What happened to the choir lofts?

[victrolatim]

I thought about this before mass today. Why exactly has the trend shifted away from choirs using choir lofts and more modern church architecture excluding them? Of course, I have seen some churches that still use the loft, but especially in more modern buildings there seems to be a platform of some type off to the side. Other times I have seen older buildings where the loft is still viable, but the choir is placed in a transept or somewhere else in the nave. One of the most beautiful churches in our diocese removed pews in one of the transepts and placed a carpeted wood platform in their place which is not only ghastly, but grossly out of place in a highly ornamented marble church. One church close to me has an interesting arrangement. The choir/organist use the loft for one mass and the contemporary choir uses choral risers which are awkwardly placed behind the main altar where one would expect to find the tabernacle. Why the change? I doubt there was any formal directive, the only thing I could think of is accessibility for older choristers. I have been in choirs on and off my entire life and, as part of the liturgy, I prefer to be heard and not seen. I don’t want to draw attention to myself when I am basically ornamentation for the liturgy. I have always felt odd being placed on a stage type platform next to the altar.

 

[Joe_5859]

I thought about this before mass today. Why exactly has the trend shifted away from choirs using choir lofts and more modern church architecture excluding them? Of course, I have seen some churches that still use the loft, but especially in more modern buildings there seems to be a platform of some type off to the side. Other times I have seen older buildings where the loft is still viable, but the choir is placed in a transept or somewhere else in the nave. One of the most beautiful churches in our diocese removed pews in one of the transepts and placed a carpeted wood platform in their place which is not only ghastly, but grossly out of place in a highly ornamented marble church. One church close to me has an interesting arrangement. The choir/organist use the loft for one mass and the contemporary choir uses choral risers which are awkwardly placed behind the main altar where one would expect to find the tabernacle. Why the change? I doubt there was any formal directive, the only thing I could think of is accessibility for older choristers. I have been in choirs on and off my entire life and, as part of the liturgy, I prefer to be heard and not seen. I don’t want to draw attention to myself when I am basically ornamentation for the liturgy. I have always felt odd being placed on a stage type platform next to the altar.

I’m sure the reasons are many, varied, and complex.

To me, it is interesting that it came about in the wake of Mass now being said with the priest facing the people. Perhaps that encouraged the mindset that people need to see the choir in order to see what is going on. I dislike the trend as it seems to me to encourage the perception of the choir as performers rather than simply facilitating worship in song. But adding in a choir loft to an existing Church isn’t a simple thing. Some church buildings are just stuck without them at this point.

 

[1ke]

Historically, the “choir” was in the sanctuary, as it consisted of ecclesiastics and the boys in the choir schools attached to a church or monastery. Hence early church architecture with the choir stalls and choir screens in the sanctuary area. The architecture of the churches of Europe developed in response to the function of the choir, in the Divine Office, in the Mass, etc.

It wasn’t until the middle ages, Avignon and beyond to the Reformation, that laity started to become the “choir”, and at that point they shifted from being in the sanctuary to the nave.

The rise of the organ in church around that same time seems to give rise to the loft-- perhaps as a way to retrofit an organ into the existing architecture and allow the organist to see what is going on. It seems natural that the laity in choir would join the organist in the loft.

I would say the loft is most used where pipe organs remain the primary instrument of the mass. Although in some churches with smaller pipe organs, they may be on the floor level. I know my old church (built in 1965) was designed that way-- pipe organ in the front, right of the church and choir with it.

In many modern churches, and smaller churches, they’ve gone to pianos and electronic keyboards, which don’t make sense to be in a loft. And many newer churches probably didn’t even build a loft because they weren’t going to install a pipe organ-- too expensive, not enough people trained to play one, etc. Therefore, the choir followed suit and went where the piano/keyboard or upright organ were found.

It’s pretty logical.

