Talk:Choir/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

External link like the one below is completely inappropriate to this article, should be deleted.

Surely there should be a chorally sung version ;)

Important choral works

I'm not convinced about the value of listing 'important choral works'. Who defines 'important'? The pieces on the list at the moment are a fairly motley assortment. If there's going to be a list at all, I think it ought to be limited to one or two very significant works by each of a handful of very well-known choral composers (perhaps Bach, Handel, Fauré, Mozart, that kind of thing). What would make more sense to me, though, would be a link here to a new page called List of choral works, or something similar, where a large number of choral pieces could be added, sorted by composer/era/style/whatever. Toby W 09:14, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you - the thing to do now, I suppose, is to begin that page and cut the info from this one. Fancy starting it? --Camembert

OK, I'll do that now Toby W 09:13, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that the link to List of choral works should be renamed to "Some examples of choral works" or something like that, until the page is really representative. The same thing applies to Famous choirs. Concerning the main page, I think that the sentence "Due to this difficulty, many of the greatest composers have never composed choral music" should be deleted. In fact, most of the famous composers have written choral works, for example Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Bruckner, Verdi, and many others. User:Danyg 00:56, 02 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yup, that's sensible. The page itself should stay as List of choral works, of course. Toby W 08:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Show choir

Ummm, somebody added "show choir" in the list of choirs. Originally it was a list of different voice constellations, but now it also includes other types as well. If we have "show choir" there, then we perhaps should have also "opera choir", "church choir", "gospel choir" and all other types of choirs, which don't mix well with general definitions such as "male choir". Should we then split the list into two, types of choirs by voices and by genre? This would also be in agreement with the discussion above. --Tbackstr 07:30, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this split; there are, of course, SATB show choirs and gospel choirs as well as SSA and TTBB versions of the both. Autiger 04:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Historical overview

This may seem trivial, but the earliest polyphony wasn't sung by choirs but by soloists; choirs continued to sing only unison chant throughout the Middle Ages. The earliest evidence of choral polyphonic singing is in the Old Hall Manuscript (1420, although much of the music is from the late 1300s), where there is occasional divisi. Wahoofive 06:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definition of choir

'A choir is a musical ensemble of singers in which at least two members perform the same music simultaneously.'

The last bit seems odd to me and on reflection fairly clearly wrong. Firstly, I'm not sure that 'choir' would be an inappropriate name for (say) SATB single voices; I'm not sure there is another adequate term. It would of course be a very small choir, but a choir nonetheless. Secondly, as a clear counterexample, Tallis's 40-part motet Spem in Alium is often (in fact usually) sung by 40 individual voices. And this is a choral motet, sung indeed by a choir. Ergo the definition's wrong, so I've taken the liberty of amending it by deleting the last bit. Ben Finn 19:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There are words such as "quartet" for one-on-a-part singing, always applied in operas and often to other small groups such as Anonymous 4. These groups are never called "choirs," so taking that out of the definition entirely seems like overkill. While you're right that Spem in Alium is often sung one-on-a-part and is still considered choral, I'd say it's an exception: 98% of the usage of the word means multiple voices on a part. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think Ben has a point. I agree that there's a distinction to be drawn between vocal ensembles (quartets, quintets etc) and choirs, but isn't that really a distinction based on size, not on number of singers per part? Perhaps the boundary between ensemble and choir is a hazy one, but I'd say that the bigger the group, the more it fits the definition 'choir'. It's got nothing to do with number of voices per part, it's about number of voices simpliciter.

After all, it's not just Spem that's an exception - any big multi-part work like that, whether performed by one singer or multiple singers per part, is called 'choral'. If I wrote a new 60-part motet today, and 60 individual voices performed it, there would be no doubt that they'd be called a choir too.

What do you think? Wombat 07:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It's 60-part motets that are the exception. Choral works with more than 8 parts represent far less than 1% of the choral repertoire, and there are no ensembles that sing exclusively, or primarily, such works. A group which sings Spem in alium undoubtedly sings primarily music with 8 or fewer parts, with multiple voices per part. It's true that groups with 8 or fewer singers are rarely called "choirs," although "Gregorian chant choirs" which sing in unison may be as few as 3 or 4 people. I don't mind qualifying the multiple-singer-per-part criterion with a word like "typically" or "usually," and I'm open to some sort of raw-size criterion, but the current version is too broad. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from (though I'd take issue with the claim that "there are no ensembles that sing exclusively, or primarily" works in more than 8 parts - I'm a member of two such ensembles, in fact, and they are most definitely choirs). But anyway, that's neither here nor there.

