Two observations:

Firstly, I had the pleasure of being the 'visiting' organist on Sunday at a church at the other end of the county where no one knew who I was or quite frankly, what my ability level was. I will add that it was at one of our non-conformist churches, for whom the URC and the Methodists seem to offer the friendliest welcomes going. And so it proved on Sunday, and with tea in a china cup afterwards.

Secondly, I agree with Barry's views on 'gifts' etc. and would always like to challenge clergy who took this line with the idea that they might start letting others have a go at preaching on Sundays. I teach in a school and I as repeat to children on a regular basis, just being gifted is not wnough to get by in life. Some very notable and succesful people in life are those who do not appear to be gifted, but rather achieve all by hard work.

I know also that Barry has expressed views on 'contemporary' and its meaning in terms of worship, and he's right. Much of what passes for 'contemporary' is not attractive to non-church going teenagers. Yes, I know it works in churches, I used to run the music in a very large city centre Pentecostal church, but it does not cover any of the styles that Barry mentions. And even if it does, why would that necessarily be attractive for teenagers? Isn't one of the things that those in search of God gop back to church for, is for something different to what the world offers?

It is the assumption that contemporary worship is designed to attract youth to church that is wrong. Indeed, some contemporary schools can claim this, ie Soul Survivor, Worship Central, but much of the contemporary forms of worship (of all genres) are simply a seeking after a fresh experience of God.

I do believe in gifting, but I also believe in good stewardship of gifting, which involves ensuring a good basis of training before and alongside the use of the 'gifting' in church.

I'm not sure if I've properly understood the use of the word 'gifting' in this thread - but I agree with the sentiment expressed here. I don't think anyone is suggesting simply allowing anyone with some natural ability 'have a go', and all of us here probably have a cut-off point in our heads with regard to a level of competence at which somebody should or should not be allowed to play for a service. But there should be some sort of structured process in place within a church whereby those who have ability combined with the willingness to work at it should be nurtured. Not to play at a service before they are well able, but to be instructed with regard to the instrument and practicalities. Maybe there should be a specific service occasionally, specially constructed around the need to nurture new church musicians, wherein these be allowed (under the advice and veto of the organist) to 'have a go'? Even at one simple hymn to begin with? It could be a service of celebration of the use of music within worship, and an appreciation and encouragement of those who are up and coming? If it's a high Anglican church in which the musical standards are high, it is likely that the resident organist will not want to risk diluting those standards, but a service of the type that I'm describing, if understood as such, would not damage his reputation (quite possibly his main concern, if he's honest...) as somebody at the helm of excellence. It's all too easy to say "O, but our church just doesn't do that sort of thing... We have standards to keep up."

This, obviously, is on the assumption that there is anybody up to 'having a go', because the numbers will get smaller and smaller unless we make an effort to encourage! A church with a high standard of music is a much better training ground for a new organist than is a disorganised parish where the musical standards are poor, and where he will only pick up bad habits and sloppiness. To learn in the right environment means that when he gets a permanent church of his own he can take with him what he has learnt, thus improving standards elsewhere.

With regard to the question of people in church positions being 'awkward' - I think it's quite simply because people assume positions within a church that they would never be allowed to hold in the outside world.

I have noticed the same sort of thing, and as well as them steroetypically being stronger personalities there are two other explanations:
i) An appreciation of ritual leads to wanting it to be done properly, which requires preparation.
ii) They are often more musically aware and so appreciate the organist's position (quite a number have defected from the organ stool)

"A church with a high standard of music is a much better training ground for a new organist than is a disorganised parish where the musical standards are poor, and where he will only pick up bad habits and sloppiness. To learn in the right environment means that when he gets a permanent church of his own he can take with him what he has learnt, thus improving standards elsewhere."

This is so true!

Aspiring organists should not play for services until they are competent. Others will know better than me what standard. Would at least Grade six or seven ABRSM organ be the minimum?

Given SB Junior's experience, which is altogether wholly typical, good advice to organists is to keep well away from churches. There are quite a number of professional organists who do not play in church and they seem much happier.

It is good that secular employment law now applies - very firmly indeed - to organists. The case law that is gradually emerging proves that the clergy (as employer) must treat organists inthe same way as if they were in a secular job. I do wonder when the first National Minimum Wage case will arise on an organist.



Barry Williams

This all sounds a bit complicated. If someone wants to play for a service I let them bash through a few hymns and if we are all happy, they get the gig. Not sure I've nurtured anyone in that scenario...

Is the AB syllabus particularly relevant to playing in church? There's no point in playing Grade 8+ voluntaries or being an expert on registration without being able to play hymns and canticles well. Knowing when (and how) to bring things to a satisfactory conclusion at the end of communion, knowing when to drift into the choir piece after they're all settled after communion, knowing how to cope if the offertory hymn isn't long enough, etc - basic stuff, but it needs common sense that that can really only be acquired from an experienced organist or from experience itself. Even knowing where exactly the Amen's meant to be if things are unannounced was something that I needed to be told, and I still managed in the early stages to get it wrong. This type of thing is irrelevant to what grade the organist is likely to be. (I haven't a clue where I'd be in Grade terms. My course was specific to an Anglican service.)

