The number of heart-felt responses to this thread is amazing. In my church we are almost a year into an inter-regnum (is that the correct word for being without a Vicar?) and the Wardens are just so pleased that yours truly is chosing the hymns. This is particularly useful for he who deputises for me. He is no musical fool as he scraped a grade 8 piano pass some years ago, but has not so far played for many services. When I started I needed a great deal of notice of the hymns. Even now, when asked to play for an Advent carol service in a church with a nice 3 manual instrument I have asked for early confirmation regarding the choir music I am to accopmany. I am already being threatened with 'O Thou the Central Orb', and a suitably efforescent concluding volutary will surely be required.

Sounds interesting!

On your first point: after several enquiries, I finally received a message this afternoon (Thursday) advising that SB Junior won't be required this Sunday, but may be needed next Sunday.

On your second point: sadly I fear that you are right. Our clergy know that SB junior is keen, can play well at short notice, and won't turn down an invitation to play unless he is already engaged elsewhere.

I have to say that our clergy are becoming increasingly unsupportive in these matters. Their role, as they see it, is to turn up five minutes before a service, deliver that service and then leave as quickly as possible afterwards. They refuse to get involved in the day to day running of individual churches in the parish, and are very reluctant to provide personal ministry; preferring to recruit willing volunteers to do the job for them. This of course allows certain factions to run riot, including one Reader, who regards the organ and it's music as “an unnecessary adornment to worship”.

Thankfully the other (smaller) churches in the parish are more enlightened, but have little need and limited opportunities for a keen organist.

I think then we have to face the uncomfortable truth that our efforts are not much appreciated in our own church (we are by no means alone in feeling this way), so perhaps we will be lucky enough to find a church where they need, and would appreciate a keen young organist who is genuinely passionate about church music.

SB

Oh dear, you paint a sorry picture. I'm sure some churches would jump at the chance to encourage a young organist, and it will be such a pity if your son is put off by the scant regard paid to his efforts by your church. I hope you can find somewhere a little more supportive.

As to the clergy attitude, I think many of them find it quite a struggle to get round to all the churches in the parish, so because they know there are folk available to keep things ticking over at your church perhaps it's inevitable that you are largely left to your own devices. (I believe it's called the priesthood of all believers.) Looking at church history, I fear that this has often been the norm.

I have to say that our clergy are becoming increasingly unsupportive in these matters. Their role, as they see it, is to turn up five minutes before a service, deliver that service and then leave as quickly as possible afterwards. They refuse to get involved in the day to day running of individual churches in the parish, and are very reluctant to provide personal ministry; preferring to recruit willing volunteers to do the job for them. This of course allows certain factions to run riot, including one Reader, who regards the organ and it's music as “an unnecessary adornment to worship

This is absolutely disgraceful but bears out my own experience. In the 90s I worked for almost 10 years on a daily basis with very senior Church of England clergymen and, believe you me, there was more than one rotten egg amongst them. I am sorry if this offends those of them who were decent, but the effect on me of the rotten eggs will stay with me until the day I die. Talk about egotistic politicians!

I have only recently returned to organ playing duties (albeit just once or twice per month) and that was due to a very supportive female Vicar. Good on you Christine. I very much hope that SB junior will find somewhere sooner rather than later where his enthusiasm is really valued, otherwise he will surely give up on his willingness to become a Church musician.

Thankfully SB Junior is very determined, and I think can see above the politics. It is probably also fair to say that he has his heights set much higher; so I doubt that being denied the opportunity to play our 2 manual organ, as nice as it is, for a few Sunday mornings will dent his enthusiasm too much. I also doubt he would have spent several hours every week throughout the winter, practicing in a freezing cold church unless he had higher motives.

Having said all that, it still doesn't excuse the behavior of those who make these decisions for reasons that seem to be beyond the understanding of us mere mortals.

One thing is for sure; the next time I hear any of the clergy rabbiting on about bringing young people into the church I shall have something to say. I sometimes feel they are happier to see young people hanging around the lychgate in a drunken state so they have something to preach and moralise about.

SB

O that's magnificent!

I am a Lay Preacher (Baptist) - reading this thread with a touch of guilt To be fair, in the evenings I play the organ in another church, I am no player (failed grade 7 piano about six times) and I don't worry whether I get notice or not (for communion, two hymns in a service tagged onto the end of the normal evening service, I never ever get any notice at all, just get them handed to me when I move from the organ to the piano at the start of the communion service). It doesn't matter much when you are a lousy player anyway!

Liz

I come to this part of the forums occasionally as a timid visitor since the days when I played organ or piano for Methodist church services are very bygone. What struck me on reading through was the repetition, of the word "Thursday." I remember back in the seventies choir practice at our church was from 8 until 10 Thursday evening and the choirmaster always had the list of hymns for the morning and evening services the following Sunday - whether the service was led by a Minister of the circuit or a lay preacher. Our organist could probably play anything in the MHB but she did get a weekly opportunity to practise with the choir.

I wonder whether the fact that the hymn lists were submitted puctually had anything to do with the fact that our choir master was a not to be trifled with ex Royal Navy Commander.

