Bibliographic record
Abstract
I freely admit it: we look like a motley crew as we tune our instruments in the sanctuary on Sunday morning. Besides the piano, there is a flute, a violin, a trombone, a guitar (with a banjo close at hand), a vibraphone and an electronic cello. Like the guitarist/banjo player, many of the members play several instruments as needed: the pianist also plays trombone, the vibraphonist is also the cello player, and the conductor (that would be me, your columnist) plays guitar, piano, and from time to time drums on a cajon, a South American drum box. Several congregational members who sit near the instrumental group often add other percussion. On some Sundays, the instrumental group might also include a trumpet (or two) and a baritone. It may seem like a recipe for cacophony at best, and a stumbling block to worship at worst. Where is the quiet reverence, the simplicity of hymn accompaniment? Let me hasten to say that my congregation, Trafalgar Presbyterian Church, Oakville Ontario, is not rejecting traditional hymnody. It has, in its twenty-plus years, embraced music of many styles and forms in a spirit of both/and rather than either/or. The congregation has in its memory bank both strophic hymnody and praise choruses, both CCM and song. We have many people from varied backgrounds, culturally, denominationally and musically. Therefore, we try to draw music from many sources, including music from the world church, and it is a very real experience for us to be singing, as John Thornburg writes,1 not only for ourselves, and within own tradition, but also for the person next to us. We are also working at singing for those not yet in our pews. We have many children and young people whose musical leadership we try to encourage. We try to include hymns from the main tradition, the classics, yet the challenge is to engage children physically and rhythmically. We are a very social, practical, hands on, get-things-done kind of congregation. How do you introduce the experience of mystery, of awe and wonder? Rev. Kristine O'Brien and I try to craft moments in worship where silence becomes rich with meaning and expressive rather than a mere interruption. We try to encourage members to come to worship with the expectation to learn in worship, to engage with something new, rather than always singing inside the comfort zone. Musically, we work with a rich musical palette that is drawn from the gifts of the community itself. Leading hymns with a congregational band, of course, is nothing new. Brass bands have long played a distinctive role in Salvation Army congregations. Many congregations augment their core piano/organ with other instruments at various times during the year. This instrumental grouping allows us immense flexibility: we can have most of the instruments drop out, and accompany with spare instrumental combinations, bringing in the whole band for a climactic verse. We can re-interpret a hymn in a contemporary style, as we will see below with NlCAEA, or evoke what might be an original accompaniment style-for example, playing KINGSFOLD as a folk song rather than as a hymn. As with any form of hymn leadership, the challenge is to choose the instrumentation to underscore the meaning of each stanza and to shape the singing of the hymn as a whole. One of my musical references comes from the West Gallery tradition, which the Hymn Society experienced in 2004, in Collegeville. Some of these sounds can be heard on the album by Maddy Prior, Sing Lustily & With Good Courage,2 a collection of hymns accompanied by a gallery band. Along with many global musical traditions, one of my Canadian inspirations is the Montreal duo of Kate and Anna McGarrigle, who blend Quebecois and Cajun folk traditions with other popular forms. I propose that we explore this approach to the leadership of congregational song plays out in two standard hymns, What a Friend We Have in Jesus (CONVERSE) and Holy, Holy (NICAEA). …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".