Sorry, Barry, but with all due respect I think "some" singing lessons is poor advice to give a choir member. If you're going to learn to sing, you absolutely must go the whole hog and do it properly. There is nothing worse than someone who has just had a few lessons since this will give them time to acquire only the most superficial knowledge of some of the principals without the technique to apply them competently, consistently and effectively. They think that a few lessons has taught them how to sing when in fact they still know next to nothing and often produce a worse sound than before. I have seen/heard it happen. If the situation is one where the choir director is a fully trained singer who can effectively give the choir lessons as part of the choir practice then of course that may be a different matter, but we are discussing situations where this is not the case and where the budding student would be left high and dry.

I do agree about conducting though. Learning a proper technique never hurt anyone and it will certainly yield dividends in terms of precision and expression - though invariably the first problem to overcome with parish church choirs is getting them to look at you at all! To control a choir's performance effectively one must at the very least learn to give a definite, precise beat (which isn't as easy as it might seem) with only one downbeat in a bar. Then you need to be able to use your hands independently, which gives an extra dimension of control. However, what hasn't been mentioned by anyone yet is that you also have to teach choirs how to respond to conducting. Experienced singers may react instinctively to good, proper conducting, but amateurs won't have a clue. They won't know even know that a downbeat marks the first beat in a bar. Like I said, to begin with, they won't even be looking.

That is very true. I neglected (forgot) to mention this point, my defence being that it was a long time ago.

Getting choirs to look at their conductor is another, entirely different challenge.

Firstly, the conductor has to be worth watching, as there is nothing to be gained by looking at someone who simply whirls their hands around in the air.

Secondly, far too many choirs only ever rehearse sitting down. Apart from restricting breathing and vocal range, it is difficult to see the score and the conductor at the same time from this position.

Thirdly, amateur choristers always seem to hold scores far too close to their bodies, so they have to look down at the music. Apart from the fact they cannot see the score and conductor simultaneously, much of the sound is lost, rather than being projected. We were always taught to hold scores at arms length so that we could see both the score and the conductor.

Perhaps the best training for this was the annual Advent service, with candles affixed to a clipboard holding the music. Anyone holding the score too closely was quickly reminded by a singeing noise and the pungent smell of burning hair!

SB

]


Sorry, Vox Humana, (How appropriate is your name!), you are quite correct. I was trying not to be too hard about things. I really do prefer folk to learn to sing properly. The real problem arises when most of the choir have had singing lessons and one or two have not.

The point about a clear beat is interesting. I attended a conducting course run by the RCO and was told, quite definitively, that one should not have a precise beat. Rather, one should motion as though one was drawing curtains in front of the abdomen. (I am not joking!) This went against the lengthy and significant training I received at that place in Marylebone Road and subsequently, so I made a mental note to avoid courses like that in future.

Maurice Miles taught me to use only the right hand for conducting. We had to make that one paw do it all. The left hand was reserved for page turns.

Swell Box's comments are interesting. I have long maintained that proper music desks are vital, for choristers should not have to struggle holding copies. If the chant book is the new St Paul's Cathedral Psalter fatigue can set in after verse three. There is an excellent photograph in Sir Adrian Boult's excellent textbook of conducting showing the conductor looking at a player and seeing only the top half of the face. Another photograph shows the view of the conductor from the player's perspective.

Similarly, one needs to provide clear scores, properly marked and have good lighting in the rehearsal room. The temperature should be adequate. Cold churches are not the place to rehearse choirs.

I would rather have four trained singers than forty untrained voices. The musical reasons are obvious, but it is my experience that properly trained singers give less grief and are more reliable than 'singers' who feel that they can attend on a whim, or not, as the mood or other church activities take them. For me, singing in the choir is incompatible with other church commitments. It requires a great deal of time and attention. The people who miss choir practice because they are also in the sewing circle, the Guides, the Youth club, etc should leave the choir and give their attention to the other organisations. The choir is a big commitment for anyone, even if simple music is sung. Sir Sidneyy Nicholson, ih his book, 'In Quires and Places where They Sing' proposes that choristers of all ages should have a contract with the church to formalise their commitment. I have heard of one church where the Director of Music, quite properly, has recently put his foot down about casual attendances so that he can know the forces available for a particular Sunday.

Barry Williams

I am afraid I chose it because I know I have a tendency to have far too much to say!


My ghast is completely flabbered. How could this possibly ensure good ensemble? Did the person concerned have a rationale as to why this imprecision was desirable?


Ditto, but from that place opposite the Albert Hall!


St Paul's Cathedral? (Miaow!)

