In another context (the “Folk Group†thread) I did a word search for "choir" through GIRM and CTM and the results were rather revealing. I've often sensed a sort of national prejudice against choirs, (even within this forum?) but I didn't realise it came "from the top" (!).
The GIRM tells us that "Among the faithful, the schola cantorum or choir exercises its own liturgical role, (mmmmm ) ensuring the parts proper to it, in keeping with the different types of chants, are properly carried out, and fostering the active participation of the faithful through the singing" - nice and positive and warm and encouraging.
CTM has: "The choir remains at all times a part of the assembly. (ouch!) It can serve the assembly ("can serve"? - what's the force of "can" in that? why not just "it serves"?) by leading it in sung prayer and by reinforcing or enhancing the song of the assembly, for example by sharing the singing of the verses or sections of a hymn or song ("sharing the singing of the verses eh! - that'll get 'em turning out to practise on a wet mid-week evening in winter.) In fairness there's more (section 43) but isn't it all a bit negative and discouraging? - no mention here of "its own liturgical role" or the "parts proper to it".
Perhaps I'm missing something. I suspect that I'm about to find out!
So why do we hate choirs then?
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
-
pirate
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:24 am
- Parish / Diocese: St Joseph Oakham Rutland
- Location: UK
ooh, I don't think we hate choirs. I only ever mildly disliked mine when they wanted to sing stuff because they wanted to sing it, never mind what the liturgy was doing (eg, the bass who wanted to sing solos from 'Elijah' at communion - I never caved in to this...), or muttered 'oh, modern music' when I tried to drop in a bit of STMG or even - horrors - Amsterdam music. I hope as director of music in my last parish, I trod a line between keeping the choir happy with plainsong and Josquin and other four-part stuff - which they liked - and caring for the parish, with stuff they could sing, psalms which kept them fed through the week, eucharistic acclamations which they could already sing or weren't too complicated to learn over a season and the odd craziness like the plainsong 'Resonet in laudibus' one Christmas morning with very depleted forces, one of whom was wearing a belly dancing belt of gold coins which she swooshed in rhythm, that being the only accompaniment we could run to for that item...
I'm more a liturgist than a musican, so they drove me crackers, but I loved them too, and tried to knit together a traditional choir repertoire (whatever that is) with the liturgical action and parish worship, and, I think, succeeded fairly well, so it can be done. Of course we made huge mistakes, but we learned from them. What's a bit dispiriting is the thought that the music or the choir has priority, when really it's the whole worship and the unity of the church which are important...
(Slightly incoherent due to finishing up half a bottle of Chilean chardonnay tonight but trying to make the point: choirs are wonderful creatures, but we need to take account of the whole liturgy, and the life of the church as well as the musical considerations, and I'm not sure this always happens. But... stand by for a hail of good practice, I hope!) And welcome, quaeritor! I bet we could work together, although I'm not certain (the Chardonnay again) that I've answered your point...
I'm more a liturgist than a musican, so they drove me crackers, but I loved them too, and tried to knit together a traditional choir repertoire (whatever that is) with the liturgical action and parish worship, and, I think, succeeded fairly well, so it can be done. Of course we made huge mistakes, but we learned from them. What's a bit dispiriting is the thought that the music or the choir has priority, when really it's the whole worship and the unity of the church which are important...
(Slightly incoherent due to finishing up half a bottle of Chilean chardonnay tonight but trying to make the point: choirs are wonderful creatures, but we need to take account of the whole liturgy, and the life of the church as well as the musical considerations, and I'm not sure this always happens. But... stand by for a hail of good practice, I hope!) And welcome, quaeritor! I bet we could work together, although I'm not certain (the Chardonnay again) that I've answered your point...
-
nazard
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:08 am
- Parish / Diocese: Clifton
- Location: Muddiest Somerset
Where I live it seems to be the "folk" group which is disliked, but it is difficult to gauge. There is no easy measure. Not that the choir is thought all that much better of. I think that it all really depends on standards of performance. No one wants to sit through a cacophony of any description.
I have a suspicion that much of the problem is that the Roman Rite is perceived as fundamentally a sung liturgy, and that since the fifties this has been pushed hard. I think Pius XII started it with a letter called "de musica sacra" which allowed vernacular hymns at mass. The problem with music at mass is that it requires musicians, and they are in short supply, and so we get rotten music. I find this very offputting at mass, and would argue for more masses without music.
When you do have music, congregations cope fairly well with the ordinary, with common hymns and simple psalm antiphons, but I have never heard one cope with the proper. The solution to this has been to substitute hymns for the proper, but the latest GIRM does not allow this. At the moment we have a parish "head in the sand" attitude to that. Is anyone, apart from Westminster Cathedral, making a serious effort to sing the proper?
