Session Musicians In Church Options

[Barry Williams]

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.

One does not even need to get as far as the Readings. Just consider 'Abide With me'. It is full of Easter hope. One would treat it quite differently at an ordinary service in Eastertide from a funeral.

One does not need to 'illustrate' the words (as some organists do in the psalms) to give a wholly different interpretation to a particular set of words. I have chosen an obvious example. There are many more and the principle applies to voluntaries as well.

Barry Williams

[mrbouffant]

But doesn't any reasonable musician respond to the context in which they are making music? I mean it would be obvious to make Easter a bit more joyful than a Funeral. I am still missing some key subtlety to which you allude, Barry.

[vectistim]

I think its more limited by how much noise the audience makes, eg: at a funeral you look round the church and sometimes find it is packed so pull out more stops and then when you start the first hymn you find that you, the priest, and the churchwarden are the only people singing you have to slam all the stops back in again

[Dulciana]

In answer to the original question, I think it depends on a lot of things! Some will be able to play superbly well with no practice, and others won't - and it's often the case that what's in the service will be so familiar to the musician that practice is simply unnecessary. In fact, over-practice can lead to dullness. Organist and choir may be so well tuned into each other that they just know where they're going when a piece of music is familiar to them all, or similar to something that they've done before. Ensemble playing when one of the musicans (band member?) or the organist, is new in that group, however, is a different matter.

Personally I need to practice - whether it's a choir piece, psalm, hymn or voluntary! I would not willingly inflict my sight reading on anybody in a public place - church or otherwise. But this is not to say that others may not be up to sight reading well in public - and let's face it, sometimes they have no choice! I had no choice myself last Sunday, and I got through without major disaster, but I don't ever want to be regularly congratulating myself on 'no major disaster'! We need to look beyond 'That will do'.

And the stress levels aren't worth it either.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

[Vox Humana]

Thank you, all, for your replies. I am so pleased we agree that "getting by" with a "satisfactory performance" on minimal practice isn't what making music should be about. I was seriously beginning to wonder whether it was just me. When I was at college I had the impression (which may or may not have been accurate) that session musicians rather despised that form of music making and did it solely for the money. However, as I mentioned, I have certainly met a few singers who like doing things that way. I was therefore particuarly interested in pianodub's experience which is much more in line with what I would have expected.

[Barry Williams]

"But doesn't any reasonable musician respond to the context in which they are making music?"

Well now! I have heard many professional organists of eminent standing in well known places who simply do not believe in playing hymns with any expresssion at all. Whilst there is greater difficulty in moving the tempo slightly in a large building with a big congregation, it is still possible to give the words a particular interpretation.

Sadly, the plain players are very much in evidence and often vocalise their disapproval on any attempt to give the words emphasis. Even enjambments get missed in the four square style of non-emotive playing.

So yes, reasonable musicians do respond to the context in which they are making music. From some people's hymn playing we can make inferences.

For my part I prefer playing that is expressive without being overtly sentimental. Above all hymn playing should be musical, with thoughtful phrasing and registration that enhances the words. It is still quite rare to hear this. Perhaps I am expecting too much, but in hymns the words really are important.

Barry Williams

[Dulciana]

For my part I prefer playing that is expressive without being overtly sentimental. Above all hymn playing should be musical, with thoughtful phrasing and registration that enhances the words. It is still quite rare to hear this. Perhaps I am expecting too much, but in hymns the words really are important.

Barry Williams

We probably don't disagree, really, but I think an organist can go too far with this. I know some would like me to do more with things like "the cry goes up, how long" in "The Church's One Foundation" (random example) but it makes me cringe. I'll put the comma in, slightly, but only slightly, and I refuse to hold back the pulse. (Is it a comma or a dash? Either way, you know what I mean...) If the music is known, it isn't hard to allow for commas and words, but I really don't like it if this is overdone.

Edit - added a little later. Is this an example of how the music conflicts with the religious aspect of things? There are hymns in which the tune is a very loose frame on which the words are hung, and to go too much to town on the words can sound just musically wrong. Or is it just me? Some of the sentences are grammatically quite complex, and the music isn't - or maybe these are just not good hymns...? I like to squeeze a lot out of "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind" but this is an exception for me. It's a Romantic sort of hymn in many ways, but many are just not like this!

[Vox Humana]

We probably don't disagree, really, but I think an organist can go too far with this. I know some would like me to do more with things like "the cry goes up, how long" in "The Church's One Foundation" (random example) but it makes me cringe. I'll put the comma in, slightly, but only slightly, and I refuse to hold back the pulse. (Is it a comma or a dash? Either way, you know what I mean...) If the music is known, it isn't hard to allow for commas and words, but I really don't like it if this is overdone.