"My ghast is completely flabbered. How could this possibly ensure good ensemble? Did the person concerned have a rationale as to why this imprecision was desirable?"

Yes. It was part of the overall procedure to ensure that the conducting had no 'clicks' and thus the flow of the music was undisturbed.

Is your ghast even more flabbered now? Mine was. Totally and utterly like never before - and I paid £25 to have my ghast flabbered on this way. (Never again!)

More seriously, it is indeed true that one has to teach amateurs to know what the beats mean. But once they are taught they will follow easily. There is no doubt that simple, clear and precise conducting, (which requires technique,) produces results. There are additional skills that the choral conductor needs, but the overall technique of conducting is the same for choirs and orchestras. In case anyone wishes to challege that statement I refer them not only to Sir Adrian Boult's splendid book but also to the textbook by Brock McEllerhan - a worthy volume for any aspiring conductor.

A lot of myth has grown up around choral conducting as though it had some mystique of its own. Certainly, the weird gestures sometimes seen suggest that it might have. A good. solid, plain and secure technique will serve the aspiring conductor as much as secure fingering will serve the aspiring pianist or organist.

You will have to explain your comment about Wren's draughty ecclesiastical shed in the City of London, for I knoweth not what you meaneth, thereof.

Barry Willams

My goodness (to put it politely)! My tuition was from none other than Vernon Handley (before he became well known) and "click" was the exact term he used to describe what was necessary for a clear beat. If it's good enough for him, it's more than good enough for me!


I totally agree with this. I wonder how those who claim orchestras and choirs need different techniques would go about conducting The Dream of Gerontius, to name but one! One hand for each technique, perhaps?! The only concession I make is that I don't use a baton. I used to do so, but it always felt it rather pretentious to use one in front of a choir and, to tell the truth, I found I got better results without.

It was a dig at the deputy system. Maybe things are different today - I'm not really in touch any more - but I did hear that Christopher Dearnley once complained that he could never be sure who would be manning the back rows of his choir from service to service. A friend of mine often used to boast that this or that singer of his was on the deputy list at St Paul's - until I suggested that probably every singer in London worth his salt was on the deputy list of St Paul's. An exaggeration, perhaps, but in those days it certainly seemed like it.

Vernon Handley was, I think, a pupil of Sir Adrian Boult, as were my conducting teachers. Boult refers in his book to 'clicks', without which there can be no precision. It is good enough for me too.


Brock McEllerhan makes exactly the same point in his book about choral and orchestral conducting having the same technique, otherwise what does one do when conducting a choir and a band?

Boult and others of his school point out that one may move from confident stick technique to using the hand for a smallish choral group after one has learned stick technique.

The person who postulated the weird theories has been seen to conduct smallish groups and, on one occasion last July when I was present, start off with a reasonably orthodox beat. After a few bars he got out of step with the choir and was actually conducting a different beat of the bar from that which the choir were singing. This is by no means unique. I have seen the same thing happen with a guest conductor of the BBC Singers. They got about half a bar out and stuck at it all the way through the piece. This happened throughout the concert. Their amusement at the 'guest conductor' was only just stifled. The singing was superb but the conductor had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Barry Williams

Isn't it strange, though? If ever there was a conductor who appeared not to have a recognisable beat it was surely Boult! And it has to be said that his ensemble was not always impeccable - just listen to his RVW symphonies. But, my word, the depth of his interpretations...!

I spoke to an orchestral player who served under Boult's direction. He said that it was all done in rehearsal, leaving little to do in performance, when simple and small gestures would acheive much.

Whenever I saw and heard Sir Adrian the ensemble was stunning, the gestures were few and small. It was said that if you took your eye off the beat you lost it.

Nowadays, there are fewer rehearsals, so more gestures are needed - at least that is the excuse!

I really do wonder about some choral conductors though. The antics they get up to are quite funny and acheive very little. In church it can be very distracting indeed, unless the choir is in a West gallery or otherwise out of sight.

Barry Williams

What's this got to do with disorganised clergy? It was me that led us astray. Sorry.

The conversation has moved away not only from disorganised clergy but also from the ordinary parish church out here! Where we don't concern ourselves with whether our conducting would suit for an orchestra as well as for a group of little boys, because for most of us it's just a group of ordinary men and women, and where the only point of the exercise is that they get the idea about where the first beat of the bar is and at what tempo those beats are moving, barring rits and ralls. In fact, most of the time there's only one organist there and conducting isn't an option. It's more of a "remember to look over at this point and I'll nod." And they do remember. If we were to suggest singing lessons they'd be insulted - or would ask where the money was coming from.