I have a suspicion that much of the problem is that the Roman Rite is perceived as fundamentally a sung liturgy, and that since the fifties this has been pushed hard. I think Pius XII started it with a letter called "de musica sacra" which allowed vernacular hymns at mass. The problem with music at mass is that it requires musicians, and they are in short supply, and so we get rotten music. I find this very offputting at mass, and would argue for more masses without music.
When you do have music, congregations cope fairly well with the ordinary, with common hymns and simple psalm antiphons, but I have never heard one cope with the proper. The solution to this has been to substitute hymns for the proper, but the latest GIRM does not allow this. At the moment we have a parish "head in the sand" attitude to that. Is anyone, apart from Westminster Cathedral, making a serious effort to sing the proper?
As a retired parish musician I have two problems with choirs. The first is to do with the whole performance thing which I think has no place at all in parish worship. People are made to listen to stuff which may or may not fit in with the rest of the liturgy. Hence the Vatican's very perceptive "can serve." Obviously the ideal as spelled out in the document is that the choir is there to lead (and only lead) the singing of the assembly. Or am I reading the document wrong?
The second problem is that 9 times out of 10 parish choirs are utterly, depressingly abysmal. Rather than sending one's spirits soaring heavenward, they fill the mind with dark thoughts that are focused in the opposite direction.
My own experiences of attempting to get an assortment of ladies whose voices are well past their prime (if there ever was a prime) and an "amdram" tenor who thinks it is the height of good taste to squeeze the end of every note, and a (double) bass who on a good day can follow the sopranos several octaves lower and with a maddening delay (needs to check that he is grunting the right piece) have convinced me that just because people who think they can sing want to form a choir, that is no good reason for subjecting a hundred or so innocent bystanders to their ghastly noise. Incidentally getting them to sing unison is no answer, it just highlights the dreadfulness that can be hidden among the general harmonic waffle.
One half decent non-strumming guitarist can help sustain a much more prayerful atmosphere.
as a final thought, has a parish ever asked for a choir? or are they something that just grows and cannot be eradicated?
Only half in mirth
Alan
The second problem is that 9 times out of 10 parish choirs are utterly, depressingly abysmal. Rather than sending one's spirits soaring heavenward, they fill the mind with dark thoughts that are focused in the opposite direction.
My own experiences of attempting to get an assortment of ladies whose voices are well past their prime (if there ever was a prime) and an "amdram" tenor who thinks it is the height of good taste to squeeze the end of every note, and a (double) bass who on a good day can follow the sopranos several octaves lower and with a maddening delay (needs to check that he is grunting the right piece) have convinced me that just because people who think they can sing want to form a choir, that is no good reason for subjecting a hundred or so innocent bystanders to their ghastly noise. Incidentally getting them to sing unison is no answer, it just highlights the dreadfulness that can be hidden among the general harmonic waffle.
One half decent non-strumming guitarist can help sustain a much more prayerful atmosphere.
as a final thought, has a parish ever asked for a choir? or are they something that just grows and cannot be eradicated?
Only half in mirth
Alan
-
contrabordun
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 4:20 pm
Oh for crying out loud..
Not, obviously, something of which any other music group (or any of the clergy) would ever be guilty.
I don't know: you haven't said which document or where. However, in view of the fact that
Yes well maybe if certain sections of the church hadn't spent 4 decades abolishing choirs and rubbishing the whole parish choir tradition, just maybe, there'd be a few more people around with the skills and inclination to train choirs properly, and maybe, just maybe, there'd be more people prepared to join them.
Half decent is about as good as I've ever encountered. I'm delighted to learn that they do come better than that. I like the non-strumming idea though. Better still, go one step further and leave the *beep* things in their cases.
Oh they can be eradicated easily enough. 40 years of drivel such as this will do the trick quite nicely.
Not in any mirth at all. (Unless your post was a wind up, in which case I don't make any apology for taking the bait: I think it's too serious for joking about).
Paul
alan29 wrote:I have two problems with choirs. The first is to do with the whole performance thing
and then he wrote:People are made to listen to stuff which may or may not fit in with the rest of the liturgy
Not, obviously, something of which any other music group (or any of the clergy) would ever be guilty.
and then he wrote:the ideal as spelled out in the document is that the choir is there to lead (and only lead) the singing of the assembly. Or am I reading the document wrong?
I don't know: you haven't said which document or where. However, in view of the fact that
, I suspect the answer is yes, you are.Sacrosanctum Concilium, (VI.114) wrote:The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care. Choirs must be diligently promoted..