The reason I was 'nurtured', so to speak, was that somebody was needed to cover holidays and share the general workload, and the organist saw to it that I knew what I was doing well in advance of the event occurring for the first time. The reason I was so readily accepted by choir and clergy, so I'm told (not all are accepted... ) is because I appeared to know exactly what I was doing. But I'm not 'gifted' or special! I was just a fairly accomplished pianist who was willing to learn - and practice in three jumpers - and keen to keep standards where they were rather than let down the person who had faith in me. I'm not unique!

That was how I started. The organist at the church where I was a choirboy started me playing the organ, bought me some Thiman voluntaries (!) and Stainer's organ tutor and, after some initial basic guidance, left me alone to teach myself. When I was 12, he got me playing for the children's service that preceded Matins every Sunday. It only involved hymns and voluntaries, so was nicely straightforward. Since I was teaching myself and playing unsupervised I am not entirely sure how edifying the results were! I know I could play rhythmically and did not have much trouble with the manual parts, but certainly my feet were a bit hit and miss. And initially I was not at all experienced in leading the congregation - though I cottoned onto that quite quickly. You could take the view that it was discourteous of those in charge to assume that the kids didn't merit the same standard of playing as the adults did. It probably was, but that was generally how things were in those days. In any event, the experience was invaluable in giving me responsibility and really firing my enthusiasm for the organ. It really prepared me for my first proper organist's job a couple of years later. And no one seemed to suffer too much.

I agree that you shouldn't let anyone loose in a church service and that a reasonable level of competence is essential, but if we are to encourage the inexperienced (and all of us have been inexperienced at some stage) we have to accept that this must inevitably go hand-in-hand with accepting some imperfections. Rather, it is a question of damage limitation, so that the overall experience for the congregation is not compromised. I am not sure how many churches today could offer the sort of opportunity I had, but I don't see why provision shouldn't be made for one hymn per service to be played by a competent student. And of course there are the voluntaries - always fair game since no one ever listens to them!

This is all very interesting.

On the subject of being 'gifted'; I think perhaps we may be confusing 'gifted' with 'aptitude'.

SBJ certainly has a natural aptitude, and a great ability to just 'make music' seated at an organ or piano without a note of music in front of him. In my view, anyone who at the age of 13 could play quite advanced music (and improvise around it) simply by listening to it a few times must have some kind of natural ability. His challenge was to learn how to sight read to a similar standard, and that has taken a great deal of hard work, which will no doubt continue for many years to come.

On the subject of 'standards'; anyone reading the last few posts this thread could be forgiven for thinking that all church organists play at FRCO standard or above, and never hit a wrong note! Sadly, in my [recent] experience this is far from the truth.

In the case of the church being discussed; the regular organist rarely, if ever plays hymns in proper four part harmony. I am sure he could if he put his mind to it, and perhaps played the hymns through once or twice before the service, but he simply won't put that much effort in. Instead he usually turns up five minutes before the service, never practices, and simply plays root chords from the melody line in A&MNS. Indeed, until we pointed this out, nobody in the choir had even realised what he was doing (or noticed that their parts didn’t follow the score)!

So, I think it would be fair to say that SBJ's playing did nothing to detract from the standard of music, and in many respects probably improved it. But few people in a traditional Anglican church want to believe that a teenager can do something as well as a 70+ year old.

At the other church where SBJ plays from time to time, (where they follow a 'high' Anglican tradition), the regular organist is only too willing to admit that she is a pianist and only a very reluctant organist, and is only too happy for someone else to take the organ stool. The clergy and congregation are also very appreciative, and enjoy hearing their organ played properly. It's just unfortunate that the organ provides little scope for playing anything much more challenging than hymns.

However, I think we are missing an important point here: The playing ability of a fainéant 70+ year old is unlikely to improve with time, and will almost certainly decline. By contrast, a keen youngster who can already play to a reasonable standard is only likely to get better with age and experience, especially if he or she is encouraged. Moreover, surely having a keen young person on board provides great new opportunities for the church and it’s music?

I would not, for one moment want to alienate anyone from the church, (we need everyone we can get), but the negative attitude shown towards keen youngsters in some churches seems to me to be extremely short sighted.

SB

What a sad comment.

If that's your experience then there is something badly wrong somewhere. It's certainly not my experience.




Well, yes and no. My first introduction was to sit beside the organist (a fine musician and sporadically inspiring service player). My first service was when he didn't turn up one day.

I have had a few young assistants - the latest has just gone off to be an organ scholar. I encourage them to aim high, but I do let them play before they reach professional competence.

As for church choirs: I think they should be one of the strongest recruiting grounds for the church. I would far rather have a lot of enthusiastic choir members of limited ability than a professional quartet. Just as long as we are all producing the best music we can, with as much care as possible, even if it's not that wonderful. Any church choir that encourages children is worth any number of professional groups in my opinion.

