# Anglican Choral Music is Elitist (?!)



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

With dismay, I've just read about this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/23/sheffield-cathedral-to-disband-choir-to-take-account-of-diversity

For anyone disinclined to follow links to the Guardian website, it's the news that the Chapter of Sheffield Cathedral has decided to disband its choir because they feel "a new model for Anglican choral life [is needed] here, with a renewed ambition for engagement and inclusion".

In other words, the Anglican choral tradition is elitist and non-inclusive.



You can just about hear Byrd and Tallis about to be booted in favour of 'Gospel Jazz' etc.

I think I'd like to bop the Bishop on the nose if I met him in the street... Gently, of course. And with loving chastisement.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> With dismay, I've just read about this:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/23/sheffield-cathedral-to-disband-choir-to-take-account-of-diversity
> 
> ...


That wouldn't be enough punishment, I'm afraid. The _three horsemen of the apocalypse_ - diversity, equity and inclusion - will do us all in ultimately. We'll be bored into our graves, catatonic from all the enrichment.

Perhaps you have some recorded church music to which you might seek solace, since it's obviously too hard now for many institutions. "Elitist" is a euphemism for "beyond the remit of most people".


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

The Church of England is largely run by hippies anyway so nothing would surprise me. Inclusivity shouldn't mean that the music or its presentation has to change - it's another tiresome case of the tail wagging the dog.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I am reminded of the movie Sister Act, where Whoopi Goldberg reformed a choir


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> With dismay, I've just read about this:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/23/sheffield-cathedral-to-disband-choir-to-take-account-of-diversity
> 
> ...


Is the Anglican church elitist too?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It's interesting that people who are not Christians and never attend church always think they can form a judgment on the goings on in the church. Interesting that when Isaac Watts wrote his hymns in the 18th century to communicate with the common people there were cries that "The church has become a music hall!" Of course history just repeats itself now the church has worship music which actually tries to communicate with people in the 21st century. Byrd and Tallis were great composers but had absolutely no relevance to 99.9% of people worshipping God today. To say they do just puts one in the position of being elitist and having no understanding of the ordinary man in the street. The church should serve the common people not an elitist band of Elizabethan music lovers. If I want Tallis and Byrd I can go to a concert not the church.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DavidA said:


> The church should serve the common people not an elitist band of Elizabethan music lovers. If I want Tallis and Byrd I can go to a concert not the church.


And I thought that a church serves all its members.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> It's interesting that people who are not Christians and never attend church always think they can form a judgment on the goings on in the church. Interesting that when Isaac Watts wrote his hymns in the 18th century to communicate with the common people there were cries that "The church has become a music hall!" Of course history just repeats itself now the church has worship music which actually tries to communicate with people in the 21st century. Byrd and Tallis were great composers but had absolutely no relevance to 99.9% of people worshipping God today. To say they do just puts one in the position of being elitist and having no understanding of the ordinary man in the street. The church should serve the common people not an elitist band of Elizabethan music lovers. If I want Tallis and Byrd I can go to a concert not the church.


I refer you to Psalm 96, v. 9: "O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness".

The point of a church service is not for music to "communicate with people", but for people to communicate with God. And, preferably, to do so "beautifully".

Of course, that ship sailed when Latin ceased to be a 'sacred language' and everything had to be in the demotic. I blame 1517.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I refer you to Psalm 96, v. 9: "O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness".
> 
> The point of a church service is not for music to "communicate with people", but for people to communicate with God. And, preferably, to do so "beautifully".
> 
> Of course, that ship sailed when Latin ceased to be a 'sacred language' and everything had to be in the demotic. I blame 1517.


I would point out to you the meaning of the word 'Holiness' means 'set apart for God' and not 'obscure'. I would also point out that the very Hebrew worship you are quoting featured the sounding of the trumpet, the harp and lyre, the tambourine and dancing, the strings and pipe, the clash of cymbals, and the resounding cymbals. (Ps 150) In fact the word to praise includes singing, shouting, making a joyful noise and dancing.The worship was Hebrew, Eastern worship not the Platonic worship you have described. And since when did Latin feature in the worship of God in the Bible? The New Testament is written in common Greek - Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic, the language of the people. The New testament says, "The common people heard him gladly." Jesus would have worshipped according to Psalm 150. Holiness is obeying God and worshipping God in a way that pleases Him not in a way that somehow pleases the mysticism within our Platonic souls.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The point is to give other students an opportunity to participate. The article states that other than a handful of adults the choir members are drawn from private schools. It seems that some of the elitist attitudes are from the commenters here or maybe you didn't read the article.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

starthrower said:


> The point is to give other students an opportunity to participate. The article states that other than a handful of adults the choir members are drawn from private schools. It seems that some of the elitist attitudes are from the commenters here or maybe you didn't read the article.


Of course I read the article.

They consider choirs whose members _tend_ to come from private schools elitist.

The fact is that they aren't drawn _exclusively_ from private schools (says a former state school cathedral chorister).

They sing for free to anyone who cares to turn up, so that's not elitist either.

And (something I didn't think I'd have to explain to any member of this forum) the choral music of the likes of Tallis, Byrd, Britten, Walton, Vaughan Williams, Mozart, Haydn and Bach aren't 'elitist'.

If they're concerned their schoolboys are mainly from private schools, the correct response is surely to go around all the state schools and drum up interest that way. Scholarships and bursaries, for example, might do wonders. Simply to sack your existing choir because it's membership is 'wrong' is entirely the wrong way to fix that particular demographic issue.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I would point out to you the meaning of the word 'Holiness' means 'set apart for God' and not 'obscure'.


Indeed. But I don't quite get your point. If you think drums, tambourines and 'rock gospel' is 'setting apart from God', you've lost me. And if you're suggesting that Tallis and Byrd are "obscure", you've lost me again.



DavidA said:


> I would also point out that the very Hebrew worship you are quoting featured the sounding of the trumpet, the harp and lyre, the tambourine and dancing, the strings and pipe, the clash of cymbals, and the resounding cymbals. (Ps 150) In fact the word to praise includes singing, shouting, making a joyful noise and dancing.


Again, no complaints from me there -but are you implying that Tallis and Byrd are not joyful, resounding, and so forth?



DavidA said:


> The worship was Hebrew, Eastern worship not the Platonic worship you have described.


I've no idea where Plato comes into it. I've merely pointed out that Sheffield Cathedral believes the Anglican choral tradition to be elitist and exclusive. They're wrong on both counts, never mind any religious aspect. And then I've gone on to say that the likes of Byrd and Tallis (and RVW, Walton, Britten, Tippet, Haydn etc etc) are more in the tradition of 'beauty of holiness' for that place than a rock group singing 'hot gospel'.

(Which, I should hasten to add, doesn't mean that 'hot gospellers' aren't doing it right and should be condemned to the Hell Fires of Gehenna. Whatever floats their boat. But that particular style of worship doesn't suit me, doesn't suit a lot of Anglicans, and certainly isn't part of the tradition for that particular Cathedral. But whether it is 'right worship' or not, it's the accusation of elitism for those who would like to do things differently that galls).



DavidA said:


> And since when did Latin feature in the worship of God in the Bible? The New Testament is written in common Greek - Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic, the language of the people. The New testament says, "The common people heard him gladly." Jesus would have worshipped according to Psalm 150. Holiness is obeying God and worshipping God in a way that pleases Him not in a way that somehow pleases the mysticism within our Platonic souls.


I'm not getting into a theological discussion with you on the matter. I've studied Koine, have a smattering of Aramaic but, admittedly, zero Hebrew. The mention of Latin was by way of a 'dig' or witticism. I don't mandate it, but regard it as another special feature of much Anglican choral music that would be a shame to lose.

In any event, this wasn't a story about religion, but about music, elitism and 'inclusivity'.

I disagree with people who say that Latin is exclusive or elitist, just as I disagree with people who think the Anglican choral tradition is exclusive or elitist. I think if the Diocese of Sheffield thinks it has to sack its existing choir and find new musical traditions for 'inclusivity' reasons, they have the wrong end of a 500-year old stick.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

No, the term elitist is being injected by commenters here. You don't understand the concept of offering opportunities to less affluent kids? That is one of the main points of the article.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Indeed. But I don't quite get your point. If you think drums, tambourines and 'rock gospel' is 'setting apart from God', you've lost me. And if you're suggesting that Tallis and Byrd are "obscure", you've lost me again.
> 
> Again, no complaints from me there -but are you implying that Tallis and Byrd are not joyful, resounding, and so forth?
> 
> ...


Of course Rallis and Byrd is obscure. 99.9% of people haven't even heard of them! What I was trying to say is that the Psalms themselves contradict your point. The Hebrew worship was exuberant and noisy not like you're trying to make out

I have a complete set of both Tallis and Byrd's music but it is just not the sort of music ordinary people understand. Unless your son have a choral scholar

The whole point about church and worship is that people should understand it and most people do not understand Latin and most people do not understand the Anglican choral tradition. We are not talking about worshipping God we are talking about a choral tradition. I am nothing against that as I enjoy hearing choirs and my wife sings in one. But we are talking about 21st century church not the preservation of tradition. Jesus did say that it's no good putting new wine in old bottles. Jesus was a great breaker of tradition. 
I cannot see why you are criticising a church and then saying it isn't a story about religion! And frankly if you do not believe that Latin is exclusive or elitist that is a sign you are elitist yourself. I am one of the few people who did Latin at school and most people haven't a clue about it. Of course the church has to find new musical traditions. For goodness sake we are constantly evolving new traditions. The church is a living organism not a dead museum. If I want to hear Tallis orByrd I go to a concert. My wife took part in the 'spec in Allium' last year btw


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I think that there need to be opportunities for kids who might not otherwise have the privilege of access that others do. I also think that there is a place for kids who have a good voice, but perhaps not quite top notch. Some may have more potential than skill, and need more training, while others are just never going to be much better than very good singers in their local church. As long as they are beyond a marginal level of ability, there is a need for small ponds.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

starthrower said:


> No, the term elitist is being injected by commenters here. You don't understand the concept of offering opportunities to less affluent kids? That is one of the main points of the article.


The Guardian is an anti-religious newspaper run by secularists. What do you expect? I would have thought the cathedral is trying to make it less elitist actually


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Of course Rallis and Byrd is obscure. 99.9% of people haven't even heard of them!


That someone hasn't heard of a thing means they are ignorant, not that the thing is obscure.



DavidA said:


> What I was trying to say is that the Psalms themselves contradict your point. The Hebrew worship was exuberant and noisy not like you're trying to make out


I'm not trying to make anything out, and how a patriarchal, bronze age, pastoralist society chose to worship isn't my concern either. We're speaking of a cathedral that has a well-established, centuries-old choral tradition. If you want noisy and exuberant, be my guest and get thee to the nearest Pentecostal church, which will suit those particular needs well.



DavidA said:


> I have a complete set of both Tallis and Byrd's music but it is just not the sort of music ordinary people understand. Unless your son have a choral scholar


If you are an ordinary person that doesn't understand, like or respond to Tallis and Byrd... fine, there are about 30,000 churches out there you can go to where you won't need to be exposed to them. Most Anglican churches do not have choirs (some are lucky to have a congregation, if we're being honest!). But cathedrals do, and have done for centuries. Steer clear of Anglican cathedrals if you don't like their traditions and style of worship. But just because one finds them weird, wacky or unmoving, it doesn't mean they're elitist or exclusive.



DavidA said:


> The whole point about church and worship is that people should understand it and most people do not understand Latin and most people do not understand the Anglican choral tradition.


Then I say again, go somewhere where Latin isn't used and there isn't a choir singing 'traditional' Anthems and Canticles.



DavidA said:


> Jesus was a great breaker of tradition.


Again, I'm not getting into theology. He happened also to say that he had come not to overthrow the old law, but to fulfil it. So... whatever.



DavidA said:


> I cannot see why you are criticising a church and then saying it isn't a story about religion!


I'm criticisng the Chapter of Sheffield Cathedral for sacking their choir on elitism and exclusivity grounds. That seems to me to be a misrepresentation of what choral music in the Anglican tradition is all about; it seems to me to be the wrong way to go about fixing a lack of state school pupils in their choirs. It's entirely about administation practice and a perception of music which seems thoroughly misguided to me.

If Radio 3 decided to ditch classical music (because it's elitist, mostly white, and thus exclusionary) and instead started broadcasting nothing but 21st century rap, hip-hop and jazz, I'd complain about that too. Sheffield Cathedral's decision seems to me to be entirely in the same league and category.



DavidA said:


> And frankly if you do not believe that Latin is exclusive or elitist that is a sign you are elitist yourself. I am one of the few people who did Latin at school and most people haven't a clue about it.


Good for you. Funnily enough, the fact that you and I learnt Latin kind of indicates that it's not exclusive (unless you're a member of the landed gentry? I'm definitely the son of British Rail ticket clerk, so I don't regard learning Latin as anything very special. It's merely a skill you acquire, if you are so inclined, like driving or flying.



DavidA said:


> Of course the church has to find new musical traditions.


There's no 'of course' about it. Those that are 'traditional' tend not to want new traditions foist upon them by others. They can develop their own over time, if necessary.



DavidA said:


> For goodness sake we are constantly evolving new traditions. The church is a living organism not a dead museum.


The fact that you equate listening to 500 years of choral music in a liturgical session as being a 'dead museum' makes you part of the problem, I'm afraid. There's nothing dead about it.



DavidA said:


> If I want to hear Tallis orByrd I go to a concert. My wife took part in the 'spec in Allium' last year btw


It's Spe*m* in Alium. You'd know that if you knew Latin!

</joke>

Seriously, if you only hear Byrd or Tallis in concert, you're missing out on a lot. The intimacy of a choir singing at Evensong, for instance, from one side of the chancel to the other... it can't be matched by a concert.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

starthrower said:


> No, the term elitist is being injected by commenters here. You don't understand the concept of offering opportunities to less affluent kids? That is one of the main points of the article.


Did *you* read the article??

I quote:

The appeal of church music was wide but sometimes "presented in a way that can be seen as elitist", he said.

The "he" referred to is the Dean of the Cathedral, Peter Bradley.

The Dean of the Cathedral mentioned elitism. It wasn't an 'injection' by commenters here. Not at all.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

starthrower said:


> No, the term elitist is being injected by commenters here. You don't understand the concept of offering opportunities to less affluent kids? That is one of the main points of the article.


Disbanding the choir removes those very opportunities.This kind of levelling down helps precisely no-one.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> I think that there need to be opportunities for kids who might not otherwise have the privilege of access that others do. I also think that there is a place for kids who have a good voice, but perhaps not quite top notch. Some may have more potential than skill, and need more training, while others are just never going to be much better than very good singers in their local church. As long as they are beyond a marginal level of ability, there is a need for small ponds.


I entirely agree. Let there be a thousand choirs blooming!

I can't see that's an argument for abolishing a cathedral choir, though. You don't make more choirs by getting rid of the one you've got!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Did *you* read the article??
> 
> I quote:
> 
> ...


Yes so the cathedral is saying they are actually combatting 'elitism'. Why should a church have a choir in the first place?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I entirely agree. Let there be a thousand choirs blooming!
> 
> I can't see that's an argument for abolishing a cathedral choir, though. You don't make more choirs by getting rid of the one you've got!


Why is it the church's responsibility to produce choirs in the 21st century? That is not something that was given in the Great Commission. In not having choirs in church we are not putting a ban on them elsewhere. Just saying they are not appropriate for 21st century worship.

Can I ask - do you actually attend a church regularly?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Yes so the cathedral is saying they are actually combatting 'elitism'. Why should a church have a choir in the first place?


I have no idea what you're arguing or why. I was responding to someone who claimed that mentioning 'elitism' was something "a commentator" had done. I was merely pointing out that it was in the source article, direct from Sheffield itself, not of my invention.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I have no idea what you're arguing or why. I was responding to someone who claimed that mentioning 'elitism' was something "a commentator" had done. I was merely pointing out that it was in the source article, direct from Sheffield itself, not of my invention.


I was merely taking issue with what you said in your OP that churches should be singing Byrd and Tallis instead of worship music that is relevant to the 21st century.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> The Guardian is an anti-religious newspaper run by secularists. What do you expect? I would have thought the cathedral is trying to make it less elitist actually


Please stick to facts. The Guardian is a mainstream British centrist (and certainly well to the right of my own politics) newspaper. It's advantage is that it is not owned by a millionaire with a mission to advance an agenda that is not in most British people's best interests. I have not noted it being anti-religious although it often functions as a platform for a range of views on most things. Or is your position that you are either Christian or you are anti-Christ?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Why is it the church's responsibility to produce choirs in the 21st century? That is not something that was given in the Great Commission. In not having choirs in church we are not putting a ban on them elsewhere. Just saying they are not appropriate for 21st century worship.
> 
> Can I ask - do you actually attend a church regularly?


Well, it's good of you to ask, having started your posts in this thread with 'It's interesting that people who are not Christians and never attend church always think they can form a judgment on the goings on in the church", which I thought was "an interesting" set of assumptions!

For reasons that surpasseth _my_ understanding at any rate, you seem intent on straining at gnats and trying to cook up points of disagreement.

The issue is not religious and doesn't depend on church-going. It's simply this:

Either you believe that renaissance sacred choral music is elitist and exclusionary.
Or you don't.

If you do think it elitist and exclusionary, I would find that surprising and somewhat hypocritical coming from someone who's a member of a classical music discussion group (I'm assuming you don't think Beethoven is elitist or exclusionary at least?)

If you _don't_ think it elitist and exclusionary, then you and I are in agreement.

Now, I take my view that it is neither elitist nor exclusionary and use it to conclude that the Dean of Sheffield has made a profoundly misguided decision. You are free to come on that additional step with me or not, as you see fit.

But that's all. There are no other considerations that pertain.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It seems a shame to abandon a cultural tradition that has been a part of our cathedrals' social function for a long time. But I would be all for broadening it out rather than fossilising it. I think the use of the term elitism here - regardless of its source - is a lazy one.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I was merely taking issue with what you said in your OP that churches should be singing Byrd and Tallis instead of worship music that is relevant to the 21st century.


I said nothing of the kind in my original post and have said nothing of the kind subsequently.

I _implied_ in my original post merely that the *Anglican cathedral choral tradition* was significant and worth preserving in preference to replacing it with 'Gospel Jazz' or whatever flavour of popular-infused music the Dean felt to be less exclusive or elitist.

I said nothing about "churches" in general. I didn't even mention _Anglican_ churches in general. We are very clearly and very specifically talking about the dismantling of the Anglican *cathedral* choral tradition.

I have said subsequently that if Gospel Jazz is your 'thing', feel free to go to a church where _that_ is the tradition and common practice, so there's nothing wrong with it in its appropriate place, either.

