The Recovering Choir Director

Dear Mr. Rex and readers:

I am not sure, but I suspect that the nudge is towards moving into conformity with Orthodox and early church practice. At least, I hope so. Allow me to explain:

Since about the third century, the practice of the early church (Roman, Greek, Syriac, Coptic, etc.) was to have singers on both sides of the nave, toward the front, singing antiphonally one towards another. This was thought to emulate the practice of the angels, who in the words of the psalm, ‘declare to one another the Glory of God’.

At about this time also developed the psaltis (Greek) or cantor (Latin) who led the faithful in song, and who would negotiate the more difficult or melismatic hymns.

One sees the survival of the two above practices in the more traditional Greek Orthodox Church, and its Arab and Serbian offshoots, where there are two psalti singing antiphonally in the front of the church (in poorer churches) or two choirs (in richer ones). One also sees this in western monastic churches and/or earlier cathedrals, with two sets of benches on either side of the nave in front of the sanctuary.

In western practice, as choirs got larger and more polyphonic, and with more potential for distracting the faithful from the focus on the sanctuary, they tended to get put in back, largely out of view. Thus began the choir loft.

While Russian Orthodox practice before Peter the Great was the same as the Greek practice, with Western influence and the introduction of polyphonic choirs also came the choir loft, although until the Russian Revolution they maintained the practice of antiphonal choirs.

Further, while many Russian and Slavic churches continue with one choir in the choir loft (including my home parish of St. Andrew’s), contemporary practice shows a return to singing antiphonally in front. St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary Chapel in New York, for example, makes no provision for a choir loft, but has the singers in front.

I will note, however, that in all of the examples I have given, from the earliest church practice to the most contemporary Orthodox practice, all of the singers have in common their focus on the sanctuary/iconostasis. From what I can determine, all of them would have considered the post-Vatican II RC practice of choir *facing* the congregation, rather than the sanctuary, to be an abomination.

The loft in the rear of the church practice came generally with Pius X, upon letting women join choirs for low Masses, borrowing (oddly) from Protestant church design.

Historically, lofts in a pulpitum in the center of the church, between the nave and choir, were more common.

I have never understood the fundamentalism displayed over this issue by either side of it. There are churches where the placement of the choir in the loft is advantageous acoustically, but plenty of churches where this is not so (and not all of them are modern). Often, placement in a transept corner is superior to the loft in terms of acoustics (if you have a set of pipes near the chancel).

The more fundamental question is whether the placement of the choir should be dominated by visuals (as implied but not required by the document) or acoustics. I favor the latter, but with an open mind about the results for a particular space.

I have heard it used, in both East and West, for the basic black robe of the cassock (Latin), or epitrachilion (Greek) or riasa (Slavic).

In the context I have heard it (both east and west), it is the basic garment, to which other additional garments are added, depending upon one’s ranking in the hierarchy, or upon particular customs of East and West.

By the bye, in cases in which an icon is covered with a protective metal covering (usually gold or silver), it is Russian/slavic custom to call this covering a “riasa”.

I hope this helps.

Regarding Choir Dress:
The Church defines Choir Dress officially as “surplice and cassock” because the choir is a liturgical office. Yet one must consider the reality of the male only role in Liturgical offices. While women are allowed to sing in choir situation was allowed by indult and continues to this day. men and boys would comprise the Choir as Liturgical office and woudl therefore be dresses in Surplice and cassock. The focus in understanding the choir should be in that deeper understanding of it as a real Liturgical office. And if I may add regarding location: the loft is good as is the antiphonal locations between sanctuary and congragation. But they should NOT be facing the people. Facing eachother with an understanding of the direction of Praise toward God should be understood, but not necessarily these days.

Thank you, Chris, very interesting.

Hello, In regard to the placement of the pipe organ: the placement of the organ must be very well-studied by architect and organ builder. The choir and an enclosed swell division or at least two ranks of pipes (gamba/flute) should be placed BEHIND the choir with the console and most of the pipes located nearby. The practice in the Archdiocese of Newark and many other dioceses insisting that the console and choir be placed near the sanctuary while the pipework remains in the loft is absolutely inhibitive of good choral accompaniment. And a few speakers mounted on a wall near the choir with midi is an extremely poor option. I suggest reading The Organ Handbook by Hans Klotz, Concordia Publishers.