It strikes me that we each have very similar definitions of 'choir' in mind, and we're just struggling over where to draw the lines. Personally, I'm in a 30-strong choir and we very frequently sing modern works where at least one of many parts is sung by a single singer. This is far from exceptional among modern professional choirs, or among fairly ambitious amateur ones. But that doesn't disqualify these ensembles from counting as 'choirs', nor does it stop the multi-part works from counting as 'choral works', i.e. works written for choirs. That's why I think the more-than-one-per-part criterion is not the key criterion.

Of course, I can't deny that the majority of choirs, performing the majority of pieces, have more than one singer on each part. That's simply because most choral pieces have about 4 parts and most choirs have many more than 4 members. But that doesn't make the more-than-one-per-part criterion integral to the definition of 'choir' (just as most orchestras have a fourth horn, but having a fourth horn isn't thereby integral to the definition of 'orchestra'). What does seem integral to me is that there are enough singers in the ensemble to make it count as a choir. (How many? There's no strict rule. I'd draw the line at 7 or 8, I think, but it's a fuzzy boundary. Ben suggests even 4 voices singing SATB would count as a choir.)

So in summary, I have no problem with the statement that "choirs typically/usually have more than one singer per part" - as long as it's not presented as part of the definition of 'choir', which is what Ben was objecting to. How about we keep the statement, qualified with "usually", but move it a little lower down in the article and then introduce some kind of vague 'raw size' criterion higher up? Wombat 11:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the second paragraph slightly to adapt to these discussions. See what you think.

On another note, if you sing a lot of modern music you might be able to expand the "history" section (which currently ends at Bach). There were a number of interesting innovations in choral music in the 20th century and it would be nice to have an outline of them here. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with these changes. However I've also added that a chorus is typically on the larger side; also that choruses are often found in oratorios. (In the UK there are many very large choirs of warbling amateur singers, who perform the Messiah etc. and who often call themselves choruses.) Also I added the somewhat vague terms 'singing group' and 'vocal group' which I think are quite often used as alternatives to the more formal 'quartet', 'quintet' etc. Ben Finn 19:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Me too - thanks Wahoofive. I don't have a lot of free time at the moment but I may try to put together some kind of potted history of recent choral music... it's certainly a project! Cheers Wombat 08:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Choir skills

There has been a small revert war regarding whether singing solos is part of the section "skills required of choral singers". Personally, I think it's manifest that while sometimes choir members are selected to sing solos, it isn't a required skill. There are many choir singers who have never sung a solo in their life, and never will. But you could make the same argument about many of the other "required skills": there are choir singers who can't read music, can't focus on the director, can't remember to bring a pencil, can't blend. What this section seems to be is a description of the ideal choral singer. I could go ahead and rename it, but I wonder why this list even belongs here. I'm a choral person myself, but I can't see why this list belongs in an encyclopedia article on choirs. Other thoughts?—Wahoofive (talk) 20:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should we keep that section? I think we probably should. It's interesting for non-specialists to understand the significant differences between the skill set of the ideal chorister as opposed to the ideal orchestral player, for instance.

But I agree that if we keep that section, it needs renaming to 'ideal choral singer'. In fact, I'll do that now, without prejudicing the discussion about whether it ultimately stays or not. Wombat 08:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could certainly rename the section to clarify. But it does already say "The best choral singers possess (among others) the following abilities". The best choral singers are indeed able to sing solos (and indeed the people chosen to sing solos tend to be a choir's best singers); I rest my case!