If you want to shake a tambourine, there are plenty of churches that will accommodate that; I merely suggest that those who prefer Byrd and Tallis and the rest of the Anglican choral tradition should be left free to enjoy that style of worship without it being 'updated' for whatever pop-sociological reason _du jour_ happens to take the Dean's fancy.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

There's a broader question floating around here: is an activity (specifically an art form such as the Anglican choral tradition) something which is worth preserving, even if it is a minority taste? You can talk about the teaching of classics; you can talk about teaching English literature.

How many people have to be interested in order for it to be worth devoting resources to activities like this, especially when many of the people paying for it (say average tax payers) are not interested and do not believe that they benefit. Or does everything need a clear utilitarian justification, without which it should be allowed to wither and die?

I suppose my personal view is that things which people are willing to pay for personally at full market price need no help. Among things which struggle to survive in the rough and tumble of the market there are things which are worth supporting, because traditions matter. To use an "elitist" word there is culture.

Now if you said, what counts as culture, and how much continuing support does a cultural activity need before it does become too much of a minority interest to continue supporting. Haven't a clue: that's one for the politicians - and what a fine body they are to make that sort of decision.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> to take the Dean's fancy.


Of course, the only thing that pronouncements from the hierarchy of the CofE are designed to do currently is to burnish the credentials of the pronouncer in the woke world.

My guess is that it could probably have been anything of that nature which the Dean fancied to pontificate about: choirs were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It is not about the market and is not about what the majority like. It is about what is worthwhile, and where we can find the best of what we have been and are. This is worth fostering and should not be closed to those who can't afford to pay. And it doesn't matter that only one in twenty are likely to respond to it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I wish that the great music of the church's tradition could be democratized rather than abandoned, but then it is not my job to fill the pews.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> It is not about the market and is not about what the majority like. It is about what is worthwhile, and where we can find the best of what we have been and are. This is worth fostering and should not be closed to those who can't afford to pay. And it doesn't matter that only one in twenty are likely to respond to it.


I don't disagree: but many might. Ultimately, if Government is involved, it becomes a question of public spending priorities, and putting the teaching of classics up against additional health spending (say) is a difficult one. Especially so as the appetite for health spending seems insatiable, and anyone who is hostile to things such as the teaching of classics will pick something like health spending as the alternative which is "losing out".


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

science said:


> I wish that the great music of the church's tradition could be democratized rather than abandoned, but then it is not my job to fill the pews.


Is there anyone knowledgeable on this thread about the teaching of music in schools - especially the teaching of instruments and of classical music. (I mean classical music loosely.) In my schooldays (a long time ago) there was very little such teaching, and I doubt if it has increased.

I would guess that there are lots of surrounding benefits from learning an instrument, and learning music that repays being listened too carefully, and also that a good proportion of those who have that education will go on to enjoy that sort of music for the rest of their lives. Difficult to advocate, though, in the current world.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

It's not clear from the article that this will even be a big change in practice. They'll still have choirs and they'll sing Anglican choral music. More of a rebranding.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Just some fun stuff from history that might interest some people ---

Once upon a time, of course the Church of England was elitist. All the established churches were: they legitimized the power of the "secular" rulers. The music and art and so on -- the liturgy or the mass -- was (at least as entertainment) intended for everyone, though, because the church and the rulers both needed the church to persuade everyone.

However, they weren't supposed to be overly inspiring. The church and the rulers did not want people getting, for example, "possessed by the Holy Spirit!" You never know what people in such a condition might say, or what political ramifications it would have.

But when secular ways to legitimize power appeared (in the 17th century and afterwards), people increasingly had the freedom to do whatever they wanted in church. (There was feedback between religious democratization and political democratization. Anyone interested in learning more about this might want to look into interpretations of the American Revolution as a religious revolution.)

As soon as people had the freedom to do whatever they wanted in church, the "low" liturgical traditions appeared: more rhythmic music, dancing, more excitement ("enthusiasm" in the language of some earlier generations). Of course these traditions appealed primarily to people with relatively less power - the relatively more powerful people generally preferred to worship in more traditional ways.

Well, perhaps the extreme of this within the United States was the Pentecostal traditions, which basically developed rock and roll. From their POV, rock and roll was a secular perversion of worship music.

Here's one from 1970, and you can hear the Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard in it. I've seen very similar videos from twenty years earlier on Youtube but I can't find them just now. If I find one I'll post it.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

science said:


> I wish that the great music of the church's tradition could be democratized rather than abandoned, but then it is not my job to fill the pews.


Church goers who really enjoy quality music are becoming as rare as true believers. I grew up in a traditional church where congregational singing was loud, joyful - and hard to believe - in four parts. The town, school and churches all held music in high esteem and learning to read music and sing it was just part of the culture. Then along came the '70s, the hippie, flower children, the western music must go crowd, and that glorious musical tradition was soon lost. Now, the hymnal is an atrocious collection of mostly bad tunes that are unsuited for corporate singing, only have one part. The accompaniment is now a couple of mistuned guitars, a Korg keyboard, a drum set, and the essential female tambourine player. Needless to say, I left that church and took my money elsewhere. Now it's mostly Cowboy Bible Church - they sing the great old tunes written by great composers who knew how to write for corporate singing. There's a fine pianist (not honky tonk!) and a non-electrified guitar and sometimes a string bass. It's very beautifully done, and those of us who can sing parts, do - they have an old set of of 4-part hymnals the Presbyterians stupidly got rid of. We sing a lot of songs that the leftists out there would find offensive and we just couldn't care less.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, it's good of you to ask, having started your posts in this thread with 'It's interesting that people who are not Christians and never attend church always think they can form a judgment on the goings on in the church", which I thought was "an interesting" set of assumptions!
> 
> For reasons that surpasseth _my_ understanding at any rate, you seem intent on straining at gnats and trying to cook up points of disagreement.
> 
> ...


Interesting that you think of me asking whether a person passing judgment on the church actually attends is 'straining at gnats'. I would have thought it was fairly fundamental. If someone never goes and worships then how on earth can they pass judgment on those who are part of the church? 
Of course renaissance music is elitist and exclusionary to the vast majority of people. How on earth is it hypocritical of me to like Beethoven personally btw while wanting worship music in the church that appeals to the common people in the 21st century? You appear to think the two mutually exclusive? Maybe they are in your world but not in mine. Now tell me, why is the Dean's decision to bring worship into the 21sat century profoundly misguided?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I said nothing of the kind in my original post and have said nothing of the kind subsequently.
> 
> I _implied_ in my original post merely that the *Anglican cathedral choral tradition* was significant and worth preserving in preference to replacing it with 'Gospel Jazz' or whatever flavour of popular-infused music the Dean felt to be less exclusive or elitist.
> 
> ...


If you want to preserve the choral tradition there is nothing to stop you forming a choir! That is not what Jesus founded the church for if you look at the New testament.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Eclectic Al said:


> Is there anyone knowledgeable on this thread about the teaching of music in schools - especially the teaching of instruments and of classical music. (I mean classical music loosely.) In my schooldays (a long time ago) there was very little such teaching, and I doubt if it has increased.
> 
> I would guess that there are lots of surrounding benefits from learning an instrument, and learning music that repays being listened too carefully, and also that a good proportion of those who have that education will go on to enjoy that sort of music for the rest of their lives. Difficult to advocate, though, in the current world.


At least within the US this was regarded as an important part of a public school education in the mid- and late-19th century. Earlier there'd been the idea that "accomplishments" like musical skill could distinguish between classes, so American citizens demanded the inclusion of art and music classes in their children's educations. However, since the 1940s or so that POV has faded away, gradually and increasingly replaced by the idea that public education should not include anything that isn't directly relevant to making useful employees. (We can see this as an attempt to return to the class dynamics of earlier times.) This means that art and music have been just about the first programs to be cut.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mbhaub said:


> *Church goers who really enjoy quality music are becoming as rare as true believers. *I grew up in a traditional church where congregational singing was loud, joyful - and hard to believe - in four parts. The town, school and churches all held music in high esteem and learning to read music and sing it was just part of the culture. Then along came the '70s, the hippie, flower children, the western music must go crowd, and that glorious musical tradition was soon lost. Now, the hymnal is an atrocious collection of mostly bad tunes that are unsuited for corporate singing, only have one part. The accompaniment is now a couple of mistuned guitars, a Korg keyboard, a drum set, and the essential female tambourine player. Needless to say, I left that church and took my money elsewhere. Now it's mostly Cowboy Bible Church - they sing the great old tunes written by great composers who knew how to write for corporate singing. There's a fine pianist (not honky tonk!) and a non-electrified guitar and sometimes a string bass. It's very beautifully done, and those of us who can sing parts, do - they have an old set of of 4-part hymnals the Presbyterians stupidly got rid of. We sing a lot of songs that the leftists out there would find offensive and we just couldn't care less.


Church goers still enjoy good music but just not the sort you or I were used to in our youth. I can assure you that your description of the modern church is not what ours is. We have highly skilled players. I have no problem with people who like the 'old style' church apart from the fact that when they are gone their church will be gone too.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eclectic Al said:


> I don't disagree: but many might. Ultimately, if Government is involved, it becomes a question of public spending priorities, and putting the teaching of classics up against additional health spending (say) is a difficult one. Especially so as the appetite for health spending seems insatiable, and anyone who is hostile to things such as the teaching of classics will pick something like health spending as the alternative which is "losing out".


Yes the right view might lose but I can only argue for what I think should be. I think so much that is wrong stems from the argument that the market should decide things and that government subsidies (and indeed progressive tax regimes) are theft from the rich. Personally, I believe that a society that looks after the interests of minorities as well as the majority is likely to be a happier, more alive and more productive society. What turns a lot of people off classical music is often that the audience do represent the elite - those who can afford to pay - which leads them to think it is not for them. In that way they buy into an ideology that robs them of their birthright! The Soviets didn't get much right but they looked after culture and the rights of all to participate in and enjoy it. Even in Britain the unions once put a lot of effort into underwriting cultural education and opportunities for the workers.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Interesting that you think of me asking whether a person passing judgment on the church actually attends is 'straining at gnats'. I would have thought it was fairly fundamental. If someone never goes and worships then how on earth can they pass judgment on those who are part of the church?
> Of course renaissance music is elitist and exclusionary to the vast majority of people. How on earth is it hypocritical of me to like Beethoven personally btw while wanting worship music in the church that appeals to the common people in the 21st century? You appear to think the two mutually exclusive? Maybe they are in your world but not in mine. Now tell me, why is the Dean's decision to bring worship into the 21sat century profoundly misguided?


Even if your assumption that renaissance music "is elitist and exclusionary" had evidence to support it, isn't inviting more people to enjoy and take part in it more "inclusionary" than denying it to those who enjoy it and (crucially for the purposes of this argument) find it conducive to worship, who then are themselves excluded? If one believes, as I do, that the answer to that is self-evidently "yes", that's why the Dean is profoundly misguided. It would be interesting to look into the question whether virtue-signalling such as his has led to increased attendance at and participation in worship in this country - I understand from Episcopalian friends in the States that there's some evidence there that the opposite has happened, despite church attendances being generally much higher than they are here.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Eclectic Al said:


> Is there anyone knowledgeable on this thread about the teaching of music in schools - especially the teaching of instruments and of classical music. (I mean classical music loosely.) In my schooldays (a long time ago) there was very little such teaching, and I doubt if it has increased.
> 
> I would guess that there are lots of surrounding benefits from learning an instrument, and learning music that repays being listened too carefully, and also that a good proportion of those who have that education will go on to enjoy that sort of music for the rest of their lives. Difficult to advocate, though, in the current world.


I used to work in educational admin.and one or two of my educational psychologist colleagues told me then that there is indeed evidence for the beneficial effects of music, even mere listening but certainly in terms of musical education/training, in integrating the functions of the two sides of the brain.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, it's good of you to ask, having started your posts in this thread with 'It's interesting that people who are not Christians and never attend church always think they can form a judgment on the goings on in the church", which I thought was "an interesting" set of assumptions!
> 
> For reasons that surpasseth _my_ understanding at any rate, *you seem intent on straining at gnats* and trying to cook up points of disagreement.
> 
> ...


Kudos to you, AbsolutelyBaching for doing your best to communicate with the poster above who constantly strains at gnats. I note in your "exchanges" that he seems utterly unable to understand what is written and or seems intent on misuderstanding your position. He brings to mind this cartoon from Viz magazine:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url...ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCJCW6-uA5eoCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAn


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> If you want to preserve the choral tradition there is nothing to stop you forming a choir! That is not what Jesus founded the church for if you look at the New testament.


I do, every single day, and it's not at all clear to me what point you're trying to make here.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The Church owns a great number of architectural masterpieces. I guess most of those who worship in them know little of architecture and are poorly equipped to appreciate it. You might say - and I think I probably would say - that fine buildings can do much to help people feel some sort of religious awe but they also do much more than that as they are enjoyed as art by people with a very wide range of religious beliefs. Traditional church music plays a similar role and what we are seeing here is the church saying that these things are alienating to a large part of their modern congregations. 

I guess they will go on to offer them mere rooms, barns and sheds for people to worship in. And the rest of us buy (through our taxes or through donations to cultural trusts) the old beautiful buildings for use as museums and the old beautiful music can be performed by professionals, while the congregations get poorly played guitars and musical vicars dumbing things down on behalf of their behalf. And we - those of us who do not go to church to worship - have no say in this. The Christian establishment no longer see themselves as caretakers of a cultural heritage on behalf of us all but seek to turn inwards in a rather mean-spirited way. They have the right to. But it is not a good look.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Animal the Drummer said:


> Even if your assumption that renaissance music "is elitist and exclusionary" had evidence to support it, isn't inviting more people to enjoy and take part in it more "inclusionary" than denying it to those who enjoy it and (crucially for the purposes of this argument) find it conducive to worship, who then are themselves excluded? If one believes, as I do, that the answer to that is self-evidently "yes", that's why the Dean is profoundly misguided. It would be interesting to look into the question whether virtue-signalling such as his has led to increased attendance at and participation in worship in this country - I understand from Episcopalian friends in the States that there's some evidence there that the opposite has happened, despite church attendances being generally much higher than they are here.


We're not denying people it. How many ordinary people can sing renaissance music? The evidence is that the churches which are growing are the churches which are adopting modern styles of worship which connect with a 21st century society. I mean, do you dress in renaissance dress when you go out? Do you speak in renaissance language in your home? The church is to connect with ordinary people most of whom have not a clue about renaissance music. If people want to worship in that style I have nothing against it but it is becoming more than more anachronistic. If people want to hear renaissance music there are choirs like my wife sings in. It was never in the church's mission to provide it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Animal the Drummer said:


> I do, every single day, and it's not at all clear to me what point you're trying to make here.


Just that preserving a choral tradition has nothing to do with the mission of the new testament church


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> The Church owns a great number of architectural masterpieces. I guess most of those who worship in them know little of architecture and are poorly equipped to appreciate it. You might say - and I think I probably would say - that fine buildings can do much to help people feel some sort of religious awe but they also do much more than that as they are enjoyed as art by people with a very wide range of religious beliefs. Traditional church music plays a similar role and what we are seeing here is the church saying that these things are alienating to a large part of their modern congregations.
> 
> I guess they will go on to offer them mere rooms, barns and sheds for people to worship in. And the rest of us buy (through our taxes or through donations to cultural trusts) the old beautiful buildings for use as museums and the old beautiful music can be performed by professionals, while the congregations get poorly played guitars and musical vicars dumbing things down on behalf of their behalf. And we - those of us who do not go to church to worship - have no say in this. The Christian establishment no longer see themselves as caretakers of a cultural heritage on behalf of us all but seek to turn inwards in a rather mean-spirited way. They have the right to. But it is not a good look.


You appear to misss the point that the building has nothing to do with the church. In the new testament the church (ekklesia) is the people who worship not the building they worship in. Buildings should be modern well equipped places to enable people to gather for worship. Churches are not caretakers of a cultural heritage. Leave that to the National Trust. How on earth has the upkeep of an ancient building got anything to do with the mission Jesus gave the church?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Would that be "ordinary people who are all the same" or does the church still recognise that we are all different in our tastes and desires? If the church wants to give up on its role as caretaker of an important part of our cultural history then so be it. But replace it with what? Root it in what?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> We sing a lot of songs that the leftists out there would find offensive and we just couldn't care less.


I don't think we leftists could either.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Would that be "ordinary people who are all the same" or does the church still recognise that we are all different in our tastes and desires? If the church wants to give up on its role as caretaker of an important part of our cultural history then so be it. But replace it with what? Root it in what?


Are you speaking as a committed member of a church can I ask?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Just that preserving a choral tradition has nothing to do with the mission of the new testament church


What is that mission? And why does it involve abandoning its choirs? It looks more like embracing the market than promoting the teachings if the New Testament to me.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Are you speaking as a committed member of a church can I ask?


Which church? But, no, I am not. But does that mean I can take no interest in these matters? The church wants to drop its role within our culture and is thus proposing taking something away from us. But we don't even have a right to discuss it?


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Just that preserving a choral tradition has nothing to do with the mission of the new testament church


Neither is it antithetical to that mission in any way.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

From earliest times, music has been a big part of worship services, because it was thought that appropriate music would enhance the creation of a spiritual environment and make the space more conducive to prayer, contemplation and the sacred. There was no idea of the music being "entertainment" and, in fact, the church authorities went to great lengths to spell out what was considered correct. For example, instruments (other than the organ, and its use was limited) were not allowed for centuries.

I think the best music for worship services is still chant, and I thought much was lost during the '60s with the changes made, like the folk masses, etc. I also think conducting services in the vernacular instead of Latin was another change which caused a loss of ritual and the creation of a spiritual space different from the secular life outside the church.

The article which opened this thread is more of the same kind of wrong-headed thinking which completely misses the point of prayer service, IMO.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> We're not denying people it. How many ordinary people can sing renaissance music? The evidence is that the churches which are growing are the churches which are adopting modern styles of worship which connect with a 21st century society. I mean, do you dress in renaissance dress when you go out? Do you speak in renaissance language in your home? The church is to connect with ordinary people most of whom have not a clue about renaissance music. If people want to worship in that style I have nothing against it but it is becoming more than more anachronistic. If people want to hear renaissance music there are choirs like my wife sings in. It was never in the church's mission to provide it.


With respect, you - and the Dean of Sheffield - are indeed denying it, not only to worshippers who find it integral to their worship (to which singing in a choir is simply not relevant) but also to others who will probably have no access to it anywhere else. My view of the church and its mission is that they're for *all* people, not just one group within the Church community, whether they're in the majority or not. Allowing more modern musical styles into Church worship is one thing; removing more traditional styles at the same time is quite another, an unnecessary and draconian amputation which will cut the church adrift from its core support in a gesture which I strongly suspect will avail it nothing, my bet being that its intended new audience will see it as patronising and false.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

I am English, but not Christian. The Church of England is, however, my church because they are the established church of England. The CofE is custodian of a lot of fine buildings because politics allowed it to keep them. If the CofE wanted to sell them to the highest bidder, and move to smaller premises, then I would have no objection in terms of where people attending services wished to worship (which is up to them and their church), but I would have a big objection as an English person. The buildings belong to all of us.

