My guess is -- but maybe I'm wrong -- that the organist should be where the organ console is. As to where everyone else should be... I'll leave that up to the experts to answer.

CharlesW said...

Organist should be where the console is. I like this. At last, reason and logic on this forum - although there probably is an obscure document somewhere that says otherwise.

It may seem obvious, but one thing that made me decide to post that is a comment I got from someone at the church I used to play at concerning from where the psalmist should be singing. He said they should be up front. Me... "Uh... I am the psalmist for 60% of the Masses..." No way the organist is going to run down the stairs, get to the ambo, sing the psalm, then rush upstairs again for the alleluia!

Typical document. It's up, or down, but sometimes on the left, when it is not on the right. But it could be underneath if conditions are right.

When the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) talks about the position of the choir, it neither specifically mandates nor excludes the choir's location within the church. However, it would seem that the sanctuary would not be an appropriate place, given that "The schola cantorum (choir) should be so positioned with respect to the arrangement of each church that its nature may be clearly evident, namely as part of the assembled community of the faithful undertaking a specific function" (GIRM #312). Having the choir in the sanctuary would seem to go against this directive and separate it from the congregation.

Again it says this in 294
The faithful and the schola cantorum (choir) shall have a place that facilitates their active participation.113
but then right after that, still in 294 ...
The Priest Celebrant, the Deacon, and the other ministers have places in the sanctuary. There, also, should be prepared seats for concelebrants, but if their number is great, seats should be arranged in another part of the church, though near the altar.
.

So we could conclude from all of the this that the faithful and choir should not be in the sanctuary but the Celebrant, Deacons and other ministers should be.
I suppose some will say otherwise.

Not documentary, but rather first-hand advice.

I have worshiped AND sung in all of the following arrangements:
1. Choir in a loft
2. Choir in stalls, at the front of the sanctuary (the Chancel?), (Anglican style)
3. Choir literally in the Sanctuary, off to the side
4. Choir literally in the Sanctuary, behind the altar
5. Choir towards the front, near the sanctuary, but on a separate "platform."
6. Choir not in a loft, but still towards the back, on a raised platform

Every location has its pros and cons, but some more than others.

By far, the WORST location I have experienced (both as a PIP and a choir-member) is in the Sanctuary itself. Now, mind you, I don't have any big issues about who should be "allowed" in Sanctuaries, and I'm not a fan of the theological barrier represented by altar rails and rood screens. Nonetheless, there is no getting over the fact that singing by the choir is not the main event of a Mass, and that the action of the altar ought to be in the limelight, as it were. As a PIP, I find them distracting, and as a choir-member, I find myself very self-conscious. The worst part is that most other of my fellow choir members did not find themselves as self-conscious as I did, so they were given to all manner of abuses, such as whispering, fumbling with copies, and unwrapping cough drops.

Unfortunately, I've also been in a few too many lofts where the choir felt that no one could see them, and so knitting, check-book balancing, and poor dress were the order of the day. Also, I've been in a few lofts where the Music Director clearly did not consider the loft to be part of the liturgical space and so allowed it to become cluttered with all manner of (forgive the language) crap.

Were I in the position to design a church building and/or decide the placement of a choir, I would think that the most important question would be: what - precisely - is the role of the choir? Not in the abstract, not in some document- but here, at this particular church, given the way this congregation "does" liturgy (or plans to), what is the role of the choir in relationship to the liturgy and the congregation.

I find it interesting that Episcopal Churches, where the choir has a more explicitly performance-oriented role (by way of Anthems), that the norm is a loft. Whereas, in Catholic parishes, where the choir has (or should have) a more liturgical focus (by way of Propers) that the norm is generally space up front. This seems backwards to me, and is indicative of the fact that most people blindly follow not tradition, but rather habit, heeding neither traditional precedent nor the logical dictates of any specifically-professed theologies.

re: Episcopal/Anglican practice...
Interesting. In New England, all the Episcopal Churches I visited had a choir in the chancel, English style. In Texas, in my Diocese (Fort Worth), all the choirs I know of (but one) either have a loft, sit in the back, or would do so if they could.

