|
Post by applesandbacon on Nov 25, 2014 14:51:11 GMT -5
The first one is worse, the second about equal IMO. I haven't really been exposed to mainstream hymns, having been born and raised in "the Truth", so I'm certainly not an expert on fire and brimstone in other churches. =) My sister and I used to look at each other with mixed horror and amusement when we sang 148 in gospel meeting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 18:07:24 GMT -5
We do have some lovely hymns in our book. But our current book is weak imho when it comes to hymns of praise (in this context, I think of some of the well known hymns we used to sing at school such as "Praise my soul the King of Heaven"). I often feel sad that "O love that will not let me go" is no longer in our book.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 25, 2014 19:21:05 GMT -5
The first one is worse, the second about equal IMO. I haven't really been exposed to mainstream hymns, having been born and raised in "the Truth", so I'm certainly not an expert on fire and brimstone in other churches. =) My sister and I used to look at each other with mixed horror and amusement when we sang 148 in gospel meeting. But it does have a kind of nice, up-beat tempo!
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Nov 26, 2014 7:10:17 GMT -5
The first one is worse, the second about equal IMO. I haven't really been exposed to mainstream hymns, having been born and raised in "the Truth", so I'm certainly not an expert on fire and brimstone in other churches. =) My sister and I used to look at each other with mixed horror and amusement when we sang 148 in gospel meeting. But it does have a kind of nice, up-beat tempo! Ha ha! Yes, when sung it almost sounds gleeful!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 26, 2014 18:48:17 GMT -5
But it does have a kind of nice, up-beat tempo! Ha ha! Yes, when sung it almost sounds gleeful! "Gleeful" is a perfect description! I imagine the congregation surrounding the poor, unsuspecting "outsider" and singing at him vigourously while prodding him with hot pokers just to be sure they have his attention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 5:46:06 GMT -5
I saw somewhere a comparison between the original words of "outsider" hymns and the slight changes to the words when the hymns were included in the 2x2 hymnal. Mostly, the changes seemed to be to phrases that were too "grace oriented" for the 2x2 philosophy. (I'll try to locate the article, unless someone else recalls where it is and posts it first. Cherie?) Is it legal to alter and publish the wording of other people's works unless special permission is requested and has been granted?
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Nov 27, 2014 11:31:59 GMT -5
Is it legal to alter and publish the wording of other people's works unless special permission is requested and has been granted? I hope its legal...otherwise I might get sued for "Gladly the Cross-eyed Bear!"
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 29, 2014 21:49:36 GMT -5
I suspect after a former friend who pointed out the fact that when we receive spiritual encouragement from a song written by someone outside the 2x2 religion that we are actually having "fellowship" with them, that the next hymnbook will likely have very few hymns in it that are written by "outsiders". Of course, in order to fill the pages, one might as well expect to see some songs that are not really very good songs...as well....jmo Well that makes no sense to me, that is being petty minded; any words that strengthens faiths and uplifts the spirit should be embraced in the worship of God in any and every religious organization, as long as there is no copyright restrictions. My understanding is that many of the old hymns in our hymn book have been removed because of copyright limitations and restrictions. That is only ONE of the reasons and l.ikely the least one. The biggest reason is that there have been these songs from outsiders the workers want to change words to accommodate their beliefs and they might get by with it one time but the next time the owners of the copyright will refuse permission for that to be done to their copyrighted song and thus the workers have to scrap that hymn altogether from their picks. Also as more has become known about the 2x2 religion more and more outsider copyright owners are not willing to give their permission for them to use their hymns. And yes, that does have to do with copyrights....but perhaps a bit more deeply then any other reasons?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 29, 2014 21:55:17 GMT -5
I saw somewhere a comparison between the original words of "outsider" hymns and the slight changes to the words when the hymns were included in the 2x2 hymnal. Mostly, the changes seemed to be to phrases that were too "grace oriented" for the 2x2 philosophy. (I'll try to locate the article, unless someone else recalls where it is and posts it first. Cherie?) Is it legal to alter and publish the wording of other people's works unless special permission is requested and has been granted? I was told some years ago, that when the beginning workers approached an outsider who had a copyrighted hymn they wanted to use in their book but they wanted to change a phrase or two, the owners of the copyright asked to be guaranteed that the songs were NOT for monetary profit. And when that was guaranteed, the copyright owners gave permission for the "one time" printing or that particular hymnbook and not to be considered legal to use in any succeeding hymnbooks. It was also noted by some that these very songs that the workers had changed a word, phrase or two are the very songs they couldn't get copyrights permission for in their next hymnbook printing. This would make good business sense, that the copyright owners of those particular songs had asked for a "guarantee" that no succeeding books would use those "changed" hymns, that to make sure that it wasn't used, the owners would refused further use of those hymns! Thus the workers have eventually sold themselves out of some very good songs by having to be picky and "change" phrases that are acceptable to generations on down the pike!
