Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
Heavenly Harmony
An Audio Analysis of Corporate Singing in Tongues
Joel Hinck
Luther Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota
Abstract
While the phenomenon of glossolalia in general has received great attention and vari- ous forms of analysis (linguistic, psychological, neurological, and so forth), the practice of corporate singing in tongues, a staple of the Azusa Street Revival, has received little attention or exploration in the literature. This article performs an audio analysis on recorded samples of corporate tongues-singing in order to identify what is happening musically when a group of people sing in tongues together. This analysis reveals several key features that recur across the recordings. Sustained prominent pitches are always present, related in the mathematical ratios of the major scale. In most instances, the pitches form both a tonic chord and dominant chord simultaneously, creating an effect of tension and resolution. These findings point toward the creative possibilities of sur- rendering autonomy and the deep grounding of the individual within the community and the created order.
Keywords
singing in tongues – heavenly choir – singing in the spirit – music theory – Great Tra- dition – nonrational order – 1Cor. 14:15b
Introduction
This article attempts to explore the confluence of two subjects, either of which alone would strain the limits of language: music and glossolalia.With an aware- ness that “words sometimes damage the mystery,”1 the article nonetheless
1 Edmund J. Rybarczyk, “Reframing Tongues: Apophaticism and Postmodernism,”Pneuma 27,
no. 1 (Spring 2005): 103.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-04001001
1
168
hinck
attempts to explore the fascinating phenomenon variously known as “singing in the Spirit,” “singing in tongues,” “the heavenly anthem,” and “the heavenly choir.”2 The focus is exclusively on corporate manifestations of singing in tongues, in which a group of people simultaneously join together in singing with “no particular effort to match each other in pitch or word.”3Instead, each member of the group experiences “perfect surrender and relaxation,”4vocaliz- ing syllables and tones as they feel moved by the Spirit. The sound that results fromthis collectivemusical expressionprovidesfertile groundfor exploringthe interaction of theology and music. What is revealed is that this experience of “surrender” can produce a definite harmonic structure, one that demonstrates the importance of community in the Christian life and humanity’s grounding in the greater created order.
Background
Some scholars,5 often citing Old Testament passages such as Saul’s encounter with musical prophets (1Samuel 10:1–6) as support, argue that the practice of singing in tongues dates back to Judaism.6In the New Testament, 1Corinthians 14:15b—“I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will sing praise with the mind also” (NRSV)—is often cited as evidence that the practice of singing in tongues was “commonplace.”7 There are theories that the practice of an improvised Jubilus, a form of wordless vocalizing, was common among early church lead- ers.8There are also suggestions of the practice of corporate singing in tongues among groups such as the second-century Montanists, the twelfth-century Albigenses, thirteenth-century Waldensians, and eighteenth-nineteenth-cen-
2 CecilM.Robeck,TheAzusaStreetMissionandRevival:TheBirthof theGlobalPentecostalMove-
ment (Nashville: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2006), 149.
3 Donald P. Hustad, “The Historical Roots of Music in the Pentecostal and Neo-Pentecostal
Movements,”The Hymn38, no. 1 (January 1987): 7.
4 Jon Michael Spencer, Protest & Praise: Sacred Music of Black Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1990), 163.
5 Hustad, “Historical Roots of Music,” 7.
6 Robert Graves, “Singing in the Spirit,”Pneuma Review4, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 3. Accessed online
on March 20, 2016 at http://pneumareview.com/praying‑in‑the‑spirit‑singing‑in‑the‑spirit/. 7 George T. Montague, The Holy Spirit: Growth of a Biblical Tradition (New York: Paulist Press,
1976), 217. See also Spencer, Protest & Praise, 154.
8 Hustad, “Historical Roots of Music,” 8–9.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
2
heavenly harmony
169
tury Mormons and Shakers.9 While these various practices may have similari- ties, it is impossible to know exactly how similar, or how divergent, they were. The most robust descriptions of the practice emerge in the 1906 revival atAzusa Street. In fact, corporate singing in tongues was considered a key component of the emerging pentecostal movement, with speaking in tongues and singing in tongues “typically mentioned conjunctively,” and singing in tongues being one of the “most common expressions among the Spirit-baptized.”10Azusa chroni- cler Frank Bartleman enthusiastically recorded that “the greatest effect seems to be produced when suddenly in the meeting a dozen, or perhaps a score, will burst forth in the most beautiful chords, all in harmony, and all pitches of voice … it is one of the most effective exercises of the Spirit in the present work.”11 Corporate singing in tongues would continue to be associated with revivals throughout the twentieth century, both in America and around the world.12 Again, without detailed analysis and recordings, it is impossible to know how similar or how different the various events were.
