Session Musicians In Church Options

[Vox Humana]

In the "Disorganised Clergy" thread, Barry Williams made the point that hymns must be practised in advance. Here is what he wrote:

I deplore the idea that anyone, however, skilled, should sight -read hymns.

Hymns (and choruses) are a very important part of the service. They need careful preparation. Some hymn tunes, such as Ladywell, Wolvercote and Cuddesdon need rehearsal for any player who has not seen them before. Equally, some of the rhythms in choruses need practice if they are to have any conviction in performance.

Clergy and lay readers, of whatever denomination, who demand that hymns are read at sight should simply be told that ther congregation deserves (and will get) better.

These appalling accounts merely encourage organists not to offer themselves to play for services. After all, playing for a service is difficult enough, without the added stress of trying to sight-read when there is no need to do so.

Barry Williams

May I please comment on the issue of sight reading hymns?

I am not a beginner. I have several recital diplomas and can play the 'big' repertoire. (e.g. Reubke, Ad Nos, Bach Trio Sonatas, Dupre B major Prelude and Fugue, etc.)

I ALWAYS practise the hymns, excepting only those very well known ones, such as the tune 'St Peter'. Even then I look at the words carefully, to ensure that the phrasing matches the playing.

Others may be able to sight read them. I take the view that folk are entitled to the very best that I can give. That means excellent hymn playing. It does not come easily and always (for me) needs careful rehearsal.

I deplore those (whether clergy or laity) who expect a competent performance without allowing for a proper rehearsal. It is unacceptable in all circumstances.

Barry Williams

I applaud Barry for this and agree with him 100%. His final paragraph sums it up perfectly. I do not see how an organist can do a proper job unless he or she is properly prepared.

Yet, I am conscious that not all church musicians would agree (though here we are probably moving away from the parish church orbit which was the subject of the previous thread). There are those with a professional level of competence who positively dislike extensive rehearsal. In my experience they are almost always singers, although I daresay you might find the same attitude in a first-rate worship band. I remember once, years ago, putting on a choral concert where a countertenor (ex King's College, Cambridge) did not bother to come to the rehearsal at all, but merely showed up for the performance. I thought this was discourteous enough, partly because it inevitably compromised the work on balance and blend that the rest of us had been working on, but he did not even bother to apologise! Nevertheless I cannot deny that he performed completely flawlessly.

In cathedrals it is quite usual for the choir men to have only one short rehearsal for a service. A lot of the time they will be performing music they already know, but this is not always the case. There are practical reasons why cathedral men perform on such a tight rein. The current issue of "Cathedral Music" features a choir that has dispensed with its lay clerks and now survives on hand-picking the back rows for each service from a pool of part-time singers. This arrangement was a practical response to difficulties in finding suitable lay clerks, but the system is reported to be working well.

What troubles me rather is that, in some cases, this encourages a sort of "session musician" culture whereby minimal or no rehearsal is regarded as some sort of ideal. I know of one musician who genuinely seems to think that professional music making is a performance that "just happens". It may be inevitable in cathedrals and other places of competence, but is it really desirable? The thing is, given musicians of professional competence, it does seem to work perfectly satisfactorily.

However, if it is acceptable for singers and orchestral players (who of course have it easy; they have only one line of music to concentrate on) how appropriate is it to treat an organist as a session musician? Recently I accompanied a choir on a tour of foreign churches, singing concerts and Anglican Evensongs. Although an amateur choir, it is absolutely top quality - better than some cathedral choirs. I received the music a mere two weeks before the tour. Admittedly, it was stuff I already knew or could sight read, which was OK, though it did not give me time to "internalise" the new music properly. What bugged me most, though, is that I did not receive the psalms in advance at all. How one is expected to keep one eye on unfamiliar pointing, the other eye on unkown (and sometimes modern) chants and at the same time manipulate stops on a foreign organ console (which you have seen for no more than about 15 minutes beforehand) beats me. Maybe I'm just not competent enough, but I'd really like to meet any organist who could produce a really colourful psalm accompaniment under these circumstances.

So, the point of this post is to ask whether there is any place for the session musician in church and, if so, what it is.

[Swell Box]

What troubles me rather is that, in some cases, this encourages a sort of "session musician" culture whereby minimal or no rehearsal is regarded as some sort of ideal. I know of one musician who genuinely seems to think that professional music making is a performance that "just happens". It may be inevitable in cathedrals and other places of competence, but is it really desirable? The thing is, given musicians of professional competence, it does seem to work perfectly satisfactorily.

I think the word 'satisfactorily' sums it up perfectly.

It may be possible, with 'professional' musicians, to perform to a 'satisfactory' standard with minimal rehearsal; but the standard achieved, would (in my view) be much better if the music was properly rehearsed beforehand. This, I would suggest, is the case for all musicians, whether singing or playing an instrument.