Ditto, the CofE is the guardian of many traditions in England, not just for Christian believers. Maybe it thinks it might provide things for the rest of us only out of charity, but I think charity is kind of a key point for Christians.

Hence, as a non-believing English person I have a justifiable interest in what the CofE gets up to. If it wishes to dis-establish then fine, but there would need to be a settlement, and I don't see it keeping much of the stuff.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Animal the Drummer said:


> With respect, you - and the Dean of Sheffield - are indeed denying it, not only to worshippers who find it integral to their worship (to which singing in a choir is simply not relevant) but also to others who will probably have no access to it anywhere else. My view of the church and its mission is that they're for *all* people, not just one group within the Church community, whether they're in the majority or not. Allowing more modern musical styles into Church worship is one thing; removing more traditional styles at the same time is quite another, an unnecessary and draconian amputation which will cut the church adrift from its core support in a gesture which I strongly suspect will avail it nothing, my bet being that its intended new audience will see it as patronising and false.


Our posts crossed. Agree entirely about a church (especially the established Church of a country) being for all.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> We're not denying people it. How many ordinary people can sing renaissance music?


Few. That's why we need skilled choirs to sing it.
And sacking choirs _is_ denying people hearing that skill being exercised.



DavidA said:


> The evidence is that the churches which are growing are the churches which are adopting modern styles of worship which connect with a 21st century society.


I can tell you that if you go to Christ Church St. Laurence in Sydney's George Street, you'll find high Anglican worship, with what is quite possibly one of the world's best parish church choirs... and a church that is jam-packed every Sunday without fail. I can also tell you that if you go to All Saint's Margaret Street, London, you'll find another high Anglican church that is similarly rammed, without fail, every Sunday -and also with a very polished choral capability.

Anecdotes aren't data, of course, but it simply isn't true to say you have to "modernise" to "stay relevant" and pull in the crowds. Do something *excellently* (such as understand liturgy, and music's place within it), and the people will come, if only to admire the excellence.

Of course, much of UK Anglicanism has lost that sense of the numinous required to do things excellently, and that's a large part, I suspect, of why there's usually 2 people aged 80+ in most Anglican services these days.



DavidA said:


> If people want to hear renaissance music there are choirs like my wife sings in. It was never in the church's mission to provide it.


You keep asserting that. You keep being wrong.

If music, and beauty, and architecture in any way helps bring someone closer to God, then it's definitely within the remit of the Great Commission to have those things and to look after them.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> If music, and beauty, and architecture in any way helps bring someone closer to God, then it's definitely within the remit of the Great Commission to have those things and to look after them.


Agree.

I'm not a believer. If you wanted to make me one (which I think is something that Christianity is into, as a proselytising religion) then you would need to give me a sense of something transcendent. I matter more to you than believers, because they've already got it. (More joy in heaven - all that stuff.)

I think that sense is more likely to come from ethereal choral music than a bit of happy-clappy guitar.

However, I might be part of a minority in the target group.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> You appear to misss the point that the building has nothing to do with the church. In the new testament the church (ekklesia) is the people who worship not the building they worship in. Buildings should be modern well equipped places to enable people to gather for worship. Churches are not caretakers of a cultural heritage. Leave that to the National Trust. How on earth has the upkeep of an ancient building got anything to do with the mission Jesus gave the church?


I don't mix anything up. The church has for better or worse played a role on our behalf and may now want to jettison that role. OK, then, give the building back to us.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Animal the Drummer said:


> With respect, you - and the Dean of Sheffield - are indeed denying it, not only to worshippers who find it integral to their worship (to which singing in a choir is simply not relevant) but also to others who will probably have no access to it anywhere else. My view of the church and its mission is that they're for *all* people, not just one group within the Church community, whether they're in the majority or not. Allowing more modern musical styles into Church worship is one thing; removing more traditional styles at the same time is quite another, an unnecessary and draconian amputation which will cut the church adrift from its core support in a gesture which I strongly suspect will avail it nothing, my bet being that its intended new audience will see it as patronising and false.


So can I ask you for an informed opinion as to how many people actually find renaissance music integral to their worship? Of course the church and its mission is for all types of people - that's why we have different types of churches. Adopting styles of worship which are relevant to the 21st century appears more in keeping with the mission of the church than propagating styles of worship that may (or may not have been) appropriate in the 16th century. And just who are the 'new audience'? The vast majority of growing churches are those with styles of worship relevant to the 21st century. After all, would you run a business with business practices of the 16th century?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Few. That's why we need skilled choirs to sing it.
> And sacking choirs _is_ denying people hearing that skill being exercised.
> 
> I can tell you that if you go to Christ Church St. Laurence in Sydney's George Street, you'll find high Anglican worship, with what is quite possibly one of the world's best parish church choirs... and a church that is jam-packed every Sunday without fail. I can also tell you that if you go to All Saint's Margaret Street, London, you'll find another high Anglican church that is similarly rammed, without fail, every Sunday -and also with a very polished choral capability.
> ...


That's great! I have no problem with high anglican worship for people who want it that way. I assume you are a regular member at one of these churches? We are all for excellence but can I ask you what message you think the excellence is communicating?

Why am I wrong? Jesus' commission did not say 'go into all the world and propagate music, and architecture' - he said 'make disciples'. The early church did not have buildings or choirs. he didn't tell us to look after buildings. They are not part of the good news. The chief reason why churches grow is because they are relevant.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eclectic Al said:


> Agree.
> 
> I'm not a believer. If you wanted to make me one (which I think is something that Christianity is into, as a proselytising religion) then you would need to give me a sense of something transcendent. I matter more to you than believers, because they've already got it. (More joy in heaven - all that stuff.)
> 
> ...


Your problem is that your view of Christianity is not the New testament view. They were not into ethereal music because they believed that God was close at hand. yes there are churches who would cater for you, yet you on your own admission do not attend. We tend to cater for ordinary working class people who are to musically sophisticated yet who want to worship.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't mix anything up. The church has for better or worse played a role on our behalf and may now want to jettison that role. OK, then, give the building back to us.


I don't think you'd want our building - it is a former cinema and just functions as a building to worship in.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Why am I wrong? Jesus' commission did not say 'go into all the world and propagate music, and architecture' - he said 'make disciples'. The early church did not have buildings or choirs. he didn't tell us to look after buildings. They are not part of the good news. The chief reason why churches grow is because they are relevant.


Well, the Great Commission says precisely nothing other than 'make disciples of all nations, baptising them and teaching them'. So yeah: it's true that "go into the world and sing music that won't be written for another 1500 years' isn't in the Great Commission. But, duh. It's not exactly a compelling point you're making!

But in any case, you're wrong because the business of making and teaching disciples *does* involve music, as St. Paul writes in Ephesians 5:19, "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs". And in Colossians 3:16, "teach and admonish one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts...". And his epistles pre-date the earliest gospel by about a decade. So if it was happening in Paul's time, it was happening from the get-go.

Edited to add: Oh yes, and I forgot Matthew 26, v.30, speaking of Jesus' own disciples: "And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives." Music was right there, from the very beginning.

You're wrong, too, in being obtusely reductionist in claiming that good music has no part of the work of the church because Jesus didn't specify it. He didn't specify 'go into the world and buy up old cinema buildings' either, but that doesn't seem to have stopped you and your fellow worshippers!

So I note you are very keen and persistent in either asking whether people go to church or not, or assuming that they do (or don't). I assume it's because you think that to comment on the church requires attendance of one sort or another in order to have an informed opinion on the matter? I get why you might think that, though I disagree with you on that specific point.

The problem I have, however, is that it's now become quite apparent what your problem in this discussion actually is: you're self-confessedly entirely ignorant of the things you've decided to comment on. That is to say, you clearly don't currently go to an Anglican church of an even vaguely traditional kind and you have little or no experience of having done so in the past. You therefore have no concept of what evensong, sung masses, canticles or psalmody as practised in an Anglican church with a good choir are, or are like. Yet you propose to pass judgement on them, despite your ignorance, because of some reductionist belief you appear to have in the commission given to the earliest Christians being the sole standard by which to judge the succeeding 2000 years of church practice and experience.

I won't assume anything about the church music that you do experience in your converted cinema building. I won't be so arrogant as to pass judgement or comment on that which I know nothing about.

Would that you were able to show the same restraint.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

Animal the Drummer said:


> Disbanding the choir removes those very opportunities.This kind of levelling down helps precisely no-one.


You've nailed it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Of course I read the article.
> 
> They consider choirs whose members _tend_ to come from private schools elitist.
> 
> ...


Would these be one and the same 'elitist' groups from private schools who practice in their own free time for hours on end and adhere to programs requiring discipline and commitment?

I disagree that Tallis, Byrd et al. are not elitist. Any endeavour which requires academic rigour or artistic excellence is by definition elitist. This word means that it's drawing from the top of the pack, not the bottom. And it's not to be confused with the self-applied word of 'elitist' that the bien pensant use to pump up its own tyres.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Few. That's why we need skilled choirs to sing it.
> And sacking choirs _is_ denying people hearing that skill being exercised.
> 
> I can tell you that if you go to Christ Church St. Laurence in Sydney's George Street, you'll find high Anglican worship, with what is quite possibly one of the world's best parish church choirs... and a church that is jam-packed every Sunday without fail. I can also tell you that if you go to All Saint's Margaret Street, London, you'll find another high Anglican church that is similarly rammed, without fail, every Sunday -and also with a very polished choral capability.
> ...


Good on you, mate; keep fending off the philistines.

I know that church in Sydney of which you speak. I was born RC but I go to the Anglican cathedral in Newcastle for special occasions because I have a friend in the choir and I'm also friendly with the Organist/Master of the Choristers. He's a wonderful man the same age of one of my sons and I love his commitment to religion and his profound knowledge of it, his love and knowledge of music, his excellent keyboard skills and his refreshing sense of humour and fun. He provided some lectures for us at our community music group; two about St. Matthew Passion and one about "The Messiah" when he told us all about Handel's collaboration with Jennens - which I didn't know anything about. The year before he presented a program for us all about the French organ maker, Aristide Cavaillé-Coll.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, the Great Commission says precisely nothing other than 'make disciples of all nations, baptising them and teaching them'. So yeah: it's true that "go into the world and sing music that won't be written for another 1500 years' isn't in the Great Commission. But, duh. It's not exactly a compelling point you're making!
> 
> But in any case, you're wrong because the business of making and teaching disciples *does* involve music, as St. Paul writes in Ephesians 5:19, "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs". And in Colossians 3:16, "teach and admonish one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts...". And his epistles pre-date the earliest gospel by about a decade. So if it was happening in Paul's time, it was happening from the get-go.
> 
> ...


You make me smile when you say I don't go to Anglican churches. It is true I do not go to an Anglican Church itself but I have worked extensively with Anglican ministers and know the problems they face. I know one of my friends was faced with a £50,000 bill to repair the pipe organ which was way beyond the means of the church so he suggested an electric organ and amplifiers which could be brought for a tenth of that amount and provide a good basis for worship. At which some of the congregation reacted strongly saying they must have an organ, possibly because Saint Paul had a pipe organ in his church! My friend the vicar then pointed out there was no-one to actually play the organ even if the6 spent a small fortune restoring it! Tradition dies hard.
So I am not ignorant of the Anglican communion at all having worked with men in it. You are completely wrong when you say I have 'no concept of what evensong, sung masses, canticles or psalmody as practised in an Anglican church with a good choir are, or are like.' of course I have and have attended them. So please do not talk as though I'm ignorant of such things.I can attend them and enjoy them. What I am saying is they do not attract the vast majority of people in this country which is the job of the church.
Neither do they represent the sort of music which of course would've been played in the early church which would have been music which would've been contemporary to the congregation. Of course you are one of these people who believes that you can make judgements on church while not attending it which seems to me and infathomable attitude. I did not make judgements on my local football team because I do not attend and watch it or make a contribution to it. May I just say the only reason that church has a building is that it is far more convenient to have a building as a centre of mission to a community rather than hiring a building. We believe that the building should be modern and functional for the purpose of mission not as a reflection of architecture of the past, wonderful though that may be. We also believe them worshipping the Lord We also believe them worshipping the Lord 'with psalms and hymns and spirituals songs' should be done in a manner that the majority of 21st century can relate to. Don't get me wrong . I Don't say every church should be like ours. I've a vicar friend of the road who has a traditional Anglican Church with choir. That's great if he can get enough choir members and people prefer that. I actually believe in different styles of churches to suit different sorts of people. What always puzzles me is when a church tries to be more relevant and then people who never going to church pile in with the criticisms that something is being 'lost.' If people think it's so valuable why don't they go?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Christabel said:


> Good on you, mate; keep fending off the philistines.
> 
> I know that church in Sydney of which you speak. I was born RC but I go to the Anglican cathedral in Newcastle for special occasions because I have a friend in the choir and I'm also friendly with the Organist/Master of the Choristers. He's a wonderful man the same age of one of my sons and I love his commitment to religion and his profound knowledge of it, his love and knowledge of music, his excellent keyboard skills and his refreshing sense of humour and fun. He provided some lectures for us at our community music group; two about St. Matthew Passion and one about "The Messiah" when he told us all about Handel's collaboration with Jennens - which I didn't know anything about. The year before he presented a program for us all about the French organ maker, Aristide Cavaillé-Coll.


So everyone who doesn't adhere to your Anglican tradition is a Philistine? Thankfully I know many good Anglicans who would disagree with you. But in any case we are in good company as Jesus his first disciples were accused of being ignorant and unlearned! :lol:

You say you go to the church for a special occasions. Can I ask why you don't attend the church all year round?


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> So can I ask you for an informed opinion as to how many people actually find renaissance music integral to their worship? Of course the church and its mission is for all types of people - that's why we have different types of churches. Adopting styles of worship which are relevant to the 21st century appears more in keeping with the mission of the church than propagating styles of worship that may (or may not have been) appropriate in the 16th century. And just who are the 'new audience'? The vast majority of growing churches are those with styles of worship relevant to the 21st century. After all, would you run a business with business practices of the 16th century?


I don't know how many people find the kind of music sung in cathedrals up till now integral to their worship, and unlike you I'm not going to take a flier on making assumptions about such things, but I don't need to know because it matters not one jot. As long as there are some such people, they too must be catered for. Leaving aside for the sake of argument the clear problem with the highly dubious idea that the concept of modern "relevance" belongs anywhere in a discussion of something as timeless as faith, worship accompanied by Renaissance music is as "relevant" to those people today as it's always been. Why should they not also be catered for, as well as those who prefer something more modern?

I suspect the crux of the difference between you and the rest of us is revealed in your final sentence above, namely the business parallel, and that what drives your approach - and that of the learned Dean of Sheffield - is a concentration on getting the maximum number of punters in through the door. The problem is that, in both cases, it's inveigled you into losing sight of the purpose of doing so. The Church does exist to evangelise but NOT at the expense of excluding one section or another of its congregation, as the Dean's approach inevitably will, still less at the expense of sacrificing the timelessness of the Gospel on the altar of "modernity at all costs". Be not conformed to this world, and all that.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Animal the Drummer said:


> I don't know how many people find the kind of music sung in cathedrals up till now integral to their worship, and unlike you I'm not going to take a flier on making assumptions about such things, but I don't need to know because it matters not one jot. As long as there are some such people, they too must be catered for. Leaving aside for the sake of argument the clear problem with the highly dubious idea that the concept of modern "relevance" belongs anywhere in a discussion of something as timeless as faith, worship accompanied by Renaissance music is as "relevant" to those people today as it's always been. Why should they not also be catered for, as well as those who prefer something more modern?
> 
> I suspect the crux of the difference between you and the rest of us is revealed in your final sentence above, namely the business parallel, and that what drives your approach - and that of the learned Dean of Sheffield - is a concentration on getting the maximum number of punters in through the door. The problem is that, in both cases, it's inveigled you into losing sight of the purpose of doing so. The Church does exist to evangelise but NOT at the expense of excluding one section or another of its congregation, as the Dean's approach inevitably will, still less at the expense of sacrificing the timelessness of the Gospel on the altar of "modernity at all costs". Be not conformed to this world, and all that.


I would take issue with the fact that Renaissance music is relevant to people today as it's always been when it comes to worship. We do not speak in Elizabeeth in English or Latin today. Jesus spoke of the language of the people and so did the apostles. The objective of the church is to communicate. Now as I said I am certainly not against there being churches which carry on a more traditional approach. The only thing is they cater for a decreasing number of people. 
We are certainly not advocating an approach which excludes people. I myself am a lover of classical music and do not listen to much else at home. But if I want to listen to classical music live I go to a concert not to a church. When I worship God I want to be included in the worship and therefore I go to a church where the worship is accessible to the greatest number of people. This was the approach of Jesus and the early church so are you saying they were wrong? We are not excluding anybody. It amuses me that people talk about excluding people and they themselves don't go to the very churches which they advocate!
We are not into modernity at all costs because we know that the message of the gospel does not change but our presentation needs to be contemporary. After all no minister gives his sermon in Elizabethan speech I hope! Know if people want the ceremonies and traditions of certain churches then there are those which cater for them and which people who have been sounding off on this thread do not appear to attend anyway! I just can't understand that. If people are so concerned about it why don't they go to the churches which are catering for this sort of tradition?
Has to be not conform to the world, Saint Paul was not talking about presenting Elizabethan worship but rather not conforming to the materialism and idolatry of the world around us. Nothing to do with the way we worship


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

It's hit the Telegraph!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/23/dont-use-diversity-excuse-scrap-blameless-choir/

The CofE probably used to be Telegraph readers at prayer. Now it's probably the Guardian readers at atheistic contemplation of a woke utopia to be realised on earth.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Well DavidA, you may know that I'm not a believer in dogma and am only curious in this thread as it pertains to musical tradition. 
I would like to tell you that a few years back, me and my wife went to Salzburg because she was running a marathon there. The race was on a Sunday and I was at a loose end for 5 hours or so. I'd noticed earlier that on that day, in the main cathedral there was to be a Mass with a full performance of a Renaissance choral setting (sorry, I can't remember which composer), so I went.

TBH, I felt a little uncomfortable because I felt out of place and the ceremony was in German, but being brought up RC (even an altar boy), I got the gist. Anyway the point of my tale is this. The Mass setting was for two choirs (antiphonal) and they where set up either side of the altar and seated high up. The choir where fabulous and when they sang, I almost, almost fell for it all . 

There was no doubting the palpable, spiritual power engendered with the marriage of ceremony/ritual and music befitting the purpose and although I still have major issues with the dogma and especially the evangelists one comes across hell bent on condemning non believers, I left that Cathedral wishing religion wasn't so divisive nor indeed, corrupt.