Descriptions of the phenomena focus on the fact that even those who “were ordinarily unable to carry a tune at all”13 were able, “without any effort,”14 “not conscious of singing at all,”15 to produce “harmony and unity, with sweetest melody.”16 The rapturous accounts of the beauty of such experiences could hardly get more superlative: “Such blending of tones, such harmony of sounds …likeagreatoratorioof angelicvoices.”17Thesound isdescribed ashaving“per- fect order”18and an “amazingly complicated depth of harmony,”19and, despite
9
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17
18 19
W.K. McNeil, Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music (New York: Routledge, 2005), 344. See also Spencer, Protest & Praise, 153.
Spencer, Protest & Praise, 157.
Robeck,The Azusa Street Mission and Revival, 152.
See Kimberly Ervin Alexander, “Heavenly Choirs in Earthy Spaces:The Significance of Cor- porate Spiritual Singing in Early Pentecostal Experience” (paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Pentecostal Theology, San Dimas, California, March 10–12, 2016), 3–11; and Richard and Kathryn Riss, Images of Revival (Shippensburg, PA: Revival Press, 1997), 84.
Riss and Riss, Images of Revival, 86.
Riss and Riss, Images of Revival, 87.
Spencer, Protest & Praise, 163.
Alexander, “Heavenly Choirs in Earthy Spaces,” 10.
Larry T. Duncan, “Music among Early Pentecostals,” The Hymn 38, no. 1 (January 1987): 15.
Riss and Riss, Images of Revival, 87.
Riss and Riss, Images of Revival, 87.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
3
170
hinck
the complexity, “their intonation was sure, with no deviation of pitch.”20 This spectacular sound impressed even skeptics.21
Yet, even in the midst of these descriptions of unearthly beauty, there are also acknowledgments of dissonance. One common metaphor for the heav- enly choir was pulled from Revelation 19:6: “Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty thunderpeals, crying out, ‘Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.’” The “sound of many waters” description was used by var- ious witnesses of singing in tongues.22 It is an image that is at once majestic and chaotic, posing the question of how order can be perceived in the midst of so many various voices crashing together. Edmund Rybarczyk writes about the “beautiful harmonies” that still possess a “kind of dissonance throughout the mix.”23Such descriptions create a tension with the accounts of angelic perfec- tion. This leads some to conclude that the “perfection” ascribed to singing in tongues is more spiritual than physical. Jon Michael Spencer posits that “faith- hearing was a critical compositional element in the event of tongue-song, for it included not only what was sung but what was heard … In the mundane, all was tainted and out of tune. Only in the spiritual realm was perfection possible.”24 In other words, the participants in tongue-singing were moved just as much, if not more, by the inward “ears of faith”25 as by anything an outside listener would hear. This brings the dilemma to a fine point: What, exactly, is happen- ing musically when a group sings in tongues together? Is there any sense of organization, of “perfect harmony,” or is it all “tainted and out of tune”?
Analysis
The literature on singing in tongues tends to favor historical description over musical analysis. What musical descriptions we have tend to be from partici- pants, and they focus more on the overall impression of the sound as “beauti- ful,” “angelic,” and so on. Even the frequently used termharmoniousoffers little to aid in a rigorous understanding of the phenomenonas music. One article by Calvin Johansson offers four musical characteristics of singing in the Spirit: the
20 21 22 23 24 25
Riss and Riss, Images of Revival, 86.
See Spencer, Protest & Praise, 159; Robeck,The Azusa Street Mission and Revival, 150–151. Alexander, “Heavenly Choirs in Earthy Spaces,” 9–10.
Rybarczyk, “Reframing Tongues,” 102.
Spencer, Protest & Praise, 161.
Spencer, Protest & Praise, 161.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
4
heavenly harmony
171
use of reciting notes, use of melisma, use of one major chord only, and the lack of a prescribed beginning or end.26 These are helpful and generally accurate observations, though the “use of one major chord only” will need to be devel- oped and expanded, as we will see. It is the goal of what follows to explore just what is really happening musically, especially harmonically, when a group sings in tongues. We are aided in this process by the advent of modern record- ing technology and the ubiquity of the internet, which has made the sharing of recorded sound across time and space possible. For the following study, eight recorded samples of corporate singing in tongues were analyzed, representing a diversity of times (samples from the 1970s, 1995, and 2011) and a diversity of locations (England, theUSA, and Singapore).27
Hearing a recording of corporate singing in tongues is, admittedly, quite dif- ferent from being present at the event, but it provides a convenient way to compare different instantiations of the “heavenly choir” to one another, and to attempt a more thorough musical analysis of the phenomenon in general.