Alan29 then wrote:The second problem is that 9 times out of 10 parish choirs are utterly, depressingly abysmal.
Yes well maybe if certain sections of the church hadn't spent 4 decades abolishing choirs and rubbishing the whole parish choir tradition, just maybe, there'd be a few more people around with the skills and inclination to train choirs properly, and maybe, just maybe, there'd be more people prepared to join them.
that is no good reason for subjecting a hundred or so innocent bystanders to their ghastly noise.
One half decent non-strumming guitarist can help sustain a much more prayerful atmosphere.
Half decent is about as good as I've ever encountered. I'm delighted to learn that they do come better than that. I like the non-strumming idea though. Better still, go one step further and leave the *beep* things in their cases.
as a final thought, has a parish ever asked for a choir? or are they something that just grows and cannot be eradicated?
Oh they can be eradicated easily enough. 40 years of drivel such as this will do the trick quite nicely.
Not in any mirth at all. (Unless your post was a wind up, in which case I don't make any apology for taking the bait: I think it's too serious for joking about).
Paul
-
docmattc
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:42 am
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster
- Location: Near Cambridge
I certainly don't have a problem with choirs, but I do have a problem with choirs, organists, music groups, clergy, who turn prayer into performance (whether that performance is beautiful or abysmal). Lucien Deiss comments on that which is sung by the choir alone- he says that they must sing 'in such a way that the listening assembly can say:"We are happy with what you are doing in our place. We form a single choir with you"' (Visions of liturgy and music for a new century) Of course what they are doing in our place (or more likely for those of us on this board, what we are doing in their place) is praying. If we ever lose sight of that fact, we have lost our ministry.
Deiss also goes on to say that the Church is a mystery of salvation, not a musical academy.
With regard to singing the proper, I would be much happier making fuller use of the entrance and communion antiphons if they followed the three year cycle of the readings, unfortunately at the moment they only follow a one year cycle. The instruction in CTM that says the opening song should introduce our thoughts to the liturgical seaon or festivity, but the OA only achieves this fully in year A. Let's remember too that CTM allows the option of "suitable liturgical song" at this point, even though GIRM does not give this option for England and Wales. (a rare continuity error at Eccleston Square?). Its my understanding that it is CTM, as the document from our own bishops to which we are bound rather than GIRM.
Deiss also goes on to say that the Church is a mystery of salvation, not a musical academy.
With regard to singing the proper, I would be much happier making fuller use of the entrance and communion antiphons if they followed the three year cycle of the readings, unfortunately at the moment they only follow a one year cycle. The instruction in CTM that says the opening song should introduce our thoughts to the liturgical seaon or festivity, but the OA only achieves this fully in year A. Let's remember too that CTM allows the option of "suitable liturgical song" at this point, even though GIRM does not give this option for England and Wales. (a rare continuity error at Eccleston Square?). Its my understanding that it is CTM, as the document from our own bishops to which we are bound rather than GIRM.
shake it, baby...
pirate wrote:...wearing a belly dancing belt of gold coins which she swooshed in rhythm...
That's an even more interesting concept! I think we should do more to nurture talents such as these. Belly dancing is a truly under-rated form of praise. What thinkest the forum's noble thinkers?-
docmattc
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:42 am
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster
- Location: Near Cambridge
Re: shake it, baby...
sidvicius wrote:pirate wrote:...wearing a belly dancing belt of gold coins which she swooshed in rhythm...
I agree whole heartedly,if its genuine prayer not spectacle (see my comments above!) and in the right setting. I'm not sure though that north Sheffield is that setting! It certainly wouldn't do anything for me, but that's not a reason to deny a form of praise to anyone else, if it works for them.
We should remember that whatever leads people to a deeper encounter with Christ should not be dismissed. We are liturgists, not rubricists. Dancing? well 2 Samuel 6 has something to say about it, although not necessarily the belly kind. This year's summer school looks like it may also have something to say on the subject!
-
nazard
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:08 am
- Parish / Diocese: Clifton
- Location: Muddiest Somerset
docmattc wrote:Its my understanding that it is CTM, as the document from our own bishops to which we are bound rather than GIRM.
I thought it was the other way round: CTM is guidance but GIRM is law. Perhaps someone can clarify what the true position is.
I have read some of Deiss' books, but not the one you refer to. I find him a little too ready to rubbish the past, and latin in particular. I would argue for more tolerance, and given the massive downturn in mass attendance in the last forty years, a more questioning attitude to what we have done.
