‘Girls and women to sing as members of The Choir of St John’s‘

[ardcarp]

One lunch hour I got randomly signed up for the school choir by a colleague saying: Come on, we need some blokes. Even with a dozen male staff members bolstering it the choir was predominantly female. I did take to it, however, and my my modest choral singing career was launched.

Good for you! But a major source of tenors and basses has traditionally been the youthful experience of singing in a church or cathedral choir. Is there a danger that this will diminish?

[Caussade]

It's not very clear from the website as to whether there will be a separate choir of boys and men + women altos singing and a separate choir of girls and men + women altos singing.

To mix the boys and girls is not the usual situation in cathedral choirs, rather they tend to share the services and join up on special occasions. Some cathedral choirs do have women altos on the back line.

Also the cathedra choir in these circumstances is usually now defined as consisting of boys, girls and men( women).

Frankly, for St John's to lose its renowned choir of boys and men completely would be nothing less than a disaster for the Anglican Choral Tradition. It can't be true surely? What can Andrew Nethsingha be thinking about. Do St John's have trouble recruiting boys? It must be political correctness again.

If, they have any sense King's will avoid this route at all costs.

I would be astonished if there isn't some element of, erm, encouragement towards this change coming from somewhere in the SJC hierarchy - whether it's to do with legality, or some other imperative. But I know as much as anyone who wasn't in the governing body meetings about exactly why it's happening, so I'm content to keep quiet and let them get on with it, wishing them all the best in the meantime.

[Vox Humana]

There are currently more girl choristers than boy choristers in cathedral and collegiate choirs

My only worry would be that as time passes singing may come to be regarded as 'a girls' thing' and the social norm...probably emphasised by social media... may be that boys are put off.

Regarding ardcarp's point about singing becoming 'a girls' thing', I think that singing for boys with unchanged voices has been pretty uncool and counter-cultural for some time now, and becomes more so with every passing year, unfortunately.

There's definitely a theme here. I think.

From a purely musical point of view, I was deeply saddened to read the announcement from St John's. Please don't misunderstand. I'm all for girl choristers. I have several nieces and a nephew (well, technically their Mrs Humana's), who have been cathedral choristers, one of whom is currently at Merton, and I'm thrilled that they've had such opportunities. And yet...

I really don't know what to think about the impact that equal opportunities is having on the current cathedral/college scene. I value our heritage, particularly our ecclesiastical heritage—God knows it's been fundamental in shaping our country—and I think it's intellectually flawed to maintain that it was all bad and needs to be obliterated (or locked in a museum). We live in an age where political preaching has taken the place of religious preaching. We are steadily seeing the death of the traditional all-male church choir. If we lose that, we lose a fundamental part of our cultural heritage and that would be very sad. I know people who would shout, 'Good riddance!'—but why? As has been mentioned up-thread, in a ideal world there should be scope to maintain that tradition and enrich it, quite separately, with opportunities for girls and women so that the two can flourish in tandem. Yet how often can that be economically viable?

And many nowadays are vehemently anti-religion. Even more just couldn't care less. Catch boys (and girls) young enough and it's easy to teach them to enjoy singing. Later it becomes seriously uncool, particularly for boys. As I have often said, the biggest problem facing classical music is our prevailing British culture (which, musically, is predominantly 'pop') and our governments' antipathy to encouraging high art. So many of today's parents have grown up thinking that singing is uncool, so what chance is there of converting their kids?

It's hard to see how progress is for the best here.

Apologies for the ramble. If you're into single malts, Ardbeg is a good as they come!

[DracoM]

1. Girls of 10/11+ can be VERY bossy and leave boys in no doubt that lads are the merest temps - voice changes etc - such that us girls are the REAL choir. Boys can feel pretty bullied and undervalued.

2. In earliest repertoire, composers had a men / boys sound in their heads when writing. I like to hear how such composers exploit that territory.

3. I prefer the generally richer sound boy trebs make. Sorry - but that's just IMO......................

4. Such choirs as St John's are excellent training grounds. Boy numbers being reduced inevitably means fewer lads adventuring from such choirs into the wild. magical world of music and THEN carrying on with it.

5. Boys beginning to say classical etc music is for girls......................wow!

Sad, sad................

[Subtuum]

1. Girls of 10/11+ can be VERY bossy and leave boys in no doubt that lads are the merest temps - voice changes etc - such that us girls are the REAL choir. Boys can feel pretty bullied and undervalued.

