To receive the Sacrament and, I hope, be edified by God through other means: texts, music, preaching, interaction. And give something to God by my presence and assent to prayers.
The Eucharist for me, first and foremost, as well; my focus on the other things has varied off and on. I do want to get to know my fellow parishioners better. I suck at getting up early, so I go to the small Wednesday 5:15 pm service. Sometimes stay for the potluck supper and Compline. I need to do that more…
Arriving to this discussion late - and sorry if this has already been covered - what is it exactly that makes a congregation a congregation that sings? And how can you get a congregation to sing more? And is this likely to drive some people away who go to a service with music but who go NOT to sing?
The only thing I know is that you shouldn't put obstacles in the path of people singing--for example, by having someone (pastor, music director, etc.) get dictatorial about music choices to the point that people never get to sing what they like (or only rarely) and are forced to listen/sing what they do not like or understand (often). I've seen that, and it doesn't turn out well. But I've also seen a non-singing congregation that was let try different things and keep the ones it liked (provided they weren't downright heretical or something) and everybody bore with each other's taste, and they sing loudly today (whether they sing well, that's another matter).
It is a bit of a vicious circle. If there is an element of good singing, others will join in. Nobody wants theirs to be a lone voice standing out.
Yesterday I attended Evensong in a village church which once a month is led by a small professional choir of 4-8 singers. The fact that their four voices filled the church encouraged me to sing up properly. Without them I would have kept a low profile in a congregation of just 6.
If there is someone to give a lead then people will follow. If no-one has the confidence to plough ahead then the result is not pretty.
For sure. Covid caused our place to go from being a singing church to a mumbling one. I gathered a few confident singers to sit together and sing out to give a lead to the rest. It is slowly having an effect.
Our choir is in the gallery at the west end; fortunately it's not a very long church. But I think that's the ideal place for a choir to help support congregational singing. The organ's up there too.
Our choir is in the gallery at the west end; fortunately it's not a very long church. But I think that's the ideal place for a choir to help support congregational singing. The organ's up there too.
Choir near the organ is at least useful for keeping everyone in time.
Our choir is in the gallery at the west end; fortunately it's not a very long church. But I think that's the ideal place for a choir to help support congregational singing. The organ's up there too.
Having them close to the congregation is best, if the intention is to use them to bolster everyone's singing.
At St Pete's, which is a tiny little rectangular building (capacity about 50) the "choir", such as it is, sits near the back; there's no space for choir stalls, and we reckon it's helpful for the congregation to have reasonably confident singers behind them.
A few people have said they like it that way, so it seems to work.
Our choir sits in the choir stalls in the chancel in the traditional Anglican way.
The organ often sounds too loud. The congregation sings but not very loudly. They do say our voices don’t really carry from the chancel.
Sometimes we go and stand on the steps between nave and chancel to sing an anthem or a blessing. Sometimes we might start Evensong from the back of church with an introit, which works well. We are soon to remove the back few pews, creating a space. I wonder if it will be suggested that we sit there.( Chairs have been purchased).
The church which My Old Mum attended in her younger days (she was born in 1912) is a mediaeval building. There are what appear to be choir stalls in the chancel, but in fact they are the seats reserved for the Family from the nearby Big House.
My Old Mum was in the choir (circa 1926, in which year she left home to go *into service*), and recalled that they sat at the rear of the (fairly short) nave, and this was still the arrangement when I visited the church in about 1980 for what was to be one of the last regular Mattins before the building was declared redundant.
I think singers at the west end of the church was quite common in at least the first half of the nineteenth century. Hence the existence of west gallery music. The ‘traditional’ robed choir in the chancel wasn’t really a feature of parish. Hutches until the 1859s and after.
Our choir sits in the choir stalls in the chancel in the traditional Anglican way.
The organ often sounds too loud. The congregation sings but not very loudly. They do say our voices don’t really carry from the chancel.