I don’t think there’s a right or a wrong. At one time, organs, laity in choir, and choir lofts were the innovation-- the new thing-- and people probably grumbled that choir lofts were ugly, that they didn’t belong in the church, etc.

 

[Horton]

My church still has one as it an older church. My parish is going to build a new church and from what I understand it is going to be a traditional one not much different that the one we have now, just bigger. I think it’s wonderful, I don’t care much for many of the contemporary church buildings I see. We also have an amazing gifted choir and I’m sure there will be a choir loft in the new building.

 

[Joe_5859]

Historically, the “choir” was in the sanctuary, as it consisted of ecclesiastics and the boys in the choir schools attached to a church or monastery. Hence early church architecture with the choir stalls and choir screens in the sanctuary area. The architecture of the churches of Europe developed in response to the function of the choir, in the Divine Office, in the Mass, etc.

It wasn’t until the middle ages, Avignon and beyond to the Reformation, that laity started to become the “choir”, and at that point they shifted from being in the sanctuary to the nave.

The rise of the organ in church around that same time seems to give rise to the loft-- perhaps as a way to retrofit an organ into the existing architecture and allow the organist to see what is going on. It seems natural that the laity in choir would join the organist in the loft.

I would say the loft is most used where pipe organs remain the primary instrument of the mass. Although in some churches with smaller pipe organs, they may be on the floor level. I know my old church (built in 1965) was designed that way-- pipe organ in the front, right of the church and choir with it.

In many modern churches, and smaller churches, they’ve gone to pianos and electronic keyboards, which don’t make sense to be in a loft. And many newer churches probably didn’t even build a loft because they weren’t going to install a pipe organ-- too expensive, not enough people trained to play one, etc. Therefore, the choir followed suit and went where the piano/keyboard or upright organ were found.

It’s pretty logical.

I don’t think there’s a right or a wrong. At one time, organs, laity in choir, and choir lofts were the innovation-- the new thing-- and people probably grumbled that choir lofts were ugly, that they didn’t belong in the church, etc.

Good point about the history. At some point, even the organ was something “novel.”

Now I am recalling my childhood parish, which was also built in the 60’s They had an organ and place for the choir up front and off to the side of the sanctuary. But then, there was also a choir loft. I think the loft was mainly used for overflow Mass goers on Christmas and Easter. You had to actually go through the school (attached to the Church) to get up to the loft. I don’t know what the rationale for the design was when the church was first built, though.

 

[1ke]

Good point about the history. At some point, even the organ was something “novel.”

Not only novel, but profane. And forbidden. Because it came from the common plays and theater, where profane and vulgar works were performed.

 

[DaveBj]

Historically, the “choir” was in the sanctuary . . .snip

Thanks for the historical synopsis. Nice turn of phrase, BTW – “gives rise to the loft”

Our parish facility was designed and built pre-WWI, so it has the traditional loft, with the pipe organ console centered there. Unfortunately, it is a mess, with books, music, and folders seemingly scattered everywhere. I’ve been up there to play instrumental solos and duets, and one can barely move for fear of knocking something over.

 

[phil19034]

I asked my pastor once why he didn’t build our new Church with a choir loft and he mentioned that Vatican II (or documents after Vatican II) called for designs where the lay choir sang from nave. So the choir seats are in the nave, off to the side, in place of where some pews would be.

According to him, the loft separates the lay choir from the rest of layity, which is one reason why many newer churches are being built with the choir sitting in the nave.

Not sure if there are documents regarding this, or if it was his (or someone’s) understanding the current documents; because our Cathedral uses the choir loft.

I also know of another parish close by to my house that has 2 choir locations. (1) the loft, which was built in the 1950s and (2) seats next to the sanctuary.

They seem to use both, but I’m not sure what their rationale is. Seem to be that when they use the pipe organ, they sit in the loft; and when using the piano or electronic organ, they sit next to the sanctuary.

Personally, I like the choir loft so the choir members are able to drink water, tea, etc to keep their voices pure and mess with music sheets without distracting the people in the pews.

