5  THE OLD AND NEW GUARD: WAYS OF THINKING… 

83

One thing about answering questions like this, it can make you sound like an expert. Or you think you are! I definitely don’t think I am. I’m definitely a learner … You know, I’ve probably written too much “me/my/I” songs, not enough “we/our” songs. I’ve probably had some songs that I’ve put a little too high, or a little too complicated. I’m just a learner … so I don’t want to sound like I think I’m an expert. But I think the important thing to me is that you have those [congregational] filters on. The average creative person has got a lot more licence to do what they want. But when you’re a shepherding songwriter a songwriter who’s going to lead the people of God in worship, you’ve got to have those things [filters] functioning.

The increased sense of responsibility CCS writers feel in placing words in the mouths of Christians through song was evident from all interviewees, and it plays out in the many roles that they occupy professionally and personally.

Roles and Writing The key CCS composers/worship leaders unanimously felt that their church, family, work, and other roles had an impact on their writing. When asked to elaborate, one of the common themes to emerge was the ‘life as worship’ metaphor. Zschech articulates it this way: I would say that all of life’s experiences help write the songs that flow from within. The Word of God is the standard, and our life woven within each page is the framework.

She went on to speak about her recent battle with cancer and how it affected her writing. Candour was apparent in many responses, this was Fielding’s: Family’s an interesting dynamic. When I got married, it was an interesting transition, because I lost my personal space, in the sense that … I got so much more, for the record! [laughs] But there’s a shift in the dynamic of the home and your writing environment. Same having a kid. I hardly write at home anymore, because he’s always knocking on my door, which I love, but it’s a bit invasive, let’s be honest. So, I find myself writing in more neutral locations, like either renting little studio spaces, or finding whatever, friends’ rooms….

84 

D. THORNTON

Fieldes related the question directly to her paradigm for CCS composition: Everything points to the same thing for me. All the roles fall under the umbrella of “Can I sing this?” and “Is this truth?” At the end of the day, all those roles might represent different people, but for me, they make up the same person. I just want to write lyrics that are honest, heartfelt, and full of truth and melodies that anyone can sing.

Crocker responded in much the same way, only further adding that he desired to take people “deeper into the presence of God” through his songs. One of the levels of authenticity discussed by Moore draws on the perception that the “performer” and “persona” are identical (Moore 2012, 263). Each of these composers/worship leaders evidently strives to display a consistency between who they are as people, and who they are in their ministerial or creative/artistic roles. Given the nature of popular music commercialisation, its celebrification of songwriters or artists, and the performance contexts in which these interviewees operate, some (e.g., Busman 2015) have expressed doubts about the sincerity of CCS artists’ claims. However, in interviewing them directly, it is hard not to conclude that they genuinely believe what they say and that they genuinely aim for an integrity across all aspects of their lives. They are undoubtedly well versed in interview culture, and thus careful and calculated in their responses, but such training does not preclude their sincerity or honesty. In fact, prominent CCS writers/artists are often asked to speak at gatherings of worshippers and worship teams, so their thoughts on any topic related to worship or life are often articulated in a format akin to preaching. Thus, when interviewed, these prominent church leaders (whether they are ordained ministers or not) speak in ways that they might do so from the platform—relationally but authoritatively, identifying and articulating shareable principles, but with a humble tone, as evidenced in their quoted responses throughout this chapter and the last. What is clear is that these writers see their whole lives as contributing to the CCS they write, record, and promote.

5  THE OLD AND NEW GUARD: WAYS OF THINKING… 

85

Poietic Conclusion The last three chapters have painted a poietic picture of CCS. It is selective, rather than comprehensive. However, it does demonstrate the complexity involved in the writing/producing of CCS.  Contemporary congregational songs are firmly entrenched in both a global industry and in the local church. They straddle the commercial world and the world of ministry. Writers and producers are constantly negotiating competing values, consciously or subconsciously, between the pastoral needs of congregations, their own personal creative drives, pecuniary incentives, genuine desires to serve, politics in their local churches and in the CCS industry, not to mention secular popular music industry paradigms that require reinterpreting, reimagining, or rejecting. CCS writers intend for songs to be meaningful; meaningful for the songwriter, meaningful for the local congregation, potentially meaningful to their wider secular culture. Such meanings are not solely bound up in the lyrics, but in the sound, the mediations, the production process and the narrative around CCS production, the performance values, the accepted advisors and critics, and the reciprocal engagement with the local and global church. With this aspect of meaning-making in the CCS genre in place, we now turn our attention to the reception, cognition, and interpretation of CCS, in other words, the esthesic analysis.

Bibliography Benhabib, Seyla. 1992. Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. 1st ed. New York: Routledge. Busman, Joshua Kalin. 2015. ‘You Are the Lord, The Famous One’: Worship and Fandom in the 268 Generation, University of Leicester. https://www.acad e m i a . e d u / 4 3 3 2 1 6 6 / Wo r s h i p p i n g _ W i t h _ E v e r y t h i n g _ M u s i c a l _ Piety_Beyond_Language_in_Contemporary_Evangelicalism Green, Andy. 1997. Education, Globalization and the Nation State. New  York: Palgrave Macmillan. Moore, Allan F. 2012. Song Means: Analysing and Interpreting Recorded Popular Song. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate. Solis, Gabriel. 2010. I Did It My Way: Rock and the Logic of Covers. Popular Music and Society 33 (3): 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03007760903523351.

CHAPTER 6

How Christians Feel About the Songs They Sing: Individually (Esthesic Analysis Pt 1)

Methods and Background The next two chapters investigate CCS perception and reception by its audience (who in this case are also its co-performers). One of the reasons for not spending more time in this volume on the esthesic lens is the abundant and informative ethnographic work which has already been undertaken for this genre. Such accounts observe and interview participants involved in contemporary worship practices, either on stage or in the congregation, and elicit frank accounts of the individuals’ experiences with and interpretation of CCS in their contexts (Ingalls, Landau, and Wagner 2013; Nekola and Wagner 2015; Ingalls and Yong 2015). To provide a valuable counterpoint to such existing research, CCS perception, reception, and interpretation are examined here through the analyses of three datasets utilising qualitative and quantitative methods. The first dataset emerged from the creation of an online survey tool which collected information about individual contemporary church attendees’ musicianship and song preferences. Two hundred and fourteen anonymous Australian participants responded, representing a variety of Christian denominations who engage in popular musical forms of worship. There were two sections of the survey: a written section and an audio recording section. The written section contained 13 quantitative and qualitative questions. Some of the questions pertained to what participants were planning to sing in the audio recording section and what other songs they © The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9_6

87

88 

D. THORNTON

might have considered. Other questions sought to clarify the participants’ musical and church contexts and provide insight into their song choice. Participants were asked to indicate their age range, the church they attend, and their involvement, if any, in a worship team. They were also asked if they had had musical training, and if so, in what instrument(s). These answers informed the analysis of the vocal recordings from the second section. The audio recording tool had a simple record/pause button that participants could press to start and press again to stop. Ideally, it was felt that a ‘playback’ button where participants could ‘approve’ their recording before submission would be counterproductive. The results could be compromised if participants kept re-recording their submission until they had, for example, subjectively perfected their vocal performance. Unfortunately, the only readily available tool for the task contained a playback function. To capture the most useful data, participants were specifically instructed not to concern themselves with a ‘perfect recording’, nor record multiple submissions. For those without access to a microphone in their computer, an automated phone system was provided as an alternative for people to record themselves singing. The recording was not conducted in the typical context of Christians singing; that is, in a church service, and therefore, the results may be questioned as to how representative they are of Christians singing overall. However, there were advantages to the survey model, as it demonstrated Christians’ capacity to sing CCS without accompaniment, thus indicating a song’s singability apart from its live performance context. What vocal range do people choose when it is not imposed upon them? How accurate is their relative pitch without accompanying instrumental support? The survey ran for seven months, over which time the 214 participants were surveyed, 100 of whom also submitted a recording. The rest of this chapter focuses on the analysis of that survey. The esthesic analysis extended to two more datasets, which are the focus of the next chapter, both from the Australian 2011 National Church Life Survey (NCLS). Around 1800 people from 20 denominations across Australia contributed to the Attender form C. Questions 42–67 expressly enquired as to church attendees’ views about worship (services), including their preferences of worship style and engagement with music and congregational singing. The results of this survey provided valuable contextual balance to the researcher’s online survey, as the individuals were surveyed in a congregational setting with specific reference to that congregational

6  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: INDIVIDUALLY… 

89

setting. Additionally, a dataset was analysed from the Operations Survey, filled in by one person from each church represented in the Attender survey. Questions 20–30 specifically ask about the style and content of worship services, some of which were directly about musical style. The datasets were provided in IBM’s SPSS format (.sav) and analysed using the SPSS Statistics software. Although raw data was provided, the weighting function was activated, as described in a publication on NCLS Research methods: NCLS Research … produces Australia’s most reliable demographic estimates of the national churchgoing population. These estimates are obtained by calculating frequencies on weighted attender data, where the weight applied to the information provided by each respondent is the inverse of the estimated attender participation rate for that respondent’s region or denomination. The participation rate is the number of NCLS participants from that region/denomination divided by the estimated attendance for that region. (Pepper et al. 2015)

They proceed to explain that: [r]egional weights were used for each of the Anglican, Baptist, Churches of Christ and Uniting Church denominations, with the regions all contiguous with state (New South Wales, Victoria etc) with the exception of the Anglican dioceses. A single weight was applied to Pentecostal church attenders, as low participation by Pentecostal churches in the 2011 NCLS did not justify the calculation of unique weights for the different movements. (ibid.)

Given the smaller numbers of Pentecostal participants, compared with the average attendance, and the fact that these churches particularly employ CCS, it was reasoned that the weighted data would return the more accurate and relevant results to this research. Interestingly, Pepper et al. go on to state: Participation by most of the Pentecostal movements in the 2011 NCLS was poor, especially by the Australian Christian Churches (Assemblies of God), of whom only 2.5% took part, and the Christian Outreach Centres, of whom only 4.3% took part. ACC churches make up 60% of the Pentecostal churches in Australia and their absence from the NCLS is a significant limitation of the survey. However, local church life surveys are being undertaken

90 

D. THORNTON

by the ACC movement at the time of writing, the data from which will be used to augment the 2011 NCLS datasets to greatly improve Pentecostal representation. (ibid.)

Fortunately, this augmented data was available and utilised by the commencement of this research.

To Sing or Not to Sing Out of the 214 people who responded to my online survey, 9 were invalid as they were inadvertent duplicates of respondents. Additionally, one was a recording only, with no written answers. Of the 204 valid written responses (N=204), only 100 respondents (49%) also recorded themselves singing a CCS unaccompanied. Of those 100 recordings, six were blank, two were duplicates, and one was recorded in a way that rendered it unrecognisable. Thus, 91 identifiable recordings (R=91) linked to specific survey respondents were acquired. Promotion through my Facebook pages, and associated group pages, Alphacrucis College’s website, Facebook page and student Moodle portals (Higher Education and Vocational Education and Training), as well as at Alphacrucis College’s chapel services provided a diverse group of participants demographically and denominationally. Before proceeding to the results, an explanation of the disparity between participant written responses and audio-recorded responses is warranted. Resistance and fear were evident in the often impassioned responses to my request for people to record themselves singing. Potential participants expressed their extreme discomfort with the idea of recording themselves singing through email, personal conversations, and on the survey itself. Such responses are not uncommon, as Pascale’s research into the self-­ confessed “non-singer” demonstrates (2005, 2013). Some examples of this correspondence are below; all quotes in this chapter are reproduced as written by participants, including spelling and grammatical errors. Sorry I can’t sing and would be no help to you!!!! Wish I could. (Janice, 23/04/14—email) I freaked out at the request that would involve me singing and I just can’t do it. Sorry Daniel this is the hardest thing you could ask of me, I am tone deaf. (Debbie, 22/04/14—email)

6  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: INDIVIDUALLY… 

91

I have passed on your survey to my church friends, and also posted on my FB [Facebook] page. Some people are expressing apprehension at recording themselves singing. (John 29/04/14—email) I really don’t want to sing, sorry. (anonymous, 14/05/14—survey respondent) You had me in until I read I had to sing. (Louise, 02/07/14—Facebook)

As Pascale discovered, while people may say they can’t sing, they often will and do sing given the right context (2005, 168); similarly, these responses should not be interpreted as people who refuse to engage in musical worship entirely. Here, however, they were asked to sing unaccompanied which undoubtedly added to their anxiety; untrained singers in modern church contexts are generally only asked to sing with musical accompaniment and in the throng of other voices. This current practice, of course, is in contrast to the unaccompanied singing of Christians for many centuries of the early church. This visceral fear significantly reduced the number of those who were willing to participate in the survey at all, let alone those willing to record themselves singing. Anecdotally, there were also some issues with the survey tool itself. The embedded recorder in the online survey, provided by Evoca, was Adobe Flash-based. Apple Macs, iPhones, and iPads do not support any Flash-based software, which has been an ongoing and very public controversy (Jobs 2010; Richmond 2010), leading to its current extinction across almost all browsers. However, even in 2014, participant 01/04/2014a said, “I couldn’t get the Adobe … [recorder] to work so I have recorded the snippet and will email to you.” Thus, those who were willing to complete the audio recording part of the survey on such devices were only able to do so by ringing the optional automated telephone voice recorder. Thirty-eight per cent of recordings (R=38) were supplied via that automated telephone service, a significant number considering the extra step of a phone call that was required. Participants were asked about their musical training, if any, and 68% of participants (N=138) did have some musical training. Of those, 46% had training in piano (N=63), 36% in voice (N=49), and 30% in guitar (N=41) and a scattering of other instruments including drums, bass, flute, clarinet, French horn, tenor horn, cornet, and ukulele. Fifty-three per cent (N=73) of participants with musical training did not record themselves singing,

92 

D. THORNTON

while 65% (N=26) of those without musical training did not record. In other words, those with musical training were more likely to record themselves singing for the survey than those without. While the difference is not compelling, it is consistent with expectations; musical training often involves performance experience—local concerts, exams, competitions, church bands—which would arguably make people more comfortable with the perceived exposure that recording facilitates. It was thought that perhaps those who listed ‘vocals’ in their musical training might have recorded more than those with other musical training, however, it was a comparable percentage (51%) to those with other musical training. Put another way, vocal training did not indicate a significant increase in participants’ confidence or commitment to record, even though vocal training often requires one to sing with little or no accompaniment, whether for one’s teacher or for oneself during personal practice. Of the participants, 72% (N=147) admitted to being a part of a church worship team presently or in the past. Such a statistic suggests at least two possibilities. First, many of this researcher’s contacts are involved in some kind of worship ministry, which means, not only that those who contributed would be more likely to be involved in a worship team but also those who they forwarded the survey to would also likely be peers, friends, or colleagues who are similarly involved in (or have been involved in) a worship team. Second, the subject matter of the survey is clearly going to pique the interest of those already involved in musical worship. Therefore, although the survey was marketed well beyond worship team members, they were always more likely to contribute, as the statistic confirms. Of those who had not been part of a worship team, 54% (N=30) did not record, and 56% (N=82) who had been a part of a worship team did not record. Clearly, involvement in a worship team did not impact the percentage of contributors to the audio recording section of the survey. This was somewhat surprising given that singing or playing in front of a church congregation, that is to say, performance experience, would arguably give participants more confidence to record their voice unaccompanied. However, the data does not support such logic. This figure is reassuring though, in that the audio recordings were not unduly skewed towards those with performance experience and training, and therefore were more representative of congregations. A final statistic of interest relates to participants’ years of attending church. A similar number to those involved in a worship team, 69% (N=141) had attended church for more than 20  years. This number

6  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: INDIVIDUALLY… 

93

increases to 89% (N=182) for those attending church for 11 years or more. Of the respondents involved in church for 10 years or less (N=20), 65% (N=13) did not record compared to the 50% (N=91) of participants who had been in church for 11  years or more. These statistics indicate that those who have sung together in churches for many years were more likely to record than those who are newer to corporate worship. Of course, respondents with 11 or more years in church were almost ten times the number of other respondents. Thus, established Christians were the overwhelming majority of contributors. This is one of the areas where the NCLS data provides a helpful counterbalance. Anyone attending church on the day the NCLS survey was distributed filled it out, which means there is a broader cross-section of participants. The comparative participant details are outlined in the NCLS analysis section in the following chapter. Those under the age of 50 years represented 75% of the respondents. Of those, 26% were under 30 years old, 22% were 30–39 years, and 31% were 40–49  years old. This is in stark contrast to the demographics of Australian churches, where 60% of congregants are over the age of 50 (Mollidor et al. 2013, 3). However, it is a much closer statistic to 63% of congregants under the age of 45 years in the ACC/AOG (Powell 2008, 17). Moreover, the same paper by Powell indicated that 63% of those under 45 years (Gen Y and Gen X) preferred contemporary styles of worship (CCS), a mirror image of the 63% of those 45 years and older who preferred traditional styles of worship (hymns) (ibid., 15). Participants of the online survey were denominationally diverse, including Anglican, Australian Christian Churches (ACC), Baptist, C3, Church of Christ, Independent, Presbyterian, Salvation Army, and Vineyard. Eightythree different local churches were represented. Thirty-one per cent of the respondents (N=64) were from only three churches: Hawkesbury Church1 (N=25), North Shore Christian Centre2 (N=22), and Hillsong Church (N=17). These three churches are a part of the ACC denomination, and all of them are in the Sydney metropolitan area, NSW, Australia. Despite these elements of homogeneity, they have quite different congregation sizes (Hillsong—over 30,000; North Shore Christian Centre—c.800;

1  Now called Strong Nation Church. However, I will use the church names that were current at the time the research was conducted. 2  Now called LifeSource Church.

94 

D. THORNTON

Hawkesbury Church—c.400) and different musical resources and musical priorities. Without diminishing the significant contribution from congregants of the three above-mentioned churches, 69% (N=140) were from 80 other churches across six different Australian states (Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia). Urban, suburban, and rural churches were represented. Thus, even with the modest sample size, there was a valuable cross-section of Christians engaged with CCS, providing unique esthesic insights for this investigation, which are detailed in the following section.

The Individual’s Perspective and their Voice Participants proposed 113 different songs they intended to sing in the vocal recording section. The three most common songs were “Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)”, “10,000 Reasons”, and “Amazing Grace”, all of which are in the most sung CCS list. There was not a discernible weight towards particular CCS from particular age brackets. For example, for those over the age of 50, choices spanned the gamut of congregational songs—from hymns like “Amazing Grace”, “Glory Glory Hallelujah” (1861), “Great Is Thy Faithfulness” (1923), and “What a Friend We Have in Jesus” (1855) to older ‘choruses’, such as “Holy Ground” (1983), to current ‘classics’ like “Shout to the Lord”, “Here I Am to Worship”, and “In Christ Alone”, to quite recent CCS “Oceans”, “Limitless” (2011), and “10,000 Reasons”. For those under 18 years of age, the choices were also not always generationally aligned, for example, “In Christ Alone” and “I Love You Lord” (1978, 1980) were included by this demographic. There does not appear to be a correlation between age and song preference from this survey. The results of this survey suggest that Christians have a very personal and individual connection with CCS, despite the push of the CCS industry for products to be delineated along generational lines. Hillsong, for example, divides its CCS across three generational spheres, Young and Free for youth, Hillsong United for young adults, or the young at heart, and Hillsong Live, for the broader (read older) church. In fact, the breadth of congregational songs was quite remarkable. Fourteen songs from the representative list were selected. There may well have been more; however, 13 songs on the currently most sung CCS list had not been written at the time of the survey. Additionally, some songs on the globally most sung list had not had the same impact on Australian

6  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: INDIVIDUALLY… 

95

churches, and thus, would have been less familiar to the Australian participants. While there were some similarities in song choice, a high degree of individualism was evident, despite the limited pool of songs that are sung together at local church gatherings. In all, 89 different songs were sung (or proposed to be sung), with 24 songs duplicated by multiple participants. In other words, 44% (N=89) of participants chose different songs to any other participant. Participants were also asked if there were other ‘church songs’ they would consider recording; 207 different songs were proposed. The most common songs were “Amazing Grace” and “Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)”, followed by “Shout to the Lord”, “10,000 Reasons”, “How Great Is Our God”, and “Cornerstone”. All of these are in the most sung CCS list; thus, participants were more predictable in their alternate CCS choice. More recent CCS were also featured by participants, including “Alive”, “Forever”, “Sinking Deep”, and “Wake”, all from the 2013 Hillsong’s Young and Free album. At the time of the survey, those songs had not yet had a chance to become prominent in CCLI charts. Christians generally sing CCS with some kind of accompaniment, at church services, or with other Christians in smaller group settings, or perhaps by themselves with audio from media devices. In light of this, participants were asked if they would have chosen a different song to sing if accompanied. Only 13% (N=27) said they would choose a different song, and many of the songs they proposed, surprisingly, were those that others felt quite at ease singing unaccompanied (e.g., “Oceans”, “Shout to the Lord”, and “Jesus Lover of My Soul”). Clearly, whether accompanied or not, Christians like to sing songs they feel they can sing and no doubt do find themselves singing outside of liturgical settings. This point is worth emphasising. No matter how exceptional (or average) the accompanying music is, Christians choose to sing songs (when they have the choice) that they consider singable. This is consistent with Adnams’ research identifying reasons behind specific CCS choice (Adnams 2008, 79–80). As mentioned, three churches contributed 31% of the respondents. The song choice data discussed above so far supports the argument that respondents from diverse churches record diverse songs. But, what about those from the same church? Respondents from the same church also sang a remarkably diverse repertoire. Three people from Hawkesbury Church chose “Oceans”, but that was the only duplicate. From North Shore Christian Centre, three chose “In Christ Alone”, another two chose “Amazing Grace”, “Here I Am to Worship”, or “Shout to the Lord”.

96 

D. THORNTON

Finally, from Hillsong, two chose “Amazing Grace”. Clearly, even though churches have limited lists of songs they are currently singing, and sing repetitively, when individuals are given the freedom, the CCS they resonate with are quite individually conceived. People may enthusiastically engage in the limited set of songs in corporate worship, but individuals maintain their individuality in worship music preferences when they are not otherwise directed. This is an important point which needs emphasising. It is guaranteed that the songs sung on any given Sunday in a local church service are not the first preference of many congregation members. Nevertheless, as the NCLS data will confirm, Christians often willingly put at least some of their musical preferences aside for the sake of the worshipping community. In esthesic terms, meaning-making for those who engage with CCS is bifurcated between CCS listened to, engaged with, perhaps sung or hummed consciously or subconsciously in a personal, private setting, and CCS engaged with in a congregational setting. Both are meaningful to the Christian, but not utilising the same criteria. In terms of the most memorable parts of the chosen CCS, 57% (R=52) started at the beginning of the song, even though this was often the first Verse, that is to say, a wordier part of the song, and potentially a less engaging part of the song melodically. Yet, clearly, when people thought about particular songs, over half the time their minds initially went to the place the song would normally start. Despite the more recognisable hooks from many of these songs being in the Chorus or Bridge, people have perhaps been conditioned to think of them in their standard forms. It is also possible that the request to sing a CCS was interpreted by some participants as a request to sing that song from the beginning. The Chorus was the next most common place to start in the recordings at 29% (R=26). While there were a few unknown starting points for obscure songs, and the occasional Pre-Chorus or Bridge, a significant majority (86%; R=78) of participants either started at the beginning of the song or started at the beginning of the Chorus. As such, these two structural points represent the dominant memory anchor points for CCS. Mishra (2010), building on the work of Crowder and Greene (2000), similarly found that musical memory was most reliable at structural boundaries of musical works, for example, the start of a song. The gender proportions for those who recorded were 66% (R=60) females and 34% (R=31) males. As has already been noted, this is similar to the gender percentages in Australian Pentecostal churches. The vocal range for females spanned an impressive C#3 to F5 (two octaves and a

6  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: INDIVIDUALLY… 

97

major third). For the males, it was a more modest G2 to E4 (one octave and major sixth). No key was imposed on the singers, this was their ‘natural’ range; in other words, there was no evidence that people intentionally tried to sing outside what was comfortable for them. As Chap. 8 will reveal, the vocal range across all representative CCS was F3–Bb5 (two octaves and a Perfect 4th) (male ranges adjusted +8ve to match notated lead sheets) which seemed like a rather large range for congregational singing; however, it is comparable to the actual vocal recordings. The official recorded versions admittedly utilise a Perfect 4th above the top note recorded by participants; however, the participants had no musical accompaniment, and thus no support or volume to attempt higher notes. Redman confirms this idea, stating in his interview (Chap. 4), that singing in higher registers is something he reserves for large, loud gatherings. There are a few points to be made here. First, according to the data, there is no single vocal range (and by extension key signature) that suits an entire congregation. Therefore, the perpetual arguments to ‘find a congregationally singable key’ for CCS are specious. Conversely, the discrete ranges that participants used were diverse, from as small as an M3rd to a P11th. Of the 88 identifiable ranges, 24% (r=21) utilised a P8ve, and 51% (r=45) of participants utilised ranges of less than an octave. Thus, 75% of participants sang with the range of an octave or less. The irony is that 28 (88%) of the most sung CCS had a range of an octave or larger. In the case of the recordings, the only reason participants sang a range greater than an octave was because of the choice of song. For example, the Chorus of “10,000 Reasons” spans a P10th, and “In Christ Alone” and “Blessed Be Your Name” both span a P11th. Apparently, if a song is compelling enough—and clearly, the 32 most sung songs are—a larger range can be demanded of the singer. However, based on the data, when singing unaccompanied, people prefer ranges of an octave or less, which, while not unpredictable, does pose an interesting conundrum for defining effective CCS writing. One final observation regarding the chosen recording range of participants is worth exploring. With ranges adjusted for the octave difference in male/female vocal registers, B3–F4 was the most shared vocal register (at least 67% of the time). As the trace analysis will reveal (Chap. 8), while A4 is the Pitch Centre of Gravity (PCG), the most sung pitch, of the CCS list, B4 and C5 are the next most prominent. Even though these are an octave transposition of two of the most sung pitches in the recordings, it demonstrates a consistency with the genre analysis, in that females clearly could

98 

D. THORNTON

(and often would) sing these notes down an octave, and men would sing them in their respective register, that is to say, B3/C4. This tessitura is apparently significant for the CCS genre. Moreover, at least 11 CCS from the list have sections, most often Choruses or Bridges, which share this range (in one of its octave variations): “Blessed Be Your Name” (C#5— E#5), “Build My Life” (C5—G5), “Cornerstone” (C4—G4/C5—G5), “Holy Spirit” (D4—F#4), “How Great Thou Art” (D4—G4), “Mighty to Save” (B4—E5), “Lord I Need You” (B3—F#4), “O Come to the Altar” (B4—F#5), “O Praise the Name (Anástasis)” (C5—F5), “The Lion and the Lamb” (B4 – F#5), and “This I Believe (The Creed)” (C5—G5). C4 was also the most common lowest note of recorded participants’ ranges (occurring 13 times), indicating even more significance to this particular registral focal point. There is evidently something about this shared male and female melodic range (B4—F3) that is significant in the reproduction of communal songs, at least at this point in the genre’s evolution. Participants chose to sing in a variety of keys; 12 in C Major, 10 in F Major, 8 in Ab, B, D, and Eb Majors. It is interesting that with no external pitch support, the majority of people should naturally sing in C Major, the simplest written key, having no sharps or flats, and that the next most sung key should also be a white-note key (F Major) with only one black note (Bb). However, pressed any further, the analysis does not reveal a consistent preference for simple white-note keys, given the presence of Ab and Eb Majors and the lack of, for example, G Major. Furthermore, there was no correlation of certain keys to those trained in piano or guitar nor was it to those musically trained or otherwise. Nevertheless C, F, and D Majors did occur 34% of the time, notwithstanding the fact that some participants strayed ‘out of tune’ during their recordings. Recordings were imported into the digital audio workstation (DAW), Cubase. Cubase’s VariAudio pitch-detection tool was used to identify the notes sung, and how close they were to the standard frequencies assigned to notes of the chromatic scale. Intervallic relationships were then analysed utilising both the VariAudio data and confirmed through an aural analysis. Fifty-six participants (64%) performed accurate intervallic reproductions of their chosen song, that is to say, they sang ‘in tune’. Of those, 79% (R=44) were musically trained, which was 11% higher than the overall indication of musical training from participants. Unsurprising, but still worth stating, musical training contributed to increased intervallic accuracy. Another 17% (R=15) were mostly accurate. The remaining participants were not entirely inaccurate, but rather went progressively sharp or

6  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: INDIVIDUALLY… 

99

flat over the course of the recording or shifted keys when they realised they could not reach the highest or lowest notes of their chosen song. While one extrapolation of this data might suggest that Christians are relatively competent vocalists, and such a notion should not be entirely dismissed, a more likely conclusion is that people only recorded a song when they felt they could perform a reasonable reproduction of it. There was only one person who spoke the words, rather than singing them, and another who started the first note and then stopped and did not record any further. A mandatory recording would have provided more data; however, it equally would have deterred more participants. Nevertheless, the recordings are still demonstrably valuable in indicating Christians’ ability to reproduce CCS. Apart from the musical elements of the recordings, whether participants were able to reproduce the lyrics was also an important consideration; and overwhelmingly they were. Ninety-three per cent (R=82/88) sang the correct lyrics of the portions of songs they sang. However, they only sang the portion of the song they chose, and it was evident that up to a dozen of the recordings ended quite abruptly (before lyric phrases had been completed), possibly indicating they had arrived at a point of uncertainty in the lyrics. These observations again confirm the research of Mishra (2010) and Crowder and Greene (2000) regarding the most likely points for accurate lyric recall or lyric recall failure.

Why Christians Connect with Certain Songs One of the most important esthesic questions in the survey was why participants chose the songs they did. It was an open question, rather than a multiple choice or list, to elicit undirected responses that would shed light on the complex “semiotic web of music and extra-musical associations” (DeNora 2000, 61) with which Christians engage with particular CCS. The answers were diverse, but certain themes clearly emerged, the strongest by far being that people sang songs they ‘like’: I like it. I love singing about Jesus. (31/03/2014a) I like the words … I like the tune. (31/03/2014d) I like it. (06/04/2014b)

100 

D. THORNTON

I loved the song as soon as I heard it. (09/04/2014) I like it. an oldie but a goodie. (19/04/2014a) I love this song. (22/04/2014) I love the words and the music. (26/04/2014)

Although the opportunity did not exist to dig beneath these often cursory comments to explore what it was specifically about the song that they liked/loved, some hint may be found in other comments. For example, sometimes connections to songs had been made during significant life-moments. …It is also a sentimental song for me, sang in weddings/funerals of loved ones. (22/04/14) favourite sung at my wedding. (30/04/2014) I associate it with a significant challenge in my life. (04/05/2014) Currently what I’d consider a “well” song … it is refreshing through difficult times, and encouraging through new adventures I’m about to embark upon. (09/05/2014) This song has always helped me through the storms, and knowing I can trust God and be still reminds me he is always there. (14/05/2014b) This song has resonated naturally within me and sits echoes in my heart and mind. It played on video when kids were young and I played it on guitar. (26/09/2014f) because i sang it at my nanas funeral and she was the only other christian in my family and i loved her a lot. (15/08/2014b)

This is consistent with Levitin’s findings that “we tend to remember things that have an emotional component because our amygdala and neurotransmitters act in concert to ‘tag’ the memories as something important” (emphasis added) (Levitin 2011, 231). Thus, when participants speak of “difficult times” or “significant challenge” or special moments like weddings or time with young children, they are communicating the connection mechanism to these songs. The brain is actively glueing the music and these emotional experiences together.

