Why We Sing Along: Measurable Traits of Successful Congregational Songs
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Music Music 2017 WHY WE SING ALONG: MEASURABLE TRAITS OF SUCCESSFUL CONGREGATIONAL SONGS Daniel Read University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2017.438 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Read, Daniel, "WHY WE SING ALONG: MEASURABLE TRAITS OF SUCCESSFUL CONGREGATIONAL SONGS" (2017). Theses and Dissertations--Music. 102. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/music_etds/102 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Music at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Music by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made available immediately for worldwide access unless an embargo applies. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of my work. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of my work. I understand that I am free to register the copyright to my work. REVIEW, APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE The document mentioned above has been reviewed and accepted by the student’s advisor, on behalf of the advisory committee, and by the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS), on behalf of the program; we verify that this is the final, approved version of the student’s thesis including all changes required by the advisory committee. The undersigned agree to abide by the statements above. Daniel Read, Student Dr. Kevin Holm-Hudson, Major Professor Dr. Michael Baker, Director of Graduate Studies WHY WE SING ALONG: MEASURABLE TRAITS OF SUCCESSFUL CONGREGATIONAL SONGS ____________________________________________ THESIS ____________________________________________ A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the College of Fine Arts at the University of Kentucky By Daniel Read Cincinnati, Ohio Director: Dr. Holm-Hudson, Associate Professor of Music Theory Lexington, Kentucky 2017 Copyright © Daniel Read 2017 ABSTRACT OF THESIS WHY WE SING ALONG: MEASURABLE TRAITS OF SUCCESSFUL CONGREGATIONAL SONGS Songwriters have been creating music for the church for hundreds of years. The songs have gone through many stylistic changes from generation to generation, yet, each song has generated congregational participation. What measurable, traceable qualities of congregational songs exist from one generation to the next? This document explores the history and development of Congregational Christian Song (CCS), to discover and document the similarities between seemingly contrasting styles of music. The songs analyzed in this study were chosen because of their wide popularity and broad dissemination among non- denominational churches in the United States. While not an exhaustive study, this paper reviews over 200 songs spanning 300 years of CCS. The findings of the study are that songs that have proven to be successful in eliciting participation all contain five common elements. These elements encourage congregations to participate in singing when an anticipation cue is triggered and then realized. The anticipation/reward theory used in this study is based on David Huron’s ITPRA (Imagination-Tension-Prediction-Reaction-Appraisal) Theory of Expectation. This thesis is designed to aid songwriters and music theorists to quickly identify whether a CCS can be measured as successful (i.e., predictable). KEYWORDS: Worship, Congregational Song, Music Cognition, Statistical Analysis, Songwriting for the Church ______Daniel Read______________ Student Signature______-___ ______November 12, 2017________ Date ______-___________ WHY WE SING ALONG: MEASURABLE TRAITS OF SUCCESSFUL CONGREGATIONAL SONGS By Daniel Read ______Dr. Kevin Holm-Hudson____ Director of Thesis------------- ______Dr. Michael Baker_________ Director of Graduate Studies- ______June 6, 2017______________ Date____________________ This paper is dedicated to you, faithful reader. I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. -Ecclesiastes 1:14 This study has been a labor of love—love for The Church, love for the sake of knowledge, and love for Christ. Yet all this work is in vain. At the time of this writing, this research is already out of date and will only continue to grow more antiquated and irrelevant unless you apply what you have learned here and use it to change the future. The future does not lie within these pages but within your practices. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I want to thank all my friends and family who have supported me through boring conversations, as I have processed many ideas of this thesis out loud to the enjoyment of only myself. Corey, thanks for teaching me how to utilize spreadsheets to their fullest capacity—you saved me hundreds of hours of counting. This paper would not have been possible without the steady support of my bride and cheerleader. Thank you, Katie, for your vigilant support as you raised our four little ones by yourself on the days that I spent working on this project. Your encouragement pushed me through the difficult days and spurred me on to finish what I started. This paper is made possible by the wealth of information that my father has provided through his own research and through his many years spent in worship ministry. It was his insights and enthusiasm for this topic that continued to engage me in my analysis. I stand where I am today because I stood on your shoulders. Another huge influence in shaping this paper into its current status was the insight and critiques by the music theory department at the University of Kentucky; specifically, Drs. Baker, Bottge, Pen, Arnold, and Holm-Hudson. Dr. HH, you pushed me to dive deeper into my studies and would not let me settle for something less than adequate. Thank you for your faithful and relentless encouragement through this process. I owe many hard-learned academic lessons to your prodding and guiding. S.D.G. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction and Overview .............................................................................................. 1 Supporting Theories: CCS Scholarship ........................................................................... 2 Supporting Theories: Popular Music Studies .................................................................. 5 Supporting Theories: Music Cognition ........................................................................... 7 Anticipation as Reward ................................................................................................. 10 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 16 Data Preparation ............................................................................................................ 19 Preliminary Findings ..................................................................................................... 27 CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................................................. 29 Survey of CCS ............................................................................................................... 29 CCS prior to 1700 ......................................................................................................... 30 Development of Hymns: 1700–1825 ............................................................................ 35 Development of Gospel Songs: 1825–1950 .................................................................. 45 Development of Praise Choruses: 1950–1996 .............................................................. 51 Development of CWM: 1996–2016 .............................................................................. 60 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 64 CHAPTER THREE .......................................................................................................... 65 What Makes CCS Singable? ........................................................................................