Forgive me if I try to expand what I think Barry's quote reads as:

Aspiring organists should not play for WHOLE services until they are competent IN ALL ASPECTS OF LEADING WORSHIP.

It is quite possible (and very common) to be competent at playing voluntaries before being competent at hymns. I too had my first experiences of just sitting with the organist, watching, learning etc, Hymn playing is an art in itself. I have heard people described as 'international concert organists' playing for a service, and yes, the voluntary is thrilling, yes, the improvisation during the chatter in communion is clever, but hymns are nothing but a play through and do nothing to lead and aid worship.

I played some voluntaries first, then I was allowed the odd hymn, or anthem accompaniment, but it was sometime before being allowed a whole service.

Yes it is sad, but it is my experience at one particualr church. It's just infortunate that it happens to be our nearest Anglican church, and has the best organ in the parish!

It is generally acknowledged by those in the wider parish that there is a problem, but those inside the church refuse to hear any such talk: and so it continues.




I would agree 95% with the above if there is a competent organist already in post, and if allowing a beginner to play would harm the enjoyment of music in the church. But many churches today have no organist, or perhaps have someone who plays a few hymns very badly with two fingers. Where that is the case, a keen beginner of any age could genuinely improve and widen the music in the church. And surely, almost anything has to be better than the dreaded 'no organist, no problem' CDs?

As I said before, a keen beginner will almost certainly get better with time and experience; a deaf octogenarian who plays with two fingers will almost certainly get worse. Which should we invest the future in?

SB

I actually think we're all in agreement here, and that any misunderstandings might lie in the fact that some of those in high church situations where things are going swimmingly might not be fully aware of how things are in lesser churches. Forgive the use of the word 'lesser', please - it's all I can think of at the minute!

This is all very true.

The irony of all this is that there is a real shortage of organists who are both willing and able to play for church services. This is not a new problem, but it is certainly getting worse, not better.

The reality is that many smaller churches no longer have an organist, and could not afford to pay anyone even if they were available. If they are lucky they may have a volunteer who plays a piano (if there is one), an electronic keyboard, or perhaps reluctantly plays the organ (using whichever stops aren't ciphering ).

Remember also that many churches no longer have functioning pipe organs, as these are very expensive to maintain. Some pipe organs have been replaced with electronic instruments, but many churches are now reduced to using CD's, or if they are lucky, may have an organ which plays pre-recorded music from floppy discs.

However, this challenge is not confined to smaller/poorer or more rural churches, as I know of several well attended churches (some with very nice pipe organs) which cannot find a regular organist.

I don’t know whether there has ever been a survey on this subject, but I for one would be very interested to see the results.

SB

I actually think we're all in agreement here, and that any misunderstandings might lie in the fact that some of those in high church situations where things are going swimmingly might not be fully aware of how things are in lesser churches. Forgive the use of the word 'lesser', please - it's all I can think of at the minute!

Possibly, although equally I'm sure a number of us who have held organists' posts over the years have also experienced a pretty wide range. I was lucky when in my teens to have a teacher who encouraged me to be allowed to 'have a go' (and battled with one or two who weren't so keen on the idea!).

I gave up offering organ lessons at a middle-of-the-road church with middle-of-the-road music where we have family connections because getting permission for two students to use the organ to practise was akin to jumping through a series of invisible hoops. And yes I'm still angry about it - and the students were not youngsters either - so it's not just teenagers who come up against problems of this kind.

I now sing in the choir at a 'greater' (sorry Dulciana ! ) church where we have three FRCOs on the staff.

I think the terminology is 'lower down the candle!'




Do you mean one of the 'Greater Church Group'? I used to be the organist at one of those. The group had lots of meetings between in terested parties from all churches, but music always seemed sadly lacking. It was a pity, as these were the very places that should have been able to share expertise and ideas. The only communication I ever had was from another organist in the group who was surveying what we were all using for COmmunion settings.

No, I don't think so - doesn't ring a bell. As opposed to 'lesser'.

"I now sing in the choir at a 'greater' church where we have three FRCOs on the staff."

One often finds an ample supply of well-qualified organists at places where decent music is performed.

Conversely, those churches that prefer music of a certain type have difficulty attracting good organists.

Some of the London churches have half a dozen or more excellent organists in the congregation. The same is true of singers. Many forsake local churches for places where the music is of a different type and quality.

This is a trend that has been rather more marked in the past thirty or so years. As I have commented before, cathedrals and other centres of excellence have increasing congregations, to the annoyance of other places where they struggle with fewer numbers, due, possibly, to pre-conceived notions on the part of the clergy as to what type of worship best directs people to the contemplation of things on high.

Why struggle with the distraction of poor quality music and the badly altered words of hymns and prayers? Such distractions get in the way of worship. Numbers of people are not, of themselves, a measure of the spiritual efficacy of the worship, but they indicate something.

