I’m getting ready for the Church to release the new hymnal, although I realize it will be a while still before it comes out. In preparation, I’ve been looking at some comparisons of the current 1985 hymnal with the one that preceded it. From Wikipedia, it looks like the previous hymnal was released in 1948, revised in 1950, and added to just a little in 1960. The copy I own has a copyright date of 1973, but it looks like it’s just the 1960 version (although I can tell that its preface from 1973 because it is signed by the First Presidency of Harold B. Lee, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney).
One difference between the two hymnals that I’ve noticed is in the hymns to be sung by men versus those to be sung by women. More particularly, the difference is in the moods used to describe how the hymns are to be sung. By “moods,” I mean the one- or two-word adverb descriptions written at the top of the hymn. For example, the current hymnbook says that hymn #1, “The Morning Breaks” is to be sung triumphantly. In the 1973 hymnal, the moods for men’s hymns aren’t too different from the moods for women’s hymns. In the 1985 hymnal, the moods for men’s versus women’s hymns are more markedly different. Because there are a lot of different mood words assigned to the hymns, I lumped them into three groups for convenience in display. Mood words like boldly I called “high energy.” Mood words like reverently I called “holy.” And mood words like peacefully I called “low energy.” Here’s a graph comparing the hymns for men and for women in the two hymnals.
The total number of hymns specifically for men or for women was much larger in the 1973 hymnal (47 for men; 41 for women) than in the 1985 hymnal (19 for men; 10 for women). As you can see, in the graph, I’m showing percentages instead of counts to make the comparisons easier to look at. (Note that six of the 41 women’s hymns in the 1973 are excluded from the comparison because they either have no mood description, or they have a tempo word in place of a mood description.)
In the 1973 hymnal, there’s some tendency for men to be assigned more high energy moods and women more holy and low energy moods. In the 1985 hymnal, this difference gets much larger, as over two thirds of men’s hymns have high energy moods, and only 10% of women’s hymns do. This isn’t at all a surprising difference to run into. I am disappointed, though, to see that the hymn selectors’ ideas of traditional gender roles, with active men and passive, worshipful women, is translated into the hymns they select and the moods they apply to them. I hope that the new hymnal doesn’t feature such a difference, but I’m guessing that it probably will.
I understand that you might be skeptical about my assignment of mood groups. After all, I might have had this hypothesis in my head before I even assigned the mood groups, and then–consciously or unconsciously–I chose the groupings to make the data match what I expected. This is a fair concern. In case you want to check to see how much you agree or disagree with my groupings, here are the individual hymn moods for the 1985 men’s and women’s hymns. (I’m only showing 1985 because that’s where the interesting difference is. It’s also easier to look at because there are only 29 data points.) I think the difference is pretty stark, but you can look and decide for yourself.
Men
High energy: boldly, boldly, boldly, boldly, boldly, boldly (1/2)*, firmly, resolutely, resolutely, resolutely, resolutely, resolutely, vigorously, with vigor
Holy: fervently, fervently, fervently, majestically, reverently
Low energy: Thoughtfully (1/2)*
*”An Angel from on High” has the mood thoughtfully for part and boldly for the other part.
Women
High energy: resolutely
Holy: fervently, fervently, fervently, reverently, with dignity
Low energy: gently, gently, peacefully, thoughtfully
Interesting, but as you said, not surprising. I imagine the next hymnal edition will have fewer gendered hymns as the church is doing away with gendered general meetings. Now if they would just do away with local / Stake priesthood meetings which are generally a waste of time…
“An Angel from on High” provides an interesting case. In my experience, there is no noticeable distinction between how men actually sing the “thoughtfully” part and the “boldly” part (more the latter than the former). When I have time, maybe I’ll look through the rest of the men’s hymns and see if I find discrepancies between the stated “moods” and how I typically hear the hymns sung. My bet is that if you polled the men, there would be little support for adding more “low energy” hymns for them and that they would ignore the stated moods if more such hymns were added. I would be interested to hear if women experience the same disconnect between stated moods and actual performance.
Your analysis is interesting. I don’t know why particular moods need to be ascribed to different genders. It’s irritating at minimum, but the bias is clear. And not especially representative of actual preferences. My daughter’s favourite hymn growing up was Onward Christian Soldiers.
