Talk:Hymns and hymn tunes

The marriage of a text to the right tune is significantly important if a hymn is to be a success; a hymn enthusiast will realize how vital is the work of hymnal editors, who set these up. Hymnlover (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 5-13-10

I see a CSD threat, and will explain that I conducted the research for this article during the last couple of months. Then I composed it in a word processer, and cut and pasted it this morning. It is my own work, including numerous footnoted quotes from worthy sources. It does not deserve "speedy deletion," but evidently I need someone (not myself) to recognize and acknowledge that fact. Will someone please read the article and do so? Hymnlover (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover.

Does this need a separate article?

 * I applaud the article on hymn tunes in Wikipedia! Though in common parlance "hymn" is often used for the music as well as the text, it is helpful to use more precise language in discussing the parameters of congregational song.  Making a distinction between the hymn poetry and the hymn tune allows for more complete and precise discussion.  There is much important information related specifically to the melodies used in our congregational singing, so the article on hymn tunes is an important one.


 * Deborah Carlton Loftis, Executive Director
 * The Hymn Society in the United States and Canada

see:  www.thehymnsociety.org

I would like to highlight the above as an important and relevant insight from an acknowledged expert. But it has been so long since I added something, I can remember none of the proper steps to do so. Sorry! But please note the importance of the insight, and the credentials of the speaker. 24.13.149.17 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)User:Hymnlover, 6-16-11

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from this page as it clearly doesn't qualify under any valid speedy deletion criteria. However I'm not convinced that the article absolutely needs to exist. Could some of the material possibly be used in the existing articles on Hymn, Hymnal, Hymnody or Hymnology? I think the current title is a little confusing (I was expecting to read about wedding hymns!) and the tone is quite essay-like, rather than being encyclopedic. Thparkth (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It does seem that a consensus is forming that there might be a separate article regarding the process by which hymns and hymn tunes are matched. I do think though that if this article is going to exist that it needs a better title than simply "Hymns and hymn tunes."   Is the article really about the process of editing hymnals?  Should we signify that with the title? What's to distinguish this article from "hymn" and "hymn tune"? Pelagiushater (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

case for a separate article
How about Hymns and Hymn Tunes - "Marriages" ???

I wanted to start the title of the article with the word "Hymns" so that it would come up for a non-scholar would spot it easily. Hymnodists and hymnologists know all this; lay people are the ones who are going to find it eye-opening, and who are going to have a whole new perspective on what they are singing.... Those are the ones I was aiming to interest in this whole area, and to give them an insight on what went into what's on the pages of their hymnal...

When I first looked anything up on Wikipedia, "Hymn" was the only relevant article which occurred to me to look for. And the definition, which is fully valid, left the impression that the music on the page is the hymn, and the words on the page are "lyrics." There was no cognizance at all of the significant differentiation between hymns (i.e., texts) and tunes. In fact, the Charles Wesley article listed some on his hymns, listed by first line (standard practice), and after the first line, said "(lyrics)".... The implication is so far off what is the proper scholarly....!

My discussion here is aimed at "novices" who take a hymnal in hand and never think of what's on the page and why. A very intelligent friend actually got quite heated when I said the text and the tune should be recognized as separate identities. When she asked, well how would you define what's on the page here?, I said, it's a marriage, and she looked at me as if I had grown another head. (And by the way, she didn't understand meters at all, which is why that section is much amplified, to try to make it clear to the person who never even thought about it before.) If you look at the Glover quote from the 1982 Hymnal Commpanion, you will see that "marriage is a quite common analogy, quite understood by people in the field.

I'm grateful the speedy deletion tag is removed.

The little Index at the beginning is great! Thank you!!! May I change the wording of a couple of them? I am illiterate as to Wikipedia shorthands, etc., so I made no attempt to put one of those in. Very helpful. I'd be grateful also, if you think more needs to be said about anything, that you point out the place.