The increasing interest in, for example, traditional carol services is an indication of what people are looking for. Some of those who run churches think they should not have it and will not provide it. Only today I learned of a church where the new incumbent has informed the choir that they will only sing one very short carol at the Nine Lessons and Carols this year. Not surprisingly, many of the choristers at that are considering singing at another church where their musical skills will be used rather differently. (Thye have also been stopped from singing anthems except at Evensong once a month.)

It takes years to build up a good muscial tradition and less than one day to destroy it.

Barry Williams

^^
That is indeed a pity and no way to treat a choir unless they are truly, toe-curlingly awful and likely to detract from the quality of the service. Unlikely, but not impossible.
Another possibility is that the incumbent has other reasons for truncating the service i.e having to cram 2 in at different venues, for example. Of course, s/he may just be insensitive - that happens too!

It must be very annoying for any choir trainer in a small parish to bring on a promising chorister and then have them decamp to some Blue Chip cathedral choir as soon as they have their silver award (or whatever is the required standard). I'm sure this kind of cherry-picking goes on but if it happens in football clubs, we must expect it in music. You can hardly blame a youngster for wanting to be part of something successful and prestigious.

I hope I don't appear to be disregarding some of what you said in this post by only quoting some of it. The above is what I want to respond to directly though. You are right in every way here. But I feel some blame has to be paid at the feet of organists who have made themselves indispensable, creating a breeding ground for a combination of a so-called modern thinking clergy person (Sorry, I hate political correctness, but a lot f these are actually women) and three chord guitarists. There has to be somebody - or a reservoir of people - who are able to deputise at short notice, who know what they are doing, because the resident organist has seen to that. It is a moral responsibility; none of us is immortal.

It takes years to build up a good muscial tradition and less than one day to destroy it.


It is possible to resist this though - our church did. The intransigence of a choir, organist and assistant organist (me...) was properly channeled in this case. It turned out that the new incumbent was uneasy with singing psalms, etc, because of inexperience with this sort of thing, and was uncomfortable with a sung communion service because of an inability to sing, so the easiest thing seemed to be to change all this. But some frank discussion - and time taken for educating - put all this to rights. And another thing to come out of it all was that the choir - already very good - is now taking more pride than ever, after huge support from the congregation, in producing an even better performance. Choir practices have lengthened, aspiring soloists (with no musical training, I have to say!) have been encouraged and given instruction, and after a certain amount of complacency in recent years, the organist and myself have been spending more time practising again.

It's easy for a musical tradition to be destroyed, but we don't have to stand back and watch it happen! Tradition should never become complacent, or it can be seen as simply unduly old-fashioned and set in its ways.

"But some frank discussion - and time taken for educating "

It is the absence of these two things that is the certain recipe for the speedy disappearance of any musical tradition, of whatever style.

Discussion implies that both parties are willing to engage in dialogue. Education implies that someone needs to learn something.

Regrettably, in the majority of the cases where a musical tradition has disappeared almost overnight, it is apparent that one person has made it clear that they do not need educating and that dialogue is not part of the agenda.

In the example I gave in my previous post (of the church where the choir are not permitted to sing more than one carol and anthems have been abolished except at Evensong, once a month), the incumbent has made it quite clear that this is the new rule and that there is to be no discussion. Canon Law supports his right to do so. The PCC has no part in this. However, those disenfranchised by such an approach, how lawful it may be, do not have to stay. When they go so does the tradition. In this, for the avoidance of all doubt, I include those places where there has been a tradition of a first-class 'Worship Band' whose standards are destroyed by admitting incompetent players, ('three chord guitarists') so that the trained people leave in dismay. (I have seen this happen too.) The problem has been around for a long time. One J.S.Bach was put under pressure by the clergy to admit unsuitable choir boys for non-musical reasons.

It is heartening to read Dulciana's post and to know that these things can come out right sometimes. It is a pity that it is not always like that.

It would be good if the clergy received some musical training at theological college or the part-time course that many now take. The Russian Orthodox clergy spend one year (out of the six they are at the Seminary) almost solely on music.

Barry Williams

Yes: just so long as they don't then start telling the organist how to do his or her job.

One of our clergy allegedly learnt how to play the organ whilst studying theology. None of us has ever heard him play (although he has been asked), but he likes to 'suggest' registration for hymns - usually mid service.

SB

Oh no!!

Tell him every time he does that you 'll reciprocate in the sermon.

Hmm. New to this thread, and have been reading through the older posts. I tried very hard, but I couldn't let this one pass without a comment. I don't think the music of the Iona Community purports to be "contemporary" in the sense that you mean; and I have to take issue with it being described as "rather artificial and shallow".

The Iona music - by using the folk music idiom - is easy to pick up and works particularly well unaccompanied (which, speaking as a choir member in a very small rural church choir - 6 members on a good day - without a reliable organist, is a major plus when it comes to communion music ). And their lyrics are, to my mind, thoughtful and accessible - neither artificial nor shallow. I don't think, in short, that one can tar them with the same brush as much "modern" worship music, which is often theologically dubious and/or just plain trite.