Picking up where I left off, I think it does help to have a few strong characters around our churches, whatever their denomination. The problem we have (in my view), is that there are too few people around who are prepared to say what needs to be said; and they feel that because we are a church, everyone has to be nice to everyone else all the time, even when some individuals step way out of line.

As it happens, SB Junior was eventually asked to play for one service at the church concerned, (at very short notice), which I suspect may well be his last there for a very long time.

He played well enough, and the congregation had no problems singing at his tempo. However, the elderly (and very prickly) 'choir' decided he was playing two of the hymns too slowly, and so very deliberately sang much faster than both the organ and the congregation; so confusing everyone. (They had previously complained that he played too quickly for them, although again the congregation was happy). The clergy later told us they realised that something was going wrong, but couldn't work out what it was.

Ironically, I spoke to three of the choir members at 'the peace', ,and was told that they thought the hymns were too slow, and they "didn't have all day". They also told me they weren't used to the way the hymns were being played. (The regular organist usually plays root chords rather than four part harmonies).

When I pointed out that it was customary for the organist to set the tempo, they responded by telling me that they had been singing in the choir for since before I was born, (which is true), and they weren’t going to be dictated to by a fifteen year old! The remaining hymns were sung without incident.

This is not the first time this choir has been awkward towards a visiting organist, and I distinctly remember a previous incumbent really loosing his rag with them after one service when they had made a real hash of things - seemingly entirely deliberately. Under normal circumstances I would have expected 'words', but nobody seemed to be willing or able to say anything, so the problems continue.

Anyhow, on a more positive note, SB Junior and I had a chance meeting with a Parish Priest from a church twelve miles or so away, where we understand they have a very nice three manual organ and a very supportive congregation; but no organist. They are currently using CDs and hymns recorded onto floppy disks by the organist from a neighbouring parish. Maybe God does move in mysterious ways after all?

SB

^^
This is very good news and just the leg-up that SB junior needs.
I hope he will flourish in this new environment and it will raise his stock considerably to be unavailable to the awkward squad. Just be sure they know exactly why he won't be playing there any more!

Yes, good luck to SB junior in his new job. God does work in that way at times!

I'm reminded of the saying of my organ teacher in my teens (and now a dearly-loved friend of mine) "If you want aggro, go to church".

Although there's been quite a bit of clergy-bashing in this thread, don't you feel sorry for them having to put up with we organists?!

I think in this instance we are choir-bashing.
Have you never bashed your choir, HG?

Oh golly! Yes!!!

Oh dear! This sounds so familiar. Thank God I have never had a choir like this, but I know there are plenty of them around.

When our city centre church gained a new organist in 1953 one of the basses greeted him with the words, "You'll learn a lot from us my lad." About forty years later the pastoral situation between the choir+supporters and the rest of the church had become so bad that relationships broke down completely and the vicar had to disband the choir. The row was ostensibly about the vicar introducing "pop" music styles into the worship - i.e. those who wanted it versus those who didn't - and of course he got all the blame, but the real problem was the divisively entrenched positions revolving around the choir who thought they ran the place.

My local parish church has choir of a not dissimilar ilk. A friend of mine with energy and vision became organist there and set about trying to improve the singing. The choir already considered themselves the bee's knees and weren't having any of it - they'd been singing their way for the last 25 years and weren't having any whippersnapper change things. He lasted about a year and chucked the job in when they called him "pig ignorant" (which he most certainly is not). The current organist, being far less experienced (and Russian into the bargain), sensibly leaves the choir to another. She is about to move on elsewhere and, when the church finds out, I have a feeling that the priest may invite me to take over. Oh, I do hope so! I shall ask to think about it for a week or two - just long enough for the gossip to get around - and then explain exactly why I am not accepting!

Good luck to SB jnr. I am absolutely sure he will be much better off where he is going.

Gosh, Vox, I'd believed all I had read in the press (silly me!) and hadn't realised that that was the situation. Mind you, wasn't the new DoM responsible for the problems at least in part? I'd heard he was very happy-clappy and not at all up to the job.

Possibly, Holz. For years I believed the same as you and it's certainly true that the row was over the introduction of happy-clappy music. I gather that the new DoM was indeed at the very least a willing accomplice of the priest in going happy-clappy, but I never knew him so can't comment on whether he was up to the job. I only learnt the background a few months ago when the previous, long-serving DoM took me aside and had a quiet word in my ear. Although this much respected man had left because he saw the way the wind was blowing, he does not blame the priest at all and is absolutely definite that the real problem was a complete breakdown in relationships and that the vicar really had no other option in the circumstances. According to him the behaviour on both sides was "disgraceful".

The real art of choir training is not who you have in the choir - it is who you keep out.

Barry Williams

This is fascinating. We live in a small rural town rather than a city, but the situation you describe is almost identical to our own. Maybe this is a common problem.

When we first came here the church had an excellent organist and choirmaster, but he left after suffering a near nervous breakdown, and after a break did very much better elsewhere in a church with a much 'higher' tradition. His replacement is frankly lazy (IMHO), and just lets the choir get on with their own thing. For several years hasn't even bothered with choir practices, which seems to suit them. So in retrospect, this was possibly a case of walking where angels fear to tread.