6  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: INDIVIDUALLY… 

101

Another point of connection to CCS, as one might expect, are the song’s lyrics. As mentioned above, a small percentage (7%; R=6/88) of participants made errors in the words they sang. Where such errors occurred, it often seemed to be a momentary memory lapse, as a participant faltered midsong, or laughed nervously and self-consciously struggled through a lyric phrase. Nevertheless, overwhelmingly, participants not only knew the lyrics but recognised them as a significant connection point to the song: Easy to remember words of song. (31/03/2014b) I like the words, because it describes what God has done for me and the reason for my worship. (31/03/2014d) Lyrics inspiring and love tune. (22/04/2014e) The song is just about the lyrics… (23/04/2014) I know all the lyrics … I like the words of declaration in the chorus. (26/04/2014) These lyrics are meaningful and it [is] like talking to God in Psalms. (28/04/2014c) It keeps speaking to me, the lyrics are very profound. (25/06/2014b) I love it … it is catchy simple lyrics which I can remember easily especially I am really bad memorising lyrics. (26/06/2014b)

There is a link between meaningful lyrics and memorable lyrics when it comes to songs Christians chose to sing. Meaningful lyrics are not necessarily reproducible. Memorable lyrics aid in reproduction, however, if they were not also meaningful, they would not have been chosen. Effective CCS apparently combine these two features in their lyrics; being both meaningful and memorable, a fundamental component to the definition of the CCS genre. As one participant put it: “I know 30s [seconds] worth of the words without the prompting of the music/words [and] I sing it a lot when I am at work, it was a song from when I was first saved” (04/07/2014a). In his investigation of Hillsong London, Wagner summarising King and Prior (2013) notes the additional feature of pleasure in memorable lyrics:

102 

D. THORNTON

[W]orship songs commonly feature easily sung, memorable melodies and lyrics that are projected above the stage. Simply put, a participant whose head is buried in a book, trying to comprehend unfamiliar text, will be less likely to have the intellectual, emotional or physical freedom necessary to engage with worship in the manner needed to achieve transcendence. The fact that the music is easily remembered is important because familiarity with and the pleasure derived from listening to music are often linked. (Wagner 2013, 110)

Wagner’s research supports the findings here. Participants derive pleasure from (like/love) their chosen CCS, and they find the lyrics memorable, to which this research adds that they also find them meaningful. Theology in lyrics, which relates to meaning, was also raised as a significant factor in the choice of song for some participants: The lyrics of this song are very powerful and feels like a declaration of the strength and hope there is in Christ Jesus. The song builds beautifully and is support the lyrics in their meaning. (09/07/2014a) A simple song yet still declares my faith and a conscious decision to follow Christ no matter. (09/07/2014c) It’s a song of victory, an easy song to sing. When facing difficult times we can remind ourselves that Our God Is Greater than any of our circumstances. (13/07/2014) Because I love it! I love the imagery of the Church as the Bride. (01/09/2014) I love how scripture-based the song is. (26/09/2014b)

Songs that focus on salvation are important to this genre, as reinforced from the esthesic data. Furthermore, although across the genre there is more lyrical focus on the Godhead than on the singer(s), people tended to describe their theological connections in possessive (individual or communal) terms—for example “declares my faith” or “we can remind ourselves that Our God Is Greater”. Some participants spoke of the intangible, spiritual connections to songs. They often phrased it in Pentecostal notions of ‘the anointing’ or of ‘God’s presence’:

6  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: INDIVIDUALLY… 

103

The spirit of God is all over it. (03/07/2014a) Ministers to me. (03/07/2014e) It immediately draws me to my God space. (04/07/2014d) Because the song lift my spirit up. (06/07/2014) ‘The Creed’ is a really anointed song. (30/07/2014) Because I always find myself coming closer to God when singing them. (02/09/2014a) The anointing was strongly felt when listening to this song even for the first time. (26/09/2014a) It captivates my soul, I connect with the Lord almighty. (28/09/2014i)

Evans, aware of the Pentecostal tendency to orient worship around such intangibles, states: Theology aside, one of the dangers of basing corporate worship around concepts of the anointing is the focus on subjective models of experience. That is, should the participant fail to experience God’s anointing within the church service then they may feel failed. Likewise, the leadership team might consider the congregational meeting a failure due to the lack of the Spirit’s anointing over the meeting. Ever so subtly, the time of corporate worship becomes works based. People are striving to attain, or provide, the anointing experience. (Evans 2006, 127)

This is a pertinent observation, yet while people experience CCS as beyond the ‘natural’, and their connection is made to the songs at a subconscious or spiritual level, concepts like the anointing will persist, theological considerations aside. If this is indeed the esthesic individual reception and cognition towards CCS, why should it not be used in the discussion of the genre? If speaking of the anointing facilitates an increased understanding of people’s engagement with CCS, then it is useful, albeit equivocal and subjective. Faulkner similarly wrestles with the intersections of music, spirit, and emotion: [T]he experience of the numinous is fundamentally emotional and nonrational. The primary significance of music as a response to the numinous is also in its most primal manifestation emotional and nonrational. (Faulkner 2012, 8)

104 

D. THORNTON

One of the fundamental alignments between music and spiritual (particularly, Western Pentecostal) experience is that they both have a significant emotional and subjective component. There were also less ‘spiritual’ reasons for song choice. The responses below reveal that it was often catchy songs that prevailed. Because it is one that goes through my head in the car, in the shower etc. quite often and has done so for the past couple of years. (27/06/2014b) 1) 1st one that came to mind, 2) has been “going round and round in my head” lately. (27/06/2014c) It was in my head when I clicked on the survey. (07/07/2014a) I’ve been listening to it lately, and it was the first one that came to my head. (08/07/2014b) It’s what I find myself humming at the moment. (24/07/2014) I find myself singing it in the queue at the supermarket, and while I’m doing other things. (07/08/2014b) It comes into my memory, sometimes I feel the song singing within me then I sing along. (11/08/2014a)

These last three comments, and the many others like them, confirm that CCS are not only songs sung at public Christian gatherings but songs that involuntarily stick in the minds (wordless or not), and thus become the personal meditation of Christians (Hall 2006, 326). These earworms, or involuntary musical imagery (INMI) as the phrase coined in recent literature (Beaman and Williams 2010; Halpern and Bartlett 2011; Williamson and Jilka 2014; Williamson et al. 2012), now have a body of qualitative and quantitative research confirming their commonality, repetitive frequency, and usual connection with the ‘familiar’. Of note is Williamson et al. (2012) who found that recent exposure and ‘triggers’ or associations were key to the occurrence and content of INMI. Thus, the request to record a ‘church song’ would be a trigger for a song recently heard/sung, as opposed to, for example, the request to record the ‘church song’ that has most significantly impacted them over the course of their life. This important aspect of CCS will be revisited in the trace analysis of Chap. 8 from the complementary perspective of the texts. While many factors mentioned above may contribute to a song’s singability, 21% (N=42) of participants noted singability (often with different

6  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: INDIVIDUALLY… 

105

terminology) as a key feature of CCS with which they connected. This is a common refrain: participants, pastors, and scholars identify singability as a vital factor for effective CCS (Adnams 2008, 78–79; Corbitt 1998, 285; Hughes 2014; Redman 2014; Wagner 2013, 110; Wilson-Dickson 1992, 187; Zschech 2015). Neto adds memorability to singability as important concomitant features of CCS (2010). However, clearly, from an esthesic perspective, there is a wide diversity of judgement on what singable means. What is clear is that from a local congregation’s perspective, CCS can only be successful if enough people consider them singable. If not, people do not sing or otherwise engage with the song; it is perceived as unsuccessful. This paradigm has already emerged from the interviews with the writers/ worship leaders and is reinforced here. A few respondents connected the significance of their chosen CCS with a specific writer, worship leader, or event: Because it is from Martin Smith and he is a great worshipper. (14/05/2014k) My favourite at the moment! From Colour [Hillsong Women’s Conference] last year. (25/03/2014) I also saw the original artists - Keith and Kristyn Getty - perform this live at church in the USA. (04/05/2014)

Brands like Hillsong, Redman, and Tomlin carry weight in the acceptance and proliferation of CCS.  As affirmed in previous chapters, songs can be initially launched into prominence on the reputation and momentum of well-known writers/producers/artists. However, apparently, participants’ highest rationale for songs was in aspects other than who wrote/ produced/performed them. Of course, even if this is the case, would they have otherwise heard these songs, and thus liked them for the reasons they state, unless they were promoted through the platforms of prominent CCS producers? To summarise, people engage with CCS for diverse reasons, but the overriding themes can be identified and divided into four broad categories. First, some connect to a song through significant life events, especially emotional ones. Second, people connect to a song because of the lyrics, whether due to their memorability or their personal or theological significance. Third, people connect to a song because of certain musical elements because they are catchy: they get stuck in the person’s head. Finally, sometimes people are aware that their connection to a song lies in

106 

D. THORNTON

its extra-musical associations; the event they went to, the artist they heard or met, or the reputation of a writer/worship leader. Extra-musical associations for CCS might also include the spiritual elements of the song, whereby people feel that particular CCS uniquely and profoundly connect them with God. That there is some connection between Christians and CCS is unsurprising as numerous scholars have observed. Approaching this topic from a media ecology perspective, Gordon surmises that unless individuals choose to listen to an alternative musical style or styles, they are predominantly subjected to the surrounding style of ‘pop’ (2010). Thus, the cultural gatekeepers essentially groom us to prefer popular music unless we have had significant alternative influences or have consciously chosen to reject that grooming. Ingersoll suggests a more socio-historical approach, identifying Baby Boomers as “the first Americans to grow up with popular music as a continual backdrop to their lives” (Ingersoll 2001, 122). As Morgenthaler discovered, the logical extrapolation is for that generation’s general musical preferences to impact their preferred worship styles (1998). The contribution that this study brings to the dialectic is not regarding the general orientation of Christians towards CCS but the specific links that Christians themselves identify as connecting them to CCS.

Bibliography Adnams, Gordon. 2008. The Experience of Congregational Singing: An Ethno-­ Phenomenological Approach. Edmonton: University of Alberta. Beaman, C. Philip, and Tim I. Williams. 2010. Earworms (Stuck Song Syndrome): Towards a Natural History of Intrusive Thoughts. British Journal of Psychology 101 (4): 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X479636. Corbitt, J. Nathan. 1998. The Sound of the Harvest: Music’s Mission in Church and Culture. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Crowder, Robert G., and Robert L. Greene. 2000. Serial Learning: Cognition and Behavior. In The Oxford Handbook of Memory, ed. Endel Tulving, 125–135. Oxford University Press. DeNora, Tia. 2000. Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, Mark. 2006. Open Up the Doors: Music in the Modern Church. London: Equinox Publishing Limited. Faulkner, Quentin. 2012. Wiser Than Despair. Religious Affections Ministries. Gordon, T. David. 2010. Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing Company.

6  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: INDIVIDUALLY… 

107

Hall, Margaret. 2006. Today’s Song for Tomorrow’s Church: The Role Played by Contemporary Popular Music in Attracting Young People to Join the Church. PhD., Queensland: Griffith University. Halpern, Andrea R., and James C.  Bartlett. 2011. The Persistence of Musical Memories: A Descriptive Study of Earworms. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 28 (4): 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1525/ mp.2011.28.4.425. Hughes, Tim. 2014. Personal Interview for poietic analysis of CCS. Audio recording. Ingalls, Monique M., and Amos Yong, eds. 2015. The Spirit of Praise: Music and Worship in Global Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity. University Park: Penn State University Press. Ingersoll, Julie. 2001. Contemporary Christian Worship Music. In Religions of the United States in Practice, ed. Colleen McDannell, vol. 2, 121–130. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jobs, Steve. 2010. Thoughts on Flash, April. http://www.apple.com/hotnews/ thoughts-on-flash/ Levitin, Daniel J. 2011. This Is Your Brain on Music: Understanding a Human Obsession. Limited: Atlantic Books. Mishra, Jennifer. 2010. Effects of Structure and Serial Position on Memory Errors in Musical Performance. Psychology of Music 38 (4): 447–461. https://doi. org/10.1177/0305735609351919. Mollidor, Claudia, Ruth Powell, Miriam Pepper, and Nicole Hancock. 2013. Comparing Church and Community: A Demographic Profile. NCLS Research. http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=7161 Morgenthaler, Sally. 1998. Worship Evangelism: Inviting Unbelievers Into the Presence of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Nekola, Anna, and Tom Wagner, eds. 2015. Congregational Music-Making and Community in a Mediated Age. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/ Congregational-Music-Making-and-Community-in-a-Mediated-Age/NekolaWagner/p/book/9781138569010 Neto, Leon. 2010. Contemporary Christian Music and the ‘Praise and Worship’ Style. Journal of Singing 67 (2): 195–200. Pascale, Louise M. 2005. Dispelling the Myth of the Non-Singer: Embracing Two Aesthetics for Singing. Philosophy of Music Education Review 13 (2): 165–175. Pascale, Louise. 2013. ‘I’m Really NOT a Singer’: Examining the Meaning of the Word Singer and Non-Singer and the Relationship Their Meaning Holds in Providing a Musical Education to Schools. The Phenomenon of Singing 3: 164–170. Pepper, Miriam, Sam Sterland, and Ruth Powell. 2015. Methodological Overview of the Study of Well-Being through the Australian National Church Life Survey. Mental Health, Religion & Culture 18 (1): 8–19. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13674676.2015.1009717.

108 

D. THORNTON

Powell, Ruth. 2008. Australian Church Health & Generational Differences. NCLS. Redman, Matt. 2014. Personal interview for poietic analysis of CCS. Audio recording. Richmond, Shane. 2010. Adobe Hits Back at Apple’s ‘Smokescreen.’ Technology – Telegraph Blogs (blog). April 30. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/ shanerichmond/100005034/adobe-hits-back-at-apples-smokescreen/ Wagner, Thomas J. 2013. Hearing the Hillsong Sound: Music, Marketing, Meaning and Branded Spiritual Experience at a Transnational Megachurch. Royal Holloway University of London. http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/ files/19680902/2014wagnertphd.pdf Williamson, Victoria J., and Sagar R.  Jilka. 2014. Experiencing Earworms: An Interview Study of Involuntary Musical Imagery. Psychology of Music 42 (5): 653–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735613483848. Williamson, Victoria J., Sagar R.  Jilka, Joshua Fry, Sebastian Finkel, Daniel Müllensiefen, and Lauren Stewart. 2012. How Do ‘Earworms’ Start? Classifying the Everyday Circumstances of Involuntary Musical Imagery. Psychology of Music 40 (3): 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0305735611418553. Wilson-Dickson, Andrew. 1992. The Story of Christian Music: From Gregorian Chant to Black Gospel: An Authoritative Illustrated Guide to All the Major Traditions of Music for Worship. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Zschech, Darlene. 2015. Personal interview for Poietic Analysis of CCS. Email.

CHAPTER 7

How Christians Feel About the Songs They Sing: Corporately (Esthesic Analysis Pt 2)

Australia’s National Church Life Surveys The NCLS Attender C survey in 2011 asked 85 questions of 1392 attendees (N=1392) of Australian churches. Questions cover basic information about participants, including birth year, gender, denominational affiliation, level of education, marital status, domestic address, and employment status. They also initially covered questions relating to the attendees’ relationship to the church where the survey was completed. The survey then divided its questions under the following broad themes: “About Your Faith” Q19–22, “About You and This Church” Q23–34, “Leadership and Direction” Q35–41, “Your Views About Worship” Q42–67, “Your Religious Practices” Q68–78, “Your Religious Knowledge” Q78–84, and “About your children” Q85. The data purchased for this research related to those specific questions that dealt with attendees’ engagement with and attitude towards corporate worship. These included questions 42–47, 52, and 62–67. NCLS does not qualify the questions it sets. While this prevents the survey from being too prescriptive and allows personal interpretation, it also means there is no accompanying data to ascertain an individual’s definitions. For some of the equivocal terms NCLS chooses to employ in various questions, this can be problematic. Nevertheless, answers to each of these questions provide insight into congregational engagement with corporate and musical worship. Furthermore, filtering it through CCLI © The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9_7

109

110 

D. THORNTON

denominational data brings a sharper focus to congregational engagement with CCS. Pentecostal churches, for example, overwhelmingly sing CCS, therefore NCLS survey respondents from Pentecostal denominations are answering those questions from the perspective of CCS-oriented worship environments. In fact, of the eight broad denominational categories identified by NCLS, only Pentecostals and Baptists/Churches of Christ (in Australia) predominantly utilised CCS in their corporate worship. This represents only 23% (N=314) of respondents, thus limiting the usefulness of analysing the complete dataset. Almost half the respondents to the NCLS Attender C survey were Catholic, a denomination that, as previously mentioned, only occasionally features CCS. Only 12% of Australian Catholic congregations have a CCLI licence (Christian Copyright Licensing International Pty Ltd 2013) enabling them to legally use CCS, which, of course, does not mean those churches are only utilising CCS, nor even predominantly using them, only that they are licensed to use them. Alongside the other mainline denominations, analysing the whole of the NCLS Attender C data would skew the results away from CCS and towards older liturgical forms which is unhelpful to this research. The “age compressed” statistics indicate that 61% (N=835) of respondents were over 50  years or older. Yet, of those attending Pentecostal churches, only 32% (N=53/167) of respondents were over the age of 50 years. Again, this disparity of demography among denominations was noted. To ensure that the focus remains on CCS, and not on more traditional musical worship forms, the following analysis is undertaken only of those identified denominations that employ CCS over other congregational song types (Pentecostals and Baptists/Church of Christ; N=314).

What Gathered Worshippers Really Think Question 43 explores worship style preferences with the descriptors of “Enthusiastic/energetic” or “Quiet/reflective”, which is not as binary as it may first appear. It was worded as, “While both may be important to you, which do you most prefer?” Thus, the answers do not reveal the degree to which participants preferred one over the other. Moreover, given the typical balance between faster and slower songs in church services utilising CCS, which one might correlate to “Enthusiastic/energetic” and “Quiet/reflective”, this is quite a hard statistic to interpret. However, it is clear that whether the songs are fast or slow, at least half of the

7  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: CORPORATELY… 

111

congregation prefers that those songs be presented in a way that they might describe as “Enthusiastic/energetic”. There are certainly other ways to achieve this than musical style. Lighting, staging, visuals on the projected screens, performance craft, and even the design of the venue itself can all add energy and perceived enthusiasm to congregational worship. The ‘live’ videos of slower songs from Hillsong Church, such as “Mighty to Save”, “Hosanna”, “I Surrender”, “Beneath the Waters (I Will Rise)”, and “The Stand”, are exemplars of such techniques. When only Pentecostal church statistics are selected for this question, the preference for “Quiet/reflective” worship decreases to 22%, indicating that their musical style is substantially more “Enthusiastic/energetic” than those of Baptist and Church of Christ denominations. While it is only a matter of degrees, it equally suggests that congregants of Baptist/Church of Christ churches are looking for what they perceive as more of a balance between these contrasting options. Almost 60% of people in these churches support new worship styles, and only just over 7% resist them, or believe that others in the church resist them. The ambiguity of this question allows for either interpretation. Even the term ‘worship styles’ is equivocal. It may be interpreted as music-­ related, or in terms of broader liturgical formats of, or content in, church services. Given the context of the questions, however, it is likely that people are thinking predominantly of musical worship style when answering this question. Participants’ support of “new worship styles” is either a result of acculturation in a church community that consistently introduces new songs or the result of their choice to attend CCS-oriented churches because they are already familiar with or positive towards a perpetually renewed song list. What is clear, from the response to both questions 65 and 67 (below), is that congregations in these communities of faith predominantly affirm a progressive approach to musical worship. Congregational singing is clearly meaningful to church attenders, with only 3% stating that they do not find it so. Its significance is no doubt reinforced by its regular prominence in the services. However, it also seems to be personally meaningful to believers because of their own beliefs, values, and experiences through congregational singing. In contrast, music alone, when separated from congregational singing, is far less affirmed. Sixty-eight per cent reported it as only a somewhat (or not at all) meaningful contributor to attendees’ worship. Such a statistic supports the proposition in Chap. 2 that the term ‘song’ carries important meaning for this genre.

112 

D. THORNTON

Congregational singing and the sermon are the pre-eminent activities of gathered Christians at church services of these denominations, affirmed by participants in this survey. As noted in the introduction to this section, only selective data was purchased. The data identifying church attendees’ evaluation of other aspects of church gatherings, for example, prayer, reading of scriptures, communion was not acquired, as it was not directly relevant to attendees’ engagement with CCS.  Nevertheless, the pre-­ eminence of the sermon and congregational singing are also affirmed in other studies. For example, Robinson found that “82.1% (n69/84) of his survey respondents indicated the worship service (in this case, congregational singing) was of equal importance to the preaching of the Word (sermon). The interviewees [that Robinson additionally questioned] unanimously agreed with this finding” (2011, 179). When asking people what made services meaningful, Q52 problematically placed “contemporary worship” and “informality” together. These are only synonymous terms in certain settings, which raises the question of how to interpret the 90% who responded positively to this question. It could indicate that 90% of congregants find contemporary worship meaningful. If that is the case, then to what degree were participants also affirming their appreciation of “informality”? Furthermore, half the respondents positioned themselves in the potentially uncommitted zone of “Somewhat”. Does that mean that contemporary worship was not highly meaningful, but it was still meaningful? Or, does it mean that they were indifferent, but did not feel strongly enough against contemporary worship to enter “Not at all”? This seems to be one of NCLS’ least enlightening survey questions. Nevertheless, such statistics, when placed in the light of the rest of the survey, do give support to the idea that congregations utilising CCS in their musical worship resonate and engage with those songs. Alongside this general support of CCS, almost 65% identified “praise music/choruses” as most helpful for them in congregational worship. It should be noted though that this is a potentially unhelpful descriptor, especially given the Pentecostal proclivity to associating “praise songs” only with fast songs. Did people interpret “praise songs” as CCS, or as fast songs? Another 31% identified “other contemporary music or songs” as most helpful for them in congregational worship. Compare this to “contemporary hymns” that had 24% support, “traditional hymns” which had 25% support, and “no music at all” which had 0% support. Evidently, congregational songs of one sort or another are intrinsically linked to congregational worship in the minds of these churchgoers. Furthermore, 91%

7  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: CORPORATELY… 

113

of attendees look forward to worship and 72% specifically state worshipping God as the main reason they attend church. On a personal note, ironically, over all my years of leading worship in churches, the tardiness of people to services makes one wonder if they truly value musical worship. Nevertheless, together these findings reinforce the notion that congregational singing, as a core expression of worship, has not disappeared in a Western musical culture where many other forms of communal musicking have been professionalised or marginalised. Even across all denominations (the whole NCLS dataset), those under 50  years of age (N=534) have an orientation towards CCS.  They value congregational singing that is more energetic than quiet (43%; N=229, compared to 34%; N=182). They find contemporary music meaningful in church services (87%; N=465), and none of them (0%; N=0) want to banish liturgical music all together. They come to worship God (59%; N=315), be encouraged (25%; N=136), and they are open to innovation in worship (67%; N=357), all of which suggests evolving CCS will continue to play an influential role in church services for the foreseeable future. NCLS’ Attender C survey reveals Christians attending churches that employ CCS are highly engaged, and that they connect with the songs and their functional purpose within the congregational setting of church services. While continued development of musical styles furnishing CCS always has the potential to alienate congregants, at this point, there is a broad acceptance of the songs and their styles. The self-selection process of songs for the majority of local churches is working, in the sense that they are choosing CCS that congregants say they engage with, despite what some may observe or hear in their own local settings. It might be that those making the decisions about which CCS to use are listening to the congregation, or that they simply know their congregations well. Of course, it may also be that those who do not like the musical style employed are simply not attending, and therefore one might expect to see predominantly positive feedback. Either way, Christians are engaging meaningfully with congregational singing involving CCS. Music is not the only determining factor, nor perhaps the dominant one for church attendance; the message or sermon was also noted as important, which other studies confirm (Powell 2008). Powell’s study, also based on NCLS research, revealed nine core qualities of healthy churches, including congregations with growing faith, a strong sense of belonging and an awareness of, and commitment to, a vision. Nevertheless, the experience of “inspiration, joy, awe or mystery in worship services” featured as a key determining factor of church vitality across all age groups (ibid.).

114 

D. THORNTON

The Other NCLS Survey and What It Reveals The NCLS Operations Survey was completed by one person from each surveyed church (Total, N=2409; Pentecostal/Baptist/Church of Christ, N=611). Among the 118 questions covering a broad range of church and community variables, questions 20–30 focused on details of worship services. While CCLI data and the latest CCLI survey (Rachinski 2014) already explore details of musical intersections with local churches, the NCLS Operations Survey covers details not found elsewhere and relates directly to the Attender C survey which was conducted at the same time and with the same churches. Respondents were asked to indicate features of music, including styles and instrumentation of church services (Q23). They were asked to mark descriptive terms for their service styles, like ‘Noisy’, ‘charismatic’, or ‘Participatory’. Although church representatives were not asked how long musical worship lasted at a given service, they were asked how long the service was and how long the sermon/homily/ message was.

The Big Picture of Local Churches’ Musical Worship Across all denominations, 57% (N=1370) described their services as “Contemporary”, but only 15% (N=366) described those services as “charismatic”. “Contemporary” is arguably a much ‘safer’ descriptor than “charismatic” and less fraught with theological implications. Furthermore, some mainline denominations use the term “Contemporary” to simply denote services not following The Book of Common Prayer or equivalent; they may not include any contemporary music. Thus, the choice to analyse only Pentecostal and Baptist/Church of Christ attenders is affirmed as they described 83% (N=504) of their services as “Contemporary”, which in this case also infers contemporary music. These denominations also described their services as “charismatic” 45% (N=276) of the time, a substantial increase over the broader statistics. Seventy-six percent of Pentecostal churches considered their services “charismatic”. While one might question why this figure is not higher, it still suggests a very active and affective worship experience, as has been well documented elsewhere. In a strange contrast, however, while 43% (N=1033) of all respondents described their services as “Participatory”, which decreased to 38%

7  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: CORPORATELY… 

115

(N=233) for Pentecostal and Baptist/Church of Christ. Given the effusive, public, and engaged nature of Pentecostal worship, such a figure was initially puzzling. However, the term may have been perceived at a broader level than simply ‘singing’, in which case, it is true that many modern Pentecostal churches ‘guard’ their platforms carefully. In such scenarios, only authorised people are allowed to contribute publicly to their services from the platform, and often these are the Pastors or ‘trained’ and approved worship team or lay-people. Some have suggested that Pentecostal services are less participatory in the sense that the performance contexts can be quite concert-like (Dawn 1995; Webber 2009). However, only 3% (N=20) of Pentecostals/ Baptists/Church of Christ respondents indicated their services were “Concert-­like”. Of course, no matter what elements of popular music performance enter church, very few are likely to declare the service as “Concert-like” because it connotes a profound division between platform and pew. It infers that those in the congregation are only an audience and that they are not active worshippers or active listeners to the sermon. Such inferences are contrary to the imagery of the gathered ‘body of Christ’ as described throughout the New Testament and affirmed across evangelical doctrines, and therefore such language is likely to be rejected by the majority of respondents, however accurately descriptive it may be. Only 30% (N=92/323) of Pentecostals labelled their services as “Noisy”, despite a much larger percentage of those outside such churches likely labelling them as such. Clearly, the connotations of such a word are mostly negative. Therefore, given the choice (and they were) between describing their services as “Noisy” or describing them as “Energetic”, 67% (N=214/323) predictably chose the more positive “Energetic”. A related thought comes from Wagner’s research where one congregant of Hillsong London while choosing not to listen to much of Hillsong’s music outside of the church, valued the “volume” of the live music in church which “drowned out other voices—including her own” (Wagner 2013, 150). Volume level is a commonly contested issue inside local churches. It is popularly proposed (Lamm n.d.; Leverence 2015; Schultz 2014) that congregations are no longer singing because of the loud volume of the music. However, evidently one person’s “Noisy” is another person’s “Energetic”. Congregational singing featured in all denominations, though marginally more affirmed in the selected denominations, which indicates that a very high value is placed on congregational singing across all surveyed expressions of Christian faith. With such a highly valued component of

116 

D. THORNTON

corporate Christian faith, it is unsurprising that it engenders such a high degree of passion regarding the form (and style) that congregational singing takes. It is interesting that 60% (N=1440) of all denominations listed “Praise music/choruses” (read CCS) as contributing to their services. As expected, this increased to 83% (N=506/611) across the selected denominations. This is an indication of the prevalence of CCS in (at least Australian) Christendom, for while traditional church music still exists and thrives in certain contexts, CCS have come to permeate the landscape of corporate musical expressions of worship as asserted at the start of this book. This has affected many aspects of church services, not the least of which is the change in instrumentation accompanying such congregational song. Forty-six per cent (N=1102) of all denominations said they use drums and 64% (N=1535) listed the use of guitars. These are mainstays of popular music and have therefore accompanied popular music-oriented CCS into church settings. Among the selected denominations, these figures are predictably higher, given the greater usage of CCS: 82% (N=498) use drums, 92% (N=560) use guitars, 74% (N=449) use electrified instruments, and 96% (N=577) use visual projection, a key technological addition facilitating CCS. Across all denominations, 70% listed their services as between 1 hour and 1.5  hours, this increased to 82% for all services under 1.5  hours. Seventy-nine per cent of sermons were less than 30 minutes and 47% were less than 20 minutes. This indicates that on average only one-third of the services comprised the sermon, which means two-thirds were other elements, including musical worship. Among the selected denominations, the figures are somewhat different. Only 49% of services were under 1.5 hours; a further 49% were between 1.5 and 2 hours. Thus, on average services were longer. Equally, only 46% of sermons were less than 30 minutes; 54% of sermons were between 31 minutes and 60 minutes. Services were longer, but so was the preaching. The difficulty here is that there is a significant difference between a 31-minute sermon and a 60-minute sermon, both of which fit into the 1.5–2-hours category. Even so, the comparative proportions are not dissimilar. On average, one-third of the service is given to preaching, leaving two-thirds to all other elements. From my personal observations of now several decades (especially, within the Australian Christian Churches movement), congregational singing is

7  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: CORPORATELY… 

117

currently afforded on average 20–40 minutes in typical services,1 making it the second-largest, if not equal-largest, singular activity of the gathered church, alongside the sermon. Admittedly, the time for informal fellowship of some local churches may eclipse both of those elements. In summary, NCLS data and longitudinal observation confirm that congregational singing accounts for a substantial and prominent portion of church services utilising CCS.

Synthesising the Individual and Corporate Chapters 6 and 7 have drawn from both individual sources of data outside the context of formal corporate worship (the online survey) and individual data within the context of formal corporate worship (NCLS) to explore the relationship between Christians and CCS. This section has focused on individual perception, reception, cognition, and interpretation of CCS or, more succinctly stated, esthesic analysis. Meaning-making occurs not only in the domain of CCS composers, production, and industry, nor is it solely within the musical texts themselves. Individuals engage in their own meaning-making processes for CCS. To re-engage with the work of Marsh and Roberts (2013), such a meaning-making process is highly individual with complex conscious and subconscious negotiations taking place. The network of competing influences and qualifiers includes macro-level factors such as culture, socio-­ political influences, industry, organisational, and spiritual authority, as well as micro-level factors including personal choice, enjoyment, expression, and the influence of family and friends. To varying degrees and with a high level of complexity, these factors/influences shape Christians’ experience, understanding, and interpretation of CCS. Through these chapters, one can observe the four dominant themes and seven functions Marsh and Roberts propose are at play in an individual’s engagement with popular music (as documented in Chap. 1). Transcendence is one of the key features of Christians’ utilisation CCS.  It is undoubtedly also an act of embodiment, whereby CCS are not just an external catalyst, but internalised expressions of whole being faith. Christians engage with fellow believers in musical worship that facilitates a sense of connectedness, physically, spiritually, and philosophically. Finally, given the repetitive

1

 Also supported by Ingalls’ research (Ingalls and Yong 2015, 6).

118 

D. THORNTON

weekly enactment of these songs, ritual is clearly an important aspect of Christians engagement with CCS (ibid., 146–153). In terms of function, CCS provide Christians with a unique experience of the present and the eternal, that is to say, they order and organise time. As already indicated, CCS bring believers together in a common sense of purpose and unity. CCS physically engage the believer whereby they do more than cerebrally or emotionally engage with the songs. Furthermore, that physical engagement is mirrored by other believers in the gathered body creating a participation in the divine union and in the union of the bride of Christ. They both express the values of the believer and provide an expression of the believer’s emotions. CCS evidently shape the life of the believer (ibid., 130–132). While all of these aspects align with Marsh and Roberts findings on people’s engagement with popular music, they are a specific and nuanced application of that engagement. Pentecostals and charismatics, in particular, argue that their engagement with CCS is a direct expression and experience of their faith that catalyses a divine encounter, reinforcing the divine connection and ongoing divine transformation. Esthesic analysis in this chapter has revealed (or affirmed, depending on one’s initial expectations) that Christians in CCS-oriented churches are highly engaged with both congregational singing and the CCS genre. They not only engage with it inside the walls of local churches, but outside in their own spaces, whether through digital devices, streaming services, physical recordings, radio, or simply through their own internal playback. There are some who have observed and mourned the decline in congregational engagement with musical worship (communal singing in church services), especially with CCS. However, NCLS surveys over the last two decades confirm that Christians highly value congregational singing in church services. Returning to Powell (2008), she found that all generations similarly assessed “Innovation and Worship as the greatest relative strengths of their local churches” (11). She further stated that “[a]ttenders of all ages are likely to most value [the following] aspects related to the worship service: the style of worship or music, sharing Holy Communion/the Eucharist, and preaching/Bible teaching” (emphasis added) (ibid., 15). Worship style, that is to say, specifically the style of music utilised for worship, is on one level inextricably embedded in Christians’ personal faith and dearly held and defended by them. On the other hand, many of the NCLS statistics showed people were very open to change and often did not specify preferences if forced to polarise. In fact, the profound diversity of songs listed by participants of the researcher’s

7  HOW CHRISTIANS FEEL ABOUT THE SONGS THEY SING: CORPORATELY… 

119

survey indicates that personal preferences are not mere copies of the ‘popular’ or officially sanctioned. The evidence suggests that people are able to hold their individual and personal musical preferences in comfortable tension with corporate choices for public worship. In fact, a central finding of this chapter appears to be the paradox of individual Christians’ staunch musical preferences alongside their genuine willingness to place such preferences in submission to the greater priority of worshipping together. This is an outstanding feature of Christians engaging with CCS.

Bibliography Christian Copyright Licensing International Pty Ltd. 2013. CCLI 19th Annual Advisory Council Meeting  – Asia/Pacific Region Report. Christian Copyright Licensing International Pty Ltd. Dawn, Marva J. 1995. Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down: A Theology of Worship for the Turn-Of-The-Century Culture. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Ingalls, Monique M., and Amos Yong, eds. 2015. The Spirit of Praise: Music and Worship in Global Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity. University Park: Penn State University Press. Leverence, Dan. 2015. 3 Additional Questions About Congregational Engagement in Worship | Worship Leader. Worship Leader Magazine. January 7. http:// worshipleader.com/leadership/3-additional-questions-about-congregationalengagement-in-worship/ Marsh, Clive, and Vaughan S. Roberts. 2013. Personal Jesus (Engaging Culture): How Popular Music Shapes Our Souls. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Powell, Ruth. 2008. Australian Church Health & Generational Differences. NCLS. Rachinski, Howard. 2014. CCLI 2014 Questionnaire. Presented at the CCLI USA Owners Meeting, Portland. Robinson, Daniel. 2011. Contemporary Worship Singers: Construct, Culture, Environment and Voice. Griffith University. https://www120.secure.griffith. edu.au/rch/file/a6e0fbc7-2dce-895f-bf5f-f72bdccbf30d/1/ Robinson_2011_02Thesis.pdf Schultz, Thom. 2014. Why They Don’t Sing on Sunday Anymore. Holy Soup (blog). May 21. http://holysoup.com/2014/05/21/why-they-dont-sing-onsunday-anymore/ Wagner, Thomas J. 2013. Hearing the Hillsong Sound: Music, Marketing, Meaning and Branded Spiritual Experience at a Transnational Megachurch. Royal Holloway University of London. http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/ files/19680902/2014wagnertphd.pdf Webber, Robert E. 2009. Worship Old and New. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

CHAPTER 8

Just Another Pop Song? The Music (Trace Analysis Pt 1)

Introduction The following four chapters explore the trace analysis of contemporary congregational songs. The rationale for the disproportionate length is that this kind of analysis is particularly sparse in the field, and thus deserves extra attention. Furthermore, even with the space given to musicological, media studies, and theological analysis, 32 songs in both printed and recorded forms are a considerable amount of texts to do justice to without making the analysis ultra-reductive. For this reason, the trace analysis is further divided into two sections. The first two chapters focus on a genre analysis based on its representative works in the 32 most sung songs. Chapter 8 focuses on the musical elements (melodic, harmonic, structural, textural) that are descriptive of the genre. Chapter 9 focuses on the lyrical elements (Godhead addresses, personal pronouns, point of view, theology) that are descriptive of the genre. The second part of the division analyses individual songs from the most sung CCS; four Australian songs in Chap. 10 and five songs from the UK and the USA in Chap. 11. Such individual attention provides an important balance to the genre analysis. Each song, in its most viewed mediated version on YouTube and its printed score, has its own unique story and qualities which contribute to its meaning and meaning across the genre. Some perspective on the ‘new’ musicology applied to these chapters is in order. Walser’s arguments in Analysing Popular Music are persuasive © The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9_8

121

122 

D. THORNTON

(2003), though he clearly enjoys the role of agitator, and they rest on the premise that musical analysis is really human analysis, as we are the creators, consumers, and meaning-givers to music. He suggests the best analysis “blurs the lines among historical, analytical and ethnographic approaches arguing, in effect, that musical texts and practices are just as complex, and just as historically situated, as people are” (ibid., pp. 18–19). This is a helpful summation of the concepts behind the ‘new’ musicology. He goes on to propose ten apothegms which he is quick to mitigate with the following: Despite their declarative tone, they are meant to be heuristic rather than authoritative, useful more than definitive. The test of their utility is simply whether they can lead to more illuminating analyses of popular music. (Moore 2003)

They are repeated here in order to consider their usefulness in the analysis of CCS. 1. It’s OK to write about music. 2. Unlike language, music often seems not to require translation. 3. Musical judgements can never be dismissed as subjective; neither can they ever be celebrated as objective. 4. The split between musicology and ethnomusicology is no longer useful because its constitutive dichotomies—self/other, Western/ non-Western, art/function, history/ethnography, and text/practice—are no longer defensible. 5. Analysis is a relational activity; its success is relative to its goals, which analysts should feel obliged to clarify. 6. The split between musicology and music theory has never been useful because its constitutive dichotomy—culture/structure—has never been defensible. 7. Analysis is inevitably reductive, which is precisely why it’s useful. 8. ‘Popular music’ and ‘classical music’ cannot be compared in terms of value because these categories are interdependent and actively reproduced. 9. ‘Twentieth-century music’ is the music that twentieth-century people have made and heard. 10. You only have the problem of connecting music and society if you’ve separated them in the first place (ibid.).