Hymnlover (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Hymnlover
 * You can change what shows up in the table of contents simply by changing the section headers in the text itself. The section headers are marked by two equals marks '==' on each side. Be bold! You don't need anyone's permission to make changes. Of course the flip side is, neither does anyone else ;) Thparkth (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to tentatively suggest that the material in this article could be merged, pretty much wholesale, into Hymnal. A few reasons:


 * 1) It's very likely to be found there by someone interested in this topic.
 * 2) ...whereas this current article name is unlikely to be discovered.
 * 3) The material in this article really is about the production of hymnals
 * 4) The Hymnal article is very short, really almost a stub. It could use expansion.


 * What do you think? Thparkth (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me brood a bit.... I'm going to edit the headers, and add the quotes to the title of the article (if that's easy???)  I think the quotes will indicate that the word is used in a way that is out of the ordinary....

(Now I shall see if I can figure out the title.) Thanks for your insights! I'll have to look at the Hymnal article; I never thought to look that word up here; it's obvious that I am focusing on what those editors do, though, and how vital this aspect of their work is.... (i.e., marriages of a text to the very best tune to set it) Hymnlover (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover

I tried to rename the article - just adding the quotes to "Marriages" - but it didn't work. I think that would help though. I changed the captions.... Now I shall look at the Hymnal article Hymnlover (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover

Well, Hymnal doesn't say much, does it! But you see, the marriages made are crucial, artistically, and I would say merit a focused discussion, in order to make that clear. Discussing a hymnal and how it's put together may merit something, but that's mostly mechanics (decide to do one, get a committee together, set goals and parameters, etc.)  My aim here is catch the singer in the congregation (by the title of the article???), and get him appreciating what he's singing so that he is more blessed by it. I would say that there's no more impact-full poetry than a hymn text, and there's no more beautiful music than a hymn tune that fits and enriches the impact of an inspiring hymn text. When the two support each other, and come to the earnest thought of the singer either in congregation or at a time of stress or need, or a time of joy and security for that matter .....  So I've tried to catch someone to consider hymns in this enriched way. On beyond mechanical, as it were... On beyond singing three times in a church service.... Hymnlover (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover

Can you add the quotes in the article title? Or tell me how???

Article moved to new name with "Marriages""
...but I think there are still some problems with the article name. One of the main purposes of an article title is to allow people to easily find the material they're searching for. However we do use similar language ("marriages") in the Hymn tune article (apparently Wikipedia has lots of articles in this topic area!) so I'll create a link from there. Thparkth (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Thparkth: Thank you! I created a "Favorite Places" access yesterday, and the article came up with the quotes....

I noted last night that the italics didn't transfer with the copying in of my text, so I'll add them soon. I need to confirm the shorthand to make it happen. And I will call a hymnic friend about the title of the article. But the links would be great: thankyou thankyou thankyou for setting them up!!!!! Hymnlover (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 5-14-10

Dear thparkth: I'm following the discussion. The insight into what's behind Wikipedia is certainly demonstrated!!! Just glancing at the list, and the topics, of the articles being considered for deletion, is a revelation.

Would you suggest a good example/article showing the type of prose which is "encyclopedic"? Also, I'm pondering where to move this material, if the current title is too specific. My point is to give an insight into the work of hymnal editors and how crucially significant is their artistic judgment of the fit and support in an ideal matching of tunes to texts.... That said, I suppose the article on "hymnal" is a better fit than either "hymn" or "hymn tune"....  But the trouble with plunking it there is that ordinary people won't find it....  My ideal was to have it parallel with "hymn" and "hymn tune" -- the third factor in what's on the hymnal page, as it were.... Hymnlover (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 5-18-10
 * Hi Hymnlover. I suggest you should comment on the deletion discussion yourself - it's open to all editors, and as the article creator you certainly have a voice. The word "encyclopedic" on Wikipedia really means that an article might fall into the list of things that Wikipedia is not. In my opinion, that is not a problem for this article so I wouldn't worry about it too much - sometimes people accuse things of being unencyclopedic when they just mean "I don't like it". If you explain your reasoning on the articles for deletion page, the good people there will be able to help figure out where the best place for this material is. Thparkth (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I did it. The more I think about it, the more I think the three articles as separate articles -- "Hymns", "Hymn tunes", "Hymns and Hymn Tunes - "Marriages"" would be ideal....  The two articles without the third -- incomplete in explaining what's on the hymnal page.... Hymnlover (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover


 * I amplified my comments of yesterday. I hope someone agrees!  Hymnlover (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 5-19

A final defense
5-21-10 The week's end approaches....  I contacted the Hymn Society (HSUSC) who "endorsed" my putting this article on Wikipedia (and my adequacy for the task), and the wording of her response puzzled me; she couldn't understand why the article would be deleted, as there was "nothing offensive" about it. This morning's news presented Wikipedia trying to defend itself from child pornography. Maybe that's what she was talking about.

This article is about the editors of hymnals and the work they do. Obviously, it relates to "Hymn," but that article is about poems and authors and is already very very long. Obviously it relates to "Hymn tunes" (the new article which was introduced, without dissension, a short time ago), but that article is about music and composers, and is also of significant length. This article is about a different effort by a different group of people, without whose work singing praise to God, as Christians are directed in Scripture, would be an entirely different ballgame.... I think it is a third aspect, parallel to "Hymn" and "Hymn Tune," and would be best treated separately and presented with an article parallel to those two articles. This aspect of artistic contribution is probably an aspect of hymnody that is completely concealed, as people never even think of its occurrence or importance. My own awareness of its significance increased mightily, once I thought about it and researched it. I'm grateful for my own insights, which developed because of trying to correct Wikipedia's presentation of a "hymn" being composed. (If that wording sounds normal to you, think again: a "hymn is authored, not composed; the "hymn tune" is what's composed, and Wikipedia's lack of clarity was a valid problem which now, hopefully, is corrected....)

My first recommendation is to leave the article separate, parallel with and linked with "Hymn," "Hymn tune" and "Hymnal." If the powers that be deny this, then put it under "Hymnal," which at least implies the work of editors. Because that's whose work we're considering here. The hundreds of authors/poets of thousands of hymns are not participating in the discussion of text/tune marriages (except maybe a live author/poet around a hymnal "text committee" table), and the hundreds of composers of tunes aren't either (except maybe a live composer around the "tunes committee" table). This article is about the work of an entirely different, equally artistic third group: hymnal editors.Hymnlover (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 5-21-10

P. S. Dear thparkth:  This seems too long for the deletion discussion, so I'm going to post a note referring back to it; should I copy and paste the whole thing to that location? My longwindedness and waxing eloquent would probably mess up the processes going on there....? The news report was interesting other than the discussion of child pornography, and I can see how demanding is the maintenance work.... But by the same token, when they talk about school children accessing the material, I can see the disservice done when misinformation creeps in (i.e., hymn is composed, and statements like that....)Hymnlover (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover

The Term "Marriage"
I am not comfortable with use of the term "marriage" as a general descriptor of this process because I do not think it adequately describes it. I think most of your sources always qualify that term with quotation marks or other language meaning "like a marriage." I do not know of the perfect term for this; as a hymnal editor myself I like to use "pairing," which to me does not have implications of permanent, sole, or monogamous! It may be the term "marriage" that is creating some of the stickiness here; I don't think it is really helpful to the layperson. There are probably subconscious implications to all of the buzz connected with that term, such as "traditional," "Biblical," "same-sex," and so forth. What are the "moral" implications if an editor "marries" one text to two different tunes?Episema (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Episema