When I said we had limited training in conducting, what I meant was what Barry described - a few afternoons of this type of thing. To be honest, I think we'd been doing okay anyway before this anyway, and I couldn't help feeling that while the thinking behind these sessions may have started with a certain desire to educate, they had somehow become 'jobs for the boys' - boys who would have struggled to cope - or be readily accepted - in a bog-standard parish church where a spade is a spade.

There is musical talent all around us, but it need not necessarily be professional to be worthy of church worship. I think it's wrong to say that only excellence 'glorifies God'. Uplifting, reverent, inspiring, good to listen to and providing a good lead - yes - but not necessarily professional. I'm not a Christian in the conventional sense of the word, but I have my own beliefs, and, lets just say that there are times when the worship in certain churches is more for the glory of the musicians than for the glory of God.

PS - I'm in cynical mode....

I agree that proper music desks are an ideal, but very few are of the correct height for our current population - even if they were when they were built!

However, I was thinking more about processing, and occasional choirs which tend to perform away from the quire.

SB

".....the worship in certain churches is more for the glory of the musicians than for the glory of God."

I agree - totally. Far too often services bear more resemblance to an ecclesiastical opera than divine worship. High standards are important. Complexity of music is not. Many difficulties arise when musicians and singers attempt pieces well beyond their capability and inflict their inadequacies on the congregation. Congrtegations, like juries, are captive audiences, but they do not have to listen.

Most of the unedifying performances I have heard have been the result of choirs attempting unsuitable music of greater complexity than they are cpapable of rendering well.

Barry Williams

Surely this is the fault of whoever chooses the music (either organist, choirmaster or clergy) rather than the choir.

The point has previously been made about choir members who just turn up on a Sunday morning expecting to sing. Again, surely the organist or choirmaster has to take some responsibility for this. Time and time again I've tried to get our organist to understand that if choir practice is at 7.15 on a Thursday, he can't expect people who work to be able to get to choir practice. I've suggested that it's moved to Sunday morning so that (i) he knows exactly who he's got singing and can choose repertoire accordingly, (ii) anything new or difficult is still fresh in the memory for the service, (iii) the choir can work on skills such as ensemble because they're all at a rehearsal. I might as well talk to myself though

Choosing music and practising it on a Sunday morning might mean that the organist would be the one playing off the cuff rather than it being the choir which is inadequately prepared, though! Some could do it, but I wouldn't be among those who'd do it well. Committed choir members are valuable, though, so a bit of compromise all round is surely the best idea if all concerned are to be well prepared - like making it a bit later on a Thursday evening, maybe?

Good point. In our case it's not relevant as we are the Quire With A Shrinking Repertoire


I agree - a later rehearsal would mean we could make it to choir practice, but probably at the cost of the attendance of the old ladies who are afraid of driving in the dark

I couldn't disagree more strongly with this. Are you seriously suggesting that the choirmaster waits and sees who comes to the rehearsal on the morning of the service and then decides what you will sing?? Every service? Why on earth would you expect him to do that? I should think it's the responsibility of choir members to inform him if they are unable to attend and in advance – isn't that just common courtesy?

As for the time of rehearsal, my guess (and a good one considering your subsequent post) is that whatever time is suggested won't be suitable – it's too late, it's too dark, it's too early, it's thursday, I need to feed my cat etc., etc.

There are many things I would like to do but the times they are on happens to be when I'm working. So what do I do? I don't do them. At all.

I've suggested that it's moved to Sunday morning

Well, it's what we do, although the music list is published way ahead, and only amended if absolutely necessary.
We also have a monthly evening practice on order to look ahead, which most of us try to get to - I don't usually get there for the start.

If we know in advance that we won't be there, we will of course as a matter of common courtesy notify our organist. No matter how far in advance he knows that he won't have a tenor, that doesn't stop him programming four-part repertoire.

Some absences can't be pre-notified - I don't know in advance when the car won't start or I'll have a cold, for example - which is why I agree wholeheartedly with maggiemay:



and this is what happens at some other local churches.

As for "Why on earth would you expect him to do that?", I'm not expecting music to be programmed every week on the hoof. Rehearsing just before the service would allow for last-minute emergency changes if there was no alto or tenor, would ensure that whatever was sung (whether programmed ten minutes or ten weeks before the service) was fresh in everyone's mind, would help that whatever forces were available had a chance to work on aspects such as blend (cont. p94)


Good approach, and I may well try it myself. In the meantime, do you know of much SAB repertoire where the sopranos don't have to go above an E?