As an aside, one of the biggest problems the church has is getting faculties approved; especially when certain choir members object to the proposed changes. For years this was a mystery, until it transpired that the choir members involved were members of the same lodge as the Diocesan Architect.

SB

Somewhat cynical? Surely it is our job as quire directors to be able to work WITH people?

I see where you're coming from, Confutatis, but choirs often seem to attract some oddbods (and I include some choral directors I've known in that category too! ) without whom the choir would be much better, both musically and socially.

Went to ring a quarter peal recently, arrived at the church in pouring rain, to find the church was locked.
So, we looked to see if the key was left under a potted plant, as we were told it would be, but no. Called the vicar, told him, and about 10minutes later he arrived, unlocked the church, only to discover that the electrics had fused, because of the lights being turned on all at once or something, so he had to fix that...
Whilst he was doing all this, we had to move the chairs that had been put in the ringing chamber out, and the ladders, and signs etc.
Eventually, we did get to ring, but were 15 minutes late to our next tower (when we should have been 30mins early!)

Bloomin' clergy!

I don't blame the clergy for creating these problems, but I do blame them for not at least trying to manage them. Many of these situations would be resolved if clergy took a firm hand, and told those concerned to either get on with the job and with others, or else leave.

Our experience latterly is that clergy are afraid to confront the 'politicians' in our churches, especially when the people concerned do jobs (such as Lay Readers), that save the clergy from having to go out on a Sunday evening to take Evensong.

SB

I agree, but it does not mean that we have to usher the musically unqualified in from the highways and byways straight into the choir. After all, one would not expect a dyslexic person to be appointed to read the lessons every week.

Why should we encourage people who do not read music and have never had singing lessons to join a choir? Singing cannot be taught in a choir. It has to be learned one to one, for the individual vocal faults cannot so easily be detected in a group and in any event need individual correction.

The purpose of the choir is to edify and glorify in the act of worship. If the choir does not do that, (and many do not,) then the service is better done with good organ playing and simple congregational singing.

Quite a few churches have the best singers in the congregation because they do not wish to join a poor quality choir. A good quartet, singing appropriate music well, is more edifying for the congregation than a large group of people struggling with the basics of singing.

In no other sphere are untrained people encouraged to visit their lack of skill and training on the public. Divine Worship demands standards and as musicians we should uphold those standards. It is not necessary to perform music of special difficulty or complexity to acheive good standards.

Barry Williams

I would agree with Barry; but the problems I seem to see are more 'political' in nature, where choir members behave unpleasantly or divisively towards others, or just make it their business to interfere in church matters that have nothing to do with them. In my experience this usually has little or nothing to do with their musical ability; indeed, the reverse is often the case.

In the case of the choir I referred to earlier in the week, some of the members undoubtedly had reasonable singing voices (and good hearing) 30 or 40 years ago, but few of them do now. I also realised on Sunday that very few of them can sight read. None of this seems to have brought any humility to the choir.

In any walk of life I will happily make allowances for lack of ability if the person involved accepts their shortcomings, is pleasant and easy to get on with, and doesn't try to be something they are not. I will also tolerate a degree of arrogance from people who are exceptionally good at something. But what I dislike intensely are those people who are both incompetent and arrogant. I also abhor cliques, especially cliques of people who hold very high opinions of themselves for no good reason. Sadly these seem to be commonplace in churches.

SB

I am frankly gobsmacked about some of Barry's comments regarding quires. In an age of an ever-decreasing talent pool (even the Vienna Boys Choir is getting the girls involved due to lack of numbers!) it behoves us quire directors to work as best we can with the resources available. To me this means being inclusive and giving every quire member, whatever their technical facility (or lack of it), respect. How can I expect respect in return if I am not going to give it out on a consistent basis? Perhaps some quire directors, in their arrogance, lack this basic courtesy.

Yes, perhaps some choir members have never had any vocal training and perhaps some cannot read music well but the kick, for me, is getting them to work together and to produce a half-decent performance. I guess it is easier for me being a non-believer to concentrate on the people and the music and worry less about the religious side of things. The key things are ENGAGING people and perhaps even INSPIRING them sometimes. Yes, it can be difficult on a cold, wet Friday night after a hard week doing a "proper job" but that is part of the challenge of any management job - leaving one's own personal emotions to one side and concentrating on the people who are looking to us for guidance and direction.

Perhaps some people just take it far too seriously. To me music making of any kind ("Divine Worship", down the pub, busking in the street) is all about enjoyment for performer AND listener alike. If we lose that then what is the point? This is the key to my attitude with my quire but I guess I am out of step with some (rather more "old school") contributors on this board...

I have to agree. Even primary school choirs can produce good stuff, when none can read music and none has had individual vocal training - in fact, this can be the case when even the choir's director has had none of the above either. It's team effort that counts. Not every choirmaster or organist has access to singing maestros, but pride and companionship comes from making the best of what we've got and working together. And it's not hard to tell untrained musicians of a reasonable age how notation works. If they can hit the right notes, be taught how long to make them last, and how to watch a conductor for other instructions, then the choir is the instrument of the director, and it's up to him to realise its potential.