Being separated from the actual event, a listener’s first impression of singing in tongues may well be that of the “sound of many waters.” The many voices raise a thick wall of sound. Though the movement of individual voices can be heard, the overall sound itself remains stable. Gradually, it becomes clear that there is some kind of harmonic order—that there are notes that would “fit” in with the sound and notes that would not. After analysis, it becomes clear that, in fact, the sound produced by tongues-singing is highly ordered, that the indi- vidual voices are participating in a scheme of harmonic structuring of which they may not be consciously aware.
In order to explore this structure, a technique for audio analysis called a “sonogram” (also known as a “spectrogram”) was used. A sonogram produces a graph that conveys the intensity of different frequencies (pitches) over time. The x-axis (horizontal) represents the time of the sample, while the y-axis (ver- tical) represents the frequency in kilohertz (kHz). Musical pitches correspond to particular audio frequencies. For example, it is standard to tune A4 (the A above middle C) to 440 Hz, or .440 kHz. Within the graph, the intensity of color at a certain point represents the intensity of the volume of the corresponding frequency at that point in time.28
26
27
28
Calvin M. Johansson, “Singing in the Spirit: The Music of Pentecostals,”The Hymn38, no. 1 (January 1987): 26–27.
See the appendix for a complete list of audio samples, how they were accessed, and the results of analysis.
See appendix for specific methodological information.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
5
172
hinck
figure 1
Crowd noise—sample 1
figure 2
Singing in harmony—sample 2
Figure 1 is a sonogram of a sample of crowd noise. It is a diffuse cloud of pitches, with no sustained tones or noticeable patterns. It is a good example of human vocal “chaos.”
Figure 2 is a group of people singing in harmony. Here, clear patterns of sound are visible. There are prominent pitches (the darkest spots), which move as the melody moves. The pitches are stacked to form chords. This is the result of rehearsed human vocal coordination.
The question, then, is whether the “heavenly choir” will more closely resem- ble the chaos of crowd noise or the order of more traditional choral singing. It is impossible to completely detach rational faculties from the experience of tongues-singing. The participants are still aware of what is happening and of their participation in it. There are also deeply ingrained cultural structures at play (discussed below), so it would be unreasonable to expect the exercise to produce a completely chaotic sound. Still, the experience of the participants of
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
6
heavenly harmony
173
figure 3
Heavenly choir—sample 3
“no particular effort to match each other in pitch or word,”29 and “perfect sur- render and relaxation”30 raises the question of how such an exercise in group improvisation might retain any sense of structure. It is unlikely that a group of people who are not thinking intentionally about the sounds they produce would recreate the sound or structure of a typical choral piece. Indeed, what we find is that the sound created by the heavenly choir is neither crowd noise nor chorale. Instead, we find that the heavenly choir produces an order all its own.
Figure 3 is a sonogram of a recording of singing in tongues made at a 1977 English revival meeting. The congregation has just finished singing the song “For His Name is Exalted” in the key of F, led by an amplified voice and keyboard accompaniment. At the conclusion of the song, a single voice sings “alleluia,” after which the heavenly choir begins, unaccompanied by instruments. The sonogram visualizes what happens next. Like iron filings in a magnetic field, the voices have clearly grouped at significant frequencies, and despite the motion of the individual voices, the representative strength of those frequencies stays remarkably consistent throughout.
As it turns out, the early heavenly choir witness N.A. Fell was not far off when she declared, “their intonation was sure, with no deviation of pitch.”31 All of the emphasis on the amazing harmony in reports of tongues-singing appears to be based more on the concrete musical performance that unfolded than on Spencer’s “ears of faith.” In every recording analyzed, the same order takes
29 30 31
Hustad, “Historical Roots of Music,” 7. Spencer, Protest & Praise, 163. Riss and Riss, Images of Revival, 86.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
7
174
hinck
figure 4
Major scale
shape—clear pitches emphasized consistently throughout the sample, result- ing in a stretch of neat parallel lines across the graph.The value of the sonogram analysis is in its ability to demonstrate concretely the strength and consistency of these tones, and to allow for a much more precise mathematical analysis of the relationships between the tones than would be possible by attempting to pick them out by ear.
What, then, is the nature of this “heavenly harmony”? What is the relation- ship among the pitches that emerge out of the “sound of many waters” to create a clear impression of order? To answer these questions it is first necessary to give a brief overview of the musical scale system and harmonic theory.