8  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE MUSIC (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 1) 

123

The undercurrent of humour and somewhat academically inflammatory language should not diminish his contribution. Walser’s observations regarding the all but obliterated lines between musicology, ethnomusicology, and music theory, as well as popular, classical, and twentieth-century musics are signs of popular music studies’ maturing as a discipline. He is not alone in questioning disciplinary demarcations in music (Stobart 2008). His first two apothegms provide a symbiotic binary resonating with similar observations by Nattiez, Frith, and others. His third apothegm is again not new (see Nattiez 1990, 174–177) but certainly relevant. His fifth and seventh apothegms identify analysis as requiring clear goals, acknowledging its relational nature and its reductive process. In doing so, the scholar makes no more and no less of their analysis and sets others up to read it contextually. His tenth apothegm rests on decades of hard-fought academic debate attempting to reconcile sociology and musicology. The statement makes it sound as though there should not have needed to be such aggressive dialectic to arrive at such an obvious position; however, this is the privilege of hindsight. In summary, Walser’s apothegms are entirely useful in the trace (and poietic and esthesic) analysis of CCS, at the same time, herein lies the potential for interdisciplinary dissipation. With that in mind, I willingly confess to my orientation towards musicological concerns and the dynamics of live and recorded performances, including their environments and reception, given my expertise and professional experience as a musician, composer, and performer. If other disciplinary foci are less comprehensively represented, I welcome future scholarship to provide the balance.

Memorable Melodies Memorable melodies are arguably one of the chief goals of a great number of music genres, especially those within commercial popular musics. One of the ways in which a memorable melody can be ascertained is the degree to which it is reproducible by the human voice. This is acutely the case in CCS; melodies must not only be memorable, they must be reproducible by the congregation. This chapter commences with an analysis of melodic range and tessitura across the most sung CCS, followed by a discussion of melodic expectations and earworms. The chapter concludes with a comparison of other musical features. The analysis of overall melodic ranges and tessitura not only has value in understanding the way CCS are written and recorded for the voice, but

124 

D. THORNTON

it also helps by providing a comparison to the esthesic analysis of the last two chapters, particularly the participant vocal recordings. Melodic range is important, but tessitura is even more important as it represents the central pitch(es) around which the song revolves. Especially for songs with a wide melodic range, such as “10,000 Reasons”, which might initially appear quite hard to sing based on the written score, tessitural information is crucial. If the melody sits in a comfortable range for most of the song, and only extends the vocal boundaries at key points, the song remains singable. When applied to the corpus, this analysis addresses the unstated, but undeniably held, presuppositions regarding what is singable for a congregation, and how that is negotiated in light of the recorded versions of CCS. The lowest (notated) pitch of any representative CCS is F3 (F below middle C)1 in “New Wine”. Technically, “King of My Heart” (in the key of Ab Major) has the lowest notated pitch (Eb3), however, this is one example where the chart is not representative of typical practice. The melody is sung (in all popular recordings and thus local renditions) with a repeated last note at the end of the first phrase (123211), not a descending 4th (123215). The nine songs which have female lead vocals, of which “New Wine” is one, also contain the lowest comparative ranges; the songs with male lead vocals have the highest (ranges and pitches). To clarify, this analysis is based on the notated pitches which are all in the treble clef. Obviously, if the actual recorded pitches were taken into account, males naturally sing an octave lower than the notated scores. Returning to the findings, why true tenors should be celebrated and true sopranos shunned is probably related to the typical vocal timbres of popular music. Whatever its origins, it is apparent that both male and female worship leaders in the CCS genre are preferred in their chest voice rather than their head voice. The strength, passion, and indeed strain on the highest end of the chest register add to the intensity, commitment, and perceived authenticity of the singer. In discussing the use of the voice in rock music, Moore suggests, “[i]t is more common to find the high voice associated with a ‘straining’ quality, carrying the effect of being produced as the result of great effort” (2001, 48). He goes on to suggest that this singing style “may connote sincere effort, and thus authenticity” (ibid., 49). This certainly appears to be true 1  All note naming uses the standard scientific pitch naming conventions as originally outlined by Young (1939).

8  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE MUSIC (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 1) 

125

of CCS, and even inadvertently supported by Chris Tomlin in his ‘song story’ video of “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)”.2 Some tangential research on simulating emotion in synthetic speech by Murray and Arnott (1993, 1103) states, paraphrasing Davitz (1964), that “active emotions are categorized … by their fast speech rate, high loudness, high pitch, and ‘blazing’ timbre”. They further conclude that anger and happiness both utilise much higher pitch averages than other emotions, which when applied to CCS suggests (especially faster) songs are endeavouring to signify active (or even intense) emotions. At the same time, a finding from Robinson’s research indicated that some congregation members had stopped singing because the range of CCS sung in their local setting was uncomfortably high (2011, 119). The highest note of any representative CCS is Bb5 (two octaves and a perfect 4th above the lowest note) found in “No Longer Slaves”. Most songs that have anything above a (notated) D5 not only are sung naturally down the octave by most males but are often strategically sung an octave lower than written by females to avoid the possibly shrill, thin, or operatic sound they might produce in their higher register. It is worth restating that although this two octaves and a fourth range represents the recorded and scored versions of the representative CCS, the practical expression of these songs in a local church would contain a reduced range. In other words, the worship leader would either change the keys of songs to suit their range or choose only songs that were already in their range. Obviously, no individual most sung CCS contains a two-­ octave range. The song with the smallest range is “Cornerstone” (P5th) if one does not count the octave jump in the Chorus for male singers (which would mean it has a range of P12th). If it is counted, “This Is Amazing Grace” contains the smallest range with an M6th. The most common range is a P8ve, occurring in eight songs and the second most common (in seven songs) is M9. The largest range for any song is an m14th found in “Lord I Need You”. One might expect that songs’ larger ranges (greater than an octave) would limit their congregational viability, and thus, they would have restricted employment across local churches, and by extension be less reported to CCLI. However, this is not supported by the data. Twenty songs had a range greater than an octave. In fact, the great majority of songs, 88% (28 songs), have a range of an octave or more. Evidently, these 2

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJi8MbEQBgc (2′40″-2′50″).

126 

D. THORNTON

songs have enough other compelling factors, musical, or perhaps extra-­ musical (e.g., who wrote them, or which artist promoted them) for the potential difficulties of the range to be overlooked. Song range, however, is not the only issue when it comes to singability, as mentioned in the introduction; tessitura is key. In light of this, after establishing the Pitch Centre of Gravity (PCG) for each song, based on a slightly modified method originally proposed by Rastall (1984), an overall table was created to account for the dominant pitch(es) across all analysed CCS. Essentially, each notated pitch in the lead sheet is given a value (a crotchet is assigned the nominal value of 1, quavers 0.5, minims 2, etc.), then all values of the same pitch are added together to give a total value.3 The highest sum indicates the most pervasive pitch, the PCG. Among the most sung CCS, the dominant pitch was A4, with B4, C5, and F#4 also prominent. As the analysis in Chap. 6 showed, A4, B4, and C5 are potentially sung in either octave by both males (A2/A3, B2/B3, C3/C4) and females (A3/A4, B3/B4, C4/C5) increasing the likelihood of their prominence. Of particular note is the dominance of the tonic in the melodies of most CCS. It was always among the top three or four most sung pitches, and in 17 cases (53%) the most sung pitch. Furthermore, the tonic commonly occurred as the final melodic note of songs analysed. This may make the melodies easier to sing, or it may produce a greater sense of finality to the lyrical phrase, even though the tonic note is not necessarily harmonised with a tonic chord. There was no correlation between where the rest of the melodic pitches sat in relation to the tonic; some songs had the tonic as the lowest note (e.g., “Cornerstone” and “Blessed Be Your Name”), others placed the tonic in the centre (e.g., “This I Believe (The Creed)” and “What a Beautiful Name”), and some made the tonic the highest note in the song (e.g., “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)”, “In Christ Alone”, and “Reckless Love”).

3  Rastall states, “The PCG is the pitch at which the voice-part may be considered as being concentrated: it is not the mean (midpoint) of the outer limits of the voice-range, for it takes into account the duration for which each pitch is used in the piece” (1984, 190). His formula involved identifying all pitches within a song and the rhythmic value of those pitches. Rastall took the initial analysis one step further to add all the pitch values together and divide by the total durations to arrive at a singular PCG number. However, this final stage reduces the tessitura to a number which often falls in-between any specific chromatic pitch. Thus, the calculations for each song only follow the first two parts of the process, allowing for a more musical interpretation of the data.

8  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE MUSIC (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 1) 

127

The prevailing range across all songs is between D4 and E5. Traditionally, this range would suit sopranos and tenors better than it would suit altos and basses, even though the greater portion of these notes would be achievable by any vocal type. Use of higher pitches again affirms the discussion above about ‘straining’ vocal qualities and its connotation of sincerity and authenticity. The range of various sections was also analysed alongside its PCG.  Choruses almost always had a higher PCG than the Verses, but it was not the result of an increased range for the Chorus. The discrete ranges of sections were almost always smaller than the full song range, meaning that sections tended to shift in their PCG, as well as their highest and lowest notes. In other words, Choruses not only contain key lyrical elements but reinforce those messages with a higher tessitura than that of the Verses.

Melodic Expectations Memorability is not only about singability but also about a level of predictability (alongside just the right amount of unpredictability). To identify a melody’s conformance to cognitive expectations of melodic movement, a musical scholar named Glenn Schellenberg developed Pitch Proximity and Pitch Reversal analytical techniques (Schellenberg 1996a, b, 1997; Schellenberg and Trehub 1996; Stalinski and Schellenberg 2010). In essence, Schellenberg sought to understand what makes melodies (un) predictable. In an analysis of Malcolm Williamson’s operas composed for musically untrained children, Humberstone (another musicologist) employed Schellenberg’s techniques utilising two purpose-built applets within the notation program, Sibelius, to produce Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) tables (2013). Given that one of the key parameters for CCS is that they, ideally, can be sung by the whole congregation, a significant portion of which would be musically untrained, it was deemed that utilising these same techniques would contribute to an understanding of their singability. The process involved converting the SongSelect lead sheets from their initial pdf format into a Sibelius file using the PhotoScore Ultimate software. Some editing was required to ensure the accuracy of the conversion. The two applets were acquired from Humberstone and then applied to each of the 32 CCS. Perhaps the one weakness of the Pitch Proximity calculation is that it does not take into account the amount of repetition within the CCS structure as it is performed, which is also a weakness of the PCG. Therefore,

128 

D. THORNTON

the intervals that are actually being sung more often, because they are in the Chorus, for example, are not accounted for. Even so, the findings are conclusive. Repeated notes account for 30% of the total number of intervals and Major 2nds account for 34%, that is to say, 64% of all intervallic movement in CCS are unisons and Major 2nds. The next most common intervals are far less common, starting at the minor 2nd (semitone) with 10%, the minor 3rd with 8%, and the Major 3rd and Perfect 4th at 6% each. The Perfect 5th comes in at 4% of the total, and the other intervals are negligible. Although the Pitch Reversal analysis was also undertaken, Humberstone states: The Pitch Reversal analysis is only useful as an overview when a melody does not have mostly proximate pitches, because that is when it can contribute extended statistical data about the material. If a melody is entirely proximate, the Pitch Reversal analysis is considered redundant, and therefore not performed. (ibid., 41)

Given the overwhelming unison or step movement (74%), which rises to 90% if m3rds, M3rds, and P4ths are included, the simplicity of intervallic movement is overwhelmingly apparent. In comparison, many children’s nursery rhymes have more intervallic movement than CCS. Thus, CCS are demonstrably singable from an intervallic perspective. Admittedly, such analysis does not take into account the rhythmic context of those intervals, except for their base values. Nevertheless, the intervals themselves indicate a high degree of singability among the most sung CCS. Rhythmic predictability also contributes to singability. A manual analysis of rhythmic construction in CCS showed that while syncopation is common, it is constantly balanced by phrases starting or ending on strong beats (1, 3) of the bar, and made more predictable through extensive rhythmic repetition of phrases. Moreover, the greater rhythmic complexity appeared in Verses. Choruses, which are dominant through their structural repetition, invariably contained simpler rhythms. The rhythms, unlike the intervals, were more complex than nursery rhymes; however, conversational as well as unconventional rhythmic expression of lyric lines are featured in popular songs, thus aligning CCS with its overarching genre. In fact, Moore states: “Syncopation is so endemic to popular music … Popular song cannot be imagined with the syncopation ‘taken out’” (2012, 64). Thus, CCS demonstrate simplicity and predictability in

8  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE MUSIC (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 1) 

129

intervallic structure, and some melodic rhythms, while also demonstrating popular music-oriented complexity in other melodic rhythms.

Catchy It is not enough that CCS melodies are singable or predictable, but they must also be memorable if they are to be as effective as possible. When a worship leader is choosing songs for next Sunday’s service, the song that is stuck in their head is likely to end up on the list. Furthermore, when a song is stuck in a Christian’s head, and they subconsciously hum or sing it over the coming days, it has become their meditation or confession. The power of memorable CCS to shape an individual’s practical theology should not be underestimated. It is a factor that many CCS writers are aware of and explicitly referenced by Steven Furtick in the ‘song story’ video for “Do It Again”.4 These catchy portions of a song, commonly referred to as hooks (with lyrics) or riffs (music only), have long been accepted as key features of not only popular music but all forms of music. Surveys have revealed that it is rarely an entire song that gets stuck in one’s head, but rather a piece of the song that is typically less than or equal in duration to the capacity of auditory short-term (“echoic”) memory: about 15–30 seconds (Levitin 2011, 155). ‘Stuck song syndrome’ or earworms have received growing interest from researchers (Beaman and Williams 2010; Halpern and Bartlett 2011). In a study by Beaman and Williams, the majority of participants (88%) reported having tunes stuck in their heads for periods of hours or longer, and furthermore, that the portion of the song that they typically internally retained and repeated is from the Chorus or refrain. Predictably, “the earworms reported were always familiar to the participants, no reports were given of unknown or novel tunes acting as earworms” (2010, 643). Hooks/riffs are only a small portion of the song—a phrase, a lyric, a repeated lead instrumental feature. It must be both familiar enough for untrained musicians/singers to reproduce and original enough for it to stand out from a sea of songs. Each of the most sung CCS contains some unique catchy hook or riff. It is most often a hook, containing both lyric and musical content, but there are examples where songs stand out because of other more music-oriented facets. One such example is “Revelation 4

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Loc4zLZjezc.

130 

D. THORNTON

Song”, which being in the Mixolydian mode makes it instantly both familiar and exotic, compared with the common popular music modes of Major or minor. Often the hook of the song is identified in the song’s title; for example, “Cornerstone”, “In Christ Alone”, “Here I Am to Worship”, or “New Wine”, to name but a few. Some hooks are clearly connected to the novel expression of lyric content. Many of the song titles just mentioned attest not to a new doctrine or never-before-sung biblical passage but rather to an unutilised or under-­ utilised phrase or expression that resonates with the beliefs, desires, or experiences of the worshipper. They are often quite colloquial in tone, yet at the same time contain potentially deeper meaning through poetic devices, such as metaphor and imagery.

Banal Harmony If you happen to be a musician involved in contemporary worship utilising CCS, you will already know that the songs’ harmonic content is profoundly predictable. Does it even need analysis? Can a harmonic analysis contribute to the trace-level meaning-making process? While harmonic inventiveness is not a trait associated with CCS, it is not that harmonic considerations are unimportant. CCS have a sound, and part of that sound comes from their utilisation of certain harmonic content. As this section will reveal, its relationship to popular music harmonic conventions is, importantly, both a point of alignment and differentiation. First, let us explore CCS key signatures. The immediate challenge of discussing key (signatures) for CCS is that when localised, these songs are performed in an array of keys. Sometimes they are changed to suit the vocal range and preferred tessitura of the worship leader; alternatively, to accommodate the lack of musical expertise required to play in the original keys. On other occasions, the keys of songs are changed to facilitate a flow between sequential songs within a ‘worship set’. Robinson found that just under 90% of churches he surveyed transposed songs “sometimes” or “always” (2011, 117). Alongside such seeming flexibility in key signatures is the reality that prominent recordings of individual CCS popularise the key in which they are recorded. That key might be quite unrepresentative of the average vocal range, but suits the artist, or adds to a vocal quality that resonates with other popular music, or indeed with the perception of passion in performance, as already discussed. Many local churches choose to play songs only in the recorded key for the sake of the musicians who

8  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE MUSIC (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 1) 

131

are learning the songs ‘by ear’, even though the key may not be ideal for congregational singing. Of course, these days technology is freely available that can alter the key of streamed recordings. From the YouTube mediations of the most sung songs, the keys of C Major, D Major, G Major, and Bb Major are each used five times. A Major is used four times, and B Major three times. In my PhD dissertation it was white note keys that dominated the analysis, which I proposed were perhaps more accessible to the less trained musician. While this is still somewhat the case, Bb Major does not fit that proposition, E Major is not featured in any of the recordings, and F Major only features in one (“Man of Sorrows”). One-third of the songs featured black note keys. Clearly, the primary driver for key choice in the recordings is the preference of the worship leader. This is clearly an evolution from the CCS of 20 or 30 years ago when the songwriters wrote more for their instrument and for the less trained musicians who would be required to locally reproduce their songs; guitarists often choosing keys like D, E, G, and A Major, and keyboardists choosing C, F, G, and Bb. Not only have musical expectations increased for church worship teams but technological advancements have provided more options to easily reproduce songs as written/recorded. All representative CCS are in Major keys, except the modal (though still with a Major key flavour, given the nature of the Mixolydian mode) “Revelation Song”. Only two songs start with the relative minor chord (vi) and one (“In Christ Alone”) with a minor v, but they always give way eventually to a Major tonality. Such an overwhelmingly Major key canvas raises questions as to why minor keys are so avoided. Part of it may have to do with the distinctly positive nature of most CCS lyrics (explored in the next chapter), which may feel less uplifting expressed upon a minor key canvas. Common Western tonal conventions tend to consider minor keys as sadder, darker, angrier, or more dangerous than Major keys (Cook and Hayashi 2008; Nattiez 1990). These are not adjectives that generally resonate with the theological orientation of CCS lyrics. This point differentiates CCS from secular popular music, which often features a minor key canvas. There are rarely more than two chords in a bar in the analysed CCS; the exceptions include “10,000 Reasons”, “In Christ Alone”, and “How Deep the Father’s Love”. Even in these cases, the ‘extra’ chords in the bar are effectively only harmonised passing-notes; that is, diatonic passing-­ chords. In terms of the larger pattern of harmonic repetition in the secular rock corpus, Moore observes that “[t]he unit of repetition of harmonic

132 

D. THORNTON

sequences … is frequently four bars, sometimes eight or two bars, and rarely any other number” (2001, 55). This is replicated in CCS. The simplicity and pace of harmonic change suit amateur levels of musicianship. Moreover, such harmonic language and syntax is consistent with popular music generally as articulated by de Clercq and Temperley (2011) in their corpus harmonic analysis of the top 500 rock songs from 1950 to 2000. In analysing the harmonic content of these key rock songs, de Clercq and Temperley made several pertinent observations. Every song they analysed contained chord I, and chords IV and V were by far the next most utilised, with chord IV having an especially high profile. The next most used chords were vi and bVII. Three-quarters (75.8%) of the chords used in the analysed songs were major in quality, and 23.4% were minor in quality. It is interesting that the ubiquitous diatonic progression of I, vi, IV, and V produces essentially the same ratio of major to minor chords. In alignment with de Clercq and Temperley’s findings, every song in the CCS representative list contained the diatonic Major chords: I and IV. Only two songs do not contain chord V (“Holy Spirit” and “O Come to the Altar”), and Revelation Song, being written in the Mixolydian mode, contains only the minor version of chord v. It is interesting that the dominant key signatures as outlined above pool on one side of the circle of fifths (Bb, C, G, D, A) as the prevailing harmony utilised are reinforced in the keys themselves. That is, G Major’s subdominant (IV) is C and dominant (V) is D; D Major’s subdominant (IV) is G and dominant (V) is A.  Thereby, when musicians are playing CCS in related keys, they are often reinforcing their competence in common chords. Twenty-four (75%) of the most sung CCS also contained chord vi, the next most recurring chord, and 11 (34%) included chord ii. Only two songs contained bVII (“Revelations Song” and “Shout to the Lord”), but this is in contrast to de Clercq and Temperley’s findings where bVII was the fourth most common chord in the rock corpus after I, IV, and V (ibid.). The reason is straightforward; minor keys, which make up much more of the secular rock corpus, naturally feature bVII (in the natural minor) far more than Major keys do, where bVII is an altered chord (the natural vii is a diminished chord in a Major key). The analysis undertaken only explores the root movement of chords, that is to say, if chords are written/played in inversions, they are still identified by their basic root position form. Harmony (in popular music), while made slightly more interesting through alternative bass notes, is generally not functionally

8  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE MUSIC (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 1) 

133

altered by them. This is somewhat of a moot point anyway as chords in CCS are overwhelmingly played in root position. Twenty-two songs (69%) have four discrete chords (generally I, IV, V, and vi, or I, ii, IV, and V), eight (25%) use five chords, and the remaining two use only three chords. Only one song (“What a Beautiful Name”) uses chord iii, although some of the first inversion I chords may conceivably be played as either I or iii. Either way, the four-to-five chord standard is firmly fixed. Even the hymn-like CCS (such as “In Christ Alone”, “How Deep the Father’s Love”, or “How Great Thou Art”) do not break this standard, which is arguably one reason why they can sound contemporary, despite other musical/lyrical components differing from CCS conventions. One result of such economy in harmonic material is that songs are easier to play. In fact, three of the songs (“Blessed Be Your Name”, “Reckless Love”, and “Revelation Song”) have a single four-chord progression repeated throughout. This type of repetition can engender a hypnotic momentum but also risks being boring and, therefore, requires other elements such as lyrics, melody, or instrumentation to create musical interest. Such cyclic harmonic frameworks are widespread in popular music (Biamonte 2010, 95). As such, chords are not part of functional harmony, in the sense of traditional Western Art Music rules. Instead, chords function as a transparent (overwhelmingly) diatonic canvas that is meant to support other, more ‘important’ elements of the song, such as lyrics, melody, textures, and timbre. The ubiquity of these chords, and chord progressions, in popular music is mirrored in Western copyright laws; chord progressions may not be copyrighted, whereas lyrics and music (which is essentially melodies—vocal or instrumental—and their accompanying harmonisation) represent equal portions (50% each) of the copyrighted work. Thus, harmony in CCS is less inherently interesting and more interesting for the way in which it diverts from typical configurations, or supports other elements, such as song structure. In my original PhD research, the majority of songs finished on a chord other than I (always IV or V). However, in the revised list of most sung global CCS, 81% finish on the tonic chord (I), with only four songs finishing on the subdominant (IV) and two on the dominant (V). At the time of my original research, I proposed that: this trend away from tonic chord endings was [due to] the ‘free worship’ that often continues after the song has concluded. By not ending on chord I, the song retains a sense of incompletion, thus facilitating continued

134 

D. THORNTON

­ laying/singing spontaneously over the final chord(s) until the ear has subp consciously settled at those harmonic points of rest. (Thornton 2016, 181)

While tonic resting points again seem to be most popular, the practice of ‘free worship’, especially at the end of the song, has not diminished by any means. A random sample of the YouTube videos will demonstrate this point, but the data on CCS duration is also revealing. One of the few studies done on the duration of songs on the secular charts indicates the average length was 4′26″ (Mark 2011). However, the average length of the mediated versions of the most sung CCS on YouTube was 6′18″, almost 2 minutes longer than their secular equivalents. In fact, the longest of the CCS is “King of My Heart” at an impressive 17′26″. The length is not because of a complex structure or an excessive number of Verses, it is because of the ‘free worship’ component that seamlessly follows the completion of the initial song, which notably ‘ends’ on the tonic. Clearly, ‘free worship’ at least in pentecostal-charismatic settings is so ubiquitous that the need to initiate it with a starting point other than the tonic is no longer necessary. An alternative interpretation could be that the concluding chord of a song moves in and out of fashion; thus, at this point in time, we are witnessing one swing of the musical pendulum. Notwithstanding the change mentioned above, the final resting chords are always closely related to the tonic, making it easier for the ear to accept them. Notice, ending on a minor chord is exceptionally rare; this is not by chance. Generally, corporate CCS-oriented worship is designed to be uplifting. Even though minor chords are not inherently depressing, it is my experience that their use at the end of songs in that setting is quickly discouraged, often by non-musical church authorities (Pastors). Consciously or subconsciously, it appears that those who have the responsibility to move the service forward after the musical worship prefer to do so with a predominantly Major chord canvas, at least at the present time. While there is seldom any ambiguity as to the key of a given CCS, Ingalls proposes that a continuous return to tonic harmony in Choruses is a feature of CCS, or at least the ‘worship ballads’ she analysed (Ingalls 2008, 128). However, 12 of the 30 most sung CCS (Townend’s songs are omitted as they have no Chorus as such) commence their Choruses with chords other than I; nine commence with chord IV and two with chord vi. It should be noted that even one of the songs Ingalls analyses, “The Power of Your Love”, also commences its Chorus with chord IV, perhaps

8  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE MUSIC (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 1) 

135

suggesting that tonic-centrality was more of a notional feature than an empirical one. Embellishments of 2nds, 7ths, and suspended 4ths are quite common across the corpus, but as Biamonte observes: in many vernacular genres—including blues, jazz, and rock [and CCS]— nontriadic tones are not unstable by definition, in the sense that stylistic constraints require their resolution; common-practice rules of voice-leading and dissonance treatment do not necessarily apply. (2010, 95)

These embellishments are often the result of kinaesthetic voicing on piano or guitar, rather than conscious harmonic choices governed by formal conventions. For example, a D Major chord typically requires three fingers to play on a guitar (Fig. 8.1); however, dropping the finger from the top string not only makes it easier to play but creates the richer D2  in the process. Given this practice and its negligible effect on harmonic function, there is no further need to analyse it here. The clear correlation between CCS harmony and secular popular music harmony is by design. Many CCS composers talk about drawing inspiration from secular musical sources with the aim of engaging the broader culture in musically relevant worship (Evans 2006, 71; Hughes 2014). Harmony is a subtle yet significant tool to both align these genres and differentiate them. Harmonic choices, additionally, indicate that this is a vernacular music genre, one that is intended for as many participants as possible, one that is adaptable to many different contexts and stylistic interpretations. While commonly overlooked, and probably often

Fig. 8.1  D and D2 guitar fingering

136 

D. THORNTON

subconsciously employed by CCS composers, harmonic choices play a role in the meaning-making of this genre.

The Band Similar to the use of harmony, instrumental choices are a subtle, often presumed, quality of the genre which influence meaning-making processes in CCS. If you are unsure whether you agree with this statement, imagine hearing “10,000 Reasons” for the first time with a lute and recorder, or a full symphony orchestra, or a distorted electric guitar. Your perception of the song would undoubtedly be affected. There are very few CCS that do not have the standard instrumental forces of electric guitar(s), acoustic guitar(s), keyboard(s), bass, drums, and lead vocal/backing vocals. Also, in the great majority of recordings, one is aware of a ‘congregation’—clapping before or after the song, making vocal affirmations during the song, or singing along. Filmed secular ‘live concerts’ may also feature similar audience engagement; this is an effective marketing tool arguably attesting to the mass popularity of the artist. However, for CCS, it is a defining feature, attesting to the vernacular nature of the genre, although there are cases (e.g., “Oceans”) which do not conform to this pattern. Congregational involvement on a worship recording affirms the vernacular nature of the songs, that is, the songs are for co-performance by those on and off the stage, by those with and without mics. Even where a song’s production values and musical arrangements align with secular popular musics, audible congregational engagement with these songs encourages local congregations to appropriate them. A song may be relatively difficult for the untrained singer to sing, but if it is recorded with a ‘congregation’, there is a perception that it is singable. Thus, the vernacular nature of the CCS genre is reinforced by recording them with a ‘congregation’. While musical forces may typically be similar or identical across many most sung CCS, individual nuances in sound created through unique instrumental timbres are important to differentiate songs, producers, and artists. For example, Bethel recordings are often bathed in morphing keyboard pads; Hillsong Young and Free are heavier on loops and electronic sounds; Townend’s most viewed recordings adopt folk and Irish flavours. Additionally, such effects and instrumentation indicate the secular music influences on the producers and by extension its desired target audience. Guitars (both acoustic and electric) often dominate the instrumental

8  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE MUSIC (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 1) 

137

harmonic component of the mix, above piano or synthesisers. Above those audial components sit the lead vocals, bass, and drums. Examples abound of worship leaders also playing acoustic guitar (e.g., “10,000 Reasons”, “Our God”, “How Great Is Our God”, and “Mighty to Save”). There are far fewer examples of keyboard-based worship leaders, although there are some (e.g., Pat Barratt). A previous generation of worship leader pianists dominated the CCLI charts for many years, such as Don Moen, Kent Henry, Michael W. Smith, and Geoff Bullock. This sort of swing happens slowly but constantly over the history of both secular popular music and CCS. Various singer-songwriters become popular, associated with a certain instrument, until the next artist comes along to displace them. The only caveat for CCS is that guitars, far more than pianos, were previously viewed as more representative of the secular and profane in rock music, and thus rejected for liturgical purposes (Cloud 2006; Kwasniewski 2013). That being said, guitars have had a long tradition in CCS (e.g., Larry Norman and Barry McGuire), and the generation of writers/worship leaders emerging in the 1990s—the likes of Martin Smith (Delirious?), Reuben Morgan (Hillsong), Paul Baloche, and Matt Redman—once again, raised the profile and popularity of guitar-led CCS. The worship leading drummer or bass player or violinist, however, are still on the exceptionally rare side; guitars and keyboards dominate the worship leader-instrumentalist landscape (as they do in secular popular music). A growing element in contemporary worship practices is the use of pre-­ recorded tracks alongside live instruments and vocals. Several commercial providers of CCS tracks with multiple stems have emerged, some of them with their own mobile device apps for easy integration into a local church audio system. The largest provider of tracks at the present time is a company called MultiTracks.com, whose free playback app is called “Playback”. With such apps, instrument/vocal stems that are desired or required can be selected, the key can be easily changed, and song sections can be altered in advance or somewhat spontaneously during the worship set. Sometimes it is megachurches who use tracks across their campuses to ensure there is a consistent sound that represents their brand. Sometimes it is small churches who do not have the resources to compete with larger churches’ worship teams or the recorded CCS that Christian consumers are used to listening to and worshipping with. With tracks, a lone guitarist/worship leader can fill the sonic space without abdicating the human element to leading congregational worship. Of course, additional technology is

138 

D. THORNTON

ideally required. Commercial stereo tracks tend to be divided into one channel for the front of house (FOH) sound system and one for the in-ear monitors of the worship team. The monitors track contains a click and some structural directions. While it is possible to use tracks without utilising the monitors channel, it is harder to stay in sync, and thus, a questionable addition to less resourced environments. Equally, there are churches that refuse to use tracks no matter what human or technological resources they have or do not have because they feel on principle that the use of prerecorded tracks de-humanises worship, or alternatively, restricts the freedom of corporate worship. In short, tracks are empowering for some and disempowering for others.

Tempos and Time Signatures Twenty-four of the 32 songs (75%) are in simple quadruple (4/4) time, a clear majority. Five are in compound duple (6/8), a time signature that comes in and out of favour, although is always the second most popular. One song (“In Christ Alone”) is in simple triple (3/4), one (“How Deep the Father’s Love”) is in a 5/4, 3/4 combination time, and one (“Lord I Need You”) is in a 4/4, 3/4 combination. These ratios are consistent with analyses of time signatures across the last six decades of secular popular music (Minardi 2011). Furthermore, amateur drummers would feel most comfortable with straight simple quadruple time, and compound duple time signature still only requires a relatively simple beat from them. The average tempo is 75  bpm (beats per minute), although only six songs are above that tempo, 26 at or below, meaning that the majority of songs are comparatively slow. By contrast, throughout the six decades of Billboard charts analysed in “The Billboard Experiment” (ibid.), the average tempo of hit songs was a substantially higher 120 bpm. From a mathematical perspective, the (close to) 2:3 relationship of tempos can be juxtaposed against the ratio for song lengths of CCS, and popular music as analysed by “The Billboard Experiment”, which turns out to be the inverse 378:266 (6′18″:4′26″) or rounded to 3:2. Essentially, one of the ways to account for the difference in song lengths is through tempo differentiation, notwithstanding the discourse around spontaneous worship practices. The proportion of faster to slower songs (6:26) among the most sung CCS is unlikely to represent the general proportion of tempos across all songs represented by CCLI.  In a typical four-song-set in Australian Pentecostal churches a faster tempo song would open the service and

8  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE MUSIC (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 1) 

139

often follow with another faster tempo song making the tempos proportion closer to 1:1. The denominational CCLI data acquired for my PhD research affirms this observation, showing that ACC/AOG churches have a higher proportion of faster songs (9:14) than the analysed list. Why, then, is this CCS list weighted towards slower songs? Faster songs often contain a more distinctive musical style than slower songs, including greater rhythmic dominance and reliance upon drums/ tracks, more riffs and lead lines, increased syncopation, harsher timbres, for example, distortion, and often more somatically oriented lyrics. All of these factors potentially date faster songs more quickly than slower songs. Their distinctive elements move in and out of fashion, or those elements cause greater contention among clergy and congregants, or they are more difficult for less trained/resourced musicians to reproduce. It is one of the reasons that producers such as Hillsong have in more recent years been releasing ‘acoustic’ covers of their highly produced faster songs on YouTube, so that smaller church worship teams can envisage the song working in their congregation with limited instrumental/technological support. Although the content of lyrics is the subject of the next chapter, it is interesting to note here that there is almost an identical average word count for the six faster songs on the list compared to the rest. Thus, the argument that faster songs have less lyrical ‘content’ and thus a shorter lifespan than slower songs is not justified by the data. I mention this here because for the 25 representative CCS analysed for my PhD, the faster songs did have on average less words, and I made the point, based on that data, that the diminished lyrical content might have contributed to their shortened lifespan. Returning to the point, CCLI charts attest to slower tempo songs outlasting faster tempo songs. Evidently, slower songs adapt themselves to more ecclesiastical and cultural environments. Mainline denominations may include a song such as “How Great Is Our God” into their service, but they may not (or cannot) include a song such as “Alive” (fast CCS from Hillsong Young and Free’s We Are Young and Free album). This is not only because the older demographics among those churches may not gravitate to this style of faster song, as confirmed by CCLI denominational reports, but also because a higher level of musicianship is required, along with more musical resources, to make faster songs work. Apart from those reasons, most Pentecostals (and perhaps a much wider circle of Christendom) identify slower songs as connecting them to God— an encounter/experience with God—more than faster songs do. In other

140 

D. THORNTON

words, slower songs tend to be more meaningful, spiritually significant, and as a result, more utilised and reported in the musical worship of gathered Christians. For all the reasons identified, and perhaps still others, the representative CCS list is skewed towards slower songs.