The comments made above make me realise how splendid you all are in helping people to enjoy music in church as a hobby. It is valuable for them and must enrich them greatly in their church life. When they sing well it will also enrich the congregation's worship. I have the greatest possible admiration for choirmasters who include everyone and try and train them up as they go along. However, it is not the only way of doing things and it does not always attract the best singers to the choir.

The difference in our approach reflects the way in which we view music in worship. Perhaps not all of us see the purpose of music in worship as being just enjoyment, though there is no reason why that cannot be part of it. Also, the differences in approach reflect the fact that for over thirty years I have worked mainly with professional (or at least fully trained) singers and in places where one is paid to take the music seriously.

Turning now to Swell Box's comments about 'politics', this is where church life is so often unpleasant. It is not only choirs that have problems, for difficulties raise over servers, bell ringers, flower arrangers, parochial church councils, Sunday Schools and all the rest. As I have commented on this Board before, worship has for many years been moving towards social celebration. Sometimes the 'Peace' and the post-worship coffee are deemed almost as important as the worship itself. I have heard a vicar tell people off for not staying to participate in the post-service coffee. Another vicar ticked a rather good soprano off for preferring the quiet 8am Book of Common Prayer service to the 10.30am Family Service. He said she was a 'semi-detached' Christian for not giving her musical talent to the (rather awful) choir. This was the church where the better singers sat in the congregation rather than the choir pews. Regrettably, church life seems to cause as much pain as it does joy and I do wonder whether the differing aims of worship are not part of this.

As a worshipper I find that less than competent performances are at best distracting and often worse. The least helpful performances in church are those where a choir (and sometimes an organist) attempts a piece that is obviously beyond their capabilities. I still maintain that there must be standards for public performances in worship and that occasionally entails telling some folk that they must acquire certain skills before joining the choir - as happens in all other walks of life. After all, one would not buy a trombone and then sit in the orchestra expecting the conductor to teach you as the rehearsal went on. Why should it be any different for singing? The famous (Byrd or Morley, I think) quote is "Since singing is so good a thing I wish all men (and, I hope, these days all women) would learn to sing." Clearly, there are differences of opinion as to how one should do that learning.

Confutatis has rightly mentioned 'engaging' and inspiring' - especially on cold Friday nights (!) (And often after a dreadful week at work.) That is wonderful, but more wonderful when the standard on the Sunday is sufficient to inspire those who hear the results. I am remain firmly of the view that more congregations would be inspired by a higher standard and lower complexity, both of organ and choral music.

Confutatis also refers to an 'ever decreasing talent pool'. That is not my experience. I see and hear more and more singers and musicians of great expertise in the cathedrals and major churches. That this expertise arises amongst the young is even better. It is interesting that the London churches with professional choirs are so well attended by young people. These churches have a repertoire that often restricts the congregation to the hymns and responses only. Perhaps they are attracted by non-musical aspects of the worship. Certainly, the music is not a distraction. In many cases it is an inspiration. Local parish work is so much more difficult and that is why we must respect and value a different approach, though hopefully, not a necessarily lower standard.

Barry Williams

I think before we assume opposite ends of a spectrum that we should clarify a bit. I agree with some of what you say, and I'm not suggesting that a choir should be allowed to consider itself there for social reasons alone. It has to do a good job of leading the congregation with all that that entails, and be inspiring when it sings on its own. And it should only sing what is within its capabilities - and sound good enough to make good singers want to join. If it sounds poor, then, yes, the congregation might fare better without it. But I think it's wrong to assume that only professionally trained singers can carry that role. And even a beautiful piece of clay is only as good a the hands that sculpt it...

What a well-considered post, Barry. Thank you.

Thank you Barry.

I was about to point out that my issue is with choir members who try to dictate how the church should be run, who runs it, and who plays and ministers in it. This has nothing to do with their musical abilities (or lack of).

It never ceases to amaze me how much time is spent in PCC meetings, giving careful consideration to all manner of proposals, only to find that a choir member, who is not elected to the PCC, has decided to go against the wishes of the church council by doing things their own way.

In my view, trying to sabotage and publicly humiliate the efforts of a relief organist who is trying their best to lead hymn singing is about as low as it gets. In the event the organist and congregation won the day, and the choir members involved were made to look like idiots.

So, this has nothing to do with musical ability, and everything to do with church politics and attitudes.

As far as I am concerned, I have no problem with anyone who enjoys singing in a choir, whether or not they have a good singing voice, and can pitch notes well. All I ask is that they do their best to enhance worship every Sunday, regardless of whether they are being accompanied by an experienced organist, a keen youngster, or a CD player.

We cannot and must not put young people into a box, and expect them to come out as experienced organists, choristers or whatever once they have reached the age of 60. If some of these people had their way, there would be no organists at all when the present older generation die off, and that I find both sad and worrying.

