Thread: The place of the choir in church services Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025035
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I have sung in a parish church choir since childhood, believing music to be a very important part of the liturgy and the service as a whole, with those who have talent in this area helping to lead the singing and enhance the worship of others in the congregation, both with communal song and also choir-only anthems.
However, I have been giving a deal of thought to this assumption recently, due to the combination of a number of factors - and would welcome suggestions from other choristers, church musicians and members with wider church experience.
The situation, as we have it, is a choir of amateur singers who are welcomed without audition to contribute as well as they can to the musical life of the church. The present choir master believes strongly that the choir should be open to all who wish to participate, as we are an inclusive church. So far this has worked well - we have a mixture of very talented singers, some (including me) fairly average but willing to work hard to reach a good standard, and others who don't really have much of a clue when they start but manage to learn on the job.
Recently, however, the news of the lack of audition has got around and we are starting to see more people becoming brave enough to give it a go - people who cannot sight-read and in some cases people who cannot even sing in tune. This is not really a problem if they have very quiet voices and listen more than they sing - at worst they cannot be heard, at best they may be able to improve over time. The difficulty occurs when the balance changes - people with loud voices who cannot sing in tune overwhelming those who are singing what they are supposed to be singing. The danger, once the choir reaches this stage, is that good singers might no longer want to join what they will see as a poor choir, and that members of the congregation will not wish to attend a church where the choir are poor.
Does one accept that they are doing their best in the worship of God? Or bring in compulsory auditions for choir members, whilst being inclusive in accepting everyone into the wider ministry of the church? Should the choir be limited in their repertoire only to simple items that all can manage? Should the sung items in church services be limited only to hymns which involve the whole congregation, good singers and poor singers alike?
Have other people experienced similar dilemmas? Any ideas on best practice?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Isn't there an unwarranted definite article in the thread title? 'The' choir implies that churches have them. Most of the churches I have worked in (Anglican, mostly middle to high) have not. This might not be typical but the OP is taking a lot for granted.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And very few Nonconformist churches have choirs of that type - although we do, as it happens. Of course quite a number of Afro-Caribbean churches have "Gospel" choirs, and many of the more Evangelical churches have music groups, about which one could ask the same question posed by the OP.
I have to say that this is verging on DH territory as it has come up before on several occasions. One possible solution - if one is seeing quite a lot of folk coming forward - is to have two choirs, one of them a "training choir" which would sing simpler music and lead worship (say) once a month, and perhaps sing together with the "proper choir" on Festal occasions. Moving up from one to the other would be by audition and/or decision of the Music Director.
Does anyone do that?
[ 30. January 2013, 17:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
If only people who can sight-read can sing in the choir there wouldn't be very many people in the choir. Thankfully our church doesn't have that requirement or we'd have no tenors or basses at all, and precious few sopranos.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Out of all the churches I've been to, only the Anglo-Catholic ones have ever had choirs.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
I've attended MANY Episcopal churches over my life time. Every single one has had a choir, though with a variety of quality -- from Saint Thomas, Fifth Avenue, on down the line.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I'm happy to hear from people in churches with choirs, and without. Unprecedented occasions call for all viewpoints.
I'm especially interested in the idea of a training choir - that sounds rather like the junior choir we used to have, the youngsters started off in this and then didn't join the main choir until they were ready.
Posted by aig (# 429) on
:
A possible solution, and one I have seen in a few churches and at college, is to have a no audition choir that sings at all services, but the good singers are part of (an auditioned; or at least invited) group who, on occasions, sing more complex motets etc. They are often called things like 'schola' or 'the chamber choir'. These singers act as section leaders for the normal choir, sing solos etc.
It seems to work quite well provided the good singers want to be fully involved in the music making of the whole church.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Out of all the churches I've been to, only the Anglo-Catholic ones have ever had choirs.
Interesting. I would associate 'choirs' in Chorister's sense with MOTR churches. Anglo-catholics often go for select groups of professional singers, unless they are the back-street sort of church I'm more familiar with, which struggle along with Gregory Murray and an amateur organist.
Posted by wheelie racer (# 13854) on
:
I co-ordinate the music group in a small, but growing inner-city CofE church. We would probably describe ourselves as "slightly left of centre" in terms of theology and worship. The group I lead consists of people ranging in age from 8-80 and we have a very eclectic mix of talent, instruments, ability etc - both instrumentalists and singers, ranging from child recorder players to a music teacher in a private school. The principles I employ are (1) people must first have a commitment to faith, or be searching for faith and have some level of commitment to being a part of the worshipping community of St X (2) Be committed to attend and participate in regular practices (3) espec in the case of children, be able to play at least two tunes at a reasonable standard on a sunday morning - tunes that they are unable to play, they will not be able to play with group for those songs - may be allowed to stand with adult singers and sing instead. (4)Be prepared to be part of prayers during rehersals, and occasional teaching/ development sessions as a worship team (5) Have, or be open to developing some understanding of what worship is, and an understanding that participating in the worship group is about leading and helping others to meet with God in worship
We do not audition, and are fairly fluid in the make-up of the group on a sunday morning. We don't audition, but do insist on meeting with potential new musicians and singers before they attend first practice, and ask that they attend a few practices before participating on a sunday morning, so we, and they can get a gauge on whether it is going to work, and both myself as co-ordinator and the person involved can work out whether they should b e a part of the worship team.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aig:
A possible solution, and one I have seen in a few churches and at college, is to have a no audition choir that sings at all services, but the good singers are part of (an auditioned; or at least invited) group who, on occasions, sing more complex motets etc. They are often called things like 'schola' or 'the chamber choir'. These singers act as section leaders for the normal choir, sing solos etc.
It seems to work quite well provided the good singers want to be fully involved in the music making of the whole church.
Now that sounds like a really good idea. We do have a quartet that do show pieces at concerts, etc. What you seem to be proposing is something in between the full choir and a quartet, say about 12-16 singers, comprising the best of each part put together.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
A 'select group of professional singers' sounds like London to me, or at least a church with access to University choral scholars. I'm not so sure it works in more rural areas.
Wheelie Racer's set-up sounds like a good compromise between the 'let all-comers join in' and the 'check-em out first' approach.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I would no more let the socially tone deaf occupy front-line leadership positions in a caring ministry, say for example, a community dinner for the area homeless or a visiting hospice ministry, than I would fly to the moon.
Why on earth should the ministry of music leadership be left to the musically tone deaf? quote:
Chorister asks:
Does one accept that they are doing their best in the worship of God?
Their best does not entail musical leadership. There is plenty to do in worship. Not everyone should be singing in the leadership. quote:
Or bring in compulsory auditions for choir members, whilst being inclusive in accepting everyone into the wider ministry of the church?
Either we think we should be offering our best during the divine worship, or we don't.
Auditions ought to be the norm when a parish has enough musical talent to field a capable choir.
Worship leadership is not a right. quote:
Should the choir be limited in their repertoire only to simple items that all can manage?
A choir should offer to God the very best of which they are capable; but, no better.
But, that does not mean that choir membership should be limited to the worst musicians. That is what will happen should duffers get the upper hand. quote:
Should the sung items in church services be limited only to hymns which involve the whole congregation, good singers and poor singers alike?
That is limiting the richness of the church's offering. Hymns are both the musically capable and for the duffers.
I've rarely been in a Sunday morning service in an Episcopal parish which did not have a choir of some sort.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I'm back to say that the process wheelie racer describes is an audition by another name.
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
At our little place, basically anyone with musical experience and minimal talent is in the choir; this is never more than about seven women and three men. Their purpose, though, is to lead the congregation in singing (or chanting the ordinary), and this they do well enough. It does help if the congregation likes to sing, of course, as ours does. I would rather hear my congregation singing a hymn together than hear some complicated choral arrangement any day.
I'm with TSA here. Most church choirs are not professional organizations, but the leading of worship in a church does require a minimal level of skill. Most people really are self-aware enough to understand that if they can't carry a tune in a bucket with a lid on it (and I surely cannot), their place is not in the choir. Those in charge of organizing worship ought not to be afraid to point that out.
[ 30. January 2013, 20:00: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by aig:
A possible solution, and one I have seen in a few churches and at college, is to have a no audition choir that sings at all services, but the good singers are part of (an auditioned; or at least invited) group who, on occasions, sing more complex motets etc. They are often called things like 'schola' or 'the chamber choir'. These singers act as section leaders for the normal choir, sing solos etc.
It seems to work quite well provided the good singers want to be fully involved in the music making of the whole church.
Now that sounds like a really good idea. We do have a quartet that do show pieces at concerts, etc. What you seem to be proposing is something in between the full choir and a quartet, say about 12-16 singers, comprising the best of each part put together.
In the churches that I have been in those that have a 'choir' only number at most 10 people maybe only half a dozen.
Posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus (# 2515) on
:
It's fine.
In addition, people with no experience or aptitude should be allowed to make vestments, play (and even tune and repair) the organ, mend the roof, rewire the lights, service the boiler - oh, and touch up the wall paintings.
What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
...oh, and touch up the wall paintings.
What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In the churches that I have been in those that have a 'choir' only number at most 10 people maybe only half a dozen.
In Creamtealand we seem to have 'bunching' - many choirs have either died out or been encouraged out, consequently the choirs that are left attract keen choristers who have been left 'homeless' as a result, and are therefore of a good size.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
A 'select group of professional singers' sounds like London to me, or at least a church with access to University choral scholars. I'm not so sure it works in more rural areas.
Not necessarily London, but I'm sure you are right. IIRC Chorister, you are in a country town, which I imagine is the ideal sort of place for your sort of choir. In a town you will have a good cross section of ages, classes, backgrounds, and doubtless several competent musicians without many alternative outlets for their skills. And you will have a church with a fairly large and settled congregation which will not be dominated by a largish choir.
Village churches won't have those advantages. Nor do most urban (ie city) parishes. Here I know a few churches- usually with a bigger than average congregation - which are lucky enough to have an enthusiastic organist/choir trainer who can encourage a competent choir, but the majority of churches have small congregations: if they are traditionally-inclined they might dress up two or three children and elderly people in surplices and make some attempt, but generally they will either rely on congregational singing accompanied by an organ, or some sort of music group. One otherwise prestigious city church I know of has a deliberate policy of not having a choir, except for the occasional use of professional singers.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I must admit I dislike being in a choir where those who can't read music tend to just sing the 'tune'. This is particularly difficult if these voices happen to be male as the balance and whole sound is distorted. I would prefer a choir of musicians who can read music and add to the worship, but I realise that in some churches there are insufficient people who can do this. However, it must be remembered that we are told in Corinthians that some are preachers, some are teachers, some are healers and I guess to extend this, some are singers. People need to be aware of their particular gifts and use the appropriately. I would no more get up to preach than fly to the moon. However, there are many in the congregation who can sing and read music but are not willing to make the committment to be in the choir. I don't know how you overcome this reluctance.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Rural choirs:
From Thomas Hardy: "Now mind, neighbours," he (William Dewey) said, as they all went out one by one at the door, he himself holding it ajar and regarding them with a critical face as they passed, like a shepherd counting out his sheep.
