Talk:Morning Has Broken

reference

(1) ...fresh from the "word" or "world" ? At the end of the first verse "Praise for the springing fresh from the word" sounds like an allusion to "In the beginning was the word" (John 1:1), in turn alluding back to the creation story in Genesis.

On the other hand, I have seen about 1 in 3 versions of the lyrics on the web read: "Praise for the springing fresh from the world" so I am not sure which is the original version. I think Cat Steven's sang "word" .

In the Hymnal 1982 (Episcopal Church in the USA) it reads "fresh from the word". I would guess this to be the original.Rockhopper10r 17:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I have always understood it to be "word", and I don't think I've seen the lyrics reported any other way. Kestenbaum 19:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct, it's "word" that he sings, in the printed lyrics on the album sleeve. Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And just to confirm, it is 'Word' (with a capital W) on page 31 of its original appearance in print, the 1931 edition of Songs of Praise. ix (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(2) In the second verse:

"Sweet the rain’s new fall, sunlit from heaven Like the first dewfall, on the first grass Praise for the sweetness of the wet garden Sprung in completeness where his feet pass."

I wanted to ask about the phrase "Sprung in completeness where his feet pass".

Whose feet?

First, I thought it meant the blackbird. Then I thought she meant God, (or Jesus?), in the Garden of Eden, an allusion to Genesis Chapter 3 v 8 (And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day).

I have read elsewhere on the web a claim that according to the author, Eleanor Farjeon it does actually refer to the blackbird, not to the Almighty.

Is there a Christian tradition about God walking in the garden of Eden and the grass springing up under his feet?

Any one able to shed any light?

I'm not sure about the grass part, but I think I remember something like it with Aslan in one of the Narnia books. Rockhopper10r 17:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

God walked in Eden in the cool of the evening to talk to Adam; I guess it is a nice image of Jesus - because birds have claws, not feet! Eleanor was writing this poem to fit the music. ix (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(3) In the third verse "Mine is the sunlight, mine is the morning Born of the one light, Eden saw play"

This sounds to me like a reference to the (Jewish Midrashic) idea that the light of creation in Genesis Ch 1 was a special kind of light of which our modern light is but a diminutive offspring.

Works for meRockhopper10r 17:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure this is a reference to Genesis, although I would think it is just to affirm God as Creator. ix (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I interpret "feet" as Jesus's feet, like in the poem And did those feet in ancient time. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This day god gives me?

Is there a reference for the statement that 'The English-language Roman Catholic hymnal also uses the tune for the hymn "This Day God Gives Me".'? I found a recording of a song called "This day god gives me" by David Haas. There are some similarities in rythm, melody and harmonics, but the tune is not "Morning has broken". --gnirre (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is the music attributed to? (but I guess all art is derivative) ix (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Versions

Although some sources report that the song was released on Floyd Cramer's 1961 album Last Date

Who reported this? No-one has a vinyl copy?

It IS on allmusic that way.

All Music: Last Date album

I always thought it was on Genesis' first album!  :-) From_Genesis_to_Revelation

Time Signature

The hymn is played in the 9/4 time signature. But it has a 3/4 feel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.210.166 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Seminary Joke

I know it is common in many Catholic Seminaries to (as the hymn is included in the American 1975 Liturgy of the Hours) to sing the first line "Morning is broken, somebody fix it!" Should mention be made of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gideon.judges7 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I learned that version long before listening to the original all the way through:

Morning has broken,
Call the repairman,
Tell him to fix it
Before the sky falls;

If he don't get here,
We're in big trouble,
You know how repairmen
Answer their calls.

173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Morning Has Broken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091104221431/http://www.progressiveworld.net:80/wakeman4.html to http://www.progressiveworld.net/wakeman4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Translations

It might be interesting to list some translations of the lyrics. Nana Mouskouri sings this one in German. She has nice performance of it on Youtube and others perform that translation as well. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Now I've located a list of them and added a link. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Popular and well-known

I see there is a edit war ongoing about this, so I'm not going to pile in. However, the lead sentence's "popular and well-known" is both not neutral and peacocking. This phrase should be removed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Well the lead is usually meant to summarise the entire article, so we should at least expect to see those claims, fully sourced, in the main body. It seems Wakeman stated that Stevens' version "was a very beautiful piece of music that had brought people closer to religious truth," but that's all we currently have. Personally I'd say the piece is both popular and well-known, pretty much because of the Stevens version. So I don't think those are necessarily not neutral and peacocking terms. They are just slightly dull claims. Happy to leave them out until any sources can be found. I must admit I had thought it would be easy to find sources. But most of the sources I've found just suggest the song is popular for funerals. Not surprisingly, it is one of Rick's favourites and it is suggested as a hymn that "everyone will know" here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue that people's opinions of the subject (well sourced, of course) don't belong in the lead paragraph at all. Start with the hard facts. If it is popular then there should be fact that demonstrates that. Otherwise this phrase is the epitome of peacocking; "neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". Popular with who, where, in what way? Well known by who, to what degree?

There's plenty of space in the article to demonstrate popularity and how well-known it is. Stating it in the lead sounds like a desperate attempt to impress the reader. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, popularity and prominence will be largely subjective judgements. But I'd still argue that it's possible, of all Christian hymns, this one might now be more "popular" and "well known" than many others. This might be amenable to measurement e.g. in how many contemporary hymnals it appears? That said, I'd agree such claims might not be worthy of the lead section. By the way, I see that All Things Bright and Beautiful also uses the p-word quite early on. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Lyrics?

A whoel article about the lyrics of a specific swll-known song, but . . . no lysics? WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)