Just my two-pennyworth... that apart, I have to say I agree with much of the rest of the discussion on this thread. We have 2 volunteer organists, one of whom is often away for long periods and is also (viewed objectively) less gifted but notionally "in charge" of the music, and the other of whom is a better player, but now very old and frail and prone to error in consequence. However, neither the PCC nor the incumbent seems willing to grasp the nettle and try to put in place arrangements which will be viable for the future, such as advertising for a remunerated organist (quota issues make this probably not viable) or even trying to get a rota of volunteers so that the burden is shared. Sigh....

[
It would be good if the clergy received some musical training at theological college or the part-time course that many now take. The Russian Orthodox clergy spend one year (out of the six they are at the Seminary) almost solely on music.

Barry Williams
[/quote]

On this point we are most definitely agreed! I recently had a clergy contact proudly proclaiming to me how great his 'half-module' on worship (not even specifically music) had been! This works out at roughly 10 credits (possibly even 5) of a degree programme consisting of 540 credits!

I don't think payment is necessarily the problem, as I am sure there will be organists of reasonable standard who would be willing to play free gratis; especially if the instrument is a nice one to play.

I am sure that the issue you raise is a common one, but is difficult for PCC's to manage, especially where volunteers are involved. The question is: how do you tell someone they are too old, no longer good enough, or otherwise no longer required when they have played faithfully every Sunday for the past sixty years?

One of the churches where SBJ plays occasionally is very much like that. The lady who usually plays is sadly long past it (by her own admission), and has been using CD's to play wedding voluntaries for some years now. Another lady who plays from time to time is far from well, and does not feel up to the job most Sunday mornings. I know the people at the church would like SBJ to play every Sunday, but they don't want to tell the old ladies they are no longer required, and if truth be known, I think he would feel very constrained by both the organ and the churches [lack of] musical tradition.

The usual solution in smaller churches seems to be to wait until the organist is no longer capable of climbing onto the organ stool (or falls off of it), by which time it is all rather tool late. Most better organists know themselves when it is time to call it a day, but those who have simply ‘helped out’ for half a century or more somehow feel obliged to carry on until they themselves are carried out!

SB

What about something like this - sent by a priest to John Betjeman's wife?

"Baulking Vicarage

My dear Penelope,

I have been thinking over the question of playing the harmonium on Sunday evenings here and have reached the conclusion that I must now take it over.

I am very grateful to you for doing it for so long and hate to have to ask you to give it up, but, to put it plainly, your playing has got worse and worse and the disaccord between the harmonium and the congregation is becoming destructive of devotion.

People are not very sensitive here, but even some of them have begun to complain, and they are not usually given to doing that.

I do not like writing this, but think you will understand that it is my business to see that divine worship is as perfect as it can be made.

Perhaps the crankiness of the instrument has something to do with the trouble. I think it does require a careful and experienced player to deal with it.

Thank you ever so much for stepping so generously into the breach when Sibyl was ill; it was the greatest possible help to me and your results were noticeably better then than now.

Yours ever,

F.P. Harton"

Oh yes, I like it. Suitably blunt and to the point.

Maybe elderly organists should have an annual medical rather like elderly drivers.

SB

"Maybe elderly organists should have an annual medical rather like elderly drivers"

The problem is not age but incompetence. Unless people are competent they should surely not be unleashed on the public, whatever their age. That does not exclude giving trainees a small part to do as a step in their education. However, there is no reason to unleash a Grade 1.5 Flute (failed twice) on the captive public simply to give them an opportunity to participate.

As Music Margaret has pointed out, there has to be standards. Without standards public worship can rapidly descend into banality. Musicial banality does not edify or glorify. Neither will it win souls.

When the radio and television have services of high standard, (though not always of good taste), it is vital that what is offered in church is at least competent.

This is not merely a question of public worship. I have heard that in Germany one cannot set up as a music teacher unless certain qualifications and standards are met. This must, surely, be good, even if it is rudimentary. (Also, I am not in favour of pianists examining, for example, singers, but that is highly contentious and, perhaps, best not mentioned here.) Would you be content to undergo surgery when the surgeon tells you that he has years of experience but no training? It happens in music, often with appalling results.

Barry Williams

I actually had to think about that one... If stuck on a mountainside faced with two surgeons offering to save my life, one with experience of having done the job successfully many times, and one with training but no experience...well, it certainly isn't as easy an answer as at first appears!

The question of mandate to teach/nurture/improve music, specifically in church, is hard to quantify. But part of the problem is that there are probably few who are well enough equipped to do it to satisfy what I think would probably be your criteria! But if we can't feed our children caviar, do we leave them to starve if we at least have some crabsticks in the cupboard?

(Sorry - my metaphors don't improve as night wears on, so I think I'll hit the hay... )

Thank you for your interesting response to my posting.

There are many teachers at the conservertoires who tell horror stories about having to re-teach basic techniques because of bad training by 'local' music teachers who should have known better.