Sometimes we go and stand on the steps between nave and chancel to sing an anthem or a blessing. Sometimes we might start Evensong from the back of church with an introit, which works well. We are soon to remove the back few pews, creating a space. I wonder if it will be suggested that we sit there.( Chairs have been purchased).
Are the organ pipes themselves in the Chancel or do they face directly into the nave, as is often the case? If the latter I can imagine the choir being very hard to hear.
Choirs perform different functions. Sometimes this is in the same service, where they might switch from being mainly performers with the congregation silently listening, to later leading the congregation in their singing. This has implications for where the are placed in relation to the people. And the building will dictate where they can be too.
Our 1930s building was designed with no space for an organ at all and with a tiny choir loft overlooking the altar with an ancient electric organ. So we have effectively never had a choir, so until Covid the congregation sang.
Now we have a small digital Viscount organ in the middle of the congregation with space for guitars etc and a handful of singers who provide some backbone to the congregation's singing. Personally, as the organist, I really like this set up. I like to feel a part of the worshipping community (rather than some performer over there or up there) and I find it helpful to hear how people around me are singing.
That's interesting, thanks. I tend to think that many choirs and musicians aren't sufficiently aware of the difference between "performance" (e.g. an anthem or an organ voluntary) and "leading the singing" - both of course may occur within one service. This leads to musicians who drown out (or rush) the congregation and singers who go into rapturous eyes-closed worship but seem to be taking little notice of the folk in the pews!
Choirs perform different functions. Sometimes this is in the same service, where they might switch from being mainly performers with the congregation silently listening, to later leading the congregation in their singing.
That's interesting, thanks. I tend to think that many choirs and musicians aren't sufficiently aware of the difference between "performance" (e.g. an anthem or an organ voluntary) and "leading the singing" - both of course may occur within one service. This leads to musicians who drown out (or rush) the congregation and singers who go into rapturous eyes-closed worship but seem to be taking little notice of the folk in the pews!
Indeed to both posts. And there are lots of other good, practical suggestions above.
The Directory for Worship of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (the PC(USA)’s equivalent to canon law and theological framework for worship) says:
The congregation itself is the church’s primary choir; the purpose of rehearsed choirs and other musicians is to lead and support the congregation in the singing of prayer. Special songs, anthems, and instrumental music may also serve to interpret the Word and enhance the congregation’s prayer. Furthermore, many of the elements of the service of worship may be sung. Music in worship is always to be an offering to God, not merely an artistic display, source of entertainment, or cover for silence.
I think the first sentence in particular reflects that congregational singing can be related to the ethos and expectations of denominations and traditions. Some groups have well-known traditions of congregational singing—Lutherans, Moravians and Methodists come to mind—though of course not every congregation will fit the stereotype. And some groups have, for various historical reasons, a reputation of not valuing congregational singing, of thinking that the singing generally belongs to a smaller group.
So turning a specific congregation into a congregation that sings may involve dealing with some pretty deep-rooted assumptions and practices related to the role of the congregation in worship generally.
There is tension in the RCC between those who see the congregation as the main singers possibly being supported by a choir (as taught explicitly in the Vatican 2 document on the Liturgy) and those who see the choir as having the primary role and the congregation singing very little.
Some musicians find it very difficult to accept that the glorious music of the past is relegated to the sidelines pretty much. (Though my memories of pre Vat 2 parish choirs is that they mainly sang Victorian dross and sang it very badly.) Those memories have heavily influenced my views on the desirability of parish choirs in general.
There is tension in the RCC between those who see the congregation as the main singers possibly being supported by a choir (as taught explicitly in the Vatican 2 document on the Liturgy) and those who see the choir as having the primary role and the congregation singing very little.
Some musicians find it very difficult to accept that the glorious music of the past is relegated to the sidelines pretty much. (Though my memories of pre Vat 2 parish choirs is that they mainly sang Victorian dross and sang it very badly.) Those memories have heavily influenced my views on the desirability of parish choirs in general.