Church people in particular are very keen to criticise the young; but when a young person comes along, and is keen to play an active part in the church they effectively tell them to go away and come back when they have grown up. But they won't: if they are sent away now they will probably never return.

The fact is, the church needs bums on seats to survive, but there are far too many present members who feel they have a divine right to decide who we let in, and where they sit.

SB

I am glad that Barry glossed his previous post with an explanation because, taken at face value, it sounded just so wrong-headed. Apologies for being blunt, but that is my way. I should probably have been born in Yorkshire!

If we are to restrict choir members to those who have had singing lessons, then we can probably kiss goodbye to one or two cathedral choirs who would no longer be able to staff their back rows fully. Also I can't believe that we wouldn't have to disband a clear majority of the parish church choirs in the land. A fat lot of good that would do for the cause of church music. But, apart from that, the notion that singers who have had singing lessons are the only ones worth listening to is just nonsense.

Who remembers the Clerkes of Oxenford? This was an amateur Oxford choir that drew on past and present choral scholars and on young ladies from Schola Cantorum and elsewhere who often had not had formal singing lessons - they may even on occasion have outnumbered the ladies who had. Singing lessons were certainly not a prerequisite for admission; it was simply musical competence and the ability to produce the required sound. Whether you liked their sound or not, their performances were committed, enthusiastic and, when on form, infinitely more full of music than the professional choirs who subsequently aped them, for all the clinical perfection of the latter (and "clinical" is, unfortunately, often the operative word).

In my current comparative musical desert, I often work with a soprano who is a perfect sight reader. She invariably tunes her notes dead centre and has the clearest, purest voice you could possibly wish to hear. Being an avowedly "boyish" tone, it isn't the sort of voice you would ask to sing Brünnhilde, but personally I dislike that sort of voice in a choir anyway. The other day I heard her sing the Allegri Miserere. It was so good that at times it really did sound like the famous Roy Goodman recording. It kicked a recent performance by the Tallis Scholars right into touch (and that wasn't just my opinion either). She's never had a singing lesson in her life, so, the next time I see her, do I tell her to do the musical world a favour and go and milk cows? Over the years I have worked with any number of amateur singers like this, who were perfectly musical and could sing beautifully with a natural, untrained voice.

In my last church choir (a loooooong time ago) I had a really first-rate, natural, untrained tenor. My heart sank when he told me he was going to have singing lessons. I knew his teacher would ruin his voice because she did that to all her pupils. And I was right. His bright, lyrical voice became just like hers - dark and strangulated. His tuning became unreliable too. Worst decision he made.

This is a problem with trained singers, isn't it? All teachers have their own ideas and they are all apt to ###### [female dog!] about each other. Their pupils likewise. A choirmaster who thinks he knows about singing may in fact be blissfully unaware that he is spoken of with derision behind his back by his singers who have different values. I have seen this happen.

As far as I am concerned the ability of singers to produce a good quality performance is far more important than whether they have actually had singing lessons. I am more than happy to put up with the thinness of tone almost inevitable in an untrained bass line if everything else is otherwise up to par - though I grant it is a godsend when you have a decent trained bass to "round out" the sound.

Indubitably. It's pathetic, actually; a classic example of how small-minded parishes can get.

However, looked at another way, isn't this sort of entrenched attitude - "We've done it this way for the last 25 years and we're not going to change now" - just a less musically educated manifestation of the sort of rearguard action many of us organists take when confronted with an assault on the musical traditions we hold dear? As someone once said:

Q. How many Anglicans does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Change? What do you mean, change?

At the end of the day, it's all about comfort zones, isn't it?

Not that that necessarily excuses things, of course, but it may help put it in perspective.

Singers who have good singing lessons will develop and retain their natural vocal talent. Without that training there is a significant risk of the voice deteriorating in later years.


"I had a really first-rate, natural, untrained tenor. My heart sank when he told me he was going to have singing lessons. I knew his teacher would ruin his voice because she did that to all her pupils. And I was right. His bright, lyrical voice became just like hers - dark and strangulated. His tuning became unreliable too. Worst decision he made."

Oh dear! We have all had this experience - not just with singing. It happens with instrumentalists too. There are plenty of organists around who have had organ lessons but cannot play properly. They insist on inflicting their lack of skill on the worshipping public and in doing so fail to edify or glorify anyone except themselves.

But what about choir training skills? How many organists have had formal choir training lessons? Most have not even had singing lessons, let alone conducting lessons. There is as much technique to conducting and singing as there is to playing the piano and violin. That technique must surely be acquired before attempting to direct a choir - and a choir with untrained members needs much more skill from the choirmaster than directing a choir of trained singers.

There seems to be an assumption that in church anyone can 'have a go' at music in public, with or without training and often with little regard for the result. We would rightly hesitate to let just anyone rewire a church, so why should people without training perform in public. Why is it so wrong to insist on standards? I write as much from the point of view of being in the congregation. We have, elsewhere on this Board, castigated many of the Music Group brigade for their lack of skill in public performance. (Three chord guitarists.) The same applies to traditional music. It is the attitude that anyone can do the job that I challenge. At least a bad musical performance is transient. Bad architecture is very permanent and from time to time bad buildings even get Listed.