In my experience guitars can work, but often don't. In a neighbouring parish a solitary strumming guitarist with a very good voice keeps a congregation of about fifty going. He uses a wide variety of material, and although the great german chorales sound a bit odd done that way, he certainly gets away with it. In our parish of about a hundred it used to work, but then we acquired a parishioner with delusions of being a fog bound lighthouse with no sense of rhythm or pitch. I'm afraid its the full diapason chorus, reeds as well on a bad day, or chaos ensures. Fortunately our fifteenth is not so very shrill, but I would dearly love the H&H open diapason no 1 from a nearby anglican church.
A source of concern to me is the average age of choristers, which seems to be about 55. The average age of "folk" groups is about a decade higher. The average liturgical guitarist is very white haired these days. Organs are not so badly off: there are teenage organists about. Perhaps it is the availability of proper teaching and paid organ scholarships which make the difference.
A source of concern to me is the average age of choristers, which seems to be about 55. The average age of "folk" groups is about a decade higher. The average liturgical guitarist is very white haired these days. Organs are not so badly off: there are teenage organists about. Perhaps it is the availability of proper teaching and paid organ scholarships which make the difference.
The average age of choristers need not be 'middle aged.' In Bradford, we have over a 1000 9-16 year olds singing in catholic choirs, singing a diet of sacred and secular music spanning 6 centuries. These children sing both in school and in church! see http://www.bradfordyouthchoir.org
The key (imho) is good quality music (whether Mass XVIII or God beyond all names) and good musical leadership. An exclusive diet of one sort of music (whether plainsong or post 1960's songs) is likely to bore them. Children, unlike us adults tend not to have preconceptions over particular styles of music (ie. I only like music with organ/ guitar) but they do seem to be able to make an objective decision quite quickly as to whether piece has quality. Language doesn't have much to do with it as children tend to be equally happy singing in English, Latin, Swahilli or any other language!
Musical / liturgical catachesis in catholic schools is all to often at a low level, which is a great shame as this is the next generation of catholic musicians and parishioners!
I will try to be a bit more of a good boy this time. I'm sorry I seem to have added rather too much diversion to Contrabordun's evening.
The thing about quoting Vatican Documents is that they illustrate just the tensions that this discussion is about. There are places with a minimalist view of the role of the choir, and there are places where choirs (does it specify parish choirs?) are given the responsibility of preserving the whole heritage of western liturgical music. They just reflect the particular viewpoint of the authors. Like the Church as a whole, all shades of opinion are reflected.
I write as a graduate musician (organist) - which does not imply that I don't have a full set of prejudices. However, when I am at Mass I do not want inept and mangled performances of what is very dear to me. That in no way adds to the depth of my spiritual experience. We all know the sort of thing I mean, desperate attempts at Palestrina etc. When I want to hear the "riches", I either go to one of the local cathedrals, or I put on a CD and turn the lights down.
I agree that everyone associated with the liturgy runs the danger of lapsing into performance. I have seen celebrants who make it up as they go along, and I have heard mini-orchestras playing such complex accompaniments that the poor people could barely hold the tune. And we all know readers who emphasise the conjunctions and prepositions. That does not make any of it defensible, no, not even choirs who perform.
I take no particular side in the traditional versus modern debate - I enjoy both, and have been uplifted an moved by both. I just want it well done. Something worthy of the great act it supports. Something that will give people a glimpse of what liturgy celebrates. Sadly, that is very difficult in the traditional repertoire unless the singers and those who direct them are highly skilled. And a huge part of the skill is to be able to listen critically to the sounds one is producing.
The age thing is interesting, though. It is shocking how the average age of our parishes has risen. People (mainly clergy) worry about a shortage of clergy. I think the danger will be empty churches in 20 years when those of my generation will have shuffled off.......... Didn't a Pope call for a decade of evangelisation partly to counter the trend. Can anyone remember any sort of positive, coordinated and energetic response from our bishops? No, thought not. SORRY!!! Naughty again.
As for retiring. In the end it was simple. I just told the PP one Sunday that I would not continue, and I didn't.
Alan
The thing about quoting Vatican Documents is that they illustrate just the tensions that this discussion is about. There are places with a minimalist view of the role of the choir, and there are places where choirs (does it specify parish choirs?) are given the responsibility of preserving the whole heritage of western liturgical music. They just reflect the particular viewpoint of the authors. Like the Church as a whole, all shades of opinion are reflected.
I write as a graduate musician (organist) - which does not imply that I don't have a full set of prejudices. However, when I am at Mass I do not want inept and mangled performances of what is very dear to me. That in no way adds to the depth of my spiritual experience. We all know the sort of thing I mean, desperate attempts at Palestrina etc. When I want to hear the "riches", I either go to one of the local cathedrals, or I put on a CD and turn the lights down.