"You two counter-boys, keep your ears open to Michael's fingering, and don't ye go straying into the treble part along o' Dick and his set, as ye did last year; and mind this especially when we be in 'Arise, and hail.'
Billy Chimlen, don't you sing quite so raving mad as you fain would; and, all o' ye, whatever ye do, keep from making a great scuffle on the ground when we go in at people's gates; but go quietly, so as to strike up all of a sudden, like spirits."
From Laurie Lee: One by one they came stumbling over the snow, swinging their lanterns around their heads, shouting and coughing horribly. “Coming carol-barking then?”
We were the Church Choir, so no answer was necessary. For a year we had praised the Lord, out of key, and as a reward for this service - on top of the Outing - we now had the right to visit all the big houses, to sing our carols and collect our tribute ...
Our first call as usual was the house of the Squire, and we trouped nervously down his drive. A maid bore the tidings of our arrival away into the echoing distances of the house. The door was left ajar and we were bidden to begin. We brought no music, the carols were in our heads. 'Let's give 'em 'Wild Shepherds', said Jack. We began in confusion, plunging into a wreckage of keys, of different words and tempos; but we gathered our strength; he who sand loudest took the rest of us with him, and the carol took shape if not sweetness.
I think things have probably improved since then ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It would seem from the attitude displayed here that the true solution would be to hire a professional choir. Clearly amateurs aren't up to snuff, and God hates a cheerful giver, and the widow's mite sucks. Let those who REALLY have money do the giving. Some are teachers, and some are prophets, and some are donors. Why fight it?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It shouldn't be necessary to be able to read music in order to sing in parts. What it takes is an appropriately trained choir leader and an appropriate choice of repertoire. I once attended a workshop led by some people from Iona, and it seemed quite doable with their technique.
I'm not speaking from an Anglican point of view, though, and I suppose a 'traditional' CofE choir needs very precise skill set.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Out of all the churches I've been to, only the Anglo-Catholic ones have ever had choirs.
I'm glad enough that most Anglo-Catholic churches at least try to have good choirs, Sir Frederick Gore Ouseley having made his enduring mark despite the sad demise in our day of his beloved laboratory, S. Michael's Tenbury, for financial reasons. But according to Bernarr Rainbow's Choral Revival in the Anglican Church, his Anglo-Catholicism was relatively moderate and a bit Johnny-come-lately. The most radical Anglo-Catholics in the mid-19th century believed in singing the psalms, and other parts of the liturgy, in plainsong by the entire congregation. If there was a schola, its role was limited.
In my American experience, furthermore, Episcopalians talk about having good choirs while Presbyterians more often actually do it.
The embarrassment of riches that Chorister describes is unusual. I've certainly never faced it as a choir director. The suggestion of a group that welcomes all comers together with a sub-group of the most expert sounds like a good solution, and there is plenty of various historical precedent for it. But don't underestimate the ability of incompetent people to become competent if they persevere with encouragement.
Choral music must be presented and preserved as an art before it can be justified in public worship as a social activity. Only recently has another aspect of its role as "handmaid of the liturgy" occurred to me: At the heart of the liturgy is the Eucharist, or thanksgiving. Thanksgiving promotes health and long life. An appreciation of beauty is one part of it, or itself an opportunity for gratitude. If something makes us say, "wow, that's beautiful!," the very exclamation is an act of thanksgiving.
May the church arrange for it to be said as often as possible!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I feel you, MT, but I think superb music has its graces too. What would you say if a well-meaning, perfectly pious old widow gave the ugliest, most tasteless icon in the universe to your church? I don't know where the line is m'self, but there's one in there somewhere.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Choral music must be presented and preserved as an art before it can be justified in public worship as a social activity.
I don't understand this at all. Why does it need to be justified? Orthodox choirs have been singing choral music for 2000 years without the need for its prior preservation as an art.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I feel you, MT, but I think superb music has its graces too.
I have nothing against superb music. But what is going on in this thread is simple snobbery. When you've got a church of 40 people, waiting around for people who can read music and have 5 years of performance experience or whatever these snobs think is necessary means you're not going to have a choir at all.
I'm perfectly down with auditions for a large choir, and I pity the choir leaders who have to tell someone they can't sing and should bow out. Ours occasionally has to hush people who aren't singing in tune -- it's happened to me too -- and it can't be a fun feeling to have to do that.
But this attitude of perfection, you have to be able to sight read or you shouldn't even open your mouth -- excuse me? It flies in the face of hundreds or thousands of years of choral experience to think only sight readers can sing.
It sounds like we're making the perfect the enemy of the good here. If you typed up the perfectionist comments in this thread and put them in an ad in the church bulletin seeking new choir members, how many volunteers do you think you'd get?
quote:
What would you say if a well-meaning, perfectly pious old widow gave the ugliest, most tasteless icon in the universe to your church? I don't know where the line is m'self, but there's one in there somewhere.
Icons aren't about artistic quality. They're not "art." That's a category error. We have some shudderingly awful ones from the most sappy, saccharine period of 19th century Russian iconography. They're still icons.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Icons aren't about artistic quality. They're not "art." That's a category error. We have some shudderingly awful ones from the most sappy, saccharine period of 19th century Russian iconography. They're still icons.
I wasn't questioning its status as an icon. I was doubting that you would put the most tasteless icon in the universe on the church wall, thus cursing the generations to come with the pious lady's terrible taste.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
If we didn't already have an icon of that saint, we probably would.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
*Sigh* Maybe icons are a bad example. What if that well meaning widow donated this lighting fixture to the church? Would you be talking about holy widow's mites then?
Or does the Orthodox Church simply lack well meaning, but completely tasteless people?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
That is truly a hideous lamp. I can't imagine anyone donating it to a church, but yeah, if somebody did, it would be turned down. I forget now what this has to do with choir. Nobody who sings in a manner that is analogous to the hideosity of that lamp tries to join the choir, at least I've never heard of it happening at an Orthodox church. And I stand in a position in the church in the US such that people email me crazy things that happen at their churches and ask me to write articles about them.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't understand this at all. Why does it need to be justified? Orthodox choirs have been singing choral music for 2000 years without the need for its prior preservation as an art.
All I meant was that "singing choral music" implies standards such as singing certain pitches at certain times-- whether by reading notes or other means. Chorister is wondering what to do with volunteers who are unable to meet these standards. Unfortunately, they are able, despite their good intentions, to ruin the efforts of everyone, and the effect cannot be described as beautiful music. If the word "art" makes you uncomfortable, I guess the word "craft" would do as well here.
[ 31. January 2013, 00:30: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
That's an extreme example, of course. My point was that having a really superb music program might leave out a lot of well meaning singers of middling ability. It just isn't clear to me which one is better- the superb music program or the less-than-stellar take all comers choir. The perfectionists might be on to something after all, is my drift, at least in some situations.
Maybe it's just me. I only have so much "Golly, they tried real hard, praise Jesus!" in me.
[crossposted with Alogon , eh?]
[ 31. January 2013, 00:37: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Alogon:
"Craft" does in fact make more sense than "art" because "art music" has a particular meaning, and church music presented "in concert" out of the context of a sacred service is in fact very jarring to many Orthodox people. But I still don't understand the "prior." Surely in western European history, it was the choirs that presented and preserved the singing. They were prior to any other presentation or preservation?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The perfectionists might be on to something after all, is my drift, at least in some situations.
I guess it depends on what you want. I have heard that in Anglicanism, perfectionism of presentation matters more than spirituality, but I had always thought that was a nasty stereotype, not something that people really took seriously. Now I'm not so sure.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The perfectionists might be on to something after all, is my drift, at least in some situations.
I guess it depends on what you want. I have heard that in Anglicanism, perfectionism of presentation matters more than spirituality, but I had always thought that was a nasty stereotype, not something that people really took seriously. Now I'm not so sure.
So, you're telling me Orthodox sacred music is only truly beautiful, from a purely technical standpoint, when by sheer luck only accomplished singers sign up? That is the only situation in which this posturing is justified.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I wouldn't say that because I don't think you need "accomplished singers" to make beautiful music.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I wouldn't say that because I don't think you need "accomplished singers" to make beautiful music.
I think music is more beautiful when the musicians know what they are doing, and that this beauty is something worth bringing to Christian worship. If you think that cuts me out of the simple, humble godliness of the Orthodox faith, then whatever. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 31. January 2013, 01:01: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Cryptic (# 16917) on
:
Here are some vaguely connected thoughts from me (sorry, rushed posting during lunch break). Disclaimer - Anglican, church musician since childhood (but not currently).
My solution would be more than one choir, but this may test the resources of your parish, the patience/sanity/people management skills of your music director and the good grace of existing musicians. I wouldn't want to see any keen person turned away, but the obvious difficulty here is the varying standards of musical ability that being inclusive will bring. That's where the multiple choir thing comes in, grade the repertoire and frequency of performance to the ability level of the group.
I don't see anything wrong with an audition process. The music director has every right to know what level of ability that they are working with - and this is where the patience/people management thing come in - and they should be able to gently and helpfully steer the less skilled into the correct part/choir/group/whatever. There are roles within a church where any keen person can help, and there are roles where there has to be a selection process. I have no problem with a selection process for musicians.
The things that I think are essential for any church musician - the desire to make music in the worship of God, that the music made serves and supports the liturgy, and that the commitment of each musician is there to support the choir.
My list of essentials then naturally leads to my pet hates and killers of church music:
Lack of commitment - the music director should make the level of commitment that is expected quite clear, be that attendance at services, attendances at rehearsals or even, God forbid, practice at home. Don't want to commit? Go somewhere else.
Joining a church choir becuase music or singing is your hobby. I don't deny that there have been many people brought to God through music, but I've met may folk over the years for whom God or the church mean nothing, they're just there beacuase singing is their hobby.
Professionals - I'm afraid to say that too many choirs are using professional singers (I can already feel the flames over this statement...). Not going to go into the reasons for this here, but to my mind many of these people are not keeping church music alive, but killing it. I don't deny that anybody should be able to make a living in their chosen profession, but back to my point above abut the reasons for being in a choir, session singers just don't do it for me. I've heard many wonderful performances by amateur choirs, and too many by professionals that just leave me cold.
That's my two bob's worth...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
My solution would be more than one choir...
This seems like a good enough solution to me. Have one choir with enough technical expertise to pull off medieval and baroque masterpieces that specializes on choral anthems and the like, and another that specializes in leading congregational singing. Having too good a choir leading the congregational singing is actually a problem in my experience.