"All I ask is that they do their best to enhance worship every Sunday" .

This is a laudable approach, but what about the listener when they attempt to enhance the worship but fail to do so because of lack of skill. It does the church no good and is painful for the congregation.

As I wrote before, I greatly respect the approach of giving people the opportunity to enrich their own lives by performing in church. It is important that it enriches the lives of others. Using the words 'enjoy' and 'enrich' however introduces an element of personal choice into the music from the aspect of the listener. That is why I prefer that we measure things by the objective tests of edifying and glorifying, for it is possible to glorify God with a piece of music that others do not like. A poor quality performance, however enthusiastically it is rendered, will never edify or glorify.

Barry Williams

Not that many, I'll bet. I certainly haven't, apart from a stint of lessons at university which taught me little other than how difficult it was. It may be a good thing my choir project of a couple of years ago never got off the ground.
We all have to start somewhere though, and a nightmare bunch such as Swell Box has illustrated would put anyone off!

Since not everyone has access to formal instruction with regard to conducting and choir training, it is surely then up to competent organists/musical directors to ensure that they are not indispensable and that there are others who can deputise when they are ill or on holiday, or once they reach the age of 90. Nurturing a keen young would-be has to be part of this, and will inevitably involve giving this person some chances to actually do the job occasionally, as experience doesn't happen by magic. Formal training is one thing, but there is no substitute for experience. Having been on a scholarship course, I feel I gained there with regard to playing the instrument, but I know I learnt more practicalities from the experienced organist who gave me the chance to play for services and participate in real choir practices under his direction. More learning then takes place when left to get on with it alone. Organists and choirs can be precious about their positions, and instead of being overly critical of new organists and therefore putting them off entirely, should be focusing on the positive. The organist should encourage the choir in this attitude, and once the new young organist knows that he is being nurtured he will be much more sensitive to genuine constructive criticism at the same time. How much more constructive does it sound if a respected choir member was to say, "Thank you for playing for us. Could we maybe try to take the hymns a little faster next time, as that's what we're used to, as long as you have enough time to practise?" rather than simply try to make a fool of the organist, or talk snidely behind his back?

But if nobody was to be allowed near a console or into a choir stall until they were fellowship standard, then it would happen in a very short time indeed that nobody would want to do it except for the ones who are rigidly set in their ways with a moat round them. In this scenario, as organist and choir members get older and older, the path is open for no one but the aforementioned three chord guitar players...

101%

Sadly, we don't seem to be very good at this in the church, especially where choirs and organs are concerned. Indeed, I do sometimes wonder if there is an unwritten rule somewhere that requires as least one score age for each manual, plus another decade for pedals.

Looking around our local churches it is painfully obvious to me that young people are badly underrepresented at all levels; and given our discussions in this thread this is hardly surprising.

I know that SB Junior would truly love to have a choir one day, and even now has a few musical friends at school who would be keen to give it a try. Maybe more youthful enthusiasm than musical ability at this stage, but it is a start, and has to be a lot better than playing computer games, watching TV or hanging around the streets at night. But how on earth can they ever get started given the likely hostility to their efforts?

Were things really as bad as this when our parents and grandparents were young, or is this a post WWII generation thing? The attitude I seem to see is that ‘we have earned our positions in the choir/church/organ stool (delete as appropriate), and we have a right to stay there until we keel over’.

I can certainly remember being made very welcome in our local church choir in the 1960's when I was just eight years old; indeed, our choirmaster held choir practice especially for us youngsters on Tuesday evenings, and on Thursdays before we were joined by the seniors for a proper practice in church.

I know that our regular organist did try to recruit some youngsters to the choir, and even offered to pay them a pound or two for a Sunday morning out of his own pocket. But when the elderly choir members found out there was a massive argument which went on for several weeks - the argument being that they had been singing for the past 60+ years, and never been paid a penny, so why should youngsters get paid now. At one stage there were even threats to disband the choir altogether, but sadly these never materialised.

If we didn’t’ laugh about all this we would cry.

SB

I think it has more to do with your 'status' in the church rather than age. The choir at the church I worked for previously were incredibly hostile, and up until a couple of months before I left, I had been polite and respectful towards them even though at times that was very difficult. I was thirty-six. I bumped into a member of the congregation a few weeks later. He said it'd happened before, and that they were reluctant to accept 'outsiders'. Having said that, the church I currently work for were very welcoming, and although I've had the usual 'too loud, too fast, too slow, too quiet' kind of remarks now and then, they mostly let me get on with it!

On another point, and I'm sure Barry will correct me if I'm misunderstanding, I don't think that he is saying that every church musician should be of the very highest calibre but they should at the very least be able. It's an interesting point (and maybe another thread), but why is it that it is seen as ok for anyone to have a go? I think for a lot of church choirs, becoming a member consists of asking 'can I sing in the choir?'. There's often no process of finding out if they are suitable. By contrast, when I think of the local music service and the various bands they have going on, a minimum standard is insisted upon – it is not enough to just be in possession of an instrument. Auditions are held every once in a while to decide who will sit at which desk. And these are children. Playing voluntarily.