Structure Typical pop song structures are mirrored in CCS.  All but two songs (“Here I Am to Worship” and “No Longer Slaves”) started with a musical introduction of anywhere from 2 to 14 bars. A few songs also commence with an untimed ambient pad before the official introduction or in the case of “Who You Say I am” before starting straight into the Verse. Whatever the introduction, the first Verse invariably follows, with just one exception, “10,000 Reasons”, which commences with the Chorus. Fourteen songs have a definable Instrumental section in the arrangement. These sections are invariably 4, 8, or 16 bars long with a single repeated harmonic progression. Twenty-two songs contain a Bridge. Four songs contain neither an Instrumental nor a Bridge: “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)”, “How Great Thou Art”, “Revelation Song”, and “Shout to the Lord”. Each of these uses other means to maintain variety and interest throughout the song. “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)”, for example, uses an asymmetrical division of multiple Verses to provide structural interest. “Revelation Song”, while not having an Instrumental as such, repeats the final Chorus five times, effectively producing a partial ‘free worship’ section. Moreover, its perpetual motion of a repeated four-chord harmonic progression is its own feature, using dynamics and texture to create musical interest. The other two are older before the addition of Bridges or Instrumentals were popularised in CCS structures. Except for the two modern hymns (“In Christ Alone” and “How Deep the Father’s Love”) in strophic form, all representative CCS contain at least one definable Verse and a Chorus. Only two songs have a singular Verse (“Great Are You Lord” and “Shout to the Lord”), the latter because of its age. Although multiple Verses are currently normative for the genre, clearly, there is still room for an engaging song containing a singular Verse. The increasing number of song sections is noteworthy. It appears that one of the ways CCS composers feel they can create something fresh within the genre is to add or alter sections. While some elements, such as harmony, have decreased in variety over the last 40 years, song structure

8  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE MUSIC (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 1) 

141

has become steadily more complex. A recent Hillsong United example, “Another in the Fire” (2019), has three wordy Verses, three altered Choruses, and a wordy Bridge. At the same time, other CCS producers are pushing against the trend, as “Great Are You Lord” exemplifies. How far song structures can be embellished before they become too difficult for local congregations or their worship teams to reproduce is currently being tested by producers like Hillsong. There are two other reasons for the increase in song sections. First, more sections allow room for more lyrics, which have in the genre’s history sometimes been maligned for being too simple or deficient in theological content. Of course, more words do not necessarily guarantee more theological content. Second, the popularity of modern hymns (e.g., “In Christ Alone”) and the hymn-CCS hybrids (e.g., “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)”) have opened CCS up for the multiple Verses typical in traditional worship forms. As can be seen in this part of the trace analysis, musical elements are not arbitrary but important contributors to meaning-making within CCS, whether it be their catchy, memorable, and singable melodies, their banal harmony, their typical instrumental forces, or elements such as tempos, time signatures, and song structures.

Bibliography Beaman, C. Philip, and Tim I. Williams. 2010. Earworms (Stuck Song Syndrome): Towards a Natural History of Intrusive Thoughts. British Journal of Psychology 101 (4): 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X479636. Biamonte, Nicole. 2010. Triadic Modal and Pentatonic Patterns in Rock Music. Music Theory Spectrum 32 (2): 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1525/ mts.2010.32.2.95. Clercq, Trevor de, and David Temperley. 2011. “A Corpus Analysis of Rock Harmony.” Popular Music 30 (01): 47–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/ S026114301000067X. Cloud, David. 2006. Why We Are Opposed to Contemporary Christian Music. December 21. http://www.wayoflife.org/database/opposedtoccm.html Cook, Norman D., and Takefumi Hayashi. 2008. The Psychoacoustics of Harmony Perception. American Scientist 96 (4): 311. https://doi. org/10.1511/2008.73.311. Davitz, Joel R. 1964. The Communication of Emotional Meaning. 1st edition. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

142 

D. THORNTON

Evans, Mark. 2006. Open Up the Doors: Music in the Modern Church. London: Equinox Publishing Limited. Halpern, Andrea R., and James C.  Bartlett. 2011. The Persistence of Musical Memories: A Descriptive Study of Earworms. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 28 (4): 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1525/ mp.2011.28.4.425. Hughes, Tim. 2014. Personal Interview for poietic analysis of CCS. Audio recording. Ingalls, Monique. 2008. Awesome in This Place: Sound, Space, and Identity in Contemporary North American Evangelical Worship. University of Pennsylvania. Kwasniewski, Peter. 2013. Banish All Guitars and Pianos from the Church. Corpus Christi Watershed. March 28. http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2013/ mar/28/banish-all-guitars-and-pianos-church/ Levitin, Daniel J. 2011. This Is Your Brain on Music: Understanding a Human Obsession. Limited: Atlantic Books. Mark. 2011. THE LISTER: Average Pop Song Length By Decade*. THE LISTER (blog). July 8. http://thelister.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/average-popsong-length-by-decade.html Minardi, Raquel Melo. 2011. The Billboard Experiment  – Visualizing the Billboard Charts. http://www.thebillboardexperiment.com/overall.php Moore, Allan F. 2001. Rock, The Primary Text: Developing a Musicology of Rock. Aldershot: Ashgate. ———. 2003. Analyzing Popular Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2012. Song Means: Analysing and Interpreting Recorded Popular Song. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate. Murray, Iain R., and John L. Arnott. 1993. Toward the Simulation of Emotion in Synthetic Speech: A Review of the Literature on Human Vocal Emotion. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93 (2): 1097–1108. https://doi. org/10.1121/1.405558. Nattiez, Jean-Jacques. 1990. Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rastall, Richard. 1984. Vocal Range and Tessitura in Music from York Play 45. Music Analysis 3 (2): 181–199. Robinson, Daniel. 2011. Contemporary Worship Singers: Construct, Culture, Environment and Voice. Griffith University. https://www120.secure.griffith. edu.au/rch/file/a6e0fbc7-2dce-895f-bf5f-f72bdccbf30d/1/ Robinson_2011_02Thesis.pdf Schellenberg, E. Glenn. 1996a. Expectancy in Melody: Tests of the ImplicationRealization Model. Cognition 58: 75–125. ———. 1996b. Simplifying the Implication-Realization Model of Melodic Expectancy. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 14 (3): 295–318. https://doi.org/10.2307/40285723.

8  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE MUSIC (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 1) 

143

———. 1997. Simplifying the Implication-Realization Model of Melodic Expectancy. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 14 (3): 295–318. https://doi.org/10.2307/40285723. Schellenberg, E. Glenn, and Sandra E. Trehub. 1996. Children’s Discrimination of Melodic Intervals. Developmental Psychology 32 (6): 1039–1050. Stalinski, Stephanie M., and E. Glenn Schellenberg. 2010. Shifting Perceptions: Developmental Changes in Judgements of Melodic Similarity. Developmental Psychology 46 (6): 1799–1803. Stobart, Henry, ed. 2008. The New (Ethno)Musicologies. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press. Thornton, Daniel. 2016. Exploring the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre: Texts, Practice, and Industry. PhD, Sydney: Macquarie University. Walser, Robert. 2003. Popular Music Analysis: Ten Apothegms and Four Instances. In Analyzing Popular Music, ed. A.F. Moore, 16–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Young, Robert W. 1939. Terminology for Logarithmic Frequency Units. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 11 (1): 134–139. https://doi. org/10.1121/1.1916017.

CHAPTER 9

Just Another Pop Song? The Lyrics (Trace Analysis Pt 2)

Introduction In the early days of CCS, it was often musical elements which caused the greatest controversy. Churches splitting over the introduction of drum kits to worship services, or over the excommunication of the organ, are legendary. It is not as though lyrics escaped scrutiny, but the musical changes were too brazen to ignore. In more recent years, however, lyrics have become the main contentious point in arguments over CCS suitability for local churches. There is always a danger of examining lyrics in isolation. Frith is not alone in asserting that “song words are not about ideas (‘content’) but about their expression” (Frith 1998, 164). When divorced from their musical context, lyrical analysis can fabricate rather than elucidate the intended meaning(s). While CCS are theological creeds (whether they intend to be or not), and thus, require more rigorous lyrical scrutiny than pop songs, the significance of the musical-lyrical marriage and ensuing transformation of both should be kept in mind as the following chapter unfolds.

Counting Lyrics Returning to the discussion that we began in the last chapter, the average word count of surveyed CCS is 138. This figure does not account for repeated sections, as the song would be performed, but rather discreet © The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9_9

145

146 

D. THORNTON

unique song section lyrics. In Evans’ study from the 1990s and early 2000s, the word count for CCS lyrics was only 98 (2006, 164), 40 words less than this study. Put another way, there has been a 41% increase in the number of words used in CCS lyrics over the past 20 years or so. It should be noted that Evans’ study did not have the same skew towards slower songs and it was focused on the CCS of Hillsong which, despite their current practices, may have had statistically fewer words than global CCS of the time. The emerging ‘choruses’ of the 1960s and 1970s were compact, repetitive, and lyrically sparse, in contrast to traditional hymns. However, as mentioned, the CCS genre has progressively given way to both increased verbosity and complex song structures. “What a Beautiful Name” has the highest number of words, 260, while “Great Are You Lord” has the lowest, 79 words. Interestingly, the duration of “Great Are You Lord” is 5′01″ and “What a Beautiful Name” is 5′42″ indicating that there is no direct correlation between word count and song length. Clearly, there is a large range for lyric word count. Some might think that the fewer the lyrics, the less enduring the song; however, the second-oldest song on the list also has the second-lowest word count (“Shout to the Lord”, 102 words). Hymn-like CCS expectedly contain high word counts, such as “In Christ Alone” with 224 (the second highest on the list). However, “This Is Amazing Grace” comes in third at 197 words, and several other songs have more words than “How Deep the Father’s Love” or “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)”. Furthermore, higher word counts do not automatically mean more wordy Choruses. Chorus sections typically contain four lyric lines. Even “Mighty to Save”, which contains six, is in effect only four with repeated second and last lines. There are exceptions, for example, “Here I Am to Worship” and “Build My Life” contain six lines, “The Lion and the Lamb” even contains seven, but “King of My Heart” contains only one. Within the genre, Choruses have traditionally been seen as the simpler and more repetitive section of the song, that is to say, there have always been more words in the Verses than in the Choruses. However, a recent trend is emerging with some songwriters to make Choruses as equally wordy as Verses, such as “Build My Life”, “The Lion and the Lamb”, and “Reckless Love”. Whether this is a trend that continues remains to be seen. As discussed under song structure, there are often opposing influences occurring at the same time, in this case, to make songs lyrically more complex and simpler, as the presence of “King of My Heart”

9  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE LYRICS (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 2) 

147

exemplifies. The likely reality is that both wordier and simpler Choruses, and for that matter, whole songs, will appear on future CCLI charts. The direct or slightly varied repetition of lyric phrases is extensive throughout CCS. Even when there is no direct repetition, the performed form of the song contains overt repetition of sections; repeated Choruses and Bridges are ubiquitous in CCS. A large portion of directly repeated lyrics or barely disguised repetition, on the one hand, may indicate lazy writing or a lack of diligence or inspiration in the lyric development process. Given that CCS writers put words in the mouths of Christians who sing their songs, one would hope they work with great diligence to create theologically accurate, creative, contemporary, and engaging lyrics. Then what role does repetition play in the writing of CCS lyrics? Lyric repetition has a long history; it can be found in many Psalms (e.g., the antiphonal Psalm 136 where the repeated phrase “His love endures forever” responds to each new thought). It is a well-documented poetic device from the earliest Hebrew poems (Watson 2004, 275) and in poetry generally (Wainwright 2011, 3). It emphasises key messages and aids memorability. It also continues to align CCS with lyric writing in popular music where Negus and Astor state lyric repetition plays a major role and is a “prerequisite for all popular songs” (2015, 236).

Addressing God Pentecostal theology emphasises embodiment, experience, and the immanence of God’s presence (Vondey and Mittelstadt, 2013, pp. 9–10). Such an emphasis is clearly seen in the lyrics of CCS emerging from pentecostal-­ charismatic production centres, and thus, it should not be a surprise that a common critique of CCS lyrics is that they overemphasise God’s immanence compared to His transcendence (Liesch 2001). By such authors it is argued that in composers’ desire to present a God who has a personal relationship with human beings through Jesus Christ and perpetually empowers believers through the Holy Spirit, their CCS may overemphasise a present and personal God and lose the revelation of His otherness, His holiness. One way of examining this is to explore the degree to which God is addressed directly in the second person (You, Your) as opposed to being addressed either in the third person (Him, His) or through various names of the Godhead. A direct address with minimal additional formal titles would suggest more of an immanent focus for the CCS while an

148 

D. THORNTON

indirect address with more formal titles would suggest a more transcendent approach. Twelve of the most sung CCS contain only second-person pronouns (You, Yours), alongside Godhead references. Nine contain only third-­ person pronouns (He, His), and 11 contain both second- and third-­person pronouns in addressing God. Although there is a slight majority of second-­ person pronoun usage, it is a relatively even distribution. Of interest are the songs containing both second- and third-person addresses of God. Zschech, as already quoted in Chap. 5, observes that people greatly appreciated the direct language addressing God in her and Hillsong’s CCS during that era (Zschech 2015). As you may remember, in the same chapter, younger CCS writers did not mention this aspect of CCS lyrics until pushed. Again, it appears that the genre has evolved. The initial swing in CCS lyrics to personalise salvation and the Saviour has shifted in more recent years to also acknowledge God’s holiness and otherness; a trait that at the origins of CCS was more associated with traditional hymns. It is also worth reiterating that the Psalms have been, and still are, a source of inspiration to Christian songwriters, and many Psalms shift easily between addressing God in the second and third person (e.g., Psalms 6, 7, 9, 13, 18). Apart from pronouns to address God, all of the most sung CCS utilise at least one Godhead title address (e.g., Jesus, Father, Lord, Almighty, and Spirit). The most utilised terms are those for the second person of the Godhead, the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Evans found a similar pattern in the songs he analysed, with the second person of the Godhead addressed over 60% of the time (2006, 137), although it is amplified here. Ninety-one per cent of songs (29 of the 32) address Jesus utilising 14 different terms. Besides Jesus’ name, found in 17 of the CCS, the most common term is Lord (occurring in 16), which is interesting, given its biblical origins in the Greek word κύριος, meaning “he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has the power of deciding; master” (Thayer and Strong 1995). The idea that a person can be owned by someone else in contemporary Western culture is, of course, abhorrent. Yet, the idea that Christians can be owned by God appears to sit comfortably in Western CCS lyrics, if still questionably in application. Scripture certainly affirms the notion (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:20; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 1:7). A basic tenet of Christianity is that Jesus must be acknowledged as one’s Lord for someone to be saved (Romans 10:9), therefore, it is a central, though clearly interpretable term for evangelical Christians. The term,

9  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE LYRICS (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 2) 

149

Lord, has historically been the dominant Godhead reference in CCS from the research of both Evans (2006), occurring in almost 50% of songs, and Ruth occurring in 61% of songs (2010, 32). Given both of those studies were of older CCS, and that in this research Lord is marginally superseded by the use of Jesus, the trend might be moving away from Lord as the pre-­ eminent term of address for God. Time will tell. It should not go without saying that Lord is one of the more singable Godhead titles, and thus, has its own musical reason to be featured in CCS. Whatever its raison d’être or history, this current research reinforces Lord as a key term of address for God in CCS lyrics. God is the term of address used in 20 songs (63%), which may either reference the first person of the Godhead or perhaps the Triune God or possibly the second or third person of the Trinity, given that it is the most generic of titles. Three of those 20 also use the term Father, and an additional three use only the term Father. This is double the amount of Father references than those in the top 25 CCS analysed for my PhD. Even so, only six songs refer to God as Father despite this being the address that Jesus instructed His disciples to use when they pray (Matthew 6:9) and the focus of worship He declared to the woman of Samaria would be the future pattern (John 4). Such an omission in CCS lyrics could well be a sign of a larger (Western) cultural issue. In fact, a search for the theme of ‘Father’ in CCLI’s SongSelect returns 1300 CCS, whereas ‘Jesus’ returns 6905 songs. Fatherhood is often maligned or ridiculed in Western media representations (Macnamara 2006; Prinsloo 2006), which may be a contributing factor. In recent times, CCS that directly address God as Father have been demonstrably avoided at a local church level as they have not appeared highly in any CCLI reports. Even “Good Good Father” which paved the way for a renewed focus on this aspect of the first person of the Godhead does not require the worshipper to address God directly as Father (rather, it is used as a descriptive term).1 Perhaps songs like these may progress CCS lyric writing in the direction of worshipping the Father. However, for the time being, it is still in stark contrast to, for example, Butler’s analysis of CCS in Haitian Pentecostal worship, where half of the songs are directed to the “Father” (2002). Notice, his study did not just have half of the songs mention the Father, but they were songs to the Father. The larger question is, how does this lack of address of Father God affect Christian’s modern understanding of salvation, discipleship, family, 1

 “You’re a good good Father” as opposed to “Father, You are good”.

150 

D. THORNTON

or authority? Are Christians poorer for not giving more direct attention to ‘Our Father’ in worship? Even more ignored is the third person of the Godhead. Only four songs on the list mention the Spirit (two use Spirit, and two use Holy Spirit) and only “Holy Spirit” and “Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)” directly address the Spirit as an active agent in the believer’s life. Is this because there are less CCS acknowledging the third person of the Trinity? Or, is this the result of Spirit-oriented songs being less acceptable across Christendom and therefore not appearing in the top songs lists? Pentecostals particularly invoke a revelation of, and active communion with, the Holy Spirit in their theology. When other Christian denominations have wanted to avoid being associated with Pentecostals or Pentecostalism, they carefully choose CCS which are not too denominationally distinctive. In other words, songs about the Spirit are viewed and appropriated cautiously. It is also possible that some writers take the words of Jesus in John 162 to mean that we should not try to address the Spirit directly in worship, as the Spirit intentionally diverts our attention back to Christ. Whatever the reason, writers of the most sung CCS have explicitly sought to appeal to the broadest Christian audience, which results in the potentially contentious Spirit being less utilised in CCS lyrics. Other researchers (Ruth 2010, 2013; Torrance 1997; White 2004) have also raised the imbalance of Godhead addresses in CCS, although they are extremely reticent to address the cause. Arguably, local churches contribute to this current imbalance through their song choices; if churches wanted to sing more songs directed to (or inclusive of) the Spirit, they could easily access them from, for example, SongSelect, and the CCS industry would respond by writing more of what the ‘market’ wanted. The songs with the least discrete Godhead references include “10,000 Reasons”, “Blessed Be Your Name”, “Build My Life”, “Do It Again”, “Good Good Father”, “Great Are You Lord”, “No Longer Slaves”, and “Reckless Love”, each of which only utilise one term for the Godhead, typically, Jesus, Lord, or God. The song containing the most discrete addresses of the Godhead (ten) is “This I Believe (The Creed)”, which is unsurprising given its origins in the Apostle’s Creed. Only three songs address all three Persons of the Godhead; “This I Believe (The Creed)” 2  “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.” Jn 16:13.

9  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE LYRICS (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 2) 

151

and “How Great Is Our God” are explicitly Trinitarian. The other, “Holy Spirit”, is a little more ambiguous, using the term Lord as its only potential address of the second person of the Godhead. The term could be used as an address to the Spirit, as supported by such scriptures as 2 Corinthians 3:17. The general lack of Trinitarian address in CCS could be because it is not available, but equally, it could be because CCS writers are aware that Jesus, and His salvific work, is the uniting doctrine for all Christians. Hence, such a focus is not only an accessible feature but, without being intentionally vulgar, a saleable one for CCS. Furthermore, there is a perpetuating cycle, as ‘Jesus’ songs are adopted, reported, and then brought to the attention of churches through CCLI charts, who adopt them, report them, and so forth. Jesus’ salvific work, however, is selectively covered in CCS lyrics. Out of the 29 songs that address Jesus, only 12 conspicuously address the crucifixion and/or resurrection of Jesus.3 CCS containing no specific address of the Godhead are rarer now than they once were. The only song in recent times in the top 25 lists with no specific Godhead reference (besides the divine “You/Your”) is “One Thing Remains”, which had fallen out of favour at the time of this research. Evans found that 14% of the CCS he analysed contained no specific Godhead reference (Evans 2006, 137). Even if this is a result of the Hillsong-centric analysis more than the fact that they are comparatively older CCS than those analysed here, Ruth’s much broader study found 6% of CCS to have no Godhead reference (Ruth 2010, 32). As it has already been noted, in more recent years, Hillsong have had Robert and Amanda Fergusson vetting the lyrics of their songwriters. Their focus on ensuring doctrinally orthodox (from a Pentecostal perspective) lyrics potentially increases the Godhead references in their songs.

Theology and Poetry Broader theological considerations are also worthy of attention here. There is a large volume of partially quoted Scripture in CCS, and here are just a few examples:

3  “Cornerstone”, “Here I Am to Worship”, “How Deep the Father’s Love”, “How Great Thou Art”, “In Christ Alone”, “Man of Sorrows”, “O Come to the Altar”, “O Praise the Name (Anástasis)”, “The Lion and the Lamb”, “This I Believe (The Creed)”, “This Is Amazing Grace”, and “What a Beautiful Name”.

152 

D. THORNTON

You’re rich in love and You’re slow to anger (Numbers 14:18, Psalms 145:8)—“10,000 Reasons”4 (When He shall come) with trumpet sound (1 Corinthians 15:52)—“Cornerstone”5 The Lion and the Lamb (Revelation 5:5–6)—“How Great Is Our God” and “The Lion And The Lamb”6 You give and take away (Job 1:21)—“Blessed Be Your Name”7 Worthy is the Lamb who was slain (Revelation 5:12)—“Revelation Song”8

Such selective quotation does not mean these scriptures are misquoted, or heretical, though it does mean they are poised for interpretation/contextualisation. Perhaps ironically, it is the partial quoting of scripture that validates the song as a CCS as the incompleteness of the theological thought demands poetic treatment. If the Word of God is open to a level of interpretation in its original context, it is subject to much more when it is partially quoted and in lyrical form. Meaning-making for such lyrics is a personal process of experience, personal revelation, context, education, and perspective, as well as orthodoxy. There are also quasi-scriptural elements that may well be acceptable theology or ambiguous language that can be potentially misinterpreted: Ten thousand years and then forevermore—“10,000 Reasons” And there I find you in the mystery, in oceans deep my faith will stand— “Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)” The earth shall soon dissolve like snow—“Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)” My Comforter my All in All, Here in the love of Christ I stand—“In Christ Alone” I see His love and mercy, washing over all our sins—“Hosanna”

4  “The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” (Numbers 14:18). 5  “In a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:52). 6  “See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah … Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne…” (Revelation 5:5–6 NKJV). 7  “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised” (Job 1:21 NKJV). 8  “Saying with a loud voice: ‘Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom, and strength and honour and glory and blessing!’” (Revelation 5:12 NKJV).

9  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE LYRICS (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 2) 

153

CCS lyrics are projected on screens and sung enthusiastically by those authorised voices on the platform providing the potential for all lyrics to be understood as orthodox doctrine. However, interpretation is a key element to lyrics as a poetic form, and context plays a significant role in that interpretation. Frow states that genre “is a set of conventional and highly organised constraints on the production and interpretation of meaning” (2006, 10). The CCS genre itself, especially in its performed contexts, places “constraints on the … interpretation of meaning” regarding its lyrics. CCS lyrics that are not specifically scriptural are still perceived as aligning with the doctrinal orthodoxy of the context in which the worshipper is singing, even if a more literal interpretation of the lyrics may indicate otherwise. This has been a concern to some, given the added factor that CCS lyrics become the personal confession of those who sing them. Of course, this is not just an issue for CCS, but for all historical and current Christian congregational song forms. Mitigating the potential dangers of putting words in people’s mouths and minds through CCS lyrics is the fact that the most sung CCS are scrutinised by tens of thousands of pastors, as well as thousands of churches across scores of denominations. Ultimately, if the lyrics are too ambiguous or doctrinally questionable, local churches can choose to reject those songs—but do they? If a song is catchy enough, or promoted by those who seemingly have authority in theological scrutiny, or from a ‘proven’ platform, will it be rejected? “Reckless Love” is one example of a song that came under scrutiny for its lyrics, specifically for the description of God’s love as “reckless”, even though it was promoted from the prominent and guarded platform of Bethel church. However, the fact that it could be interpreted positively and that that was the intent of the composer, and that there was a propensity towards the generous interpretation of the phrase from most Christians, given the context in which it was sung meant the song has achieved a high level of saturation among churches. In some respects, it is this slightly different language, not normally seen in CCS lyrics, that gave the song an edge, a talking point, a reason for people to wrestle with their own interpretation of the theological issue it raised. This delicate balance can swing either way, with some songs being dismissed quickly based on a phrase, and others being accepted. “Blessed Be Your Name” is another example of this, where the song was seldom introduced in Pentecostal churches in Australia because of the Bridge line “You give and take away”. It was felt in those circles that such a phrase did not

154 

D. THORNTON

express the generous nature of God adequately, even though the phrase was taken directly from Job 1:21. To add to the complexity, Gilbert (2013) discovered that many people do not even remember words to songs they think they know well. According to his summation, the form has overtaken the content. If people don’t even remember the words to CCS, are the words that life transforming? That being said, Gilbert did not indicate whether ‘wrong’ lyrics were still theologically orthodox. Perhaps the ‘made up’ lyrics were still transforming. Furthermore, as articulated in the introduction, the combined ‘form’ of melody and lyrics does overtake the individual content of either. This is not aberrant but fundamental to the nature of song. The debates will continue, but any argument over CCS lyrics only strengthens the need for ongoing academic rigour in this genre, alongside whatever mass (popular) ratification of CCS occurs. An eschatological emphasis occurs in 13 (41%) of the songs.9 The prominence of this theme among the most sung songs indicates a general orientation towards the eternal and specifically towards the return of Christ, provided that those references are not too prescriptive in their interpretation of end times. This eschatological feature is certainly consistent with Pentecostal theology (Clifton 2009, 21); and Swenson states that it has been “one of [evangelicals’] defining symbolic discourses” (2004). The core theme of eschatology in twentieth-century evangelical theology has, as one would expect, extended to congregational songwriting, which Witvliet additionally suggests was influenced by the holocausts and world wars of the era (2003, 54). A variety of common themes/words run through the lyrics of the most sung CCS. They may be attributes of God, common words related to the human condition, or key terms in the Christian faith. The top 23 themes/ words are compiled in a graphic form based on their frequency across the lyrics of most sung CCS (Fig. 9.1), but do not include the names of the Godhead discussed earlier. ‘Love’ unsurprisingly tops the list in 17 songs, although note that this is only just over half the list; 15 songs do not make any mention of ‘love’. In all 17 cases the reference is to God’s love, but the believer’s love for God is also present in a broader examination of CCS 9  “10,000 Reasons”, “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)”, “Cornerstone”, “How Deep the Father’s Love”, “How Great Is Our God”, “How Great Thou Art”, “In Christ Alone”, “O Praise the Name (Anástasis)”, “Revelation Song”, “The Lion and the Lamb”, “This I Believe (The Creed)”, “This Is Amazing Grace”, and “Who You Say I Am”.

9  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE LYRICS (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 2) 

155

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Blood/Bled Breath Cross Darkness Death/Died Earth Fear(s) Free/Freedom Glory/Glorious Hand(s) Heart(s) Hope Life/Lives Light Love Mountain(s) Name Praise Save(d) Sin Sing(ing) Song Wonder(ful)

Key Themes/Words in CCS

Fig. 9.1  Key themes/words in CCS

lyrics. While ‘sing(ing)’ (12) and ‘song’ (7) are separated in the graph, if put together, they outnumber the references to ‘love’. These words suggest a conspicuous self-awareness of the engagement in singing, while singing as an act of worship, whether it be encouraging others to sing; “sing with me, how great is our God” (“How Great Is Our God”), or encouraging ourselves; “sing like never before, oh my soul” (“10,000 Reasons”). CCS lyrics also, although far less often, use terms like ‘shout’, ‘cry’, ‘call’, ‘say’, when in fact all of those are sung in practice. Such terms represent either synonyms for ‘sing’ or expressions of how we sing (or instruct others to sing). The next most common term is ‘life/lives’ occurring 16 times. This term is often about the (new/eternal) life we have in Christ but also about surrendering our lives, as well as Christ laying down his life. ‘Heart(s)’ is the next most common (14 times), and overwhelmingly refers to the human heart, rather than God’s heart. It is an interesting term, denoting a non-physical place in our being; the seat of our deepest knowledge, understanding, convictions, and affections. Theologically, for some, it is a specific part of our soul, for others, part of our spirit, but never the physical heart. It is not an uncommon term in English, we might say that we “love someone with all of our heart”, which does not refer to the physical muscle. Nevertheless, for Christians, it is a

156 

D. THORNTON

special term given weight through scriptures such as “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart [emphasis added] that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). But whatever the heart is and where it resides is conveniently left to the individual worshipper to interpret in CCS lyrics. ‘Praise’ occurs in 13 songs (41%), which has increased its popularity in recent years. It only occurred in four songs (16%) for my PhD research. Interestingly, the word ‘worship’ only occurs in three songs. I mention the corresponding words of ‘praise and worship’ here because of the ubiquity of the term and the fact that their presence in lyrics is not an indication of their overall theme. Because a song has the word ‘praise’ in it does not mean that the central theme of the song is praise, nor must it therefore be worship. This issue is addressed at length in the next section of the chapter. ‘Name’ occurs 12 times and is always in reference to God’s/Jesus’ name. Notably, ‘sin’ is the next highest theme, featured in 11 songs, which has also re-emerged in popularity. From there is a jump down to nine CCS utilising ‘Glory’ or ‘Glorious’, and from there, there are 14 different terms which have 6–8 mentions; these include ‘blood/bled’, ‘breath’, ‘cross’, ‘darkness’, ‘death/died’, ‘earth’, ‘fear(s)’, ‘free/freedom’, ‘hand(s)’, ‘light’, ‘mountain’, ‘save(d)’, ‘song’, and ‘wonder(ful)’. Do any of those surprise you? Are there words you expected to be more common? It is interesting that the cross, Christ’s death, and Christ’s blood are featured so highly. Terms like ‘the blood’ were far less common in popular CCS 10–20 years ago. ‘Darkness’ and ‘fear(s)’ seem to be helpful generic terms for all that is wrong with the world, whether it is acute and personal or philosophical and global. The use of ‘earth’ also creates a sense of unity among all human beings. Christ may have come to a specific geographical location, Bethlehem, Judea, but the initiative was because God so loved “the world”. The universality of Christ as the necessary saviour of all mankind is one that resonates in CCS, and perhaps is one reason these CCS are the most sung around the world, appealing to the global gospel message. However, ‘earth’ is also used as a distinction from ‘heaven’ (a term only found in three songs), where Christians live out their faith, a place that remains in many ways, dark and broken, but also with potential for God’s kingdom to come and will to be done on it. ‘Free(dom)’ and ‘light’ are fairly familiar words relating to Christ’s salvific work, which may also account for the popularity of ‘save(d)’, although other keywords, like ‘forgiveness’ occur much less. One interpretation of the data might suggest that sin in CCS lyrics has become a concept which is no longer associated

9  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE LYRICS (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 2) 

157

with the need for God’s forgiveness, but rather just our ‘poor choices’ which God’s ‘light’ will help us avoid in the future, and God’s ‘freedom’ will remove any lingering guilt or shame. ‘Hand(s)’, ‘mountain(s)’, and ‘wonder(ful)’ are interesting. The first two are useful poetic words as they connote a much broader array of meaning than their respective dictionary definitions. God’s hands are His care, His providence, His protection, His guidance, and our hands are an extension of God’s, representing all that we do on His behalf on the earth, as well as being physically expressive of our worship (e.g., clapping or lifting hands). Mountains may be used to indicate obstacles of many varieties, or earthly powers, or encounter with God, or something that responds to God’s touch/presence as a demonstration of His power. Finally, ‘wonder(ful)’ is not only an appropriate response to God as well as a name for God (Isaiah 9:6) but it is also a very singable word in English, which should not be dismissed. Writing song lyrics is about both their sound and their meaning. There are some other key ideas which are covered over a few terms and thus do not show up on the graph in their own right. ‘Believe’ (four times), ‘faith(fulness)’ (two times), and ‘trust’ (three times) combined occur in nine songs. God’s goodness, greatness, strength, and might together are mentioned an impressive 17 times (to the same extent as His ‘love’). Perhaps in contrast, a combination of God’s grace and/or mercy is only mentioned eight times, and God’s holiness is mentioned in only five songs.