[ 31. January 2013, 01:20: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
My suggestion would be the same as aig's suggestion: a larger choir made up of everybody that handles the easier repertoire and a smaller choir/ensemble that handles the more difficult stuff and for which they audition. The auditions for the smaller choir could be yearly and so the ones with less experience and/or skill have something to strive for and a reason to improve their abilities.
I sometimes attend a choral mass at another parish where the music is divided between hymns, an ordinary in Latin and Gregorian chant, and polyphony. The congregation has the opening and closing hymns and are free to join in the ordinary of the mass that is one of the standard Gregorian chant settings like the Missa de Angelis that are within the reach of most people (not that many people join, but still...). The choir handles the propers (introits, communions) as well as motets and other fancy choral pieces that are sung at the offertory and during communion. A few times a year they keep the hymns but the choir takes over the ordinary with a fancy setting by someone like Mozart or da Viadana.
Your choir could do something similar. Have the big choir sing hymns, the ordinary, and easier choral pieces. Use the smaller chamber choir for the fancy stuff. You could balance things throughout the year by relying on accessible but satisfying settings of the eucharist for most Sundays but every so often give the big choir a break and have a more challenging setting for the smaller choir to show their chops.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I would add that parishes ought to look for choir directors that are good at teaching singing and sharpening the skills of choristers.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cryptic:
Professionals - I'm afraid to say that too many choirs are using professional singers (I can already feel the flames over this statement...). Not going to go into the reasons for this here, but to my mind many of these people are not keeping church music alive, but killing it.
It depends on how they are treated. One admired colleague in Piporg-L could barely contain his impatience with parishioners who either begrudged his paying some singers or cold-shouldered those he hired. "Look, these are college kids trying to pay the rent!" And some of them ended up joining the church. Fr. John Andrew at St. Thomas NYC (like his successor from what I see) also was careful to consider his professional choirmen as part of the parish family and regretted his counterparts in other "cardinal parishes of New York" treating them as mere "functionaries." Parishes well-enough off to hire people to attend their services and come under their influence ought to be thankful that they can do so and make the most of it. One recent guest speaker at Holy Apostles' explained that people used to visit a church looking for God and also found a community. Nowadays they visit a church looking for a community and also find God. Being a good enough musician to be paid for it doesn't make one any less in need of a community than anyone else.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
A lot of it depends on the parish. If the parish has a strong choral tradition in which choirs regularly sing polyphony, chant, and other forms of music not written for congregational singing, then it would be sheer madness not to have an auditioned choir. It's not fun when you are not a good singer, trying to sing Haydn's Mass setting for Midnight Mass with everyone else.
If however, you have a parish where the choir simply is seen as a backup for the congregation and the pieces are relatively simple and easy, auditions might not be necessary. Typically, people who volunteer to be choir members would at least carry a tune (most people who can't carry a tune at least are smart enough to figure it's not their gift or talent). With average to decent voices, a good choir master should be able to train a parish choir to sing simple settings and motets reasonably well.
In parishes with 2 main services, typically one service would be a choral service in which the auditioned choir would sing difficult pieces such as polyphony and chant. The second service, usually a service with modern language, would have a small non-auditioned choir singing simple pieces.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I wouldn't say that because I don't think you need "accomplished singers" to make beautiful music.
I think music is more beautiful when the musicians know what they are doing,
Know what they are doing <> accomplished.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It would seem from the attitude displayed here that the true solution would be to hire a professional choir. Clearly amateurs aren't up to snuff, and God hates a cheerful giver, and the widow's mite sucks. Let those who REALLY have money do the giving. Some are teachers, and some are prophets, and some are donors. Why fight it?
You are seriously off the beam mousethief. You need to get out a little bit more.
I've worshipped in Orthodox joints from Linthicum to Sacramento to Shawnee Heights to Anchorage to Park Drive to Rusk Road and waaay beyond.
The choirs, singing the OCA repertoire, in those parishes raised the hair on the back of my neck with their devotion and piety. They induced my sin-sick soul to truly feel the presence of the Triune and Tripersonal God. I was privileged to be a blow-ashore in each place.
It's horse for courses.
As perfect they are and as perfectly apt for their parishes, they wouldn't be able to fulfill the worship-ethos of any of a dozen Anglo-catholic joints. Places which are able to fulfill their mission of worship of the Holy Trinity with disciplined and beautiful music, of its sort.
They, and their piety, is not the less. It is just not apt for some of the parishes described the on this thread.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
I'm a bass and I learned to sing in church choirs. No United Church of Canada is seen without a choir, of whatever standard.
John Wesley's Directions for Singing are printed in our hymn book. Those directions are a good place to start.
First, throw out that horrid excuse that reading music is difficult. It isn't. Piano music is complicated because of the speed and versatility you can manage there; voice music is much simpler. In fact your part will only have an octave of notes and the most complicated thing you'll see is a triplet.
John Wesley said everyone can sing; to which I add anyone can read music.
Next, the choir director must have enough authority to let beginner singers know that they need to blend. Quiet works, especially at the start. If you are singing bass like me, you have to practice to ignore the melody and those **** sopranos.
Then you just practice. A lot.
I get the sense that the "Church Choir" as known in North America is not really known across the Pond. I mean an adult choir, of both sexes, singing SATB performing sheet music or SATB arrangements from the hymn book. Gowned of course.
In Canada both the Anglican and the United Church hymn books, both printed in the 1990's, have SATB music in the standard edition.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
It's horse for courses.
See, you're the first person to say this, or to even suggest that the perfectionism required of the Anglo-Catholic choir maybe isn't necessary at every church of every tradition everywhere in the world. Everybody else before has all but suggested that if you aren't Pavarotti you might as well stay home.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I get the sense that the "Church Choir" as known in North America is not really known across the Pond. I mean an adult choir, of both sexes, singing SATB performing sheet music or SATB arrangements from the hymn book. Gowned of course.
That's exactly what our small choir does. But, then, we're not Anglican but URC/Baptist - and URC is a pretty close match to the UCC.
Point is, Nonconformists (not that many have choirs these days) don't have sung liturgies or chants in their services - the choir sings an introit and/or anthem, and leads the congregational singing.
I have seen the same in the Church of Scotland but I don't know how common it is.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I must admit to being rather bewildered by Mousethief's take on the thread - on reading it all through, I can only see reasoned debate and a good range of practical and carefully thought-out suggestions. Perhaps if one has had a run-in on a similar subject before, there is a tendency to be more touchy and to read into remarks something that isn't actually there? Or perhaps there is some 'stirring' going on - if so, it is admirable that people are calmly discussing, rather than rising to the bait.
At the Eucharist, the choir sing exactly the same as the congregation (they are there to lead them) for all the hymns and the sung parts of the Eucharist. There are only three items which the choir sing on their own: the verses of the responsorial psalm (the response is sung by all), the short Gospel Acclamation (which the congregation joins in at the repeat) and the Anthem (which is sung during the administration of Communion). Almost everyone in the church comes to the Eucharist, so they join in a lot with the singing as you would expect. Given current difficulties, it is only the unaccompanied choir-only parts which are exposed and obvious when someone is not singing in tune, particularly if we are singing in unison.
At Evensong, things are slightly different. It is much more the sort of service to which a particular interest-set of the church attends, and expects to join in less and to listen more. A larger part of the Cathedral repertoire is known to these attendees - they would probably attend Cathedral evensong if only one were closer (50 miles). So we are seen as almost the only church in the area to offer this type of service. The music is therefore more demanding than you would expect at the morning Eucharist: regularly different settings of responses, canticles as well as anthems. I think it matters more at this service that the choir is musically competent. I know for myself, when I attend evensong as a member of the congregation not as a singer, that one can gain huge spiritual benefit from listening to others sing the service - it is not a performance when people's souls take part.
Sadly, although some posters have indicated to the contrary, there are some people who are not 'smart' enough to realise that they are not able to sing in tune. And when those people have loud voices, that is when the problem outlined in the OP arises. It has never happened in our choir before, but it has now. You have to deal with a given, not a 'how you'd like it to be'. I guess that's why I'm having to do some adjustment of preconceptions. And thanks to all participants, this discussion is really helping. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In the churches that I have been in those that have a 'choir' only number at most 10 people maybe only half a dozen.
In Creamtealand we seem to have 'bunching' - many choirs have either died out or been encouraged out, consequently the choirs that are left attract keen choristers who have been left 'homeless' as a result, and are therefore of a good size.
You'll end up outnumbering the congregation...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I must admit I dislike being in a choir where those who can't read music tend to just sing the 'tune'. This is particularly difficult if these voices happen to be male as the balance and whole sound is distorted.
This problem is endemic in the UK, in my experience, and not just in church choirs, but in amateur operatic societies and so on. I've been the only tenor in a G&S chorus before now actually singing the tenor line, against one or two "sopranors".
Part singing, like learning to read the bloody dots, seems to suffer from a certain level of anti-intellectualism - you can sense the disapproval of anyone daring to use words like "interval", "perfect fourth" or "key signature". It's one of the reasons I don't do this stuff any more, in church or out of it. I'm not interested in not doing it properly.
Reading music and sight-reading may not be essentials to part singing, but they make learning the parts a hell of a lot easier, faster and more accurate.
[ 31. January 2013, 10:07: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You'll end up outnumbering the congregation...
The congregation is about 200, not much chance of that! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Karl, you have a young family. You may find that you get interested in singing again when they are grown up, hard as that may be to imagine at the moment. There are certainly choirs who would appreciate your input.
We have a significant number in the congregation with good voices - people who don't wish to commit to singing in the choir, but who nevertheless help greatly as they provide a boost to the more timid singers all around the church. It's also a great encouragement to us as we process around during the first hymn, to hear them enthusiastically joining in. I'd rather have that than a church where the congregation hardly join in the hymns at all - a rather unnerving experience.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I have not lost interest in singing, Chorister. But I have never had much interest in unison singing with about three other people of uninspiring material, nor of being the subject of reverse snobbery for actually knowing about this music stuff.
Bit academic really; my current church has no congregational singing, let alone a choir.
[ 31. January 2013, 11:08: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I have sung in a parish church choir since childhood, believing music to be a very important part of the liturgy and the service as a whole, with those who have talent in this area helping to lead the singing and enhance the worship of others in the congregation, both with communal song and also choir-only anthems.
However, I have been giving a deal of thought to this assumption recently, due to the combination of a number of factors - and would welcome suggestions from other choristers, church musicians and members with wider church experience.
The situation, as we have it, is a choir of amateur singers who are welcomed without audition to contribute as well as they can to the musical life of the church. The present choir master believes strongly that the choir should be open to all who wish to participate, as we are an inclusive church. So far this has worked well - we have a mixture of very talented singers, some (including me) fairly average but willing to work hard to reach a good standard, and others who don't really have much of a clue when they start but manage to learn on the job.