I inherited this system as well. I wish we could have a weekday practice but I know I wouldn't get everyone there.

I do choose the music for the term in advance, but always have one or two alternative pieces ready in case I feel it's necessary. I practise anything new at rehearsals during previous weeks.

I've just introduced, for the juniors, a monthly "Choir Club" afternoon rehearsal (5.00) followed by games and chatting with a bit of food and stuff. It gives me a chance to rehearse music coming up and is also good for the youngsters socially. (I think of it as an extra rehearsal, they think of it as a party!)

Ah, our church has a cunning solution for this one! Our organ is flat - at least a semi-tone, if not more. Makes it really quite easy for our sops, but speaking as an alto (and one who sings from the Complete Anglican Hymns Old and Not So Old New, where half the tunes have been transposed down to make them "easier" for the congregation to reach the high notes), I find it a bit painful. And for some reason, it's always the last hymn which seems to have an alto line centred around low A or G (and usually it goes on for a good 5 verses as well) ....

Hymns Old and New (as you rightly point out, certainly not New,) is, like most of the Kevin Mayhew hymnody, not intended for harmony singing. When using that book you should really be in unison.

This is one of the many reasons that these volumes are so very unpopular.

Barry Williams

I have a confirmation to play at at a fairly low church this coming Sunday, and the programme is to be emailed to me, so whats the betting on when I receive it?

If it's a 'low' church you probably won't be allowed to gamble.

That said, I would put £5 on late Friday afternoon or Friday evening; unless Friday is the Vicar's day off, in which case it'll either be last thing Thursday or Saturday morning. But that still leaves at least 24 hours to change something.

SB

Nothing as yet, I will chase them up tomorrow evening.

Looks like I could win that fiver then!

SB

Actually just received it - quite impressed really.

Just to redress the balance a little bit, I am pleased to report an occasion that could be held up as a model of good practice.

Last Sunday I stood in for an absent organist at a (fairly) local church. The vicar rang me up just over a week beforehand to ask if I was free to play. The following Tuesday he called at my door in person to deliver the hymns, a copy of the Communion setting, a copy of the order of service and a page of clear instructions on the sequence of events; he also promised to ensure that the organ was open and all necessary music books ready. The icing on the cake was that the hymns were all traditional ones to their traditional, dignified tunes (I later learned that it isn't always like that; I suspect the vicar had been warned about me!)

On the day, I arrived early before the church was unlocked, but, on entry, found the organ ready for me exactly as promised. When the vicar arrived he made a point of coming to greet me and making sure that I had everything I needed. The service went without a hitch and was, indeed quite up my street, with smells and bells, deacon, subdeacon, etc - the chancel contingent almost outnumbered the congregation.

After the service I was thanked profusely by the priest and many of the congregation (one or two of whom had actually troubled to listen to my voluntary). I made a point of thanking them for the lovely service and said how nice it was to have hymn tunes with dignity.

And, lastly, yesterday I received a postcard of thanks from the vicar - the first time that's ever happened! What a lovely man he was.

It could almost tempt me back into a church job.

This is excellent news. However, it does seem to bear out our own experience, (and that of some others here), that organists at least are valued much more highly in 'higher' churches than those at the bottom of the candle.

With this in mind, I do wonder what will happen if and when the C of E splits into two or more separate churches, as seems increasingly likely. A subject for another thread perhaps?

SB

With luck - even more church organists required! There'll be a national shortage of organists!

"With luck - even more church organists required! There'll be a national shortage of organists!"

There is no shortage of organists. The only shortage is of organists willing to play for services, usually of a certain type or requiring music of a less than satisfying kind.

That is why you often find several well-qualified organists in the congregations of some churches and, as Maggiemay has pointed out, sometimes two or three FRCOs on the staff of some places. This is not at all uncommon.

I have been to some central London churches where there are sometimes as many as five or six people in the congregation that can play as well as the incumbent organist.

Barry Williams

I think there IS a huge shortage of organists - just, apparently, not in London

[[/quote]I think there IS a huge shortage of organists - just, apparently, not in London
[/quote]

I really do hope that there is, for it gives organists the pick of the jobs and probably better working conditions. If there are fewer around they might be better treated.

Barry Williams

I can see why this is the case. I'm not including myself in the category of highly qualified organists, but I'd much rather be an assistant where I am than the main organist in one of the many other churches around. It would be so easy to just throw your hands up in despair and go along with the cr*p and end up caring as little as they do about musical standards. I need to practise a fair bit to play as I want to, and don't like having to play off the cuff, but I would hate to end up thinking "Why should I bother - nobody cares." A lot of the clergy underestimate the importance of the music in a service; they take it for granted, and can't tell the difference between traditional and old-fashioned. And they also don't take on board that not everybody is comfortable with soppy music. They think it's emotive. What they miss is the fact that many people find a comfort in the predictability of the traditional musical Anglical service and want to look inward rather than bounce around to so-called modern stuff. Good music can touch where no sermon can - maybe this bugs them!