CCS Categories Keywords and themes are one way in which we can gain a greater understanding of what is happening in CCS lyrics. However, there are too many keywords or themes to create stable and useful lyric categories. Furthermore, some of these reoccurring words do not provide significant insight into the narrative of the song; they may only indicate the popularity of that lyric across the genre. The most compelling criteria for classifying CCS is the overriding primary purpose of a given song’s lyrics. The fact that a song has the word ‘blood’ is interesting, but how is the song to be used? As a testimony to the unsaved? As joyful thanksgiving for Christ’s sacrifice? As reflective devotion to our dear saviour? Many practitioners and academics (Badzinski, Walrath, and Woods 2010; Evans 2006; Pass 1989; Prince 1993) have attempted to categorise

158 

D. THORNTON

the overarching themes or underlying purpose in CCS lyrics, however, there is no present broadly accepted model for this task. Suggestions for CCS classification include Prince’s biblical worship word analysis resulting in three major themes: worship, rejoice [sic], and praise (combined) (2008, 56–57). Praise (combined) includes related words such as bless, exalt, glorify, magnify, and thanks. His summary reveals that praise and its associated concepts are by far the most dominant theme in biblical expressions of the creation’s relationship to the Creator. Prince also points out that praise songs in the 1980s and 1990s, as defined above, were particularly under-represented among CCS. While the three major themes identified by Prince represent thematic categories, they are insufficient to communicate the diversity of current CCS lyrics. Another potential CCS categorisation method can be developed from Liesch’s five stages of the live worship experience, including engagement, exaltation, adoration, intimacy, and closeout (1988). While the increased number of categories provides more flexibility, it still does not adequately address songs with testimonial, social justice, or prophetically oriented lyrics. Woods, Walrath, and Badzinski build on Pass’ (1989) original work categorising songs as Kerygma (proclamation/word), Koinonia (fellowship), or Leitourgia (service, ministry, worship, or sacrament) as they analyse the 77 top CCLI songs from 1989 to 2005 (Badzinski et al. 2010, 93–97). These are said to align with the “threefold church model … found in Acts 2:42”. Pass, in more recent work, goes on to develop the Leitourgia idea to include the sub-categories of Petition, Thanksgiving, Praise, and Adoration (2010, 110). These categories are one option and certainly help to differentiate the underlying purpose of individual CCS in relation to the gathered body of believers. However, even within the same book, The Message in the Music, there is some confusion in their application. Badzinski et al. include “praise” that is the proclamation of God’s attributes or works under the category of Kerygma, whereas Pass places “praise” songs under Leitourgia. Apart from the issue just mentioned, Badzinski et al. start by creating a biblically based modal, through which songs are then parsed. The danger here is that songs are pushed into a box whether they genuinely belong or not because they’re all ‘meant to’ align with the biblical pattern. Evans, on the other hand, creates categories based on the lyric content of CCS themselves, comparing them to established theological concepts and arrives at 18 song types (2006, 114–15). While these categories are comprehensive, they are at times redundant. ‘Anointing’ and ‘Spirit’ songs are one such

9  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE LYRICS (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 2) 

159

example. As Evans articulates, the anointing is the work of the Holy Spirit. As seen through Pentecostal theology, the Old Testament anointing is a picture of the empowering of the Spirit, and of being set apart and given spiritual authority (ibid., 101). According to Cotton, the anointing and the Spirit are inextricably linked (2002). Therefore, to separate songs into these two categories when they are essentially of an integrated theological concept seems arbitrary. Similarly, ‘Eschatological’ and ‘Judgement’ songs are connected. Judgement is not a common feature in CCS lyrics, but when it does occur, it is always in its eschatological setting. Once again, it is not that they cannot be separated, but rather that separation does not increase clarity. ‘Holiness’, ‘Salvation’ (Christology), and ‘Spirit’ songs are all described by Evans as “praise songs about” each person of the Godhead—Father, Son, and Spirit, respectively (ibid.). With many scholars arguing for a Trinitarian approach to worship (Parry 2011; Ruth 2010; Torrance 1997; Webber 2000), would not these three song types make more sense as a combined type with sub-categories? Finally, prayer, while represented in Confessional and Transformation/Dedication categories, arguably deserves a more formal treatment. Sung prayer has a long history within the Christian church and represents a substantial body of CCS lyrics. Similarly, prophetically oriented songs are not given a devoted category. While acknowledging that CCS lyrics are broad, creative, and constantly evolving, this research posits that the following four categories accommodate the dominant intent of all current CCS lyrics. They address the limitations of the categories above and are capable of, and useful for, identifying the overriding purpose of all songs within this genre (Fig. 9.2): • Praise/Thanksgiving—to or about God (or any Person of the Godhead), His character and/or His acts; acknowledgement, testimonial (in terms of God’s role), invitational; • Prophetic/Declarative—directed to the singer, the congregation, the unsaved, the wider community, or even the Devil; addressing revealed truth, reality (present or future), testimonial (in terms of our reality, or promised reality), social justice; also songs sung from God’s perspective (as if God is singing); • Worship—directly addressed to God (or any Person of the Godhead); defined by intimacy, surrender, relationship, dedication;

160 

D. THORNTON

Fig. 9.2  Four CCS lyric categories

• Petition/Prayer—request directed to God (or any Person of the Godhead); the request may take any form, but are often personal, corporate, evangelical, or eschatological. These are not mutually exclusive categories; CCS, as Evans concurs, contain a main categorical thrust but also often have a secondary theme (2006, 117). Each of Evans’ categories, outlined earlier, can be subsumed into one of these four. For example, Evans notes that ‘Anointing’ songs are a “call” for the Holy Spirit’s anointing (ibid., 114), accordingly, they are a Petition/Prayer. The focus of that prayer is important, but whether it is for empowerment, healing, forgiveness, or the anointing, the overarching category is clear; these are songs that address the Godhead to request something. As prayer is an important aspect of the Christian’s life and faith, it overflows into their songs and, therefore, deserves identification under its own banner. There are at least three benefits to this classification system over any other proposed above. First, it is grounded in both the actual lyrics of CCS

9  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE LYRICS (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 2) 

161

and theological precepts. Second, it is simple but comprehensive. In over 30 years of composing, worship leading, recording, and promoting CCS, I have not come across a CCS which does not easily fit into one or more of these categories. Third, even though there is a main thrust to any song, there are often sections of a song that explore related/different overarching themes, and this Venn diagram allows for such flexibility.

Focus of Current CCS Nineteen (59%) of the most sung CCS are primarily Praise/Thanksgiving, with three extra songs (9%) having Praise/Thanksgiving as their secondary focus. Seven songs (22%) are primarily Prophetic/Declarative, with five extra songs (16%) having Prophetic/Declarative as their secondary focus. Five songs (16%) have a primary focus on Worship, and four (13%) have Worship as their secondary focus. Just one song (3%) (“New Wine”) is primarily Petition/Prayer, but as a secondary focus, there are five songs (16%). Seventeen songs had only a single primary focus, 13 also had a secondary focus, and 2 songs had two secondary foci (Fig. 9.3).10

CCS Categories

n/ Pr io tit Pe

Primary Fig. 9.3  Weight of CCS song types  “Build My Life” and “New Wine”.

10

ay er

hi p ks W or

la /D ec he tic op Pr

Pr

ai

se

/T h

an ks g

ivi

ra tiv

e

ng

25 20 15 10 5 0

Secondary

162 

D. THORNTON

The classification of Praise/Thanksgiving is quite dominant, followed by Prophetic/Declarative. An important feature of Praise/Thanksgiving and Prophetic/Declarative is their evangelistic, or at least externally focused, potential. They have the capacity to be testimonial, which in certain contexts could be directed to those who do not yet know Christ, although whether they are directed to the unsaved or not, their testimonial nature is cathartic for Christians. From my personal observation and experience, I would venture to say that the very nature of (evangelical) Christianity is to want to publicly declare one’s faith, even if such an expression is in the relatively safe ‘public’ environment of a local church building; these types of CCS present that opportunity. They are also culture-­forming through repeated expression of ‘imagined’ ideals. If a song speaks of freedom without guilt or shame, that becomes the narrative for conversations about bondage with guilt and shame outside of the context of corporate musical worship. Such songs reinforce the community’s beliefs and expectations. One of the critiques of CCS lyrics is their potential to be too intimate and romantic, often described as ‘Jesus is my boyfriend’ songs (Drury 2010; J.  Holt 2009; Hoskin 2013; Scaramanga 2012; Williams Paris 2010). Out of all of the categories, Worship or Petition/Prayer tends towards more intimate lyrics, where such a critique might have validity, yet they represented only 6 of the 32 (19%) as a primary focus. Clearly, in practice, intimate lyrics to Jesus do not dominate the CCS lyrical landscape. Admittedly, there are denominations that lean towards more intimate language in CCS they choose/write, but in the global genre, those are not the most popular songs. Another measurement for intimacy in CCS lyrics is the point of view (POV), that is, the degree to which first-person singular pronouns (I, me, my) are used in comparison to first-person plural pronouns (We, us our). Seventeen of the songs (53%) are written in the first-person singular (I, me, my). Again, I refer to Evans, who is the only scholar with comparable statistics. In his PhD analysis of over 150 CCS in 2002 (songs were written between 1992 and 1999), 71% of songs utilised the individual POV. It could be that songs are becoming less first-person singular-oriented, or that, once again, his focus on Hillsong songs revealed a more first-person singular bias in their lyrics. Either way, the dominance of this perspective may be related to the broader Western culture of individualism, and equally to the theological position on individual faith and salvation. As Nekola articulates it:

9  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE LYRICS (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 2) 

163

Advertising, product technology, and even the musical and lyrical structure of so-called “worship” music itself helps construct worship as an individual, not communal, experience, further demonstrating the ecclesiastical shift of authority from the institution to the individual. (2009, 324)

Nekola’s insights are many, although her extrapolation here is worth challenging. Most individuals are not choosing what they sing on a Sunday in church, that power is still in the hands of the institutional gatekeepers (pastors, worship leaders), that is to say, not in “the individual”. Furthermore, as seen in Chap. 5, Christians may sing “I” in a song, but when sung together in the congregation, many clearly see it and value it as a communal expression of worship. Despite this evidence, many believe that a gathered community of faith should not express so much individual perspective in their song lyrics (Dawn 1995, 1999; Hamilton 1999). However, first-person singular pronouns make songs personally significant in a way that a plural POV may not. As the congregation internalises these “I, me, my” songs, they become the confession and meditation of the individual believer (Hull 2002, 16; Adnams 2008, 120–21). A comparatively small number of CCS, three, use only the first-person plural pronoun (We, us, our): “Great Are You Lord”, “Hosanna (Praise Is Rising)”, and “The Lion and the Lamb”. Note, though, that 12 songs are unaccounted for. Eleven of those songs contain both first-person singular and first-person plural pronouns (I, me, my, we, us, our). It may be that this confuses the focus of the song, but it equally speaks to the communal/individual integration of faith that exists for the Christian, especially when Christians gather together. CCS ethnomusicologists have noted the complex process whereby individual gathered believers negotiate their identity (Ingalls 2008; Adnams 2008). Apart from the sociological and psychological arguments for the utilisation of both POVs, there is also biblical precedent for songs containing both singular and plural personal pronouns (e.g., Psalms 20, 44, 66, 75, 85). The final song so far unaccounted for is “O Come to the Altar”. As an invitational song, it is never explicitly from anyone (singular or plural). Furthermore, it is directed towards an unspecified ‘you’, although all Christians recognise the ‘you’ as being those who have not yet received Christ’s forgiveness and eternal life. In all other songs, the second-person pronoun (You) is only directed towards God. While it is a unique song in some ways, it still fits into the Prophetic/Declarative category in the Verses and Chorus and into the Praise/Thanksgiving category in the

164 

D. THORNTON

Bridge. Such songs are rare in the CCS corpus, although they do appear from time to time. They are often featured around the ‘altar call’ when people are invited to make a decision to follow or recommit their lives to Christ. On even rarer occasion, CCS may be songs from the perspective of God to us, where congregations become the voice of God to one another. In both cases, such songs are arguably more naturally expressed as items by a solo vocalist embodying the voice of God, or the inviter of the congregation. However, clearly, some still work as congregational songs as exemplified by “O Come to the Altar”, albeit with a shorter lifespan than other types of songs. We now turn to the relationship between the POV (singular or plural) and the address of God. As already noted, some writers claim that CCS are too ‘me’ focused. Even if we extend that to ‘me/us’ focused CCS, the data reveals a different picture. After counting the number of POV references and the number of Godhead address references, a fraction was created. If the number of POV references was greater than the number of address references, then the fraction would be greater than 1, and would potentially represent more of a singer-focused song rather than a God-­ focused song (for a fraction of less than 1) (Fig. 9.4). Only six of the songs (19%) contained a fraction greater than 1; that is to say, 26 songs had an equal or greater emphasis on Who was being addressed than on the addressor. It is striking that one of those was “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)” at 19/8, that is, over twice the inward focus to that of the external. The other five were “Build My Life” (16/12), “King of My Heart” (21/18), “No Longer Slaves” (18/11), “Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)” (19/14), and “Who You Say I Am” (24/16). They are not all from the same producer, neither is it distinguishable along lines of the songwriter’s gender. Testimonially oriented songs can end up on either side of this equation. If they talk more about what God has done, they tend to be Praise/Thanksgiving; if they talk

Fig. 9.4  Visual representation of Godhead and POV fraction

9  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE LYRICS (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 2) 

165

more about what has changed for us (believers), they tend to be Prophetic/ Declarative. The main point here is that overwhelmingly the most sung CCS focus on God more than they do, the worshipper. Six songs had a fraction of exactly 1 (equal POV to address).11 The other 20 songs had more references to or about God than they did to the singer; the emphasis ranged from “The Lion and the Lamb” at 3/24 and “What a Beautiful Name” at 6/37 to “Lord I Need You” at 29/32. Interestingly, “The Lion and the Lamb” uses only the first-person plural POV, but “What a Beautiful Name” only uses the first-person singular POV indicating that there is no correlation between the focus on God and which POV is chosen; when the focus is on God, it doesn’t matter if He is ‘my’ God or ‘our’ God. The main point here deserves reiteration, the lyric content of the most popular CCS does not reflect a ‘me-centred’ expression of personal or corporate faith which some have supposedly observed (Webber 2007); en masse, the most sung CCS lyrics are God-centred. In a related issue, Evans hypothesises that “songs with a term of address (2nd person) are more individual than plural, and conversely, that third person terms of reference are necessarily plural rather than individual” (2006, 116). Seven of the 17 (41%) singular POV songs did use only the second-person address. Four of the 17 (24%) used only third-person addresses, and 6 (35%) used both second- and third-person forms of address. Conversely, two of the three songs with plural POV used only the second-person address, while the other plural POV song used only the third person. Among those with a mixed POV, there were also a mix of addresses, second person, third person, and combinations. Ultimately, the findings of this study show that integration of POV and terms of address are moving towards greater complexity than Evans proposed. Focusing in on song titles alone, eight songs have a personal (seven singular and one plural) reference in the title (“Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)”, “Build My Life”, “Here I Am to Worship”, “How Great Is Our God”, “King of My Heart”, “Lord I Need You”, “This I Believe (The Creed)”, and “Who You Say I Am”). Many song titles have an overt or inferred reference to God, although inferred references are sometimes subjective. Is “Amazing Grace” a poetic reference to God Himself or to that particular attribute of God? The rest are poetic titles with variously interpretable Christian meaning (e.g., “Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)”, 11  “Do It Again”, “Good Good Father”, “Here I Am to Worship”, “New Wine”, “Reckless Love”, and “Shout to the Lord”.

166 

D. THORNTON

“New Wine”, and “Reckless Love”). Most of these song titles come from an actual lyric from each song; however, as the CCS market has progressively become crowded, composers/publishers are often looking to differentiate their song from others. Such differentiation results in songs not named after their most prominent or repeated lyric, such as the first or last line of the Chorus, but from something more identifiable (i.e., marketable). Examples include “10,000 Reasons”, “Build My Life”, “Cornerstone”, “Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)”, and “Revelation Song”.

Bibliography Adnams, Gordon. 2008. The Experience of Congregational Singing: An Ethno-­ Phenomenological Approach. Edmonton: University of Alberta. Badzinski, Diane, Brian Walrath, and Robert Woods. 2010. We Have Come Into His House: Kerygma, Koinonia, Leitourgia  – Contemporary Worship Music That Models the Purpose of the Church. In The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship, ed. Brian Walrath and Robert Woods, 92–105. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Butler, Melvin L. 2002. ‘Nou Kwe Nan Sentespri’ (We Believe in the Holy Spirit): Music, Ecstasy, and Identity in Haitian Pentecostal Worship. Black Music Research Journal 22 (1): 85–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519966. Clifton, Shane. 2009. Pentecostal Churches in Transition: Analysing the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia. Leiden: BRILL. Cotton, Roger. 2002. Anointing in the Old Testament. March 28. https://www. agts.edu/faculty/faculty_publications/articles/cotton_anointing.pdf Dawn, Marva J. 1995. Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down: A Theology of Worship for the Turn-Of-The-Century Culture. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ———. 1999. A Royal Waste of Time: The Splendor of Worshiping God and Being Church for the World. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Drury, Keith. 2010. I’m Desperate For You: Male Perception of Romantic Lyrics in Contemporary Worship Music. In The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship, ed. Brian Walrath and Robert Woods, 54–64. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Evans, Mark. 2006. Open Up the Doors: Music in the Modern Church. London: Equinox Publishing Limited. Frith, Simon. 1998. Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular Music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Frow, John. 2006. Genre: The New Critical Idiom. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

9  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE LYRICS (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 2) 

167

Gilbert, Craig. 2013. Assessing the Impact of Theological Content in Popular Worship Songs on Congregants. Congregational Music Conference Presentation. The Worship Doctor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T269tR3BofQ&feature =youtube_gdata_player Hamilton, Michael S. 1999. The Triumph of the Praise Songs. ChristianityToday. Com, July 12. Holt, Jonathan. 2009. What’s Wrong with ‘Jesus-My-Boyfriend’ Songs? April 14. http://sydneyanglicans.net/blogs/ministrythinking/whats_wrong_ with_jesus_my_boyfriend_songs Hoskin, M. 2013. Jesus Is My Boyfriend and Other Things that You Should Keep to Yourself. The Pocket Scroll (blog). July 8. http://thepocketscroll.wordpress. com/2013/08/07/jesus-is-my-boyfriend-and-other-things-that-you-shouldkeep-to-yourself/ Hull, Kenneth. 2002. Text, Music and Meaning in Congregational Song. Hymn 53 (1): 14–25. Ingalls, Monique. 2008. Awesome in This Place: Sound, Space, and Identity in Contemporary North American Evangelical Worship. University of Pennsylvania. Liesch, Barry. 1988. People in the Presence of God: Models and Directions for Worship. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ———. 2001. The New Worship, Straight Talk on Music and the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Macnamara, Jim. 2006. Media and Male Identity: The Making and Remaking of Men. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Negus, Keith, and Pete Astor. 2015. Songwriters and Song Lyrics: Architecture, Ambiguity and Repetition. Popular Music 34 (02): 226–244. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0261143015000021. Nekola, Anna. 2009. Between This World and the Next: The Musical ‘Worship Wars’ and Evangelical Ideology in the United States, 1960–2005. PhD., University of Wisconsin-Madison. Parry, Robin. 2011. Worshipping Trinity: Coming Back to the Heart of Worship. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers. Pass, David B. 1989. Music and the Church. Nashville: Broadman Press. Pass, David. 2010. The Heart Of Worship: The Leitourgic Mode and Christian Sanctification in Contemporary Worship Music. In The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship, ed. Brian Walrath and Robert Woods, 106–126. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Prince, Dennis. 1993. Worshipping. Dingley: Resource Christian Music. ———. 2008. Worship Is a Bowl of Noodles: What Would Jesus Sing? Aspendale Gardens: Resource Christian Music.

168 

D. THORNTON

Prinsloo, Jeanne. 2006. Where Have All the Fathers Gone? Media(Ted) Representations of Fatherhood. In Baba: Men And Fatherhood in South Africa, ed. Linda M.  Richter and Robert Morrell, 132–146. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research. Ruth, Lester. 2010. How Great Is Our God: The Trinity in Contemporary Worship Music. In The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship, ed. Brian Walrath and Robert Woods, 29–42. Nashville: Abingdon Press. ———. 2013. Comparing American Antebellum Evangelical Worship Song and Contemporary Evangelical Worship Song: Reflections on the Trinity and Divine Activity Within the Economy of Salvation. Ripon College, Cuddesdon. http://sites.duke.edu/lruth/files/2013/08/Ripon-0.4.docx Scaramanga, Jonny. 2012. Jesus Is My Boyfriend. Leaving Fundamentalism (blog). June 8. http://leavingfundamentalism.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/ jesus-is-my-boyfriend/ Swenson, Joanne M. 2004. From Dogma to Aesthetica: Evangelical Eschatology Gets a Makeover. Cross Currents, Winter. https://www.questia.com/ magazine/1G1-114975424/from-dogma-to-aesthetica-evangelicaleschatology Thayer, Joseph, and James Strong. 1995. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers. Rei Sub edition. Place of publication not identified: Hendrickson Publishers. Torrance, James B. 1997. Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Vondey, Wolfgang, and Martin William Mittelstadt. 2013. The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal Scholarship: Passion for the Spirit. BRILL. Wainwright, Jeffrey. 2011. Poetry: The Basics. 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge. Walrath, Brian, and Robert Woods, eds. 2010. The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Watson, Wilfred G.E. 2004. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. London: A&C Black. Webber, Robert E. 2000. Is Our Worship Adequately Triune? Reformation and Revival Journal 9.3 (Summer). http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/refrev/09-3/9-3_webber.pdf ———. 2007. God Is Not the Object of Our Worship. ChristianityToday.Com, April 30. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/aprilweb-only/ 118-13.0.html White, Susan J. 2004. What Ever Happened to the Father? The Jesus Heresy in Modern Worship. http://www.gbod.org/content/uploads/legacy/kintera/ entry_9187/19/WHITE.PDF

9  JUST ANOTHER POP SONG? THE LYRICS (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 2) 

169

Williams Paris, Jenell. 2010. I Could Sing Of Your Love Forever: American Romance in Contemporary Worship Music. In The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship, ed. Brian Walrath and Robert Woods, 43–53. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Witvliet, John D. 2003. Worship Seeking Understanding: Windows into Christian Practice. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group. Zschech, Darlene. 2015. Personal interview for Poietic Analysis of CCS. Email.

CHAPTER 10

Some Individual Examples: Australia (Trace Analysis Pt 3)

The Problem with Analysing a Genre To this point, the genre analysis of the musical texts has taken a corpus approach, and for good reason. It is not the unique elements of the most sung songs which define the genre, it is the consistent and constitutive elements, the sum of the whole. The danger, then, is that by only focusing on the summative analysis of the 32 songs, that the genre definition is two-dimensional. For whatever similarities exist across these songs, and there are many, they did not become the most sung global CCS by being indiscriminate copies of each other, or following a set of prescriptive, rigid genre rules. It is the unique elements that give breadth, depth, and nuance to our understanding of the genre. With that in mind, Chaps. 10 and 11 explore seven of the most sung CCS individually.

© The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9_10

171

172 

D. THORNTON

Cornerstone The “Cornerstone” video1 with the highest view count on YouTube is a fan-­created and uploaded video utilising an audio rip2 from Hillsong’s Cornerstone album (2012). The official Hillsong YouTube channel video3 was uploaded only six days after this one, yet surprisingly has only half the number of views (22 million compared to 44 million). More perplexing is the fact that the fan-uploader, Allan Santosh, has only 34,000 subscribers (as of 13 February 2019) compared with Hillsong channel’s 5.12 million subscribers (as of the same date). This example supports the proposition that, at least historically, being the first to upload a song on YouTube is critical to its prominence, especially when, as in the case with Hillsong albums (released July each year at the annual Hillsong Conference), people are anticipating the release date. Additionally, it demonstrates the power of YouTube as an initial resource for Christians who are searching for CCS, and perhaps more so for producers who already have a significant following. Following the 12-second moving graphic title, with the audio track already playing underneath, background pictures appear (photos of nature, some close up and some panoramic) that change every 3 seconds. Although the photographs used are static images, they are edited to be constantly moving from one side to another or zooming in/out with soft transitions between them. At the same time, the lyrics in bold white font dominate the screen. In the official video, no lyrics are displayed. As with the “10,000 Reasons” video, the fan-created/uploaded video is undoubtedly a better resource for worship teams to learn lyrics, as well as for churches using it as a substitute for a live worship set. Typical of Hillsong Church albums since “Power of Your Love” (1992), this is a ‘live’ recording with substantial levels of post-production. As already established, the audial presence of the congregation is a key to songs being perceived as congregational, which is the case here. It is distinctive of the genre and reinforces CCS as vernacular music; communally created and performed. Musically, the small (or large) vocal range of the melody is noteworthy; either a Perfect 5th (for most female vocalists) or a  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvLxZEU02uI (accessed 1.11.15).  ‘Rip’ is the common term used for format-shifting of audio Compact Discs or DVDs, whereby digital copies of the audio/video tracks are stored (often in compressed formats) on a computer or digital storage device. 3  http://youtu.be/izrk-erhDdk (accessed 1.11.15). 1 2

10  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: AUSTRALIA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 3) 

173

Perfect 12th (for male vocalists who sing the Chorus up an octave from the end of the second Verse onwards). This male ‘octave jump’ is a popular contrivance4 for building dynamics and intensity into CCS. If the range of a section (mostly Chorus or Bridge) is small enough, and the tessitura is at the lower end of the average male register, then the section can be repeated in the octave above. This is often at the very top of the average male register and engenders a much higher degree of strain, energy, and physicality bringing with it a sense of intensity and passion that is often a desirable association with Pentecostal worship but also a dangerous precedent for long-term vocal care (Robinson 2011, 72, 192). The instrumentation builds up in volume and texture throughout the song, finally concluding in a quiet third Verse. The form of this song and “10,000 Reasons” is similar; both have three Verses, both have no Bridge, both use an Instrumental section and sectional variation to provide relief from repetition, and both finish with eschatologically oriented Verses. “Cornerstone”, however, contains a ‘false finish’ where the instruments continue to play and vocalists ‘spontaneously’ build up towards ultimate repetitions of the Chorus. Recording ‘free worship’, like this, is important to ‘live’ worship albums as well as key to a particularly Pentecostal worship practice (Clifton 2009). Worshippers attending pentecostal-charismatic services are often encouraged (explicitly or by example) to not only sing the words of a song but to sing their own words/thoughts/prayers to God during instrumental sections. Such practices further cement CCS as vernacular music and differentiate them from popular music. Like “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)”, the Verses of this song originate from a traditional hymn, in this case, “My Hope Is Built on Nothing Less” (c. 1834), lyrics by Edward Mote (1797–1874). However, the melody here is completely re-written. Also, the original hymn contained the refrain (Chorus), “On Christ the solid rock, I stand; all other ground is sinking sand”. This Chorus is completely replaced, and only the first, second, and fourth Verses are lyrically re-used. The predominantly three-syllable divisions of the new Chorus lyrics provide emphatic and purposeful proclamations; each phrase both melodically and lyrically reinforcing the core message of the song. Despite this re-writing, Myrin, Morgan, and Liljero essentially restate the essence of the original Chorus, 4  Other examples of this practice include “One Thing Remains” (Johnson, Riddle, and Black Gifford, 2010), “Anchor” (Fielding, 2012), and “Running” (Crocker and Ligertwood, 2011).

174 

D. THORNTON

raising the question as to why these contemporary songwriters felt the need to re-write Chorus lyrics at all. Commercial factors are one possibility; lyrics represent half of the copyright in a song, melody and music constitute the other half, with which the veteran CCS composers Myrin and Morgan would be familiar. By writing new lyrics and new music, their royalties are increased. Alternative explanations, however, are preferable in the popular CCS discourse; it has become increasingly common to take well-known hymns and re-write both lyrics and music to modernise them, especially adding a new Chorus, making them more consistent with the song structure and style of other CCS. Such approaches to writing also open up a wider audience for CCS, an older audience, representing more traditional churches. Whatever the motivation, commercial, service to the wider body of Christ, or a desire to reduce denominational divisions, this is a conspicuous and growing practice. This song only addresses the second person of the Trinity, utilising “Jesus”, “Christ”, and “Lord” or third-person pronouns (He, His, and Him). It is, therefore, not sung directly to Jesus, but about Jesus. It is both Praise/Thanksgiving, in terms of acknowledging Christ’s place and power in believers’ lives, and Prophetic/Declarative in terms of the way it positions the worshipper in relationship to their world and to their Saviour, consider the lines: I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly trust in Jesus’ name     or When darkness seems to hide His face, I rest on His unchanging grace

The rhyming scheme used for the Verses is AABB, while the Chorus utilises only partial rhymes, relying more on metre and melody to achieve unity. Metaphors play an important role in this song, as they do in many CCS. Although the Verse lyrics are 180 years old, the poetic metaphors evidently still have currency, for example: In ev’ry high and stormy gale, my anchor holds within the veil

However this song came about, and whatever the motivation, it is one that has quickly found its place among diverse groups, with its simple harmonic and melodic construction and memorable opening lines of its Chorus: “Christ alone, Cornerstone”.

10  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: AUSTRALIA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 3) 

175

Mighty to Save At the time of writing my PhD dissertation, this YouTube video5 had the highest individual number of views of any of the representative CCS, over 20 million. Only a few years later, 20 of the 32 (63%) have over 20 million views, a clear indication of the growing dominance of streaming media, YouTube in particular. This video is a DVD rip (audio and video) of “Mighty to Save” from the Hillsong album of the same name (2006), uploaded by WimNL who only uploads Hillsong/Hillsong United ripped videos, but stopped doing so in 2010. The channel has over 232,000 subscribers and combined views of almost 372 million.6 This has been their most watched video, the second being “At the Cross” from the same album (42 million views) and third, “Oceans Will Part”, again from the same album (21 million views). Despite early uploaders to YouTube typically attaining higher view counts, this video was uploaded one and a half years after the DVD release. However, with their substantial subscriber base, it is not surprising that this quickly gained viewing momentum over earlier uploaded versions. On top of which, earlier YouTube versions were fan-created videos, not DVD rips. Hillsong has consistently produced videos (of increasing quality) alongside their audio releases for over 20 years. The presence of these official videos (whether officially or unofficially uploaded) has given added impetus to their songs globally. The key worship leaders (Darlene Zchesch, Reuben Morgan, Joel Houston, Brooke Ligertwood, Marty Sampson, Matt Crocker, Ben Fielding, and others) have become globally recognised names and faces of CCS, despite Hillsong’s adamant control of the music brand being their church and not individual artists (Riches and Wagner 2013; Wagner 2013, 63), and in Darlene’s case, despite the fact that she is no longer at Hillsong Church. This ‘live’ video is filmed in the style of a live secular rock concert. In reference to online distribution of music video content, Holt proposes that end-user experience is the key to understanding these mediations as possibly “the online concert experience”, “The extraordinary concert event”, or “video blogs” (2011, 54–56). This video certainly has the end-­ user experience in mind; the stage is dynamically and creatively lit, the  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08YZF87OBQ (accessed 1.11.15).  Despite a number of attempts to contact WimNL, no response has been received. Furthermore, unlike many YouTube channel owners, they do not post any comments or replies on their videos. Given the lack of recent uploads, this channel owner is probably no longer actively engaged with the channel. 5 6

176 

D. THORNTON

smoke machine is not overpowering, but enhances lighting effects, and backgrounds are constructed to maximise visual impact across multiple cameras. Apart from the key musicians/singers (around 15) there are two large choir sections that dominate either side of the stage. The 10,000-strong congregation are often included in the chosen shots, reminding us that this is ‘more than a performance’. Camera operators target congregants who are passionately engaged—raising hands, singing, jumping, and shouting. The editing itself is dynamic; shots never last more than three seconds except where the overhead boom camera sweeps across the stage and down through the congregation. Many shots move in and out of focus adding more visual energy to this slow song to engage viewers in the worship experience, tapping into the “visual associations that exist prior to the production of the clip itself, in the internal sign systems of the audience” (Goodwin 1993, 58). The introduction is a three-note semiquaver, melodic cross-rhythm set up by the electric guitar, quickly accompanied by spontaneous congregational crotchet-clapping. A fuller band introduction follows. The instrumental sound is much larger and texturally richer than the songs of Redman and Tomlin or even the recent sound of Hillsong United (“Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)”). This is typical of the Hillsong Live sound. Not only is the live band and choir of a considerable size but the post-production work adds many additional layers of guitars and keyboards (keys) and vocals to produce a large, rich, and full sound. The guitars/bass/drums dominate musically, and the presence of voices is always prominent, even subtly behind the opening solo by Morgan. Although the lead vocal is male, Zschech’s voice is clearly audible from the first Chorus onwards as a co-worship leader. The electric guitar solo at 3′24″ does not dominate the soundscape but sits alongside the singers ‘free worship’, Zschech prominent in the mix. The breakdown vocal Chorus at 4′04″ and vocal Bridge at 5′22″ continue to reinforce the intended congregational priority of the song. The song is anthemic with lyrics that are self-consciously universal. Everyone needs compassion Everyone needs forgiveness The hope of nations Shine your light and let the whole world see

10  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: AUSTRALIA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 3) 

177

The second Verse is an exception, containing a personal prayer and commitment, defined by the first-person POV for the singer and the direct address of God in the second person. The mixed language of singular and plural points of view for the singer(s) and second- and third-person pronouns for addressing God has not limited the appeal of this song in the slightest. Is it possible that these multiple perspectives enhance the meaning-­making possibilities of this song for the individual worshipper?

Oceans (Where Feet May Fail) This is an official video,7 but created in the vein of fan-created videos albeit quite professionally. In my original PhD research, only 8% (2/25) of the representative CCS videos were official videos uploaded by those who have the rights to do so. The majority were uploaded without the legally required synchronisation and master licences, as with the great majority of uploaded videos to YouTube. Less than a decade ago, YouTube was almost terminally litigated by large global corporations with music industry interests because of the fan-created/uploaded music video phenomenon.8 However, court rulings ultimately favoured YouTube with a combination of royalty payments to copyright holders and an implementation of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998). Title II (an Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act) provided a “safe harbor” for online service providers, placing the onus on copyright owners to advise content platforms, such as YouTube, of any copyright infringements. Copyright owners could thus monetise their intellectual property or demand YouTube remove it.9 It was Hillsong Publishing’s policy until a few years ago to request the removal of copyright infringing videos of Hillsong music from YouTube (McPherson, personal communication, 2 October 2013). However, with the torrent of uploads, the effort in policing such a policy alongside the fact that videos removed clearly state the name of the copyright owner who demanded their removal (shedding a less favourable light on the Christian publishing company), Hillsong Music/Hillsong  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy9nwe9_xzw (accessed 3.1.19).  The most famous case being Viacom vs. YouTube, a summary of which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc. 9  More information about YouTube’s Partner Program and monetization of content can be found here: https://support.google.com/youtube/topic/14965?hl=en&ref_topic= 2676320. 7 8

178 

D. THORNTON

Publishing decided to monetise non-official uploaded content. Exceptions exist for content that infringes the moral rights of the Hillsong brand. In more recent times, however, Hillsong has realised the importance of being the first, or among the first to publish a version of their songs on YouTube, rather than being at the mercy of the production quality and values of fan-­ uploaded content. By the time of this research, many CCS producers had realised the importance of official videos, and half (16) of the most viewed CCS were official uploads on official channels, an increase of 700%. As mentioned, this official video does not take the typical form of official CCS music videos—the filmed ‘live concert’—but rather an artistic and refined version of the typical fan-created/uploaded CCS video, background pictures with overlaid lyrics. Following a four-second animated logo for Hillsong United, the background shifts to an almost indiscernible ocean footage re-coloured in muted red, green, blue, and grey. As lyrics are sung, they appear on the screen, not in a stark white, but a light grey, set within a text box and transitioned with a chequered effect. The style was likely chosen because this was a studio album, rather than a ‘live’ recording (which Hillsong traditionally film), and thus, at the time there was no existing ‘live concert’ video to upload to YouTube. This simpler and far cheaper mediation has clearly not been a deterrent to viewers, although it should be noted that during the conducting of this research a fan-created version of “Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)”10 has eclipsed the official video for a number of views by a couple of million. The channel owner, nikkytlyricsworship, only uploads worship videos with background pictures and large white or black font lyrics that she has created for commercially released CCS, but none of them have come close to the view count of “Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)”. It is hard to imagine why this video should have eclipsed the official version in views, except that the lyrics are much larger and clearer, and it doesn’t start with the Hillsong United logo, making it more ideal for use within a local church service context. Returning to the official version, the clarity of each sonic element in the song immediately points to this as a studio album rather than a ‘live’ recording.11 The strings/pads of the opening provide the bed from which  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJJJkiRukY (accessed 3.1.19).  One of the key techniques of ‘live’ recording is to capture some of the ‘atmosphere’ of the event, which in audio terms effectively means adding ‘noise’ to the track; this practice sometimes obscures, or at least contextualises sounds in a much larger space. Studio record10 11

10  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: AUSTRALIA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 3) 

179

the cello solo grows. The simple and sparse piano enters, followed by the single female vocal (Taya Smith). The first Chorus adds guitars and some extra keyboard parts followed by the introduction of drums and backing vocals for the Instrumental. The song progressively builds through the next Verse, Chorus, and Instrumental section until the Instrumental Bridge commences at 3′09″ which returns to simple piano chords and a reverse piano effect. The Bridge then builds over multiple repetitions and the first and only vocal harmony enters (a male voice) well into the repetitions. Eventually, the return to the Chorus reduces the volume and instrumentation back to pads and guitar that is followed by almost a minute of meditative non-rhythmic spacious pads. Despite it clearly being a studio album, the singability/playability of the song from a local church perspective is maintained. This includes sectional harmonic repetition with typical patterns, typical structure, and typical rising pitch centre of gravity (PCG) through the sections, limited vocal range in each song section, and expected intervallic structures in the melody. Zion, the album from which this song is taken, was Hillsong United’s most commercially successful at the time, debuting at number 5 on the US Billboard 200 and at number 1 on the Australian ARIA Albums Chart (“Zion (Hillsong United Album)” 2013). There are over twice the number of male lead vocal examples (23/32) from the list than female (9/32), and often it is the songs (co-)written by female composers that are recorded with female lead vocals.12 However, three songs written only by males contain female lead vocals: “In Christ Alone”, “Oceans (Where Feet May Fail)”, and “Who You Say I Am”. In such cases, the key is invariably altered to suit the worship leader. The only Godhead references are to the “Spirit” and “my Saviour”, and they only occur in the Bridge. The rest of the song uses a personal/singular POV and a direct address to God with the second-person pronoun. The language heightens the intimacy of the song combined with the intimate quality of the lead vocal. Metaphor is a key component of the lyric. The song alludes to the story found in Matthew 14:22–33 where, in the midst of a storm, at Jesus’ word, Peter steps out of the boat to walk on water towards Him. Although Peter falters after observing the wind and ings allow for high levels of signal and low levels of noise, creating cleaner and potentially more intimate sounds. 12  This is true of “Holy Spirit”, “King of My Heart”, “New Wine”, “Shout to the Lord”, “Revelation Song”, and “What a Beautiful Name”.