2. In earliest repertoire, composers had a men / boys sound in their heads when writing. I like to hear how such composers exploit that territory.

3. I prefer the generally richer sound boy trebs make. Sorry - but that's just IMO......................

4. Such choirs as St John's are excellent training grounds. Boy numbers being reduced inevitably means fewer lads adventuring from such choirs into the wild. magical world of music and THEN carrying on with it.

5. Boys beginning to say classical etc music is for girls......................wow!

Sad, sad................

1. I don’t buy that, it’s quite sexist. So… Stolen from a newspaper website but makes the point: As the Ban Bossy campaign puts it: “When a little boy asserts himself, he’s called a ‘leader’. Yet when a little girl does the same, she risks being branded ‘bossy’. Words like bossy send a message: don’t raise your hand or speak up.” The campaign to make people think before using the word (and basically stop it), launched this year by Sheryl Sandberg, and supported by lots of high-profile women including Condoleezza Rice, Michelle Obama and Beyoncé, was predictably met with the charge that it was authoritarian and, well, “bossy”. Wrong. Often the simplest and most useful test is: would this word be applied to a straight, white man? In the case of bossy, almost certainly not (Margaret Thatcher was called “bossy”; it would be unthinkable to describe any other British prime minister as “bossy”). See also: “pushy”.

2. We have had hundreds of years of boys / men only singing that repertoire. It was composed for that sex as women never had a look in thanks to the patriarchy. I don’t think female voices is in anyway going to soil or spoil it.

3. Boy trebles don’t make a richer sound - it’s how they’re taught and coached. Sex makes no difference at that age and development.

4. Singing needs to continue to be promoted in state schools as well as the excellent provision provided by the private sector. The prep school chorister / private school / Oxbridge or similar uni route needs to be widened in all of those areas so children are exposed to singing at different stages of education.

5. Conjecture.

[Subtuum]

What I’m really beginning to realise with this topic is that there is deep-seated, almost automatic sexism running through all of this. I don’t think people are trying to be like that intentionally, but it’s very much part of our society as a whole, and it’s quite fixed and deep rooted.

[jonfan]

What I’m really beginning to realise with this topic is that there is deep-seated, almost automatic sexism running through all of this. I don’t think people are trying to be like that intentionally, but it’s very much part of our society as a whole, and it’s quite fixed and deep rooted.

Agree in spades Subtuum and with your response at #20.

[Resurgam]

There's definitely a theme here. I think.

I really don't know what to think about the impact that equal opportunities is having on the current cathedral/college scene. I value our heritage, particularly our ecclesiastical heritage—God knows it's been fundamental in shaping our country—and I think it's intellectually flawed to maintain that it was all bad and needs to be obliterated (or locked in a museum). We live in an age where political preaching has taken the place of religious preaching. We are steadily seeing the death of the traditional all-male church choir. If we lose that, we lose a fundamental part of our cultural heritage and that would be very sad. I know people who would shout, 'Good riddance!'—but why? As has been mentioned up-thread, in a ideal world there should be scope to maintain that tradition and enrich it, quite separately, with opportunities for girls and women so that the two can flourish in tandem. Yet how often can that be economically viable?

It's hard to see how progress is for the best here.

As Miles Coverdale said upthread there is Equalities Law to consider but in cathedrals this has largely been incorporated by having separate boys and girls treble lines singing with the men and sharing services ( though this is not ideal ). Why St John's cannot do the same and also include women undergraduates singing separately on the front line with the men as well if necessary I fail to see.

There should be no financial problem. St John's have pots of money.

As it is it seems that they are sacrificing something utterly good and worthwhile ( a renowned all male choir which is an art form in itself ) on the altar of equality, political correctness and University wokery.

There are many very good mixed sex children's choirs around but very very few outstanding boys' choirs and these are usually found in the church where they are very practised and sing with the men of the choir music that was written specifically for them. To lose them would be intolerable.

One hopes that DoMs make this argument in whatever meetings they have with the powers that be. There was, at least, the recent highly principled resignation of Martin Baker at Westminster cathedral which showed that one musician at least was prepared to stand up against this apparent hatred of excellence in some of our educational and religious establishments.

[french frank]

1. I don’t buy that, it’s quite sexist.

I've been investigating how and whether to contribute here, but your comment about leadership v. bossiness refers, I think, to a well-known trope which also affects people of differing heights. There is evidence in mixed/single sex education that girls, far from being bossy, actually lack confidence when in the company of 'pushy' boys, with women in later life suffering from lower self esteem or confidence in their own ability. So the assertion about 'bossy little girls' is not, shall we say, quite as clear-cut...

