Why no new Christmas carols?

We're still singing songs from the nineteenth century. Why nothing newer?

Mike Staugaitis/The News-Item/AP
Street carolers in Shamokin, PA.

A familiar exchange heard in American living rooms these days: "Hey kids, let's all gather around the fireplace and sing songs from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries!"

Looking up from their texting, the kids exclaim in unison: "Yea! Let us go a-wassailing!"

OK, maybe not – but you get the picture. People have been singing the same old Christmas carols forever.

Ever wonder why?

Historically it's been nearly impossible for a new Christmas song to break the impenetrable monopoly of "Away in a Manger" (1885); "The First Noel" (1823); "Oh, Come, All Ye Faithful" (1743); "Silent Night" (1818); "Deck the Halls" (1862); "Jingle Bells" (1857); "We Three Kings" (1857); "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" (17th century); "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" (words 1739, music 1840) – all still caroling favorites.

Of course, to be fair, there are "new" ones, such as "White Christmas" (1942), "Santa Claus Is Coming to Town" (1934), and "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" (1948). Those are only 60 to 80 years old.

So why aren't there any brand-new Christmas songs to sing?

Christmas comes but once a year. And every December folks haul out their ancient collection of raggedy ornaments and faithfully festoon the tree with them. Like these nostalgia-coated collections of ornaments, the old familiar carols trigger fond memories of good times and shared ceremony. It would take a very special new song to break into that tight circle.

It can happen. Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas Is You" (1994) seems to have slipped into the canon. It gets plenty of radio (and shopping mall) play. And it's featured annually in the newest holiday classic movie "Love Actually," which adds to its luster and exposure.

But the powerful music business engine that pushed holiday hits by gifted songsmiths out of Broadway's Brill Building onto radios and phonographs in every home is long gone. Now it's a digital free-for-all out there.

It's anybody's guess where and when the next great yuletide song will come from. But isn't that what folks love about this season – to be taken by surprise?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.