 

[DaveBj]

I asked my pastor once why he didn’t build our new Church with a choir loft and he mentioned that Vatican II (or documents after Vatican II) called for designs where the lay choir sang from nave. So the choir seats are in the nave, off to the side, in place of where some pews would be.

snip

I have the collection of V-II documents on my Kindle. I just did a search on the word “nave”, and it doesn’t appear at all. Then I did a search on “choir”; four pages of hits, but nothing about relocating the choir into the congregation. I can’t speak for post-conciliar documents that are not in my collection. But I suspect that your pastor may have been misinformed. Alternatively, it is possible that he may have used vague references to V-II to justify imposing his own desires. Wouldn’t be the first time.

 

[SMHW]

I thought about this before mass today. Why exactly has the trend shifted away from choirs using choir lofts and more modern church architecture excluding them?

I think a lot of it has to do with ideas expressed in the 1978 document, Environment and Art in Catholic Worship. It suggests that the music ministers should be placed where they can be seen so as to better lead the music but in a spot which is clearly part of the assembly. The follow-on document, Built on Living Stones, makes some similar statements but backs off from the being-seen-by-the-congregation aspect.

Both documents were produced by the USCCB’s Committee on the Liturgy but only the latter was approved by the full Bishop’s conference.

Some of these changes were obviously taking place before the documents were produced because this was the thinking that had been going in a number of circles.

 

[victrolatim]

We had a (now long demolished) Church here in Buffalo where the case pipes of the organ were behind the high altar on the sanctuary wall. I saw a picture once, it was quite striking, but poor Father when the organist pulled the 16 foot stop

 

[1ke]

I have the collection of V-II documents on my Kindle. I just did a search on the word “nave”, and it doesn’t appear at all. Then I did a search on “choir”; four pages of hits, but nothing about relocating the choir into the congregation. I can’t speak for post-conciliar documents that are not in my collection. But I suspect that your pastor may have been misinformed. Alternatively, it is possible that he may have used vague references to V-II to justify imposing his own desires. Wouldn’t be the first time.

It is in the document Built of Living Stones, from the USCCB. Although it doesn’t say anything specifically about lofts.

stmcath.org/images/stories/barb/50%20More%20Campaign/Built%20of%20Living%20stones%20Articles%20short%20form.pdf

 

[tafan]

Not only novel, but profane. And forbidden. Because it came from the common plays and theater, where profane and vulgar works were performed.

Do you have a source for this? I believe it is true for the piano/harpsicord, but am skeptical about the organ.

 

[DaveBj]

It is in the document Built of Living Stones, from the USCCB. Although it doesn’t say anything specifically about lofts.

stmcath.org/images/stories/barb/50%20More%20Campaign/Built%20of%20Living%20stones%20Articles%20short%20form.pdf

 

[1ke]

Do you have a source for this? I believe it is true for the piano/harpsicord, but am skeptical about the organ.

In the early centuries the objection of the Church to instrumental music applied also to the organ, which is not surprising, if we remember the association of the hydraulus with theatre and circus. According to Platina (“De vitis Pontificum”, Cologne, 1593), Pope Vitalian (657-72) introduced the organ into the church service. This, however, is very doubtful. At all events, a strong objection to the organ in church service remained pretty general down to the twelfth century, which may be accounted for partly by the imperfection of tone in organs of that time. But from the twelfth century on, the organ became the privileged church instrument, the majesty and unimpassioned character of its tone making it a particularly suitable means for adding solemnity to Divine worship.

newadvent.org/cathen/11297a.htm

 

[DaveBj]