Wasn't there a survey a while back that somebody started a thread about in which it was found that it was Gregorian chant which inspired the greatest feeling of spirituality in the listener?

I think I'm beginning to waffle wildly off the subject...

"I think I'm beginning to waffle wildly off the subject... "

No! You are spot on in every respect. First and foremost people go to church to be affirmed. They do not go to church to suffer. They need to be challenged, but not by music, architecture, carpets and sermon all at once - if some of the things that happen really are a challenge.

Unfortunately, so much of what is offered in church these days is a long way off the founder's intentions. There are factions and disputes of a type that simply did not happen years ago. One wonders why it occurs. Much of it is because the founder's religion has been displaced by a social gathering in which everyone is encouraged to feel abnormally good about themselves. This is, I am sure, the origin of the trite ditties that irritate Board members so much.

"...many people find a comfort in the predictability of the traditional musical Anglical service .."

There is nothing wrong with this at all. Regrettably some of those who wear their collars round the other way think that there is. They have probably been trained like that in theological college.

Even the 'high' churches have instabilities and factions. It can affect all types of churchmanship. The best formula for success is a really stable incumbent. Good incumbents tend to attract good musicians, which is one of the reasons why the better places tend to have a surfeit of organists around. Another reason is having traditional music and many organists will put up with a lot of hassle to get that these days.

Barry Williams

Hmm, you obviously don't sit on (some) congregational pews too often (mind you there are some organ stools that are even better at making you suffer!)

Good music can touch where no sermon can - maybe this bugs them!

YES YES and YES!

I have always suspected this, and that many (not all!) regard the power of music as somehow less valid.

Words can get in the way. Especially when there are too many of them ...

Another reason is having traditional music and many organists will put up with a lot of hassle to get that these days.

Yes. And some will accept a different or peripheral role too ... I had rather be a doorkeeper , you might say.

Yesterday evening I learned that a friend of mine has resigned as organist & choirmaster at his very nice church. The cause of his resignation was sheer frustration with the choir and vicar.

The choir, which is not at all bad, manage, on average, attendance of about 50%. Then, at Christmas, he gets the extras from the congregation who come in just for the Carol Service and Midnight Holy Communion service. Also, many of the choir are members of the local choral society and do not attend the church choir when there is a clash of events.

The vicar has not managed a single meeting with him to discuss music throughout 2009.

It all sounds like a recipe for disaster.

The lack of weekly commitment is a constant problem. Another friend of mine, alas now departed, ran quite a large and succesful amateur choir on a 'turn up and sing' basis. He said he never knew if he would have three sopranos and no tenors until the rehearsal started at 10am. Despite this he got, on average, about thirty singers, due, probably, to a very traditional repertoire.

I really do wonder about the policy of admitting all volunteers to choirs. I have never been in favour of it, but it does seem to create real problems when folk have other commitments which they see as priorities over the church choir.

Surely, singing in the choir is incompatible with any other duty in church that might detract from the singing.

Public acts of divine worship demand high standards, irrespective of the style of music used. Anything less than 100% commitment will produce difficulties.

Barry Williams

In theory, yes, but in the real world it really isn't as simple as that.

I do agree that a policy of opening up the choir for carol services (or any other big service) to anyone in the congregation is deplorable. If people are not prepared to attend choir practices in order to learn how to do the job properly, they have no place in the choir.

But the problem of conflicting commitments, or even the will to give 100% attendence, can occur with regular choir members and I do not think there is an easy solution. I once knew a young organist who went to become organist of a parish church with a thriving all-male choir of some 25 boys and 12 men. At his first practice the whole choir turned out to see the "new boy". He was quite impressed with the material he had to work with and the sound they made. The following week only about three quarters of the boys and half the men turned up. The following week the numbers were much the same, but faces were not. After another week or two of this he made it clear that if people wanted to be in the choir they must treat it seriously and come regularly. Result: about half the choir promptly left. He came to wish he'd just let things be. At least, by all accounts, his predecessor had been able to count on a big choir at least for major festivals; the new man couldn't.

The purloining of choirboys to act as acolytes comes to mind! I've had that in the past.