Going back at least as far as Pythagoras, the relationship between musical notes has been described as the product of mathematical ratios, ratios that demonstrated the fundamental connection of music to the order of the nat- ural world.32 This “Great Tradition,” which treated music as essentially a form of physical/mathematical science, may have fallen out of favor since the late medieval period,33 but Western music’s conception of keys and division of notes into scales is largely indebted to its ideas. The major scale, for example, is the product of dividing the frequencies of a fundamental (“tonic”) tone, as shown in figure 4 (the frequency of the tonic note is multiplied by the speci- fied ratio to produce the frequency of the given scale tone).
The “tonic” chord (a chord being two or more notes sounding at once) of the key is made up of the tonic note, major third, and perfect fifth. This is consid- ered the “home” chord, from which a musical work will depart and eventually return.The chordthat promptsthe strongestsense of returnor resolutionwhen it precedes the tonic chord is the “dominant.” This chord is made up of the per- fect fifth, major seventh, and major second. The dominant chord provokes a strong sense of tension, of longing for resolution, which is resolved when it
32
33
Paul Westermeyer, Te Deum: The Church and Music: A Textbook, a Reference, a History, an Essay(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 117.
Jeremy Begbie, Resounding Truth: Christian Wisdom in the World of Music (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 78.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
8
heavenly harmony
175
table 1
Pitches in audio sample 3
Interval Ratio Expected Actual (note name if A4=439) value (Hz) value (Hz)
Perfect 5th (C4) 3/2 263 261 Tonic (F4) 1/1 351 351 Major 3rd (A4) 5/4 439 439 Perfect 5th (C5) 3/2 527 524 Major 7th/ 15/8 658 658 Major 3rd of C chord (E5) (5/4) 655 Tonic (F5) 4/3 702 700 Major 2nd/ 9/8 788 787 Perfect 5th of C chord (G5) (3/2) 786 Major 3rd (A5) 5/4 875 881
figure 5
Pitches in audio sample 3—notation
moves to the tonic chord. This is known in Western musical terminology as an “authentic cadence,” the most “complete,” “effective,” and “definitive” way to close a piece.34
What we find in the above sample of singing in tongues is, first, that the pitches correspond to one another in the mathematical ratios we would expect within a major scale. In fact, in most instances the tones are related to each other perfectly (or within the margin of rounding errors—1–3 Hz). This pro- vides a potential link between the practice of singing in tongues and the “Great Tradition” of musical pitches existing in precise mathematical relation to one another. Second, the tones present form both the tonic chord (F, A, C) and the dominant chord (C, E, G) simultaneously.Table 1charts the mathematical rela- tions between the pitches, andfigure 5shows the notes on a musical staff.
This arrangement—the dominant laid over the tonic chord—exists in six (and possibly seven) out of the eight samples analyzed (samples 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; possibly 4), though the presence of the second or seventh tone may vary. In
34
Arnold Schoenberg, Theory of Harmony (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 305.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
9
176
hinck
fact, only one out of eight samples (sample 10) exhibits the simple major chord triad (A, C#, E) described by Johansson. It seems that the sound produced by corporate singing in tongues is highly ordered not only by the presence of con- sistent tones throughout, but by the mathematical and musical relationships between those tones. Far from being random or chaotic, the tones produced fit into what has long been recognized (in the Western musical tradition) as a “perfect” harmonic progression, the exception being that both the chord of ten- sion and chord of resolution are present simultaneously. This gives the sound produced a great sense of interest rather than feeling overly stable and static. It is, in essence, the sound of tension that contains its own resolution.
Why This Pattern?
Having described the pattern identified in the majority of samples, it is worth asking why this particular structure might emerge. It is important here to note the shared context of each of the samples. While all do not take place in West- ern locations (sample 9 is from Singapore), they all do take place in the shadow of the Western musical tradition. Specifically, most of the samples take place following a time of corporate worship using contemporary-style praise and worship music.35 Generally, the key of the song sung immediately before the time of tongues-singing sets the key for the time of tongues-singing (see sam- ples 3, 5, 6, 8, possibly 4). Sometimes improvised instruments will join in spo- radically (samples 3, 5, 6, 8), and sometimes the voices sing unaccompanied.
There is a shared musical context at play here, the history of Western music outlined above, which regards the movement from the dominant to the tonic chord as particularly satisfying.36In addition, Western music’s adoption of the “equal tempered” system of tuning means that in practice, the pure mathemati- cal ratios of Pythagoras are modified so that the scale can be divided into twelve equal semitones, allowing instruments to play easily in a variety of keys. The
35
36
Sample 10 is instigated by the playing of a video of a previous tongues-singing experience, and as the voices in the video are unaccompanied by instruments it is unclear what pre- ceded that particular event.
