We're singing from the old sanctuary, behind the newer sanctuary "island" built for the freestanding altar. Acoustics aren't too bad, but the mics we're using just weren't meant for singing. They're old ones meant for speaking, and you practically have to eat them to be heard.

P.S. I'm aware my handle is...unique. It's actually an obscure secular musical reference I've used on forums for a very long time. I thought my handle and my display name would be distinct, though. Oops. ;)

My microphone purchase advice is ....don't. If there isn't a wall of carpet in between you and the rest of the building you can surely get away without amplification. Or are you trying to sing louder than some other source of sound - an over-zealous organist, for example? Such problems can be resolved by gluing some of the stops closed and putting a rock under the swell pedal ;-)

However, if you insist, look at the Shure SM137. Ok, your budget would probably only get you 1, but this may not be such a bad thing - more mikes can mean problems of phase cancellation.

Thanks for all the advice so far. :)

The church (sadly) carpeted. I don't know if the organist is over-zealous, but we do have trouble singing over the organ. My ragtag choir is also a bit timid, so they are not easily heard.

I think you've all convinced me to hold off on a mic purchase. Would a small amp make sense, though? If the pickup from the mics is insufficient, due to age or defect, perhaps we can compensate. In the meantime, next choir practice will focus on projection. :)

P.S. For the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_Heart_Mother_(suite)

FunkyDung,

I stand by my original advice: avoid wasting $300 on a microphone or on any amplification system.

Remember that the choir exists to praise God first, and then to lift the hearts and minds of the faithful to the things of God. Ergo, since God doesn't need a hearing aid, you don't need a microphone.

Sweetwater out of Ft Wayne could probably help you.

If anyone 'needs' microphones they either have a padded cell of a church that is as dead as a TV studio, or they don't know how to sing. If the latter, it's not their fault. Your task is to teach them. Never, ever, put microphones in front of your choir.

I agree with the no mics thing. I only use one when I have to accompany myself singing for Mass, as proper technique for both organ and voice aren't likely to happen at the same time: normally one has to be compromised for the other and usually it's the organ tech for the singing because the sung word is more important. By this, I mean that significantly less complicated accompaniments are played, often improvised.

Does wall-to-wall carpeting count as a padded cell? ;)

Thanks again for all the answers. :)

What my choir lacks in professional skill, it makes up for with love of the Lord. Nobody appears to be tone deaf, but they do have limitations, especially wrt projection, due to advanced age. Hence the need for mics.

I have found the AT2035 Cardioid Condenser Microphone from AudioTechnica to work fairly well. It is not that expensive.

I have used these, as well as the Midnight Blues. In a perfect world where money is available to hire professional cantors, the acoustics of the building wonderful, and the volunteer cantors available and of higher quality, microphones would not be needed. I am still looking for that perfect world where I can be snotty as hell and look down on everyone else who uses microphones. LOL.

Chris, something in your declaration(s) above that "God is our (primary) target audience" seems theologically muddled, though I get the larger point regarding our efforts. I think the semantics of "audience" obfuscates the intent and form of worshipping the Almighty. "Target" also is problematic.
By your logic, and I've experienced this many times, when I try to remediate the foibles of particular choristers who will not conform their personalities and voices to the simple consensus of choral blend and beauty, they often reply with "I don't care what you want, I'm-a singin' fer God!" That sort of myopia can also encumber "successful" choirs who've estranged themselves from the Faithful and other liturgical ministries because they're so good, so accomplished that they usurp the roles of all of the Body of Christ at worship. That narcissism is not a healthy form of worship either. We're all in the same hospital for sinners on Sunday, so things like microphones/PA's/certain instruments are secondary concerns as regards true means to a true end.

As one of the people who is the target of your scatter-shot comment, I must insist that if we lose sight of the fact that God is our target audience, then He isn't our target, and something is fundamentally wrong with our worship.

Nothing scatter-shot about it. Some seem to enjoy speaking for God a bit too much. Easy to do when you are in a different situation, building, set of church politics, and without limited resources. Why not respect the musician doing the best he can under possibly difficult circumstances? God is perfectly capable of speaking for Himself, if he so desires.

I will add another note. I have been in churches where microphones are a necessity. There is one locally where the founding priest called in a friend who was a recording engineer to do the building sound system and acoustics. It is like being in a sound studio and you can't hear anything in that building without amplification. Even the organ is amplified through the sound system. Worst acoustics I have ever experienced. Should a musician find themselves in such a place, their options would be very limited by the building and acoustics.

