Talk:Contemporary worship music

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Contemporary worship music article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Music/Music genres task force

Contemporary worship music is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles

Christian music Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page was originally "praise song", but I've moved it to its current title. Both "praise song" and "worship song" redirect here. I think this is a better structure. I'll be doing some work on contemporary worship next. I hope this is OK - it doesn't look like there's been much work on it recently. I am aware that the term "contemporary worship music" could be used for other musical genres and those in the know may wish to expand this article to include them. Sidefall (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Comments

This article was in need of a major overhaul. There was no real historical background and descriptions were based on vague generalities and out-of-date realities. It was riddled with POV, both for and against. There were external links which were commercial and at least mostly off-topic. Holford 17:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks a lot better. It could do with identifying some sources, though. — Matt Crypto 17:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, except for the bits I salvaged out of the earlier version, this was all done from the cumulative knowledge in my head from my experiences in the genre since the 1970s, as a consumer, composer, worship leader, and CCM historian. If you'd like, I can write about it somewhere else and link to it from here. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holford (talk • contribs)

Good job, Holford. The current article reads like a fairly objective description, and sounds about right based on my experiences in a 'charismatic Lutheran' church in the 80's, and later in an Assemblies of God church. As it talks about developments in the 70s and 80s, it seems like it might leave the reader wondering what, if anything, happened in the 90's and early 2000's. As far as references go, it wouldn't hurt to add a couple supporting quotes if someone can find some. Wesley 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little overhaul

I've made a series of adjustments to try to improve the article. It could do with considerably more. But I thought I'd leave it at that for the moment so that other editors can check that my edits are (in general at least) improvements rather than detractions. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox music genre

I have added the "Infobox music genre" to this page and populated it with info from this article. Feel free to edit it, expanded it or just clean it up. Hope this helps to improve the readability of this article. --Devin Murphy (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Length and content of article lede

The criterion for inclusion in the Lede is that the material included in the Lede must summarize material which already exists in the main body of the article. As long as the material added to the Lede section summarizes something which already exists in the main body of the article then that material may be summarized in the Lede section. The Lede section may include up to four paragraphs in length, and the current one paragraph version is well within those limits. A new RfC may be formed if any material added to the Lede section is contested so long as the reason for the objection to the newly added material is clearly stated in any reformulated RfC. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lede of this article contain descriptions of how often this kind of music is used in various types of churches? KDS4444^Talk 19:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I bring this up because the lede of this article (as it stands right now) seems needlessly wordy. I had removed the last half of it in which a previous author basically wrote, "Sometimes this kind of music is heard in protestant churches, and sometimes it isn't; sometimes it is heard in Catholic churches, but in other Catholic churches it isn't used at all." A subsequent editor added this back, claiming that removing it made the lede "too short." What do others think? KDS4444^Talk 19:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not needlessly wordy. Have you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? If you removed only that one sentence, it would not hurt. This is how you gutted the lede. It might need a re-write if it doesn't accurately address all article's content, but simply removing content as you did was inappropriate. Since the article is currently 20,642 bytes (including lede and references), the guideline is for "two or three paragraphs" in length. The article's prose constitute just over 2000 words or just over 9000 characters so that would require "one or two paragraphs". So, no, it's not too long. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned by bot - It is definitely too wordy. If it is to be included in the lead, it needs to be rewritten. Meatsgains (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NGL

The German way of new church music is Neues Geistliches Lied, songs by contemporary lyricists and composers which developed from the 1960th and made their way to the official mainstream hymnals, at least some. This is very different from pentecostal inspiration. The German article covers rather exactly what's mentioned in this lead, citation required, but I didn't translate that part, as rather too specifically German. Some sources might be used, - however, the typical problem, German Wikipedia rarely uses citations for individual facts, more books as a whole. Help with the integration of the new article is welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other article, full of redlinks, does not need to stand alone. Its contents should be moved here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are no argument but an invitation to turn them blue. Contemporary worship music does not even mention "song" = Lied. The lead is narrow: pentecoastal. I would like to see your proposal of a lead before discussing to merge apples and berries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say it was an argument. I said they should be merged as the content is sufficienlt related. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have a language problem. Contemporary worship music is a broad topic which should included efforts in all genres of music, in different languages and cultures. NGL is a narrow topic, that if included, would have undue weight. The present lead covers only two narrow aspects of the broad topic: pentecostal developments (Contemporary Worship Music, which would be a different narrow topic) in the United States, as the side navbox specifies, and Catholic usage, the latter unsourced, and not in the body. Unsatisfactory, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked further and found Contemporary Christian music, - now there NGL might fit a bit better, but still: it seems to look exclusively at English-language songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read at the article, the subject is clearly describing worship music, not pop music about Christian themes. In a milieu you might comprehend, Lothar Kosse is more contemporary Christian music, although some of his music has been used as worship songs in the English world. I don't see why the merge to this article, in a section reflecting the developments in Germany, is controversial to you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with List of contemporary worship songs

This list is so short that it doesn't deserve its own page on Wikipedia...at least, not yet. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It could easily be increased by looking at a handful of categories. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the other article for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose List for improvement. werldwayd (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]