The church would do well to encourage such a powerful musical asset, one that as Animal The drummer said above, seems to transcend time itself which to my mind, almost gives one a sense of something ineffable.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Christabel said:


> Would these be one and the same 'elitist' groups from private schools who practice in their own free time for hours on end and adhere to programs requiring discipline and commitment?
> 
> I disagree that Tallis, Byrd et al. are not elitist. Any endeavour which requires academic rigour or artistic excellence is by definition elitist. This word means that it's drawing from the top of the pack, not the bottom. And it's not to be confused with the self-applied word of 'elitist' that the bien pensant use to pump up its own tyres.


I respectfully disagree with the opening of your second paragraph, because I think you're confusing "elite" with "elitism".

An elite is simply the best at something they do. Elitism is the belief that being a member of an elite somehow makes you better than other people.

Tallis, Byrd and the rest may require extraordinary skill to sing well. And any choir that manages to do that is, almost by definition, an elite choir. And members of that choir are therefore members of an elite.

But to get into such a choir merely requires a good voice and good musical ability. It's not an exclusionary club for socio-economic or class reasons, for example. And whilst members of the elite choir probably think (rightly) that they have better voices than most, I doubt they think they're better people than most.

But we're splitting hairs a bit at this point. I get the thrust of what you were saying and agree with it.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> It is true I do not go to an Anglican Church itself


Thank you. A wall of text which actually admits the fact I spoke of.



DavidA said:


> Of course you are one of these people who believes that you can make judgements on church while not attending it which seems to me and infathomable attitude.


You are again writing of matters about which you are profoundly ignorant. I have very carefully not answered any of your impertinent and irrelevant questions in this regard. You are in no position to make an informed judgment on the matter.

I acknowledge you lack the necessary restraint of which I wrote earlier.

We're done here.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mikeh375 said:


> Well DavidA, you may know that I'm not a believer in dogma and am only curious in this thread as it pertains to musical tradition.
> I would like to tell you that a few years back, me and my wife went to Salzburg because she was running a marathon there. The race was on a Sunday and I was at a loose end for 5 hours or so. I'd noticed earlier on that on that day in the main cathedral there was to be a Mass with a full performance of a Renaissance choral setting (sorry, I can't remember which composer).
> 
> TBH, I felt a little uncomfortable because I felt out of place and the ceremony was in German, but being brought up RC (even an altar boy), I got the gist. Anyway the point of my tale is this. The Mass setting was for two choirs (antiphonal) and they where set up either side of the altar and seated high up. The choir where fabulous and when they sang, I almost, almost fell for it all .
> ...


The New Testament church was not set up to propagate musical tradition, whether the tradition is ancient or modern. The church is there to be relevant. Like you I can go and here a mass sung by a fabulous choir and be moved by the power of it. That is because I am a lover of classical music. However, the church is there to communicate the message of the gospel - the good news - in a way ordinary people can understand. Of course, as Jesus said, there will always be those who accept and those who reject that message. If that is what you mean about 'religion being divisive' then one has to agree.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Thank you. A wall of text which actually admits the fact I spoke of.
> 
> You are again writing of matters about which you are profoundly ignorant. I have very carefully not answered any of your impertinent and irrelevant questions in this regard. You are in no position to make an informed judgment on the matter.
> 
> ...


I note you are not exactly showing restraint yourself by accusing me of being 'profoundly ignorant' of the matters I am writing about when in fact I am informed, having worked closely with Anglican clergy.Sorry but this sort of name calling does you no favours.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

DavidA said:


> The New Testament church was not set up to propagate musical tradition, whether the tradition is ancient or modern. The church is there to be relevant. Like you I can go and here a mass sung by a fabulous choir and be moved by the power of it. That is because I am a lover of classical music. However, the church is there to communicate the message of the gospel - the good news - in a way ordinary people can understand. Of course, as Jesus said, there will always be those who accept and those who reject that message. *If that is what you mean about 'religion being divisive' then one has to agree.*


Yes that, but sadly so much more that best not be mentioned.

I acknowledge that musical taste plays a role here but surely the tradition we are talking about and the one I experienced _are_ propagating the message. Ah well, so unfortunately guitars, drums, electric keyboards, a saxophone and a happy clappy choir it is (oops sorry, I forgot the tambourine). You wont encourage me back in to a church if I know that's happening, I think it's too much of a cheap and trivial hard sell for something so profound.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I note you are not exactly showing restraint yourself by accusing me of being 'profoundly ignorant' of the matters I am writing about when in fact I am informed, having worked closely with Anglican clergy.Sorry but this sort of name calling does you no favours.


Stating a fact does not constitute name-calling.

When Paul thought Peter was wrong to ask gentiles to follow Jewish dietary laws, he called him out on it at Antioch. Forcibly.

You do not attend an Anglican church regularly. You do not attend an Anglican _cathedral_ regularly. Knowing some Anglican clergy makes you as qualified to talk on this subject as I would be to talk on Jewish religious traditions because I happen to know the words to the Shema. You are as ignorant about Anglican choral tradition as I am about Jewish religious practice.

Being ignorant about something is not a moral defect. It can be cured by bothering to _learn_ about that something _before_ pontificating on it.

You apparently are unable to do that, however (which is the restraint of which I wrote).

And a reminder, because I think you missed it: this thread was opened as a discussion on the supposed elitism and non-inclusive nature of Anglican choral music as claimed by the Dean of Sheffield Cathedral. It wasn't an invitation to you to share your personal religious beliefs.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I respectfully disagree with the opening of your second paragraph, because I think you're confusing "elite" with "elitism".
> 
> An elite is simply the best at something they do. Elitism is the belief that being a member of an elite somehow makes you better than other people.
> 
> ...


I put the word deliberately in quotes to denote that this is a reference OTHERS make to such schools. Being a retired English teacher I do know the difference in meaning between those two forms of elite. And, yes, choirs are members of an elite musical group since they are singing great art music designed in a more sophisticated manner than secular music of the time. I don't remember suggesting anything about being better people; where did I write that? The bien pensant are elitist, most definitely, since they trade on the assumption that they have the monopoly on virtue and what is good - ergo 'elitism' and 'the elites'.

I entirely dislike any aspersions of class and superiority when it comes to church music or other art music, and this a label frequently bandied around by those who are largely ignorant of it - or who want to de-legitimize church music because it's based on some kind of dogma of which they disapprove. The irony of this is, of course, the dogma of a secular nature of which we are daily bombarded. And it is accusations of church music being 'elitist' which is part of this new ideology and the reason that the Anglican church is on the back foot apropos this thread and its concerns.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Christabel said:


> I put the word deliberately in quotes to denote that this is a reference OTHERS make to such schools. Being a retired English teacher I do know the difference in meaning between those two forms of elite.


I think we are talking past each other a little. There is only one meaning of 'elite'. My point was only that "elit*ism*" isn't the same thing as "elite".



Christabel said:


> And, yes, choirs are members of an elite musical group [but] I don't remember suggesting anything about being better people; where did I write that?


You didn't. That again was my point. These choir members _are_ an elite. They're amongst the best at what they do, ergo an elite. If they were guilty of elit_ism_, they would think themselves better than other people. I said, however, that whilst the members of an elite choir would probably recognise their elite vocal status, they would _not_ go on from that to think elitist thoughts about that making them somehow better _people_, intrinsically.

I'm in favour of elites and excellence, like you I think. I'm not in favour of elitism, also like you. The Dean of Sheffield has mistaken 'elite' for 'elitism'.



Christabel said:


> I entirely dislike any aspersions of class and superiority when it comes to church music or other art music, and this a label frequently bandied around by those who are largely ignorant of it - or who want to de-legitimize church music because it's based on some kind of dogma of which they disapprove.


And in this we are in complete agreement.

There is a *terrible* advert on UK TV at the moment, produced by Amazon for their Alexa smart device. It involves a very fat soprano dressed in 18th Century costume singing an aria from Mozart's _Die Zauberflöte_. The performance is interrupted by a modern-day bloke topless on a sun-lounger who asks 'can't you play something more... fun'. So the soprano stops singing the Mozart and starts singing something more modern (though I couldn't tell you off-hand what it is). The entire attitude it exhibits towards music that I like is the very definition of elitist, exclusionary and (inverted) snobbery! The idea that 'classical music' can't be fun is born of the ignorance you speak of, for sure.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Stating a fact does not constitute name-calling.
> 
> When Paul thought Peter was wrong to ask gentiles to follow Jewish dietary laws, he called him out on it at Antioch. Forcibly.
> 
> ...


I believe you yourself started this thread. As you yourself do not appear to attend an Anglican Church regularlY (forgive me if I'm wrong but you have avoided answering the question), how are you qualified to comment on the matter? What trouble have you taken to learn about the Anglican communion? It is interesting that you felt quite at liberty to share your own personal convictions but then say somebody else shouldn't. A matter of double standards but don't let it worry you. If we are going to talk about the church and worship it is surely a matter of sharing how we see religious beliefs, something you have done! 
If you are going to call me out like Paul called Peter out then please do so but I would advise you like Paul to be informed.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mikeh375 said:


> Yes that, but sadly so much more that best not be mentioned.
> 
> I acknowledge that musical taste plays a role here but surely the tradition we are talking about and the one I experienced _are_ propagating the message. Ah well, so unfortunately guitars, drums, electric keyboards, a saxophone and a happy clappy choir it is (oops sorry, I forgot the tambourine). You wont encourage me back in to a church if I know that's happening, I think it's too much of a cheap and trivial hard sell for something so profound.


My dear friend there are churches which are traditional with an organ and choir. Why not go to one of those?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

DavidA said:


> My dear friend there are churches which are traditional with an organ and choir. Why not go to one of those?


....on second thoughts, give me that Hammond organ and a dancing, groovin' "Praise be"..


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I believe you yourself started this thread.


It's not a matter of belief. You can go and read and determine the facts for yourself.



DavidA said:


> As you yourself do not appear to attend an Anglican Church regularlY (forgive me if I'm wrong but you have avoided answering the question)...


Again, you make assumptions on the basis of zero information or evidence.



DavidA said:


> how are you qualified to comment on the matter?


Because the matter is about the supposed elitism and exclusionary nature of having an excellent choir that sings music of the Anglican choral tradition (which encompasses everything from plainchant to Howells, but we all seem to have stuck on 'Byrd and Tallis' as short-hand for that). I'm an averagely intelligent person who knows a fair amount about that sort of music. Ergo, I'm qualified to comment.



DavidA said:


> What trouble have you taken to learn about the Anglican communion?


None of your business, basically. It's irrelevant to the matter at hand.



DavidA said:


> It is interesting that you felt quite at liberty to share your own personal convictions but then say somebody else shouldn't. A matter of double standards but don't let it worry you


What personal _convictions_ have I shared, pray tell, other than expressing the _opinion_ that excellent choral music performed excellently isn't elitist or exclusionary?

Your answer to the question of whether it is or not could reasonably be "yes" and it could reasonably be "no". But answering "Ah, well, Jesus never wanted choirs in the first place" isn't a reasonable answer, but a dogmatic assertion of your convictions. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you further, I'm afraid.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mikeh375 said:


> ....on second thoughts, give me that Hammond organ and a dancing, groovin' "Praise be"..


Yeah baby! I read a piece by Jeremy Clarkson (who is an atheist of course) on how he came face to face with a black gospel choir and couldn't help bopping along!

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...q=jeremy clarkson church gospel choir&f=false


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> It's not a matter of belief. You can go and read and determine the facts for yourself.
> 
> Again, you make assumptions on the basis of zero information or evidence.
> 
> ...


I make the assumption as you have given a zero answer to the question.

Yes but are you qualified to comment on the practice of worship as opposed to listening to classical music? They are very different.

You seem to make it your business to (falsely) accuse me of knowing nothing about the Anglican communion.

Excellent choral music is great but the question is whether it is relevant in the worship of a contemporary church. The idea of worship is so the whole congregation can join in - that is worship. I would think that the teachings of the founder of Christianity who is the centre of the worship of the church has every relevance. If you can't see that then I'm afraid I can't help you either!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Christabel said:


> I disagree that Tallis, Byrd et al. are not elitist. Any endeavour which requires academic rigour or artistic excellence is by definition elitist. This word means that it's drawing from the top of the pack, not the bottom. And it's not to be confused with the self-applied word of 'elitist' that the bien pensant use to pump up its own tyres.


That is just not true. Just because they require rigour, scholarship and practice you label them elitist. But you mean that those qualities make them need excellence to be performed well. Elitism, in the way it is being used here and for this matter, concerns shutting some people out simply because they do not enjoy the church music of the western classical tradition. But no-one is arguing that people should be forced to listen to or perform this music. If the congregation includes people who enjoy listening to or performing music from a different tradition then of course it would be good to give them those opportunities, too. But why band something that belongs to us all just because the modern church wants to forget about its age old role in fostering it?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I don't think you'd want our building - it is a former cinema and just functions as a building to worship in.


As you know, the discussion has been about cathedrals and places of worship that have a very long history. Still, your building (which I'm guessing never excelled in performing music of our classical tradition and is clearly not one of our architectural masterpieces) could definitely be put to good use as a public venue if you are ready to give it up.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> There is a *terrible* advert on UK TV at the moment, produced by Amazon for their Alexa smart device. It involves a very fat soprano dressed in 18th Century costume singing an aria from Mozart's _Die Zauberflöte_. The performance is interrupted by a modern-day bloke topless on a sun-lounger who asks 'can't you play something more... fun'. So the soprano stops singing the Mozart and starts singing something more modern (though I couldn't tell you off-hand what it is). The entire attitude it exhibits towards music that I like is the very definition of elitist, exclusionary and (inverted) snobbery! The idea that 'classical music' can't be fun is born of the ignorance you speak of, for sure.


On the advert you mention - it is indeed appalling. It is just one example of a cultural trend which is to emphasise difference and separate people into groups which are seen as opposed to each other in some way. The idea often seems to be (and this advert is an example) to point to something and imply "it's not for people like US; it's for THEM". Fine, people like different things. The corrosive aspect though is the associated attempt to demean the OTHER in some way. It's not just that that sort of music is not for us; the people it is for are snobs, privileged - take your pick.

When applied to things like the choral tradition it has this patronising spin going on too: "those uneducated working class people won't get this stuff, so give them something a bit more within their limited grasp". I think really the worry is that it might turn out that all sorts of people can like this stuff if they experience it, and they might discover that it is not a matter of us and them, but that people can actually come together.

I'm not very knowledgeable about this stuff, but my understanding is that many social movements in past generations were devoted to compensating for situations where people's life chances (say through their schooling) had not exposed them to a wider range of cultural or educational experiences. You could look at things like the glory of the colliery bands, various Methodist movements, elements of trades unionism, etc. These days the attempt seems to be to enforce separation between social groups, not give everyone a chance to encounter a wide range of cultural influences.

Commercial organisations like Amazon may be putting out adverts like this because they believe the message is a good one or because they think it is commercially advantageous to go along with it for their woke credibility. Neither is very palatable to imagine.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> That is just not true. Just because they require rigour, scholarship and practice you label them elitist. But you mean that those qualities make them need excellence to be performed well. Elitism, in the way it is being used here and for this matter, concerns shutting some people out simply because they do not enjoy the church music of the western classical tradition. But no-one is arguing that people should be forced to listen to or perform this music. If the congregation includes people who enjoy listening to or performing music from a different tradition then of course it would be good to give them those opportunities, too. But why band something that belongs to us all just because the modern church wants to forget about its age old role in fostering it?


Nobody is talking about shutting people out; the label of 'elitism' for church music is designed to shame people into thinking they're doing just that. But singing or performing any art of a learned kind is, by definition, an elite pursuit - as opposed to rap singing and the music of the streets. You can call that statement 'elitist' if it makes you feel better.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> That is just not true. Just because they require rigour, scholarship and practice you label them elitist. But you mean that those qualities make them need excellence to be performed well. Elitism, in the way it is being used here and for this matter, concerns shutting some people out simply because they do not enjoy the church music of the western classical tradition. But no-one is arguing that people should be forced to listen to or perform this music. If the congregation includes people who enjoy listening to or performing music from a different tradition then of course it would be good to give them those opportunities, too. But why band something that belongs to us all just because the modern church wants to forget about its age old role in fostering it?


I cannot agree here. The problem is that if it is to be regarded as 'worship' then the congregation should participate. Obviously if the choir are singing stuff that only the learned few can sing then it is elitist. This is why parts of the Reformation chucked out music altogether - they did throw out the baby with the bathwater imo - but we do not come to church to listen but to participate in worship. Now obviously we need skilled musicians to lead that worship but the type of music they sing should be easily accessible. This has always been a bone of contention. When Isaac Watts wrote his hymns he was accused of 'bringing the music hall into the church!' The church is not here to foster an age old tradition - it is here to preach and communicate the gospel. Now as I have said I am for a wide variety of churches to appeal to all tastes. But you will find that most growing churches - even in the Anglican communion - are those which appeal to contemporary tastes.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I make the assumption as you have given a zero answer to the question.


For the profoundly good reason that *it's irrelevant*



DavidA said:


> Yes but are you qualified to comment on the practice of worship as opposed to listening to classical music? They are very different.


That isn't what the original story was about. It's not what the thread title is about. It's only about 'the practice of worship' in your head.



DavidA said:


> You seem to make it your business to (falsely) accuse me of knowing nothing about the Anglican communion.


Look, you have said you worship in a converted cinema. That's fine, I draw no derogatory inferences from that. But it means you don't worship regularly in a cathedral, nor in a large parish church with a professional director of music, and perhaps half-a-dozen choral scholars.

You then claim "Ah, but I know Anglican clergy", which is also fine, and I draw no derogatory inferences from that either. But the clergy you spoke of think it difficult to find £50,000 for a new organ and if they got a new organ, they would struggle to find an organist to play it. So once again, you are *not* mixing with the sort of Anglican clergy that know about a semi-professional music tradition of which you have zero or limited personal knowledge.

I knew an Anglican vicar once who hadn't the faintest idea about liturgical practice. He was asked to hold a high mass for some occasion or other, which involbes a thurifer censing the altar staff, then the choir, then the congregation. Except he didn't know about any of that, so once the thurifer had censed the altar staff, he leapt up and started delivering his sermon. So Anglican Vicars don't get it right, and you knowing even half a dozen of them doesn't qualify you to comment on a many-hundred's-year-old choral tradition.



DavidA said:


> Excellent choral music is great but the question is whether it is relevant in the worship of a contemporary church.


Nope. That's the question in your head (except it's not even a question in your head, because you've already determined the answer). The question is about whether the Anglican cathedral choral tradition is elitist and exclusionary. It's about *only* that. Everything else is a veneer you want to apply to that question, which I'm not interested in.