It could also be argued that, rather than forming the separate tonic and dominant chords, the voices are building a major ninth chord, which would include the same pitches, and which is common in jazz music. The emphasis in Western music on the tonic-dominant relationship is more likely to be at work in shaping the expression of these large and diverse groups, as it has a longer history and wider influence as compared to the more niche jazz tonality, but both are legitimate interpretations.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
10
heavenly harmony
177
result of this style of tuning is that major thirds are a bit sharper (higher) than the strict ratio of 5/4 would produce. While the basic relational principles still stand, it should be noted that in many of the analyzed samples (samples 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), the major thirds are indeed a bit higher than the mathematically predicted frequency. The differences are slight, but they are suggestive of the deep penetration of Western tuning practice into the musical expectation and performance of the participants.
This shared context is almost certainly playing a role in shaping the sound generated. The participants may not be consciously attempting to recreate musical patterns with which they are familiar, but the presence of such distinc- tively Western properties (the tonic-dominant relationship, the raised major third) suggests that they are drawing from the well of their shared experience. This sense of familiarity may in fact be a part of what enables participants to experience “perfect surrender and relaxation.”37 What is occurring is a form of musical improvisation, though it differs from the usual sense of that term in that the participants are not trained in the practice or learned in particular scales or figures. In musical improvisation, there is a need for “a reliable nesting that provides a sense of ontological security, a place of trust that allows people to take risks and initiate actions.”38 In the exercise of the heavenly choir, this place of trust may be found in the emergent structure of tonic and dominant chords. It is entirely possible that this would manifest differently among groups with a different shared musical heritage.
Theological Reflections
This is a short, preliminary study with a small sample size.The results across the samples are, however, consistent enough to suggest some areas for reflection. The first, and clearest, is the presence of order in the midst of a practice that some in the church fear as anarchic. Especially to post-Enlightenment West- erners, the idea of letting go of or even “relaxing” one’s faculties of rational self-determination is deeply disturbing. Conditioned to believe in the absolute sanctity of the individual will above all, we find it easy to believe that to let go of rationality is necessarily to court chaos. The idea that there may be a truth deeper than one’s own intellect, a foundation that exists even when we let go
37 38
Spencer, Protest & Praise, 163.
Frank J. Barrett,Yes to the Mess: Surprising Leadership Lessons From Jazz(Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012), 69.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
11
178
hinck
of our most treasured faculties and sense of order, seems impossible. And yet, large groups of people seem to have discovered the productive creative possi- bilities of just such a letting-go. David Ford and Daniel Hardy argue that it is a mistake to believe that anything that is not order is automatically disorder. Instead, they propose that “non-order” is a legitimate third category, encom- passing everything from laughter to artistic creativity to Christian worship.39 This freedom allows for the possibility that, as Rybarczyk suggests, “there is an interplay between the divine and the human that is deeper than rationality.”40 Sadly, this possibility for deeper communion with God is lost when we fear that anything that deviates from our sense of order is necessarily disordered. This loss has even occurred within the pentecostal movement, as a movement that once “flourished because of its non-rational qualities”41 turned more towards modernist evidentiary thinking.42Alexander points out that corporate singing in tongues “dissipated as biblicism and doctrinal discourse that adopted non- pentecostal models escalated.”43 What was once one of the defining features of the movement has been relegated to a historical curiosity, most likely to be practiced, if at all, by “smaller gatherings [rather] than at the main worship ser- vices.”44 This is unfortunate, as the harmonious effect produced by corporate singing in tongues provides a beautiful demonstration of the creative possibil- ities of non-order.
Second, in corporate singing in tongues we see (or, rather, hear) the abso- lute necessity of community. It is an “inherently communal” practice.45 The sound of the heavenly choir cannot be produced by one person. The intricate multichord structure cannot be experienced without participation in commu- nity. Likewise, the harmony created relies on the deliberate setting aside of self-consciousness on the part of each participant. No one comes with an idea or intention, thinking, “I’m going to sing the major seventh tonight.” Instead, laying aside a rehearsed, ordered mindset, the voices are open to the shared experience of the community, guided by the Spirit, and produce a sound much greater and more interesting than its individual parts. “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many,
39
40 41 42 43 44 45
Daniel W. Hardy and David Ford, Jubilate: Theology in Praise (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1984), 96–97.
Rybarczyk, “Reframing Tongues,” 94.
Rybarczyk, “Reframing Tongues,” 96.
Rybarczyk, “Reframing Tongues,” 96.
Alexander, “Heavenly Choirs in Earthy Spaces,” 13.
Johansson, “Singing in the Spirit,” 26.