You are right. Too much fussiness will deflect congregation's attention away from the words and onto the player or the instrument. The organist is not some David Briggs interpreting a film (wonderfully though he does this), nor some vaudeville act to be applauded for its entertainment value. And the pulse should always be kept going. Varying it at punctuation is of no help to a congregation, who will not cotton on to what you have done until the moment is past, when it is too late. Personally I never vary a pulse I have set (except for a rall. at the end of the last verse) since congregational singing is invariably imprecise enough without encouraging more imprecision. However, this is not to condone the expressionless players criticised by Barry. Personally I think the art of good service accompaniment is to inspire the singing and comprehension of the words without drawing attention to yourself. I realise that this is probably a good argument for banning all last verse harmonisations (and descants) since, however good they are, they will always draw attention to themselves, but I admit I am hypocritical enough to kid myself that, as long as they are logical and not disruptive, they will carry the congregation rather than deflect them. I just hope I am right!

I agree with Barry that organists should always observe the enjambments. There is really no excuse for not doing so. It occurs to me, though, that how far one observes mid-line commas may depend on the speed at which you are singing. At the dignified speeds which I like it is practical, but at the faster, two-lines-per-phrase speeds which many prefer, observing such punctuation will run the risk of making the accompaniment sound mannered and choppy. Even at the slower speeds I use discretion over which punctuation I observe. Commas which would be minimally observed in speech are, I think, best ignored and if there is any risk of impeding the flow of the hymn (as, for example, in the opening of "Lo! He comes with clouds descending") I will give precedence to flow over punctuation.

[mrbouffant]

Do I detect it is the case that we are all playing from the same hymn sheet on this one? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Dulciana]

Do I detect it is the case that we are all playing from the same hymn sheet on this one? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Something that doesn't always even happen in one church. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)
About words - comas need to be put into written text in order for it to make grammatical sense sometimes, but we'd never observe every one in reading or speaking. When something is spoken we get the sense of if because it's flowing at us steadily and we're not having to decipher. The commas need to be between the words of hymn tunes in order that we don't misunderstand, but we all have the words in front of us. I even dislike hearing an unnecessary comma 'played' when it takes the emphasis off the strong beat by shortening the 'wrong' note, never mind holding up the pulse.

(Are 'enjambments' those little thingies that mean we don't breathe at the ends of lines? I've never heard the name for these before! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif) If so, I agree too! Forgive my ignorance if I've got the meaning wrong. I should probably google the word rather than say this at all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) )

[vectistim]

Commas which would be minimally observed in speech are, I think, best ignored and if there is any risk of impeding the flow of the hymn (as, for example, in the opening of "Lo! He comes with clouds descending") I will give precedence to flow over punctuation.

In the "Lo! He comes" example you can achieve the effect by singing at the same time as playing.
Singing at the same time has a number of advantages: you notice what the words are verse by verse, you're less likely to want to play for the wrong number of verses, its a defence against people telling you the playing was too fast/slow for it to be possible to sing along to. In a choirless church it allows for the odd bit of tenor or bass harmony to turn up adding a bit more in the way of variety.

(Singing (a harmony line) and playing at the same time strikes me as a much more real world test that maybe RCO should consider - I've done this lots of times, I have occasionally (tried) to accompany four part open score but I have never done that (or even seen a piece of music) with the open score laid out with Sop, Alto, Tenor and Bass clefs)

[Dulciana]

I have occasionally (tried) to accompany four part open score but I have never done that (or even seen a piece of music) with the open score laid out with Sop, Alto, Tenor and Bass clefs)

Thanks be to God. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)

[mrbouffant]

Off topic, but...

Lo! He comes.. is the best hymn in the hymnbook, to my ear. Always loved it, ever since I was but a small chorister.

It works best for me in A flat major with the magnificent last verse reharm by Martin How from the blue RSCM 'last verses' book.. a true thrill to play.

I then like to follow it up with the Leighton Chorale Prelude on Helmsley which always makes an impression! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

/edit: Actually, I quite enjoy playing the William Lloyd Webber Helmsley piece as well. It is in the Novello Advent album. Might give them a bit of that on Sunday morning...

[pianodub]

When I was at college I had the impression (which may or may not have been accurate) that session musicians rather despised that form of music making and did it solely for the money. However, as I mentioned, I have certainly met a few singers who like doing things that way. I was therefore particuarly interested in pianodub's experience which is much more in line with what I would have expected.

I don't know that they despise the form of music making but I do know that they only do it for the money! I have suggested to some friends that we might do some short recitals; a small group of singers who are good readers and therefore could do an excellent job on say two or three rehearsals. The thinking was to do unusual, interesting music that we wouldn't get to otherwise. The answer was a resounding no, because I couldn't pay anyone. I thought this was very sad. The primary problem with this for me is that I can't find good men who will sing for pleasure...they are all working in cathedrals and similar and making money singing (or selling their souls (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) ) in extremely commercial, musically horrible tours. (Sorry that is a very judgemental comment, but I feel quite strongly about it and also have a cold, so not mincing my words!!!)