DavidA said:


> The idea of worship is so the whole congregation can join in - that is worship. I would think that the teachings of the founder of Christianity who is the centre of the worship of the church has every relevance. If you can't see that then I'm afraid I can't help you either!


I simply am not going to go down the path of trying to explain to you the nature of intercessory worship. So no, you can't help me at all, because a closed mind can help no-one.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I would take issue with the fact that Renaissance music is relevant to people today as it's always been when it comes to worship. We do not speak in Elizabeeth in English or Latin today. Jesus spoke of the language of the people and so did the apostles. The objective of the church is to communicate. Now as I said I am certainly not against there being churches which carry on a more traditional approach. The only thing is they cater for a decreasing number of people.


I don't speak German or Italian either and my Arabic is not good enough to follow middle eastern music without translation. So what? Does that mean all music in German, Italian or Arabic is no longer of any relevance to us. And, while we are at it, let's get rid of Shakespeare - his day is surely done. After all, Jesus didn't need him. I'm sorry but what I know to be relevant to me (and, judging by my Eng Lit class at my state school, to most people) is not limited to stuff I can understand like a simple conversation.

Of course, I would support you going back to practicing religion the way Jesus is said to have done. Let's get rid of all the churches and the elaborate structure of the religions. I would certainly have a lot of respect for people who lived in the way we are told the apostles lived.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> For the profoundly good reason that *it's irrelevant*
> 
> That isn't what the original story was about. It's not what the thread title is about. It's only about 'the practice of worship' in your head.
> 
> ...


So it's obviously irrelevant whether or not I attend an Anglican church by your reasoning!

My dear friend I don't only know Anglican clergy but I have worked with them first hand and know a good deal more about them than you appear to do. The ones I worked with have a very good idea of liturgical practice! But maintaining a choral tradition is not included in the liturgy of the Anglican church, believe it or not!

So if the Anglican cathedral choral tradition is not exclusionary, why do you not attend one? I would have thought you have answered your own question.

You obviously haven't a clue about intercessory worship my friend. Period! Sorry just stating facts!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't speak German or Italian either and my Arabic is not good enough to follow middle eastern music without translation. So what? Does that mean all music in German, Italian or Arabic is no longer of any relevance to us. And, while we are at it, let's get rid of Shakespeare - his day is surely done. After all, Jesus didn't need him. I'm sorry but what I know to be relevant to me (and, judging by my Eng Lit class at my state school, to most people) is not limited to stuff I can understand like a simple conversation.
> 
> Of course, *I would support you going back to practicing religion the way Jesus is said to have done. Let's get rid of all the churches and the elaborate structure of the religions. *I would certainly have a lot of respect for people who lived in the way we are told the apostles lived.


Ocf course that is what we are trying to do. it is called radicalism!

however, I emphasise I have no problem with people who like to worship in a more 'traditional' way. However, I do have a problem with people who never darken the door of a church and then criticise the church for changing its mode of worship.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I am actually now confused by this thread. DavidA has asked us each again and again if we are practicing Christians and seemed to feel that if we are not then we have no right to opine on this issue (which concerns our cultural heritage and the church's role in fostering it). But, it turns out that he actually belongs to a very different religious tradition himself and has no religious interest in cathedrals and all the things that are a subject of this thread. He adheres to a different and competing tradition and his posts are actually church political and concerned with a particular clique (sect? cult?) within the broadly Christian community. Can we now get back to *music*, please. Is DavidA right that music belongs in the concert hall and not our cathedrals and churches?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> I am actually now confused by this thread. DavidA has asked us each again and again if we are practicing Christians and seemed to feel that if we are not then we have no right to opine on this issue (which concerns our cultural heritage and the church's role in fostering it). But, it turns out that he actually belongs to a very different religious tradition himself and has no religious interest in cathedrals and all the things that are a subject of this thread. He adheres to a different and competing tradition and his posts are actually church political and concerned with a particular clique (sect? cult?) within the broadly Christian community. Can we now get back to *music*, please. Is DavidA right that music belongs in the concert hall and not our cathedrals and churches?


My problem is when people say they are keen to uphold a certain tradition yet don't themselves go to one of these places to worship. I have no problem with regular worshippers at Sheffield cathedral objecting to what is going on but I find it strange that people should be so keen to uphold a tradition in which they themselves have no wish to play a part.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

As a late entry, I would like to support the British isolationist choral tradition. I think it should be on the Unesco heritage list (if not already) and deserves to be preserved and protected. Not being Anglican, nor British, I always am thrilled to join a Choral service or Evensong, whenever possible. To me, this music comes closest to the true meaning of religion :angel: (unlike this thread), provided of course it is performed in one of the great cathedrals of your country. Where the continental churches mostly have organs to close the gap between earth and whatever is up there, a serene choir comes closer to depict the ideal we all should be longing for, but never quite reach, to our hearts. Much closer than a congregation that is shouting in the direction of a melody. If the perfection of a traditionally trained Church choir is elitist and we should all strive for inclusion through out of tune a-musical congregational screaming sessions, whether or not accompanied by a Hammond B3, give me elitism any time. I always thought religion is about striving for something higher, instead of celebrating the low.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> As a late entry, I would like to support the British isolationist choral tradition. I think it should be on the Unesco heritage list (if not already) and deserves to be preserved and protected. Not being Anglican, nor British, I always am thrilled to join a Choral service or Evensong, whenever possible. To me, this music comes closest to the true meaning of religion :angel: (unlike this thread), provided of course it is performed in one of the great cathedrals of your country. Where the continental churches mostly have organs to close the gap between earth and whatever is up there, a serene choir comes closer to depict the ideal we all should be longing for, but never quite reach, to our hearts. Much closer than a congregation that is shouting in the direction of a melody. If the perfection of a traditionally trained Church choir is elitist and we should all strive for inclusion through out of tune a-musical congregational screaming sessions, whether or not accompanied by a Hammond B3, give me elitism any time. *I always thought religion is about striving for something higher, instead of celebrating the low*.


As the Son of God was born in a cowshed you might be missing something! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I cannot agree here. The problem is that if it is to be regarded as 'worship' then the congregation should participate. Obviously if the choir are singing stuff that only the learned few can sing then it is elitist. This is why parts of the Reformation chucked out music altogether - they did throw out the baby with the bathwater imo - but we do not come to church to listen but to participate in worship. Now obviously we need skilled musicians to lead that worship but the type of music they sing should be easily accessible. This has always been a bone of contention. When Isaac Watts wrote his hymns he was accused of 'bringing the music hall into the church!' The church is not here to foster an age old tradition - it is here to preach and communicate the gospel. Now as I have said I am for a wide variety of churches to appeal to all tastes. But you will find that most growing churches - even in the Anglican communion - are those which appeal to contemporary tastes.


Wrong on a couple of levels. Firstly, the experience of worship in a church is a communal endeavour where people feel connected to others (ergo, the old community church hall). Tradition is very much a part of the church and its rites; have you not noticed that the ritual is in many ways the same as it was hundreds of years ago. People appreciate that link with the past (after all, Christ lived over 2 thousand years ago and many stories are older than that). It's a sense of belonging to something bigger than yourself, and existential. I believe the rites of the church complement all those impulses and needs in the congregation.

And I most certainly went to Hochamt (Sunday High Mass) at Augustinerkirche, Vienna, every week because of the music; full orchestra, choir, conductor and organist. Then a full entourage of priests and attendants. It was in German, but I knew what they were talking about, as did my spouse. Ergo, the church is there - in part - to foster an age old tradition. To lay down certainty in our ephemeral existences - to the extent that's possible.

As for the notion that 'modern' churches are making, or should be making, more direct appeals to people with modern music and that, because of that, they're more 'successful'; would you be referring to evangelical churches and their guitar-strumming worshippers? This personally leaves me cold but if it floats other's boats then good for them.

There are many reasons why people have abandoned traditional christianity and are increasingly turning to evangelicals if they engage with faith at all. Guitar strumming is unlikely to see them return to the Anglican Church because of its perceived elitism through Renaissance music and choirs. But if it's easy music for them all to sing that you want, why can't churches incorporate that with more formal choral performances? That is, for the shrinking base of worshippers. At the Anglican Church I attend on special occasions the congregation sings hymns and the choir performs a mass or other liturgical music.

When I was teaching the subject of worship came up in the staff room. Our Head Teacher, then a 30 something woman, asked the question "why should we *worship*?" The emphasis was on that verb. Everybody was silent because it seemed like an obvious question nobody had ever asked. It remains an enigmatic one.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> So it's obviously irrelevant whether or not I attend an Anglican church by your reasoning!


It is indeed.

But if you have no understanding of the Anglican music tradition, then you are unqualified to talk about it. That doesn't mean you have to attend an Anglican church to acquire such an understanding, though attendance might be indicative.

You could be a practising Imam for all I care. If you were an Imam with a profound, personal interest in the music of Howells and Tippett, I'd listen to your thoughts on the Anglican choral tradition and whether it's exclusionary and elitist. But what you're doing is stating a lack of experience and lack of interest, and indeed a profound antipathy to the entire concept of choirs in church worship of any sort ...and yet claiming to be able to pass informed judgement on a choral tradition about which you have no personal experience.



DavidA said:


> My dear friend I don't only know Anglican clergy but I have worked with them first hand and know a good deal more about them than you appear to do. The ones I worked with have a very good idea of liturgical practice! But maintaining a choral tradition is not included in the liturgy of the Anglican church, believe it or not!


And you don't know whether I've worked with them first hand or whether my first cousin happens to be Bishop of Gloucester. Your ignorance on the role of choral music in the Anglican liturgy is more of a problem, however. At least try and inform yourself before writing, please?



DavidA said:


> So if the Anglican cathedral choral tradition is not exclusionary, why do you not attend one? I would have thought you have answered your own question.
> 
> You obviously haven't a clue about intercessory worship my friend. Period! Sorry just stating facts!


Wow. Such profound responses can only induce... well, whatever.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> I am actually now confused by this thread. DavidA has asked us each again and again if we are practicing Christians and seemed to feel that if we are not then we have no right to opine on this issue (which concerns our cultural heritage and the church's role in fostering it). But, it turns out that he actually belongs to a very different religious tradition himself and has no religious interest in cathedrals and all the things that are a subject of this thread. He adheres to a different and competing tradition and his posts are actually church political and concerned with a particular clique (sect? cult?) within the broadly Christian community. Can we now get back to *music*, please. Is DavidA right that music belongs in the concert hall and not our cathedrals and churches?


You've summed up the situation beautifully. And no, he's obviously not correct.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> You've summed up the situation beautifully. And no, he's obviously not correct.


Please tell me why!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

We have a kind of property rights dispute here. Does the Anglican Church belong to the people of England or to believers in "the New Testament Church?" 

It seems like the Renaissance composers whose work is being given up would recognize that dispute, although in their context it would've been the crown rather than the people of England. 

As to elitism - whether any of us like it or not, classical music has portrayed itself as elitist (or highbrow or whatever) for generations. I'm glad we're popularizing it now - if it has to be an antidemocratic thing, then I have to be against it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> It is indeed.
> 
> But if you have no understanding of the Anglican music tradition, then you are unqualified to talk about it. That doesn't mean you have to attend an Anglican church to acquire such an understanding, though attendance might be indicative.
> 
> ...


Your whole argument appears to be based on the fact that you, as a non-Anglican, know everything about the Anglican choral tradition, and I, as a non-anglican, do not. Can you explain the logic of this? As far as I know the music of Howells and Tippett is not for congregational worship. You are making these baseless accusations that I have an antipathy towards choirs when I have a wife who has sung in choirs all her life (often with the very music you are talking about) and I have been there to hear her concerts. You yourself are claiming to have expert knowledge on the Anglican church as a non-participant which seem odd.

So your first cousin is the Bishop of Gloucester? You of course are a regular member of the Anglican communion then? You are informed by practice at regular worship?

Your reasoning appear to come down to the fact as you have a Bishop as your cousin then your reasoning about the Anglican communion must be sound. My cousin worked in the Met office so does that necessarily make me knowledgable about weather forecasting? Profound logic my friend!


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

The general level of discussions on this forum is terribly elitist and snobby. A concert hall or opera house without cheap standing tickets is terribly elitist. An Anglican choir singing in a church with free entrance is inclusive. A church service where you have to participate at certain times according to a schedule, is more elitist already. A church service where you can shout 'Praise the lord, Hallelujah' at any given time, is also inclusive.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I have no problem with regular worshippers at Sheffield cathedral objecting to what is going on but I find it strange that people should be so keen to uphold a tradition in which they themselves have no wish to play a part.


If I had the voice (which sadly I don't) I would certainly be up for joining a cathedral choir even though I do not buy into the religion. And I have attended performances of old music performed by church choirs in cathedrals with great pleasure. The only thing I am missing is the belief and faith in what is to me (sorry) mumbo jumbo. But I think you agree I am entitled to a voice on an issue that does concern me.

I have also attended events performing music from very different religious traditions. Often it helps imbue meaning to hear the music in places that it was written or developed for, whether those places be a church or a developing country village.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> The general level of discussions on this forum is terribly elitist and snobby. A concert hall or opera house without cheap standing tickets is terribly elitist. An Anglican choir singing in a church with free entrance is inclusive. *A church service where you have to participate at certain times according to a schedule, is more elitist already.* A church service where you can shout 'Praise the lord, Hallelujah' at any given time, is also inclusive.


Ah you are saying that having a starting and ending time is elitist? How quaint! :lol:


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Your whole argument appears to be based on the fact that you, as a non-Anglican, know everything about the Anglican choral tradition,


The point is that you don't know whether I'm an Anglican or not, but I know you aren't and have little experience of so being.



DavidA said:


> As far as I know the music of Howells and Tippett is not for congregational worship.


Then you know nothing about the subject matter at hand, I'm afraid.

If the choir is singing, then obviously the congregation is not. But that does not mean the worship stops. "If you have ears to hear, then hear". When the priest says the prayer of consecration, he's not having a private chat with God. He is acting on behalf of the entire congregation. When the choir sings an anthem, they are singing on behalf of the entire congregation. That is congregational worship.



DavidA said:


> You are making these baseless accusations that I have an antipathy towards choirs when I have a wife who has sung in choirs all her life


You are all over the place on this, aren't you.

Firstly, I never said you had an antipathy towards choirs or choral singing, and I'm well aware of your wife's activities, since you keep mentioning them.

Secondly, you yourself said, "Why should a church have a choir in the first place?" (post 21). You have an _expressed_ anitpathy to _church_ choirs.



DavidA said:


> You yourself are claiming to have expert knowledge on the Anglican church as a non-participant which seem odd.


You have no knowledge of my particpation or non-participation. Stop your silly grubbing around for answers to questions that are not germane.



DavidA said:


> So your first cousin is the Bishop of Gloucester? You of course are a regular member of the Anglican communion then? You are informed by practice at regular worship?


He or she might or might not be. *It doesn't matter one way or another*. I have an opinion on whether cathedral choral music is elitist and exclusionary. So does NLAdriaan, and he's not an Anglican. Hell, he's not even English!



DavidA said:


> Your reasoning appear to come down to the fact as you have a Bishop as your cousin then your reasoning about the Anglican communion must be sound.


My reasoning is that you are ignorant on a subject that you profess to have an opinion about, and that you couldn't spot wit if it was painted bright purple and dancing up and down on a piano whilst humming "witty days are here again".



DavidA said:


> My cousin worked in the Met office so does that necessarily make me knowledgable about weather forecasting? Profound logic my friend!


Yeah, you kind of missed the point. I said you *didn't know* whether my first cousin was Bishop of Gloucester.. and that you had no *need* to know in order to assess the question at hand. Which isn't about 'What Would Jesus Sing' or 'How Would Jesus Sing It', but 'do you agree with the Dean of Sheffield cathedral that the Anglican cathedral choral tradition is elitist and exclusionary'. That's the only matter under discussion, and there are Dutch people here who have articulated a more reasoned response to it than you have managed to do. (No slight against Dutch people intended, and I hope you have all had your bicycles returned by now!!)


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

science said:


> We have a kind of property rights dispute here. Does the Anglican Church belong to the people of England or to believers in "the New Testament Church?"
> 
> It seems like the Renaissance composers whose work is being given up would recognize that dispute, although in their context it would've been the crown rather than the people of England.
> 
> As to elitism - whether any of us like it or not, classical music has portrayed itself as elitist (or highbrow or whatever) for generations. I'm glad we're popularizing it now - if it has to be an antidemocratic thing, then I have to be against it.


Can we just be clear?

It's not 'renaissance composers'. It's Byrd and Tallis, yes. But it's also Walton, Britten and Howells. It's also Mozart and Haydn. It's also Janáçek and Vivaldi. It's an entire tradition of singing anthems and the ordinary of the mass by renowned composers of every nationality and time period.

And can we also all try to draw the correct distinction between 'elite' and 'elitism'. They're not the same thing at all.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> The point is that you don't know whether I'm an Anglican or not, but I know you aren't and have little experience of so being.
> 
> Then you know nothing about the subject matter at hand, I'm afraid.
> 
> ...


frankly it doesn't sound as though you have much experience of being a practicing Anglican either yet you want to get your four pennyworth in!

So you regularly attend to hear these prayers of consecration and anthems you are advocating? I am puzzled if you think this way that you think it irrelevant whether one attends.

You are the one all over the place my friend. I never said I have an antipathy towards choirs but I did say it is not in the church's remit by the Great Commission to provide choirs. You are rather good at polarising statements.

I have no knowledge but if you are a participant why not say? Why is simply asking a civil question 'grubbing around'?

of course it matters whether you are informed by regular worship. You would no doubt think it odd if someone is contributing to TC who never listened to classical music?

You are actually far more ignorant on this subject that I am my friend. Your abuse speaks for itself.

Ah now you are saying that you have made deliberately misleading statements? How can one possibly have a reasoned discussion when you grub around like that?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Please tell me why!


I've already quoted you extracts from the letters of St. Paul exhorting congregations to sing hymns and psalms and to teach by singing with grace. I've also quoted you an extract from The Gospel of St. Matthew that makes it clear the disciples burst into worshipful song on the Mount of Olives.

I could also have quoted you Pliny, writing around 90AD, complaining to the Emperor Trajan that those damned Christians in Bythnia keep meeting at sunrise and singing antiphonally to each other.

Or Ignatius of Antioch (died around 104AD), whose vision of angelic choirs singing led him to introduce similar singing in his own congregations.

