Nick Baty wrote:you don't need a choir in order to have good music in your liturgy.
No, but nobody was arguing that. What gets up my nose is the implication that a choir is a de facto impediment to good liturgy.
So why do we hate choirs then?
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
-
contrabordun
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 4:20 pm
When I go to a Mass without music, it always feels as if there is something missing.
I love having music as part of the Mass but I want to be singing, not just listening. I also want to sing things I know - this may be classed as boring but so be it.
Just for the record, I don't hate choirs. So I disprove the point the original poster made.
I love having music as part of the Mass but I want to be singing, not just listening. I also want to sing things I know - this may be classed as boring but so be it.
Just for the record, I don't hate choirs. So I disprove the point the original poster made.
-
Petrasancta
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:04 am
Low Mass
I hope this will not be regarded as offensive in this context but I, along with many other people, go to some lengths to find a Mass with no singing in it at all. These Masses spring up in my area from time to time and attract large numbers of people but they seldom last before someone decides that the people must sing. Is there no room for a more a la carte approach in cities or churches with several Masses so that people who wish to SAY the people's parts of the Mass are not disenfranchised?
'Quiet' Mass
Daily Mass in most parishes is totally spoken, except where the quite reasonable practice is to sing the Alleluia. Saying 'alleluia' sometimes seems to me as out of place as saying 'tra-la-la,' i.e. it's a word intended to be sung, which is probably why the book says omit it if you don't sing it.
Welcome, Petrasancta. While I'm not mad keen on the thought of a mass with no singing at all, I think you make a good point, that where a number of masses are available (I'm guessing you mean sunday masses), as much effort should be made to have a mass 'by the book' so to speak, i.e. sing only the parts which should be sung, as there is to have all the other variations to the mass form.
However, in my heart of hearts I feel that if this is the case, some effort should be made to include some a cappella singing, maybe a bit of plainchant at communion. I'd even stretch to a bit of latin; in this context, with full smoke and bells, it works very effectively.
However, in my heart of hearts I feel that if this is the case, some effort should be made to include some a cappella singing, maybe a bit of plainchant at communion. I'd even stretch to a bit of latin; in this context, with full smoke and bells, it works very effectively.
nazard wrote:I wonder if the point is that mass with groaning and wailing is considerably less inspiring than mass with no attempt at music. There are some priests, some choirs and some music groups who should follow St Benedict's advice and cultivate silence.
Or given help and encouragement to move forward...
docmattc wrote:
It's good question - even if that's not really what I said (remember GIRM: "Among the faithful . . . the choir exercises its own liturgical role [my italics]) - and I did pause to wonder why I am so exercised by this. I think my reasons are basically twofold:
1. For once in my life a body of directives from the church seem to be telling me to do what I would happen to want to do by preference (sadly, it's more usually the converse!) and I seem to be surrounded by people saying "Oh, we don't have to bother with that". It's just not fair! (whimper) Well, all right, not very worthy, but . . .
2.If you are going to have a choir, you have to get them to turn out in their own free time to practise - to subdue their individual vocal sounds and regional accents, to submerge their individual personalities (Oh yes - all comments passim about intrusive "performances" and prima donna "soloists" are exactly right) - in order to produce a harmonious whole - you have to bore the more musical witless by endless repetition of stuff they could just read' for the benefit of the less able, and persuade them still to turn up because the less able need them if the practice is going to work - and you do all this because just to show up on the day and be merely competent is an unworthy offering to the Lord whom we are supposed to be honouring - and it's not much of a foundation for your motivational exhortations if you have to end by saying "but of course don't start to think that there's any value to what you are doing or anything special about your role, or that anyone wants anything more than a few hymns - that they'd rather by droning through "Colours of Day" or "Full in the Panting Heart of Rome"
That's why "its own liturgical role" (GIRM) is important, and why "the parts proper to it" (also GIRM) matter in giving the choir something to get its teeth into - to work at to improve their sound and in doing so improve the quality of the music of the whole assembly in those perhaps less ambitious parts which all share.
(Exit, foaming slightly at the mouth.)
It is incidentally this document, not just CTM which stresses that the choir are a part of the congregation. Why do you find this painful Quaeritor?