When I was a boy soprano, (and a very much faster learner than I am now), we rehearsed together each day until we sang to the standard that our Choirmaster required. We were then joined by the adults and the Organist for a full rehearsal before every service. In most cases we would only need an hour or so to rehearse for a choral evensong, but sometimes it would take longer. I cannot believe that modern musicians are able to learn so much faster than we did forty years ago. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

I think what we are seeing here is the slightly cynical practice of providing something which is 'just good enough', without wasting time, money or effort to provide the best that we can. (Presumably God is not worth the effort any longer? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif) ) In my view this practice is all too common nowadays.

As a keen photographer, I would draw a parallel with the use of digital cameras in wedding photography:

There is no doubt, in my mind, that medium format film is still superior to digital imaging when capturing wedding photographs. However, the vast majority of wedding photographers now use digital cameras, (and often quite mediocre ones), because they are quicker, cheaper and easier to use than film, and the results are usually ‘good enough’ for all but the most discerning customers. However, if those customers were to see photographs taken on a MF film camera alongside those taken on a digital camera they would see a clear difference.

SB

[Vox Humana]

Thank you, Swell Box, you echo my thoughts exactly.

However, the vast majority of wedding photographers now use digital cameras, (and often quite mediocre ones), because they are quicker, cheaper and easier to use than film, and the results are usually ‘good enough’ for all but the most discerning customers.

Also, Photoshop can work wonders! (Sorry- off topic!)

[Swell Box]

Thank you, Swell Box, you echo my thoughts exactly.

However, the vast majority of wedding photographers now use digital cameras, (and often quite mediocre ones), because they are quicker, cheaper and easier to use than film, and the results are usually ‘good enough’ for all but the most discerning customers.

Also, Photoshop can work wonders! (Sorry- off topic!)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/offTopic.gif) Again slightly off topic, but I would include the use of bell chimes instead of six bell ringers ringing full circle for weddings.

Most people wouldn't know the difference, but I do. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif)

Oh, and on the other subject, I suspect most wedding togs use Elements. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

SB

[Dugazon]

.

[mel2]

Hauling this back on-topic, I would say that of course, it depends on the worship.
I doubt if there are sufficient session musicians willing to get up on a Sunday for the remuneration that a small parish could pay.

I think it unlikely that the majority of organists wing it; more often they will sight read maybe one hymn that has been hastily substituted at the last minute, and they will have probably played it many times before. I think for our own peace of mind, even the lowliest amateur (in standard) will at least have a run-through in the preceding days before unleashing our efforts on the public. In my case there is virtually no choir to rehearse so one only has oneself to prepare.

In the case of a church who will sing the psalm and canticles then clearly this does require work and I'm sure it will happen; if, like in my church, these have been discontinued or are sung to hymn tunes then they will get the best that I can manage and poor as it is, it will be better than the punters sing it!

A session musician seems like a rather cold professional parachuted in to answer a perceived need. I think we would have to be desperate to consider this - an organist from another parish drafted in to cover holidays or sickness is a different matter.

I think we are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater if we think so little of the efforts of those who give of their time and skills in the full knowledge of their limits, because they don't measure up to the best.

[pianodub]

Vox Humana I know precisely what you mean. I have worked in the Cathedral scene, often as one of these singers who arrives, rehearses for 40 minutes maximum and then performs quite tricky music in the service. The last of the Songs of Farewell on 15 minutes rehearsal (the piece is around 10 mins long), Faire is the Heaven on none...I don't recommend it!

I don't think this is the ideal way to work for most people. The biggest problem I have with it really is that is eliminates the idea of the choir as a "team", people start refusing to rehearse or do things that involve any rehearsals or purposely showing up to things very late because they think they are too good to rehearse. Because many of these people are very good at what they do no one pulls them up on it. The result is generally a performance that is note perfect but low on musical polish. In my opinion what is the point of having a good voice and all these skills if you never REALLY use them...there can be no real magic in unrehearsed music as there probably won't be the common "intent" if you see what I mean. One of the cathedral choirs here put on three Bach motets on one rehearsal...why would you do this? Sounds like a thoroughly unmusical and stressful experience to me ( and it was for the singers involved).

As for organists, I was extremely fortunate to spend some time working with an internationally famous organist in a church a couple of years ago. He always asked for the hymns by Thursday and practised them. A total pro, the hymns were always beautiful and he could extemporise for hours. I have also worked with some younger people who didn't feel they needed do this practise and the results ranged from boring to disastrous.

Sorry for long rant.

[music margaret]

Speaking from perhaps a slightly different viewpoint, I completely agree with the need to rehearse.

I have the opportunity to play in worship bands, and sometimes lead, for christian conferences of various sizes, from a few hundred to thousands of attendees. Generally, we will have spent little time in rehearsal prior to the event, we all have busy regular jobs (mainly as musicians) that don't allow a great deal of rehearsal time. But we will have met up to explore new material. Also, we have played together on numerous occasions before and understand each other and 'know' where the music is going - there is a great deal of improvisation and extemporisation involved, eg. if we are playing during prayer or offering etc. However, we normally then find the time to effectively rehearse during the conference. I have played at conferences where there has been little rehearsal, and we are a scratch team of musicians, who are all competent but have not played together very much, if at all, before. The result is 'satisfactory', indeed 'satisfactory' even for a major event, but we are not 'performing' to a standard of which we are capable, and this is not ideal!