I mean, even Wendy's has better control over its franchise locations than the Catholic church when it comes to quality control and job performance....especially by its managers.

Apples to oranges, FNJ. If restaurants (all for profit enterprises) were analogous to the HRCC, Wendy's franchises would run the gamut from monastery refectories, Medieval inns, hovels or castles, ornate and specified gourmet bistros and palaces in Vienna and Paris, Hometown buffets and cafeterias (pardon the pun) as well as drive-thru's (another pun!)
"Church" is neither a laboratory nor a museum, nor solely a political/social/economic institution. Therefore it must perpetually look back and forward in time simultaneously. For Protestants and other upstart creeds, it's all they can do with sola scriptura to hold center because of those natures of institutions.
At least the HRCC, as incoherent as manifested globally it may be, benefits by a clear and present hierarchy and deposit of faith and tradition. Trouble is, some of her "managers" fancy themselves as ringmasters, referees, bureaucrats, functionaries and most often, the landed gentry. HHFrancis won't affect that appreciably, he's tired already. All bets are off in my estimation. So if FD needs advice about mics, give him advice about mics, if Chris and Jackson want a puritanical ethos in every RCC parish, let 'em work out their purpose too. As much as I would love to dwell in an idyllic, orthodox and living tradition handed-from-the-past, I say, "Darn you, Catholic Church, I just can't seem to quit you."

'...puritanical...' [!!!???]

This is preposterous! What, precisely, does it even mean? That whatever standards so labelled are different from those being peddled by the labeller? Does it mean rigid and unbending (as opposed to principled and faithful)? If there are any who, by these definitions or parameters, are puritanical they are the ones who give us padded cell churches made to order for an otherwise unnecessary sound system.
And, alas, Charles, none of us, none of us, is so blessed that we never ever have to deal with what you might call the 'real world' and its puritanical commitment to the tawdry, the maukish, the maudlin, the tasteless, and the awful, the unorthodox, and the skirting-as-near-as-one-can-get-away-with of heresy, and, and, ...... but that doesn't lead to us pleading their cause.

One expects a higher ratiocination from you.

The larger point, gentlemen, is "Are we basically on our own?" crying in the wilderness as Noel seemed to imply in his post comparing the RCC to Wendy's?

Wendy's at least offers good baked potatoes. ;-)

FunkyDung,

Here's a point of contention between the OF and the EF. In the OF, the assumption (in practice, anyway) is that everything is in the vernacular, and so participation must be accomplished by leading the congregation - in effect, forcing the congregation to sing, or, at least, behaving as if the congregation has to hear the choir so that it can sing. Therefore, amplification is necessary. In the EF, the congregation isn't ignored, but cues such as change in organ registration clue the attentive congregants into when and how they are welcome to sing. No hand signals from cantors [self-edited simile], no microphones, no needless stage managing.

Eric,

I won't engage in the argument on any other ground in this posting. I only observed that in the minds of some, the "environment" of the EF precluded microphones for anything other than preaching (which is addressed to the people), but the "environment" of the OF doesn't preclude microphones --- especially in the hearts and minds of its most ardent advocates. If the use or non-use of microphones is a ground on which to determine the relative merits of the OF and EF, then I'll engage that combat, but I only meant to suggest that the EF precludes microphones and the OF doesn't. Since I'm personally opposed to microphones in nearly every case, that makes me appreciate the EF more than the OF .... please read carefully the claim that I've just made.

And, as I've said before, it is likely that if the EF were the only thing around these people would be grossly abusing it.

And they did! I am old enough to remember. The whippersnappers seem to think heaven on earth existed before Vatican II. It didn't. That silent canon and the cult of the priest have been condemned numerous times throughout the history of the church. Yet we still have those who want to make liturgy into some kind of secret mystery cult where the people are spectators. That is not how liturgy was or is supposed to be

A good sound system in a building that needs one in the first place, is transparent. One should only be able to tell that readings and such are audible. The sound system shouldn't be so overpowering it calls attention to itself. Amplification is supposed to help, not dominate.

Jackson,

In an earlier post I noted that I was describing the OF as it is usually celebrated in our day, not as it is ideally celebrated.

Now, I will raise a question: what, precisely, is the correct culture of the OF? Are the multitudinous options part of the culture as it should be, or merely as it is? Is a commentator part of the culture as it should be, or merely as it is? Is versus populum merely allowed, or required? Do we abandon the GIRM to find the correct culture, and return to the documents of the Council?