Surely the answer, as always, lies in compromise? We bemoan the fact that we don't always get compromise from the clergy, so we really have to practise what we preach! Requiring a minimum attendance rather than full attendance, and insisting upon due notice for non-attendance might be the answer. This is more or less how our church choir works, though in practice there is full attendance almost all the time. One new member wasn't going to join because of other commitments form time to time, but once everyone else knew the score (so to speak...) they were happy with this and don't resent it. The organist knows who will be there when and is able to choose music accordingly.

Absolutely. I know of a cathedral voluntary choir where the director requires all the members to commit to a 70% attendance over a year and to notify at the beginning of each term which services they will attend and which not. This seems a good system, though I am not so sure how far it would be workable in a parish church.

A bit off topic but I couldn't resist. I haven't heard anyone mention the name of Charles Cleall for years. But back in the days when I sang in the Senior Choir and trained the Junior Choir of our Methodist Church
he was very highly respected by our choirmaster. I seem to remember him addressing the Methodist church Music Society and I remember very clearly him referring to what often passes as singing in schools as "pitched shouting". In school I battle ceaselessly against this and one of the reasons I now don't often go to church is that there I hear rather too much of it.

I must say that reading the views expressed on this thread is a great comfort. The general standard of church music here is poor. Even the televised masses are often grim - and as has been said above - not necessarily from the performance point of view but from the point of view of taste. It is comforting to know that there are people concerned and battling for something better.

It is good to read your comments about Charles Cleall. He is retired, living in Dorset and, as you would expect, still very active.

He is probably one of, if not the, most knowlegeable person ever on choral matters. His books are still the finest ever written, though rarely read by the so-called 'experts'.

Charles has a fine knowledge of theology; he argues his case against rubbish music well and from the Scriptural point of view. (Though he and I agree to differ about a certain piece by Sir John Stainer!) One of his books has a separate Scriptural index.

Sydney Nicholson, in his book 'Quires and Places Where they Sing' advocates a contract between the adult choristers and the church, so that there is a level of commitment. ".....'voluntary' service does not imply freedom to give or with-hold according to the fancy of the moment. It is suggested that all members of a choir should be asked to sign a simple contract of service.......this would help in making them feel that the obligation they had incurred was a real one and binding so long as it existed."

Charles Cleall is a little less gentle and rightly so. He advocates each new choirmaster having the right to choose their own team and gives excellent guidance on how to do it. Many of the difficulties that arise whould disappear if the choirmaster had the singers in sufficient regular attendance to be able to do something with them. It certainly seems that irregular attendance is a problem to many choirmasters.

A difficulty that often arises is when the clergy see it right and proper to have people in the choir stalls, robed and singing, 'for pastoral reasons'. I find it diffcult to understand how someone can be in a choir 'for pastoral reasons.' The choir is there to do a job, not to accomodate the desire of untrained members of the congregation who wish to dress up in robes and 'have a go.' Mention has been made of purloining choristers for acolytes. I can think of a few, adults, as well as children, who should be offered as permanent acolytes, or servers, or sidesmen, or absolutely anything other than choristers. Charles Cleall expresses it neatly. 'The church is there to bring people in from the highways and byways, but not necessarily into the choir stalls.'

As I have written before on this Board, I am fortunate indeed to be isolated from these issues, but I do find it regrettable that the problems still exist and offensive that trained musicians are expected to work with volunteers in such a haphazard fashion. Not only is it utterly unprofessional, it will lead to a lowering of standards, which gives a very bad impression of the church. Further, it does nothing to better the good folk who wish to learn from the choirmaster. It is unfair to all.

Barry Williams

I thought I'd add this to the disorganised clergy thread, although it really should be entitled "stuck in a rut clergy". Our PP is pretty elderly, but insists on having exactly the same order of service for Midnight Mass and Christmas day mass as last year, ...and the year before .... and the year before that ... You get the picture. He's had the little leaflets printed, and wants to save on trees so we re-use the leaflets year on year.

Arrrgh.!

I do understand your point of view. However as far as I am concerned, one of the most important jobs of a choir is to bring new people into church and I am delighted to have people, especially juniors, join, even if they can't sing much. My church is yards away from the cathedral, which has boys' and girls' choirs and there is no university in the city and no available pool of professional or semi-professional singers. Do I abandon the idea of having a choir at all? Would that be better. For whom? (me, I suppose, actually!)

I do think, Barry, that you're looking at a rarified world (London) where all things are possible and where you just have to click your fingers to be overrun by highly-trained professional young singers. It isn't like that everywhere.

