Comments on: Instrumental praise . . . or the lack thereof

By: Mike Linton

Mike Linton — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:51:23 +0000

Although there is some controversy to the notion, “a cappella” probably developed as a nick name for the manner of singing at the Sistine Chapel. Choral music in the Renaissance was regularly accompanied by instruments and even Gregorian chant, at least in some French cathedrals, was sung accompanied by serpents (the instruments, not the reptiles). The choir loft in the Sistine is tiny, little more than a balcony with a window, and there isn’t room there for anyone other than singers (instrumentalists might have been used occasionally, playing from the chapel floor, but they would have been extremely rare). By the 17th Century, performance of a choral piece without accompaniment was worth noting, it was being sung “in the manner of the chapel”, meaning the Sistine Chapel.
Of course, resurrecting non-accompanied music can always be combined with the resurrection of that other ancient tradition of the Sistine choir, castrati singing the treble roles.

By: jason taylor

jason taylor — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:38:59 +0000

If it was a command from God to use instruments surely it is a command from God to use the same instruments as mentioned in the verse; after all “instruments” were not mentioned but the specific instruments were.

By: jason taylor

jason taylor — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:37:30 +0000

That was a command from God? It sounded more like a poetic expression of David’s spiritual ecstasy.

By: pentamom

pentamom — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 20:46:13 +0000

I like a cappella singing, and agree with this, but the downside is that if it’s done badly, which congregations unfamiliar with it will tend to do, then a cappella becomes associated in the popular mind with “droning” (similar to what happened to chant.)

But that’s not a reason not to do it, it’s a reason to think about how to do it well.