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Nov 29, 2014 22:02:13 GMT -5
Is it legal to alter and publish the wording of other people's works unless special permission is requested and has been granted? I was told some years ago, that when the beginning workers approached an outsider who had a copyrighted hymn they wanted to use in their book but they wanted to change a phrase or two, the owners of the copyright asked to be guaranteed that the songs were NOT for monetary profit. And when that was guaranteed, the copyright owners gave permission for the "one time" printing or that particular hymnbook and not to be considered legal to use in any succeeding hymnbooks. It was also noted by some that these very songs that the workers had changed a word, phrase or two are the very songs they couldn't get copyrights permission for in their next hymnbook printing. This would make good business sense, that the copyright owners of those particular songs had asked for a "guarantee" that no succeeding books would use those "changed" hymns, that to make sure that it wasn't used, the owners would refused further use of those hymns! Thus the workers have eventually sold themselves out of some very good songs by having to be picky and "change" phrases that are acceptable to generations on down the pike! I am not sure I understand. The copyright owners gave permission to change a hymn in one hymnal printing with no reprint allowed? Can you give a couple examples of the hymn changes?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 29, 2014 22:08:00 GMT -5
I was told some years ago, that when the beginning workers approached an outsider who had a copyrighted hymn they wanted to use in their book but they wanted to change a phrase or two, the owners of the copyright asked to be guaranteed that the songs were NOT for monetary profit. And when that was guaranteed, the copyright owners gave permission for the "one time" printing or that particular hymnbook and not to be considered legal to use in any succeeding hymnbooks. It was also noted by some that these very songs that the workers had changed a word, phrase or two are the very songs they couldn't get copyrights permission for in their next hymnbook printing. This would make good business sense, that the copyright owners of those particular songs had asked for a "guarantee" that no succeeding books would use those "changed" hymns, that to make sure that it wasn't used, the owners would refused further use of those hymns! Thus the workers have eventually sold themselves out of some very good songs by having to be picky and "change" phrases that are acceptable to generations on down the pike! I am not sure I understand. The copyright owners gave permission to change a hymn in one hymnal printing with no reprint allowed? Can you give a couple examples of the hymn changes? The copyright owners gave their permission that the workers could change a word or two in their copyrighted song for a set printing but they could not print the song in another printing without permission to do so again. Which it was noted that on some hymns, they did not get the permission to use the same hymn as they'd changed it again in a later printing. I can't think of which songs they were particularly speaking about at the time I overheard the discussion and I don't have the old hymnbook any more to look it up...I think there were a couple in the first half of the hymnbook we sang out of in the 50's....if I'm not mistaken on the years!
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Nov 29, 2014 22:30:03 GMT -5
Is it legal to alter and publish the wording of other people's works unless special permission is requested and has been granted? I hope its legal...otherwise I might get sued for "Gladly the Cross-eyed Bear!" Ha! I must admit that I feel a twinge of regret that 'Gladly the Cross-eyed Bear' was not part of my childhood cosmology! I feel like I missed something!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 30, 2014 20:55:42 GMT -5
I hope its legal...otherwise I might get sued for "Gladly the Cross-eyed Bear!" Ha! I must admit that I feel a twinge of regret that 'Gladly the Cross-eyed Bear' was not part of my childhood cosmology! I feel like I missed something! A colorful Baptist story that my Gram used to tell us kids was about a little boy who one day after having been to church with his parents came into the kitchen while his mom was fixing dinner. And he asked her this question. "Mama, who is Andy?" She looked at him and said, "what do you mean who is Andy? I don't know any Andy." The little boy said, "But MAma, we sang about him this morning!" She said, "We sang about him!" in a distressed tone! "Yes, Mama...the song goes like this : "Andy walks with me, Andy talks with me...." Of course the mother had a hard job to keep a straight face, but she stopped her work and sat down and explained to her little son that the sounds he heard was "And HE..." speaking about that the Lord walks with me..... The little boy was amazed but saddened that he wasn't going to really have a new friend by the name Andy!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Sept 16, 2019 8:48:05 GMT -5
Bump
|
|