180 

D. THORNTON

waves, Jesus takes him by the hand, and they return to the boat, at which point the storm immediately ceases. Especially in Pentecostal circles, this popular passage attests both to the miraculous and to the nature of faith and doubt for believers. In terms of lyric categories, the song begins as Worship; statements about trusting Jesus in the midst of oceans (a metaphor for life and circumstances), our intention to pray (“I will call upon Your name”), and to spiritual rest. These affirmations lead to Petition/ Prayer in the Bridge which is not ‘save us from sinking’ but rather ‘increase our trust and faith’. An interesting internal rhyming scheme occurs in the Bridge where the end of the first line partially rhymes with the first phrase of the second line (“borders”, “waters”, and “wander”, “stronger”). There are also some mixed metaphors that do not violate the poetry, but do stretch interpretation. Here are two lines from the Bridge: Let me walk upon the waters wherever You would call me Take me deeper than my feet could ever wander

The first reference is consistent with the prevailing biblical allusion; however, the second is not. The idea of going ‘deeper’ is at odds with walking on water; yet, it may allude to another scriptural passage, this time the prophetic ‘river of healing’ from Ezekiel 47. In this passage, God takes Ezekiel into progressively deeper waters until he can no longer stand. Even without the knowledge of this reference, the second line as a word picture is colloquially meaningful. We use the English term ‘out of our depth’ when we find ourselves in a situation without the knowledge, skills, or experience to adequately navigate it. In this way, the line can simply be asking God to put us in situations just described, so our reliance is again totally upon Him. Although explainable, these lines point not to a logical approach to lyric creation, but rather a creative compilation of loosely associated metaphors; a ‘mind map’ approach. Such approaches to writing lyrics are common in the CCS genre.

What a Beautiful Name Brooke Ligertwood (née Fraser) is the most prominent current female CCS composer in the world. Much of her profile has come through Hillsong Church, although she is an artist and songwriter in her own right with numerous music awards to her credit, especially from her native

10  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: AUSTRALIA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 3) 

181

home of New Zealand. Her first major CCS success, recorded on Hillsong’s Saviour King album, was “Hosanna” (2007), a song which still remains in the top 100 of all five regions’ CCL reports. Since then, she has written a steady stream of popular CCS, including “Desert Song” (2008), “Beneath The Waters (I Will Rise)” (2012), and “New Wine” (2017), not to mention the numerous co-writes, of which “What a Beautiful Name” is one of the most recent, and certainly the most celebrated. It won the GMA (Gospel Music Association) Worship Song of the Year and Song of the Year in 2017, going on to win the Billboard Music Award for Top Christian Song and Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Christian Music Performance/Song in 2018. The co-writer, Ben Fielding, is also a prolific and celebrated CCS composer. He has the equal most songs (four) on the most sung CCS list alongside Matt Redman, which is an impressive feat considering Redman’s extra decade or more of global prominence as a CCS writer and worship leader. An ethereal tonic pad opens the song with Ligertwood alone on camera, eyes closed, soft light, hair slightly covering her face. The spotlight brightens, hair flicked back, Ligertwood starts the song, as if there were no tempo (although all such tracks are run with a click in the musicians’/ singers’ in-ear monitors). Instantly, behind Ligertwood, the sound of the ‘congregation’13 can be heard singing along, at which time the camera pans out to the dark mass of worshippers. After the first line of the Chorus, Ligertwood even steps back from the microphone encouraging the congregation to sing by themselves. Such activities of a worship leader, of the arrangement, and the choice of camera angles firmly place this song as congregational, despite all of the performance elements of a concert. It isn’t until the start of the second Verse that the rest of the band and singers engage, and the implicit rhythm and tempo become explicit. The camera moves back and forth between worshippers in the congregation, and ‘famous’ faces on the platform, such as Joel Houston and Taya Smith. During the Instrumental, the light softens, hands are raised, and spontaneous worship can be heard from the singers. The full power of the band waits for the line “The heavens are roaring” in the Bridge, which then continues to build through the third Chorus, extra half-Bridge, final Chorus, and two Tags. Ligertwood’s highest note is kept for the final 13  Almost certainly the ‘congregation’ that we hear are actually a post-recorded choir pretending to be the congregation, as live singing from a real congregation is almost impossible to record successfully in such a setting.

182 

D. THORNTON

crash out of the band, and a boisterous expression of praise from the congregation, most notably, clapping. This is a common phenomenon in Pentecostal worship, which should not be interpreted as it might be at the end of a secular live concert. While the uninitiated may be clapping the performers, there is considerable enculturation in such environments, whereby clapping is positioned as an expression of worship, directed to God, despite the fact that it occurs in the same place and in the same fashion as it might if the clapping were for the artist/band. This appropriation of a typical audience response is an important example of the way in which secular performative elements are reinterpreted and transformed by contemporary worshippers. This is not the only reading of such an element. Another reading would present clapping as a historical expression of worship (e.g., Psalm 47:1) long before it was a form of appreciation to secular performers, and thus, it is not an appropriation, but a rediscovery. As mentioned, this song has the highest word count (260) of any of the 32 most sung CCS. Ligertwood tends to have a higher word count in her songs than most other writers, part of which is due to her approach to lyric writing in Bridge sections. As discussed, “In Christ Alone” comes in a distant second with 224 words and yet feels wordier than this song. The repetitive Choruses of “What a Beautiful Name” offset the wordiness of other sections and is a technique Ligertwood employs in other CCS she has written, including “Beneath the Waters (I Will Rise)” and “Hosanna”. It is one of six songs that employ both the first-person singular and first-­ person plural pronouns alongside both the second- and third-person addresses for God. Five of these songs come from Hillsong, “This Is Amazing Grace” is the exception. With one of the smaller ranges of CCS (m7th), the whole of which is covered in the Chorus, this song is readily transposable. The use of some passing chords in the Chorus, chord iii in the Bridge, and a couple of first inversion chords make the harmony look more interesting than it actually is. It is essentially still a four-chord song, with very familiar patterns, including I V vi IV in the Chorus. Nevertheless, it is the only most sung CCS which includes chord iii, albeit a slightly modified alternative to I6.

Bibliography Clifton, Shane. 2009. Pentecostal Churches in Transition: Analysing the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia. Leiden: BRILL.

10  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: AUSTRALIA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 3) 

183

Goodwin, Andrew. 1993. Dancing in the Distraction Factory: Music Television and Popular Culture. London: Routledge. Holt, Fabian. 2011. Is Music Becoming More Visual? Online Video Content in the Music Industry. Visual Studies 26 (1): 50–61. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1472586X.2011.548489. Riches, Tanya, and Tom Wagner. 2013. The Evolution of Hillsong Music: From Australian Pentecostal Congregation into Global Brand. Australian Journal of Communication 39 (1): 17–36. Robinson, Daniel. 2011. Contemporary Worship Singers: Construct, Culture, Environment and Voice. Griffith University. https://www120.secure.griffith. edu.au/rch/file/a6e0fbc7-2dce-895f-bf5f-f72bdccbf30d/1/ Robinson_2011_02Thesis.pdf Wagner, Thomas J. 2013. Hearing the Hillsong Sound: Music, Marketing, Meaning and Branded Spiritual Experience at a Transnational Megachurch. Royal Holloway University of London. http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/ files/19680902/2014wagnertphd.pdf

CHAPTER 11

Some Individual Examples: UK and USA (Trace Analysis Pt 4)

10,000 Reasons The most viewed “10,000 Reasons” YouTube video1 is not official; it is neither created nor uploaded by the copyright owner of the song or audio recording. Rather, it is fan-created/uploaded, containing a static background picture (Fig.  11.1) with the overlaid lyrics appearing synchronously with the audio. It is simply constructed; the type of video that might be projected on a screen during a church service for the congregation to sing along with. With the average size of churches in Australia between 60 and 70 people (“Size of Churches” n.d.) capable live musicians are often in short supply to facilitate corporate musical worship. While churches invariably value live musicians over CCS music videos, the use of videos does provide one viable solution in the absence of a live worship team. Further to this public projection scenario, the large font size lyrics (white, non-serif, and outlined in black) consume much of the screen and serve for easy reading. It is not designed to impress with film or editing techniques; its focus is the song. This is a recurring feature of CCS YouTube videos. British musicologist Nicholas Cook, in his book Analysing Musical Multimedia, argues that “it is complementation and contest that prove to be critical in analysing musical multimedia” (1998, 1

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXDGE_lRI0E (accessed 3.1.19).

© The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9_11

185

186 

D. THORNTON

Fig. 11.1 10,000 Reasons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXDGE_ lRI0E (Background picture)

115). However, when it comes to CCS videos, contest is seldom a feature, and while complementation may occur, for ‘live’ worship videos between the sound, the worship team, the visual elements of the platform, and the worshipping congregation, for most fan-created videos there is a clear visual subservience to the audio. Based on the secular pop music videos Cook analysed, he reasonably argues that for the “emergence of signification” to occur in multimedia, there must be “a ‘limited’ intersection of attributes, as opposed to either complete overlap or total divergence” (ibid., 82). Applied to the “10,000 Reasons” video, the background picture does cohere with the first Verse lyrics about worshipping God as the “sun comes up”, but this visually referenced lyric does not recur elsewhere in the song, nor is it the central message of the song. It is an inspiring image, despite its stasis, that is clearly subservient in its potentially functional role in corporate worship. There is, therefore, a “limited intersection of attributes”; however, there is a clear hierarchy of mediums, which is better aligned with Goodwin’s theories on music video analysis (1993). There is also an official YouTube version for “10,000 Reasons” with a slightly varied arrangement (a higher level of production on a more recent

11  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: UK AND USA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 4) 

187

recording). Unlike the most viewed version, this video is in a more typical ‘music video’ vein, showing Matt Redman and a band singing/playing the song in an old church, filmed in black and white. It has 35 million views compared with the other’s 156 million, but it was uploaded over seven months after the original (5 July 2012 compared with 25 November 2011). The seven-month gap is enough for the original video to gain viewing momentum, achieved through the sharing of video links, and increased viewership, thus raising its search profile, fostering even more viewers. The ability to see how many people share a video is, unfortunately, only available to the channel owner, via YouTube Analytics. At the time of my PhD research, attempts were made to contact all channel owners of the representative CCS videos, yet only one responded (Chad McCracken, who uploaded “One Thing Remains”). His statistics showed 18,419 shares, exponentially higher than his 2552 subscribers. This proportion of shares to subscribers would be at least principally similar across most of the representative CCS videos, explaining the considerable view counts in light of the relatively small subscriber numbers. Often the first or at least an early uploader of each of the most sung CCS videos acquires the greatest number of views. Future ‘official’ videos tend not to affect the status of the highest viewed version.2 On rare occasion, early uploaders do not achieve the highest viewed videos (e.g., “Blessed Be Your Name” and “In Christ Alone”). The reasons for such cases tend to be self-evident, such as the earlier uploaded video containing substantially inferior quality or the channel owner not having the weight of subscribers to initially give momentum to their version over a veteran ‘YouTuber’. Musically, a low-mid-range piano provides the initial introduction for the song, a contrast to Redman’s usual acoustic guitar. When the vocals enter, Redman is audibly the lead vocal/worship leader. Given the many background voices (singing, clapping, and shouting in places), it is apparent that this is a ‘live’ recording, whereby Redman is leading the congregation in song. The term ‘live’ is equivocal in CCS recordings. Purportedly, ‘live’ recordings undergo considerable post-production as discussed in “Mighty to Save”, which often leave very little of the original ‘live’ performances in the final product. Secular ‘live’ popular music recordings also 2  This is not the case for secular popular music, where official videos (especially those released by the joint venture video hosting service, VEVO) always appear at the top of song searches and are promoted above all user-generated videos, thus quickly attaining the highest view counts.

188 

D. THORNTON

have quite a long history of this practice (Donnelly 2013, 178). Furthermore, studio recordings can be engineered in such a way as to capture certain ‘live’ audio attributes, for example, recording an audience in a studio, or arranging a choir to sing as if it were a congregation, or recording the band playing together to capture moments of spontaneity and interaction. Finally, ‘live’ audio elements, like ‘crowd sounds’, are often added into ‘live’ recordings to enhance or replace existing ambience.3 Progressively instruments enter, building to the first Chorus. Among them are the acoustic guitar, a bass guitar, an organ sound, a bass drum and a mandolin for the second Chorus and Instrumental, and finally a tambourine. Additionally, backing vocalists sing ‘woahs’ through the Instrumental. The drum kit and electric guitars, staples of CCS, are conspicuously missing from this recording. However, Redman’s Church of England background arguably makes him more sensitive to varied denominational musical environments, and the acoustic feel to the recording is more flexibly appropriated into local congregations than some of the extensively produced large band/choral recordings of, for example, Hillsong. The song contains a rather large melodic range (a major 10th), with the tessitura coalescing around a range of pitches—G4, A4, and B4. The highest notes (E5, F#5) are towards the end of the Chorus, which help to provide a natural climax each time the section is sung. The song form is fairly standard4 with the noticeable absence of a Bridge, a trait more common in CCS of the mid-1990s or earlier. In its absence, the three Verses and the added Instrumental Chorus all contribute to the delicate tension between variety and familiarity. A rhythmic device—an additional 2/4 bar—is employed at the end of each third line within the Verses. In effect, it produces a musical pause allowing the weight of the lyrics to be considered. It also gives the singer the opportunity to take an adequate breath before the ensuing phrase. Finally, it inadvertently creates heightened anticipation for the Chorus from the fourth line of each Verse by delaying its resolution. While Pentecostal CCS composers tend not to 3  Having personally produced/co-produced three ‘live’ worship albums for Influencer’s Church, SA (formally Paradise Community Church), three ‘live’ albums for LifeSource Christian Church (formally North Shore Christian Centre), NSW, and two for C3 Mt Annan (formally Mt Annan Christian Life Centre), I have witnessed that this practice is common among recording/mixing engineers of the genre. 4  Introduction(4), Chorus, Verse1, Chorus, Verse2, Chorus, Instrumental-Chorus, Verse3, Chorus x2, Tag x2, Instrumental(4), Tag x3.

11  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: UK AND USA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 4) 

189

include such pauses, they are not uncommon in traditional hymns, with which Redman would be familiar. Lyrically, this is one of the 12 most sung CCS which addresses God in both the second and third person. In this case, the change in addressing God in the third person (“the Lord”, “His”) to the second person (“Your”) occurs in the Chorus and re-orients the singer from a focus on their own self/soul regarding their intention to worship, to directly addressing God, the object of their worship: Bless the Lord O my soul, O my soul Worship His holy name Sing like never before, O my soul I’ll worship Your holy name

Such an adjacent change in address (and repeated change, given multiple Choruses and Tags) has the potential to confuse the focus. However, this oscillation emerges from a single theological understanding; that worship is both an internal attitude and orientation and an external expression, which the “10,000 Reasons” Chorus captures. No regular rhyming scheme is employed, and there is some variation in the syllabic count for each Verse; however, the Verses are melodically and rhythmically consistent. The last line of each Verse is strictly ten syllables and provides rhythmic and melodic drive towards the Chorus, enhanced harmonically by the only perfect cadence within the Verse. The Verses are rich in descriptive language and the poetic line, Ten thousand reasons for my heart to find

containing the title of the song, is paralleled by the eschatologically oriented third Verse containing the lines, Still my soul will sing Your praise unending Ten thousand years and then forevermore

which elicits vocal enthusiasm from the congregation on the recording. This is an example of the significance of the eschatological frame for evangelicals already discussed in Chap. 9, although note that the particular figure of ten thousand is poetic and not prescriptive to an interpretation of Revelation, as one thousand years (the millennial reign of Christ) would be.

190 

D. THORNTON

“10,000 Reasons” quickly rose to international acclaim, winning the GMA Dove Awards5 Song of the Year and Worship Song of the Year, 2013, and taking the top or near-top ranking in recent CCLI reports from the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Moreover, the view count of “10,000 Reasons” (156 million) on YouTube is second only to “What a Beautiful Name” (281 million) among the most sung songs, even though the mediation does not have the production values or sophistication of many of the other CCS videos. While CCS written before 2006 were overwhelmingly promoted through pre-internet/streaming mediums of transmission (live performances, television, radio, and CD sales), “10,000 Reasons” was one of the first CCS to really demonstrate the power and pervasiveness of YouTube in promoting and disseminating songs to local congregations around the world. Even though the video was not officially created and uploaded, it is an example of the new marketing force that has transformed cultural industries, generally, and CCS, specifically.

Here I Am to Worship “Here I Am to Worship” (2000) is the fourth oldest song on the list. None of the top-viewed YouTube videos for the most sung CCS were posted before 2007. YouTube only commenced in 2005; picked up by Google in October 2006, the following few years witnessed its exponential growth and market saturation (“History of YouTube” 2014). Older songs on the list, as discussed above, had many recordings before YouTube gained prominence as a music streaming service and became an essential marketing tool for CCS. “Blessed Be Your Name” is one example of an original (as in, first) recording not attracting the most views. Similarly, Tim Hughes’ original album entitled “Here I Am to Worship” (2001), containing its namesake song, has very few YouTube representations. It was veteran CCM artist, Michael W. Smith’s version on his album Worship Again (2002) which constitutes the audio for the video analysed here.6 In 2003, Hillsong recorded another popular version of this song on their album Hope. Hughes’s profile in the UK, Smith’s in the USA, and

5  Each year, the Gospel Music Association (GMA) recognises outstanding achievement through these awards in a range of subgenres within the Christian music industry. 6  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoxopsRSfdU (accessed 1.11.15).

11  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: UK AND USA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 4) 

191

Hillsong’s in Australia, quite apart from their respective international profiles, doubtless had a significant impact on this song’s popularisation. Hughes, the composer, is a guitarist, whereas Smith, the recording artist of the analysed version, is a pianist, and thus Smith reshapes the song around his instrument. His female backing vocalists and use of the organ and tambourine touch on a ‘gospel’ flavour in contrast to Hughes’ strings/ guitar/loops adult contemporary almost ‘indie’ original. Smith’s version is also slightly faster than the original. The video is the standard fare of fan-created static nature pictures (without movement effects) and more large white font lyrics synchronised to the audio. One of the stranger aspects of this video is the awkward quick fade at the end of the video track. The video finishes at 4′02″ while the audio track on the CD ends at 4′56″.7 Whether this edit is intended or accidental, and despite the awkward fade, this version has become dominant on YouTube. The reasons for this include the channel’s 427,000 subscribers, the fact that there is no official video for the song, and that it is still one of the relatively early YouTube uploads of the song. Though the melodic range is a Perfect 8ve from B3 to B4, in practice, the song is often reduced to a Perfect 5th as the low B (the sole note extending the range from a Perfect 5th to a Perfect 8ve) is only found in the Bridge and can easily be replaced by E4. As such, it potentially has the equal smallest range of any song on the list, alongside “Cornerstone” for female vocalists who do not sing the Chorus an octave higher. A small range makes transposing the key easy and, in turn, facilitates easier transitions between songs if they can be performed in related keys. Corporate musical worship typically involves more than one song—in current Australian Pentecostal churches, normally four to five.8 The transitions between these songs are important. The concept of ‘flow’ is central to pentecostal-charismatic worship practices, and songs sharing the same key or closely related keys make the musical achievement of ‘flow’ easier, as jarring harmonic shifts between songs are eliminated.

7  Ultimately, the reasons for such editing are only known by the channel owner, and as mentioned, all but one was reluctant to respond to attempts to contact them. 8  Of the 50 churches I have personally ministered in over the past two years, four to five songs is the typical request for the initial corporate worship time, equating to 20–30 minutes. This is consistent with personal conversations with worship leaders and directors around the world.

192 

D. THORNTON

Hughes’ lyrics are devotional and poetic. His word-pictures and metaphors capture aspects of the life of Jesus and His relationship with the believer using vivid and emotive language, consider: Light of the world You stepped down into darkness Beauty that made this heart adore you All for love’s sake became poor I’ll never know how much it cost to see my sin upon that cross

The last line of the Bridge articulates the soteriological theme of Christ’s atonement in a unique way. By using the first-person perspective (“I’ll never know” or “my sin”) and relating it to “cost” adds poignancy and immediacy to this Christian tenet. In addition, this single-line Bridge is, in performance, repeated many times, driving its message home. Regarding song type, this is the only most sung CCS which is solely Worship in classification, other songs with a primary focus of Worship also contain a secondary focus, most often of Petition. Even though the song clearly refers to Jesus, His life, and work, He is never mentioned by name. The second-person pronoun address is used throughout, consistent with the Worship category. The address of Jesus in the Chorus (besides the pronoun, You) is “my God”, a possible reference to Thomas’ revelation of the resurrected Jesus in John 20:28 (Thomas said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”). The other address is “King of all days”, not a direct scriptural reference, although certainly consistent with evangelical doctrinal orthodoxy. Interestingly, Hillsong United used this same phrase as the basis for an original song, “King of All Days”, in their album Tear Down The Walls (2009). Appropriation of lyrics from other CCS for new ones is a common practice and sometimes more akin to cannibalism than creative inspiration. Similar observations can be made between “In Christ Alone” and “Cornerstone”, or “Our God” and “God Is Able” or “King of My Heart” and “Good Good Father”. Toynbee’s notion of “[s]ocial authorship” applies here, whereby all those involved in the CCS collaborative process are “selecting from a pool of coded voices that are shared within a given musical community” (2003, 110). Thus, repetition, imitation, and variation of ‘acceptable’ CCS lyric content is not only relatively common within the genre but affirms the norms of the genre. Of the four (male) English writers represented in the most sung songs, Hughes, Redman, and Townend have all had multiple songs in the top 25. Their initial successes, Hughes’ “Here I Am to Worship” (2000),

11  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: UK AND USA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 4) 

193

Redman’s “The Heart of Worship” (1997) and Townend’s “How Deep the Father’s Love” (1995), were all released before the pervasive spread of internet-based media platforms. Nevertheless, the initial success of these songs paved the way for their future songs. Once a songwriter has emerged in prominence through an influential song (think of Zschech’s “Shout to the Lord” as yet another example), there is an expectation that more noteworthy songs will emerge from that source. Whether despite the expectation or in response to it, those songwriters often continue to write new songs, which are predictably more quickly accepted and adopted into the repertoire of local churches. Of course, if those songwriters sign with a major publisher, there is also an expectation that they will continue to write songs which the publisher can exploit.

How Great Is Our God The fan-created/uploaded video9 achieving the highest view count of this song is unique in that it does not have the lyrics displayed over the almost universal nature pictures. Instead, this video starts with the scripture John 3:16 appearing on screen (white font on black background) for 18 seconds and is read by an articulate male voice. Then when the song starts, instead of lyrics, various scriptures progressively appear over the background pictures. As with other recordings of this song, at the end, there is a seamless transition to the song, “How Great Thou Art”. As noted, “How Great Thou Art” is not only still within copyright but perennially popular. To what degree the combination of “How Great Is Our God” and “How Great Thou Art” have mutually popularised the other is hard to say, but their synergy should not be underestimated. “How Great Is Our God” was at or near the top of the Australian CCLI top songs list for eight years, to which few other songs can lay claim. This was the first combination (albeit a medley, rather than an integrated composition) of modern and hymn-like CCS to make such an impact on the CCLI charts, but it was not the last. Perhaps with the success of this ‘blend’ in mind, Tomlin wrote his version of “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)” to similar acclaim. The integrated CCS/Hymn approach of composing additionally provides a clever musical (and arguably commercial) solution to the ‘worship wars’ of the 1980s and 1990s. Ingalls upholds this song pairing “How Great Is Our God” and “How Great Thou Art” as an “icon of the dynamic 9

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi0yLRX4d2M (accessed 3.1.19).

194 

D. THORNTON

formation of evangelical identity through congregational song” (2008, 407). The audio rip for this video taken from The Best of Passion (so far) album (2006) is quite poor in quality, also containing two audio glitches (at 5′31″ and 5′42″). Also of interest is the extra unrelated piano/strings track that is placed at the end of this video, while further scriptures and nature pictures are displayed. Why then has this particular video had so many views? Not because of the quality; not because of its potential as a lyric learning aid or live church worship substitute video. And not because of the channel owner; he only has one other song on his channel, the Mercy Me track “I Could Only Imagine” (which has just under one million views). The remainder of his videos are unrelated to CCS and have comparatively negligible view counts. The upload date again provides the key insight. An official video for this song (in this case, the World Edition version)10 was not uploaded until almost seven years after the one analysed. Seven years is an eternity on YouTube. Even with the industry power of VEVO and the algorithms that have since pushed the original video off the first search page, the official version has 37 million views compared to the original’s 43 million. The live nature of the recording is again celebrated, even to the point of a slightly out of tune vocal from Tomlin at 3′42″ and a generally unpolished vocal, testament to Tomlin’s lack of formal vocal training. The congregation is elevated in the mix, including the individual shouts or whistles, and Tomlin steps back from the microphone a couple of times as if to give over the worship to the people. Harmonically, this song is typical and simple (four-chord progression— I vi IV V), making it accessible to musicians who have had limited formal training. The tessitura moves from around G4 in the Verse to C5 in the Chorus and Bridge, providing a natural lift in volume and intensity of vocal performance for those sections. As discussed, this pattern for rising sectional pitch centres is typical of almost all songs analysed; respectively lower pitches are assigned to the Verses and higher pitches are assigned to the Chorus/Bridge. This is sometimes only achieved through a Chorus which can be sung ‘up the octave’ (generally by male vocals), such as in “Cornerstone”, “King of My Heart”, and “Lord I Need You”. Alongside this tessitural formula, the musical accompaniment always supports this lift in sectional pitch centres with an increase in instrumentation and/or  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg5qDljEw7Q (accessed 3.1.19).

10

11  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: UK AND USA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 4) 

195

dynamic. Because the musical form of CCS tends to repeat Choruses, the prolonged higher vocal register encourages worshippers to sing with increased intensity. Thus, these sections have a greater impact on the worshipper physiologically, emotionally, psychologically, and perhaps even spiritually. As mentioned, only two other most sung CCS address all Persons of the Godhead (“Holy Spirit” and “This I Believe (The Creed)”), the latter containing the only other overt Trinitarian reference. Such explicit theological articulations, alongside eschatological references to “the Lion and the Lamb” (Revelation 5) and the “Beginning and the End” (Revelation 1:17, 22:13) no doubt help to strengthen what are otherwise rather simple and repetitive Chorus and Bridge lyrics. Additionally, “How Great Is Our God” utilises six different terms to address the Godhead: “God”, “Father”, “Son”, “Lion”, “Lamb”, and “Spirit”, the most of any key CCS until it was eclipsed by “This I Believe (The Creed)” with ten different terms. The lyric “our God” is found in two other CCS which have recently slipped off the top CCS charts globally, “Our God” and “God Is Able”. This collective possessive pronoun connected to God echoes the opening of the Lord’s Prayer, “Our Father in heaven” Matthew 6:9 (NIV). This is another demonstration that the CCS genre is not predominantly me-­ centric, and that the corporate identity of the body of Christ in worship pervades CCS lyrics.

In Christ Alone “In Christ Alone”, “Cornerstone”, “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)”, and “How Deep the Father’s Love” all sit in an ambiguous space bridging traditional hymns and CCS.  Because of this, I originally questioned their inclusion into the research, as I was concerned their analysis may colour CCS in a way that is not representative of the genre as a whole. To ignore these types of songs, however, is to ignore a significant practice within the genre. These sorts of songs have the potential to bridge denominational worship practices from both pentecostal-charismatic and mainline traditions. They also have the potential to offend traditionalists by surreptitiously adding popular music into their sacred texts, or equally producing ambivalence in contemporary worship advocates who see them as a capitulation to the past, or a nostalgic trigger. Whichever way, this

196 

D. THORNTON

approach to CCS writing is popular, well established, and if anything, increasing, and therefore deserves attention when examining the genre. “Cornerstone” and “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)” approach the hybridity differently from “In Christ Alone” and “How Deep the Father’s Love”. The first two take the wordiness and gait of traditional hymns as their Verses (either with original or re-written melodies) and write a melodically and lyrically simpler Refrain/Chorus consistent with the CCS style. “In Christ Alone” and “How Deep the Father’s Love”, however, are written to mimic the traditional strophic hymn form without a Chorus, but performed with the instrumentation, textural, and dynamic sensibilities of CCS. “In Christ Alone” adopts a typical slower CCS dynamic shape building to a musical peak at the end of the second Verse, returning to musical simplicity and lower volume to emphasise the lyrical poignancy of the third Verse, followed by another musical build. This song is not found in any Pentecostal denominational CCLI ‘top songs’ list, nor is “How Deep the Father’s Love”, and in my experience of ministry, these songs have never been on their master song lists.11 “In Christ Alone” and “How Deep the Father’s Love” skew the average age of the representative CCS, both being among the oldest songs. This fact testifies to the slower uptake and longer lifespan of CCS within mainline churches, who account for these songs’ appearance on the list. Failure to include them in this research would bring even more alignment to the unifying features of the representative CCS, which at the same time would be ignoring the influence of these songs, at least within non-pentecostal-­ charismatic contexts. The inclusion of these songs actually affirms certain features of the genre while equally demonstrating the breadth and diversity of songs even within the core. There are two YouTube mediations12 of this song, with high view counts, which are of interest to this study. The highest viewed (23 million) is an upload of the live Passion 2013 conference, with Kristian Stanfill leading the song, although it is not an official upload. The channel owner, #strongotower27, doesn’t have any other Passion conference videos uploaded, in fact, most of their content is related to Arabic Christian songs, and stories of Muslims coming to Christ. Their next most watched 11  The pool of songs from which worship leaders or other appointed personnel can choose for inclusion in a given church service. 12  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENtL_li4GbE (accessed 1.02.19) and https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNRFumI2ch0 (accessed 1.02.19).

11  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: UK AND USA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 4) 

197

video only has 6.2 million views, and the view counts descend quickly from there. Although this version of “In Christ Alone” has 3 million more views than the next most watched version, it is not the one that will be analysed in detail here, as it is an embellished version of the original song, containing an added Bridge and musically updated in a way that a traditional hymn might be for a CCS-oriented church. In that sense, it is a fascinating case study of the perceived differences between modern hymns and CCS, but it is also not representative of the version most local churches would be singing. There is also an official YouTube video of this version of the song on the PassionVEVO channel.13 However, it only has 840,000 views, was uploaded eight months after the pre-eminent version, and ironically, is produced in the style of a fan-created video, with the guitar chords and lyrics artfully projected in 3D on a relatively plain background. The version (of the original song) analysed14 was posted five years earlier than the Passion version, still, of course, seven years after “In Christ Alone” was originally written. This truly fan-created and uploaded lyric video contains typical background static nature pictures (as well as some including the cross, or crosses) and large white font lyrics. At 4′21″ the audio fades out before the track is finished, but then has an abrupt surge, almost a glitch, in volume before disappearing altogether. A 30-second silence follows the fade-out, while the last static picture remains. The audio track is taken from a recording identified only by the two lead vocalists, Adrienne Liesching and Geoff Moore, on the title slide. The track was either from the 2002 release Left Behind Worship  – God Is With Us (ForeFront Records) or the 2003 release by WorshipTogether, Be Glorified, both containing the same audio track. The aspect ratio used is the now obsolete 4:3 format compared with the current standard widescreen, 16:9.15 Such a ratio was typical of early uploads to YouTube, which only officially switched to the 16:9 format in late 2008. The video content is poorly rendered or compressed, which again, is quite typical of CCS fan-created videos of the time. As discussed, officially created and uploaded videos have been in the minority until very recently, but they are especially rare for songs that were  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kmPZywtN4Y (accessed 14.02.19).  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENtL_li4GbE. 15  These ratios represent a proportional relationship between an image’s width and height. The original standard image aspect ratio of television (and computer monitors) was 4:3, which has now been phased out. Since the advent of widescreen video, and high-definition television, the 16:9 image aspect ratio has become the standard. 13 14

198 

D. THORNTON

released before YouTube became such a dominant repository for CCS. The current environment of media consumption demands CCS have a presence on YouTube, even if the production is unsophisticated or inexpensive. CCS producers are now actively engaged in both creating and promoting official CCS videos on YouTube, often in forms that look like ‘good quality’ fan-created videos.16 Two additional examples of fan-esque official video creations, such as the PassionVEVO one described above, are Chris Tomlin’s “Crown Him (Majesty)”17 and Hillsong Young and Free’s “Alive”.18 A key element to such videos seems to be that whatever other visual elements they display; they must contain the lyrics. The instrumentation of the analysed version of “In Christ Alone” is texturally rich, comprising large keyboard pads, acoustic and electric guitars, bass, drums and loops, and in instrumental sections tin whistles/Irish flutes feature. The melodic inflections and instrumentation suggest a Celtic flavour. The drum and cymbal rolls provide musical impetus to transitions. The use of the minor v chord (in this case an A minor) is unusual in a major key. However, the minor v chord is only used in the instrumental introduction/interludes. It, therefore, provides harmonic variety to the song, which could otherwise be quite harmonically predictable, without encroaching on its singability. The melody, like that of “Amazing Grace”, is based on the pentatonic scale, except for the brief appearance of the seventh degree of the scale in the sixth line of the stanzas. The highly repeated melodic fragments are consistent with general CCS melodic construction. The song’s tessitura is around D4, although the song reaches a whole octave higher at its melodic zenith. The first four lyric lines and the final two contain five different notes while lines five and six for each stanza leap out of the prevailing register extending the song’s range by a minor sixth. Townend reports that he was inspired to write the words to this melody sent to him by Getty (a musician with a classical background), following an initial earlier introduction (Story Behind The Song In Christ Alone Stuart Townend 2009). The song fits into the Praise/Thanksgiving and Prophetic/Declarative categories. God is only addressed in the third person, and titles of address 16  Some of the popular official CCS channels representing many of the representative songwriters/artists now include HillsongunitedTV, ChrisTomlinVEVO, MattRedmanVEVO, KingswayWorship, and JesusCulture. 17  http://youtu.be/hqy-gob13kA (accessed 1.11.15). 18  http://youtu.be/qEvEVALLjNQ (accessed 1.11.15).

