Back in March 2009, the Adventist discussion group FIG posted an article from Christianity Today about Christian worship music. While that article made some good points, it also perpetuated the claim that Martin Luther “composed hymns based on popular melodies, including drinking songs.”

I posted a reply, stating my concern with the Christianity Today article. Another FIG subscriber, Stevan Mirkovich, and I had a short exchange of posts on FIG about this topic. Stevan cited research in a then-unpublished manuscript by Dr. Lilliane Doukam, entitled “In Tune With God: The Challenge of Music in Worship.” Apparently a chapter of that manuscript is devoted to the subject of Martin Luther’s use of contrafacta (popular melodies). According to Doukam, Luther used existing tunes, both sacred and secular, and substituted his own lyrics for “trivial and indecent ones.”

What follows is a reposting of my response to Stevan. I’ve edited out some irrelevant material (we had a discussion about my citing a page from the website av1611.org, which was probably not the best source to quote). I’ve also clarified, revised, and expanded what I originally wrote.

* * *

My views on Luther and his musical borrowing are primarily due to a seminar by J. Bruce Ashton, professor of music at Southern Adventist University, as well as other sources that I cannot now recall. Ashton presented this subject in one of his lectures at the 2006 GYC convention, in which he dealt specifically with the question, “Did Luther use bar tunes?” You can find the complete set of lectures on the GYC website, under the heading “Heavenly Harmony.” The particular lecture in which Ashton discusses this topic is the one entitled, “Selling Worship or Selling Out Worship?” The discussion about Luther occurs between 24:47 and 30:47.

The book manuscript Stevan cited in our FIG discussion sounds intriguing, and I would be interested to see the proof of Luther’s borrowing. Of course, there is no doubt that Luther borrowed “some” of his music. But the extent of his borrowing, and the nature of the music borrowed, is another matter. That his music came from “drinking songs,” or the wild, worldly music of his day, as implied in the original Christianity Today article I was responding to, seems to lack evidence.

As to Luther’s use of contrafacta, I offer the following quotes:

* * *

It has been claimed by many people over the years that Martin Luther boldly seized songs commonly sung in taverns and by simply replacing the secular lyrics with spiritual ones made these tunes the basis of congregational song in worship. In the interest of historical accuracy, in fairness to the reformer, and for the purpose of conversation about appropriate worship music today, this claim must be challenged, or at least be carefully qualified. At its worst this claim is a misrepresentation of fact. At its best, it is a misleading oversimplification of Luther’s intention and his practice of liturgical music.

From the official website of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: http://www.elca.org/Growing-In-Faith/Worship/Learning-Center/FAQs/Tavern-Tunes.aspx

[The article goes on to give examples and more explanation. The whole is too long to include here, but is certainly worth reading to anyone who wants to better understand this particular topic.]

* * *

Luther developed a unique style of church music, known as chorale, by borrowing some familiar, singable tunes, to which he added a Christian text. Defenders of “Christian” rock argue that since Luther borrowed tunes from the barroom songs of the day and added Christian texts to them (known as contrafacta), we can also borrow tunes from the rock music of our day and add to them Christian lyrics….

This argument that since Luther borrowed from the secular, popular tunes of his day, we can also borrow from the popular rock tunes of today, is misleading and inaccurate, for at least five reasons.

First, Luther used what may be called the “classical” music of his day, and not a sacrilegious type of music like most of secular rock music today. Luther did not adopt the sensual, erotic music of the day. On the contrary, he warned against the use of “erotic ranting,” as being the devil’s means to corrupt human nature.

The tunes adopted by Luther, writes Ulrich Leopold, “were folky, but never vulgar. Rollicking drinking songs were available in the sixteenth century too. Luther steered clear of them. He never considered music a mere tool that could be employed regardless of its original association … but was careful to match text and tune, so that each text would have its proper tune and so that both would complement each other.”

Second, of the thirty-seven chorales composed by Luther, only one tune came directly from a secular folk song. Fifteen were composed by Luther himself, thirteen came from Latin hymns or service music, two had originally been religious pilgrim’s songs, four were derived from German religious folk songs, and two are of unknown origin.

These facts discredit the popular assumption that Luther borrowed the majority of his songs from secular sources. In actual fact he derived very little from secular sources. Luther’s favorite composer was Josquin de Prez, who is regarded as the most competent composer of that century.