Alexander, “Heavenly Choirs in Earthy Spaces,” 14.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
12
heavenly harmony
179
are one body, so it is with Christ” (1Cor. 12:12, NRSV). In corporate singing in tongues, a body of sound is created that relies on each voice, even if the individ- ual singer does not know how what they are singing fits into the greater whole. As Ross Kane writes, “Our lives depend upon things and people around us for sustenance, provision, and friendship … human life consists of continual needs which must be met beyond ourselves.”46All people are immersed in a commu- nity, but may not be conscious of how rooted they are, or of what benefits such immersion brings. The heavenly choir reveals the deep rootedness of its par- ticipants (in the analyzed cases, rootedness in the Western musical tradition), and how such membership in a larger community is capable of creating unique beauty.
This leads to a final point. Corporate singing in tongues points us “beyond ourselves” not only in terms of the limits of our rationality and our reliance on community, but also in our connection to all creation. The shift away from the Great Tradition in music, from music “being grounded firmly in a universal God-given order” to existing “solely in terms of human needs and aspirations,”47 is challenged by the mathematical precision with which tongues-singing is organized.The music of the heavenly choir is not a manipulable tool for human self-expression. Rather, it is the humble entrance into a preexisting order. Only in letting go of the sovereign self and embracing a role as a small part of a greater whole, in continuity rather than competition with nature, can such harmony be achieved. In the examples studied, this continuity with nature is observed in a particular way—the use of harmonies that correspond to mathe- matical ratios. This is an aspect of music that the Western tradition has empha- sized. This does not exclude the possibility that other groups grounded in other traditions, could express musical continuity with the natural world in a differ- ent but no less profound way.
Conclusion
The goal of this article has been to address a gap in the (already slight) literature oncorporatesingingintongues,examiningthephenomenonasmusic.Indoing so, it was found that, at least in the relatively small sample size gathered, singing in tongues exhibits certain characteristic musical features. One is the presence
46
47
Ross Kane, “Negotiating Tension toward a Hipper Groove: Jazz Improvisation as a Meta- phor within Christian Ethics,”Theology115, no. 1 (2012): 41.
Begbie, Resounding Truth, 93.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
13
180
hinck
of continually sustained pitches throughout, sustained not by individual voices (the individual voices are often in motion), but by the aggregation of voices. Another is that the relationship between those sustained pitches aligns with the expected harmonic ratios of the major scale. A third is the typical presence of both the tonic chord and the dominant chord simultaneously, producing an interesting effect of both tension and resolution. These findings lend cre- dence to the reports of witnesses of the phenomena that it does indeed possess remarkable harmony.
These observations may be used to prompt theological reflection. Namely, a lack of conscious, self-determined order does not result in chaos. Rather, a humble recognition that one’s own rationality is not the arbiter of reality, that one is in need of community, and that one is a part of the larger created order can yield spectacularly beautiful results.
Appendix: Audio Samples Analyzed
All tracks were analyzed with the “sonogram” feature of the application Audio- Xplorer, with the y-axis range limited to 82hz–1043hz, roughly the range of the human voice (E2 to C6). The x-axis corresponds to the time of the sample, the y-axis the harmonic frequency (pitch), and the intensity of color in the graph is the intensity of each given frequency at that time location. Exact frequency values of prominent frequencies were confirmed using the “plot spectrum” analysis feature of the application Audacity, which does not give values over time, but does provide exact (to the nearest Hz) values for frequencies that are prominent in the sample as a whole.
Each sample contains the sonogram, a chart that lists the prominent fre- quencies in the sample and demonstrates their mathematical and musical rela- tionships, and those same tones written in standard music notation. Expected frequency values are calculated using the actual value of the nearest preceding tonic and the mathematical ratio for the interval. The frequency that is most prominent on the sonogram is listed in bold.
Sample 1: “Shopping Mall Ambience” SoundBible.com. Accessed February 29, 2016 at http://soundbible.com/1265‑Shopping‑Mall‑Ambiance.html. Figure 6shows the sonogram of sample 1.
Length: 0:17
Notes: This serves as a good example of true human vocal “chaos” crecorded at a shopping mall.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
14
heavenly harmony
181
Sample 2: “Oh, How I Love Jesus” from Arise Shine—Worship from Dales Bible Week, 1977. Accessed February 21, 2016 from http://vintageworshiptapes .com/as.html.
Figure 7shows the sonogram of sample 2.
Length: 1:00
Notes: A group singing in harmony. The same group that sings in tongues in Sample 4.
Sample 3: “Worship (1)” from Arise Shine—Worship from Dales Bible Week, 1977. Harrogate, England. Accessed February 21, 2016 from
http://vintageworshiptapes.com/as.html.
Figure 8shows the sonogram of sample 3.
Table 2charts the mathematical relations between the pitches.