 * I too find the term "marriage" here unnecessarily open to misunderstanding. I would prefer to speak of "pairing" a text with a tune. I know people who think that singing "Amazing Grace" to anything but NEW BRITAIN, or singing anything other than "Be Thou My Vision" to SLANE, is forbidden in the Decalogue, and saying "marriage" just reinforces that absurdity, as well as imputing sinfulness to promiscuously paired tunes like BEACH SPRING or HOLY MANNA, or texts like "Love Divine, All Loves Excelling" (set in different parts of Christian anglophonedom to BLAENWERN, HYFRYDOL and BEECHER, and now and then to LOVE DIVINE (Stainer) or any of several other tunes). I'm busy getting the hymns together for the worship service at the Esperanto Convention in DC this weekend, and working on Esperanto versions of the songs in Alabanza Cubana para las Naciones with hopes of debuting some in Havana in July, or I would work more extensively on this article. Some of the current contents are not specific enough to the topic, and probably should be incorporated into another article (Hymnal?) --Haruo (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll add my voice to those who don't support the use of the term "marriage." It not only leads to confusion for the reader, (e.g. the earlier comments mistaking the term as indicating something related to the subject of wedding music), but it also raises issues regarding the permanency of the pairings of text to tune as noted in the comments above. I think any reference to "marriages" should be amended to partnerships/pairings and that the section explaining the use of the term should likewise be removed.  I'd like to give someone a chance to defend that specific term though before I purge it from the article.  Like Haruo, I suppose the remains of this essay will be easily distributed between related articles. Pelagiushater (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear friends: By all means use "pairing" or whatever you prefer.  The point is that those researching the pairing of hymns and tunes in research materials from the past century or so are going to run into the term "marriage."  We are dealing with vocabulary issues here.  "Hymn" used to be crystal clear in the 1700s and 1800s:  it is a text.  It is intended to be sung, but it is written by an author/poet.  Nowadays scholars are careful to accommodate language change, and use the (redundant) "hymn text" in order to be clear.  But much misunderstanding has arisen when people think hymn equals the music.  Move "marriage" to a parenthetical comment, by all means.  When it appears in the context of research material, it will hopefully not throw the researcher.  24.7.251.127 (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 6-18-10.


 * The comment about "marriages" not being wedding music was a direct answer / explanation of the misunderstanding of a couple of you, who went off in that mistaken direction when thrown by the term. 24.7.251.127 (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)hymnlover

Substituting words for "marriages" is fine if they indicate the matching up / pairing up that is done of two things which are meant to go together and support / complement each other, and are generally done by a third person. I didn't make up the term "marriages.". The English language is alive, and what fit earlier times may not fit now. For instance, it used to be that "man" and "men" obviously meant both males and females (I am comfortable being a "son" of God per I John 3). Nowadays that broader meaning is not accepted (you can think of instances where that's obvious, I am sure). Similarly, the understanding of terms is different from what it used to be. "Hymn" used to be understood as just the text, but now many people don't see that "hymn tune" is a separate completely identifiable individual item. I claim that "hymn tune" identifies something more than being an appendage to the text it sets. It is a separate entity which deserves its own article. Can you imagine saying the "Hillary Clinton" does not deserve an article of her own, because she's really only the wife of Bill Clinton? I don't think so.... I used "marriages" because historically it was the term used for the process of linking hymns (texts) and hymn tunes. There's nothing monogamous or immoral about it; such an extension of the meaning is stretching beyond the bounds of the workable simile. 24.7.251.127 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)hymnlover

"Hymn" without a doubt historically describes a text which is supposed to be sung. I wish someone would edit the Charles Wesley article, and replace (lyrics) with (text). "Lyrics" implies to me that the music is the important item, which is the reverse of the truth. The music is the helper, the lesser item -- very necessary for things to work, but still not the important item. When I embarked on this support of Wikipedia to clarify the truth about "Hymn", the article was painfully ambiguous, and seemingly oblivious to the steps behind joining a hymn to a tune which would permit it to be sung. And by the way, the ambiguous definition has been left with its ambiguity; Eskew's clearer definition has been deleted. 24.7.251.127 (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 6-19-10


 * I was checking current dictionaries re "Lyrics" in order to get less uncomfortable with that word replacing "text." And three contemporary dictionaries have a third meaning to "Marriage" which relates here: "any close union, 'a marriage of minds' " (American Heritage Dictionary 1973); "A close union" (American Heritage Third Edition, 1994);  and, "a union of two things", which is part of a very modern definition (on beyond a "man and woman" first definition) in the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary paperback, 2004.  So maybe the term "marriage" as applied to hymn/hymn tune should not cause such painful concern for Wikipedia usage....  (But I still don't prefer "lyrics," which gives a secondary importance, a non-independent, reliance of a hymn on a  tune.... Historically incorrect!)24.7.251.127 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 6-22-10

Passed AFD, now what? MERGE or FIX
This article has serious problems. Most notably, it still reads like an essay. The "why the term marriages" section is pure original research and lending to theory and/or conclusion. This article has now been renamed to simple hymns and hymn tunes, but I don't see how a separate article from "hymn tune" is needed. I'm going to watch this article for a week or so; if no progress has been made, I'll probably nominate it again. This really reads like original research and not an encyclopedic topic; that needs to be changed. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 10:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's examine the Why the term "Marriages" section which you state is "pure original research."