Personally I prefer to have a choir where the singers are part of the congregation and Christian community - not hired help. Though I do understand that there could be many places where a professional choir could be the best thing. (Possibly even my church if there wasn't a professional cathedral set-up on the other side of the square!)

Thank you Stephen for your thoughtful response.

My posting did not mention professional or semi-professional singers at all.

I was referring to a lack of commitment - having people in the choir who really should not be there because their attendance pattern means that they simply cannot improve. Folk who are unwilling to give the necessary commitment, possibly because of other church activities, or those who will not learn to sing properly, have no rightful place in the church choir.

There is no reason at all why all the members of a choir cannot be part of the church community. Those who cannot sing but are willing to learn present little problem, except perhaps in the very short term. The difficulties arise with people who occupy choir stalls but simply do not put in the work to acheive the results.

My posting is not incompatible with your concept of the choir as part of the community. It is the lack of commitment that leads to poor standards. Poor standards lead to the choir being an unattractive organisation for anyone to join, except, perhaps, for purely 'pastoral' reasons. Poor standards make divine service unacceptable in parts of the music, which may even keep people away from the church.

Thus I agree with you. The choir should bring people into the church, though they need not all be brought into the choir stalls. Those who do join the choir must give the necessary commitment to train and be useful singers. If they do not they will lower the standard and, inevitably, the choir's work will fail to attract people to church. Sydney Nicholson's words are very telling: 'Voluntary' service does not imply freedom to give or withhold service at a whim. It is all a question of commitment.

Similarly, having people in the choir purely for 'pastoral' reasons will not help them or anyone else. It may be that some folk will enjoy the choir and thus learn to sing. I admire choirmasters who take on such people. But too many like that and the good singers will leave - as has happened in a number of places - and the exercise becomes self-defeating.

Children are in a different category because it is easier to get and insist on regular attendance at choir rehearsals.

The voluntary ethic is always a problem in church work. It is often interpreted as the divine right to have a go at anything, irrespective of the lack of skill in the volunteer. It is a good job that we do not permit the 'have a go' approach in respect of re-roofing or re-wiring the church. (Though I do know of one place where that happened with nearly disastrous results!)

Having professional singers is not always the easy option. When it works well it is usually excellent, but I have recently heard of a church where the introduction of a couple of paid singers has caused resentment
amongst the very competent amateurs who make up the majority of the choir and some unhappiness has, apparently, arisen.

Those who direct fully professional choirs will tell you that it is not always an easy option. Nevertheless, the one problem that does not arise with proper professionals, (as opposed to paid singers- not always the same thing,) is lack of commitment.

On another matter, I worry about the difficulties of children's work generally, given the many calls on the time of potential choristers with out of school activities, the lack of popularity of singing in church and, of course, the circumstances that must now appertain in respect of child protection rules. All of this goes to make a childrens' choir a very difficult organisation to maintain. In this I suspect it may be slightly easier in some places than in others. some cathedrals are finding it difficult to recruit choristers. I really do admire your youth work in bringing juniors into church choirs.

At a recent meeting of the Guild of Church Musicians, when honorary Fellowhips and Memberships were awarded, the list of work done by organists and choirmasters sounded like a marathon of youth work. It was only on hearing the Cvs of these worthy people that I realised that much of the musical activitiy organists and choirmasters are engaged in is youth work of great value, often in trying circumstances. And it is frequently unrecognised. There must have been thousands of children who had the benefit of the training of the dozen or so who received awards. It was indeed a splendid acheivement and it was moving to hear it all read out.

Barry Williams

Thank you for your response, Barry. I agree with everything you say - certainly in principle. Commitment, however, is a dirty word these days, and I still feel that you are wildly overestimating the resources available to churches outside London and, perhaps, some other big cities. Certainly there are churches that can maintain a musical tradition and they should follow all your advice. But parish churches have a different role to city churches which don't have to include everyone in that parish.

You said (not in this last post, admittedly) that "The real art of choir training is not who you have in the choir - it is who you keep out." That presupposes that you have queues of people wanting to join. But nowadays it is very difficult for many of us to maintain any sort of choir and we can't afford to be so picky, even if we thought it was the right approach. Everyone is busy and parents who don't have a church connection no longer welcome an invitation to their children to join. Too much of a commitment when there are so many other things to do on Sunday. Also a certain amount of suspicion of, and hostility to the church.

As far as I am concerned, I take anyone into the choir. I try hard to train up the juniors and get them to do awards. I remind them how important regular attendance is and make it a Golden Rule that I always know in advance if someone is going to be away. I try to make sure that the music we sing is the best we can do, and if it is I'm happy.

