In an attempt to increase social contact and because I ran into an old friend who is music director for a local community theater, I accepted his invitation to join his church choir. This happens to be a denomination that is different from the one in which I was raised, but since my motivation is simply to make music on a regular basis, to fill what is otherwise a long evening, and to meet others, I wasn’t too concerned about my “different-ness.” I’m still not concerned. I feel valued for what I can add as a singer and as a person, and that is what counts. If I felt that holding other beliefs dissuaded me from being my best musician self, I’d find another group. But the group has been welcoming and I am finally learning names.
I find it interesting that in the larger picture, the Lutheran liturgy and the Roman Catholic (RC) liturgies are essentially the same. I learned that in music history class as an undergraduate and have kept that understanding ever since. Pre-Vatican II, the Catholic church did not feature congregational singing nearly as much as the Lutheran church did. A friend related that in the months after the changes Vatican II brought to the RC church, they invited the Lutherans in to help teach the congregation how to sing out and how to discover the joy and community in singing together. Now, 58 years later, I can say that the RC congregation with which I am involved has learned its lessons. While, yes, I can always hope that they sing out more, they certainly sing with some confidence and they sing together. There has even been a moment in which time was take to teach the congregation a new hymn before it was included in the liturgy. What more could I want?
I have to say that my musical interests tend more to the instrumental than the vocal. That’s natural given that I am an instrumentalist who sings rather than a singer who plays an instrument. That’s a fine distinction that speaks to focus. I find that when I listen to vocals, I will occasionally find lines that, if I allow it, will drive me crazy. How can anyone sing that? You may remember “The Wedding Song” that was popular in the 1970s.* It’s a nice enough song and appropriate for the situation. It seemed that most of the weddings I went to at that time featured it. However, the line “woman draws her life from man and gives love back again” leaves me full of resentment. It may be my feminist leanings, but hey, the idea that my life is nothing without a man makes me want to run out of the church and either scream in rage or weep in despair. If I were to write the song, I might write “he and she stand hand in hand and give love back again.” It’s a little off, but the scansion works and is appropriate for the setting. I could live with those words.
What does that mean for the title of this Musing?? Every Sunday the congregation sings a Gloria. “Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth, peace to men of good will.” Here too, the scansion works with the meter and the line sings easily and well. But it has gotten me thinking–sort of along the lines of the difference between “An enemy of the people” and “The people’s enemy.” That’s a translation from the Ibsen title but clearly with a slight difference between the original and the translation. Shades of meaning are important.
So what’s the difference between the current “Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth, peace to men of good will” and the line in the King James version of the Christmas story in Luke 2:14 where we find a heavenly host singing “Glory to God in the highest and peace, good will to men”? Aside from the fact that the Bible refers only to “men,” which is, I think, an obsolete linguistic turn of phrase that I was taught refers to both men and women. This is much in the way that we read “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, even though at the time, the writers never thought to include women, the enslaved, or indigenous peoples. Still, what gets me thinking is whether the lyricist, in a successful attempt at scansion, managed to change the meaning of the line, similar to how a misplaced comma can change meaning. Consider the riff in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton: My dearest Angelica, versus My dearest, Angelica. Bottom line: how intentional is this? Is this merely an accidental turn of phrase, one of convenience or an attempt at creating an interesting and (hopefully) clever turn of phrase, or a intentional, separating the good guys from the less-than? It may be that I am one of the few who would get hung up on this issue, but then I must admit that this bothers me. It’s like the English teacher instinct that wants to white-out the misused apostrophes. (Plural. Possessive. What’s the difference? If it ends in “s” throw in an apostrophe.)
So which is it? Do we wish good will only to those who already have good will? Do we wish good things for those who think like us, or do we wish good will to everyone, regardless of whether they are or whether they think like us. Are we generous in our wishes of good will or are we insular and closed? I may not wish you ill, but if you are not already of my mindset, I do not particularly wish you well. Is one reading generous and the other, in terms of others, null? I am not certain. It’s the sort of linguistic rabbit hole I enter when I pay attention to what I am singing or reading. As for me, I wish everyone well, no matter who they are.
In my world, we are all connected. The web of the world is not limited to good guys and bad guys, not limited to your size, your age, your beliefs, or the color package your physique comes in. I wish you well. In those moments of “connected-ness” I have written about recently, I feel the same for the world around me–human or otherwise. I embrace good will and send it out. And yes, it comes back in all sorts of ways, small and large. Today, dear reader, I send it to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrTfNTzAvYY: Musings: Good will to men or to men of good will
You must be logged in to post a comment.