Unfortunately my own experience of post-Vat 2 RC worship was frequently that there was neither a functional choir nor a congregation that could sing. Whereas a number of parishes I have been in with strong choirs also have strong traditions of congregational singing. It’s not either-or.
I seem to recall it being written down somewhere in the Royal School of Church Music’s founding documents that the first duty of the choir is to lead congregational singing. But of course a number of choirs manage to do that and much more, and assuming that this is what the parish as a whole wants it can be a good thing for everybody.
There is tension in the RCC between those who see the congregation as the main singers possibly being supported by a choir (as taught explicitly in the Vatican 2 document on the Liturgy) and those who see the choir as having the primary role and the congregation singing very little.
Some musicians find it very difficult to accept that the glorious music of the past is relegated to the sidelines pretty much. (Though my memories of pre Vat 2 parish choirs is that they mainly sang Victorian dross and sang it very badly.) Those memories have heavily influenced my views on the desirability of parish choirs in general.
Unfortunately my own experience of post-Vat 2 RC worship was frequently that there was neither a functional choir nor a congregation that could sing. Whereas a number of parishes I have been in with strong choirs also have strong traditions of congregational singing. It’s not either-or.
I seem to recall it being written down somewhere in the Royal School of Church Music’s founding documents that the first duty of the choir is to lead congregational singing. But of course a number of choirs manage to do that and much more, and assuming that this is what the parish as a whole wants it can be a good thing for everybody.
The post Vat 2 liturgical documents certainly state that the choir is not a separate entity from the congregation and their primary role is to lead the congregation. Tension between what is expected and what is happening comes about when choirs take to themselves things that properly belong to the whole congregation - Mass settings etc. Musicians on one hand and liturgists on the other can get quite heated when they discuss this.
Yup, been there, done that. Ever grateful to old mate Mme la Directrice who got it all going back @ StFrank’sback in 1995 & keeps it going back @ St Pat’s- in-the-West in 2024
Can’t believe what the bugger has done
There is tension in the RCC between those who see the congregation as the main singers possibly being supported by a choir (as taught explicitly in the Vatican 2 document on the Liturgy) and those who see the choir as having the primary role and the congregation singing very little.
Some musicians find it very difficult to accept that the glorious music of the past is relegated to the sidelines pretty much. (Though my memories of pre Vat 2 parish choirs is that they mainly sang Victorian dross and sang it very badly.) Those memories have heavily influenced my views on the desirability of parish choirs in general.
Unfortunately my own experience of post-Vat 2 RC worship was frequently that there was neither a functional choir nor a congregation that could sing. Whereas a number of parishes I have been in with strong choirs also have strong traditions of congregational singing. It’s not either-or.
I seem to recall it being written down somewhere in the Royal School of Church Music’s founding documents that the first duty of the choir is to lead congregational singing. But of course a number of choirs manage to do that and much more, and assuming that this is what the parish as a whole wants it can be a good thing for everybody.
The post Vat 2 liturgical documents certainly state that the choir is not a separate entity from the congregation and their primary role is to lead the congregation. Tension between what is expected and what is happening comes about when choirs take to themselves things that properly belong to the whole congregation - Mass settings etc. Musicians on one hand and liturgists on the other can get quite heated when they discuss this.
Most RC parishes I’ve encountered in the US have a cantor at any service with music, even if there is also a choir or band. The cantor is a professional musician as long as the parish can afford it and their job is to have their voice be heavily amplified by a microphone so that the congregation, many of whom are hard of hearing, can follow along, and maybe sing (although many do not) the mass setting and hymns. Choirs, if they exist, are often amplified much less and are often hard to hear, unless they are very good. The organ/piano/guitar is usually also very loud, so if people sing they often are not able to hear their own voices or those of the congregation around them.
There is tension in the RCC between those who see the congregation as the main singers possibly being supported by a choir (as taught explicitly in the Vatican 2 document on the Liturgy) and those who see the choir as having the primary role and the congregation singing very little.