It's good question - even if that's not really what I said (remember GIRM: "Among the faithful . . . the choir exercises its own liturgical role [my italics]) - and I did pause to wonder why I am so exercised by this. I think my reasons are basically twofold:
1. For once in my life a body of directives from the church seem to be telling me to do what I would happen to want to do by preference (sadly, it's more usually the converse!) and I seem to be surrounded by people saying "Oh, we don't have to bother with that". It's just not fair! (whimper) Well, all right, not very worthy, but . . .
2.If you are going to have a choir, you have to get them to turn out in their own free time to practise - to subdue their individual vocal sounds and regional accents, to submerge their individual personalities (Oh yes - all comments passim about intrusive "performances" and prima donna "soloists" are exactly right) - in order to produce a harmonious whole - you have to bore the more musical witless by endless repetition of stuff they could just read' for the benefit of the less able, and persuade them still to turn up because the less able need them if the practice is going to work - and you do all this because just to show up on the day and be merely competent is an unworthy offering to the Lord whom we are supposed to be honouring - and it's not much of a foundation for your motivational exhortations if you have to end by saying "but of course don't start to think that there's any value to what you are doing or anything special about your role, or that anyone wants anything more than a few hymns - that they'd rather by droning through "Colours of Day" or "Full in the Panting Heart of Rome"
That's why "its own liturgical role" (GIRM) is important, and why "the parts proper to it" (also GIRM) matter in giving the choir something to get its teeth into - to work at to improve their sound and in doing so improve the quality of the music of the whole assembly in those perhaps less ambitious parts which all share.
(Exit, foaming slightly at the mouth.)
So why do we hate choirs then?
It might be worth noting that 'choirs' come in all shapes and sizes; and their modus operandi can therefore be very varied. Before we accept or reject what they do, we perhaps need to be clear about what sort of 'choir' we are referring to.
Here are some basic distinctions: but I am sure many more can be made:
(1) The 'traditional' SATB choir and organ. Note that this is comparatively recent - given that it really became popular in Victorian times.
(2) Unison 'cheer leader' choirs whose job is simply to 'give a lead' to the congregation
(3) A cappella choirs: two basic types here:
(a) Unaccompanied plainchant choirs (most commonly found in monasteries)
(b) Polyphonic groups - usually (but not necessarily ) associated with Renaissance Polyphony.
Note that (a) can encompass congregations; (b) cannot.
(4) Cathedral choirs: Boys (now, in many cases, girls too) and proffesionally trained lay clerks, usually deployed as Decani and Cantori as opposed to singing in a single block. Note the difference of sound between Boys/Girls and adult women.
(5) Choirs made up of a few singers managing one voice to a part, versus larger groups with many voices to each part. Each have quite different rehearsal and performance approaches - to say nothing of the different types of 'esprit de corps' that they have.
(6) The distinction between (a) choirs of amateur volunteers (b) choirs of professionals - sometimes salaried (c) mixtures of the two.
(7) Styles of singing e.g. (a) Operatic styles - very common in the nineteenth century and originally derived from C18th-early C19th embassy chapel traditions, where you had a rank and file of experienced volunteers making up your main choir supplemented by skilled professionals (often Italian) from the London Opera scene. Much of the music by Webbe and Haydn/Mozart etc as refracted through Novello editions was designed for this formation. Note how opera singers tend to use vibrato; and, because of this have a wider vocal range. In the past (and to some extent even now) they tend to 'swoop' on to, away from, or between different notes. (b) 'Straight' Cathedral type singing with little vibrato - therefore more limited (and fixed) ranges (c) 'Folk' styles of singing - lots of variety here, of course - but often characterised by the instinctive cultivation of 'folk' accents, the tendency to 'swoop' on to, away from and between different notes, a deliberate tendency to sing slightly off (usually below) a given note, and the use of microphones (enabling faster diction - because the microphone obviates the need for 'voice projection'.
Note how many people nowadays who get 'singing lessons' are taught via an operatic repertoire and sing in that style.