Perhaps we should (to use your metaphor) try to eradicate poverty in the first place.

Barry Williams

But without those first teachers the students wouldn't have made it to the conservatoire at all. Sometimes when we can't have things exactly as we'd like them to be we just have to make the best of what we've got! When our church choir takes a breath in the middle of a line, for instance, or displays poor diction in a few words, it's not that we don't know that it's inappropriate, but there are times that having pushed home so many other points that pragmatism suggests letting this one pass - for now. Maybe next week when there has been more to praise and less to criticise. Not for the sake of laziness, but sometimes pushing too hard can cause choir members and/or instrumental pupils to decide that maybe this is not for them after all! Teaching is a mixture of the subject at hand, the time available, and the temperament of the student, and a good teacher will know when to hold and when to fold. Students at conservatiore level are there because they have chosen to take music very seriously, but along the way it it has been the job of the pragmatic teacher to hold interest and motivation levels to get thus far - which may not always mean pushing for perfection at every turn.

Good question.

A surgeon with years of experience will presumably have learnt a great deal from previous operations, and hopefully won't have lost too many patients on the way?

'Training', to me, implies teaching someone to do something by numbers, without asking too many questions, and without necessarily having a full understanding of the subject. Furthermore, 'Training' does not necessarily improve aptitude for a particular subject or task. This is rather like comparing an 'Engineer' (observing the strict meaning of the term) with a ‘Fitter’ or a ‘Mechanic’.

So, based on experience from my own industry, I would probably go with the experienced surgeon rather than one who was newly trained; although I would want to ask some searching questions first.

However, all of the above assumes that there is a FRCO (or better) sitting in every pew, and that the church concerned has a competent choir and a longstanding musical tradition. Sadly this is simply not the case in many smaller churches, where often the only choice is between old Mrs. Goggins playing with two fingers or a stack of 'No Organist No Problem' CD's.

If the church doesn't engage with younger people to fill these posts and (hopefully) improve the music, live music will be lost altogether in many churches within the next ten or twenty years.



My point exactly!

SB

Perhaps the best option is the newly trained surgeon, with his understanding of up-to-date techniques, working alongside the highly experienced surgeon, with his wealth of experience, is the best solution?

Yes: I would have gone for that option too, but I thought we had to choose.

SB

Do the organists among readers / posters think there is a minimum age for starting to learn to play the organ? (NB I am aware that it may take a while before the learner can be unleashed on even a part of the service! )

My elder son is currently around Grade 4 on piano, but progressing fast. However, he is only 10, and although tall, won't be able to reach the pedals on our church organ for a while yet. How do we know when it might be suitable for him to start learning (assuming he wants to, of course )? Is it determined by his level of musical expertise, or physical stature, or both?

If someone is prepared to teach him I see no reason why he shouldn't start now. There is no hurry for him to take any part in the services until he feels ready (if you ever do).
There was a Church Times article a little while ago featuring the jottings of an organ pupil's mother and her son only looked about 8, although he could have been older.
Grade 4 is a reasonable level to begin, providing he keeps his piano/keyboard skills progressing. The problem I forsee is access to an instrument for practising - that, IIRC, was the point of the article.

If it is any help, SBJ attended the POTS course at Oundle this year, and I seem to remember the youngest attendees were nine or ten years old. (The maximum age was 15).

There is a great deal to learn other than pedal technique, so I would have thought that with the right guidance ten years of age would be a good time to try.

Your son might take to the organ like a duck to water, or may be put off at first, only to 'discover' the instrument a year or two later (as our son did).

SB

I agree absolutely, but unfortunately glorification and edification are only ever secondary and tertiary considerations in worship. Before anything else, church services are about making people feel cozy. Yank worshippers outside their comfort zones and they will run a mile - or complain vociferously. And the fact is that the generation that supplies the bulk of our congregations is most comfortable with the banal, 60s-style music they grew up with.

I've said it before, but unless we can start educating the young to appreciate and enjoy classical music as a mainstream part of their heritage and culture, there is no hope for classical church music.


He is at a good age and piano standard to start learning the organ. As Swell Box said, there is plenty for him to learn before he needs to start getting to grips with the pedals. It is possible to do ABRSM grades 2 and 3 on the organ without touching the pedals.

If you are interested, the RCO is organising a day in Newcastle on 9th January, aimed at young organists aged 9 to 19.



See RCO Event Link Here for further details

If your son can get at least some time on the organ before then, perhaps to be able to play one or two short peices, I am sure he would find it both helpful and inspirational. I am sure you will apreciate that at such a young age motivation is essential.

SB

Regrettably not.

The utter ignorance in the medical profession about the modern method of treating commonplace conditions is utterly woeful.

There are still orthopaedic surgeons who will do a full aponeurectomy for Dupuytren's Contracture (a condition that causes thickening of the palm with grave consequences for keyboard players) when the rest of the world uses radiotherapy with a huge success rate. This would not be tolerated in America or France. Similar situations arise over gall bladder operations. This is not the place to go on further!