I've been watching and reading about Richard Vendome et al's research and music-making in Vivaldi's time, and how performances with women tenors and basses (singing at pitch) attract hate mail as if the 'rightness of things' is being violated. This partly answers my own query about what if, in 50 or 75 years time, all cathedral and chapel choirs are female only. It would simply be a reversal of what was the case for hundreds of years. The matter of 'ah, but what about the problem of who sings the tenor and bass parts?' is answered by the evidence that women can sing these parts though have simply not been encouraged to do so. The timbres may be different but that need not necessarily be a disadvantage - and less so in the hypothetical 75 years time when the yearning for the all male choir with boy trebles and adult men have gone the same way as other such 'incorrect' enjoyment as the Black and White Minstrels.

This piece on education suggests that boys in co-ed schools are more likely to take to dancing and music: "It’s not clear to me, however, that boys only schools offer “traditionally stereotyped and gender-weighted” activities. Coeducationalists argue that it is boys in mixed schools that are more likely to try dance, singing and drama."

[Miles Coverdale]

There are some reasons why having a mixed top line may be preferable to having two separate, single-sex ones.

Having two separate ones inevitably means that each one will sing fewer services and therefore less ‘match practice’, as I’ve heard it called: each group sings the psalms half as frequently and so on.

For reasons of school timetabling, it may well be desirable to have both groups rehearse at the same time or one rehearse while the other is singing a service. This would mean either a second rehearsal space or another member of staff or both. This could have siginificant financial implications.

Some places, for reasons I don’t understand, also divide the repertoire between the top lines so that only the girls sing certain pieces, only the boys certain other ones, which I personally think is less than ideal.

[Miles Coverdale]

1. I don’t buy that, it’s quite sexist. So… Stolen from a newspaper website but makes the point: As the Ban Bossy campaign puts it: “When a little boy asserts himself, he’s called a ‘leader’. Yet when a little girl does the same, she risks being branded ‘bossy’. Words like bossy send a message: don’t raise your hand or speak up.” The campaign to make people think before using the word (and basically stop it), launched this year by Sheryl Sandberg, and supported by lots of high-profile women including Condoleezza Rice, Michelle Obama and Beyoncé, was predictably met with the charge that it was authoritarian and, well, “bossy”. Wrong. Often the simplest and most useful test is: would this word be applied to a straight, white man? In the case of bossy, almost certainly not (Margaret Thatcher was called “bossy”; it would be unthinkable to describe any other British prime minister as “bossy”). See also: “pushy”.

2. We have had hundreds of years of boys / men only singing that repertoire. It was composed for that sex as women never had a look in thanks to the patriarchy. I don’t think female voices is in anyway going to soil or spoil it.

1. The CEO of Facebook being described as bossy? Surely not. And quite what the sexuality of the putative white male has to do with anything eludes me.

2. Not entirely true. Byrd's masses and Gradualia were written for domestic performance, which must have included women and/or girls.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

3. Boy trebles don’t make a richer sound - it’s how they’re taught and coached. Sex makes no difference at that age and development.

Whilst agreeing with many of your points, this one can’t go unchallenged. Girls’ voices are generally weaker at the ages of 7-11. The “little girl sound” cannot be dismissed, which is why girl choristers tend to be a little older.
I continue to maintain that this is one of the few areas in education where it’s better to segregate boys and girls of this age for singing.

[ardcarp]

Byrd's masses and Gradualia were written for domestic performance, which must have included women and/or girls.

Might?

[DracoM]

<< I continue to maintain that this is one of the few areas in education where it’s better to segregate boys and girls of this age for singing.>>

Agreed.
The suggestion I am being sexist is sadly but predictably predictable.

Boys can be bullied, cowed, and if they feel that it is the case, a number will ask parents to take them away from the school/choir. They use al manner of excuses.
Seen it, counselled in such circs.
It is sad and a boy can have real damage done to his sense of worth by girls and / or boys / or both. Boys pretend / thus hide such things / It undermines and damages.
It is a fact that girls KNOW they are likely to be the central core of a mixed choir on purely physical grounds, and they can and some do assume 'leader' roles that easily tip into harassment as a result.
Seen it / know it. It is not pleasant.

PS I do not need lectures on this. Have been in the front line and know it to be true.

[Miles Coverdale]

Might?

I think almost certainly would. If not women and/or girls, then who?