(8) Choir plus Cantor(s). Not quite the same as Choir plus specialist soloists on the embassy chapel model, since the Cantor may be expected to lead the congregation from the front and somewhat separately from the rest of the choir. Note how a choir with cantors has a different inbuilt 'hierarchy' from a choir without a Cantor. Rehearsal procedures will also be different, since the Cantors can to some extent be rehearsed separately and, because the load is spread between them and the choir, more material can be learnt more quickly. A choir, without a cantor, for example, finds it harder to master a new responsorial psalm every week.
(9) Choirs plus instruments and different sorts of keyboard. Again this is very different from Choir with Organ, not least because different procedures as regards arranging music and rehearsal have to be adopted.
Here are some basic distinctions:
(a) The difference between Pipe Organ, Electric Organ, Digital Organ, Piano, Electric Piano, the huge variety of other electric keyboards.
(b) Choir plus 'Folk Group' type combinations: i.e. Guitars, one or more 'melody'/ descant instruments, possibly a Bass Guitar/String Bass. Note the difference between this and a 'folk group' that also has a keyboard/organ of some description.
(c) 'Thomas More'/Taize style combinations.
(d) Choir plus instruments organised and playing in a more 'classical' manner. Note, again, the difference between a group like this and one with a keyboard/organ added.
(10) The way a choir operates is also affected by the amount of repertoire it is expected to cover. In pre-Vatican II days choirs spent long hours rehearsing (by our standards) a relatively limited, though still considerable, solo repertoire. Some groups still work in this way. A choir, though, that is expected to work in tandem with a congregation and cover the modern liturgy, though, faces a different scenario. The name of the game is 'quantity'. For example last week my 'choir' sang 4 hymns, a 'Lord have mercy', responsorial Gloria, Holy Holy, Pater Noster (by Niedermeyer), Lamb of God, Memorial Acclamation No 4, Responsorial Psalm and Gospel Acclamation - all in conjunction with the congregation. Sometimes we also sing a Communion Antiphon. Quantity does not necessarily mean a reduction in quality. Indeed it can be used as a lever to boost musical skills; but it certainly puts a premium on sight singing abilities and a general acceptance of certain musical skills and procedures among singers which are only selectively tackled at key points. A more limited repertoire enables every detail of of performance can be gone through. This is not necessarily a good thing, as it can result in choirs learning things by rote and not developing their sight singing and general musical skills - this was a common fault in pre-Vatican II choirs.
(11) Choir organisation, esprit de corps, and its relationship to the congregation and the officiating clergy are also affected by where the group is deployed in the building. Note the differences between placing it in a gallery at the back of the church, up at the altar by the clergy, and as part of the body of the congregation.
It should be apparent that these distinctions affect the way choirs operate in several ways. First, each type has a different relationship with the congregation and officiating clergy; second, their esprit de corps and rehearsal methods are different; third, they require different sorts of skills from the composer/arranger.
Here are some basic distinctions: but I am sure many more can be made:
(1) The 'traditional' SATB choir and organ. Note that this is comparatively recent - given that it really became popular in Victorian times.
(2) Unison 'cheer leader' choirs whose job is simply to 'give a lead' to the congregation
(3) A cappella choirs: two basic types here:
(a) Unaccompanied plainchant choirs (most commonly found in monasteries)
(b) Polyphonic groups - usually (but not necessarily ) associated with Renaissance Polyphony.
Note that (a) can encompass congregations; (b) cannot.
(4) Cathedral choirs: Boys (now, in many cases, girls too) and proffesionally trained lay clerks, usually deployed as Decani and Cantori as opposed to singing in a single block. Note the difference of sound between Boys/Girls and adult women.
(5) Choirs made up of a few singers managing one voice to a part, versus larger groups with many voices to each part. Each have quite different rehearsal and performance approaches - to say nothing of the different types of 'esprit de corps' that they have.
(6) The distinction between (a) choirs of amateur volunteers (b) choirs of professionals - sometimes salaried (c) mixtures of the two.