Some musicians find it very difficult to accept that the glorious music of the past is relegated to the sidelines pretty much. (Though my memories of pre Vat 2 parish choirs is that they mainly sang Victorian dross and sang it very badly.) Those memories have heavily influenced my views on the desirability of parish choirs in general.
Unfortunately my own experience of post-Vat 2 RC worship was frequently that there was neither a functional choir nor a congregation that could sing. Whereas a number of parishes I have been in with strong choirs also have strong traditions of congregational singing. It’s not either-or.
I seem to recall it being written down somewhere in the Royal School of Church Music’s founding documents that the first duty of the choir is to lead congregational singing. But of course a number of choirs manage to do that and much more, and assuming that this is what the parish as a whole wants it can be a good thing for everybody.
The post Vat 2 liturgical documents certainly state that the choir is not a separate entity from the congregation and their primary role is to lead the congregation. Tension between what is expected and what is happening comes about when choirs take to themselves things that properly belong to the whole congregation - Mass settings etc. Musicians on one hand and liturgists on the other can get quite heated when they discuss this.
Most RC parishes I’ve encountered in the US have a cantor at any service with music, even if there is also a choir or band. The cantor is a professional musician as long as the parish can afford it and their job is to have their voice be heavily amplified by a microphone so that the congregation, many of whom are hard of hearing, can follow along, and maybe sing (although many do not) the mass setting and hymns. Choirs, if they exist, are often amplified much less and are often hard to hear, unless they are very good. The organ/piano/guitar is usually also very loud, so if people sing they often are not able to hear their own voices or those of the congregation around them.
It may be a regional thing. In my corner of the US, choirs seem to be the norm in RC churches, and because many RC churches are of relatively recent construction, the buildings generally have appropriate space for a choir, consistent with post-Vatican 2 liturgical documents.
Cantors where I am seem to generally be members of the choir; the main thing the cantor does is lead the psalm.
We have cantors whosing sing the psalm verses and lead in tesponsorial or echo stuff. We do not have a choir - I have "views" about awful parish choirs and those who insist in singing in them that properly belong in Hell.
Soon after the minister at our home church arrived, I mentioned that I was an old fashioned presbyterian - I'm here for the preaching! "No!", says he, "You are here to praise the Lord!" I tried to explain that I can do that anywhere at any time, but I can only get the spiritual and intellectual stimulation I need from a good sermon on Sunday. By then it was too late to explain that congregational singing was of almost equal importance to me. I have a terrible voice, but I can raise it in a large crowd of people doing the same thing without causing offence. We don't spend much time at that church now - the preaching has become repetitive and the last organist left when he saw his redundancy coming. The vacuous, forgettable praise songs accompanied by a band with more enthusiasm than talent make me angry, and I soon realised that leaving church angry was not how it should ever be. Isn't a hymn a prayer set to music? That church is well-filled and clearly meeting the needs of many people, but if I want to sing, I need to be somewhere else.
The vacuous, forgettable praise songs accompanied by a band with more enthusiasm than talent make me angry,
A lot of people need to be entertained as a function of present-day 'worship' now, and/or believe that they are entertaining as well. No thank you.
There is a difference between performing a piece and leading the congregation, whether you are an organist, a choir or a worship band. Both can be worship, but in the first case (eg an anthem) the congregation worship through listening to the music. In the second case, they should be enabled to join in as they wish.
I've been a pianist, an organist and a worship band member. Enabling the congregation to join in is my top priority, rather than having people admire my playing. There are ways of doing this, no matter what the style.
Preferences of style and quality of music are a separate thing. There are plenty of vacuous, forgettable hymns as well as praise songs, and there are well-written classics in both genres.
Ironically, it's harder to facilitate worship than to perform a piece for listening. Many people have the attitude 'oh it's just worship leading, not a performance, stop fussing about getting it right'. But in leading worship you need to have all the same performance skills you would use for a concert, but on top of that you need to add skills in leading the congregation, and drawing their focus towards God rather than you. We're the frame, not the picture.