Figure 9shows the notes on a musical staff.
Length: 0:53
Notes: Follows “For His Name is Exalted” in the key of F (though the last note sung is a C).
Sample 4: “Worship (2)” from Arise Shine—Worship from Dales BibleWeek, 1977. Harrogate, England. Accessed February 21, 2016 from
http://vintageworshiptapes.com/as.html.
Figure 10shows the sonogram of sample 4.
Table 3charts the mathematical relations between the pitches.
Figure 11shows the notes on a musical staff.
Length: 0:34
Notes: Follows “Oh How I Love Jesus,” in the key of E. It is possible that the E is present as its own tonic, which is being overpowered by the presence of its fifth chord, B major.
Sample 5: “Worship 1” from Songs of Celebration—Worship from Dales Bible Week, 1978. Harrogate, England. Accessed February 21, 2016 from http://www .vintageworshiptapes.com/soc.html.
Figure 12shows the sonogram of sample 5.
Table 4charts the mathematical relations between the pitches.
Figure 13shows the notes on a musical staff.
Length: 1:24
Notes: Follows “Praise the Name of Jesus” in the key of E. Applause from :30 to :42. Includes piano, flute, and guitar playing.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
15
182
hinck
Sample 6: “Worship 2” from Songs of Celebration—Worship from Dales Bible Week, 1978. Harrogate, England. Accessed February 21, 2016 from http://www .vintageworshiptapes.com/soc.html.
Figure 14shows the sonogram of sample 6.
Table 5charts the mathematical relations between the pitches.
Figure 15shows the notes on a musical staff.
Length: 2:18
Notes: Follows “For His Name is Exalted” in the key of F (last note sung is C). Applause from :06 to :26. Piano throughout.
Sample 7: “Worship 3” from Songs of Celebration—Worship from Dales Bible Week, 1978. Harrogate, England. Accessed February 21, 2016 from http://www .vintageworshiptapes.com/soc.html.
Figure 16shows the sonogram of sample 7.
Table 6charts the mathematical relations between the pitches.
Figure 17shows the notes on a musical staff.
Length: 1:57
Sample 8: “Worship 4” from Oil of Gladness—Worship from Church House, Bradford, 1978. Bradford, England. Accessed February 21, 2016 from http://www .vintageworshiptapes.com/oog.html.
Figure 18shows the sonogram of sample 8.
Table 7charts the mathematical relations between the pitches.
Figure 19shows the notes on a musical staff.
Length: 2:14
Notes: Follows “With My Hands Lifted Up” in the key of F. Piano plays intermit- tently throughout.
Sample 9: “Angels singing” uploaded by YouTube user “louis chan” on April 6, 2011. Recording from the Patricia King Glory School conference at Bethesda Cathedral, Singapore. Accessed online on March 1, 2016 from https://www .youtube.com/watch?v=wUzDVY_U0XM.
Figure 20shows the sonogram of sample 9.
Table 8charts the mathematical relations between the pitches.
Figure 21shows the notes on a musical staff.
Length: 7:37
Sample 10: Recording from a revival meeting led by Rodney Howard Brown, January 1995, Carpenter’s Home Church, Lakeland, FL. Accessed February 18, 2016 from http://freecdtracts.com/testimony/angels.htm.
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
16
heavenly harmony
183
Figure 22shows the sonogram of sample 10.
Table 9charts the mathematical relations between the pitches.
Figure 23shows the notes on a musical staff.
Length: 12:27
Notes: The first minute of this clip, featuring a spoken introduction, was edited out. There is also an increase in wind noise in the last three minutes (account- ing for the large darker box in the lower right corner of the graph). Due to the gradual updrift in pitch, the frequencies charted for comparison are based on the last three minutes. While still displaying a clear order, this sample is the least “in tune” of all.