At the aforementioned church (I really should check if it is a church of God), I proposed that the choir be disbanded and instead, have two choirs – one an informal singing group that met every 3 weeks and sang at 2 or 3 services a year, at the front of the church and in their civvies; and the other to meet weekly, committed to their role and thus earning the privilege of standing enrobed and in the choir stalls. I was so frustrated at the majority of the choir missing rehearsal only to turn up on Sunday and spoil the efforts of those who had bothered.

I am fortunate enough to have just enjoyed an amazing week working with a team of young worship musicians (all aged under 18). They have all had some level of instrumental training, although not all of the traditional classical school - music training has changed so much of recent years! There are those who perhaps, although keen, have needed pointing in a different direction - I have managed to move a couple into sound engineering, a skill at which, with the right training and support, they will shine. Others perhaps have needed to be encouraged into other ways of serving, but all with encouragement and a real will to help them find their place in church.

The group I am now left with are amazingly talented! They still need lots of training and development, but that's my job and my responsibility as a worship musician. I'm glad to say that I can even see the makings of skills that will perhaps eventually make me redundant, but that's fine too - I'm not going to be around forever!

As Musical Directors we have a responsibility to those who 'work' with us to enable them to use their giftings to the best of their ability to glorify God, and, yes, sometimes that does mean pointing them in a different direction, but without crushing their raw enthusiasm and desire to 'do something for God'.

I do think that standards are important, although I think it's often been evident that Barry and I come from very different spheres of church music!

That sounds fascinating. Could you tell us more? Is this an annual event by any chance?

SB

Actually it's more regular than annually, they are all part of my own church, but over the last year we've been working very hard on identifying giftings amongst the youth and developing them. We are fortunate enough to have a large group of young people. We also lead music ministries for other local churches who are smaller than we are which includes running training events for worship teams. Your comment has inspired me to look into extending these to perhaps encourage and equip young people in other smaller churches. What has happened to your son is a disgrace and it really frustrates me that churches and their leaders can't be more forward looking when it comes to working with young people, whatever the size of the church.

Thank you Margaret. That sounds splendid. If you ever consider running a course of this type in the north east perhaps you would let us know, as there are plenty of young people with talent and enthusiasm, but with nowhere to go.

SB Junior has been away to Oundle and other 'playing' courses, but the events you describe sound rather more 'rounded'.

SB

"I think it's often been evident that Barry and I come from very different spheres of church music!"

Music Margaret's comment could not be more untrue! It really is totally unfair of Music Margaret to make such an assumption without knowing what styles of music I have been involved in.

For the avoidance of all doubt I am as comfortable with Palestrina and Mozart as I am with Riff, Rave, Rock, Pop, Heavy Metal and Jazz in church, all of which I have performed.

What I find unacceptable is the artificial, shallow and ineffective music generated in imitation of the nineteen sixties and seventies - what I call 'Spinners and Seekers in Ecclesiastical Garb' and peddled as being suitable for young people. Genuinely modern music is fine. Music that is written in the style of the nineteen sixties - nineteen seventies - even when written last week - will not pass as modern music in church. Neither can we reasonably expect it to speak to young people. It is music of their parents' generation.

I expect music that is intended to be 'modern' that will speak to youngsters to be really contemporary. A reasonable test is whether it is in a style that is listened to by the teenagers. That test excludes almost all the music in 'Songs of Fellowship', Iona, etc and material of that rather artificial and shallow ilk.

I do not say that such music is necessarily ineffective. However, I do insist that it is not in any sense 'contemporary'. As I have pointed out, churches made the same mistake with the Twentieth Century Light Church Music Group's efforts some forty and fifty years ago, which were anything but contemporary, being merely 'Salad Days' in ecclesiasitical style. At least they used decent words!

'Gifts' of musical 'talent' are really rare. Almost all of music is sheer hard work. It is so easy for those in church to refer to 'gifts' and 'talent' as though it is something that one has inherently. Even the few who have such 'gifts' and 'talent' need to learn how to use them. And if they have any sense they will keep a long way away from churches, lest they be abused, as SB Junior has been.

Please do not forget that acquiring the skills of a church musician is costly. I remind those reading this post that it cost me more in music lessons (paid out of taxed income and not recoverable from any source other than my day job) to get several professional qualifications in music (Choral and Orchestral Conducting, Singing, Harmony and Counterpoint, Piano and Organ Playing) than it did a private pilot's licence. SB Junior would do well to engage in music well away from church for a very long time.

The training and development of church musicians is properly in the hands of the individual instrumental teachers, not choirmasters. Without individual skill there is no hope of developing expertise. That expertise demands hard work and expensive lessons. It can reasonably be measured by the ABRSM examinations, including, of course, singing. (I do hope that no-one will deny that there is a technique to singing, for the ABRSM seems to accept that there is.)

There is a specific and effective technique to Choral Conducting, which can be taught. Perhaps I was fortunate in attending lectures on the subject at the Royal Academy of Music. It seems not to be taught much these days. As in so much of music, I quote Ralph Waldo Emerson: 'There is a best way of doing everything, if it be to boil an egg.'