(7) Styles of singing e.g. (a) Operatic styles - very common in the nineteenth century and originally derived from C18th-early C19th embassy chapel traditions, where you had a rank and file of experienced volunteers making up your main choir supplemented by skilled professionals (often Italian) from the London Opera scene. Much of the music by Webbe and Haydn/Mozart etc as refracted through Novello editions was designed for this formation. Note how opera singers tend to use vibrato; and, because of this have a wider vocal range. In the past (and to some extent even now) they tend to 'swoop' on to, away from, or between different notes. (b) 'Straight' Cathedral type singing with little vibrato - therefore more limited (and fixed) ranges (c) 'Folk' styles of singing - lots of variety here, of course - but often characterised by the instinctive cultivation of 'folk' accents, the tendency to 'swoop' on to, away from and between different notes, a deliberate tendency to sing slightly off (usually below) a given note, and the use of microphones (enabling faster diction - because the microphone obviates the need for 'voice projection'.
Note how many people nowadays who get 'singing lessons' are taught via an operatic repertoire and sing in that style.
(8) Choir plus Cantor(s). Not quite the same as Choir plus specialist soloists on the embassy chapel model, since the Cantor may be expected to lead the congregation from the front and somewhat separately from the rest of the choir. Note how a choir with cantors has a different inbuilt 'hierarchy' from a choir without a Cantor. Rehearsal procedures will also be different, since the Cantors can to some extent be rehearsed separately and, because the load is spread between them and the choir, more material can be learnt more quickly. A choir, without a cantor, for example, finds it harder to master a new responsorial psalm every week.
(9) Choirs plus instruments and different sorts of keyboard. Again this is very different from Choir with Organ, not least because different procedures as regards arranging music and rehearsal have to be adopted.
Here are some basic distinctions:
(a) The difference between Pipe Organ, Electric Organ, Digital Organ, Piano, Electric Piano, the huge variety of other electric keyboards.
(b) Choir plus 'Folk Group' type combinations: i.e. Guitars, one or more 'melody'/ descant instruments, possibly a Bass Guitar/String Bass. Note the difference between this and a 'folk group' that also has a keyboard/organ of some description.
(c) 'Thomas More'/Taize style combinations.
(d) Choir plus instruments organised and playing in a more 'classical' manner. Note, again, the difference between a group like this and one with a keyboard/organ added.
(10) The way a choir operates is also affected by the amount of repertoire it is expected to cover. In pre-Vatican II days choirs spent long hours rehearsing (by our standards) a relatively limited, though still considerable, solo repertoire. Some groups still work in this way. A choir, though, that is expected to work in tandem with a congregation and cover the modern liturgy, though, faces a different scenario. The name of the game is 'quantity'. For example last week my 'choir' sang 4 hymns, a 'Lord have mercy', responsorial Gloria, Holy Holy, Pater Noster (by Niedermeyer), Lamb of God, Memorial Acclamation No 4, Responsorial Psalm and Gospel Acclamation - all in conjunction with the congregation. Sometimes we also sing a Communion Antiphon. Quantity does not necessarily mean a reduction in quality. Indeed it can be used as a lever to boost musical skills; but it certainly puts a premium on sight singing abilities and a general acceptance of certain musical skills and procedures among singers which are only selectively tackled at key points. A more limited repertoire enables every detail of of performance can be gone through. This is not necessarily a good thing, as it can result in choirs learning things by rote and not developing their sight singing and general musical skills - this was a common fault in pre-Vatican II choirs.
(11) Choir organisation, esprit de corps, and its relationship to the congregation and the officiating clergy are also affected by where the group is deployed in the building. Note the differences between placing it in a gallery at the back of the church, up at the altar by the clergy, and as part of the body of the congregation.
It should be apparent that these distinctions affect the way choirs operate in several ways. First, each type has a different relationship with the congregation and officiating clergy; second, their esprit de corps and rehearsal methods are different; third, they require different sorts of skills from the composer/arranger.
T.E.Muir
monty wrote:I would say there is a place for choir only pieces or parts of the Mass but I would plead that some thought is given to how much choir only music is included in each Mass. I have been at churches where well known hymns that would have the congregation singing are handed over to soloists - the one that immediately springs to mind is Amazing Grace. First verse, possibly although that is the one people know without needing to refer to words, but other verses too? Follow that with a sung Gloria which has the verses choir only, then a party piece at the Offertory, choir only verses for the Angus with shared response followed by another party piece post Communion and music has become a chore rather than an enhancement.
