Poor Singing by George B. Thompson

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Feb 2, 1911

Poor Singing

By George B. Thompson

Those who sing are admonished by the Holy Spirit to sing with the spirit and with the understanding also. The writer has so often been bored by having to listen to singing that it was impossible to understand, that he has considerable sympathy with the following, taken from the Australian Life of January, 1911, commenting upon some singing by a musical society at Ballarat:—

“The chief defects in the singing at Ballarat may be named in a very few words. Wrong production, faulty pronunciation, poor enunciation, bad articulation,—these were the chief. Here are a few examples of the sort of English ‘some of’ the singers sang. I pick them at random from a terribly long list:—

“Fragrance, er-bove (above), presunce; loight (light), three-oo (through), Gord; syve us (save us), Syv-your (Saviour), sore (saw), enner-mies, majusty, roise (rise), fowze (foes), Oo (O), Oi (I), droy (dry), moine (mine), shee-elter (shelter), shee-adow (shadow), dy. (day), dybryke (daybreak), gee-entle (gentle), pry (pray), swy (sway), jee-oy (joy).”

“It may seem to some readers that these things are not very serious, but they are perfectly hideous if you sing them in the worst Australian manner. Then there was a lot of that irritating singing on the consonant instead of on the vowel,—bloom-ming, perfume-ming, dil-lay, (delay), through wall (through all), so wazz. (so as), me yorl (me all), and so on.”

This shameful butchery of song seems to be wide-spread and of long standing. At home and abroad, on board ship, by the fireside, in the church, at camp-meeting, and in great choruses, are those who sing with such imperfect articulation and enunciation that few if any can understand what they are saying. When the song is ended, all applaud, some because of the musical talent which enabled them to enjoy the musical tones produced, though the words were emasculated; others, perhaps, because the agony is over, and the noise is at an end. That there are many exceptions to this, I am happy to bear witness. While in Auckland, New Zealand, I had the privilege of hearing the “Messiah” rendered by a chorus of two hundred fifty voices. I sat on a back seat in the hall, and could understand distinctly nearly every word of the soloist as well as of the full chorus. It was a magnificent rendering of this beautiful cantata, and the orchestration was also excellent. Above all, it was so refreshing to understand. As I listened, I could not but reflect: If singers in Auckland can sing so they can be understood, singers in other places can surely do the same.

I can not imagine the one hundred forty-four thousand singing the song of Moses and the Lamb in such a way that neither the angels nor the redeemed hosts can tell what they are endeavoring to say. The seer does not tell us anything of all concerning the exquisite tones (and these will truly inspire the soul), but he does stop to tell us what they will say. And when the words, “Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints,” are heard like the “voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder,” they will be understood, and a hallelujah of praise will be the response.

It is true that much that is sung is such trash that one is just as well off not to be able to understand it. But this is not true of the sacred songs, written to express praise to the One who has redeemed us from sin. To be able to sing these to touch the heart is a talent from the Lord, a gift well worthy to be cultivated and improved.

The foregoing is intended as a suggestion rather than a criticism as to how some singing from consecrated hearts might be improved.

G. B. THOMPSON.