 * The section consists of four paragraphs. Three of them are direct relevant quotations from reliable sources - the exact opposite of "original research". So the section certainly isn't "pure original research" - it is at worst "25% original research".


 * The one paragraph of original copy is this:


 * "Not to be confused with wedding music, the "marriage" of a hymn (text) to a hymn tune, as presented in current hymnals and common practice for the last century and a half, is a vital step in a hymn's presentation, and enables congregations to sing that text. The term is apt, probably chosen for that reason. Researchers will find "marrying" or "wedding" texts to tunes is terminology that crops up in numerous reference books. For instance:"
 * In my opinion, almost none of this is original research. Remember, per WP:OR something is not original research because it us uncited, but because it is uncitable. Here are the facts presented in this paragraph.


 * Combining hymns and tunes has been common practice for the last century and a half
 * Selecting the correct tune for a hymn is "vital in the hymn's presentation"
 * Picking a tune "enables congregations to sing that text"
 * The term "marriages" is therefore apt
 * The term "marriages" is used in reference books, and here are some examples.


 * It seems to me that points 2 and 3 are utterly uncontroversial and obvious. They would be easy to find citations for if you insist on it. They are therefore not original research. Personally I would not bother asking for citations for the fact that "a tune can be sung" etc.
 * Point 1 would benefit from a citation, but I expect it would be quite easy to find one, probably in the books already cited in this article. I doubt it's original research.
 * Point 4 expresses an opinion. I think it's being used here as a rhetorical device more than anything.
 * Point 5 is clearly not original research, and is incredibly-well backed up by the three quotations following it.
 * So out of all that, we have only one point, point 4, which is arguably original research. I have a bold plan to fix it which I will excute now!
 * Thparkth (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Why articleissues: citations missing is valid
There are far too many claims in this article that are lacking any type of source. Every sentence like this one: "It is rare for the author of a text to also be the composer of the tune married to it" need citations after it. That sentence is a claim which requires a reference.


 * Your conviction that this is a true statement can undoubtedly be established if you look at a couple of hymnals.... Citing such research would be too long to be practical.  I suppose you could recommend to the reader that he (or she) look at his (or her) hymnal, to confirm the truth of the statement. Can you not see the obviousness of this statement?  24.7.251.127 (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 6-19-10

This article reads like pure WP:OR, and it doesn't help that there are no inline citations. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep saying things like "there are no inline citations" when there are currently no less than 19 inline citations? In my opinion you are misusing the "citations missing" template. I'll put in "refimprove" instead and see if you can live with that. Thparkth (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your latest fix is fine. My assertion is based on a paragraph like this, with no citations whatsoever:
 * When editors find a text they recognize as worthy and inspiring, and decide to include it in the planned collection, it may already be married to a tune they feel supports its message, catches its spirit, and at the same time exemplifies a worthiness of musical composition. This marriage may be used elsewhere, even ecumenically recognized, appearing in many other hymnals. However, if a hymn has been linked to a tune the editors think is not the best partner for it, they can set up a new marriage. Marriages of texts and tunes can give special attention to the interpretive opportunities in a text and the best artistic support of the message through musical fulfillment of those opportunities. Editors must consider whether the important words in the text fall on stressed notes, whether climax points in the ideas correspond with musical climaxes, and whether the tempo for the music matches the style of the text.
 * This whole thing just reeks of WP:ESSAY and WP:OR. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is borderline-OR, but it seems pretty uncontroversial. Would it improve the article (think you mean encyclopedia) more to remove it, or to leave it in? This is not a rhetorical question, I genuinely can't make up my mind :) Thparkth (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If anything is worth keeping, it should be in hymn tune. My thoughts, anyway. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Another area of OR problems is the section on history. This paragraph is particularly troublesome:
 * In early hymnals, only texts were printed. The texts were to be sung, but no marriages of words and music were indicated. Some 17th and early 18th century hymnals indicated the hymn's meter in conjunction with the text. This left to the officiant, and/or the musician leading the singing, the choice of which tune of that meter to use. The musician could announce the hymn, and the name of the tune to be used to sing it. The accompanist would play the tune (from a tunes book). If the tune was not known, the musician would "line out" the hymn, teaching the tune to the congregation by rote. If the tune was familiar, the congregation would sing the hymn as we do...