It reminded me of this article from 2001.. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0304_103.pdf
…which talks about what the author describes as the feminisation of LDS music moving from the older hymn books to the 1985 book. That a particular style of hymn should be regarded as more feminine or more masculine is annoying and not my only issue with the article in question. (The other problem I have with it I mentioned here: https://wheatandtares.org/2014/01/30/the-problematic-legitimation-of-ideas-in-the-church/).
Thanks for documenting what I always felt, that the music selections for women were slow, hard to sing because they are dragged to a slow death by a glacier. Interesting how the stereotypes show up even in hymn selection, and how the church tries to enforce gender roles. I knew I disliked the songs arranged for women compared to those arranged for men, I mean “As Sisters in Zion” is dead and boring compared to “Called to serve Him”. I always sing it “as sisters in Zion we’ll all fall asleep together,” and ignore the dirty looks, don’t worry, I don’t sing loud and only the person next to me ever catches it. I guess it is by design that the songs arranged for the women to sing are slow, pathetic, listless.
You are 100% right, and finally there is hard evidence to prove it! This has annoyed me for years. Honestly, just another of the thousand cuts that eventually sent me out of the church.
So interesting. I don’t think I would have ever thought to notice that difference. One of a thousand examples of how we were (are) swimming in a culture of defined gender roles and might not even realize it.
(As for the new hymnal, I wouldn’t be surprised if there aren’t any men’s and women’s sections included at all. To me, these hymns were primarily designed for choirs or small vocal ensembles. It just seems that our choir culture is mostly a thing of the past.)
First, my comment of yesterday is still in moderation…
Second, the handbook has been updated and has a whole new chapter 19 on music.
No prohibitions on particular classes of instruments.
And approving cultural diversity of music.
Hurrah!
This is fantastic. The analysis is greatly needed. The second class status of hymns for the sisters has been a blemish that needs exposure. With that being said, the designated “mood” of the hymn is largely irrelevant. It will be played at a uniform speed and mood: slow and devoid of energy.
I’m not exactly surprised. I wonder how much is related to directly to “gender” and how much is related to “priesthood” (which, of course, is related to gender). Many of the “mens” hymns are about the priesthood and rallying (slovenly? lazy?) the priesthood into action. Women, who are naturally more motivated (but not more ambitious??), don’t need those rallying cries to get them going.
I believe this comment should be read somewhat sarcastically.
More seriously, I think we need a more egalitarian view of men and women, but I have no idea how to make that happen.
It’s interesting to me that the one women’s hymn that immediately comes to mind is also the only “high energy” women’s hymn: “As Sisters in Zion”. I wonder if that has contributed to its popularity, and if more “high energy” women’s hymns would be well received.
Looking at the women’s list of 10, only three of them are unique to the women’s section; the other seven are arrangements of congregational hymns. For the men seven of 17 are arrangements of congregational hymns. “Rise Up, O Men of God” is available in both “men’s” and “men’s choir” arrangements, leaving nine unique men’s hymns.
This is a great analysis. I was a teenager when the new hymn book came out, but I do remember dealing with my boredom in childhood church meetings by flipping through the pages of that old book. It was a lot quirkier than the 1985 edition, and I do remember a lot of male and female voice arrangements. I’m sure the new one will get less quirkier yet. The other thing I remember, because I was taking piano lessons when the new hymn book came out, is that they changed the keys of quite a lot of hymns, presumably to make them easier for poor hacks like me to play them. D flat became either C or D. F sharp became F or G. If you’re up for another challenging data analysis project comparing those hymn books, I’d love to see some stats on that.
Again, I’m astounded by your even noticing that there was a question here to be asked. Will be thinking about this.
Maybe to be more efficient all the women’s hymns should simply be labeled “keep sweet”
That is a striking difference. I’ve certainly never noticed it, but my particular preoccupation is to ponder how closely various hymns resemble different musical styles. Such as: Call To Serve would really sound best if it was accompanied by a marching band. Brightly Beams Our Father’s Mercy should only be sung by a barbershop quartet, straw hats in hand. And, of course, if a bunch of Janice Kapp Perry’s songs are added to the new collection, they should be accompanied by 70’s and 80’s pop instrumentation since I always thought she got her melodies while searching through Barry Manilow’s trash can (seriously, that is the snarkiest thing I’ve said forever).
Thank you for the insightful comments. I too fear how the finished version of the hymn book will turn out.
Thanks, everyone for your comments. I’m really sorry that, as Hedgehog observed, everything went directly to the spam folder for some reason. I’ve rescued them, and I’ll be sure to be more on top of checking the spam folder in the near future so you all don’t have to send your messages into the ether and having them disappear.