Ouch! Sounds like you've been to my place of worship, Monty, since your description matches closely what I'd think of as the right blend of choir-only and inclusive musical items. Think of how much remains for the assembly to sing - arguably all those items which properly belong to it, and then a fair bit more:
- Gathering Song
- Responses in the Penitential Rite
- Some part of the Gloria, e.g. a refrain
- Psalm Response
- Gospel Acclamation (refrain)
- Sanctus, Acclamation, Amen in the Eucharistic Prayer
- Response in the Agnus Dei
- Communion processional song (refrain)
- Recessional hymn
I'd not be inclined to take too seriously the complaint that the assembly were being excluded from the singing, with all those things to share in.
The question whether choral singing is a more a chore or an enhancement probably comes down to how well it's done. For a choir to take on an extended musical role to itself, rather than just being there to lead the assembly, it matters that the resulting sound achieves its purpose, namely, well namely what? "Assisting the prayerful reflection of the assembly" is how the bishops put it in Celebrating the Mass, but IMHO they take a rather restrictive view in spelling out when it's appropriate for the choir alone to sing ("Occasionally ... a motet"). Of course there are other times when it's appropriate for the choir to sing alone: often when it's a choice between faithfulness to the Missal text vs a song more familiar to the assembly and only distantly on the relevant theme.
It seems to me we're wholly tolerant of this idea when it comes to readers. No-one would argue that having a single person read from scripture or the prayers of intercession excludes the assembly, or that it would be better for the whole assembly to join in at these points. I've never pulled a stopwatch out, but in a Mass like the one you dislike, Monty, I imagine the choir spends less time doing 'party pieces' than the readers spend at the ambo.
But if someone read badly we'd want to steer them away into some other more fruitful ministry, and that's how it ought to be with choirs too. A choir of limited musical means can still play an excellent role in leading the assembly without having to exercise its role qua choir to the full.
[I rather like our way of doing Amazing Grace, by the way! First verse unaccompanied solo - second verse choir a cappella - brief organ interlude to wrench us back into G major
- third verse everyone - another brief organ interlude, this time to ease us seamlessly into Ab - final verse sung as heartily as if it was the last night of the Proms. Works for me! But I'm always open to feedback from the Person in the Pew, so if that includes you, Monty, I've noted your thoughts. Ta.]
M.
Re: So why do we hate choirs then?
dmu3tem wrote:It might be worth noting that 'choirs' come in all shapes and sizes...
Thank you, Thomas. Erudite as always. What differences in practice follow from these distinctions, do you think? One thing that strikes me sometimes is that the more proficient and formal the choir, the more difficult it can be for its members to connect with the idea of ministry rather than music-making as its raison d'etre. I'm pleased and privileged that the members of my own outfit don't seem to come into that category, though.
[And one bit of nitpicking! Decani is in the genitive singular rather than the nominative plural. It means "(the bit of the choir on) the Dean's (side)". The other side is Cantoris, "on the Precentor's side". (But if it had been nominative plural it would have been Cantores.
)]
M.
-
docmattc
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:42 am
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster
- Location: Near Cambridge
quaeritor wrote:
1. For once in my life a body of directives from the church seem to be telling me to do what I would happen to want to do by preference (sadly, it's more usually the converse!) and I seem to be surrounded by people saying "Oh, we don't have to bother with that".
This has been my experience too. Starting an explanation "the church says that..." usually gets the response "all the more reason not to do it then". Going for "I feel that if we do this it will lead us into a fuller experience of our liturgy" is more likely to get a favourable response. (ignoring the predictable "but we've never done that before") This is usually why the church says what it says too!
quaeritor wrote:and it's not much of a foundation for your motivational exhortations if you have to end by saying "but of course don't start to think that there's any value to what you are doing or anything special about your role, or that anyone wants anything more than a few hymns - that they'd rather by droning through "Colours of Day" or "Full in the Panting Heart of Rome" That's why "its own liturgical role" (GIRM) is important, and why "the parts proper to it" (also GIRM) matter in giving the choir something to get its teeth into - to work at to improve their sound and in doing so improve the quality of the music of the whole assembly in those perhaps less ambitious parts which all share.
I'm in full agreement with you here Quaeritor, and I don't think many here would suggest that the role of a choir is only to sing unison with the congregation. I'm sure that's not what the Bps were saying in CTM either. The choir is a part of the congregation that fulfills a special role, also true of readers, ministers of communion, servers etc.