The material is not only lacking citations, but it is speculative at best since practice certainly varied widely between individual congregations. For instance, many traditions would have used no accompanist as there were no instruments permitted in worship. Also, often someone who was by no means a musician, (e.g. the clerk of session), would hold the responsibility of lining out the hymn if that practice was indeed used. The claims made in this section cannot be verified by a consensus of outside sources, and the remaining material regarding the writer's personal experience at a hymn festival certainly does not contribute to a history of 18th century practice. Pelagiushater (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just be bold and either fix the claims you know to be incorrect, or remove them entirely? Replacing an uncited error with an uncited truth is still an improvement! I'd be interested to see what's left of the article after the problematic material was removed. My instinct is that there'd still be a fair bit of worthwhile material. Thparkth (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Pelagiushater points out ..."[P]ractice certainly varied widely between individual congregations." True, but in the main, this describes what would have happened.  I would accept Routley's comments in his audiobook.  His background is prodigious.  I personally cannot envision "lining out," but Routley says it was done, and I believe him.  With or without an accompanying instrument, how else would a congregation sing a hymn text, if they didn't know the music and had no copy of the music? 24.7.251.127 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)hymnlover


 * My comments in some of these paragraphs are based on a six hour audiobook by Erik Routley, Christian Hymns, recorded in Princeton, NJ by Prestige Publications, in the 1970s. I had CDs made of the book, and have listened to the 12 sections numerous times in order to better state the background of what's on the hymnal page. I footnoted the audiobook in the original article.  In my opinion, Routley is one of the most outstanding hymnologists of the 20th century, and you should be comfortable with his insights.  The paragraph above grew out of that audiobook, which is Routley's unmistakable voice, live.  He is careful to use "text" and "hymn text", as the ambiguity was already apparent.  He has sessions on "the music", which sessions are usually separated from the discussion of texts.   Only when he gets up to the 19th century (American, English) do texts and tunes seem to come together in presentation. 24.7.251.127 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Hymnlover 6-19-10

=="When editors find a text they recognize as worthy and inspiring...."
 * Yes, essaylike and descriptive in a reader-friendly way, I would suggest. See the deleted (!!!) quote of The (Episcopal) 1982 Hymnal editor, Raymond Glover.  (Interesting that you deleted a footnoted quote, but left in the "introduction" to it.)  The point is that the task of an editor is not merely mechanical, and hymn singers benefit from the non-mechanical aspects of the editor's work.  Editors are the "unsung" contributors, if you permit the play on words.  24.7.251.127 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 6-19-2010


 * Please explain to me, non-conversant as I am in Wikipedia terminology: "Research" is good, right?  "Original research" sounds like something someone else has not researched yet, right?  Nothing's wrong with "pure", but it is clearly a pejorative here.  So what is the meaning of "Original  Research"?  Does that mean "unsupported speculation", or something like that?


 * Vacation without a good Internet connection will interrupt any possible input I might make. I wish you all the best.  Just please bear in mind that what's on the hymn page is a TEXT (hymn) written by an AUTHOR-poet, and some MUSIC (hymn tune) written by a COMPOSER, which were seen to belong together and were put there by a THIRD PERSON, who is usually an EDITOR.  whatever the historic facts, that is a summation of what's being discussed....  24.7.251.127 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 6-19-201024.7.251.127 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 6-19-2010