In church music we tolerate incompetent 'choir trainers', who have never had a lesson in singing or conducting, who wreck people voices, just because they have a keyboard qualification.

It all occurs because 'church' people will accept the lowest standards possible for religious/pastoral reasons. It has been appalling for years and remains so.

I maintain that those holding themselves out as being competent in a field must have had a minimum of training.

Barry Williams

Can you describe exactly what you mean by this? If music is chosen that is within the range of those who are singing it, and the focus is on the expression in the music itself, how can a voice be wrecked? I'm not being facetious, by the way; I genuinely don't really understand! We focus on the rise and fall of phrases, diction, coming in together, clipping the phrases off together, men for this verse, women for that, let's go over the alto line, make sure you give this note its full value, 'men, you need to come in more confidently there'... In short, we're not teaching anyone to sing, as such - we're teaching them the music. They can already sing to a fairly good standard, and certainly good enough for what we're asking them to sing.

Edit: I do entirely agree that a choir should only sing what it can sing well.

Thank you for your response. To reply fully will take a book. It is almost written and is entitled 'Everything Else a Choirmaster Should Know'.

Here are a few comments.

Singing in tune requires a knowledge of singing. If the choir members do not have that knowledge the choirmaster must be able to provide at least some training. The choirmaster's knowledge can only be gained from having singing lessons. Almost all problems of tuning and blend arise from faulty singing and can be corrected easily. Choirmasters who have not had singing lessons will not usually be able to correct faults fully and properly.

Conducting an amateur choir requires clear and decisive direction - far more so than directing a professional group. Few choirmasters have had any conducting lessons and the results are often uncomfortably bad. The vast majority of choirs that do not start or finish together do so because the direction from the choirmaster is poor or unclear. For example, some people conclude pieces with a movement of both hands that looks as though they are tying a bow. It is as unnecessary as it is distracting. All that is required is to start the next beat clearly, for the start of the next beat is also the conclusion of the next beat. That can all be done with the right hand alone.

It seems to be assumed that those who can play the organ immediately acquire conducting skills at the same time. Conducting is a separate skill with a specific technique and has to be taught separately. Few outside the conservertoires have had anything other the most rudimentary lessons in conducting.

It is well documented that bad choir training - mainly of boys in places where they maintain a full time establishment - can result in nodules on the vocal chords. That is what I mean by 'wreck the voice'. An equal amount of damage can be caused by teaching adults to approach certain vowels wrongly, or to treat consonants incorrectly. The bad habits take forever to eradicate - just as bad fingering on the piano takes forever to correct.

These are just a few, but by no means all, of the things I was referring to. This is not the place to give a lecture on the importance of breath notes etc!

Choir training is not something one just does. Neither is it a skill acquired by watching someone else do it. The competent choirmaster will have studied singing and conducting, personally and formally, as well as having the skills of musicianship and interpretation, not to mention people mangement, etc. (Dare I say Organist and Clergy Relationships as well?)

Good diction can only be achieved by a proper understanding of the technique of singing, as can the way to give notes full value. The latter issue has as much to do with the way one produces the voice as counting time.

This is by no means a complete essay on the subject. I have tried to give some indication of the reasons why I believe that all choir masters should undergo formal training before being let loose on unsuspecting choirs.

You may be interested to know that the Forward to the book contains quotes from a couple of very eminent cathedral organists, who admit that they have never had a choir training lesson in their lives!

One noted choral conductor gave me an interesting phrase: "Tell folk not to do what their cathedral organist does. Cathedral organists work with their choirs every day. Often just raising an eyebrow will produce a crescendo." Amateurs need something quite different. (I may not have quoted him accurately - I do not have the papers in front of me, but that is the gist of it.)

When it comes to Organist/Clergy relationships I can only refer people to the relevant chapter in my first book. Even so, a lot of people come to grief and, as we have found out from Swell Box, there is often much unhappiness in places of worship.

I respectfully disagree with Dulciana's comment that choirmasters are not teaching people to sing, they are only teaching them the music. In singing, the person is the instrument. Unless they are already trained to sing, everything the choirmaster does will in some way be teaching them to 'play' their instrument. Bad habits creep in so quickly and take a long time to eradicate. There is no such thing as 'natural singing' for the natural voice has a range of less than an octave. (Consider folk songs and plainsong, for example.) All choir music requires a rather larger range and with it at least some training.

I hope that this brief response indicates my thoughts. I realise that it is not a popular way of thinking, but I believe that it is a justifiable line of approach. No doubt there will be much criticism of the book when it is published. (My co-author is Robert Leach.) We hope it will help folk who lack formal training and encourage them to undertake courses to acquire skillls.

Finally, I quote (again) some words from my great mentor, Charles Cleall: 'The real art of choir training is not who you have in a choir. It is who you keep out.'




Barry Williams

That raises a question that my school music teacher mentioned to me:
He said there wasn't a single cathedral organist whose first study was voice - I suspect that's still true. That's slightly odd given the 'Organist' tends not to play for services very often as that is usually the job of the sub-organist and/or organ scholar.