What is interpreted by 'parts proper to it' and 'its own liturgical role' though I suspect differs from congregation to congregation and from choir to choir. That's why I like Deiss' answer to the question of what the choir should sing alone. As Nick said above, as long as it is adding to the celebration (in the opinion of the majority in the pews, not of the musical director) it is doing its job.
docmattc wrote:as long as it is adding to the celebration (in the opinion of the majority in the pews, not of the musical director) it is doing its job.
Ideally the two should concur, but if not, it isn't necessarily clear who's right. In some communities the 'majority in the pews' would vote for a four-hymn sandwich every time, provided three out of the four were I watch the sunrise, Soul of my Saviour and Hail, Queen of Heaven. Of course the judgement of the community matters enormously, and a musical director will achieve nothing without achieving the consent of the people being ministered to. But it starts with formation, and sometimes this will have to come from the musical director.
M.
So why do we hate choirs then?
Picking up on the role of choirs exercising a liturgical ministry:
It is worth noting that this can separate choirs from congregations. Certainly, this was what happened in the nineteenth century, both in the Catholic and Anglican churches. Note too that the 1958 Instruction by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on Music and Liturgy underlined this by stating that there were 3 sorts of music viz: (1) Music for the celebrating clergy (2) Music for the Choir - often the Proper and (3) Music for the congregation - usually the Ordinary. The document made this distinction precisely on the grounds that celebrating clergy, choirs and congregations each performed a distinct liturgical role or ministry.
Even without this, it is worth noticing how this separation can come about in practice:
(1) The choir, as liturgical ministers, are dressed up in cassocks - in other words they are given a uniform and made to look a bit like the clergy, even if they are laity.
(2) They are placed up near the altar and thus often physically separated from the congregation. Placed thus, any tendency to behave like a specialist solo group is enhanced, because they are in full view of the congregation.
(3) This position by the altar was used to justify attempts to exclude women from choirs. Nuns avoided this though, usually because their choir stalls were physically partitioned off from the altar by barriers. For a surviving example of this, visit the Benedictine nunnery at Oulton, Stone, Staffs. Until the 1970s Stanbrook had this system too.
(4) In addition, during the nineteenth century the notion of the choir having a separate liturgical ministry was, to some extent, derived from the image of monks or nuns performing the Office. This was transposed to parish churches and non-monastic cathedrals by the device of having the Office sung by non monastic canons. You only then have to add boy trebles and substitute paid lay-clerks and you get a lay choir singing the Office. Indeed, this was the setup at Westminster Cathedral under Terry (and I believe is an aspect still retained today - see John Ainslie's interview with Martin Baker in the current M and L issue to see how this relationship works). The result, as Fortescue noted in 1912, was that you could have a 'liturgical choir' (as distinct from the 'choir of musicians') who do not sing!
(5) Notice too how such ideas were related to the idea - enunciated by Abbot Prosper Gueranger, the founder of Solesmes - that the liturgy is something ordained by God. Gueranger therefore argued that our job as liturgical ministers then is to return it to him in an endless 'cycle of praise'.
This idea was reiterated in the 1940s (I think) by Vilma Little in her book 'The Sacrifice of Praise'. Once you accept this position it is only a short step to then say that God's word must be rendered in the most perfect form possible (ideally Plainchant, because this was regarded by some as a development from spoken oratory and not, strictly speaking, music). 'Perfect' performance, by definition, excludes the congregation and enhances the separate status of the choir as a specialist body of singers.
Now readers may think such separation cannot happen now, due to changed perceptions of the nature of liturgical ministry. Yet, in practice I have seen it occur. At St Anne's, Wendover the organ - and cantor sit up by the altar separate from the congregation but in full view of them. The change was quite deliberate - since earlier (in the late 1970s and 1980s) the organ and musicians were located within the body of the congregation. Note too that this move was supported by the nonconformist congregation who share the church with the Catholics.
Such liturgical ministerial distinctions, however, do not operate when the choir is placed in a gallery at the back of the church. First, it is not visible to the congregation; second, partly in consequence of this, the propensity for it to wear cassocks is reduced; third, as it is not up by the altar, in pre-Vatican II days women could join the choir. This, of course, does not mean that choirs in such positions do not act separately from the congregation. They are still physically separate and, because they stand behind everyone else, they often have little sense of the sound produced by the congregation. At communion they also tend to come in procession up the nave in a distinct block - partly so that they can receive this sacrament first.