The vacuous, forgettable praise songs accompanied by a band with more enthusiasm than talent make me angry,
A lot of people need to be entertained as a function of present-day 'worship' now, and/or believe that they are entertaining as well. No thank you.
Preferences of style and quality of music are a separate thing. There are plenty of vacuous, forgettable hymns as well as praise songs, and there are well-written classics in both genres.
I could not agree with you more about the vacuous, forgettable hymns - the book is full of them. My beef is that there is a wealth of good modern church music that we barely ever try. One of our musicians told me that if it's more than five years old, the minister won't touch it - possibly an exaggeration, but you get the idea. In my ideal church we would try at least one unfamiliar hymn every Sunday, and pretty soon the best would be come familiar, and we'd not bother again with the ones that don't work.
The vacuous, forgettable praise songs accompanied by a band with more enthusiasm than talent make me angry,
A lot of people need to be entertained as a function of present-day 'worship' now, and/or believe that they are entertaining as well. No thank you.
There is a difference between performing a piece and leading the congregation, whether you are an organist, a choir or a worship band. Both can be worship, but in the first case (eg an anthem) the congregation worship through listening to the music. In the second case, they should be enabled to join in as they wish.
I've been a pianist, an organist and a worship band member. Enabling the congregation to join in is my top priority, rather than having people admire my playing. There are ways of doing this, no matter what the style.
Preferences of style and quality of music are a separate thing. There are plenty of vacuous, forgettable hymns as well as praise songs, and there are well-written classics in both genres.
Ironically, it's harder to facilitate worship than to perform a piece for listening. Many people have the attitude 'oh it's just worship leading, not a performance, stop fussing about getting it right'. But in leading worship you need to have all the same performance skills you would use for a concert, but on top of that you need to add skills in leading the congregation, and drawing their focus towards God rather than you. We're the frame, not the picture.
I quite like hearing the variable hymns for the Feast at Vespers and Matins in the Orthodox church (these are more paragraphs of theology, Biblical summaries or the lives of Saints/events of a Feast than "Western" hymn verses). For example, from Vespers tonight:
Glorious St. Epimachus, you long for heaven’s delights, * and thus temporal glory * you considered as nothing. * You lived as one without flesh, although in the flesh, * emulating angelic life, * and resolutely endured all torture and pain * that the persecutors wreaked on you.
The liturgies of the different services were what used to sustain me. I'm in a different church now where the choir does pretty much everything so that takes a bit of adjusting as in my first parish there was active congregation involvement -- I just stand there like a log listening...the priest suggested I may want to help with reading (can't hold a tune to save my life).
I quite like hearing the variable hymns for the Feast at Vespers and Matins in the Orthodox church (these are more paragraphs of theology, Biblical summaries or the lives of Saints/events of a Feast than "Western" hymn verses).
If you take a "hymn" to be a set of two or more linked verses in the same metre and sung to the same tune, then in the Orthodox Church, if you did all the services you would sing more that 9000 different "hymns" in the course of a year.
Hymnody is a better term, because Orthodox hymnody is so different from Western hymns.
Is it substantially different from "office hymns" and the like?
(1) Each poetic verse is preceded by a scriptural verse (from a Psalm or Canticle).
(2) There is a lot more of it. In the normal daily round there would be the equivalent of one or two hymns at Vespers, eight at Compline, 24/25 at Matins, and one or two at Divine Liturgy.
(3) They are normally referred to simply as "verses". Greek uses different terms for verses on the Psalms and verses on Canticles, with yet another term for a related group of sets of verses on a Canticle at Compline or Matins..
(2) There is a lot more of it. In the normal daily round there would be the equivalent of one or two hymns at Vespers, eight at Compline, 24/25 at Matins, and one or two at Divine Liturgy.
May I ask about Vespers? I may still not be understanding the term, but I thought Vespers had more. Or is this a Greek/Antiochian and Slavic distinction? If I look at tonight's Vespers, there are 6 Psalm verses applied for the "Lord I have cried..." Psalms and I'm sure there's been more than 2 verses each time I've read it, regardless of the day. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding / my thickness.