figure 6
Audio sample 1—crowd noise-sonogram
figure 7
Audio sample 2—singing in harmony-sonogram
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
17
184
hinck
figure 8
Audio sample 3—sonogram
table 2
Audio sample 3—pitch table
Interval Ratio Expected Actual (note name if A4=439) value (Hz) value (Hz)
Perfect 5th (C4) 3/2 263 261 Tonic (F4) 1/1 351 351 Major 3rd (A4) 5/4 439 439 Perfect 5th (C5) 3/2 527 524 Major 7th/ 15/8 658 658 Major 3rd of C chord (E5) (5/4) 655 Tonic (F5) 4/3 702 700 Major 2nd/ 9/8 788 787 Perfect 5th of C chord (G5) (3/2) 786 Major 3rd (A5) 5/4 875 881
figure 9
Audio sample 3—notation
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
18
heavenly harmony
185
figure 10 Audio sample 4—sonogram
table 3
Audio sample 4—pitch table
Interval Ratio Expected Actual (note name if A4=437) value (Hz) value (Hz)
Tonic (B3) 1/1 245 245 Octave/Tonic (B4) 2/1 490 490 Perfect 4th (E5) 4/3 653 656 Perfect 5th (F#5) 3/2 735 739 Octave/Tonic (B5) 2/1 980 991
figure 11
Audio sample 4—notation
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
19
186
hinck
figure 12
Audio sample 5—sonogram
table 4
Audio sample 5—pitch table
Interval Ratio Expected Actual (note name if A4=452) value (Hz) value (Hz)
Tonic (E3) 1/1 167 167 Major 3rd (G#3) 5/4 209 208 Perfect 5th (B3) 3/2 251 250 Octave/Tonic (E4) 2/1 334 334 Major 3rd (G#4) 5/4 418 421 Perfect 5th (B4) 3/2 501 505 Octave/Tonic (E5) 2/1 668 671 Major 2nd/ 9/8 755 759 Perfect 5th of B chord (F#5) (3/2) 758
Major 3rd (G#5) 5/4 839 848 Perfect 5th (B5) 3/2 1007 1012
figure 13
Audio sample 5—notation
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
20
heavenly harmony
187
figure 14 Audio sample 6—sonogram
table 5
Audio sample 6—pitch table
Interval Ratio Expected Actual (note name if A4=454) value (Hz) value (Hz)
Major 3rd (A3) 5/4 221 223 Perfect 5th (C4) 3/2 266 268 Tonic (F4) 1/1 354 354 Major 3rd (A4) 5/4 443 454 Perfect 5th (C5) 3/2 531 543 Octave/Tonic (F5) 2/1 708 698 Major 2nd/ 9/8 785 814 Perfect 5th of C chord (G5) (3/2) 814 Major 3rd (A5) 5/4 885 892
figure 15
Audio sample 6—notation
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
21
188
hinck
figure 16 Audio sample 7—sonogram
table 6
Audio sample 7—pitch table
Interval Ratio Expected Actual (note name if A4=427) value (Hz) value (Hz)
Tonic (A3) 1/1 213 213 Major 3rd (C#4) 5/4 266 267 Perfect 5th (E4) 3/2 320 321 Octave/Tonic (A4) 2/1 426 427 Major 3rd (C#5) 5/4 533 540 Perfect 5th (E5) 3/2 641 641 Major 7th/ 15/8 801 806 Major 3rd of E chord (G#5) (5/4) 801 Octave/Tonic (A5) 2/1 854 850
figure 17
Audio sample 7—notation
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
22
heavenly harmony
189
figure 18 Audio sample 8—sonogram
table 7
Audio sample 8—pitch table
Interval Ratio Expected Actual (note name if A4=439) value (Hz) value (Hz)
Tonic (F3) 1/1 172 172 Perfect 5th (C4) 3/2 258 259 Octave/Tonic (F4) 2/1 344 348 Major 3rd (A4) 5/4 435 439 Perfect 5th (C5) 3/2 522 526 Major 7th/ 15/8 653 661 Major 3rd of C chord (E5) (5/4) 658 Octave/Tonic (F5) 2/1 696 699 Major 2nd/ 9/8 786 788 Perfect 5th of C chord (G5) (3/2) 789 Major 3rd (A5) 5/4 874 881
figure 19
Audio sample 8—notation
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
23
190
hinck
figure 20 Audio sample 9—sonogram
table 8
Audio sample 9—pitch table
Interval Ratio Expected Actual (note name if A4=448) value (Hz) value (Hz)
Perfect 5th (C4) 3/2 267 266 Tonic (F4) 1/1 356 356 Major 3rd (A4) 5/4 445 448 Perfect 5th (C5) 3/2 534 533 Octave/Tonic (F5) 2/1 712 710 Major 2nd/ 9/8 799 797 Perfect 5th of C chord (G5) (3/2) 800 Major 3rd (A5) 5/4 888 893
figure 21
Audio sample 9—notation
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
24
heavenly harmony
191
figure 22 Audio sample 10—sonogram
table 9
Audio sample 10—pitch table
Interval Ratio Expected Actual (note name if A4=431) value (Hz) value (Hz)
Tonic (A3) 1/1 211 211 Perfect 5th (E4) 3/2 317 325 Octave/Tonic (A4) 2/1 422 431 Major 3rd (C#5) 5/4 539 535 Perfect 5th (E5) 3/2 647 640
figure 23
Audio sample 10—notation
PNEUMA 40 (2018) 167–191
25