Recently, however, the news of the lack of audition has got around and we are starting to see more people becoming brave enough to give it a go - people who cannot sight-read and in some cases people who cannot even sing in tune. This is not really a problem if they have very quiet voices and listen more than they sing - at worst they cannot be heard, at best they may be able to improve over time. The difficulty occurs when the balance changes - people with loud voices who cannot sing in tune overwhelming those who are singing what they are supposed to be singing. The danger, once the choir reaches this stage, is that good singers might no longer want to join what they will see as a poor choir, and that members of the congregation will not wish to attend a church where the choir are poor.
Does one accept that they are doing their best in the worship of God? Or bring in compulsory auditions for choir members, whilst being inclusive in accepting everyone into the wider ministry of the church? Should the choir be limited in their repertoire only to simple items that all can manage? Should the sung items in church services be limited only to hymns which involve the whole congregation, good singers and poor singers alike?
Have other people experienced similar dilemmas? Any ideas on best practice?
I am in a similar predicament. I recently joined a church choir in my new town. I grew up singing in an elite(st?) boy's choir that was audition only and fairly selective. The choir at my new church is open to all. It's like you describe - some who have good musical skills all around, others who can't read music very well but can learn through repetition, and a few who are just...
There's a guy that I sometimes sit next to who is partially deaf and has a speech impediment and I suspect some intellectual disabilities. And I don't fault the man for putting his heart into it. But he won't watch and he's extraordinarily loud, so he throws off other choir members who sing by ear and he, pardon me, f---s up the cutoffs every single time. The basses take turns "taking one for the team" by sitting next to him. I know a couple who stuff the ear closest to him with cotton.
The other baddies are among the loudest too. They don't know what the "p" above the notes signifies.
It's frustrating, but I love singing in church. The best I can figure is that I take what my fiancee calls a "zen approach": I try to remind myself that a) it's not about me in the end; and b) if the choir gets to be a real problem, someone will speak up to change the way the choir works. I predict that time might come soon.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
I know I'm coming in a bit late with this but:
Knowing that this is a Church choir, I would not however disregard allowing it to be an open organisation. Although it is a churchy thing most Church choirs have to deal with dwindling congregation numbers from which to draw the members, therefore by opening it up to non-church goers you have the opportunity to bring in those people who can sing, and like to sing, but who find it daunting or imopssible to join a professional choir these days. If the non-churchgoer is aware, and accepts the fact, that they will be singing churchy things then I don't see why you should not allow them to join, it's not like they have to communicate...
AS the choir I used to be involved with said in it's advertising, 'Christian, athiest, pot-belly pig worshippers - all welcome.'
Certainly at Christmas time, for 9 lessons the Choir would grow to exceptional levels as people who enjoyed singing, but couldn't do it all year, joined the choir for one of the services of the year that is full of different music and is as probably more about the singing than much else.
As for the different abilities thing, you can have two choirs, but they do not necessarily have to be seperate. It is possible to have all members together singing the 'easier' bits whilst the nucleus of those competent can sing the 'harder' bits.
As a choir we also found that putting together a CD/making available through itunes or whatever, the music to be sung was a good learning tool as the members with the sheet music could follow along to the CD and then join in as well, listening to see hwo they sounded in relation to the bits they are meant to be singing etc. It used to work for us, but I guess it might not work for everybody.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You'll end up outnumbering the congregation...
The congregation is about 200.
With a congregation that size you should surely have more than one singing group. It's not surprising that untrained people from the congregation are trying to get into the 'proper' choir - what else can they do if they like singing?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I must admit to being rather bewildered by Mousethief's take on the thread.
His distinction between art and spirituality is completely blinkered. I've experienced enough Orthodox art, music, and architecture to know for absolutely certain that not all Orthodox (very few even) share MT's puritanism.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You'll end up outnumbering the congregation...
The congregation is about 200.
With a congregation that size you should surely have more than one singing group. It's not surprising that untrained people from the congregation are trying to get into the 'proper' choir - what else can they do if they like singing?
Indeed. It's a megachurch by UK standards. I went down to Chesterfield Parish Church the other week. It's pretty much the Cathedral of North Derbyshire, strong musical tradition, Cathedral service pattern, tourist guided tours up tower etc.
Congregation - about 50.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I must admit to being rather bewildered by Mousethief's take on the thread.
His distinction between art and spirituality is completely blinkered.
Between spirituality and perfectionism. Perhaps I haven't made the nature of my objections plain (although that seems unlikely).
quote:
I've experienced enough Orthodox art, music, and architecture to know for absolutely certain that not all Orthodox (very few even) share MT's puritanism.
I don't understand the comparison to puritanism. Please explain.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
My understanding of my position is that plain, old technical skill and artistic beauty are worth bringing to Christian worship because they can be used to glorify God and edify the faithful. Amateur choirs simply do not have the technical skill necessary to perform a lot of works, and a lot of simpler works sound much better when sung by skilled choristers. Not every church can have professional choirs, and not every situation calls for one, but I see their value.
My understanding of your position is that in the Orthodox Church you don't need technical skill or artistic beauty because it's all so spiritual and holy and beautiful without technical skill, and that Anglicans are snobs and godless hypocrites for striving for it in their sacred music.
My beef with that, which I will call the Father Therapon school of spirituality, is that positing such a strict dichotomy between art and spirituality is to say that art cannot be spiritual. Which leads me to point out that the Orthodox don't drape their churches with bright colors, gold leaf, and intricate mosaics merely because it's all so spiritual. It's beautiful, all on its own, and that beauty is used to communicate God. Indeed, my first encounter with Orthodoxy was a Russian monastic choir that was touring the United States, and however pious they were, they brought plain, old, professional musical expertise to the show.
The connection of your position to puritanism is clear: "We're so much holier because we don't need art to be spiritual."
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
We are also 'inclusive' - no auditions (though you have to be a member of the uni since we are the uni church).
Nobody would last long if they couldn't sight read because the repertoire is wide and rehearsal time is limited. Some items only get sung through once, an hour before a service and they probably won't occur again for over 3 years, by which time there will be a completely different choir.
I don't know if we've had anyone who is unaware that they can't sing so I don't know what would happen. The only time anybody has been kicked out was for talking during the communion (after a verbal warning)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
My understanding of your position is that in the Orthodox Church you don't need technical skill or artistic beauty because it's all so spiritual and holy and beautiful without technical skill, and that Anglicans are snobs and godless hypocrites for striving for it in their sacred music.
Then it would seem you completely, wholly, and 100%edly fail to understand my position.
quote:
The connection of your position to puritanism is clear: "We're so much holier because we don't need art to be spiritual."
Aaaaaand this clinches it.
Your equation of perfectionism with art, as if anything short of anal-retentively perfect isn't really "art," is what I'm arguing against.
[ 31. January 2013, 16:32: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Your equation of perfectionism with art, as if anything short of anal-retentively perfect isn't really "art," is what I'm arguing against.
My equation? I haven't argued any such thing. I don't see anyone who has argued the "perfectionism" that you are arguing against. My mistake for thinking your were arguing against what people actually said.
[ 31. January 2013, 16:37: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
No go. Portraying my position as, "We don't need art to be spiritual," when I have said over and over that what we don't need to be spiritual is perfectionism, is equating perfectionism with art. By dropping in the one word where I have said the other, you are quite explicitly drawing that parallel.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
With a congregation that size you should surely have more than one singing group. It's not surprising that untrained people from the congregation are trying to get into the 'proper' choir - what else can they do if they like singing?
Untrained people are always welcome in the choir, as I have already said it's an inclusive group. The problem arises when the one or two spoil the efforts of the many by overpowering them. We are used to the choir being teamwork.
That's a good point about a church with 200+ people having more than one singing group. I think the church would be open to that. It would create interesting possibilities, matching the type of group to the different types of services. Are there people on here with experience of organising such groups?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
The problem arises when the one or two spoil the efforts of the many by overpowering them. We are used to the choir being teamwork.
This is an interesting point. In our choir, the people who overpower their section and throw the choir out of balance are inevitably the highly trained dot-readers.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
No go. Portraying my position as, "We don't need art to be spiritual," when I have said over and over that what we don't need to be spiritual is perfectionism, is equating perfectionism with art. By dropping in the one word where I have said the other, you are quite explicitly drawing that parallel.
I know. Thinking that your objections were against what people here were actually arguing, I imagined you were using "perfectionism" to mean "striving for the greatest technical skill one can manage in one's congregation."
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
OK, I perhaps see where you're coming from, Mousethief. No, ours is completely different - the problem is people with loud, inaccurate voices who aren't interested in quietly learning from other more experienced singers.
One of the reasons our church is so large, I think, is because many people make an active choice to attend a church with such strong music and liturgy (which is one of the reasons I'm concerned of the effect if the music takes a nosedive). There are other churches in the town and area with other strengths, but this is ours.
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Untrained people are always welcome in the choir, as I have already said it's an inclusive group. The problem arises when the one or two spoil the efforts of the many by overpowering them. We are used to the choir being teamwork.
That's a good point about a church with 200+ people having more than one singing group. I think the church would be open to that. It would create interesting possibilities, matching the type of group to the different types of services. Are there people on here with experience of organising such groups?
ISTM that the choirmaster (or whoever directs the choir) ought to be able to discriminate between those who are untrained and those who cannot be trained !
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Thinking that your objections were against what people here were actually arguing, I imagined you were using "perfectionism" to mean "striving for the greatest technical skill one can manage in one's congregation."
Golly, if that's what people were arguing for, I wouldn't have nearly the problem with it. At least one or two have argued for hiring professionals from outside the congregation.
[ 31. January 2013, 17:48: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Golly, if that's what people were arguing for, I wouldn't have nearly the problem with it. At least one or two have argued for hiring professionals from outside the congregation.
Why not, if the church can afford it and it produces something beautiful that can glorify God and edify the faith of the congregation? It's no different from calling in a renowned architect to design a church over a mediocre architect in the congregation.
You're making is sound like anything more than barring singers that can emit only glass shattering shrieks is an affront to all piety.
[ 31. January 2013, 17:59: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Why not, if the church can afford it and it produces something beautiful that can glorify God and edify the faith of the congregation?
Is a paid choir of non-Christians worship? Is there no limit to movement in this direction? Beauty über alles?
Perhaps we could find non-Christians who pray more beautifully than we do, and pay them to lead the services. Perhaps we could send the entire congo home, and pay a bunch of non-Christians, if they could glorify God more beautifully?
I don't understand your attitude here. You do in fact seem to be putting a kind of perfectionism ahead of worship.