Sorry I miscounted. There are 3 unique verses tonight, but each is repeated to give 6. But I have seen 6 (I think) or so distinct verses at times, but they may have been for Sundays.
Comments
But yes, we seem to have moved away.
Or that persons version of it. I am of the preconciliar generation .... and never heard anything as vile as that.
The Eucharist for me, first and foremost, as well; my focus on the other things has varied off and on. I do want to get to know my fellow parishioners better. I suck at getting up early, so I go to the small Wednesday 5:15 pm service. Sometimes stay for the potluck supper and Compline. I need to do that more…
I was spared that!
Yesterday I attended Evensong in a village church which once a month is led by a small professional choir of 4-8 singers. The fact that their four voices filled the church encouraged me to sing up properly. Without them I would have kept a low profile in a congregation of just 6.
For sure. Covid caused our place to go from being a singing church to a mumbling one. I gathered a few confident singers to sit together and sing out to give a lead to the rest. It is slowly having an effect.
Choir near the organ is at least useful for keeping everyone in time.
Having them close to the congregation is best, if the intention is to use them to bolster everyone's singing.
https://www.lionwalkchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/250th-full-width-congregation-210.jpg
A few people have said they like it that way, so it seems to work.
The organ often sounds too loud. The congregation sings but not very loudly. They do say our voices don’t really carry from the chancel.
Sometimes we go and stand on the steps between nave and chancel to sing an anthem or a blessing. Sometimes we might start Evensong from the back of church with an introit, which works well. We are soon to remove the back few pews, creating a space. I wonder if it will be suggested that we sit there.( Chairs have been purchased).
My Old Mum was in the choir (circa 1926, in which year she left home to go *into service*), and recalled that they sat at the rear of the (fairly short) nave, and this was still the arrangement when I visited the church in about 1980 for what was to be one of the last regular Mattins before the building was declared redundant.
Are the organ pipes themselves in the Chancel or do they face directly into the nave, as is often the case? If the latter I can imagine the choir being very hard to hear.
Our 1930s building was designed with no space for an organ at all and with a tiny choir loft overlooking the altar with an ancient electric organ. So we have effectively never had a choir, so until Covid the congregation sang.
Now we have a small digital Viscount organ in the middle of the congregation with space for guitars etc and a handful of singers who provide some backbone to the congregation's singing. Personally, as the organist, I really like this set up. I like to feel a part of the worshipping community (rather than some performer over there or up there) and I find it helpful to hear how people around me are singing.
With apologies to the exceptions which prove the rule
The Directory for Worship of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (the PC(USA)’s equivalent to canon law and theological framework for worship) says: I think the first sentence in particular reflects that congregational singing can be related to the ethos and expectations of denominations and traditions. Some groups have well-known traditions of congregational singing—Lutherans, Moravians and Methodists come to mind—though of course not every congregation will fit the stereotype. And some groups have, for various historical reasons, a reputation of not valuing congregational singing, of thinking that the singing generally belongs to a smaller group.
So turning a specific congregation into a congregation that sings may involve dealing with some pretty deep-rooted assumptions and practices related to the role of the congregation in worship generally.
Some musicians find it very difficult to accept that the glorious music of the past is relegated to the sidelines pretty much. (Though my memories of pre Vat 2 parish choirs is that they mainly sang Victorian dross and sang it very badly.) Those memories have heavily influenced my views on the desirability of parish choirs in general.
Unfortunately my own experience of post-Vat 2 RC worship was frequently that there was neither a functional choir nor a congregation that could sing. Whereas a number of parishes I have been in with strong choirs also have strong traditions of congregational singing. It’s not either-or.
I seem to recall it being written down somewhere in the Royal School of Church Music’s founding documents that the first duty of the choir is to lead congregational singing. But of course a number of choirs manage to do that and much more, and assuming that this is what the parish as a whole wants it can be a good thing for everybody.