To sum up we have not one, but two sets of basic parameters:
(1) Separation or unity between choir and congregation resulting from purely musical factors.
(2) Separation or unity between choir and congregation resulting from ideas about their 'liturgical ministry'.
Thomas Muir
It is worth noting that this can separate choirs from congregations. Certainly, this was what happened in the nineteenth century, both in the Catholic and Anglican churches. Note too that the 1958 Instruction by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on Music and Liturgy underlined this by stating that there were 3 sorts of music viz: (1) Music for the celebrating clergy (2) Music for the Choir - often the Proper and (3) Music for the congregation - usually the Ordinary. The document made this distinction precisely on the grounds that celebrating clergy, choirs and congregations each performed a distinct liturgical role or ministry.
Even without this, it is worth noticing how this separation can come about in practice:
(1) The choir, as liturgical ministers, are dressed up in cassocks - in other words they are given a uniform and made to look a bit like the clergy, even if they are laity.
(2) They are placed up near the altar and thus often physically separated from the congregation. Placed thus, any tendency to behave like a specialist solo group is enhanced, because they are in full view of the congregation.
(3) This position by the altar was used to justify attempts to exclude women from choirs. Nuns avoided this though, usually because their choir stalls were physically partitioned off from the altar by barriers. For a surviving example of this, visit the Benedictine nunnery at Oulton, Stone, Staffs. Until the 1970s Stanbrook had this system too.
(4) In addition, during the nineteenth century the notion of the choir having a separate liturgical ministry was, to some extent, derived from the image of monks or nuns performing the Office. This was transposed to parish churches and non-monastic cathedrals by the device of having the Office sung by non monastic canons. You only then have to add boy trebles and substitute paid lay-clerks and you get a lay choir singing the Office. Indeed, this was the setup at Westminster Cathedral under Terry (and I believe is an aspect still retained today - see John Ainslie's interview with Martin Baker in the current M and L issue to see how this relationship works). The result, as Fortescue noted in 1912, was that you could have a 'liturgical choir' (as distinct from the 'choir of musicians') who do not sing!
(5) Notice too how such ideas were related to the idea - enunciated by Abbot Prosper Gueranger, the founder of Solesmes - that the liturgy is something ordained by God. Gueranger therefore argued that our job as liturgical ministers then is to return it to him in an endless 'cycle of praise'.
This idea was reiterated in the 1940s (I think) by Vilma Little in her book 'The Sacrifice of Praise'. Once you accept this position it is only a short step to then say that God's word must be rendered in the most perfect form possible (ideally Plainchant, because this was regarded by some as a development from spoken oratory and not, strictly speaking, music). 'Perfect' performance, by definition, excludes the congregation and enhances the separate status of the choir as a specialist body of singers.
Now readers may think such separation cannot happen now, due to changed perceptions of the nature of liturgical ministry. Yet, in practice I have seen it occur. At St Anne's, Wendover the organ - and cantor sit up by the altar separate from the congregation but in full view of them. The change was quite deliberate - since earlier (in the late 1970s and 1980s) the organ and musicians were located within the body of the congregation. Note too that this move was supported by the nonconformist congregation who share the church with the Catholics.
Such liturgical ministerial distinctions, however, do not operate when the choir is placed in a gallery at the back of the church. First, it is not visible to the congregation; second, partly in consequence of this, the propensity for it to wear cassocks is reduced; third, as it is not up by the altar, in pre-Vatican II days women could join the choir. This, of course, does not mean that choirs in such positions do not act separately from the congregation. They are still physically separate and, because they stand behind everyone else, they often have little sense of the sound produced by the congregation. At communion they also tend to come in procession up the nave in a distinct block - partly so that they can receive this sacrament first.
To sum up we have not one, but two sets of basic parameters:
(1) Separation or unity between choir and congregation resulting from purely musical factors.
(2) Separation or unity between choir and congregation resulting from ideas about their 'liturgical ministry'.
Thomas Muir
T.E.Muir