Robing

[manniemain]

We're giving thought at the moment to our organist and possibly choir robing seeing as they're near the front of the church rather than in a loft. Current thinking would suggest cassock and surplice but opinion is divided. Is this garb, in fact, permissible for non-clergy? Can anyone suggest better?

[Anne]

Why would you want to robe? I suppose my question is 'What is the purpose of the choir'. Is it to lead the congregation in their singing? If it is, then why do you need to wear anything different from the congregation. If the choir is there to do a performance, then perhaps some robes that make them stand out would be apporpriate.

[lesley wright]

It does feel like a very Anglican thing to do! Our Cathedral choir simply all wear black, and that seems not to offend anyone (apart from two or three ladies who think it makes them look like they died a few days ago).

[manniemain]

Hmm - we thought about wearing black but were worried it would make us look really like concert performers. The Anglican appearance is also true although comparisons would not be so obvious here in the North of Scotland.

[docmattc]

As no one has said it yet, Welcome to the Forum Manniemain!

Like Anne, I would tend to eschew robing the choir as I feel it separates them from the rest of the gathered assembly, of whom, documents stress, they are a part.
What is the reason you're thinking of robing the choir?
I think I would only want to robe a choir if its position in the church was so visible that there was a danger that the holes in Bob's jeans, or Mrs Trellis' hat were a distraction to the congregation. Even then, the ideal solution would be to move them somewhere less visible if geography allowed.
Choirs which do robe south of the border here tend to wear this sort of stuff (other suppliers are available)

[docmattc]

At mcb's place the choir wear what looks like a purple cassock and white surplice.

[Nick Baty]

I don't understand why choirs robe.
(Actually, I don't really understand why choirs.)
If I had to, I'd go for Clifton Cathedral's simple albs.

[Southern Comfort]

If robes are to be worn, the baptismal garment of all Christians is the alb, not the cassock and surplice. However, IMHO choirs only need to be robed if they are going to process - cf. the holes in Mrs Trellis's jeans. Otherwise, all the arguments already put forward about clericalization, separation from the people of whom they are a part, etc, all stand. In general, don't robe.

The rule of thumb for vesting is as follows:
Those whose "natural habitat" is the sanctuary - clergy, servers - are by tradition vested. Those who come forth from the people to minister to the people - readers, ministers of communion, cantors - do not need to be robed, even if they happen to be in the sanctuary at some point. Choirs should not normally be in the sanctuary. If they are, they risk becoming clericalized, which may prejudice their role in enabling the song of the people.

So the question is: should choirs process? If so, why? And do they need to do it every time? <Cattle-prod off>

[docmattc]

So the question is: should choirs process?

And if they do, how do they manage to see where they're going (top part of the bifocals) and read the music (lower part of bifocals) without falling over and causing a major pile-up half way up the aisle?
Our readers process in the entrance procession and several report that they can't walk and read the hymnbook at the same time.

[musicus]

As no one has said it yet, Welcome to the Forum Manniemain!)

Yeas, welcome indeed. (Plus, you have probably set a record for the most posts in 24 hours for a new member. Keep 'em coming!)

[Reginald]

Re the seating of said choir...

I know all the reasons for moving the choir out of the sanctuary but (and I know it's out of character for me to kick the rubrics into touch!) but I wish people would think about the acoustics sometimes. Our local Cathedral choir sing most of the Mass from the South Transept and sometimes they might as well be singing down a mine. I'd rather they were sat in the 'wrong' place, took advantage of the acoustics of the choir (place not people) and were able to lead the congregation more effectively. At that point better, from the congregation's point of view, to have them dressed identically as the brain can more effectively 'tune out' the presence of people dressed the same and who act in unison.

[mcb]

At mcb's place the choir wear what looks like a purple cassock and white surplice.

Yep, that's right. I have mixed feelings about the choir wearing robes. On the plus side I think the robes give out the message (to ourselves as much as to the assembly) that we take our role seriously, namely the role of service - we're not there for our own enjoyment, and we consent to be under scrutiny, so to speak. There's a sense (it seems to me) that we're more obliged to give of our best because we've dressed up for the occasion. In the end music, like speech, is about more than the sounds you make - the visual cues are important.

On the minus side it cramps the style a little. Musically we cover a wider stylistic range than a typical cathedral choir, and while we do all kinds of everything (from polyphony and plainchant to Gospel, jazz, world music and the like) I'd probably be inclined to mix it up more than I do if the robes didn't say that we're basically a traditional church choir. Maybe that's how it should be: we're a cathedral choir, after all. I get my guitar out sometimes, but I feel slightly absurd playing it in a cassock and surplice; ditto when choir members play percussion instruments. We once did a trad jazz arrangement of Just a closer walk with thee on television, and for that I had the choir dress in black and white, concert-style. For all the other items we did for the same series (Granada's My Favourite Hymns), ranging from the plainchant Pater Noster to Gerard Markland's Do not be afraid - guitars and all - we kept the robes on.

I take the purist's point about the alb as the appropriate garb for a lay ministry, but the cassock and surplice are traditional, and what we already have. I don't think the signs given out would be all that different.

[manniemain]

Thanks for the welcomes!

There are certainly pros and cons to all of this. We are by no means fully convinced of the need to robe and are just exploring the issue. However.....

Our main arguments in favour would be
1. to inspire the choir to give of its best and give out the message to the congregation that this is (hopefully) happening.
2. to preserve the integrity of the choir and thereby to discourage the practice of non attenders of rehearsals "joining" the
choir just for Mass every once in a while if they like the hymns for that week. These people particularly enjoy having a
"go" at a carefully rehearsed motet they have never heard before!
3. to discourage the people in (2) from deserting the choir a couple of verses before the end of the last hymn in order to
hold a large (and loud) family/friends reunion party near by.
4. to de-personalise the singers making them servants of the liturgy than than appearing as individuals showing off.
Hopefully this would reduce criticisms by members of the congregation who regard participation of any kind in Mass
(such as singing the hymns) as some form of treachery and possible latent Presbyterianism!

Against, would be all the points about the choir no longer appearing part of the assembly as well as an appearance of intending clericalisation. These are all formidable arguments. Phew!!

[docmattc]

From what we can see on this clip, the girls singing at the papal Mass in Lourdes seemed to be in albs.

[Southern Comfort]

From what we can see on this clip, the girls singing at the papal Mass in Lourdes seemed to be in albs.

- which is the traditional garb for choristers in France (cf, Les Petits Chanteurs de la Croix de Bois, etc).

By the way, didn't you think the men's plainchant was terrible? (Quite apart from their open necked shirts revealing torso halfway down to the belt, to return to the topic of this thread...)