In my regular job I am constantly having to convince my musicians of the need for rehearsal (some professional musicians, some not). We all lead busy lives, but as has been raised before, we also can make choices about where our commitments lie. I find this is true of all musicians, not just singers.

Any musician who has the arrogance to believe that rehearsal is unnecessary is perhaps a little naive. This tends to be an attitude I only meet in lay musicians and those only just embarking on a musical career, who still have that naivety of believing that they are good enough not to practise. Surely true professionals recognise that we can always be better with sufficient preparation.

Back to OT, having a competent session musician in my band would not be a major problem, although they would probably require a lot more visual cues than my regular musicians, but I could not envisage a session musician being the lead musician. Time is needed to build a relationship, both personal and musically, as a team.

[Vox Humana]

Posted in error.

[Fran*Piano]

I'm certainly not an organist, but as a pianist, I ocassionally "play" the organ in my parish at certain events, funerals, Christmas, weddings, etc. etc. and it was suggested to me that I should play from sight. Now, the music at church consists of two acoustic guitars, a flutist and a clarinettist, all of whom play by sight. Maybe that works for them, but I refuse point blank to play by sight at masses such as these. Whilst I am of course not suggesting that it's acceptable to play a sub standard piece for an every-day mass, I wouldn't even consider playing at events that are so important to the people involved if I wasn't permitted to rehearse beforehand. Whilst sight-reading is a highly important skill, it has no place in a church service.

[Barry Williams]

It is flattering that Mr Vox Humana has quoted me extensively at the head of this thread.

What amazes me is the constant flow of reports of people who consider that it is sufficient to be able to play the notes, as though that was all one needs to do. Quite often it is part of the 'culture' (if one can dignify it with that term) that assumes the ability to play an instrument is visited upon a musician by divine intervention.

Music is hard work. I have heard it said by many professional musicians that it is 99% hard work and 1% inspiration. (Notice the complete absence of any reference to 'talent' or 'gifts'.)

No organist should be expected to play hymns meaningfully at sight. Even if one can play the notes, because the tune is straightforward and well-known, time is needed to consider the words and the interpretation needed in the context of the Lessons/Readings, Theme for the Day, etc.

I know of organists who take good fees for Weddings and Funerals and do not bother to practice the music. Equally, I have a friend and ex-colleague, an eminent organist in Brighton, who, having retired from regular church work has found a real vocation helping families chose music for funerals, which he practises and play with great care, adding much to the meaning of the services.S

Divine Worship needs careful preparation from everyone taking part. I agree with Fran*Piano that sight reading has no place in a church service, except, perhaps, in an real emergency.

Whilst there are faults on the part of some musicians as well as clergy and others involved in services, there can, in my view, be no excuse for public sight reading. It is inappropriate and unworthy of the profession of music. It is also unworthy of Divine Worship.

The music only starts when the notes are correct and there is so much more to music than the notes.

Barry Williams

[madbassoonist]

I'm certainly not an organist, but as a pianist, I ocassionally "play" the organ in my parish at certain events, funerals, Christmas, weddings, etc. etc. and it was suggested to me that I should play from sight. Now, the music at church consists of two acoustic guitars, a flutist and a clarinettist, all of whom play by sight. Maybe that works for them, but I refuse point blank to play by sight at masses such as these. Whilst I am of course not suggesting that it's acceptable to play a sub standard piece for an every-day mass, I wouldn't even consider playing at events that are so important to the people involved if I wasn't permitted to rehearse beforehand. Whilst sight-reading is a highly important skill, it has no place in a church service.

It's a similar situation at our church. The three of us playing the melody line (violin, cornet, clarinet) play/transpose at sight, but I think the pianist always practises the hymns beforehand - even just one run through. He sometimes choose them about an hour before the service, but they would be ones we do often. The (very small) church choir would never sing without proper practice.

As for sub-standard playing... when I'm filling in, (and I'll be playing all the time from September (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)) I always spend ages practising the hymns, yet they still sound bad! Hopefully it will come with time.

[pianodub]

The music only starts when the notes are correct and there is so much more to music than the notes.

Very well put Barry!

[Cyrilla]

The music only starts when the notes are correct and there is so much more to music than the notes.

Very well put Barry!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

[mrbouffant]

Even if one can play the notes, because the tune is straightforward and well-known, time is needed to consider the words and the interpretation needed in the context of the Lessons/Readings, Theme for the Day, etc.

Barry,

Please could you give me an example of how you might play the same hymn differently if it appeared on two Sundays with differing Lessons/Readings and theme for the day? Do feel free to use a specific hymn as an example in order to demonstrate this - I am intrigued!

Many thanks.