<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sunday Summary &#8211; Music: August 17, 2008</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reidgreven.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/sunday-summary-music-august-17-2008/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reidgreven.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/sunday-summary-music-august-17-2008/</link>
	<description>unessential ramblings about Modern Church Music, and the rest of life...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:59:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: reidgreven</title>
		<link>http://reidgreven.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/sunday-summary-music-august-17-2008/#comment-683</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[reidgreven]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:14:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reidgreven.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/sunday-summary-music-august-17-2008/#comment-683</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I tell you, Joseph, that you&#039;re right in your assessment of the first tune.  The part where we really felt they engaged, participated and sang was the second tune.  And, we believe, that would not have been as much the case if we hadn&#039;t gotten their blood flowing a little more than usual from the way we treated the first song.  Does that make sense?

Sometimes, in the Foyer environment, that first song ends up being a lost leader - which can be good or bad depending on where and how the Worship Leader takes us...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I tell you, Joseph, that you&#8217;re right in your assessment of the first tune.  The part where we really felt they engaged, participated and sang was the second tune.  And, we believe, that would not have been as much the case if we hadn&#8217;t gotten their blood flowing a little more than usual from the way we treated the first song.  Does that make sense?</p>
<p>Sometimes, in the Foyer environment, that first song ends up being a lost leader &#8211; which can be good or bad depending on where and how the Worship Leader takes us&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joseph</title>
		<link>http://reidgreven.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/sunday-summary-music-august-17-2008/#comment-682</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[joseph]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:19:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reidgreven.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/sunday-summary-music-august-17-2008/#comment-682</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t mean to be mean here, but honestly, is that a big risky step for you guys?  I was there Sunday (west) and it was not loud at all (the crowd echoing Danny).  People don&#039;t sing loud at North Point, it was a cautious hum at best.  To be fair, a big part of that is people are nervous for others to hear them sing, and the PA in there is so bad if you sing at a normal level it sounds like a scream.  Between the &quot;safe church mix&quot; (can&#039;t hear the drums) and the worn out PA, its not conducive to a great &quot;singing loud&quot; kind of environment.

Don&#039;t get me wrong, Danny did a great job, and the worship set was ok, but I was shocked to read this as some sort of big step for you guys. I was even more shocked to read how differently you viewed it than I did.  I was almost embarrassed for Danny because after this big ramp up into the set and all he got little to no response on the echoing hallelujah part.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t mean to be mean here, but honestly, is that a big risky step for you guys?  I was there Sunday (west) and it was not loud at all (the crowd echoing Danny).  People don&#8217;t sing loud at North Point, it was a cautious hum at best.  To be fair, a big part of that is people are nervous for others to hear them sing, and the PA in there is so bad if you sing at a normal level it sounds like a scream.  Between the &#8220;safe church mix&#8221; (can&#8217;t hear the drums) and the worn out PA, its not conducive to a great &#8220;singing loud&#8221; kind of environment.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t get me wrong, Danny did a great job, and the worship set was ok, but I was shocked to read this as some sort of big step for you guys. I was even more shocked to read how differently you viewed it than I did.  I was almost embarrassed for Danny because after this big ramp up into the set and all he got little to no response on the echoing hallelujah part.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: billwhitt</title>
		<link>http://reidgreven.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/sunday-summary-music-august-17-2008/#comment-673</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[billwhitt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:30:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reidgreven.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/sunday-summary-music-august-17-2008/#comment-673</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think Matt Redman said it best at his song writers conference when he reminded us that worship is a response.  A response to what?  Well, God, of course.  But if you look in Scripture, when we see people respond in worship, it is almost always following revelation -- seeing God.  There&#039;s a cycle of revelation and response... or seeing and singing... that defines biblical worship.

That means, as worship leaders, our key job is simply to point people to God -- to help them lock their hearts in on who He is and what He&#039;s doing.  The response will take care of itself!  Help them with the &quot;seeing,&quot; and the &quot;singing&quot; will take care of itself!  So while a lot of leaders get tied up trying to increase the &quot;response&quot; (i.e., &quot;Sing it loud!  Raise your hands!&quot;), maybe they should instead be focusing on increasing the &quot;revelation.&quot;  The heartfelt response will take care of itself.

That&#039;s why I love Todd&#039;s worship leading so much.  He brings such theological depth to the table.  And in a very authentic and humble way, he models worship and helps the congregation enter in.  That&#039;s what we need more of in the church today -- worship leaders who are actually good thinkers, and great students of the Scriptures!  Just my thoughts...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Matt Redman said it best at his song writers conference when he reminded us that worship is a response.  A response to what?  Well, God, of course.  But if you look in Scripture, when we see people respond in worship, it is almost always following revelation &#8212; seeing God.  There&#8217;s a cycle of revelation and response&#8230; or seeing and singing&#8230; that defines biblical worship.</p>
<p>That means, as worship leaders, our key job is simply to point people to God &#8212; to help them lock their hearts in on who He is and what He&#8217;s doing.  The response will take care of itself!  Help them with the &#8220;seeing,&#8221; and the &#8220;singing&#8221; will take care of itself!  So while a lot of leaders get tied up trying to increase the &#8220;response&#8221; (i.e., &#8220;Sing it loud!  Raise your hands!&#8221;), maybe they should instead be focusing on increasing the &#8220;revelation.&#8221;  The heartfelt response will take care of itself.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why I love Todd&#8217;s worship leading so much.  He brings such theological depth to the table.  And in a very authentic and humble way, he models worship and helps the congregation enter in.  That&#8217;s what we need more of in the church today &#8212; worship leaders who are actually good thinkers, and great students of the Scriptures!  Just my thoughts&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