The post Vat 2 liturgical documents certainly state that the choir is not a separate entity from the congregation and their primary role is to lead the congregation. Tension between what is expected and what is happening comes about when choirs take to themselves things that properly belong to the whole congregation - Mass settings etc. Musicians on one hand and liturgists on the other can get quite heated when they discuss this.
Can’t believe what the bugger has done
Most RC parishes I’ve encountered in the US have a cantor at any service with music, even if there is also a choir or band. The cantor is a professional musician as long as the parish can afford it and their job is to have their voice be heavily amplified by a microphone so that the congregation, many of whom are hard of hearing, can follow along, and maybe sing (although many do not) the mass setting and hymns. Choirs, if they exist, are often amplified much less and are often hard to hear, unless they are very good. The organ/piano/guitar is usually also very loud, so if people sing they often are not able to hear their own voices or those of the congregation around them.
Cantors where I am seem to generally be members of the choir; the main thing the cantor does is lead the psalm.
My views ..... mainly.
The choristers will be very determinedly given a tamborine by the angel on duty in heaven?
I couldn't possibly comment.
A lot of people need to be entertained as a function of present-day 'worship' now, and/or believe that they are entertaining as well. No thank you.
There is a difference between performing a piece and leading the congregation, whether you are an organist, a choir or a worship band. Both can be worship, but in the first case (eg an anthem) the congregation worship through listening to the music. In the second case, they should be enabled to join in as they wish.
I've been a pianist, an organist and a worship band member. Enabling the congregation to join in is my top priority, rather than having people admire my playing. There are ways of doing this, no matter what the style.
Preferences of style and quality of music are a separate thing. There are plenty of vacuous, forgettable hymns as well as praise songs, and there are well-written classics in both genres.
Ironically, it's harder to facilitate worship than to perform a piece for listening. Many people have the attitude 'oh it's just worship leading, not a performance, stop fussing about getting it right'. But in leading worship you need to have all the same performance skills you would use for a concert, but on top of that you need to add skills in leading the congregation, and drawing their focus towards God rather than you. We're the frame, not the picture.
I could not agree with you more about the vacuous, forgettable hymns - the book is full of them. My beef is that there is a wealth of good modern church music that we barely ever try. One of our musicians told me that if it's more than five years old, the minister won't touch it - possibly an exaggeration, but you get the idea. In my ideal church we would try at least one unfamiliar hymn every Sunday, and pretty soon the best would be come familiar, and we'd not bother again with the ones that don't work.
This.
The liturgies of the different services were what used to sustain me. I'm in a different church now where the choir does pretty much everything so that takes a bit of adjusting as in my first parish there was active congregation involvement -- I just stand there like a log listening...the priest suggested I may want to help with reading (can't hold a tune to save my life).
If you take a "hymn" to be a set of two or more linked verses in the same metre and sung to the same tune, then in the Orthodox Church, if you did all the services you would sing more that 9000 different "hymns" in the course of a year.
Is "hymn" the wrong term? What do you use? Sorry for getting it wrong. If it weren't obvious, I am a bit of an ignoramus in vocabulary.
Is it substantially different from "office hymns" and the like?
(1) Each poetic verse is preceded by a scriptural verse (from a Psalm or Canticle).
(2) There is a lot more of it. In the normal daily round there would be the equivalent of one or two hymns at Vespers, eight at Compline, 24/25 at Matins, and one or two at Divine Liturgy.
(3) They are normally referred to simply as "verses". Greek uses different terms for verses on the Psalms and verses on Canticles, with yet another term for a related group of sets of verses on a Canticle at Compline or Matins..
May I ask about Vespers? I may still not be understanding the term, but I thought Vespers had more. Or is this a Greek/Antiochian and Slavic distinction? If I look at tonight's Vespers, there are 6 Psalm verses applied for the "Lord I have cried..." Psalms and I'm sure there's been more than 2 verses each time I've read it, regardless of the day. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding / my thickness.
https://dcs.goarch.org/goa/dcs/h/s/2024/11/01/ve/en/index.html
edit: poor English