So, to the question "Is DavidA right that music belongs in the concert hall and not our cathedrals and churches?", you are obviously wrong because the Bible and history says so.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I believe you yourself started this thread. As you yourself do not appear to attend an Anglican Church regularlY (forgive me if I'm wrong but you have avoided answering the question), how are you qualified to comment on the matter? What trouble have you taken to learn about the Anglican communion? It is interesting that you felt quite at liberty to share your own personal convictions but then say somebody else shouldn't. A matter of double standards but don't let it worry you. If we are going to talk about the church and worship it is surely a matter of sharing how we see religious beliefs, something you have done!
> If you are going to call me out like Paul called Peter out then please do so but I would advise you like Paul to be informed.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Can we just be clear?
> 
> It's not 'renaissance composers'. It's Byrd and Tallis, yes. But it's also Walton, Britten and Howells. It's also Mozart and Haydn. It's also Janáçek and Vivaldi. It's an entire tradition of singing anthems and the ordinary of the mass by renowned composers of every nationality and time period.
> 
> And can we also all try to draw the correct distinction between 'elite' and 'elitism'. They're not the same thing at all.


I believe also contemporary British composers like Jon Taverner, composed for church choir? Discussing like cancelling this tradition is like removing church organs from a church.

Of course, churches are becoming terribly expensive to maintain and preserve, if congregations slowly die. How are the Anglican Cathedrals and choir schools even financed? Is there a (partly) government subsidy or is it entirely paid for by the congregations themselves?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I've already quoted you extracts from the letters of St. Paul exhorting congregations to sing hymns and psalms and to teach by singing with grace. I've also quoted you an extract from The Gospel of St. Matthew that makes it clear the disciples burst into worshipful song on the Mount of Olives.
> 
> I could also have quoted you Pliny, writing around 90AD, complaining to the Emperor Trajan that those damned Christians in Bythnia keep meeting at sunrise and singing antiphonally to each other.
> 
> ...


Absolutely, but the worshipful song the disciples sang was one they all joined in and could understand! I have every sympathy with Pliny as on my visits to Africa I have been awakened at 4am by people singing the praises of God on Sunday morning! Wonderful! 
As I bel,ong to a church which majors on congregational singing in worship, your criticism looks rather pointless! You have a neat habit of totally misunderstanding people. :lol:


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> ... there are Dutch people here who have articulated a more reasoned response to it than you have managed to do. (No slight against Dutch people intended, *and I hope you have all had your bicycles returned by now!!*)


Our bicycles were stolen by the Germans (and now by junkies), but I don't blame Bach or Beethoven for it, maybe Wagner a little.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> I believe also contemporary British composers like Jon Taverner, composed for church choir? Discussing like cancelling this tradition is like removing church organs from a church.
> 
> Of course, churches are becoming terribly expensive to maintain and preserve, if congregations slowly die. How are the Anglican Cathedrals and choir schools even financed? Is there a (partly) government subsidy or is it entirely paid for by the congregations themselves?


Taverner was Orthodox btw. And where do church organs come into modern worship? :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> Our bicycles were stolen by the Germans (and now by junkies), but I don't blame Bach or Beethoven for it, maybe Wagner a little.


My Dutch relatives had to hide theirs during the war!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> frankly it doesn't sound as though you have much experience of being a practicing Anglican either yet you want to get your four pennyworth in!
> 
> So you regularly attend to hear these prayers of consecration and anthems you are advocating? I am puzzled if you think this way that you think it irrelevant whether one attends.


OK, are you just being deliberately dishonest in your argumentation?

Because I never said it was irrelevant whether one attends. I said if you could acquire a knowledge of the subject by other means, that would do nicely, and that attendance might be indicative of having that level of knowledge, but isn't a requirement.



DavidA said:


> You are the one all over the place my friend. I never said I have an antipathy towards choirs but I did say it is not in the church's remit by the Great Commission to provide choirs. You are rather good at polarising statements.


Er, my exact point was that I had NOT said that you had antipathy to "choirs", but that you had expressed antipathy to CHURCH choirs. Which you did, and which you've just repeated!



DavidA said:


> I have no knowledge but if you are a participant why not say? Why is simply asking a civil question 'grubbing around'?


Because you're being intellectually lazy. You think that if I say I go to church, that 'improves' my argument; or that if I say I don't go to church, it is to the detriment of my argument.

It's the same reason doctors don't tell patients in double-blind trials whether they're on the drug or the placebo: knowing alters the outcome.

Try not being intellectually lazy and address the arguments without preconception sometime. It's definitely harder, but it's ultimately a better judge of the merits of the argument.



DavidA said:


> Of course it matters whether you are informed by regular worship.


You keep saying "of course", baselessly.



DavidA said:


> You would no doubt think it odd if someone is contributing to TC who never listened to classical music?


Not at all. If someone who has never listened to classical music wrote to TC and said "how do I start listening to classical music", that would be a fine contribution and most welcome. But if they wrote up to say, "I've never listened to classical music because I think it's rubbish".... well, then I would dismiss their "opinion" as ill-informed, baseless and not worth worrying about.

Much as I regard your contributions to this thread, really.



DavidA said:


> You are actually far more ignorant on this subject that I am my friend. Your abuse speaks for itself.


I've called you ignorant on the Anglican choral tradition. That's fact, not abuse.
I've called you closed-minded on the subject of the question of whether Churches should have choirs. Again, fact, not abuse.
I've called you absurdly reductionist in your view of the Great Commission. Again, fact not abuse, because you yourself are part of a congregation that have done things (like buying buildings) that are not explicitly authorised by the Great Commission.
I've called you intellectually lazy for needing to know if I'm a church-goer before assessing my views. Fact, not abuse.

If you think any of that is abuse, be my guest and either refute it or ignore it and stop "contributing" to a thread on a subject that is of no interest to you.



DavidA said:


> Ah now you are saying that you have made deliberately misleading statements? How can one possibly have a reasoned discussion when you grub around like that?


Are you referring to the reference to the Bishop of Gloucester? Let's just check what I actually said, shall we.... Ah yes, here we are:



> And you don't know whether I've worked with them first hand or whether my first cousin happens to be Bishop of Gloucester.


Let me parse that for you: "You don't know if my first cousin is the Bishop of Gloucester."

Quite what is misleading about that? It's a 100% verifiable statement of the absolute truth: you do not know.

You can stop now David. You're not impressing anyone with your gnat-straining demonstration.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> I believe also contemporary British composers like Jon Taverner, composed for church choir? Discussing like cancelling this tradition is like removing church organs from a church.
> 
> Of course, churches are becoming terribly expensive to maintain and preserve, if congregations slowly die. How are the Anglican Cathedrals and choir schools even financed? Is there a (partly) government subsidy or is it entirely paid for by the congregations themselves?


Definitely, though if it's [almost] contempory, I think you meant Tavener, not Taverner. I always confuse the two, too!


Tavener is hard, though.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Absolutely, but the worshipful song the disciples sang was one they all joined in and could understand!


Citation required.

Like much else in this thread, you have no knowledge of that which you post. Matthew is silent on the subject of whether they all joined in, or whether Peter was the cantor, and the others chimed in at appropriate times, or whether Philip or Andrew were tone deaf and just moved their lips to look like they were joining in.

You. Don't. Know.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> OK, are you just being deliberately dishonest in your argumentation?
> 
> Because I never said it was irrelevant whether one attends. I said if you could acquire a knowledge of the subject by other means, that would do nicely, and that attendance might be indicative of having that level of knowledge, but isn't a requirement.
> 
> ...


I am not being dishonest but I fear you are as you don';t know what you're talking about.

I have no antipathy to church choirs - I just said they were not part of the Great Commission. ie the church has no obligation to provide them.

Your opinions on this subject seem to me monumentally ill informed if I might say.

I am actually no more ignorant on practicing Anglican choral tradition than you are as a matter of fact. Phrases like 'intellectually lazy' are typical of someone who has nothing to say and is resorting to abuse.

You appear to think that misleading statements about the Bishop of Gloucester are all part off the argument. And that is intellectual rigour according to you? Pull the other one! And you accuse someone else of doing exactly what you practice yourself. Come off it! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Citation required.
> 
> Like much else in this thread, you have no knowledge of that which you post. Matthew is silent on the subject of whether they all joined in, or whether Peter was the cantor, and the others chimed in at appropriate times, or whether Philip or Andrew were tone deaf and just moved their lips to look like they were joining in.
> 
> You. Don't. Know.


You do not know what you are talking about. The Greek says: "After singing a hymn" (ie they all joined in the Hallel)


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> You do not know what you are talking about. The Greek says: "After singing a hymn" (ie they all joined in the Hallel)


Does the Greek say "Hallel" or not?

No, I didn't think so.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> And where do church organs come into modern worship? :lol:


In the name of Jesus, you want to destroy the great historic organs of Europe as well!?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Although seeming a little raged at the edges at times and despite pushing an essentially political agenda, I think we should congratulate DavidA for a fairly good demonstration of turning the other cheek as we jump on his rather weak arguments.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I am not being dishonest but I fear you are as you don';t know what you're talking about.
> 
> I have no antipathy to church choirs - I just said they were not part of the Great Commission. ie the church has no obligation to provide them.
> 
> ...


Yeah, whatever.

I think we both know the judgement of the crowd on this one, and I'll happily take their verdict on the matter any day.

When I consider your contributions to this thread, I am reminded of Cromwell's plea to the Rump Parliament: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

But I know you won't, so... <click>. That's the sound of me adding you to my ignore list. You'll come off it when I see you quoted by others making substantive points of intellectual rigour, instead of using your Evangelical beliefs to shoehorn complete non sequiturs into a conversation.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Does the Greek say "Hallel" or not?
> 
> No, I didn't think so.


The Hallel consists of Psalms 113-118, and had come, from a very early time in the observance of Passover, to be a significant part of the ritual. The 'hymn' is generally agreed to be the Hallel


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> Although seeming a little raged at the edges at times and despite pushing an essentially political agenda, I think we should congratulate DavidA for a fairly good demonstration of turning the other cheek as we jump on his rather weak arguments.


How are they weak? St Paul said when I am weak I am strong! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Yeah, whatever.
> 
> I think we both know the judgement of the crowd on this one, and I'll happily take their verdict on the matter any day.
> 
> ...


Since when has the judgement of the crowd been any good? Please read the new Testament especially the end of the gospels. You would do well to take your own advice about intellectual rigour as I have noticed none in any of your arguments my good friend. As to 'Evangelical beliefs' no - they are just the beliefs of the founders of Christianity.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> In the name of Jesus, you want to destroy the great historic organs of Europe as well!?


I don't want to destroy anything but they do not actually have too much of a place in 21st century worship in most churches today. You would know that if you went


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Mega-Churches with rock music seem to be the mode these days, neither of which appeals to me. (My church has never had an organ, but inherited a concert quality piano many years ago, which serves quite well.)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JAS said:


> Mega-Churches with rock music seem to be the mode these days, neither of which appeals to me. (My church has never had an organ, but inherited a concert quality piano many years ago, which serves quite well.)


Whatever suits is fine. There is no right way of doing it as long as worship is 'in spirit and in truth'. We used to have a piano but Find a keyboard is more flexible.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> How are they weak? St Paul said when I am weak I am strong! :lol:


The weakness of your arguments has been demonstrated to you again and again in this thread. Now we know it was an intentional following of St Paul.

Meanwhile, seriously, can we not get onto the subject of music and what music lovers will lose when the zealots have finished wrecking the long-standing arrangement concerning the church's role in the performance of a large part of it. No-one is saying it is the church's only role or even its main one - but it is a responsibility and to shirk it seems mean spirited.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> The weakness of your arguments has been demonstrated to you again and again in this thread. Now we know it was an intentional following of St Paul.
> 
> Meanwhile, seriously, can we not get onto the subject of music and what music lovers will lose when the zealots have finished wrecking the long-standing arrangement concerning the church's role in the performance of a large part of it. No-one is saying it is the church's only role or even its main one - but it is a responsibility and to shirk it seems mean spirited.


Weakness of my arguments? Where I might ask? All that is happened is someone saying 'you are wrong'! :lol:

An intentional following of St Paul? Well he was one of the founders of Christianity who wrote a good part of the New testament so I guess it might have been a good model.

Zealots? You are saying you never attend church yet you are calling other people 'zealots'? People are being 'zealots' who want to communicate with contemporary society which is what Jesus meant the gospel to do? How is that mean spirited? Or are you saying that the church is there to serve the interest of entertaining people who never attend?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> The weakness of your arguments has been demonstrated to you again and again in this thread. Now we know it was an intentional following of St Paul.
> 
> Meanwhile, seriously, can we not get onto the subject of music and what music lovers will lose when the zealots have finished wrecking the long-standing arrangement concerning the church's role in the performance of a large part of it. No-one is saying it is the church's only role or even its main one - but it is a responsibility and to shirk it seems mean spirited.


I fear we may be into this territory:


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

And I see it's made the Spectator, with some very decent arguments being made and an absolute wishy-washy performance from the Dean.

When asked, "Was it true that relations between the cathedral and choir had broken down?", the Dean replied, "That is not my perception of how things were. It is other people's perception."

I mean, he might just as well have said "yes, but it was their fault"!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

And here is a 2016 piece from the Spectator that can now be seen as something of a foretelling...

Personally, I think as an established church, public funds should be made available. But I can see that causing grief and offense to all the non-Christian, non-Anglican worshippers. And I'm not sure it would protect us from the likes of the feeble Dean of Sheffield in any case.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I fear we may be into this territory:
> 
> View attachment 140200


Well you have been from the beginning! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> And I see it's made the Spectator, with some very decent arguments being made and an absolute wishy-washy performance from the Dean.
> 
> When asked, "Was it true that relations between the cathedral and choir had broken down?", the Dean replied, "That is not my perception of how things were. It is other people's perception."
> 
> I mean, he might just as well have said "yes, but it was their fault"!


So those who are not involved in the church should decide what the church should be doing? Another of your compelling arguments? I read The Spectator but I hardly think a secular magazine is the best judge.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> And here is a 2016 piece from the Spectator that can now be seen as something of a foretelling...
> 
> Personally, I think as an established church, public funds should be made available. But I can see that causing grief and offense to all the non-Christian, non-Anglican worshippers. And I'm not sure it would protect us from the likes of the feeble Dean of Sheffield in any case.


Well start your own choir mate! Why not as you have such a thing about it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

If the church is going to abandon its longstanding responsibilities for some aspects of our cultural life and heritage then presumably we can look forward to them paying taxes on their properties? They might also give up on their habit of sharing their opinions of non-religious matters and be subject to far more rigorous police investigation of criminal acts (mostly predatory sexual behaviour) by their officers. If they are going to shrink back to only being concerned with worship and nothing but worship then they should be treated as mere cults.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> If the church is going to abandon its longstanding responsibilities for some aspects of our cultural life and heritage then presumably we can look forward to them paying taxes on their properties? They might also give up on their habit of sharing their opinions of non-religious matters and be subject to far more rigorous police investigation of criminal acts (mostly predatory sexual behaviour) by their officers. If they are going to shrink back to only being concerned with worship and nothing but worship then they should be treated as mere cults.


Since when was the church responsible for cultural life, any more than any other charity is? Your problem is you do not appear to see all the church actually does. Cultural life is not part of the church's remit with the Charity Commission. It is incidental to its mission. Things like feeding the poor are what is more fundamental. Like running food banks at the moment. It is funny that you are very keen to share your opinion on religious matters yet say the church should not share its opinion on non-religious matters. Don't you think that might be a bit inconsistent?

Anyway, interesting to hear what you guys think.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I fear we may be into this territory:
> 
> View attachment 140200


We were already in that territory back on page 1 of this thread when the poster I call "Major Misunderstanding" started his risible contributions.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

TalkingHead said:


> We were already in that territory back on page 1 of this thread when the poster I call "Major Misunderstanding" started his risible contributions.


I should have taken your hint. My apologies


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

The opening question was concerned with weather or not Anglican Church music is "elitist".

If we're talking about the music of Byrd, Gibbons, Tallis, Purcell, Handel, etc. then the answer is "no", though the culture surrounding it very well could have been one that held that some people are better than others based upon race, ethnicity, class, and so forth. What I think does smack of "elitism" is the idea that non-Whites or people of lower social/economic classes are challenged when it comes to being able to understand and enjoy classical music just because it's firmly rooted in a Christian, European culture that began in the church, was supported by nobility, and later academia. No historical figure has come to symbolize and personify African pride and the African independence movement than Nelsen Mandela, and _his_ favorite music was classical, specifically Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and Handel (Handel, one of those composers of Old English Church Music).


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Coach G said:


> The opening question was concerned with weather or not Anglican Church music is "elitist".
> 
> If we're talking about the music of Byrd, Gibbons, Tallis, Purcell, Handel, etc. then the answer is "no", though the culture surrounding it very well could have been one that held that some people are better than others based upon race, ethnicity, class, and so forth. What I think does smack of "elitism" is the idea that non-Whites or people of lower social/economic classes are challenged when it comes to being able to understand and enjoy classical music just because it's firmly rooted in a Christian, European culture that began in the church, was supported by nobility, and later academia. No historical figure has come to symbolize and personify African pride and the African independence movement than Nelsen Mandela, and _his_ favorite music was classical, specifically Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and Handel (Handel, one of those composers of Old English Church Music).


Without getting too political, but if there's a modern day saint, Nelson would have probably been my candidate. And I had _no idea_ that his musical tastes were like that. I'm rather pleased to hear of it, because it confirms to me that there's nothing elit_ist_ about that sort of music.

Thanks for the input.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

This is a deep and controversial topic.

I do believe that Classical music is universal, there is no doubt about that, but the de-facto institution and culture identities formed around Classical music is, by and large, elitist. 

The general public, disadvantaged social and minority classes do not enjoy classical music and opera, as much as they "should" across the Globe. If Classical music is universal, then they should. Yet institutions that produces classical music is heavily subsidized by taxpayers (and corporations) in the West.

However, with limited knowledge about this Sheffield incident, I think disbanding the choir is the wrong way to approach diversity. It is wrong because it reinforces the view that Anglican Choral music is part of the "Elite"/"Establishment"/"Status quo", instead of something more universal. The right way is to incorporate the choir into the community and to innovate it's tradition. (It can't be worse than disbanding it.)

Both conservatives and liberals in the west have this tendency to reinforce culture identities instead of promoting universality, which is a worrying sign IMO. As an old fashioned universalist, I am sympathetic to the criticisms of elitism, but this problem is deep-rooted and there is no way out in sight.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

elgars ghost said:


> The Church of England is largely run by hippies anyway so nothing would surprise me. Inclusivity shouldn't mean that the music or its presentation has to change - it's another tiresome case of the tail wagging the dog.


Not like the universities, aye!!


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> This is a deep and controversial topic.
> 
> I do believe that Classical music is universal, there is no doubt about that, but the de-facto institution and culture identities formed around Classical music is, by and large, elitist.
> 
> ...


This topic is interesting but definitely not controversial. Or, it would be far less controversial than most things some people take for granted but which are genuinely controversial.

And I'm assuming you'd want to rid the art galleries and concert halls of INACCESSIBLE abstract or modern art and music for precisely the same reasons you offer regarding the church.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2020)

starthrower said:


> No, the term elitist is being injected by commenters here. You don't understand the concept of offering opportunities to less affluent kids? That is one of the main points of the article.