[ 31. January 2013, 18:08: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The priest gets paid for his services and his work is considered worship. Why not the choir?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Hey, I bet well meaning old ladies can paint icons for free. Why pay skilled iconographers? This is worship, technical skill shouldn't come over that!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The priest gets paid for his services and his work is considered worship. Why not the choir?
The priest is, I hope, a Christian. Maybe for you guys that doesn't matter? If you say it does, then you admit your analogy is inapt.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Hey, I bet well meaning old ladies can paint icons for free. Why pay skilled iconographers? This is worship, technical skill shouldn't come over that!
All our paid iconographers are Orthodox Christians, and the art of iconography includes special prayers of preparation as well as prayers said during the actual painting. It isn't done by non-Christians, no matter how skilled they are with a brush. Even if the non-Christian could conceivably make a more beautiful icon. Your analogy has no teeth, and looks to have gum decay as well.
And once again, "technical skill" versus "paying non-Christians to worship for us, to bring us to the height of technical skill" are two quite different things.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
So your one and only objection here is hiring non-Christians? Or are you putting on the pretense of there being a real difference now?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
A 'select group of professional singers' sounds like London to me, or at least a church with access to University choral scholars. I'm not so sure it works in more rural areas.
Not necessarily London, but I'm sure you are right. IIRC Chorister, you are in a country town, which I imagine is the ideal sort of place for your sort of choir. In a town you will have a good cross section of ages, classes, backgrounds, and doubtless several competent musicians without many alternative outlets for their skills.
Yes. In the typical London church choir no-one reads music at all, and at least a few often sing out of tune. But that's better than not singing at all.
I agree with Mousethief on this.
Thoiugh I do wonder why his sensible opinion on professionalism singing hymns on this thread is the oppostie of his less sensible opinion on saying prayers on another thread... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Your analogy has no teeth, and looks to have gum decay as well.
Rereading your post, I can really see there is no point in arguing with you. You think piety makes paid choirs impossible, I don't think it does. Your whole argument here is that I don't understand you, and your practices are holier than mine because they just are. Until you get a better argument, Imma pass on this one.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So your one and only objection here is hiring non-Christians? Or are you putting on the pretense of there being a real difference now?
I gave that as an example of over-perfectionism, and you latched onto it, so I have been responding to your objections. If you can't respond to my last post, admit it and we can drop it.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Your analogy has no teeth, and looks to have gum decay as well.
Rereading your post, I can really see there is no point in arguing with you. You think piety makes paid choirs impossible, I don't think it does. Your whole argument here is that I don't understand you, and your practices are holier than mine because they just are. Until you get a better argument, Imma pass on this one.
No. Your argument is that paid choirs INCREASE piety.
[ 31. January 2013, 18:55: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by wheelie racer (# 13854) on
:
Reading through many of the posts suggesting large choirs/ smaller grouping and professional choirs makes me think that it would be wonderful if the church I attend (and many more like it) had the luxuary of that level of people and resources to adraw upon. Sadly the reality is very, very different and sometimes it very much a case of having to be realistic and making the most of the resource, people and abilities of the people you do have and nurturing and developing skills and people to help them to reach their potential and do their best
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It's over, MT.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's over, MT.
I can't even begin to tell you how this increases my piety.
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on
:
Here is a different model. We (CofE, ASA 50) have a choir, and an augmented choir.
The core choir is the seven who attend regularly, and are pillars of the church in other ways. All four parts are sung to hymns, service setting and simple anthems. We double this once a month with friends and family who can't commit to weekly attendance. Then we can sing proper stuff. Furthermore, some of us also sometimes go down to the Town Church where they still maintain Choral Evensong.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's over, MT.
I can't even begin to tell you how this increases my piety.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly the attitude that made me realize how it's not worth arguing with you.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
mousethief
I have to say, not coming from a High Church background, the idea of churchgoers paying non-Christians to make music for church worship is quite disturbing to me. But it seems to be accepted that many High Churches pay their organists, and they overlook the possibility that these organists may not be believers. It's only a short step from organists to singers, really....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's over, MT.
I can't even begin to tell you how this increases my piety.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly the attitude that made me realize how it's not worth arguing with you.
I thought you said it was over.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I thought you said it was over.
I thought it only fair to clarify what the issue was.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I thought you said it was over.
I thought it only fair to clarify what the issue was.
Oh, I know what the issue was.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The priest gets paid for his services and his work is considered worship. Why not the choir?
I hope Zach82 that in your church the priests aren't simply hired at so much a throw. The idea behind a stipend is that they are supported so as to free them up from having to earn a living, and so enable them to serve God in his church in stead.
Besides, 'worship' these days is used in most Bible translations indiscriminately to translate two quite different words in Hebrew and Greek. The Authorised Version was careful to distinguish between them. In each language, one word means what we do when we fall before the Lord our maker. The other means the service priests and levites render at the altar. The one is something we all need to do in our hearts. That other is a service rendered so as to enable the people to worship in the first sense.
The role of the clergy, and the choir, is more to serve in the second sense, but it does seem to work better if they are able to worship in the first sense at the same time.
Hiring somebody to serve in the second sense, who has no intention or wish to worship in the first sense, is more than a bit of a travesty.
A vicar is not so called because they are hired to pray on our behalf, and thereby to let us off having to do so ourselves.
[ 31. January 2013, 19:57: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I'm looking at the end result, Enoch. I've been spiritually moved by a professional choir. I don't see what's a travesty about it, since I can't conceive of any theological reason that a non-Christian singing Christian songs cannot be conducive to Christian prayer.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
In our case, paid members is not an option - the church simply doesn't have the funds, even if we wanted to (whcih I don't think we do). People come and sing because they want to, within the context of faith, the church and the liturgy. Otherwise, they join a chamber choir or choral society if they don't want the 'God' bit. It would be my preference to save the payment tangent for another thread if people wish to discuss it further.
We are very fortunate in having one or two good singers per part - these are church members like everyone else. It just happens that they are really good singers. Others can learn from them if they choose to listen carefully. Most do.
Something which has always pleased me is that the choir has always had a junior section - usually quite small, but it is very satisfying to see the youngsters learn and improve as they sing. They can go out to the vestry group for some of the service if it is more suitable to their age-group and understanding if they wish, although they are welcome to stay in the main service if they prefer. I would be interested to hear from others who have found ways of incorporating children into the choir with participation in all or part of the liturgy.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
My last parish paired young singers with adult singers that could both help them develop their musical skills and act as spiritual mentors. It saw a lot of success, in terms of kids becoming interested in and continuing to participate in the liturgy.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
In terms of Church Musicians and faith:
Ralph Vaughn Williams is well known to be an agnostic/atheist and yet he compiled and published "The English Hymnal" which was quite popular in the CofE.
Of the great composers, I can only think of Bach and Handel who were personally very pious. My hunch was that Mozart was in it for the money, (but I must confess my dislike of the most overrated composer in history, I mean, the "great" Wolfgang).
Presumably Tallis was devout but he was quite prepared to shift theologies between Henry VIII, Mary, and Elizabeth in order to avoid getting his head chopped off.
[ 31. January 2013, 21:17: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Paid choirs have a very long history. In the middle ages, through the Reformation, and to the present day English cathedrals, chapels, and even a prosperous parish here and there have maintained choirs where boys received room, board, and education in exchange for the services, assisted by paid men to sing the low parts and play the organ.
Posted by Landlubber (# 11055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
... That's a good point about a church with 200+ people having more than one singing group. I think the church would be open to that. It would create interesting possibilities, matching the type of group to the different types of services. Are there people on here with experience of organising such groups?
I have not been involved in organising multiple singing groups, but was a member of a Church choir which started a second group, billed as a group for more experienced singers, to sing more difficult music. From that experience, I would warn that the early days could be difficult. The process of change could be upsetting for current choir members.
I would suggest careful discussions about what a second group can offer and how this can benefit the life of the Church. It could be hard to do this without devaluing what the current choir achieves. If different groups sing at different types of services, that might be a workable solution. Be clear, perhaps, about how the second group is selected. (Audition might be fairer than invitation, for example.) Would you have enough singers keen to make up a second group to achieve a good result? We found that one of our best musicians did not believe in splitting the choir, so the new group had to import a substitute whenever it sang alone. Many of our choir practices were split into two groups as well, which meant that the less experienced/less musical members of the general choir lost the opportunity to learn from those with more experience/skills. Are there ways to avoid this without burdening some choir members with extra rehearsals? Good luck with finding a way forward.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
The issue of paying non-Christians to provide music for Christian worship (whilst a tangent) does rather seem to be dominating this thread. I think the more pertinent question for each church is whether it is a good use of their resources - for some it will be, for some it won't.
We have an acolyte at our church who is an atheist. Is that also "more than a bit of a travesty"? I don't think it is. He's a good bloke and obviously doesn't think that we at church are so barmy that he needs to give us a wide birth.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is a paid choir of non-Christians worship? Is there no limit to movement in this direction?
Can I pose an example, from my parish, that moves in the other direction, temporarily factoring out the stipend?
Is it worship if the choir is comprised of all communicants, but salted with one Jew and one Hindu?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Communicating non-Christians?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
The issue of paying non-Christians to provide music for Christian worship (whilst a tangent) does rather seem to be dominating this thread. I think the more pertinent question for each church is whether it is a good use of their resources - for some it will be, for some it won't.
For churches that can afford it, I suppose the question of whether it's a good use of such resources rests on whether or not it's conducive to prayer.
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
Zach posted:
" assisted by paid men to sing the low parts and play the organ."
Reminder: some paid organist/choirmasters (Mistresses?) are of the feminine gender.
I've had singers in my choirs whose only interest in the church was the music they sang. Some had fallen away from church life for some reason. I suppose you would call them border-line Christians. I make sure that in-coming choir people understand that part of the choir process is a sincere and on-going effort to improve their musical skills. Seems to work well.
I've only had to boot a volunteer "singer" once; had to convince her that people had different gifts, and choir singing was not one of her gifts. She also brought her stinky big German Shepherd to rehearsals, and he growled at anyone who moved. Including me. She said if Duke couldnt come to rehearsals, then she was out too. Everyone was relieved.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Zach posted:
" assisted by paid men to sing the low parts and play the organ."
Reminder: some paid organist/choirmasters (Mistresses?) are of the feminine gender.
Heh, of course there are in this modern age of ours.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Communicating non-Christians?
I'm sorry, mousethief, I wasn't nearly clear enough; I meant the "but" to be exceptive. The idea of unbaptized communicating at our place is absurd to me, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere.
Let me try again.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is a paid choir of non-Christians worship? Is there no limit to movement in this direction?
Can I pose an example, from my parish, that moves in the other direction, temporarily factoring out the stipend?
Is it worship if the choir is comprised of all communicants, except for one Jew and one Hindu (who, of course, do not communicate)?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Is it worship if the choir is comprised of all communicants, except for one Jew and one Hindu (who, of course, do not communicate)?