Third, Luther changed the melodic and rhythmic structure of the tunes that he borrowed from secular sources, in order to eliminate any possible worldly influence. In his scholarly book, Martin Luther, His Music, His Message, Robert Harrell explains: “The most effective way of [negating] worldly influence would be to ‘de-rhythm’ the music. By avoiding dance tunes and ‘de-rhythming’ other songs, Luther achieved a chorale with a marked rhythm, but without the devices that would remind the people of the secular world. So successful was the work done by Luther and other Lutheran musicians that scholars were often unable to detect the secular origins of chorales. The other way in which Luther sought to remove secular associations from the mind of the congregation was through the use of Scripture and scriptural allusions in the texts. By filling his chorales with the written Word, Luther sought to direct the thoughts of his people toward the Living Word.”

Harrell concludes his well-documented study, saying: “A study of Luther’s chorales reveals two important facts about Luther’s use of secular elements in his sacred music: (1) Although there was much popular music available to him, from drinking songs to dance tunes to religious folk songs and carols, Luther chose only those tunes which best lend themselves to sacred themes and avoided the vulgar, ‘rollicking drinking songs’ and dance tunes. (2) No material which Luther used for a chorale remained unchanged, except for the one case noted previously. Rather, ‘he carefully tested the melodies he considered, and when necessary molded them into suitability…. Alteration were freely made.”

Fourth, it is important to note that Luther lived in the “Age of Faith,” and not in the “Age of Skepticism” like ours. The culture of Luther’s time was influenced by religious faith and moral values. The major universities and the fine arts were controlled or sponsored by the church. The distinction between secular and religious music was relative….

Fifth, Luther arranged the music for the young people of his time in a way to lead them away from the attraction of worldly music. This can hardly be said of “Christian” rock music today which retains the melody and rhythm of secular rock. Luther explained why he changed the musical arrangements of his songs: “These songs were arranged in four parts for no other reason than that I wanted to attract the youth (who should and must be trained in music and other fine arts) away from love songs and carnal pieces and to give them something wholesome to learn instead, so that they can enter with pleasure into what is good, as befitting to youth.”

From Dr. Samuele Bacchiocci’s website: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_33.html

* * *

In the days of Martin Luther, congregations were not allowed to sing at all in Roman Catholic services. Their “musical training” consisted only of secular tunes they picked up on the street. Blume points out that “people accustomed to singing only in secular surroundings and to remain[ing] silent in the traditional church … now had to learn how to sing in the church” (Blume, Protestant Church Music, p. 65). It is in this context that Luther made the statement, “Why should the devil have all the good tunes?” We must remember that there were no tunes which the people were allowed to sing, and in their services only Gregorian chant and similar austere musical forms were heard at all — and those in the Latin language which the average person could not understand.

Luther’s idea was to use more familiar, singable tunes to teach the people quickly the new German texts he was compiling or writing. His plan was to develop a unique style of music for use in worship. LUTHER DIDN’T RELY ON THE SENSUAL, EROTIC MUSIC OF HIS DAY. HE DIDN’T LOOK TO THOSE WHO WOULD REBEL AGAINST HIS VERY CULTURE TO SERVE AS A MODEL FOR HIS MUSIC. It is more truthful to say that Luther used as his example the “classical” music of his day.

Even then, the practice of borrowing from secular sources — contrafacta — was short lived. Blume refers to the “quick rise and decline of contrafacta” (Blume, ibid., p. 45) and admits that those tunes borrowed from secular sources “rarely attained the timeless greatness” (Blume, ibid., p. 44) of Luther’s original compositions — which were, by far, the greater portion of his work.

SO TO SIMPLY MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT “LUTHER BORROWED FROM THE BARROOM TUNES OF HIS DAY, SO WE CAN TOO” IS DISHONEST. Luther’s favorite composer was Josquin de Prez, who is widely acknowledged as the most competent composer of that century.

From: http://www.musicaeadoracao.com.br/ingles/luther_music.htm

[Use of ALL CAPS is from the original website source.]

* * *

Summary

If, in fact, Luther did use drinking songs as the basis of his music, I would like to know. But there seems little evidence to support this. Moreover, even the music he did borrow and adapt apparently bears little resemblance to the worldly (rebellious, profane) music of his day or the popular music of today. There is no parallel between Luther’s use of folk music style and the presence of worldly music in worship today. And finally, even if Luther made a mistake of combining holy and profane (as the Wesleys apparently did), it would not excuse the extremes of so-called Christian rock and other CCM music.

Those wishing to get an authentic taste of what Martin Luther’s music sounded like may wish to purchase the 4-CD collection, Martin Luther: Hymns, Ballads, Chants, Truth. The producers of that collection even aimed to reproduce the types of instruments in use in Luther’s time. I purchased this collection some years ago, and can attest that these songs are simple, gentle melodies — not the kind of music one would expect to find in a tavern, either in our day or Luther’s. Interspersed with the musical selections are short readings from Luther’s writings on the use of music in worship.