11  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: UK AND USA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 4) 

199

include “God”, “Jesus”, and “Christ”. Even then, “God” is only mentioned in the second Verse. The line “In Christ alone” appears at the start of the song and the start of the second Verse. The rhyming scheme is somewhat obscure, ABACDDEF, however the syllabic count is a consistent eight syllables for every line. Some of the vocabulary is more sophisticated than the common colloquial expressions in most CCS—for example, “scorned”, “fiercest”, “strivings”, “wrath”, and “bursting forth”. As mentioned, “In Christ Alone” and “Cornerstone” share lyrical ideas. There is, of course, a similarity in theme, the centrality of Christ and His work, but also in language; “Christ alone”, “cornerstone”, “my hope”, “through the … storm”. Writers are generally unwilling to divulge how much they engage in the conscious ‘borrowing’ of existing lyrics, but the practice is self-evident, as identified in previous chapters.

Revelation Song This video19 is by channel owner, Jason Whitfield, who along with his wife state they are the Children’s Pastors at Malvern First A/G.20 All their videos are created and uploaded for “Kids Praise and Worship”, but the large white font lyrics over the looped background fire-like footage in this case, is typical of worship lyric videos. Featuring Kari Jobe, this recording is from Gateway Worship’s Living For You album (2006). Another popular version with almost as many views comes from Philips, Craig, and Dean’s Fearless album (2009).21 Jobe first popularised this song, written by Jennie Lee Riddle, in a 2004 recording with Christ For The Nations Music, a YouTube version of which appeared two years earlier than the ones already mentioned, and held the most views for almost a decade. Besides Zschech’s “Shout to the Lord” and Ligertwood’s “New Wine”, this is the only representative CCS song singularly written by a female composer. One of the most interesting and unique features of this song is that it is written in the Mixolydian mode. The four-chord progression—I v7 bVII IV—remains throughout the song and provides an almost hypnotic, meditative repetition. It also provides a predictable foundation for spontaneous song/free worship over the same chords. The repetitive melody for the Verses creates a tessitura around D4; the Chorus lifts to centre around A4.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-zk-E55dRk (accessed 3.1.19).  https://www.youtube.com/user/1996tahoess/about (accessed 3.1.19). 21  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsiDukXIeVY (accessed 3.1.19). 19 20

200 

D. THORNTON

This melodic shift is important, given that the harmonic progression does not provide a lift of its own. All notes of the D Mixolydian scale are represented in the melody, but within the octave C4 to C5. This is one of the few songs without a Bridge, leaving one less option for variation, on top of which is an endless repeated four-chord progression. On one level, it is surprising that the song manages to maintain musical interest; however, the melodic lift that happens from each Verse to Chorus transition, and the dynamic shift instrumentally, not to mention the lyrical interest, all contributes to the song’s momentum. Momentum, in this case, is more important than variety. This technique is not unique; Western Art Music composers have used this to great effect, such as Ravel’s Boléro. An additional point to make here is that harmonic variation and sectional variation, while often features of CCS, are evidently not essential to create a compelling song. In fact, the added advantage of an endlessly repeated harmonic progression is that musicians can perpetuate the pattern on autopilot and devote their attention to other elements of the song, such as dynamics and improvisation. In the original most viewed version of this song, it ends with almost 1′30″ of spontaneous praise from the congregation over the ‘crash out’ ending from the band. The male worship leader (on piano) continues to encourage the congregation to worship God, and even after they start to wane, he rolls a low octave on the piano that stirs up the congregation a little longer. Extended endings either over a chord progression or over the final ‘crash out’ chord are an important and common feature of CCS. Congregants for most of the song are singing the words prescribed for them, projected on the screens. Extended endings or instrumental sections are where (at least pentecostal-charismatic) believers are encouraged and given freedom to voice their own expressions of praise, thanksgiving, worship, and prayer. The Godhead is addressed with many terms, “God”, “Jesus”, “Lamb”, “King”, and “Lord”; however, the Spirit remains unaddressed. This song lyrically explores portions of Isaiah’s vision of God (Isaiah 6), Ezekiel’s vision of God (Ezekiel 1) and John’s (Revelation 4). The language is rich with imagery: Clothed in rainbows of living color Flashes of lightning rolls of thunder Filled with wonder, awestruck wonder Jesus Your name is power, breath and living water

11  SOME INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES: UK AND USA (TRACE ANALYSIS PT 4) 

201

The song draws on Christian doctrines of eternity and realities of the spiritual dimension. Music already has a natural capacity to alter the listener’s perception of time and space (Begbie 2000; Small 1999, 104–5). This song’s musical and lyrical features have the potential to facilitate a spiritual encounter (outside of time and space) for the worshipper.

Trace Analysis Conclusion Across the last four chapters, the primary audio-visual and notated texts of the representative CCS have been examined, as a corpus, and some, individually. These traces indicate that the genre is marked by musical, lyrical, and extra-musical elements which identify it. While the musical elements of the current genre are more explicitly outlined here than anywhere else in the literature, they are still under-researched, and changing as the genre evolves. Musical analysis of popular music is also still under-researched, and the ability to compare and contrast CCS to secular popular music relies on further research being done on both sides. What the musical elements do reveal is that memorable, catchy, singable, and reproducible songs that still maintain a ‘current’ sound are important, and that alongside the esthesic analysis, these are elements with which Christians resonate. There is an increasing complexity in CCS which shows signs of both continuing to increase and swinging back in the other direction. Lyrically, the analysis shows that the genre is not as me-focused as the accusing voices would have Christians believe. It does show lyrical perspectives (POV and Godhead addresses) are becoming more diverse within individual songs. It also shows that God’s love is still a central theme throughout CCS and that other themes come in and out of fashion, although Jesus and His salvific work are always present. Trace analysis shows that the church at large is more interested in praising and thanking God, as well as making declarations of their faith, than they are in singing intimately to God or petitioning God through sung prayer. At the same time, the four lyric categories identified encompass all CCS sung by local churches. Finally, the lyrical analysis reveals that the personal and diverse interpretations of CCS lyrics by Christians are not accidental, but central to the poetic form in a post-modern (Western) world, while still being shaped by its context and genre expectations. The individual song analyses demonstrate both the conformity of CCS to genre expectations and the unique qualities and diversity among the most sung songs, even when they come from the same producer. Whoever

202 

D. THORNTON

the producer, whatever the platform, the individual song must be meaningful musically and lyrically to a broad cross-section of the Christian church in order for the song to register highly on the CCLI charts.

Bibliography Begbie, Jeremy. 2000. Theology, Music and Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, Nicholas. 1998. Analysing Musical Multimedia. London: Oxford University Press. Donnelly, K.J. 2013. Visualising Live Albums: Progressive Rock and the British Concert Film in the 1970s. In The Music Documentary: Acid Rock to Electropop, ed. Benjamin Halligan, Robert Edgar, and Kirsty Fairclough-Isaacs . New York/ London: Routledge.Reprint edition, Chapter 11 Goodwin, Andrew. 1993. Dancing in the Distraction Factory: Music Television and Popular Culture. London: Routledge. Ingalls, Monique. 2008. Awesome in This Place: Sound, Space, and Identity in Contemporary North American Evangelical Worship. University of Pennsylvania. Small, Christopher. 1999. Music of the Common Tongue: Survival and Celebration in African American Music. Rev. ed. Hanover: Wesleyan. Story Behind The Song In Christ Alone Stuart Townend. 2009. http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=TpipuCeGQn4&feature=youtube_gdata_player Toynbee, Jason. 2003. Music, Culture, and Creativity. In The Cultural Study of Music: A Critical Introduction, ed. Martin Clayton, Trevor Herbert, and Richard Middleton, 161–171. New York: Routledge.

CHAPTER 12

The Current and Future Contemporary Congregational Songs Genre

Meaning-Making in CCS On 13 September 2015, I had the privilege of leading worship for Australia’s National Prayer Breakfast. This non-partisan, non-political, and ecumenical gathering in the Australian parliament’s Great Hall is a testimony to the historical and ongoing influence of Christianity in places of Western governments. At the same time, this gathering is a minefield of agendas and personalities, and music is always one of the contentious issues. The aim, ideally, is to serve this disparate and sometimes inimical Christian community with songs that will not offend anyone in particular and may even hopefully engage many in an activity of worship that transcends their differences. During the negotiations of the songs for 2015, Bishop Ian Lambert, who was the keynote speaker, was asked what he thought might constitute such encompassing and transcending musical worship. His answer? “Our God”, “Cornerstone”, and “10,000 Reasons”. Given that this monograph has centred on such songs, the suggestions may not seem surprising. However, the idea that CCS could be conceived as the all-inclusive church worship music (and not just by its proponents) is a profound statement on the impact of CCS on at least Australian Christianity. Meaning-making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre has provided a greater understanding of this global genre, and its impact, through its texts, producers, and participant-audiences.

© The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9_12

203

204 

D. THORNTON

Meaning-making for this genre, from a music semiological perspective, can be found in the ongoing dialectic between the production milieu, texts, and congregants/co-performers. As a result, this study of the current global CCS genre has analysed the musical texts of the 32 most sung CCS without reifying the texts themselves, nor the composers. It has investigated the processes of esthesic meaning-making and engagement, without reducing listeners/participants to mere mass consumers or exulting them to ultimate arbiters of meaning. It has explored the broad sentiments of (Australian) Christians who engage with CCS, both privately and in public forums of worship. It has also examined the production psychology, processes, and tensions from the perspectives of CCS producers and industry, as well as the complex web of roles, identities, and responsibilities—personal, professional, and vocational—for CCS singer-songwriters. An important feature of the meaning-making process for this genre is found in the negotiation of contested messages, which the following section summarises.

Conflicting Messages Contemporary congregational songs are all about ideas held in tension; for example, creativity versus replicability, musical experimentation versus familiarity. Songwriters, while attempting to successfully negotiate this tension, are not always able to predict which songs their congregations will judge are the ideal balance between the fresh and the familiar. As a result, CCS cannot be on the cutting edge of musical exploration, despite some voices suggesting that they should be (e.g., Evans 2006, 159). Congregations tend to reject or at least engage very cautiously with music that is significantly unfamiliar. Key songwriters in this genre are often not extensively trained in music theory or Western Art Music traditions, and thus, they maintain their sensibility towards the popular, which arguably contributes to their ‘success’. CCS are therefore subject to the musical hegemony influencing the formation of the masses’ musical schemas, as discussed in Chap. 3. The genre follows at a safe evolutionary distance from the latest musical idioms to ensure congregations are engaged with the songs that are intended for their participation/co-performance. This is one of the reasons that often new stylistic elements in musical worship have their genesis in youth movements, for example, Hillsong United, Hillsong Young and Free, Jesus Culture, and Planetshakers. Teenagers are still forming their musical

12  THE CURRENT AND FUTURE CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL… 

205

schemas and thus are more open to new musical sounds and experiences. Furthermore, when those new musical sounds are infused with intense spiritual/emotional experiences, the accompanying version of the genre becomes embedded in the generation as a conduit of significance, and therefore something to be defended against even newer musical styles of subsequent generations. This explains a large portion of the conjecture over musical styles within churches; profound spiritual experiences attached to personal and group musical schemas. Chronological generations certainly experience tensions over musical style, but generations as defined by the dates of people’s significant spiritual and emotional encounters play the key role here. Interestingly, most studies have shown that children and young adults are much more likely to come to Christ than any other age group, correlating to the same period in which musical schemas are generally formed. There is tension between the ideal representations of CCS and their proliferated local reproductions. Most key production houses for CCS (e.g., Hillsong Church, Elevation Church, and Passion City Church) are substantially larger than the average local church. These resourced environments, in all senses of the term, with high production values and musical expertise produce professional and commercially oriented CCS. Their aim for comparability with secular commercial popular music is to make them more relevant to secular society as well as to believers of the current generation. However, as Evans confirms, average-sized congregations do not have the musical skills or resources to reproduce the complex and impressive arrangements presented on Hillsong albums of the day (Evans 2002, 188). The result is a constant tension between the commercially released CCS recordings and the often very amateur rendition of that song by local congregations. Writers know that the ‘success’ of their song is contingent upon vernacular reproductions of that song in substantially less resourced settings, and this is further reason to limit musical vocabulary in their creation. Nevertheless, the commercial releases of these songs remain highly produced as both a conceptual ideal of equivalence with secular production values and a high bar for local churches to aspire to in their appropriations. Tension exists between the celebrification of human facilitators of worship and the theological values of worship. Performance in many popular music genres inevitably and intentionally promotes the performer(s). The stage elevation, the lighting, the intensified focus on performers through video projection, the amplified volume of the singer, all contribute to an

206 

D. THORNTON

elevation of the artist(s). CCS ambivalently, or sometimes whole-­heartedly, adopt these forms, while equally maintaining Christian worship values— God as the sole focus of worship, music as a servant of worship, and participation by every believer. This research confirms the conflict of values between secular popular culture and pentecostal-charismatic culture, addressed by many CCS scholars (Evans 2006; Ingalls 2008; Jennings 2008; Wagner 2013). These contested and negotiated values shape the CCS genre and the genre discourse. An individual point of view (POV) dominates CCS lyrics, although mixed perspectives of individual and plural were also common, demonstrating the contest and negotiation of worshipping perspectives. A similar tension occurring in CCS lyrics is the affirmation of God’s immanence versus His transcendence. Pentecostal theology is skewed towards the embodied and the encounter (Ingalls and Yong 2015; Vondey and Mittelstadt 2013; Warrington 2008); both concepts that amplify immanence; Emmanuel, God with us (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23) and a more individual orientation. Pentecostal-charismatic movements have experienced unprecedented growth over the last century to represent (in 2011) 8.5% of the world’s population, and over a quarter of the worldwide Christian population (Pew Research Center 2011). Thus, CCS apparently reflect and affirm a theology that is progressively connecting with a growing and influential body of believers worldwide. These tensions, while important to CCS, are also representative of more universal dichotomies between self and community (Arnould and Price 2003; Benhabib 1992; Fukuyama 2000), individual and corporation, culture and subculture (Hebdige 1979; Storey 2006), ideal and practice, and resistance and adoption. For CCS, they are a reminder that the contested nature of the genre is also fundamental to its identity. Should a point arrive at which CCS are no longer a genre of tensions, it will mark either a monumental shift in Western Christianity or a monumental shift in the genre.

Ambivalence or Appropriation Based on the accumulative survey results, (Australian) Christians can sing and do sing. The online survey implemented for my original research did feature those who had been in church for many years, and had some musical experience, either in church worship teams or outside of church contexts, but as argued in Chap. 5, it is still representative of Christians

12  THE CURRENT AND FUTURE CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL… 

207

attending CCS-oriented churches. Thus, the fact should be noted that those who recorded themselves singing demonstrated their capacity to sing reasonably well. Even if that survey is only cautiously accepted, the much larger NCLS survey confirmed that a broad cross-section of church attendees was willingly (and many, enthusiastically) engaging with/ singing CCS. The researcher’s survey further revealed that Christian vocal ranges are heterogeneous. The vocal range B4(3)–E5(4) did emerge as a significant tessitura for CCS from both musical texts and survey data. However, the notion of a generally singable key or range for a congregation should be questioned based on this research. Thus, Christians can and do sing, and some sing the same songs in their personal and private worship as they currently sing together at church. However, they also sing a diverse repertoire to their church’s and even to other participants from the same church. Clearly, the top songs lists from CCLI are inadequate in their ability to represent individual Christian CCS preferences, while at the same time remaining demonstrably the most sung CCS. Participants of the researcher’s survey chose their preferred songs for many reasons, but four overarching themes emerged. First, songs are subconsciously (and sometimes consciously) bonded to individuals through significant life events and emotionally charged, which might also include spiritually momentous, experiences. Second, lyrics are important in this genre, both in terms of their personal and theological meaning and significance, but additionally through their ease of memorability. Third, musical elements are important, but it is particularly a song’s catchiness, its ability to become an involuntary earworm that features in the musical connection. Furthermore, these songs fit into the personal musical schemas of the participants, without them necessarily being able to articulate the connection in those terms. While many CCS writers want to pursue the ‘new’ and extend the musical possibilities of congregational song, congregants ultimately value CCS aligned with their own personal musical schemas— songs that are neither too predictable nor too perplexing. Finally, sometimes extra-musical associations were identified as contributing to preferred CCS. Although this response was a minority one, the reality is that participants would probably never have heard the CCS they sang except for the prominence of the writers/worship leaders that originally promoted them. Therefore, extra-musical associations are, at least initially, more important than any other feature. The profile of CCS artists/writers and the ministry/promotional platforms they inhabit, foster, and protect

208 

D. THORNTON

instigate the prime opportunity for congregants to have positive exposure to the songs, and in turn to have the opportunity for other aspects of the songs to become significant for them. CCS writers/producers/performers negotiate complex musical, personal, and public identities. They are consumers, producers, worshippers, artists, ministers, volunteers, employees, copyright owners, and congregants. None of these individual or composite roles gave them advanced certainty in predicting the popularity of individual songs. They did, however, adopt quite specific, if under-articulated, parameters for writing CCS that they expected congregations would be able to and would want to sing. They write as an act of service to the ‘body of Christ’ (the church), initially in their local contexts. They equally recognise their entrenchment within the music industry, while also appealing to ‘divine intervention’ in the success of their songs. They appear to negotiate creative tensions with relative ease, although again, it was unlikely that they would fully divulge their personal challenges within the context of the interviews.

The Evolving Genre Howard and Shrek may justifiably claim that “there is no sound—no sonic code—that defines CCM [contemporary Christian music]” (2004, 8) and, thus, that the genre may be only defined by lyric content. However, CCS, although a subgenre of CCM, can be identified musically (by a sonic code), lyrically, and extra-musically. The YouTube ‘mockutorial’ Messy Mondays: How to Write a Worship Song (In 5  Minutes or Less) is only humorous and popular because its ultra-reductive summary taps into a number of the identifiable musical, lyrical, and extra-musical elements that articulate the CCS genre. The 32 most sung CCS are at the core of the genre worldwide, and an analysis of them reveals features well beyond the ‘popular music with Christian lyrics’ depiction some have assigned to CCS.  The following summation is based on the sample analysis but is arguably true of the genre as a whole. It is necessarily reductive and is not intended to speak to the global scope and diversity of contemporary worship music, but it does encapsulate the essential components that define the genre at this moment in its history. The current CCS genre is marked by relatively recently written songs (median copyright year: 2012), overwhelmingly by male singer-­ songwriters, initially for a local church context. They are recorded by

12  THE CURRENT AND FUTURE CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL… 

209

artists who have a high-profile platform (including financial backing and marketing). Such platforms initiate the momentum required to seed the song across enough churches and denominations for it to start to register on CCLI charts. They tend to be recorded in a live worship context, most likely with electric guitar(s), acoustic guitar(s), keyboard(s), bass, drums, and lead vocal/backing vocals. They will be commercially available and registered with CCLI. Most of them will have some video version recorded, or just as likely, a lyrics-with-background-pictures/graphics version created by a fan and uploaded to YouTube. They are in Major keys and contain chords I, IV, and V with one or two additional chords, generally vi, less often ii. They are on average 6′18″ long, with a tempo of 75 bpm, and in 4/4 time. They are likely to have more than one Verse, a Chorus, and either a Bridge and/or an Instrumental. They will on average have 138 words, although it might be half or double that amount. They will likely have a primary focus of Praise/Thanksgiving, but possibly Prophetic/Declarative, and less likely Worship or Petition/ Prayer. They are likely to be written from an individual POV but are often a combination of individual/plural POV.  They will address God more than they acknowledge the singer. They will generally focus on the second person of the Trinity, sometimes referring to God, but rarely Father, and even more rarely Spirit or Holy Spirit, and they will generally not address the Godhead with more than four titles in one song. They will also address God directly through the second-person pronoun, or through a combination of second- and third-person pronouns. If there is any level of intimacy in the lyrics, they will virtually only ever be directed to Jesus, or the undefined divine ‘You’. They will contain some scriptural references, often in isolation and re-­ expressed, as well as acknowledging one or more of God’s attributes. They are likely to have a range of more than P8ve somewhere between D4 and E5, with a PCG of A4, and their melody will be made up of mostly small intervals with repetitious syncopated rhythms. They will contain some easily identifiable lyric hook or instrumental riff that is reoccurring. I return to Frow, who states: Far from being merely ‘stylistic’ devices, genres create effects of reality and truth, authority and plausibility, which are central to the different ways the world is understood. (2006, 2)

210 

D. THORNTON

The CCS genre speaks to an array of beliefs, convictions, practices, and attitudes adhered to by contemporary churches who utilise this genre, whether they overtly ascribe to them or not. For all of the denominational creeds that might identify the diverse churches utilising CCS, the songs they sing articulate and reinforce their convictions through prominence in services, mass corporate repetition and engagement, and personal memorisation and reproduction. Thus, the CCS genre “create[s] effects of reality and truth, authority and plausibility” for the Christian.

The Functional Genre Beyond CCS’ contested nature, and the musicological summary articulated above, this research has demonstrated that CCS is fundamentally a functional musical genre, as opposed to ‘art’ music, or even popular music. As Redman states: “For charismatics [and arguably for the great majority of those who create and promote CCS], music serves a utilitarian function as a means of facilitating congregational participation” (2002, 41). Music’s functional role for contemporary worship is also affirmed by Jennings, who observes that the “centre of the … service is the encounter, which is catalysed by music” (2014, 39), and that music is “an object that mediates the divine presence” (ibid., 41). This functionality, however, is not mundane, as “music is deliberately and intentionally utilised … to contain and convey the presence of the holy” (ibid., 53). As many attributes as CCS might share with other musics, it exists to serve believers, individually and corporately, in a musical expression of their Christian faith. It has further potential to both mediate a spiritual encounter, through either a sacramental or Pentecostal theological lens, and reinforce (and possibly teach) Christian doctrine. Nattiez notes that for any musical work (or corpus) there are: [a]n infinite number of traits … available for selection by the musicologist. Confronted by this multiplicity of interpretants, the musicologist effectuates a selection in terms of a ‘plot’, which he or she has chosen in order to explain the work. (1990, 176–77)

My “plot” has been to define and explore the global CCS genre as it is employed especially by churches where it is historically or pragmatically native to their musical expression of faith. This ‘indigenous’ expression of faith within a local culture is one of the reasons Bouma attributes to the

12  THE CURRENT AND FUTURE CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL… 

211

growth of Pentecostalism (2008, 92). My “plot” has been to examine the genre as it is, and not as it should be according to some extrinsic or historical criteria. Most importantly, it has been to explore the ‘total musical fact’, the inextricable semiotic web of CCS production and consumption. Nattiez’s three-part music semiology promises a dialogical scholarship, and thus, ultimately this is only one reading of the data explored in this study; “there is never ‘only one valid’ musical analysis for any given work [or works]” (1990, 168). The danger is that while I have approached this from a descriptive rather than prescriptive position, some may interpret it as “normative [original emphasis] discourse, without it being intended as such” (ibid., 181).

Where to from Here? For the majority of congregational music scholars who have not entertained music semiology, I hope this research demonstrates the validity, utility, and complementary nature of the method for the ongoing study of contemporary congregational songs and contemporary worship practices. I would argue that it adds a unique and useful voice to the field, especially in bringing the music itself back to the fore of study. Additionally, it is my hope that this research educates songwriters and the CCS music industry and that it informs local churches to think more carefully and deeply about the songs they sing, particularly helping those who are entrusted to make decisions regarding musical worship. The genre has evolved and continues to evolve. The CCLI biannual reports indicate songs constantly moving in and out of favour with local churches, as well as some that seem perennially popular. One of the important outcomes of this book is that the global contemporary congregational song genre has been scrutinised at this moment in history from a certain perspective, beyond the publication of a most sung songs list or popular press article. An acute focus tends to be the domain of scholarship. However, in time to come, along with the growing literature in this field, this work will have contributed to the unfolding account of the evolution of the genre, its historical trajectories, and the specific people, places, and songs that shaped the narrative around current contemporary worship music and practices. Looking ahead, there are a number of changing elements on the horizon of CCS. For example, and as discussed in Chap. 8, there is a growing integration of pre-recorded tracks into live local worship. Live

212 

D. THORNTON

instrumentation, including vocals, is being supplemented by pre-recorded parts from the original recordings. Typically, faster songs benefit from tracks as the electronic elements (e.g., loops, samples, and shots) are more difficult to emulate live with the standard instrumental forces of local church services. The ongoing question is, to what degree does such utilisation of pre-recorded elements enhance or detract from local worship? On the one hand, the soundscape is brought closer to the recordings Christians engage with outside the local church service. The fullness of the sound helps create a musically rich and audially engaging space. The perfection of the pre-recorded tracks compensates for the potentially lower levels of musical excellence among the local team, and therefore, there is less pressure on a small team to feel like they have to sound like an 80-track recording. On the other hand, despite the flexibility of the playback app, the tracks tend to govern the form of the song, meaning less spontaneity and adaptability to the moment. Because the tracks are the least flexible element, local teams tend to capitulate to them. Therefore, at what point is worshipping with tracks more like karaoke than localised worship? Furthermore, why do worship teams feel that they need to emulate the recordings so closely? Additionally, and as already noted, the utilisation of tracks creates demands on the technical equipment required. Is this practice a passing fad? Or, will local churches see more and more musical technology like this incorporated into their worship? After all, technology is a great driver of innovation and has a long history of impacting Christian worship. It wasn’t that long ago that overhead projectors were first appearing in  local churches radically changing the way people engaged with CCS lyrics. Another change in contemporary worship practices is having multiple worship leaders instead of a singular worship leader during a worship set. On a personal note, I witnessed this evolution over the past 20 years with Hillsong’s rostering practices and worship recordings that had a direct influence across the Australian Christian Churches, and of course, well beyond. As Hillsong became the brand that was consciously being promoted, there was a growing realisation among the ‘powers that be’ that the faces of that brand would change or need to change over time. This occurred alongside the push from the maturing next generation at the time (including Pastors Brian and Bobbie Houston’s son, Joel Houston). Co-leading, especially between the more mature and emerging generation of worship leaders became overt, not that such traineeships in church are uncommon. However, this was progressively extrapolated to multiple

12  THE CURRENT AND FUTURE CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL… 

213

leaders across one worship set, to the point where there was often a different leader for every song. Many churches have followed suit. On the one hand, it has made the base of worship leader ranks much stronger and gives more opportunity to those who feel called to that space, where traditionally, those opportunities were more difficult to gain. It potentially orients congregations away from the celebrity status of a singular worship leader. The individual strengths of worship leaders all lend to the corporate musical worship experience. The pressure on any one worship leader is diminished, as well as allowing more room for ‘on the job’ training. On the other hand, it is much more difficult to ensure continuity and flow in a service with different leaders for each song. An individual leader doesn’t get to build a worship journey for the congregation across the whole worship set. While the congregation might get the best of each worship leader, they are also stuck with the average of the worship leaders’ collective abilities, rather than knowing they are being led by someone with proven expertise, experience, and anointing. The sermon is seldom, if ever, divided into multiple sections of different speakers, but somehow, the corporate musical worship, because it contains multiple songs, is seen as something that can be divided up among many. Is one of these options better than the other? They both have benefits and challenges. Either way, is it something that has an effect on the genre as a whole? Or is it completely unrelated to the genre evolution? On the production side, less and less money is being made from song sales, a global music industry issue, not just one for CCS.  CCLI has become crucial in this transition as money to be made from CCS is increasingly in the royalties than in the sales. This means that CCS writers are no longer hoping for their song just to be covered by multiple artists (for the mechanical royalties), they are hoping that their song is featured in places that will ensure local churches implement their songs. Large cross/non-­ denominational conferences and widely viewed worship-oriented YouTube channels are vital mediums for making CCS writing a viable career. Of course, only three to four decades ago, the idea of a career in CCS writing was ridiculous; Christians were buying contemporary Christian music (CCM), not CCS, and CCLI hadn’t become the pervasive supplier of licences to churches and, thus, a central funding source to CCS writers. What is the financial future of CCS, and is it one that will support the CCS industry? On a related topic, YouTube has democratised and mediatised CCS. Anyone can put a song on YouTube, and although the production

214 

D. THORNTON

quality of CCS backed by the industry are often much higher quality than those that are not, video production continues to get cheaper and easier with ever-advancing technology. Many churches that video or stream their services are now set up with relatively good lighting and cameras, and people who are trained in using them. These resources can so easily be applied to the promotion and dissemination of CCS through streaming platforms. A prime example is Bethel TV on YouTube, which in recent years features many CCS with more views than the original recordings/ videos of those songs on YouTube. As I make my final edit, “The Blessing” has swept the Christian world through YouTube at a speed never before witnessed for CCS. While the prophetic and infamous “Video killed the radio star” (1980) continues to hold true for CCS, clearly technology has continued to forge ahead, begging the question of what comes next for the entertainment industries, and by implication, CCS? What will kill the YouTube star? These are just some of the issues ahead for contemporary congregational songs. Until Jesus returns, may Christians continue to seriously ask themselves and each other, “What on earth are we singing?”

Bibliography Arnould, Eric J., and Linda L. Price. 2003. Authenticating Acts and Authoritative Performances: Questing for Self and Community. In The Why of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals and Desires, ed. Cynthia Huffman, David Glen Mick, and S. Ratneshwar, 140–163. London: Routledge. Benhabib, Seyla. 1992. Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. 1st ed. New York: Routledge. Bouma, Garry D. 2008. Globalisation and Localisation: Pentecostals and Anglicans in Australia and the United States. Sydney Studies in Religion. http://openjournals.library.usyd.edu.au/index.php/SSR/article/download/223/202 Evans, Mark. 2002. Secularising the Sacred: The Impact of Geoff Bullock on the Contemporary Congregational Song in Sydney, 1990–1999. Macquarie University. ———. 2006. Open Up the Doors: Music in the Modern Church. London: Equinox Publishing Limited. Frow, John. 2006. Genre: The New Critical Idiom. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Fukuyama, Francis. 2000. The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. 1st ed. New York: Free Press. Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. New Ed. London/New York: Routledge.

12  THE CURRENT AND FUTURE CONTEMPORARY CONGREGATIONAL… 

215

Howard, Jay R., and John M. Streck. 2004. Apostles of Rock: The Splintered World of Contemporary Christian Music. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Ingalls, Monique. 2008. Awesome in This Place: Sound, Space, and Identity in Contemporary North American Evangelical Worship. University of Pennsylvania. Ingalls, Monique M., and Amos Yong, eds. 2015. The Spirit of Praise: Music and Worship in Global Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity. University Park: Penn State University Press. Jennings, Mark. 2008. Won’t You Break Free?’ An Ethnography of Music and the Divine-Human Encounter at an Australian Pentecostal Church. Culture and Religion 9 (2): 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/14755610802211544. ———. 2014. Exaltation: Ecstatic Experience in Pentecostalism and Popular Music. New York: Peter Lang Pub Incorporated. Nattiez, Jean-Jacques. 1990. Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pew Research Center. 2011. Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, December. http:// www.researchgate.net/profile/Conrad_Hackett/publication/264782435_ Global_Christianity_A_Report_on_the_Size_and_Distribution_of_the_ World%27s_Christian_Population/links/53eea6660cf26b9b7dcdd887.pdf Redman, Robb. 2002. The Great Worship Awakening: Singing a New Song in the Postmodern Church. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ. Storey, John. 2006. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader. Harlow: University of Georgia Press. Vondey, Wolfgang, and Martin William Mittelstadt. 2013. The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal Scholarship: Passion for the Spirit. BRILL. Wagner, Thomas J. 2013. Hearing the Hillsong Sound: Music, Marketing, Meaning and Branded Spiritual Experience at a Transnational Megachurch. Royal Holloway University of London. http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/ files/19680902/2014wagnertphd.pdf Warrington, Keith. 2008. Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter. London: A&C Black.