Why are they there? Being there for love of music or something is rather different, to me, to being there because you're paid to pretend you're worshiping.
[ 01. February 2013, 02:16: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I sometimes sing professionally, how do I find one of those churches that pays choir members? :-) And why the assumption paid singers aren't Christians?
But back to the original issue, I've always strongly believed church is a community, everyone is welcome to be active part in whatever ways they want (just sign up for the rota to keep things organized) -- but, recently, well, funny how life challenges our firm beliefs.
Specifically, a retired orchestra director moved to town and joined the church. Can he read music? Yes! Can he sing? He probably could at one time, but his voice is gone, vocal cords scarred from smoking, he said. He LOVES to sing. Loudly and confidently.
When the choir sings you hear his loud grating vocaling wavering all around the pitch, not at all blending in with the others. Painfully unpleasant to listen to the choir when he's there (he's out of town regularly visiting grandkids).
And while he "sings" his face lights up. He truly loves to sing.
Choir of ten on a good day (four or five on a bad day), mostly women. Some days he's the only male singer who shows up. Way too small a church to start a second group.
Do you tell someone "you are an outstanding musician, you read music well, the choir is desperately in need of male singers, but you must leave"? Or do you consider his joy in singing to be pleasing to God even if the sound of his singing voice is almost fingernails on blackboard? I think being told to leave the choir would shatter him.
I suppose that's the answer but gosh he's hard to listen to, dominates the choir's sound with all the tonal attraction of a cement truck.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Honestly, mousethief. If you want to be pissy, you've got the handy Zach82 as your foil.
I'm trying explore this with you; I'm genuinely interested in what you think.
Is it worship?
Posted by Cryptic (# 16917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Amateur choirs simply do not have the technical skill necessary to perform a lot of works, and a lot of simpler works sound much better when sung by skilled choristers.
True, but one of the great skills of any musical performance is to do something that is within your ability level, and do it well. Much better to set your sights a little lower and excel than to bite off more than you can chew. Nothing wrong with amateur musicians (in or out of a church) being ambitious, but it can really blow up in your face. (I've also seen professionals come unstuck with repertoire that is too demanding. Not pretty.) The key thing in church music is to add to the worship. Bad musicianship, poor performances etc are not just bad for their own sake, but are distractiong to the congregation and will take their mind off their worship. Selection of appropriate music is one of the greatest skills that a good musical director can have.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
True, but one of the great skills of any musical performance is to do something that is within your ability level, and do it well. Much better to set your sights a little lower and excel than to bite off more than you can chew. Nothing wrong with amateur musicians (in or out of a church) being ambitious, but it can really blow up in your face. (I've also seen professionals come unstuck with repertoire that is too demanding. Not pretty.) The key thing in church music is to add to the worship. Bad musicianship, poor performances etc are not just bad for their own sake, but are distractiong to the congregation and will take their mind off their worship. Selection of appropriate music is one of the greatest skills that a good musical director can have.
Far be in from me to say there is anything wrong with an amateur choir singing what they can. The important thing is the community at prayer, and that alone can be plenty beautiful. Needing a professional choir to pray is a problem, but that doesn't mean we must never have one.
My position here is that technical expertise, even if it's paid artistic expertise, can add to the experience of worship. All I know to that end is that the paid choir at my church has driven me to deep prayer on more than one occasion. I especially remember their singing for Good Friday, when they sang the Solemn Reproaches, "I bore you up with manna in the desert, but you struck me down and scourged me./ I gave you saving water from the rock, but you gave me gall and vinegar to drink," as the reredos was slammed shut, and it made me tremble with repentance. I remember feeling dizzy on Easter morning when the organ was booming down on me and the choir was singing at the top of their voices. It was just like I imagined Jesus coming on the Last Day.
The fact that I know one of the singers was an atheist and another is a Jew didn't make a difference, and it doesn't now since no one as made the case that Christian spirituality can only delight in the singing of unpaid, Christian singers.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Honestly, mousethief. If you want to be pissy, you've got the handy Zach82 as your foil.
I'm trying explore this with you; I'm genuinely interested in what you think.
Is it worship?
I'm not trying to be pissy. I answered your question by giving my opinion. What do you want from me?
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
If you want to be pissy, you've got the handy Zach82 as your foil.
This is treading rather close to the line on personal attacks in my view. I suggest you consider your future posts more carefully.
seasick, Eccles host
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
I've only had to boot a volunteer "singer" once; had to convince her that people had different gifts, and choir singing was not one of her gifts. She also brought her stinky big German Shepherd to rehearsals, and he growled at anyone who moved. Including me. She said if Duke couldnt come to rehearsals, then she was out too. Everyone was relieved.
Did she then move to Creamtealand? Only last week, we apparently had a request from a potential member, who wanted to bring her dog with her to rehearsals (and services??). The choir master replied that she was welcome to attend, and wouldn't need an audition, but that he would have to audition the dog!
Now I suppose we will end up with another tangent, on whether dogs should be allowed in church....
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
If it was a Strict Baptist chapel, there might be a question about whether they could meaningfully make a confession of faith and be baptised by immersion. If not, they might be asked to leave before the Communion service.
But the question probably doesn't arise, as I don't know of any Strict Baptist chapels which have choirs!
(PS I think many dogs would be quite happy to be baptised by immersion - but you wouldn't want to stand near them when they come out of the water!)
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
The attitudes to whether people without faith should sing in church is an interesting one. There are many ways that people come to faith - evangelical churches are quite happy to invite people to an Alpha talk and supper, for example (and in hard-up studentland I'm sure as many come for the food as for the Word); music is one of the ways in which churches draw people in. I know people, for example, who started off singing in a church choir as a child, from non-churchgoing backgrounds, who have ended up as priests, some quite senior in the church. Mr. C enjoys showing a photo of his church choir and saying 'This one ended up in jail, this one ended up a bishop'. You never can tell what might be wrought from singing in a choir!
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Now I suppose we will end up with another tangent, on whether dogs should be allowed in church....
But it's a nice tangent. My pup, when too little to be left alone in the house when I had to go do things in Church, would come in and sit/sleep in the choir vestry/kitchen whilst I pottered about. It eventually reached a point where she learnt she was allowed to sit at the open doorway to the Church, quietly on the vestry side but not on the Church side.
[/tangent]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Mousethief: quote:
Being there for love of music or something is rather different, to me, to being there because you're paid to pretend you're worshiping.
Our choir is not paid for regular services, but is paid for singing at weddings. Members of the choir may decide not to claim their fee for singing at a wedding or donate it to church funds, if they don't want it.
On the occasions when I sing at a wedding I do take the money. If I'm giving up two hours of my Saturday to sing at the wedding of two people I've never seen before in my life I don't see why I shouldn't get paid for it. The choir's fee is usually far less than what the happy couple spent on The Dress, and if we didn't get paid the choirmaster would have a lot more trouble assembling a choir - the music is not usually that interesting.
I wouldn't expect to be paid for singing at someone's funeral but when the choir is asked to sing at a funeral it would be for a member of the church - ie somebody I knew.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Ralph Vaughn Williams is well known to be an agnostic/atheist and yet he compiled and published "The English Hymnal" which was quite popular in the CofE.
And "Songs of Praise" which is kind of weird but much more imporantly than either of them "The Oxford Book of Carols" which is one of the bestest books ever. Ever.
quote:
Of the great composers, I can only think of Bach and Handel who were personally very pious.
JS Bach certainly. Handel, I vaguely remember, got more publically Christian as he got older. An old friend of mine had a theory that Handel w2as converted round about the time he wrote Messiah.
Haydn hardly neglected his prayers. Bruckner was a very serious Roman Catholic. And Messiaen maybe nowadays?
quote:
My hunch was that Mozart was in it for the money, (but I must confess my dislike of the most overrated composer in history, I mean, the "great" Wolfgang).
I'm no expert, but I have a vague feeling that Mozart was the sort of person who manages to combine sincere religious belief and rather devout worhsip practices with a life of rather dandyish mild debauchery. Sort of go to Mass in the morning and get lost in rapt contemplatuion of the Body and Blood, then play billiards all afternoon, then get pissed in the evening, go to a dance, and then stay up all night composing.
And I almost agree with you that he is "the most overrated composer in history". He's a good composer. A great one even. But nowhere near the top of the league. I think his acolytes do him a disservice by proclaiming him the Greatest Genius of Alll Time because he so obviously isn't, and the hype makes him seem a bit of a disappointment.
But he cannot be the most overrated composer in history. Not in a world whose history includes both BBC Radio Three and Franz Schubert. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:
Presumably Tallis was devout but he was quite prepared to shift theologies between Henry VIII, Mary, and Elizabeth in order to avoid getting his head chopped off.
That might be unfair. I think Tallis remained quite openly Roman Catholic through Elizabeth's reign. And his mate Byrd was almost aggressively so, and nearly got into trouble for it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
... On the occasions when I sing at a wedding I do take the money. <snip>
I was referring specifically to non-members, and in particular non-Christian non-members. What you say is something different from what I was objecting to. It seems far, far less problematic. It wouldn't fly in our church, but then we only do weddings for church members, and the choir's participation is seen as a wedding gift. But I wouldn't normalize that across traditions.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
... On the occasions when I sing at a wedding I do take the money. <snip>
I was referring specifically to non-members, and in particular non-Christian non-members. What you say is something different from what I was objecting to. It seems far, far less problematic. It wouldn't fly in our church, but then we only do weddings for church members, and the choir's participation is seen as a wedding gift. But I wouldn't normalize that across traditions.
In an Orthodox setting with an Eastern liturgy (forgive my shorthand), it makes sense to have a choir present to assist with the requisite liturgics, especially if the majority of attendees are not Orthodox.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
So a socratic style isn't working well. Let me just lay it out.
The divine service is evangelical. We want people to be converted. We believe that the divine service is, in fact, effective—it can do something, moving hearts and minds.
So, in a context where the Real Presence is guarded and the vast majority of the choir are communicants, it actually makes a lot of evangelical sense to have the choir salted with the odd Jew, Hindu, or even atheist.
Why wouldn't we want the chance to immerse their hearts and minds in the effective evangelical brine of the sacred tradition, the sacred texts, and sacred music?
Perhaps the opinion is different for a tradition that remembers sweeping the church clean of catechumens before the things really get ginned up. But, note that in past years at the Orthodox cathedral down the street there were Jesuit ringers in the choir for the Vigil for the Resurrection. I believe they initially just stood singing in the nave, inching closer and closer to where the choir was standing in the nave, until the choir director played mother hen and gathered them in.