Regrettably, the 'do come and have a go' attitude of so many churches turns acts of worship into low standard entertainment of deplorable quality. In this I hope that Music Margaret and I are at one, even if we disagree about the style of music that should be offered. There must be standards. The doors cannot be open to just anyone who wishes to 'have a go'. Would that be acceptable in the local symphony orchestra? Why, then is it acceptable in the church choir or music group?

Barry Williams

Interesting. It sounds a lot like an audition process. The worship 'musicians' being guided into 'other' areas: isn't it really just a case of thanks, but no thanks? I understand that they are still involved with the church in some capacity, but it appears that some make it through as musicians and others don't (even though they are all described as young worship musicians). In the case of SB Junior he has other things against him at that particular church. One is that he plays the organ, another is that that member of the choir is keen to show his disapproval of 'newcomers'.

Barry, I never intended my remarks as an insult, if they came across as such then I humbly apologise!

Of course I can't assume what type of musical experience you do or don't have!

I, too, am fortunate to have had training as a musician to postgraduate level, via the 'good old, traditional' conservatoire root! Indeed, I can claim one or two better known cathedral musicians amongst my peers at said college. However, we live in a world where not every gifted musician has been fortunate enough to have had such opportunity - I don't even dare to calculate the total cost of my own musical training. I am not going to slam the door in the face of such gifting.

Just as an aside, I have the opportunity to work with good numbers of young people - I wonder why this is?

Isn't it our job as music directors to do precisely that and to train our singers (and instrumentalists) to be able to develop the skills needed to be independent of us?


Boil?! No!

An egg must be coddled!

The reference to 'gifts' and 'gifting' implies that music just happens. It does not. Even Mozart had to be taught to read music and he had to practice. Training and hard work are far more important than this imprecise term 'gifts'.

For the avoidance of all doubt, the Greek words in the New Testament (which the Board machine will not let me reproduce in Greek - it comes out as numbers) do not and cannot in any way refer to musical talent or musical aptitude. Using the word 'gift' in this way is, I regret to say, incorrect in Biblical terms. There is a tendancy, often on the part of Christians of a particular type, to assume that any skill is God given and to call it a 'gift'.

There is no Biblical source to support that kind of interpretation, nor any theology either. The locus classicus for 'Charisms' is I Corinthians Chapter 12 verses 4-12, but this passage must be interpreted in the light of many other passages, including Ephesians Chapter 4, verse 11 and Romans I Timothy Chapter 4 verse 14, etc. Even the passage in I Corinthians 12, which refers, somewhat vaguely, to 'charisms' in part as 'helps', is directed at deacons, bishops and pastors and their work. These words are not of the founder of the religion but of St Paul, whose approach was variable and often doubtful. Even if one accepts them at face value, they are referring to spiritual 'gifts' and are a million miles from the common use of 'musically gifted' as one sometimes hears in churches.

When I consider the horrors that SB Junior (amongst many others, including members of this Board) has gone through I remain convinced that my great hero, Oliver Cromwell, got it exactly right. Stop all the music in church, move the organs to pubs and have musical fun (as the Puristans certainly did) outside of the church.

Barry Williams

What a wonderful idea Barry. I just wonder whether the directors of Allied Breweries, or whatever they call themselves these days, will be any more accomodating than many of our parish preists.

Sadly, I doubt if a 4M H&H would sound quite as splended in the Pig and Whistle as it does in a large church. There again, I suppose the breweries could always buy the churches.

Now there's a thought.

SB

I've been away from this thread for a little while, and have obviously missed a lot!! Very pleased SB that SBjunior has a new organist post in a more amenable parish.

One does wonder, having read the piece above, about these folks' motives for going to church. (I have experienced similar, but not quite so bad, attitudes from individuals in choirs). Ultimately people should go to church with a Christian attitude to the forefront - do they not realise how "un-Christian" they are being, in church of all places!

I think it was a former Bishop of Durham who once said "if you want to find a Christian, don't look in a church". Dr Jenkins is reported to have said many controversial things, but that one, I fear, hits the nail very squarely on the head.

As for the reasons why, I suspect that would be an interesting topic for another thread.

My two pennarth for what it’s worth, is that many of our churches have become the preserve of 'oddballs' with very odd agendas. This has driven away ordinary Christian folk, so the oddballs get free reign of everything. The remaining members often feel they don’t know enough about scripture to argue against the oddballs, (who always seem very good at quoting text to support their views), so complacency reigns.

Rather than confronting these issues at PCC, many members (especially choirs and church flower ladies) seem to be fighting a rearguard action by trying to de-rail any kind of change, including changes for the better. Sadly, new organists sometimes seem to fall foul of this, which is probably how we got here in the first place.

One would have hoped that the clergy would take a firm hand in stopping this kind of behaviour, but in our experience they just don’t want to get involved.

However, one thing I have noticed is that ‘high’ Anglican churches seem mercifully free of this kind of problem. Perhaps there is much better discipline in these churches, or perhaps the clergy are stronger, and therefore better respected.

NN