In my experience as a high school teacher you provide opportunities for less affluent kids not by modifying the practices and protocols of an institution and creating 'affirmative action' (they might feel short-changed by this) but *by raising the bar of performance for students and inculcating in them a sense of action and consequences, rights and responsibilities, effort and reward. *

Such old-fashioned ideas, I know. But they once worked a treat.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Christabel said:


> This topic is interesting but definitely not controversial. Or, it would be far less controversial than most things some people take for granted but which are genuinely controversial.
> 
> And I'm assuming you'd want to rid the art galleries and concert halls of INACCESSIBLE abstract or modern art and music for precisely the same reasons you offer regarding the church.


Your assumption is wrong. I have no idea how you deduce a statement like that from my statement. In my view, there is no INACCESSIBLE abstract or modern art. I have been to many national/private modern art galleries around the world, and they are filled with diverse, ordinary citizens that are able to enjoy and to be amused about them. Many modern arts and installations are easier for kids to understand than Classic masterpieces.

If you have actually read my comment, you know that I oppose the idea of "rid" things for the purpose of inclusion/diversity. You have misrepresented my view in the opposite way.

Inclusion is fundamental in a functional liberal democracy that espouses universal values passed down from the Enlightenment. If Opera and High arts are just the recreations of the Elites, then there is indeed a problem, because they should enjoyed by all. Otherwise, they shouldn't belong to the public realm and benefit from public funding.

The solution was never to stop them or defund them. That's not a solution. But to revitalize the interest of the public and to convince the community that they are still relevant. The elite has a role to play which is precisely that.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Christabel said:


> In my experience as a high school teacher you provide opportunities for less affluent kids not by modifying the practices and protocols of an institution and creating 'affirmative action' (they might feel short-changed by this) but *by raising the bar of performance for students and inculcating in them a sense of action and consequences, rights and responsibilities, effort and reward. *
> 
> Such old-fashioned ideas, I know. But they once worked a treat.


There is truth in what you are saying, but that's not the problem.

Education in school is only a part of the human capital (coined by Chicago school of Economists) investment taking place during a development of a child. Many state-of-the-art researches show that family background, racial background, and neighborhood all have a lasting impact on human capital investment right from a very early age, controlling for public education (see, for example, Nobel Laureate James Heckman's research).

The Harvard model of 'affirmative action' was widely misunderstood as "racial quota", which is simply false. A kid who grows up in the Slum and score above 95% could indeed be more hardworking and talented than an affluent kid with the help of multiple private tutors who score above 96%. The social benefit of admitting the former could also be greater than the latter. Therefore, standardized tests are insufficient and background information should be considered in order to provide the correct incentive for human capital investment.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Can we just be clear?
> 
> It's not 'renaissance composers'. It's Byrd and Tallis, yes. But it's also Walton, Britten and Howells. It's also Mozart and Haydn. It's also Janáçek and Vivaldi. It's an entire tradition of singing anthems and the ordinary of the mass by renowned composers of every nationality and time period.


This is a good point. It's an adjustment to the point I made.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> And can we also all try to draw the correct distinction between 'elite' and 'elitism'. They're not the same thing at all.


I'm not sure this distinction makes a difference.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Without getting too political, but if there's a modern day saint, Nelson would have probably been my candidate. And I had _no idea_ that his musical tastes were like that. I'm rather pleased to hear of it, because it confirms to me that there's nothing elit_ist_ about that sort of music.
> 
> Thanks for the input.


I don't know how music itself could ever be elitist. Sounds are just sounds.

It is the culture around it that could be elitist or not. And as far as I can tell, basically every musical tradition creates a sense of insiders and outsiders. "If you like our music, you're one of us. If you don't, you're not."

Classical music was no exception. It was the music of kings, emperors, bishops, and popes, and from the eighteenth century it helped to legitimize their privilege and power. Members of the lower classes participated in it as a way of "bettering" themselves. So up until 1945 or so, classical music had an explicitly classist and even colonial function. Since then, it has lost so much ground to "popular" music - the name says it all - that the institutions of classical music have been converting to a more evangelical attitude. This is a very good thing. But the leopard can't change its spots so easily.


----------



## caracalla (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> So those who are not involved in the church should decide what the church should be doing?


In the case of most churches, which are free associations, the answer is obviously no. Subject to the law of the land.

But here we're talking about the Anglican church - or, more precisely, the established Church of England - and the answer is yes. That was the basis on which it was set up, and the reason why the Queen is its Supreme Governor and the Church Commissioners are answerable to Parliament. Ultimately, the state is the boss, and the independence of CoE officials to do whatever takes their fancy is on sufferance.

It is the national church and it has national responsibilities. What it does or doesn't do is everyone's business.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> There is truth in what you are saying, but that's not the problem.
> 
> Education in school is only a part of the human capital (coined by Chicago school of Economists) investment taking place during a development of a child. Many state-of-the-art researches show that family background, racial background, and neighborhood all have a lasting impact on human capital investment right from a very early age, controlling for public education (see, for example, Nobel Laureate James Heckman's research).
> 
> The Harvard model of 'affirmative action' was widely misunderstood as "racial quota", which is simply false. A kid who grows up in the Slum and score above 95% could indeed be more hardworking and talented than an affluent kid with the help of multiple private tutors who score above 96%. The social benefit of admitting the former could also be greater than the latter. Therefore, standardized tests are insufficient and *background information* should be considered in order to provide the correct incentive for human capital investment.


This seems to me a naive consideration. It is quite off topic to start with, but in a time where capitalism and nationalism/racism in its purest sense are the new normal, where socialism in a modest western format (please, leave Mccarthyist fallacies out of this thread) fell flat on its feet and where western religion has been marginalized, you shouldn't expect that educational institutions will seriously select on talent and not on fortunate backgrounds. Sure, a few rich people might subsidize a poor kids education to make them feel good. But they will first make sure their own family is in there first.

Sorry if this reads like a cynical observation, but I do think there is quite some realism in it.

How to solve this?

Well, it is not easy. As power automatically leads to corruption. But it would require quite some Nelsons to make our societies a bit more honest and a friendlier place to live in.

And, to get back to business, a lot of Anglican choirs in a lot of cathedrals would absolutely help to make our society a better and more altruist place, as long as there is no abuse behind the Cathedral walls:devil:.

Let's be honest, a small group of old aged thin voices, accompanied by a 'made in China' keyboard in a country-shed, is not a very tempting picture of the kingdom of heaven that we all would go for.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

science said:


> I don't know how music itself could ever be elitist. Sounds are just sounds.
> 
> It is the culture around it that could be elitist or not. And as far as I can tell, basically every musical tradition creates a sense of insiders and outsiders. "If you like our music, you're one of us. If you don't, you're not."
> 
> Classical music was no exception. It was the music of kings, emperors, bishops, and popes, and from the eighteenth century it helped to legitimize their privilege and power. Members of the lower classes participated in it as a way of "bettering" themselves. So up until 1945 or so, classical music had an explicitly classist and even colonial function. Since then, it has lost so much ground to "popular" music - the name says it all - that the institutions of classical music have been converting to a more evangelical attitude. This is a very good thing. But the leopard can't change its spots so easily.


Interesting observations!

I would like to add some of my own:

I was in Vienna last year and went to the Staatsoper on saturday night and to the Wiener Philharmoniker on sunday morning. Both venues sold standing tickets. Any Staatsoper performance can be watched on your feet for €10 and any VPO concert for €5. In Corona times, this system will not hold, but I found this to be a very friendly non-elitist approach, especially in the old fashioned city of Vienna.

Furthermore, I believe that internet is the big equalizer of the classical music market,. It forces recording companies to sell their products at affordable prices and you can find anything you like anywhere for free or through Spotify for a very friendly price. And on this grumpy forum  and elsewhere you can find all the background information you need.

Finally, as of the second Viennese school, I guess that CM started to 'out-elitist' itself (or quite the opposite, depending on how you look at it), as obviously it was never meant to please the big audiences. And the HIP movement of the late sixties onward, can be seen as a quite successful attempt of the young generation to shake up the CM-establishment. By now, HIP is CM establishment in itself and the surviving fore fighters are old and grey.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Your assumption is wrong. I have no idea how you deduce a statement like that from my statement. In my view, there is no INACCESSIBLE abstract or modern art. I have been to many national/private modern art galleries around the world, and they are filled with diverse, ordinary citizens that are able to enjoy and to be amused about them. Many modern arts and installations are easier for kids to understand than Classic masterpieces.
> 
> If you have actually read my comment, you know that I oppose the idea of "rid" things for the purpose of inclusion/diversity. You have misrepresented my view in the opposite way.
> 
> ...


I responded to your comments as they were revealed. Universal values passed down from the Enlightenment? You mean like freedom of speech? That has gone by the board, along with many other Enlightenment ideals. Maybe you haven't been paying attention.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> Interesting observations!
> 
> I would like to add some of my own:
> 
> ...


Your experiences of Vienna brought back many happy memories, except I paid through the nose for seats!!

My biggest quibble with making things 'non-elite' and 'more accessible' in general is that this necessarily means congregating at the bottom - not forcing people over higher hurdles to the top. Ergo, the real music lover is poorly served under that regime. Reminds me of "classic FM" radio stations which serves up "hits" to the audiences to make CM more 'relevant'. The same applies to church music, obviously. It's as though there's some special ingredient that can simplu be tweaked and everybody will suddenly 'get it'. Fiddlesticks.

I don't care how many 'studies' are quoted; I like what I like and don't feel I have to have the 'make your own' cultural equivalent of that cordial you get from the supermarket where you add 90% water. There it is and I'm not prepared to argue any further about it.

Folks need to buy those cheaper tickets you referred to in Vienna, get up to speed with CM and join the cohort. Pleasures await. But I'm not interested in 'equalizers', having no desire to live in a state similar to the USSR where everybody was equal, everybody had a job and nobody was doing anything.

I'm remembering what John Kennedy said, "we do it not because it's easy but because it's hard". How out of fashion he'd be today!!!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> This seems to me a naive consideration. It is quite off topic to start with, but in a time where capitalism and nationalism/racism in its purest sense are the new normal, where socialism in a modest western format (please, leave Mccarthyist fallacies out of this thread) fell flat on its feet and where western religion has been marginalized, you shouldn't expect that educational institutions will seriously select on talent and not on fortunate backgrounds. *Sure, a few rich people might subsidize a poor kids education to make them feel good*. But they will first make sure their own family is in there first.
> 
> Sorry if this reads like a cynical observation, but I do think there is quite some realism in it.
> 
> ...


Two points here. Instead of judging the motives of people who subsidise the education / feeding of poor kids, look at how many poor kids you yourself are educating / feeding.

Second, if you think modern church consists of 'a small group of old aged voices accompanied by a /made in china' keyboard then you need a dose of reality! :lol:


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

science said:


> > And can we also all try to draw the correct distinction between 'elite' and 'elitism'. They're not the same thing at all.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure this distinction makes a difference.


Well, they're two different words with a common root, but the difference between them is enormous.

*Elite* simply implies excellence. Per the OED, "A select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society". Everyone freely acknowledges differences in ability, so the existence of skilled elites is a commonplace. It _can_ certainly be used in a derogatory way, but usually isn't. Mo Farah is an elite athlete; Yo Yo Ma is an elite cellist... no-one is being critical when they use the word like that.

But *elitism* implies an entire world-view infused with self-satisfied superiority, arrogance and contempt for 'outsiders'. Per the OED again, "The belief that a society or system should be led by an elite; The superior attitude or behaviour associated with an elite." No-one likes snobby attitudes or snooty behaviour, or to be told what to do by snobs and the arrogant. There is no good way to use 'elitism'.

I can't think of many pairs of words that are so similar but have such dissimilar meanings, to be fair. It's quite uncommon.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, they're two different words with a common root, but the difference between them is enormous.
> 
> *Elite* simply implies excellence. Per the OED, "A select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society". Everyone freely acknowledges differences in ability, so the existence of skilled elites is a commonplace. It _can_ certainly be used in a derogatory way, but usually isn't. Mo Farah is an elite athlete; Yo Yo Ma is an elite cellist... no-one is being critical when they use the word like that.
> 
> ...


No one can recognize anyone as elite without having a bit of elitism. Celebrating Yo-Yo Ma's excellence as a cellist is a kind of elitism.

I think I understand the distinction you're making, though, and I would phrase it as a question of what kind of elitism we want to promote. Yo-Yo Ma didn't simply inherit his status as an elite cellist.

I guess what we want is an elitism based on a wide variety of excellent accomplishments in an egalitarian society rather than an elitism based narrowly on wealth or inherited privilege. This might be a semantic distinction, but I think that's still elitism.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

NLAdriaan said:


> Finally, as of the second Viennese school, I guess that CM started to 'out-elitist' itself (or quite the opposite, depending on how you look at it), as obviously it was never meant to please the big audiences.


I think this goes back to the late 19th century and it has direct analogues in other art forms. Once art became a field of competitive appreciation for the audience (as a reaction to democratization and the rise of mass media), a shrinking and collapse became almost inevitable.

Still, I don't think any of this was really unfortunate. All the ferment produced a lot of great art -- including the music of the 2nd Viennese School!


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

science said:


> No one can recognize anyone as elite without having a bit of elitism. Celebrating Yo-Yo Ma's excellence as a cellist is a kind of elitism.


No one can say these things without having a bit of anti-intellectualism.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

science said:


> No one can recognize anyone as elite without having a bit of elitism. Celebrating Yo-Yo Ma's excellence as a cellist is a kind of elitism.


I'm sorry, I disagree, and I've provided the OED definitions to explain why.

It's difficult to provide a usable equivalent to explain the distinction. But "a fascist" is a person; "fascism" is an ideology, and that's about as close as I can get. The one refers to a 'state of being', the other a 'state of mind'. States of being just, by definition, "are". States of mind are constructs that can be good or bad. (I swiftly add that this doesn't mean 'a fascist' is a good thing to be. Just that it's a human being at root. Whereas ideologies have no corporeal existence, and are just ideas: as I say, it's not a great analogy, and feel free to substitute in "communist/communism" if the politics makes it any easier to swallow!)

My point is that an elite simply exists (as the result of lots of hard work on the athletic track, or at the cello teacher's etc). But elitism is a frame of mind that arises in some as a consequence of being a member of an elite.

Hence an elite is excellent. Elitism is an attitude of mind that is reprehensible.

And thus celebrating Yo-Yo Ma's excellence is simply to enjoy listening to a member of an elite. We do not, in doing so, impart him with super-human abilities, nor do we thereby grant him privileges and rights which other humans do not have. We merely revel in his elite playing skills.



science said:


> I think I understand the distinction you're making, though, and I would phrase it as a question of what kind of elitism we want to promote. Yo-Yo Ma didn't simply inherit his status as an elite cellist.


And I think I get the distinction you're driving at. Namely that it's ok to have an elite provided it's an elite of skill, but that private school-type or inherited-wealth type elites are bad.

I get where you're going with that, I wouldn't particularly disagree with it. But the language doesn't permit of a distinction between skill-elites and socio-economic elites. There's only the one word "elite"!

But the language _does_ allow us to distinguish between elites which are good, and elitism which is bad.



science said:


> I guess what we want is an elitism based on a wide variety of excellent accomplishments in an egalitarian society rather than an elitism based narrowly on wealth or inherited privilege. This might be a semantic distinction, but I think that's still elitism.


As I say, I get why you are trying to make that distinction, but you're changing the meaning of the words to get there. Which isn't of itself a bad thing: definitions change all the time. But we already have two words that make the distinction you're aiming at. Elites are just the best at what they do (whatever that might be); elitism is the idea that being good at something gives you more rights or more privileges. So I just want elites, but no elitism. It means I want exactly what you do, but I'm not inventing new meanings for words to get there!

At the end of the day, I think it's an important distinction to make, because the story that kicked this whole thing off had the Dean of Sheffield muddling the two concepts. He said the choir could be seen to be 'elitist', when actually everyone who would have attended service there would have seen them simply as 'elite singers'. But on the basis of mixing up two words, he's just sacked 40 people and made a lot of others angry and upset.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> At the end of the day, I think it's an important distinction to make, because the story that kicked this whole thing off had the Dean of Sheffield muddling the two concepts. He said the choir could be seen to be 'elitist', when actually everyone who would have attended service there would have seen them simply as 'elite singers'. But on the basis of mixing up two words, he's just sacked 40 people and made a lot of others angry and upset.


It's interesting the way people react to change. As far as I have seen from the article no-one has said there is not going to be a choir. What has been said is:

"In future, there may be more than one choir drawn from larger numbers of children and university students."

That to me appears to be a positive.

"We need to be engaging with people who are part of this changing city. We believe strongly in equality and giving as many children as possible the opportunity to sing at the highest level."

That also seems a positive statement. What is wrong with it? Unless you do believe in an elitist choir.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> It's interesting the way people react to change. As far as I have seen from the article no-one has said there is not going to be a choir. What has been said is:
> 
> "In future, there may be more than one choir drawn from larger numbers of children and university students."
> 
> ...


It was a fair question, with a rather silly post-script, which I'll ignore. But the question is fair. So...

What's wrong with it is the idea that an excellent choir can be regarded as inimical to equality. The unstated assumption underpinning his words are that you have to get rid of excellence, in order to promote equality. It's called dumbing-down. Rather than see excellence as a blessing which can call to people to marvel at its skill and beauty, they've decided that excellence is a problem.

It's wrong, because it's patronising: you University students and other children aren't in this excellent choir, so rather than try and give you more opportunities to get into it, we'll abolish it and let you create lesser choirs. The unspoken subtext is "we know you're not good enough to get into the existing choir, but we'll lower the standards and let you get into the choir stalls that way".

And it's wrong, because it's looking at it from the perspective that the people of the changing city can't be brought to and engaged by their existing forms of worship, but that if they change it all, suddenly the pews will be full and their problems will disappear. It's short-sightedness and poor management. Rather than see a changing city as an opportunity for mission and recruitment, they've seen it as a problem that needs to be addressed by chucking out the existing bath water. And we all know what happens when you do that.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> It was a fair question, with a rather silly post-script, which I'll ignore. But the question is fair. So...
> 
> What's wrong with it is the idea that an excellent choir can be regarded as inimical to equality. The unstated assumption underpinning his words are that you have to get rid of excellence, in order to promote equality. It's called dumbing-down. Rather than see excellence as a blessing which can call to people to marvel at its skill and beauty, they've decided that excellence is a problem.
> 
> ...


So the church should not be more inclusive you would say? I don't think they're saying at all that the problems will disappear or it's shortsightedness and poor management. Actually poor management is keeping the situation going which isn't facing up to the contemporary need. They are actually seen a changing city as an opportunity for mission and recruitment. The problem is that people like you is that you just want to keep the status quo and that of course is completely against any model of the church growth throughout the ages. It is when we fail to change that we fail.
Of course my Post-script was not silly because you obviously have answered it!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> So the church should not be more inclusive you would say?