And amusingly he's now in that position himself although to be fair his is a FRCO(CHM)

Barry - I do take on board what you're saying, and do see where you're coming from. So let me describe our circumstances, and then you might be able to tell me what you would prescribe!

We have a 4 part choir which sounds good most of the time. We have a large repertoire of chants to call upon, and the choir is well able to manage psalms which are not what we were told we were going to have to sing. (Back to the disorganised clergy subject... ) Self (assistant organist) and organist have training on the organ, limited training in conducting, and none in singing. The choir members, however, do sing in tune and are very responsive to instruction with regard to coming in together, etc. We know what pitches are within the ranges of those that we have and choose music accordingly. The choir is well respected and our annual carol service (practice starts in September) attracts many from beyond the church itself.

So I'm perplexed as to what you think people in our position should do! Do we simply say, "No can do - we can play the organ pretty well, self and organist are both post-associateship diploma standard pianists (partner is well beyond that level), but don't have sufficient training to manage a choir, so let's not have one..."

I imagine that we're fairly typical of many churches - well above average in terms of musical standards, but still fairly typical in that we're doing our best with what we've got in terms of limited training ourselves and with untrained singers. Few new members approach us to join, but those who show that they have commitment, are familiar with the requirements of the service, can read music to some extent, and can sing in tune are welcome. I'm sure you're not suggesting that all such church choirs should be disbanded, leaving nothing but the organ to lead the congregation, and seriously diluting the musical element of the Anglican service, leaving the musical members of the congregation to turn instead to the cathedral of a Sunday - which is not what they want, as it's not the same as being a member of a local church community.

Looking forward to reading this. "Everything Else an organist should know" is full of useful information and helpful advice.

As you and Robert say in "Everything Else an Organist should know"
"It is still widely, but wrongly, believed that music is a "gift" bestowed on the privileged few, despite overwhelming evidence from educational research that anyone who can speak can sing."*

That implies that the choir trainer will actually teach the untrained people, of course, but it can (and, I believe, should) be done. Personally, as I've said before, I would be very reluctant to turn away any young person from a church choir - it's the best hope of getting them there and keeping them there.

*[I'm taking this quote a little out of context as it follows some discussion of the merits of "selection and non-selection for church choirs. E.g. "Non-selection may be appropriate for churches with no choir or a poor choir. It will make the choir bigger sooner, but may not necessarily be better."]

Thank you Barry. That, to me, is a very succinct summary of what is required for effective choir direction.

However, I think it would be worth pointing out that voice training does not necessarily need to be lengthy or onerous. I remember my own choirmaster would take each of us to one side, either individually or in small groups, and would ask each of us to sing a solo verse from a hymn, a passage from an anthem, or sometimes sing scales to ‘la la’ or suchlike.

Having listened he would then teach us how best to shape the sounds we were making, so that we sang from the mouth and throat, rather than from the stomach; and so that our diction was articulate and correct. We were also taught how and when to breathe properly and other techniques in much the same way.

This did not take long; I would say perhaps half an hour once a month or so, but the lessons I learned from this have lasted a lifetime.

I think it is also worth mentioning that (in my experience), simple voice 'warming up' exercises before choir practice and services pay dividends; both in protecting voices and producing the best results.

On the subject of conducting skills, I can only agree with you. I recently left a choir principally because the choirmaster was insulting and belittling towards choir members; but also because (in my view) he was incompetent as a conductor and choirmaster.

We would often be expected to spend two or even three evenings a week rehearsing simply because the choirmaster didn't really know what he was doing, and could not conduct. Indeed, it got to the stage that we had to conduct ourselves to achieve clean entries and finishes. We proved on many occasions that we sang much better without him, (and for other conductors), but sadly the man’s ego was far too big for him to pass the baton to someone who knew what they were doing.

By contrast, the BBC TV series ‘Maestro’ showed that even people who cannot read music can be taught how to conduct well.

Like others here I very much look forward to reading the new book. If it is as good as ‘Everything Else an Organist Should Know’ it will be a very worthwhile read.

SB

Thank you Swell Box, Stephen and Dulciana for your comments and for the discussion.

If I may I will turn to Dulciana's comments. Given the situation (excluding the ongoing clergy problem) I would try and get the singers to have some singing lessons and for the organists to have some formal training in conducting.

A friend of mine (who sometimes reads this Board but is not yet a member) asked Hilary Lysten-Jones to do a choir workshop at his church. The parish paid the fee and everyone had a terrific time, learning much and enjoying themselves in the process. Events like this improve the whole choir and their singing technique.

Much can be taught to choirmasters about the way in which rehearsals are taken - the efficient use of time and people is very important. Similarly, the organists could get some training in conducting.

It certainly seems that my new book may be useful or at least fill a gap in technique.

John Bertalot's books are excellent for getting a choir going and especailly for those who work with children. John is a splendid chap and always makes his rehearsals happy and fulfilling.

Barry Williams