I now try to avoid church commitments as much as possible, but being soft-hearted as well as soft-headed, I occasionally get sucked into deputising at churches when the resident organist is away. I rarely find a choir of more than just four or five sopranos, even when they are all there. Sometimes the "choir" actually in attendance has been down to just two ladies. Around here (and I am sure the same must be true for whole swathes of the country) it is fairly rare for churches to have an organist with sufficient capability (and inclination?) to use such minimal resources meaningfully and effectively. In such cases I often wonder whether it would be more seemly to drop the pretence of having a choir altogether - but then I suppose you risk offending people. Then again, in high churches you often find a large altar contingent, most of whom might appear superfluous to the uninitiated or unsympathetic onlooker and maybe you could argue that having one or two people in the choir stalls just adds harmlessly to this aura of mystery and ceremonial. In any event, it's sad state of affairs.

"You said (not in this last post, admittedly) that "The real art of choir training is not who you have in the choir - it is who you keep out." That presupposes that you have queues of people wanting to join."

I was quoting Charles Cleall. It is certainly true that if you have a good choir good singers will want to join - providing that you give them a reasonable repertoire. If you admit less than good singers the good singers will tend to leave. After all, who wants to sit through a choir practice whilst the notes are bashed through slowly for the few who cannot read music? (Would the drama club admit actors who could not read?)

It has been my experience that a good choir singing a worthwhile repertoire will attract well trained singers. Likewise, a choir of incompetent people is not an attractive proposition to singers of skill and ability.

Nowadays there is the additional problem that many churches simply do not believe in having a good choral repertoire, as a matter of chosen policy. Couple that with the use of HON or something similar and you have every reason for good singers to stay away. All of this is before one gets anywhere near issues of commitment.

The situation regarding singers in the London suburbs appears not to be that good. There are a few places where music is still appreciated and performed, such as Croydon Parish Church, which maintains several large choirs and has a repertoire of the 'classics' at both morning and evening services. St Bartholomew's Brighton still has, I am told, a repertoire of some forty six Viennese Masses in addition to Byrd's three and a couple of Palestrinas for Lent and Advent. Places like these are relatively rare, though it is clear that the music is a draw for many in the congregation at Brighton.

Generally speaking, there is not the opportunity in most churches to do good music, even if one has the singers ready and able to perform. Most places insist on a unison setting of the Holy Communion and use the 'You' and 'Yours' liturgy which, despite the rubric permitting Prayer Book settings, usually means banal music. Choirs can only sing settings like the 'Mass' of Five Melodies and the 'Addington' service so many times before they become totally tedious!

Given a good repertoire and an appreciative congregation singers will come. If the standard is as good as they are they may stay. The resources are there, but many reasons will keep people from joining or staying in church choirs.

If there is a choir they must be given material to sing. Without it they will not grow. Choir repertoire cannot be confined to Evening Prayer ('Evensong') and occasional mid week Saints' Days. With music to sing and an appreciation of their work, choristers might develop commitment.

The change from years ago is due to a number of matters. Commitment is, of course, a major factor. But the alteration in the liturgical 'style' is probably as great an issue. There seems to be a tendancy for the congregation to want to sing everything themselves, at least in services of Holy Communion. The clergy often regard choirs as eclectic and elitist, though they like the decoration of large numbers of people standing around in robes. Childrens' choirs are seen, sometimes, as a form of youth club rather than a musical enhancement of divine worship.

Altogether, things are not good for church musicians and this is why they tend to flock to certain places, though even in 'centres of excellence' the internal politics can and often does put people off.

The level of discontent expressed on this Board is a measure of how many organists feel about working for the clergy. It is sad. I doubt that we will ever see a return to the days of quite recent memory or, indeed, to the situation in the United States of America.


Barry Williams

This is sadly so true. However I don't know that this is such a new thing. I was recently looking through the archived vestry minutes of my family's church, which go back to the 1700's, and the gripes that the choir and organist had then were not so very different to the gripes that they have now. (The organist of 1850-odd was an ancestor of mine, and at one point he was bemoaning his salary, which was actually not half bad! ) I think hierarchical church circles just attract a certain type of person, who might not have a position of authority in the real world. Let's face it, true Christianity doesn't depend on being a big ### in a church; many would argue that the two are actually mutually exclusive. I think those who can see beyond the general pettiness and who have an understanding of human nature should pragmatise (is that a word, even...?) as best they can. I don't think we should be so pessimistic. What is a modern phenomenon is our predisposition to throw the head up and refuse to play ball on the pretext of taking the moral high ground. The ability to use gentle influence from within, though, is a very powerful weapon.