Appendix A

Thirty-two most sung global contemporar y congregational songs listed alphabetically. Title

Composers

10,000 Reasons Amazing Grace (My Chains Are gone) Blessed Be Your Name Build My Life

Jonas Myrin and Matt Redman 2011 6016351 John Newton, Chris Tomlin, and Louie Giglio 2006 4768151

Cornerstone

Do It Again Good Good Father Great Are You Lord

Matt and Beth Redman Brett Younker, Patt Barrett, Matt Redman, Karl Martin, and Kirby Kaple Jonas Myrin, Reuben Morgan, Eric Liljero, William Batchelder Bradbury, and Edward Mote Chris Brown, Steven Furtick, Mack Brock, and Matt Redman Pat Barrett and Anthony Brown Jason Ingram, David Leonard, and Leslie Jordan Tim Hughes Katie and Bryan Torwalt Paul Baloche and Brenton Brown

Here I Am to Worship Holy Spirit Hosanna (Praise Is Rising) How Deep the Father’s Stuart Townend Love How Great Is Our God Chris Tomlin, Jesse Reeves, and Ed Cash

Year

CCLI#

2002 3798438 2016 7070345 2011 6158927

2016 7067555 2014 7036612 2012 6460220 2000 3266032 2011 6087919 2006 4662491 1995 1558110 2004 4348399 (continued)

© The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9

217

218 

APPENDIX A

(continued) Title

Composers

Year

How Great Thou Art In Christ Alone King of My Heart Lord I Need You

Stuart Wesley Keene Hine Keith Getty and Stuart Townend Sarah McMillan and John Mark McMillan Matt Maher, Christy Nockels, Jesse Reeves, Kristian Stanfill, and Daniel Carson Matt Crocker and Brooke Ligertwood Reuben Morgan and Ben Fielding Brooke Ligertwood Joel Case, Brian Johnson, and Jonathan David Helser Chris Brown, Steven Furtick, Mack Brock, and Wade Joye Marty Sampson, Dean Ussher, and Benjamin Hastings Matt Crocker, Joel Houston, and Salomon Ligthelm Caleb Culver, Cory Asbury, and Ran Jackson Jennie Lee Riddle Darlene Zschech Brenton Brown, Leeland Mooring, and Brian Johnson Matt Crocker and Ben Fielding

1953 14181 2001 3350395 2015 7046145 2011 5925687

Man of Sorrows Mighty to Save New Wine No Longer Slaves O Come to the Altar

O Praise the Name (Anástasis) Oceans (Where Feet May Fail) Reckless Love Revelation Song Shout to the Lord The Lion and the Lamb This I Believe (The Creed) This Is Amazing Grace Jeremy Riddle, Phil Wickham, and Josh Farro What a Beautiful Name Ben Fielding and Brooke Ligertwood Who You Say I Am Ben Fielding and Reuben Morgan

2012 2006 2017 2014

CCLI#

6476063 4591782 7102397 7030123

2015 7051511 2015 7037787 2012 6428767 2017 2004 1993 2015

7089641 4447960 1406918 7038281

2014 7018338 2012 6333821 2016 7068424 2017 7102401

Bibliography

.id the population experts. n.d. Australian Census Religion – .Id. http://home. id.com.au/id-community/australian-census/australian-census-religion. Accessed 16 Aug 2013. Adnams, Gordon. 2008. The Experience of Congregational Singing: An Ethno-­ Phenomenological Approach. Edmonton: University of Alberta. Arnould, Eric J., and Linda L. Price. 2003. Authenticating Acts and Authoritative Performances: Questing for Self and Community. In The Why of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals and Desires, ed. Cynthia Huffman, David Glen Mick, and S. Ratneshwar, 140–163. London: Routledge. Auslander, Philip. 2008. Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture. 2nd ed. Abingdon/New York: Routledge. Badzinski, Diane, Brian Walrath, and Robert Woods. 2010. We Have Come Into His House: Kerygma, Koinonia, Leitourgia  – Contemporary Worship Music That Models the Purpose of the Church. In The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship, ed. Brian Walrath and Robert Woods, 92–105. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Beaman, C. Philip, and Tim I. Williams. 2010. Earworms (Stuck Song Syndrome): Towards a Natural History of Intrusive Thoughts. British Journal of Psychology 101 (4): 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X479636. Begbie, Jeremy. 2000. Theology, Music and Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2007. Resounding Truth: Christian Wisdom in the World of Music. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

© The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9

219

220 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benhabib, Seyla. 1992. Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. 1st ed. New York: Routledge. Best, Harold. 1993. Music Through the Eyes of Faith. New York: HarperCollins. Best, Harold M. 2003. Unceasing Worship: Biblical Perspectives on Worship and the Arts. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Biamonte, Nicole. 2010. Triadic Modal and Pentatonic Patterns in Rock Music. Music Theory Spectrum 32 (2): 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1525/ mts.2010.32.2.95. Bohlman, Philip V. 2008. Other Ethnomusicologies, Another Musicology: The Serious Play of Disciplinary Alterity. In The New (Ethno)Musicologies, ed. Henry Stobart, 95–116. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press. Booker, Queen. 1988. Congregational Music in a Pentecostal Church. The Black Perspective in Music 16: 31–44. Bouma, Garry D. 2008. Globalisation and Localisation: Pentecostals and Anglicans in Australia and the United States. Sydney Studies in Religion. http://openjournals.library.usyd.edu.au/index.php/SSR/article/download/223/202 Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.119 1/1478088706qp063oa. Busman, Joshua Kalin. 2015. ‘You Are the Lord, The Famous One’: Worship and Fandom in the 268 Generation, University of Leicester. https://www.academia.edu/4332166/Worshipping_With_Ever ything_Musical_Piety_ Beyond_Language_in_Contemporary_Evangelicalism Butler, Melvin L. 2002. ‘Nou Kwe Nan Sentespri’ (We Believe in the Holy Spirit): Music, Ecstasy, and Identity in Haitian Pentecostal Worship. Black Music Research Journal 22 (1): 85–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519966. Carson, D.A., ed. 2010. Worship by the Book. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Chant, Barry. 2000. Returning the Church. http://www.barrychant.com/articles/retuningthechurch.pdf Christian Copyright Licensing International Pty Ltd. 2013. CCLI 19th Annual Advisory Council Meeting  – Asia/Pacific Region Report. Christian Copyright Licensing International Pty Ltd. Clercq, Trevor de, and David Temperley. 2011. “A Corpus Analysis of Rock Harmony.” Popular Music 30 (01): 47–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/ S026114301000067X. Clifton, Shane. 2009. Pentecostal Churches in Transition: Analysing the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia. Leiden: BRILL. Cloud, David. 2006. Why We Are Opposed to Contemporary Christian Music. December 21. http://www.wayoflife.org/database/opposedtoccm.html “Congregation.” 2009. In Macquarie Dictionary, Fifth, 362–63. Sydney: Macquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Ltd. Cook, Nicholas. 1998. Analysing Musical Multimedia. London: Oxford University Press.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

221

Cook, Norman D., and Takefumi Hayashi. 2008. The Psychoacoustics of Harmony Perception. American Scientist 96 (4): 311. https://doi. org/10.1511/2008.73.311. Cooper, Rae, Amanda Coles, and Sally Hanna-Osbourne. 2017. Skipping a Beat: Assessing the State of Gender Equality in the Australian Music Industry. The University of Sydney Business School. Corbitt, J. Nathan. 1998. The Sound of the Harvest: Music’s Mission in Church and Culture. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Cotton, Roger. 2002. Anointing in the Old Testament. March 28. https://www. agts.edu/faculty/faculty_publications/articles/cotton_anointing.pdf Crabtree, Jeffrey. 2003. Placing Non-congregational Music in a Congregational Setting. Macquarie University. Crocker, Matt. 2014. Personal Interview for Poietic Analysis of CCS. Email. Crowder, Robert G., and Robert L. Greene. 2000. Serial Learning: Cognition and Behavior. In The Oxford Handbook of Memory, ed. Endel Tulving, 125–135. Oxford University Press. Cunningham, Stuart, Peter Higgs, and Australia Council. 2010. What’s Your Other Job?: A Census Analysis of Arts Employment in Australia. Sydney: Australia Council for the Arts. Davitz, Joel R. 1964. The Communication of Emotional Meaning. 1st edition. New York: Mcgraw-Hill. Dawn, Marva J. 1995. Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down: A Theology of Worship for the Turn-Of-The-Century Culture. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ———. 1999. A Royal Waste of Time: The Splendor of Worshiping God and Being Church for the World. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. DeNora, Tia. 2000. Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Donnelly, K.J. 2013. Visualising Live Albums: Progressive Rock and the British Concert Film in the 1970s. In The Music Documentary: Acid Rock to Electropop, ed. Benjamin Halligan, Robert Edgar, and Kirsty Fairclough-Isaacs . New York/ London: Routledge.Reprint edition, Chapter 11 Drury, Keith. 2010. I’m Desperate For You: Male Perception of Romantic Lyrics in Contemporary Worship Music. In The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship, ed. Brian Walrath and Robert Woods, 54–64. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Duncan, Ligon. 2009. Traditional Evangelical Worship. In Perspectives on Christian Worship: 5 Views, ed. Matt Pinson. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group. Eskridge, Larry. 2008. The ‘Praise and Worship’ Revolution. Christian History | Learn the History of Christianity & the Church. October 29. http://www. christianitytoday.com/history/2008/october/praise-and-worship-revolution.html

222 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Evans, Mark. 2002. Secularising the Sacred: The Impact of Geoff Bullock on the Contemporary Congregational Song in Sydney, 1990–1999. Macquarie University. ———. 2006. Open Up the Doors: Music in the Modern Church. London: Equinox Publishing Limited. Fabbri, Franco. 1982. A Theory of Musical Genres: Two Applications. In Popular Music Perspectives, ed. D Horn and Philip Tagg, 52–81. Göteborg and Exeter: International Association for the Study of Popular Music. ———. 2014. Music Taxonomies: An Overview. Presented at the Journées d’analyse musicale, Ircam, Paris. December 15. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ academia.edu.documents/38290109/Fabbri_JAM14_141215xAcademia.pdf ?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1549512799&S ignature=kKtN1wJnX2VdYgTlV9KYUaNStVE%3D&response-contentdisposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DMusic_Taxonomies_an_Overview.pdf Faulkner, Quentin. 2012. Wiser Than Despair. Religious Affections Ministries. Fergusson, Amanda. 2005. Songs of Heaven: Writing Songs for Contemporary Worship. Hillsong Music Australia. Fieldes, Mia. 2014. Personal Interview for poietic analysis of CCS. Email. Fielding, Ben. 2014. Personal Interview for poietic analysis of CCS. Audio recording. Frame, John M. 1997. Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense. Phillipsburg: P&R Pub. Frith, Simon. 1996. Music and Identity. In Questions of Cultural Identity: SAGE Publications, ed. Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay, 108–127. London: SAGE. ———. 1998. Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular Music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Frow, John. 2006. Genre: The New Critical Idiom. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Fukuyama, Francis. 2000. The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. 1st ed. New York: Free Press. Gilbert, Craig. 2013. Assessing the Impact of Theological Content in Popular Worship Songs on Congregants. Congregational Music Conference Presentation. The Worship Doctor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T269tR3BofQ&feature =youtube_gdata_player Goddard, Ruth King. 2016. Who Gets to Sing in the Kingdom? In Congregational Music-Making and Community in a Mediated Age, ed. Anna Nekola and Tom Wagner, 81–100. Abingdon: Routledge. Goodwin, Andrew. 1993. Dancing in the Distraction Factory: Music Television and Popular Culture. London: Routledge. Gordon, T. David. 2010. Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing Company. Green, Andy. 1997. Education, Globalization and the Nation State. New  York: Palgrave Macmillan.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

223

Guthrie, Steven. 2011. United We Sing: Music and Community. The Christian C 128 (1). http://find.galegroup.com.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/gtx/infomark.do?&source=gale&srcprod=EAIM&prodId=EAIM&userGroupName= macquarie&tabID=T002&docId=A248263085&type=retrieve&contentSet=I AC-Documents&version=1.0 Hall, Margaret. 2006. Today’s Song for Tomorrow’s Church: The Role Played by Contemporary Popular Music in Attracting Young People to Join the Church. PhD., Queensland: Griffith University. Halpern, Andrea R., and James C.  Bartlett. 2011. The Persistence of Musical Memories: A Descriptive Study of Earworms. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 28 (4): 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1525/ mp.2011.28.4.425. Hamilton, Michael S. 1999. The Triumph of the Praise Songs. ChristianityToday. Com, July 12. Hartje, Gesa F. 2009. Keeping in Tune with the Times—Praise & Worship Music as Today’s Evangelical Hymnody in North America. Dialog 48 (4): 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6385.2009.00485.x. Hayward, Philip. 1998. Music at the Borders: Not Drowning, Waving and Their Engagement with Papua New Guinean Culture (1986–96). J. Libbey. Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. New Ed. London/New York: Routledge. Hesmondhalgh, David. 2013. Why Music Matters. Chichester: Wiley. “History of YouTube.” 2014. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_YouTube&oldid=608156279 Holt, Fabian. 2007. Genre in Popular Music. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Holt, Jonathan. 2009. What’s Wrong with ‘Jesus-My-Boyfriend’ Songs? April 14. http://sydneyanglicans.net/blogs/ministrythinking/whats_wrong_ with_jesus_my_boyfriend_songs Holt, Fabian. 2011. Is Music Becoming More Visual? Online Video Content in the Music Industry. Visual Studies 26 (1): 50–61. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1472586X.2011.548489. Hoskin, M. 2013. Jesus Is My Boyfriend and Other Things that You Should Keep to Yourself. The Pocket Scroll (blog). July 8. http://thepocketscroll.wordpress. com/2013/08/07/jesus-is-my-boyfriend-and-other-things-that-youshould-keep-to-yourself/ Howard, Jay R., and John M. Streck. 2004. Apostles of Rock: The Splintered World of Contemporary Christian Music. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Hughes, Tim. 2014. Personal Interview for poietic analysis of CCS. Audio recording. Hull, Kenneth. 2002. Text, Music and Meaning in Congregational Song. Hymn 53 (1): 14–25.

224 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Humberstone, James Henry Byrne. 2013. Cassations: Malcolm Williamson’s Operas for Musically-Untrained Children. University of New South Wales. http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:11417/ SOURCE01 “IFPI Global Music Report 2016.” 2016. http://ifpi.org/news/ IFPI-GLOBAL-MUSIC-REPORT-2016 Ingalls, Monique. 2008. Awesome in This Place: Sound, Space, and Identity in Contemporary North American Evangelical Worship. University of Pennsylvania. ———. 2018. Singing the Congregation: How Contemporary Worship Music Forms Evangelical Community. New  York: Oxford University Press. https://www. amazon.com/Singing-Congregation-Contemporary-Evangelical-Communityebook/dp/B07HB4YW38/ref=sr_1_13?keywords=ethnomusicology+religio n&qid=1560749325&s=books&sr=1-13 Ingalls, Monique M., and Amos Yong, eds. 2015. The Spirit of Praise: Music and Worship in Global Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity. University Park: Penn State University Press. Ingalls, Monique, Carolyn Landau, and Tom Wagner, eds. 2013. Christian Congregational Music: Performance, Identity and Experience. Surrey: Ashgate. Ingersoll, Julie. 2001. Contemporary Christian Worship Music. In Religions of the United States in Practice, ed. Colleen McDannell, vol. 2, 121–130. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jennings, Mark. 2008. Won’t You Break Free?’ An Ethnography of Music and the Divine-Human Encounter at an Australian Pentecostal Church. Culture and Religion 9 (2): 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/14755610802211544. ———. 2014. Exaltation: Ecstatic Experience in Pentecostalism and Popular Music. New York: Peter Lang Pub Incorporated. Jobs, Steve. 2010. Thoughts on Flash, April. http://www.apple.com/hotnews/ thoughts-on-flash/ Joseph, Mark. 2003. Faith, God, and Rock and Roll. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group. Kwasniewski, Peter. 2013. Banish All Guitars and Pianos from the Church. Corpus Christi Watershed. March 28. http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2013/ mar/28/banish-all-guitars-and-pianos-church/ Lamm, Kenny. n.d. Nine Reasons People Aren’t Singing in Worship | Renewing Worship. Accessed January 7. http://blog.ncbaptist.org/renewingworship/2014/06/11/nine-reasons-people-arent-singing-in-worship/ Lena, Jennifer C., and Richard A. Peterson. 2008. Classification as Culture: Types and Trajectories of Music Genres. American Sociological Review 73 (5): 697–718. Leverence, Dan. 2015. 3 Additional Questions About Congregational Engagement in Worship | Worship Leader. Worship Leader Magazine. January 7. http:// worshipleader.com/leadership/3-additional-questions-about-congregationalengagement-in-worship/

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

225

Levitin, Daniel. 2008. The World in Six Songs: How the Musical Brain Created Human Nature. New York, NY: Penguin. Levitin, Daniel J. 2011. This Is Your Brain on Music: Understanding a Human Obsession. Limited: Atlantic Books. Liesch, Barry. 1988. People in the Presence of God: Models and Directions for Worship. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. ———. 2001. The New Worship, Straight Talk on Music and the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Lim, Swee Hong, and Lester Ruth. 2017. Lovin’ on Jesus: A Concise History of Contemporary Worship. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Longhurst, Brian. 2014. Popular Music and Society. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Polity. Macnamara, Jim. 2006. Media and Male Identity: The Making and Remaking of Men. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mall, Andrew. 2012. ‘The Stars Are Underground’: Undergrounds, Mainstreams, and Christian Popular Music. PhD, Chicago: University of Chicago. Marino, Gabriele. 2013. What Kind of Genre Do You Think We Are? Genre Theories, Genre Names and Classes within Music Intermedial Ecology. In Music, Semiotics, Intermediality. Belgium. https://www.academia. edu/7067652/What_kind_of_genre_do_you_think_we_are_Genre_theories_ genre_names_and_classes_within_music_intermedial_ecology Mark. 2011. THE LISTER: Average Pop Song Length By Decade*. THE LISTER (blog). July 8. http://thelister.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/average-popsong-length-by-decade.html Marsh, Clive, and Vaughan S. Roberts. 2013. Personal Jesus (Engaging Culture): How Popular Music Shapes Our Souls. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. McCrindle, Mark. 2014. A Demographic Snapshot of Christianity and Church Attenders in Australia. http://www.mccrindle.com.au/resources/ A-Demographic-snapshot-of-Christianity-and-church-attenders-inAustralia_McCrindle.pdf Middleton, Richard. 1990. Studying Popular Music. Philadelphia: Open University Press. ———. 1993. Popular Music Analysis and Musicology: Bridging the Gap. Popular Music 12 (2): 177–190. Minardi, Raquel Melo. 2011. The Billboard Experiment  – Visualizing the Billboard Charts. http://www.thebillboardexperiment.com/overall.php Mishra, Jennifer. 2010. Effects of Structure and Serial Position on Memory Errors in Musical Performance. Psychology of Music 38 (4): 447–461. https://doi. org/10.1177/0305735609351919. Mollidor, Claudia, Ruth Powell, Miriam Pepper, and Nicole Hancock. 2013. Comparing Church and Community: A Demographic Profile. NCLS Research. http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=7161

226 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Moore, Allan F. 2001. Rock, The Primary Text: Developing a Musicology of Rock. Aldershot: Ashgate. ———. 2002. Authenticity as Authentication. Popular Music 21 (02): 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261143002002131. ———. 2003. Analyzing Popular Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———., ed. 2007. Critical Essays in Popular Musicology. Hampshire: Ashgate. ———. 2012. Song Means: Analysing and Interpreting Recorded Popular Song. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate. Morgenthaler, Sally. 1998. Worship Evangelism: Inviting Unbelievers Into the Presence of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Muir, Pauline. 2019. A Sound Ethnography. Studies in World Christianity. http:// research.gold.ac.uk/27748/ Murray, Iain R., and John L. Arnott. 1993. Toward the Simulation of Emotion in Synthetic Speech: A Review of the Literature on Human Vocal Emotion. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93 (2): 1097–1108. https://doi. org/10.1121/1.405558. “Music.” 2009. Macquarie Dictionary, Fifth, 1101. Sydney: Macquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Ltd. Nattiez, Jean-Jacques. 1990. Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Negus, Keith. 1999. Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. London/New York: Routledge. Negus, Keith, and Pete Astor. 2015. Songwriters and Song Lyrics: Architecture, Ambiguity and Repetition. Popular Music 34 (02): 226–244. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0261143015000021. Nekola, Anna. 2009. Between This World and the Next: The Musical ‘Worship Wars’ and Evangelical Ideology in the United States, 1960–2005. PhD., University of Wisconsin-Madison. Nekola, Anna, and Tom Wagner, eds. 2015. Congregational Music-Making and Community in a Mediated Age. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/ Congregational-Music-Making-and-Community-in-a-Mediated-Age/NekolaWagner/p/book/9781138569010 Neto, Leon. 2010. Contemporary Christian Music and the ‘Praise and Worship’ Style. Journal of Singing 67 (2): 195–200. Nooshin, Laudan. 2008. Ethnomusicology, Alterity, and Disciplinary Identity; or ‘Do We Still Need an Ethno-?’ ‘Do We Still Need an -Ology?’. In The New (Ethno)Musicologies, ed. Henry Stobart, 71–75. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press. Parry, Robin. 2011. Worshipping Trinity: Coming Back to the Heart of Worship. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers. Pascale, Louise M. 2005. Dispelling the Myth of the Non-Singer: Embracing Two Aesthetics for Singing. Philosophy of Music Education Review 13 (2): 165–175.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

227

Pascale, Louise. 2013. ‘I’m Really NOT a Singer’: Examining the Meaning of the Word Singer and Non-Singer and the Relationship Their Meaning Holds in Providing a Musical Education to Schools. The Phenomenon of Singing 3: 164–170. Pass, David B. 1989. Music and the Church. Nashville: Broadman Press. Pass, David. 2010. The Heart Of Worship: The Leitourgic Mode and Christian Sanctification in Contemporary Worship Music. In The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship, ed. Brian Walrath and Robert Woods, 106–126. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Pepper, Miriam, Sam Sterland, and Ruth Powell. 2015. Methodological Overview of the Study of Well-Being through the Australian National Church Life Survey. Mental Health, Religion & Culture 18 (1): 8–19. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13674676.2015.1009717. Peterson, David G. 2002. Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Pew Research Center. 2011. Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, December. http:// www.researchgate.net/profile/Conrad_Hackett/publication/264782435_ Global_Christianity_A_Report_on_the_Size_and_Distribution_of_the_ World%27s_Christian_Population/links/53eea6660cf26b9b7dcdd887.pdf Powell, Ruth. 2008. Australian Church Health & Generational Differences. NCLS. ———. 2017. Fact: More Women Go to Church than Men. Eternity News. August 2. https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/fact-more-women-go-tochurch-than-men/, https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/fact-morewomen-go-to-church-than-men/ Price, D. E. 1999. Higher Ground. Billboard. ———. 2003. Praise and Worship Genre Blessed with Global Growth. Billboard. Prince, Dennis. 1993. Worshipping. Dingley: Resource Christian Music. ———. 2008. Worship Is a Bowl of Noodles: What Would Jesus Sing? Aspendale Gardens: Resource Christian Music. Prinsloo, Jeanne. 2006. Where Have All the Fathers Gone? Media(Ted) Representations of Fatherhood. In Baba: Men And Fatherhood in South Africa, ed. Linda M.  Richter and Robert Morrell, 132–146. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research. Quantz, Don. 2009. Canons in Collision: Hymns and Contemporary Christian Music. Liturgy 24 (4): 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/04580630903022188. Rachinski, Howard. 2014. CCLI 2014 Questionnaire. Presented at the CCLI USA Owners Meeting, Portland. Rastall, Richard. 1984. Vocal Range and Tessitura in Music from York Play 45. Music Analysis 3 (2): 181–199. “Recording Industry in Numbers.” 2013. http://www.aria.com.au/documents/ RIN2013.pdf

228 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Redman, Robb. 2002. The Great Worship Awakening: Singing a New Song in the Postmodern Church. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ. Redman, Matt. 2014. Personal interview for poietic analysis of CCS. Audio recording. Riches, Tanya, and Tom Wagner. 2013. The Evolution of Hillsong Music: From Australian Pentecostal Congregation into Global Brand. Australian Journal of Communication 39 (1): 17–36. Richmond, Shane. 2010. Adobe Hits Back at Apple’s ‘Smokescreen.’ Technology – Telegraph Blogs (blog). April 30. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/ shanerichmond/100005034/adobe-hits-back-at-apples-smokescreen/ Robinson, Daniel. 2011. Contemporary Worship Singers: Construct, Culture, Environment and Voice. Griffith University. https://www120.secure.griffith. edu.au/rch/file/a6e0fbc7-2dce-895f-bf5f-f72bdccbf30d/1/ Robinson_2011_02Thesis.pdf Ruth, Lester. 2010. How Great Is Our God: The Trinity in Contemporary Worship Music. In The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship, ed. Brian Walrath and Robert Woods, 29–42. Nashville: Abingdon Press. ———. 2013. Comparing American Antebellum Evangelical Worship Song and Contemporary Evangelical Worship Song: Reflections on the Trinity and Divine Activity Within the Economy of Salvation. Ripon College, Cuddesdon. http://sites.duke.edu/lruth/files/2013/08/Ripon-0.4.docx Salgar, Óscar. 2016. Musical Semiotics as a Tool for the Social Study of Music. Trans. Brenda M. Romero. Ethnomusicology Translations 2: 1–33. Scaramanga, Jonny. 2012. Jesus Is My Boyfriend. Leaving Fundamentalism (blog). June 8. http://leavingfundamentalism.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/ jesus-is-my-boyfriend/ Schaefer, Edward. 2008. Catholic Music Through the Ages: Balancing the Needs of a Worshipping Church. Mundelein: Liturgy Training Publications. Schellenberg, E. Glenn. 1996a. Expectancy in Melody: Tests of the Implication-­ Realization Model. Cognition 58: 75–125. ———. 1996b. Simplifying the Implication-Realization Model of Melodic Expectancy. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 14 (3): 295–318. https://doi.org/10.2307/40285723. ———. 1997. Simplifying the Implication-Realization Model of Melodic Expectancy. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 14 (3): 295–318. https://doi.org/10.2307/40285723. Schellenberg, E. Glenn, and Sandra E. Trehub. 1996. Children’s Discrimination of Melodic Intervals. Developmental Psychology 32 (6): 1039–1050. Schultz, Thom. 2014. Why They Don’t Sing on Sunday Anymore. Holy Soup (blog). May 21. http://holysoup.com/2014/05/21/why-they-dont-singon-sunday-anymore/

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

229

Shuker, Roy. 2013. Understanding Popular Music Culture. 4th ed. Abingdon: Routledge. “Size of Churches.” n.d.. http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=131. Accessed 17 Nov 2013. Small, Christopher. 1999. Music of the Common Tongue: Survival and Celebration in African American Music. Rev. ed. Hanover: Wesleyan. Solis, Gabriel. 2010. I Did It My Way: Rock and the Logic of Covers. Popular Music and Society 33 (3): 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007760903523351. “Song.” 2009. Macquarie Dictionary, Fifth, 1569. Sydney: Macquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Ltd. Sorge, Bob. 1987. Exploring Worship: A Practical Guide to Praise & Worship. Kansas City: Oasis House. Stalinski, Stephanie M., and E. Glenn Schellenberg. 2010. Shifting Perceptions: Developmental Changes in Judgements of Melodic Similarity. Developmental Psychology 46 (6): 1799–1803. Stephens, Randall J. 2018. The Devil’s Music: How Christians Inspired, Condemned, and Embraced Rock ‘n’ Roll. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stobart, Henry, ed. 2008. The New (Ethno)Musicologies. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press. Storey, John. 2006. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader. Harlow: University of Georgia Press. Story Behind The Song In Christ Alone Stuart Townend. 2009. http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=TpipuCeGQn4&feature=youtube_gdata_player Swenson, Joanne M. 2004. From Dogma to Aesthetica: Evangelical Eschatology Gets a Makeover. Cross Currents, Winter. https://www.questia.com/ magazine/1G1-114975424/from-dogma-to-aesthetica-evangelicaleschatology Teoh, Hannah. 2005. Worshipping the Worshipper: When Worship Leaders Become Famous. Papers from the Trans-Tasman Research Symposium, “Emerging Research in Media, Religion and Culture.” http://search.informit.com.au.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/fullText;dn=038905051200287;res=IELHSS Thayer, Joseph, and James Strong. 1995. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers. Rei Sub edition. Place of publication not identified: Hendrickson Publishers. Thornton, Daniel. 2015. A Lament for Pentecostal Scholarship in Contemporary Congregational Songs. Australasian Pentecostal Studies 17 (0). http://apsjournal.com/aps/index.php/APS/article/view/9477 ———. 2016. Exploring the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre: Texts, Practice, and Industry. PhD, Sydney: Macquarie University. ———. 2017. On Hillsong’s Continued Reign over the Australian Contemporary Congregational Song Genre. Perfect Beat 17 (2): 164–182.

230 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Thornton, Daniel, and Mark Evans. 2015. YouTube: A New Mediator of Christian Community. In Congregational Music-Making and Community in a Mediated Age, ed. Tom Wagner and Anna Nekola, 141–159. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Throsby, David, and Anita Zednik. 2010. An Economic Study of Professional Artists in Australia. http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0007/79108/Do_you_really_expect_to_get_paid.pdf Tomlin, Chris. 2011. Chris Tomlin | Chris Tomlin—STORY BEHIND THE SONG: “Amazing Grace” | TodaysChristianMusic.Com. CCM Radio Magazine. http://www.todayschristianmusic.com/artists/chris-tomlin/audio/ chris-tomlin-story-behind-the-song-amazing-grace/ Torrance, James B. 1997. Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Toynbee, Jason. 2003. Music, Culture, and Creativity. In The Cultural Study of Music: A Critical Introduction, ed. Martin Clayton, Trevor Herbert, and Richard Middleton, 161–171. New York: Routledge. Tschmuck, Peter. 2012. Creativity and Innovation in the Music Industry. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Vondey, Wolfgang, and Martin William Mittelstadt. 2013. The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal Scholarship: Passion for the Spirit. BRILL. Wagner, Thomas J. 2013. Hearing the Hillsong Sound: Music, Marketing, Meaning and Branded Spiritual Experience at a Transnational Megachurch. Royal Holloway University of London. http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/ files/19680902/2014wagnertphd.pdf Wainwright, Jeffrey. 2011. Poetry: The Basics. 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge. Walrath, Brian, and Robert Woods, eds. 2010. The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Walser, Robert. 2003. Popular Music Analysis: Ten Apothegms and Four Instances. In Analyzing Popular Music, ed. A.F. Moore, 16–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Warrington, Keith. 2008. Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter. London: A&C Black. Watson, Wilfred G.E. 2004. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. London: A&C Black. Webber, Robert E. 2000. Is Our Worship Adequately Triune? Reformation and Revival Journal 9.3 (Summer). http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/refrev/09-3/9-3_webber.pdf ———. 2007. God Is Not the Object of Our Worship. ChristianityToday.Com, April 30. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/aprilweb-only/11813.0.html ———. 2009. Worship Old and New. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

231

White, Susan J. 2004. What Ever Happened to the Father? The Jesus Heresy in Modern Worship. http://www.gbod.org/content/uploads/legacy/kintera/ entry_9187/19/WHITE.PDF Whiteley, Sheila. 2013. Sexing the Groove: Popular Music and Gender. London: Routledge. Williams Paris, Jenell. 2010. I Could Sing Of Your Love Forever: American Romance in Contemporary Worship Music. In The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship, ed. Brian Walrath and Robert Woods, 43–53. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Williamson, Victoria J., and Sagar R.  Jilka. 2014. Experiencing Earworms: An Interview Study of Involuntary Musical Imagery. Psychology of Music 42 (5): 653–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735613483848. Williamson, Victoria J., Sagar R.  Jilka, Joshua Fry, Sebastian Finkel, Daniel Müllensiefen, and Lauren Stewart. 2012. How Do ‘Earworms’ Start? Classifying the Everyday Circumstances of Involuntary Musical Imagery. Psychology of Music 40 (3): 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0305735611418553. Wilson-Dickson, Andrew. 1992. The Story of Christian Music: From Gregorian Chant to Black Gospel: An Authoritative Illustrated Guide to All the Major Traditions of Music for Worship. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Witvliet, John D. 1999. The Blessing and Band of the North American Megachurch: Implications for Twenty-First Century Congregational Song. The Hymn 50 (1): 6–14. ———. 2003. Worship Seeking Understanding: Windows into Christian Practice. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group. Wren, Brian A. 2000. Praying Twice: The Music and Words of Congregational Song. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Yee, Russell M. 1997. Shared Meaning and Significance Inn Congregational Singing. The Hymn 48 (2): 7–11. Young, Robert W. 1939. Terminology for Logarithmic Frequency Units. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 11 (1): 134–139. https://doi. org/10.1121/1.1916017. “Zion (Hillsong United Album).” 2013. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. http:// en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zion_(Hillsong_United_ album)&oldid=577373342 Zschech, Darlene. 2015. Personal interview for Poietic Analysis of CCS. Email.

Index

A Alphacrucis College, 59, 90 Altar call, 164 Anointing, 102, 158 Apostle’s Creed, 150 APRA/AMCOS, 42 Aspect ratio, 197 Attender C Survey, 109 Audio tracks, 137 Australian, 3, 87 Australian Christian Churches, 36, 89, 212 Australia’s National Prayer Breakfast, 203

C Career, 213 Catchy songs, 104 Catholicism, 37 Celebrification, 48 Charismatic, 2 Chest voice, 124 Church Copyright Licence, 36 Clapping, 182 Communal faith, 77 Contemporary Christian Music, 32 Contemporary worship music, 27 Cook, Nicholas, 185 Corbitt, J. Nathan, 9

B Begbie, Jeremy, 11 Bethel Church, 42 The Billboard Experiment, 138

D Demographics, 93 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 177 Drums, 116 Du Plessis, Malcolm, 50–52

© The Author(s) 2021 D. Thornton, Meaning-Making in the Contemporary Congregational Song Genre, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55609-9

233

234 

INDEX

E Earworms, 104, 129 Egos, 82 Electric guitar, 136 Elevation Church, 42 Emotional experiences, 100 Eschatology, 154, 189 Ethnomusicology, 8–9 F Family, 83 Faster songs, 139 Father, 149 Fear, 90 Female lead vocals, 124 Fergusson, Amanda, 79 Fergusson, Robert, 79 First to upload, 172 Flash, 91 Formulaic, 76 Free worship, 134 Functional harmony, 133 G Garrett, Dale, 7 Garrett, David, 7 Gender inequity, 42 Genre, 4–6 Genre analysis, 121 Global CCS, 38 Godhead titles, 148 Goodwin, Andrew, 186 Government, 203 Grant, Amy, 44 Green, Keith, 44 Guitars, 136 H Harmonic analysis, 132 Highest (notated) pitch, 125

Hillsong Church, 42 Hillsong Young & Free, 95 Humility, 60 Hybridisation, 73 I Immanence, 147 Individualism, 162 Initial success, 192 Invitational song, 163 J Jesus Culture, 42 Jobe, Kari, 199 K Kerygma, 158 Key signatures, 130–131 L Liesch, Barry, 158 Lord, 148 Loudness, 115 Love, 154 Lowest (notated) pitch, 124 Lyric interpretation, 153 Lyric repetition, 147 M Magisteria-Ibiza Spectrum, 11 Mainline denominations, 139 McPherson, Steve, 52 Meaningful, 85, 101 Meaning-making, 15 Mediation, 23 Melodic range, 61, 123 Memorable, 101 Memorable songs, 63

 INDEX 

Metaphor, 179 Mixolydian, 130, 199 Moir, Les, 51–53 Monetization, 177 Musical-lyrical marriage, 145 Musical memory, 96 Musical preferences, 96 Musical schemas, 46, 207 Musical training, 59, 91 Music industry, 208 N National Church Life Survey (NCLS), 88 Nattiez, Jean-Jacques, 15 Nature pictures, 22, 191 Neutral level, 16 New musicology, 121 Newsboys, 44 Nursery rhymes, 128 O Official videos, 175, 178 Online survey, 87 Operations Survey, 114 P Passion Conference, 42, 74, 196 Pentatonic scale, 198 Pentecostal, 2 Pentecostal-charismatic, 30 Pentecostal theology, 147 Petition/Prayer, 160 Pitch Centre of Gravity (PCG), 97, 126 Pitch Proximity, 127 Post-modern, 78 Post-production, 176 Praise, 27, 156, 158 Praise/Thanksgiving, 159 Prayer, 159 Pre-recorded tracks, see Audio tracks

Prophetic/Declarative, 159 Prosch, Kevin, 52 R Rachinski, Howard, 35 Rap, 2 Repository, 36, 198 Rock ‘n’ Roll, 2, 7 Romantic lyrics, 162 Royalty income, 68 S Sacramental theology, 11 Sampson, Marty, 62 Schellenberg, Glenn, 127 Semiotics, 17 Senior pastor, 34 Sermon, 112, 113, 116, 213 Serve, 60 Singability, 104 Smith, Michael W., 190 Song of the Year, 181, 190 SongSelect, 20 Song story videos, 58 Song titles, 165 Song transitions, 191 Spirit, 150 Spiritual encounter, 210 Streaming, 20, 175, 214 Studio album, 178 Submission, 119 Success, 66 Syncopation, 128 T Technology, 212 Tessitura, 98, 123 Theological gatekeepers, 79 Theology, 102 Time, 12, 118, 201

235

236 

INDEX

Tomlin, Chris, 42, 68 Trinitarian, 151 U Unaccompanied singing, 91 V Values, 206 Vernacular music, 59 VEVO, 20, 194 Vocal care, 173 Vocal qualities, 127 Vocal range, 96, 207 Vocal training, 92

W Western Art Music, 16, 18, 133, 200, 204 Worship (CCS category), 27, 29, 159 Worship leader, 43 Worship wars, 47 Y Youth movements, 204 YouTube Analytics, 187 Z Zion, 179