But, for a tradition that has typically left the doors (The Doors!) open to all and sundry, for a tradition where institutions of education and of religion were almost co-terminous, it makes eminent sense to tolerate—nay—encourage the musical offerings of the Jew, the Hindu, and the atheist.
The Hindu in my example was a boy chorister whose mother wanted for him a first-rate musical education. She was willing to have him sing in a Christian church, he was delighted to be among other musical boys, and we were grateful for their offering, pagan as it may have been.
The Jew in my example not infrequently sings the part of the Synagoga ("Am I a Jew?") during the Passion Narrative. That ironic juxtaposition forces you to think.
So much for the music.
What about the metal workers, the artisans of glass, the architects, the carpenters, the masons, the stone carvers, the wood carvers, the harvesters of frankincense gum, the farmers, the millers, the bakers, the vintners, the carpet weavers, the industrial producers of fabrics and trimmings, the makers of lace and brocade, the tailors, printers, the scholars and historians, and all the others whose trade make possible the divine service, in the sanctuary?
Is it acceptable they may not all be communicants in good standing? Is the Pantocrator able to bear that some accoutrements to the divine service might have been fabricated by a Jew, a Hindu, or an atheist?
The answers must be yes and yes.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
I've only had to boot a volunteer "singer" once; had to convince her that people had different gifts, and choir singing was not one of her gifts. She also brought her stinky big German Shepherd to rehearsals, and he growled at anyone who moved. Including me. She said if Duke couldnt come to rehearsals, then she was out too. Everyone was relieved.
Did she then move to Creamtealand? Only last week, we apparently had a request from a potential member, who wanted to bring her dog with her to rehearsals (and services??). The choir master replied that she was welcome to attend, and wouldn't need an audition, but that he would have to audition the dog!
Now I suppose we will end up with another tangent, on whether dogs should be allowed in church....
If they allow babies, they should allow dogs - far less noisy and considerably more cute ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Also, may I sneak in my one claim to fame as this is a group of people who will actually understand why it's special? I am descended from Tallis via my bio dad (whose surname is actually Tallis - I have my mother's maiden name for a surname).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Is it acceptable they may not all be communicants in good standing? Is the Pantocrator able to bear that some accoutrements to the divine service might have been fabricated by a Jew, a Hindu, or an atheist?
The answers must be yes and yes.
This seems a wholly different question and unrelated except very very tangentially to paying people to sing in your choir.
Posted by ElaineC (# 12244) on
:
When we lived in Hastings, Mr. C was organist and choirmaster and both our girls also sang in the choir. Most of the other members also sang in other amateur choirs. They could read music and we had enough people to sing all four parts. They also had choir practice one evening a week.
I would look forward to hearing them sing anthems during communion and at other services.
Where we are now, Mr C sings in the choir, occasionally standing in for the organist. The rest of the choir are mature ladies and I don't think they can all read music. Choir practice is a quick run through of next weeks hymns after the service on Sunday.
During communion they sing a couple of hymns.
I really miss listening to an uplifting anthem sung by good choir.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
It's horse for courses.
See, you're the first person to say this, or to even suggest that the perfectionism required of the Anglo-Catholic choir maybe isn't necessary at every church of every tradition everywhere in the world. Everybody else before has all but suggested that if you aren't Pavarotti you might as well stay home.
and thus far you have said that tone-deaf piety should trump all other considerations everywhere.
Or at least, the two are equally accurate summaries of the argument.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineC:
I really miss listening to an uplifting anthem sung by good choir.
It is possible to play CDs of your favourite anthems and listen to those, but you really really really cannot beat live music, even if the delivery isn't as perfect as the top Cathedral choirs.
I have been to house groups / Lent groups where a CD of anthems has been played for us to listen to and meditate on. But not during the main services. In the summer, when the choir are on holiday, there are no anthems sung (the organist will play an extra voluntary instead).
Posted by TE Brown (# 11920) on
:
Wow. Allow me to wade into the fray with some disparate thoughts coming from reading the whole thread with its initial OP and various tangents:
1. Chorister, one suggestion I have is that you should take up some of your concerns privately with your choirmaster. It is this person who has to deal directly with the, um, shall we say, enthusiastic but less skilled new members and try to produce music from them without alienating long-term members of the choir. I am sympathetic with the all-comers approach of your choirmaster, which I actually use myself in my choir, but also with your frustration at what could happen if these new people with their tin ears could do to undo the hard work you all have done to build a good team. It is your choirmaster's responsibility to hear you and let you know how he/she might address your fears. I hope you have a good enough relationship that you could talk together about this - my choir members certainly know they can tell me anything (and have!).
The suggestions from others to split the choir are good, but I would modify it, given that your choirmaster may not have the time to add a group, and choir and church politics might argue against it. Perhaps s/he could give small groups from the main choir opportunities to sing material that is challenging but doable during the Eucharist - perhaps a choral prelude done with a small group, or extra communion anthem (depending on your liturgy). The other thought that comes to mind, is to make your Evensong choir a bit more selective, and continue to allow all comers to the main Eucharist choir and deal with what comes of it with as much grace as possible.
I do hope that your choirmaster works with less skilled singers to help them improve their voices and learn their parts. My choir and congregation know I'll bend over backward to help people, but once I did have to ask a singer to leave because he just wasn't getting it, and clearly wasn't going to try.
2. On the professional choir members debate tangent: Different parishes interpret the theologies of worship differently. Parishes with all-professional choirs may truly feel that the worship they offer to God MUST be of the highest quality ("my utmost for his highest" devotion) - therefore they must hire the best singers to perform the best music in liturgy. Whether you agree with this or not, it is part of some parishes' ethos. Some parishes would love to do this with volunteers, but just do not have them, so they must perforce hire some singers. It is a spiritual view that might not sit well with some people. YMMV.
Section leaders, staff singers - whatever you call them - are a different issue. My parish generously supports three section leaders for several reasons: they are first a ministry TO the choir itself. By having more skilled singers, the choir volunteers not only have the chance to take on more musical challenges, they also have someone to lean on and learn from. They also have someone guaranteed to be there, so feel less guilty when they cannot be there due to Real Life issues. The entire team is supported, and thrives as a result. Second, because the choir is thriving, it is in a position to support the parishioners in their worship. So even in a time of recent parish turbulence and low finances, no one even discussed axing the section leaders - the choir was the only stable group in the church at the time!
3. On the issue of non-Christians in the choir - this post is too long already, but I left a job over that issue. Too long a story for an already too-long post. The choir has long been an evangelistic tool for the church, and I am happy that it remains so, on all levels. I don't believe that I should judge how God is working in people's souls, so if someone wants to join the choir but is not Christian, I say "welcome!"
TEB
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Hey, it's the Bible talking about payment for divine service...
quote:
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
This is my defence to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who at any time pays the expenses for doing military service? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not get any of its milk?
Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law also say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.’ Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever ploughs should plough in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop. If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?
Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is sacrificed on the altar? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. 1 Cor 9:1-14
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Here's mousethief commenting on the rump:
This seems a wholly different question and unrelated except very very tangentially to paying people to sing in your choir.
Way to pivot again and ignore the substance of my post.
I'm with Zach82, mousethief, it's over.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
All good, thoughtful advice, T E Brown, thank you.
Yes, the choir master knows my feelings on the issue, but I'm not going to pressure him (yet!). I wanted to get my head around the wider issues as a whole by talking to others in similar and different situations, which is why I asked the question on the Ship. Where else can you talk to people who have experience in such matters from all parts of the globe?
We have five extremely good singers in the choir who are perfectly capable of singing SSATB on their own to a very high standard. They are volunteers, but also have family / work commitments which make it difficult to attend every week. We are very lucky to have them, though - many choirs do not have this resource. The choir master uses their expertise in a number of ways - for example letting them sing solos as required; also in multi-verse anthems they may be asked to sing as a quartet.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
And why the assumption paid singers aren't Christians?
I've met quite a few who are open about the fact they have no belief whatsoever and that they are only there because they're getting paid for it.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
And why the assumption paid singers aren't Christians?
I've met quite a few who are open about the fact they have no belief whatsoever and that they are only there because they're getting paid for it.
Fortunately the efficacy of the grace imparted by the singing of the Gospel rests not in the singer, but in the Gospel.
Posted by TE Brown (# 11920) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
All good, thoughtful advice, T E Brown, thank you.
Yes, the choir master knows my feelings on the issue, but I'm not going to pressure him (yet!). I wanted to get my head around the wider issues as a whole by talking to others in similar and different situations, which is why I asked the question on the Ship. Where else can you talk to people who have experience in such matters from all parts of the globe?
You're welcome!
So it sounds like you're working on things from your end just fine, which is great. Hopefully it will bear good fruit, and the choir will continue to be a source of joy for you and others.
From Chorister's OP:
quote:
Does one accept that they are doing their best in the worship of God? Or bring in compulsory auditions for choir members, whilst being inclusive in accepting everyone into the wider ministry of the church?
I think there is a middle ground between these two questions:
It comes down to this for me – does working with volunteers and taking all who show up for choir practice, mean that you should NOT expect certain standards from them? I maintain that you should, for the good of the choir, and ultimately for the good of the parish.
In the matter I mentioned above, where I had to ask a singer to leave, my big mistake was in not doing it sooner. By trying so hard to get this singer to sing on pitch and actually pay attention, I nearly destroyed the rest of the choir. My ministry to one person was severely disrupting my ministry to everyone else, which would have had a big impact on the parish.
So while I still take all comers, I do ask that they do the work to keep the choir’s standards, whether that means private time with me, learning their part by rote via CD/online help (yes, I’ll sing it into a recorder for them – I really will bend over backward to help), or any other means necessary. When they are really trying, and listening, then I accept that they are doing their best, and rejoice, no matter what is coming out. But I have high expectations for what may be their best
TEB
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The irony, TSA. Did I call you "pissy"?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[Fortunately the efficacy of the grace imparted by the singing of the Gospel rests not in the singer, but in the Gospel.
We are about to reintroduce a sung gospel! If i was in charge, we'd do the OT and epistle too.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
That'd be a surefire way of ensuring your readers' rota was much simpler to organise!
Thurible
Posted by TE Brown (# 11920) on
:
Chorister, one more thought occurred to me regarding your own choir's dilemma (and not necessarily part of the bigger discussion you envisioned, which seems to have stalled...) - perhaps some of your more experienced, long-term members could consider shepherding new people? It's often very effective when choir members pass on their own culture and expectations to new people, without needing the choir master to take it all on. I'm sure the welcoming most choirs do with new people could be expanded to include sectionals, vocal help, note-banging and other musical support from those who have those skills.
TEB
(edited for typsos - I mean typios. Oops. Typos)
[ 03. February 2013, 19:44: Message edited by: TE Brown ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[Fortunately the efficacy of the grace imparted by the singing of the Gospel rests not in the singer, but in the Gospel.