Marion Hatchet, in his guide for Episcopal church music, suggests that the chancel seating for the choir was a late-19th-century trend, born of a misunderstanding of a parish choir and a monastic choir (a confusion, if it could be called that, echoed in TLS's ban on female choir members). I have no way of knowing if this is an accurate assessment, or what "the norm" really is in the majority of parishes.

If it were up to me, I would have the entire congregation sit "in choir," that is, antiphonally, with the choir filling the front four rows on both sides at the West end. I think such a setup would be the best of all possible arrangements: no weird disembodied voices, the ability of the congregation to look at the choir if they so choose, the inclusion of the choir within the congregation, the choir not distracting/competing with the action at the altar, the choir and chancel not creating a vast distance between the congregation and the altar. But that's just my opinion.

I recall reading some reference to choirs being behind a screen if they were in a prominent position. Unfortunately, I cannot find the reference to it, and I think that it is a marvellous idea.

The ideal place for the cantor (and, to lesser degree, other singers) of course, would be near the sanctuary in order to have a better sound coordination with the singing of the sacred ministers (celebrant, deacon). In the historical Churches in Italy, for example, there is no 'Western' loft at all. The organ loft is usually behind or above the quire/choir stools. But there are such examples North of the Alps, too.
In this picture, the cantor is on a sort of bema in the middle of quire, protected by two bodyguards armed with large forks. Here his visibility is no problem because it obvious that he is not performing or entertaining the 'audiences' and his liturgical role is clear. However, this works only when the cantor is at least a tonsured cleric (or maybe a layman supplying for such). In a typical novus ordo situation, it is more suitable for cantor to be hidden in the loft. I suppose, most cantors would feel better so.

First off, there is no official directive which mandates that the choir be in the sanctuary, just in case someone tries to tell you that.

On a practical level:

1) A choir 'doing its business' in the sanctuary is a distraction from what IS important: the celebrant. Even a highly-disciplined group has to move music, respond to cues from the director (some of which will be un-subtle), and move with the music. Sneezing, coughing, or sudden emergencies WILL be more of a disruption if it's in full view of the congregation.

2) If there is a loft, it is the bestacoustic setting for the choir. Loft-placement eliminates the "need" for artificial voice amplification which is the foundation for the 'disembodied voice' complaint.

3) Placement in a loft does NOT mean that the choir 'is not part of' the congregation.

4) More generally, Mgr. Schuler posited that the choir has two missions. First, it is a substitute for the congregation singing 'to God' while singing music that a congregation cannot sing (e.g., Propers or polyphony). Second, it is a substitute for the angelic choir in singing 'to the people'. In effect, this puts the choir "in the middle" between the people and Heaven. While the Mgr's theory does not per se eliminate placement in the sanctuary, it does lend weight to loft-placement if at all possible.

5) Finally, rear (or loft) placement lifts the "performer-face" onus from singers (which has been placed on priests who are versus populum). It also eliminates the problem of 'stage fright' which a noticeable minority of volunteer members DO have.

I think west-end loft placement works best if there's not a big gap between the loft and the people: if the choir can be just above and just behind the congregation, the choir's voices (and the organ) can support the singing well. Glad to say this is the case in our (Episcopal) parish.

Gavin, the Strunk/White version of your statement:
"Big problem in Catholic churches: people sit..., then complain...."
End of story.

What do you do if the organ console is in the sanctuary and the organist is (gasp) a woman?

>>unimaginable that anything at the National Shrine would be illicit

really?

Just curious, Kenneth. Why is the high altar never used?

Although, in keeping with the way the place is run, last time I took pictures of it, the baldichino was spotless.

To adumbrate Gavin's point, lofts are not always the best acoustical solution, and I've observed plenty of lofts that were worse than the main floor, in acoustical terms. The main issue for the effectiveness of the choir's ministry is optimizing acoustical placement, though it's not the only issue. The oldest and probably longest tradition is that the choir belongs between the sanctuary and the main body of the faithful.

In any event, there is nothing that requires a choir to be in the sanctuary, and I believe the documents are such that such placement should be viewed as a stretch at best.

What's an adumbrate, and are you comforted and validated, Gavin, that your point has been adumbrated? (Don't anyone bring up Francis, the Talking Mule or Mr. Ed!)
And thanks, Dad, since you brought liceity in here, my head is itchy.