In the early centuries the objection of the Church to instrumental music applied also to the organ, which is not surprising, if we remember the association of the hydraulus with theatre and circus. According to Platina (“De vitis Pontificum”, Cologne, 1593), Pope Vitalian (657-72) introduced the organ into the church service. This, however, is very doubtful. At all events, a strong objection to the organ in church service remained pretty general down to the twelfth century, which may be accounted for partly by the imperfection of tone in organs of that time. But from the twelfth century on, the organ became the privileged church instrument, the majesty and unimpassioned character of its tone making it a particularly suitable means for adding solemnity to Divine worship.

newadvent.org/cathen/11297a.htm

 

[commenter]

Re: your third sentence, well, maybe not directly. But it seems about the same time people were now supposed to see the priest ****fa****ce ********to ************face ****at all times, the laity were also told they should **see **the choir face to face as well as hear them. And some churches were redesigned so as to tilt the pews an angle, so you are forced, during the Consecration, to ****see ****the specific family that lives 4 blocks away. Face to face.

The realistic **face **of Jesus on the Crucifix was found, ironically, to be distracting, so now less visible. Stations of the Cross now have stick figures.

So yeah, correlation does not prove causation, but a bunch of similar correlations do show a pattern.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It has sometimes seemed to me that choir arrangements are sometimes dictated (or thought to be) by the overall architecture of the church itself.

I am a member of two parishes for historical reasons. One is an impressive Gothic style church built by a then-German congregation. Like a lot of Gothic churches, it has a tremendously high ceiling. The sanctuary is a semicircle at one end. The choir loft is really, really high up in the air at the other end maybe only 20 feet from the ceiling but a nearly terrifying distance from the floor. The whole thing is hard plaster and stone. The acoustics in the sanctuary are defeated by a P.A. system. But the acoustics from the choir loft are excellent. The choir carries well no matter how many or few are singing in the choir at a particular time. Soloists can be heard well. My granddaughter even played the tin whistle during “What child is this” sung before Midnight Mass, and it carried well even with a pretty full choir singing at the same time.

In other words, it seems the architecture and the loft are exceedingly well matched.

In my other parish, the church is that “sort-of” English architecture that seems to prevail in churches built by the Irish. It has a loft and a high ceiling, but both are lower. Not too long ago, the parish council decided to lower the ceiling quite a lot. I’m going to say about 20 feet. The idea (I was told) was to make the church more an “intimate worship space” that some contemporary folks think is better. And the ceiling was some kind of relatively soft composition material that quite clearly absorbs sound. It’s only a few feet above the heads of the singers.

It probably saved on the heating bills, but it sure dampened the choir. The singing is very muffled and doesn’t carry throughout the church well. They might do better to move the choir somewhere else.

So, it’s my belief that placement of the choir is often dictated by the way the church interior is designed. Nowadays the trend is away from super-high ceilings and hard, sound-reflective surfaces. Odd shapes and baffles just don’t fit choral singing either, and particularly when combined with sound-absorbing materials.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

In the early centuries the objection of the Church to instrumental music applied also to the organ, which is not surprising, if we remember the association of the hydraulus with theatre and circus. According to Platina (“De vitis Pontificum”, Cologne, 1593), Pope Vitalian (657-72) introduced the organ into the church service. This, however, is very doubtful. At all events, a strong objection to the organ in church service remained pretty general down to the twelfth century, which may be accounted for partly by the imperfection of tone in organs of that time. But from the twelfth century on, the organ became the privileged church instrument, the majesty and unimpassioned character of its tone making it a particularly suitable means for adding solemnity to Divine worship.

newadvent.org/cathen/11297a.htm

I wonder if the ancestors of today’s traditionalists refused to attend Masses with the organ, thinking them novelties, the “Novus Ordo’s” of their day.

 

[commenter]

I wonder if the ancestors of today’s traditionalists refused to attend Masses with the organ, thinking them novelties, the “Novus Ordo’s” of their day.

Once they abandoned our heritage, the original liturgy of Greek and Aramaic, for that Latin innovation, all sense of the sacred was lost. Next thing you know, they’ll try to switch the Sabbath away from Friday night/Saturday morning, to now all day Sunday!