We are about to reintroduce a sung gospel! If i was in charge, we'd do the OT and epistle too.
Heh, I was using "Gospel" in the more general sense, in that the whole liturgy ought to be a proclamation of the Gospel that calls the congregation to faith and prayer. The choir does that in its own particular way, one that is especially important in the Anglican tradition.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
That'd be a surefire way of ensuring your readers' rota was much simpler to organise!
Thurible
Yes - a cause worth a novena.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TE Brown:
one more thought occurred to me regarding your own choir's dilemma... - perhaps some of your more experienced, long-term members could consider shepherding new people? It's often very effective when choir members pass on their own culture and expectations to new people, without needing the choir master to take it all on.
That does happen to some extent already (the choir master is a very busy man, working away during the week, so only available at weekends) - particularly with younger trebles who are eased into the choir gently, but also with more senior members standing next to those singing the same voice part and receiving guidance.
Several of the choir members who wish to improve have singing lessons from a private tutor in addition to choir practice. The difficulty is always with those who don't realise they could benefit from improving!
This week, we have had the very encouraging news that another young treble has joined us, meaning three generations of the same family all singing together in the choir! I think we have some life left in us yet....
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
Chorister:
I think that the ethos adopted by the current choirmaster at your church, that the choir should be open to all who wish to participate irrespective of musical ability, is naive, short-sighted, and is creating a disaster well on the way to happening. As an immediate response, you say that yours is an ‘inclusive church’ but is this ethos applied to other areas of church life and worship? Anyone who wishes to preach may do so even though they have no theological knowledge and cannot string a coherent sentence together? Anyone who wishes to be treasurer may do so even though they cannot add up? Anyone who wishes to arrange the flowers may do so even though they have no aptitude for it? No? Well, why should this apply to the choir, then? If it is acceptable to insist that preachers can speak coherently, treasurers can add up, flower arrangers can arrange artistically, then it’s entirely valid to insist that choir members can sing in tune and in time!)
I should disclose that I am a musician and choral singer myself, and I encountered the ‘inclusive’ ethos with regard to church music-making a long time ago. (“Enthusiasm is what counts, not ability – the bible tells us to make a joyful noise unto the Lord!”*) As a consequence, I sing in a choir (not linked to a church) which has a high standard of musicianship, but because I have a low musical-pain threshold I do not get involved with music in a local church. (And no, I’m not exaggerating when I allude to the painfulness of being in a choir which includes people who cannot sing.) So the outcome you fear: “The danger, once the choir reaches this stage, is that good singers might no longer want to join what they will see as a poor choir,...” has already been and gone for me.
As with all these situations, the easiest solution is never to get into it in the first place. But now you’re in it, some sort of difficult and awkward way out must be found to avoid irreparably damaging the musical contribution to the church, which may well happen if nothing is done. If nothing is done, you could find that current choir members quietly fade out of participation, and you can be sure that you’ll never hear the genuine reason – saying ‘I just can’t stand being in a choir which includes people who can’t sing’ sounds far too critical and elitist for anyone to admit that is how they really feel.
All that I can think of is to implement a policy that, even if you don’t audition prospective choir members (which if done could be a fairly lenient audition allowing for potential for improvement), any new member is accepted for a trial period, after which a decision is made about whether they are in or out. Then, as this is a new policy and for fairness has to be applied retrospectively, every member of the choir is regarded as ‘on trial’. After whatever period of time, the non-singers can be weeded out, and all that are left are what you had before: “a mixture of very talented singers, some (including me) fairly average but willing to work hard to reach a good standard, and others who don't really have much of a clue when they start but manage to learn on the job.” Good luck with persuading your choirmaster to do this. Otherwise your choir is in trouble if the non-singers start to predominate and deter participation by the musically talented, and in worse trouble if your choirmaster fails to acknowledge what is happening.
Angus
*In one church that I went to, I seriously considered putting myself on the flower arranging rota to show what would happen to the flower arrangements if the same lack of ability was acceptable in that department as was acceptable in the musical sphere. Thankfully for all concerned, I resisted the temptation.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Chorister posted
quote:
It is possible to play CDs of your favourite anthems and listen to those
In which case I do hope you remember to fill in your PRS return accurately. I have heard clergy telling wedding couples (and others) that "anything on a CD played as part of a service is allowed, no copyright applies" - this is simply not true.
As for your dilemma:
1.Auditions for all, then invite to join choir only those who are competent.
2.Hold regular "singing days" throughout the year - in reality a 2/3 hour sesion - to learn new repertoire and invite would-be choir to attend to see how they get on.
3.Have no choir during August - then you can issue an invitation for all would-be choir to fill the gap.
Above all, any organist/musical director should have a plan for the music in their church and this should include improving the standard, widening the repertoire, and outreach to attract new members.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
That'd be a surefire way of ensuring your readers' rota was much simpler to organise!
Thurible
Yes - a cause worth a novena.
And if we could insist that the notices also be intoned, that would be deep joy (we have open mike notices that last for ever)
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Chorister posted
quote:
It is possible to play CDs of your favourite anthems and listen to those
In which case I do hope you remember to fill in your PRS return accurately. I have heard clergy telling wedding couples (and others) that "anything on a CD played as part of a service is allowed, no copyright applies" - this is simply not true.
I thought any use of music in church services was exempt from PRS (and PPL, for that matter, which makes payments to the people involved in producing the recording; PRS is for writers and publishers). Is this not the case, L'organist?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
No, Kevin: if I make a recording then I own the copyright unless I either decide to sell it to someone else, or I've been paid an inclusive fee by the company publishing the CD which effectively buys-out my right to receive royalties.
Copyright covers original performance, recordings, written word, written music, images, etc. So, if your church produces booklets without a licence or decides to play favourite CDs on a regular basis then you need to make sure that the content of the booklets/producers of the CDs are signed up to the licence scheme which you no doubt have in place for your church.
If in doubt, then take advice: the PRS has been cracking down on various day-to-day activities so that musicians, in particular, are not denied their livelihood by people breaching copyright.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Hmm, I've checked (because my work means I really ought to know this!) and here's the PPL situation:
quote:
Please note that the PPL licence is not legally required for divine worship, church home groups or wedding/funerals/christenings. A PPL licence is needed if recorded music is played at events held on the premises, such as coffee mornings, fetes, exercise classes, variety shows, pantomimes, etc.
Obviously, this doesn't cover the UK churches copyright scheme (CCLS, is that what it's called?). But it seems you are free to use recordings of music licensed by PPL in your actual church services. Choir practices would not be exempt, I suppose.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
1.Auditions for all, then invite to join choir only those who are competent.
2.Hold regular "singing days" throughout the year - in reality a 2/3 hour sesion - to learn new repertoire and invite would-be choir to attend to see how they get on.
3.Have no choir during August - then you can issue an invitation for all would-be choir to fill the gap.
Above all, any organist/musical director should have a plan for the music in their church and this should include improving the standard, widening the repertoire, and outreach to attract new members.
The idea of having a voluntary choir during August is an interesting one - it used to happen when we went on holiday during August, but lapsed
several years ago. Now there is no choir at all during August, so the congregation are usually very glad to see us back in September.
Our usual choir practices are taken at a very fast pace - some people decide it's not for them because they can't keep up. Others find it exhilarating.
While I find A. Pilgrim's post contains a lot of good advice, the idea of letting people join on a trial basis and then eventually telling them they don't make the grade could be seen as being rather cruel - the choir is a community and by then people have started to make friendships based around the choir. Much better to let people know before they really join, if it is going to happen at all.
However, we are in a very strange state if all the best singers don't want to join church choirs and the church choirs are populated chiefly by those who can't sing very well.... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
... the idea of letting people join on a trial basis and then eventually telling them they don't make the grade could be seen as being rather cruel - the choir is a community and by then people have started to make friendships based around the choir. Much better to let people know before they really join, if it is going to happen at all.
Yes, I entirely accept this point, and it supports having an audition. Though then again there’s the saying that sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. Perhaps the trial period needs to be short enough to avoid too much friendship development. (Or it could be an opportunity for someone to meet people they haven’t had the chance to meet before, get to know them, and continue the friendship even if rejected from continuing choir membership.)
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
However, we are in a very strange state if all the best singers don't want to join church choirs and the church choirs are populated chiefly by those who can't sing very well....
Yes, it’s the state you end up in by applying the ethos of total inclusiveness, whereby someone is welcome in a group activity irrespective of their ability perform that activity, and a pathological aversion to the ‘cruelty’ of confronting someone with the reality that they aren’t actually very good at doing something. These two can indeed be encountered in the Christian church.
(Running the risk of labouring the point, imagine a football team where a few team members are completely inept. They fumble the ball and allow the opposite team to take it off them. Won’t the other team members get really hacked off if their hope is to enjoy playing skilled football together and perhaps win the game, and they will then decide to leave if the coach does nothing about the situation? Or maybe most of the others will resign themselves to the situation, and not wish to cause any offence – this is an illustration applied to a church environment, after all – while one or two really keen team members find it intolerable, and will leave. Then other keen members won’t want to join to start with.)
As I mentioned before, I have unfortunately encountered just this attitude in a church that I used to attend. I was unhappy about a couple of musical failings. (Not bothering to sing the notes that the composer had actually written. If you’re going to have a worship group with someone bashing a drum kit, maybe he could do something other than hit the bass drum in time to the rhythm of the tune. Let alone the theological argument that offerings of worship should at least try to comply with the Old Covenant principle of being ‘spotless’.) My misgivings were rejected as displaying the eighth deadly sin of ‘being critical’, and I ceased involvement in musical activities there and left the church completely a while later. Sorry if I’ve ended up making this rather personal (and I hope I haven’t strayed into the closely related DH), but the subject hits a sensitive spot, and explains why a skilled musician such as myself does not wish to get involved in music in the local church – been there, done that, still got the emotional scars.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I understand your strong feelings, A. Pilgrim, and think it is a shame that your musical gifts are now lost to the church. Your post seems to lend weight to a suggestion further up-thread that a large general choir, allowing all-comers, could also have an audition-only smaller section to sing more complicated items at a higher level. This would allow all who want to have a go to join, but those who are able to sing the more difficult repertoire will still be challenged. It will also mean that the full range of choral music will be available in the church - so often when churches say they sing all types of music, they just mean simple hymns and worship songs, not four or more part anthems, psalms to Anglican chant, Oratorios, and other Sacred Music.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
The idea of letting people join on a trial basis and then eventually telling them they don't make the grade could be seen as being rather cruel.
Although I do know of a young lady who had to go through that process to join a well-known professional symphony orchestra. Her first year was on a "trial" basis and then the other members could decide whether to keep her or not. Mind you they'd all been through the same process; and I think it had much more to do with whether the person "fitted in" rather than their musical competency.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0