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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB

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


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

Again slightly off topic, but I would include the use of bell chimes instead of six bell ringers ringing full circle for weddings.

Most people wouldn't know the difference, but I do.

Oh, and on the other subject, I suspect most wedding togs use Elements.

SB

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry for long rant.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in error.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barry Williams

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

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

Very well put Barry!

Barry,

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

Many thanks.

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

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

Barry Williams

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

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

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

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

And the stress levels aren't worth it either....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barry Williams

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

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

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

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

Do I detect it is the case that we are all playing from the same hymn sheet on this one?

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

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

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

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

Thanks be to God.

Off topic, but...

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

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

I then like to follow it up with the Leighton Chorale Prelude on Helmsley which always makes an impression!

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

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