I gotta say, this thread has become pretty demoralizing for me. I had no idea a simple (though apparently misguided) question about microphones would make me question the purpose and value of the choir I'm trying to enlarge and lead. :(

"The bigger question: are you seeing it correctly? The choir isn't just a super-singing-congregation-extension, they have their own liturgical office."

Could you elaborate or point me in the direction of useful articles that aren't too legalistic? I'm genuinely curious, but I don't want to get sucked into some kind of debate.

FTR, I'm doing the best I can to select suitable hymns from Breaking Bread (what few their are), since that's what I'm stuck with (unless folks want me to dust off the shelved copies of Gather. *shudder*). Whenever I cantor, I tend to choose solid English translations of chants for the psalm and alleluia (usually from Lumen Christi Missal these days). It's not like I'm leading the choir in singing Haugen, Haas, Schutte, or similar dreck for every hymn (though I'm unable to avoid them completely, alas). ;)

Eric,

Hi! Remember me?

I can understand your frustration. Although a non-amplified choir is ideal, you are the best one to judge whether or not your choir needs amplification, since you alone here are acquainted with your church building and choir. Don’t feel that you have to apologize for using microphones if they will help your choir’s ministry.

I’m no expert on sound systems, but in my experience, the most successful amplification systems for choirs do not use the church’s speaker system, since they are usually designed for speech, not music.

Rather, the best situations I’ve encountered have separate, high-fidelity speakers which slightly amplify the choir and are in the same physical area as the choir. This way, all of the choir’s sound comes from the location where they are singing. Of course, careful placement of microphones and speakers is necessary to avoid feedback issues. Ideally, the amplified sound would serve to slightly boost the choir’s volume, and would not be louder than the non-amplified sound of the choir.

In response to your question regarding documentation on the role of the choir, paragraphs 28-33 of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 2007 document, Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship might be helpful.

Welcome Eric. Given the opinions on microphones to be found in a quick search of the archives (and also given the FD handle) you might forgive some of us for thinking we were being trolled! The part of your post that leapt out was "voluntary interim choir director", certainly a difficult role, especially if it's open-ended. If it isn't, give some thought to whether your successor might find the equipment a white elephant. For $300 you could get written recommendations from an acoustician, or have a choral clinician work with your singers on vocal technique.

"In response to your question regarding documentation on the role of the choir, paragraphs 28-33 of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 2007 document, Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship might be helpful."

I haven't had a chance to absorb the document itself yet, but when I googled it I found a thread on these forums about it. Folks around here weren't particularly enthused about it. ;) I wonder how they feel about ~8 years later.

Having finally read the whole document, I find myself a little confused. I get the impression that a fully sung mass - involving the congregation - is the ideal. In contrast, the choir singing alone seems to be preferred when the congregation lacks the ability or willingness to sing. Have I misunderstood? Perhaps I need to more carefully study the relationships between choir singing alone, whole congregation singing, and "progressive solemnity".

Eric, (just to confuse you more, I'm one of the three Charles' who post here frequently)
What CDub above says about the "land of eternally confused" mirthfully isn't too far from the truthful actuality. SttL was a sort of revised primer to a former set of guidelines that dominated and steered the dubious course of American catholic music for decades, "Music in Catholic Worship." It's hallmark line, the three judgments-music must be adjudicated as "liturgical, pastoral and artistic"- basically gave musicians vague and individualistic license to fill musical accompaniment to ritual actions of the Mass as if they were assembling a structure from Tinker Toys or Legos. The sponsor group of this forum essentially is trying to realize a truly lawful document issued 112 years ago by S. Pius X, his motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini. But we do so while strenuously trying to also honor the post-conciliar liturgical documents that also have the weight of canon law, The GIRM, CSL and MS. And there is some tension between 1903 and 1967, best signified by the term "options." Which brings me back to CDubs' joke about confusion. I have only three items of advice as you begin to help re-orient your parish's music ministry:
1. When you judge music, forget those three quoted above. The best criteria were cited in 1903 as "sacred, universal and beautiful."
2. Along with that, make your decisions in manner not unlike physicians. "First, do no harm." Sometimes, simple and humble is the nobler way to go.
3. Try to avoid seeing both problems and solutions as a "black or white" issue. Idealism, especially when it's employed stubbornly, can really disable anyone's best intentions.
Cheers from California.