You really need to curb your habit of inventing complete _non sequiturs_ and putting them into the mouths of those you disagree with.

You are suffering from the first wrong I mentioned. You seem to think that maintaining excellence is inimical to inclusivity. It isn't. It can bring people in. If they needed to, they could add extra services with different musical approaches. There is no reason to disband a choir in order to achieve higher degrees of inclusiveness.



DavidA said:


> The problem is that people like you is that you just want to keep the status quo


Again, you seem to lack an ability to read, and a propensity to assert things on behalf of others. "seeing a changing city as an opportunity for mission and recruitment" is what I said, and that isn't the same thing as "preserve the status quo" at all.



DavidA said:


> ...and that of course is completely against any model of the church growth throughout the ages. It is when we fail to change that we fail. Of course my Post-script was not silly because you obviously have answered it!


OK, back on the ignore list you go.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> You really need to curb your habit of inventing complete _non sequiturs_ and putting them into the mouths of those you disagree with.
> 
> You are suffering from the first wrong I mentioned. You seem to think that maintaining excellence is inimical to inclusivity. It isn't. It can bring people in. If they needed to, they could add extra services with different musical approaches. There is no reason to disband a choir in order to achieve higher degrees of inclusiveness.
> 
> ...


You make laugh! As if you putting me on the ignore list was some sort of hardship for me! :lol:

We are not talking about not having excellence but rather having a different sort of excellence. I realise the subject of change is painful to people like you who are way out of touch with what is going on anyway. If the city is changing then the way the church conducts its mission will change. This would just appear to be common sense. If you actually knew what was going on in the church these days and were in touch with things then you would know this. It is amazing how people like you who are not involved think you can make judgements from afar off when you haven't a clue what is actually going on. But then being an armchair critic is very easy


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> This seems to me a naive consideration. It is quite off topic to start with, but in a time where capitalism and nationalism/racism in its purest sense are the new normal, where socialism in a modest western format (please, leave Mccarthyist fallacies out of this thread) fell flat on its feet and where western religion has been marginalized, you shouldn't expect that educational institutions will seriously select on talent and not on fortunate backgrounds. Sure, a few rich people might subsidize a poor kids education to make them feel good. But they will first make sure their own family is in there first.


It's not a naive consideration, it's a pragmatic one, it's what we've got in the US (that's under a lot of pressure). You can't expect a progressive educational policy to fix the problems of the system and neoliberal ideology (and let's not pretend that socialism in it's current form can solve this mess either).

I know what you are talking about. This problem of disbanding the choir seems more nuanced to me. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater just does not seem like a judicious solution to the problem. It shows that traditions cannot be integrated with the current society anymore. I am not sure if that's true. Correct me if I am wrong, Anglican choirs seem rather innocuous and are perfectly compatible with a wide range of people with Christian faith (or without).

But maybe I misunderstood the whole situation. Maybe it is not the Anglican choir that is abandoned but the church is changing a more inclusive model for it. If that's the case, there is no reason to sensationalize the whole thing and to raise the alarm. It's the correct move to preserve the tradition while keeping it alive and relevant to current society.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> This problem of disbanding the choir seems more nuanced to me. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater just does not seem like a judicious solution to the problem. It shows that traditions cannot be integrated with the current society anymore. I am not sure if that's true. Correct me if I am wrong, Anglican choirs seem rather innocuous and are perfectly compatible with a wide range of people with Christian faith (or without).


I agree. I can only tell you of a recent Anglican vicar who inherited a large parish church with a superb choir whose first thought was to abandon the English Hymnal and whose second thought was 'Gospel Jazz'.

Apparently, that fills naves.

It was just very sad to watch. An 87 year-old who had watched her church bombed by the Nazis, but survived, was basically being told 'deal with it. We have to be bold to get the university students in'.

Three years on, she's clinging on as best she can, but there are no more students, and many old-timers have gone their ways (and I don't mean they died: they just went elsewhere).

It isn't a judicious solution to deem excellence a problem. Doing so is the problem, not the excellence.

But I think we see this more and more in society generally, so I'm not sure there's an easy solution.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

It's all a bit Dr Spacely-Trellis.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I agree. I can only tell you of a recent Anglican vicar who inherited a large parish church with a superb choir whose first thought was to abandon the English Hymnal and whose second thought was 'Gospel Jazz'.
> 
> Apparently, that fills naves.
> 
> ...


Interesting but I can tell of churches which were on the point of closure where the vicar took a new approach and they are now packed to the doors! Your problem is that you are not involved and don't really know what is going on. Just stories you have heard.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I agree. I can only tell you of a recent Anglican vicar who inherited a large parish church with a superb choir whose first thought was to abandon the English Hymnal and whose second thought was 'Gospel Jazz'.
> 
> Apparently, that fills naves.
> 
> ...


This very much mirrors the experience, and the warnings arising from that experience, of my friends in the States. All too often attempts to force change in the nature of established parishes and the worship carried on in those parishes, instead of adding more informal options to what's already there and working, have dismally failed. Previously loyal parishioners, saddened by the artificial and dictatorial nature of what's been forced upon them, have largely gone elsewhere but the projected influx of new blood either hasn't come along or has proven short-lived. One of my friends describes it as "loading a thoroughbred up to give beach rides". There's a time and a place for both, and both should be on offer. What there is no place for are shotgun marriages of the two.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Eclectic Al said:


> It's all a bit Dr Spacely-Trellis.


I had to Google for the reference, and I'm not overly familar with Peter Simple's columns from memory, but the progressive Bishop of Bevindon does ring bells (ha! probably not, actually!) after all. Good call!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Animal the Drummer said:


> This very much mirrors the experience, and the warnings arising from that experience, of my friends in the States. All too often attempts to force change in the nature of established parishes and the worship carried on in those parishes, instead of adding more informal options to what's already there and working, have dismally failed. Previously loyal parishioners, saddened by the artificial and dictatorial nature of what's been forced upon them, have largely gone elsewhere but the projected influx of new blood either hasn't come along or has proven short-lived. One of my friends describes it as "loading a thoroughbred up to give beach rides". There's a time and a place for both, and both should be on offer. What there is no place for are shotgun marriages of the two.


Your problem is the words 'already there and working'. So often it is not working. Of course merely new methods will not produce growth. Only new life. Because Jesus himself said you cannot put new wine into old wine skins. The church should be the most radical and constantly changing group on the planet. Unfortunately people - many of whom never darkentne doors themselves - want to keep it locked down into tradition which is no longer relevant to our society


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I had to Google for the reference, and I'm not overly familar with Peter Simple's columns from memory, but the progressive Bishop of Bevindon does ring bells (ha! probably not, actually!) after all. Good call!


Well you prefer Google rather than real life ?


----------



## caracalla (Feb 19, 2020)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> the progressive Bishop of Bevindon does ring bells


David Jenkins, erstwhile Bishop of Durham? Who came first, I wonder.

Struck me that the imbroglio in Sheffield is straight out of the pages of Trollope. Must have struck plenty of others too, I think, which is why the nationals have all latched onto this story. We must hope that they don't lose sight of it. With accusations of bullying, bad faith and chronic mismanagement now flying around, and an investigation launched, I suspect there's a rich Trollopian stew of clerical scheming and skulduggery waiting to be exposed here. Not that prising errant Anglican clergy out from behind their barricades of vague, virtue-signalling banalities is ever an easy task.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I didn't quite get the implication that "the Anglican choral tradition is elitist and non-inclusive" from the article in the OP. I would assume those selected for the choir would still always be merit-based to a high degree. I'm reading that the leadership would do whatever it takes to reach out to a greater diversity of talent, and go further to provide proper nurturing of the talent. The old way in going to private schools to the ones with expert coaching worked, and there's no shame in that. I would judge by the quality of the results.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> I didn't quite get the implication that "the Anglican choral tradition is elitist and non-inclusive" from the article in the OP.


I'm not clear on what you're saying. Are you implying that my use of the word 'elitist' doesn't follow from the original newspaper story? If so, I can only point you to the fact that the Dean himself said, The appeal of church music was wide but sometimes "presented in a way that can be seen as elitist".

He was saying that the traditional choral Anglican service "can be seen as elitist".



Phil loves classical said:


> I would assume those selected for the choir would still always be merit-based to a high degree.


Again, there's an ambiguity about what you've written, but if you mean that having sacked the existing choir, the replacement will be 'merit-based to a high degree', I don't especially get that from the story.

In the first place there will be many choirs: "In future, there may be more than one choir drawn from larger numbers of children and university students, he said."

And in the second, I don't see how you can have multiple choirs with far more people in them than at present and maintain the same high standard. Unless we assume that there are vast numbers of excellent voices out there who were somehow prevented from singing in the existing choir. Which I'd doubt.



Phil loves classical said:


> I'm reading that the leadership would do whatever it takes to reach out to a greater diversity of talent, and go further to provide proper nurturing of the talent. The old way in going to private schools to the ones with expert coaching worked, and there's no shame in that. I would judge by the quality of the results.


I just don't get the "old way in going to private schools" comment. I've known choristers who, because they are choristers, then attend the private school attached to Cathedral. But it is not (usually) a requirement to attend a particular school in order to become a choir member, if your voice is good enough. So whilst it's true that the original choir may have been largely private-school based, there's no reason why one couldn't diversify your recruitment policies, draw on state school pupils with excellent voices, and not require them to attend a private school at all ...or, maybe, you could pay their school fees for them at the private school, which would have the mothers of the city queuing up in their hundreds trying to get a free, excellent education for their precious outside of the state system!

In short, one can diversify the talent pool without simply saying that what you've already got is not fit for purpose.

Bear in mind a treble's voice doesn't last forever, if you were to announce a wider recruitment pool today, you'd have a completely different choir profile in about 7 years' time at most.

I also don't get the "they will provide proper nurturing of the (new) talent". I'm not clear on exactly what's proposed, but if they're mentioning external schools and university students, I'm not sure that they're going to be doing any talent-nurturing at all. From what I read, they could simply be throwing open the doors and asking for external choirs to come in and do 'guest appearances'. But I agree, that part of the story is a little unclear.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

caracalla said:


> David Jenkins, erstwhile Bishop of Durham? Who came first, I wonder.
> 
> Struck me that the imbroglio in Sheffield is straight out of the pages of Trollope. Must have struck plenty of others too, I think, which is why the nationals have all latched onto this story. We must hope that they don't lose sight of it. With accusations of bullying, bad faith and chronic mismanagement now flying around, and an investigation launched, I suspect there's a rich Trollopian stew of clerical scheming and skulduggery waiting to be exposed here. Not that prising errant Anglican clergy out from behind their barricades of vague, virtue-signalling banalities is ever an easy task.


You have first hand knowledge of this? Or just going by the gossip columns? So each time changes are made it must necessarily be 'clerical scheming and skulduggery'? Can I ask you what practical inside knowledge you have of this?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Your problem is the words 'already there and working'. So often it is not working. Of course merely new methods will not produce growth. Only new life. Because Jesus himself said you cannot put new wine into old wine skins. The church should be the most radical and constantly changing group on the planet. Unfortunately people - many of whom never darkentne doors themselves - want to keep it locked down into tradition which is no longer relevant to our society


Since you keep mentioning "relevance", could you offer some examples of how what's relevant to the 20th century is not relevant today?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'm not clear on what you're saying. Are you implying that my use of the word 'elitist' doesn't follow from the original newspaper story? If so, I can only point you to the fact that the Dean himself said, The appeal of church music was wide but sometimes "presented in a way that can be seen as elitist".
> 
> He was saying that the traditional choral Anglican service *"can be seen as elitist"*.
> 
> ...


The "can be seen as elitist" is very different to me than saying or implying that it is or was. Music can't be elitist as long as it reaches anyone who is open to it. I see 2 different things going on here in this issue: the recruitment of choristers, and the music or church service itself. The 2nd can never be elitist as long as it accepts anyone to attend the service. The first one could be, but is a real tough call: have they been recruiting based on a certain background, or by talent / voice alone? It's like the judging in figure skating to me, which is not always based on talent. This could go for, or against, what they already have in their membership. It appears to me that in your view, they had been recruiting based on talent alone all along, by the quality of the results. I never heard the choir, so I can't judge.

But what if they do what they propose. Will the results be better or worse, or the same? I can see it as opportunity to reevaluate from scratch based on talent alone (at least in principle) if they hadn't been doing that already. Or course, it also opens up the possibility where some members may be chosen purely for diversity purposes (maybe like the Oscars?) So I was leaving it at just judging based on the results.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> Since you keep mentioning "relevance", could you offer some examples of how what's relevant to the 20th century is not relevant today?


If you're talking about Anglican churches then I would say the Holy Trinity Brompton is right up there as a contemporary church. They have a huge membership and a network of over 30 churches and communicate worldwide.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> The "can be seen as elitist" is very different to me than saying or implying that it is or was.


Well, if the man had faith in music not being elitist, he could surely have said, "Some might see it as elitist, but I don't agree". That puts the onus on the people doing the seeing, and refutes it. But saying "It can be seen as elitist" makes it sound as if the music is at least partly to blame -it's not all in the eye of the beholder- and he's asserting the truth of that perception: it *can* be seen, not that you'd be wrong to see it that way.

But yeah. We might be on angel and pin-head territory at this point.



Phil loves classical said:


> Music can't be elitist as long as it reaches anyone who is open to it.


Entirely agree, which is why I felt the claim that it _can be seen to be_ elitist was so wrong-headed and a stupid excuse for wrecking something good.



Phil loves classical said:


> I see 2 different things going on here in this issue: the recruitment of choristers, and the music or church service itself. The 2nd can never be elitist as long as it accepts anyone to attend the service. The first one could be, but is a real tough call: have they been recruiting based on a certain background, or by talent / voice alone? It's like the judging in figure skating to me, which is not always based on talent. This could go for, or against, what they already have in their membership. It appears to me that in your view, they had been recruiting based on talent alone all along, by the quality of the results. I never heard the choir, so I can't judge.


I honestly have no information on that in Sheffield specifically. If you think King's College Cambridge, for example: membership of the choir is at least associated with attendance at the King's School. So there's definitely a privilege/elitist thing going on there (though I believe a kid with a brilliant voice from a working class background can get scholarships or free schooling there anyway).

But I also know that a good tenor voice can get you into those sorts of choirs whether you are well-off or not. It will probably vary by choir, and I can't say about Sheffield particularly, but I would be surprised if cathedrals generally weren't recruiting widely, rather than just from private schools. And if they are stuck in private school territory, I absolutely agree that the time to change recruitment practice was several decades ago.

I think if an elite choir was recruiting on the basis of anything other than vocal merit, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.



Phil loves classical said:


> But what if they do what they propose. Will the results be better or worse, or the same? I can see it as opportunity to reevaluate from scratch based on talent alone (at least in principle) if they hadn't been doing that already. Or course, it also opens up the possibility where some members may be chosen purely for diversity purposes (maybe like the Oscars?) So I was leaving it at just judging based on the results.


Which is a reasonable point of view, except that by destroying the choir they have, they won't have anything to fall back on if the results turn out less than stellar! Surely, they could have re-evaluated and diversified without wrecking the 'premier' choir, but giving lots of opportunities to the 'first division' backups?


----------



## caracalla (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> You have first hand knowledge of this? Or just going by the gossip columns? So each time changes are made it must necessarily be 'clerical scheming and skulduggery'? Can I ask you what practical inside knowledge you have of this?


Yes, you may. I have no 'practical inside knowledge' of events at Sheffield, and don't need any. The situation has received quite wide coverage in the local and national press. Several of the facts of the case as originally presented by the cathedral authorities are hotly disputed as 'demonstrably untrue', and an independent investigation has now been ordered into these matters, with particular reference to allegations of bullying and harassment. Both that and the very rapid turnover of music directors in recent years are facts, not gossip, and you would know it if you had troubled to follow the story yourself.

I did not say that "each time changes are made it must necessarily be clerical scheming and skulduggery." No one would say anything so absurd. I said that I suspect such 'is waiting to be exposed' in this particular case (ie, by the investigation), and expressed the hope that the media will not lose sight of the story.

If it is so exposed (ie, if my suspicion is warranted), it will hardly be a unique case.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

caracalla said:


> Yes, you may. I have no 'practical inside knowledge' of events at Sheffield, and don't need any. The situation has received quite wide coverage in the local and national press. Several of the facts of the case as originally presented by the cathedral authorities are hotly disputed as 'demonstrably untrue', and an independent investigation has now been ordered into these matters, with particular reference to allegations of bullying and harassment. Both that and the very rapid turnover of music directors in recent years are facts, not gossip, and you would know it if you had troubled to follow the story yourself.
> 
> I did not say that "each time changes are made it must necessarily be clerical scheming and skulduggery." No one would say anything so absurd. I said that I suspect such 'is waiting to be exposed' in this particular case (ie, by the investigation), and expressed the hope that the media will not lose sight of the story.
> 
> If it is so exposed (ie, if my suspicion is warranted), it will hardly be a unique case.


Ah so you believe everything that is said by the press? How trusting! My own forays into journalism over the years have taught me the opposite. Rather to be very cautious in accepting everything that is churned out. I'm not sure what is going on at the cathedral I'm not sure what is going on at the cathedral only what I've heard but I'm assuming as a regular attender at church you will follow the story avidly.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, if the man had faith in music not being elitist, he could surely have said, "Some might see it as elitist, but I don't agree". That puts the onus on the people doing the seeing, and refutes it. But saying "It can be seen as elitist" makes it sound as if the music is at least partly to blame -it's not all in the eye of the beholder- and he's asserting the truth of that perception: it *can* be seen, not that you'd be wrong to see it that way.
> 
> But yeah. We might be on angel and pin-head territory at this point.
> 
> ...


Interesting that we are now getting to the point that the man is supposed to 'have faith in music'. Actually the point of the Christian faith is to have faith in God and to lead others to have faith in God not in music. You may have missed that point. Angels on pinheads may have been a right to argue about in the Middle Ages but I assure you they are not appropriate in the 21st-century
And of course it depends what you mean by choirs being stellar - Some of us see music as a means of communicating the faith and steller musicians as those who do so


----------



## caracalla (Feb 19, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I'm not sure what is going on at the cathedral


You wouldn't be. No one is sure what is going on at the cathedral, which is why an external investigation has been launched.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

caracalla said:


> You wouldn't be. No one is sure what is going on at the cathedral, which is why an external investigation has been launched.


Why? Whose business is it? The newspapers? Those who never attend?


----------



## GavinAmes (Jul 25, 2020)

Definitely not elitist but rather a tradition than encourages and enhances sheer purity ... long may it thrive


----------