I agree that everyone associated with the liturgy runs the danger of lapsing into performance. I have seen celebrants who make it up as they go along, and I have heard mini-orchestras playing such complex accompaniments that the poor people could barely hold the tune. And we all know readers who emphasise the conjunctions and prepositions. That does not make any of it defensible, no, not even choirs who perform.
I take no particular side in the traditional versus modern debate - I enjoy both, and have been uplifted an moved by both. I just want it well done. Something worthy of the great act it supports. Something that will give people a glimpse of what liturgy celebrates. Sadly, that is very difficult in the traditional repertoire unless the singers and those who direct them are highly skilled. And a huge part of the skill is to be able to listen critically to the sounds one is producing.
The age thing is interesting, though. It is shocking how the average age of our parishes has risen. People (mainly clergy) worry about a shortage of clergy. I think the danger will be empty churches in 20 years when those of my generation will have shuffled off.......... Didn't a Pope call for a decade of evangelisation partly to counter the trend. Can anyone remember any sort of positive, coordinated and energetic response from our bishops? No, thought not. SORRY!!! Naughty again.
As for retiring. In the end it was simple. I just told the PP one Sunday that I would not continue, and I didn't.
Alan
So much to respond to! - sadly I've only time for one quick point at the moment, but "I'll be back!"
Alan 29 wrote "the choir is there to lead (and only lead) the singing of the assembly"
I have often encountered this sentiment, repeated with much assurance, but where does it come from? Of course it's difficult to argue against - seems so obviously nice and tinged with due humility - and any counter sounds so-o self-important, but I repeat; Where does it come from? (That's why I opened with the quote about the choir's special liturgical function etc - the first charge laid upon the choir is do do its own part worthily and well.
(BTW, how do you do those clever quoty things that you all seem to use?)
Alan 29 wrote "the choir is there to lead (and only lead) the singing of the assembly"
I have often encountered this sentiment, repeated with much assurance, but where does it come from? Of course it's difficult to argue against - seems so obviously nice and tinged with due humility - and any counter sounds so-o self-important, but I repeat; Where does it come from? (That's why I opened with the quote about the choir's special liturgical function etc - the first charge laid upon the choir is do do its own part worthily and well.
(BTW, how do you do those clever quoty things that you all seem to use?)
I'm not sure that choirs are exactly hated but there are some things choirs do that have me muttering rather than praying.
I have a problem with soloists - to watch someone perform their piece by swaying, swooping and scooping makes me wish I was brave enough to stand up and walk out. But then I have to tell myself I am at Mass and plead with God to make it over soon. Does that count as active participation?
Listening is active participation so 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.
Having said I do not like soloists - I do like to hear the psalm cantored. In my mind there is a big difference between a soloist and a cantor - how about others on this board?
I have a problem with soloists - to watch someone perform their piece by swaying, swooping and scooping makes me wish I was brave enough to stand up and walk out. But then I have to tell myself I am at Mass and plead with God to make it over soon. Does that count as active participation?
Listening is active participation so 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.
Having said I do not like soloists - I do like to hear the psalm cantored. In my mind there is a big difference between a soloist and a cantor - how about others on this board?
-
docmattc
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:42 am
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster
- Location: Near Cambridge
It seems that most of us are agreed that what we dislike is when the liturgy becomes (or is perceived to become) a platform for performance rather than prayer. (Is this a difference between soloist and cantor?)
The choir should indeed do its own part worthily and well, but I have struggled to find anywhere where that part is precisely defined. In fact I can't find anything that lists what belongs to the choir and what belongs to the people. This is where sensitivity to the spirit of the liturgy, and to one's own resources and people comes in. Of course CTM, GIRM etc list options, for instance the Euch Accs are of the people, the Gloria is ideally people, or people with choir, or choir alone in 3rd place.
Musicam Sacram seems at pains to stress that while the choir should sing, it should in no way deny the rest of the congregation their part in singing.
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? I think the choir, and all liturgical ministers, should be part of the gathered worshipping community.
The choir should indeed do its own part worthily and well, but I have struggled to find anywhere where that part is precisely defined. In fact I can't find anything that lists what belongs to the choir and what belongs to the people. This is where sensitivity to the spirit of the liturgy, and to one's own resources and people comes in. Of course CTM, GIRM etc list options, for instance the Euch Accs are of the people, the Gloria is ideally people, or people with choir, or choir alone in 3rd place.
Musicam Sacram seems at pains to stress that while the choir should sing, it should in no way deny the rest of the congregation their part in singing.
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? I think the choir, and all liturgical ministers, should be part of the gathered worshipping community.