Also I think the section is useful; the points in it aren't all obvious and I'm sure it would be illuminating to non-singers (as well as to some singers). Ben Finn 21:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, I'm not sure I agree that "the people chosen to sing solos tend to be a choir's best singers"! But that's beside the point. :o) I had a look at the section in question and I agree that it's quite clear now that we're talking about the "best" choral singers. Wombat 07:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

college choirs

This kind of goes under the heading of "how do we judge a choir to be famous" but I guess a good idea, as discussed already, is to list a group that at least has a wikipedia entry, on top of being objectively well known. I think the Harvard and Cornell Glee Clubs are the only groups at the moment to qualify, although feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I would include St. Olaf's and Westminster but neither of them have pages explicitly for their choirs; perhaps they get special mention under the heading "choir schools?"- Apollo58 03:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a standalone article "list of current choir groups" with short information for each one would be best. Pavel Vozenilek 19:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That's asking for a lot of vanity entries. Both Westminster Choir College and St. Olaf College mention their choirs (actually I see there's now a link to St. Olaf Choir). St. Olaf isn't really a "choir school," since the majority of their students don't sing in choir, whereas it is mandatory at WCC. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It might be easy to trim vanity entries...e.g. only choirs with distinguished histories or established records of recording, touring, commissioning, etc. as was proposed above for other categories of choir. If the choir has a wikipedia listing that doesn't establish its notability it could be wiped pretty easily from the list. Although I guess it is asking for trouble. A separate list of choirs would be somewhat unmaintainable.Apollo58 02:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Equal Voice

What is the exact meaning of an Equal Voice Choir (or Category) in a choral competition? This term frequently appears in connection to choral competitions.

Don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~, Ojaaskel. I'm a choral professional, and I've never heard this term in my life. Sometimes publishers will identify the voicing of a pieces as two (or more) equal voices, meaning that each part has the same range (highest and lowest notes). Can you provide a link to some website which uses this term? —Wahoofive (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be unhelpful, but I also have never encountered this term. Out of context, my best guess is that the category refers to music written for, say, a choir full of sopranos (presumably divided into parts) rather than a regular mixed choir with sopranos, altos, tenors etc. Wombat 16:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar either but a Google search seems to come up with plenty of hits, with the first page mostly related to UK choir competitions. Autiger 18:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the Google results, I infer that the term is the antonym of "mixed choir" or "mixed-voice choir"; therefore, a choir of all men or all women (or, presumably, all children). —Wahoofive (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The question came up due to a prize won by my old choir in '70, please see the original certificate. I did not first find this in OED, but now I could locate the following definition: voice 2.b. Music. equal voices: voices either all male or all female. I agree with Wahoofive, it appears to be used even for a choir of all children, and the antonym definition makes sense to me. Ojaaskel 15:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

A cappella vs unaccompanied

I'm curious: does anyone know why the ACDA discourage the use of the term 'a cappella'? --Urbane legend 16:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It's their publication Choral Journal which actually discourages this [1]. I wrote to the editor to ask and she responded that their concern is that the term a cappella may not historically have meant "unaccompanied" — instrumental doubling of voice parts was more common in olden times than was previously thought — and "a cappella" literally implies a church connection which doesn't correspond to many unaccompanied works, such as madrigals. They just think "unaccompanied" is unambiguous. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I admire their attention to historical accuracy and detail! But does this ambiguity really exist? Surely everyone these days takes a cappella to mean unaccompanied anyway? I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious. I've been a singer for a while (but I've only just joined my first choir) and until I read this article had no idea there was any ambiguity in this usage. --Urbane legend 12:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, your point is valid. But a professional journal also has to take into account scholarly and historical considerations. Think of it as a technical term which has a different meaning for specialists: for example, if you and I use the word Light, we know it means the opposite of darkness. In a physics journal, they might prefer "electromagnetic radiation". —Wahoofive (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Church choirs

Our informal policy about listing choirs up to now has been that choirs need to have a WP article to be listed here, unless they're obviously notable (e.g. BBC Singers). I see that a number of church choirs have been listed with links only to their church articles. I would like to propose to only allow such listings if the church article in question actually mentions the choir and asserts some kind of notability for it outside the church walls. Otherwise the listing is doing the reader no good. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would be better to discuss this here before actually doing it, given how clearly subjective adding choirs to this list is. I would personally like to add two notable English Catholic Cathedral Choirs, Westminster Cathedral Choir and Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral Choir, both of which have a fine broadcasting, recording and touring tradition (I would argue more so than some of the choirs on the list at present) - Westminster Cathedral's recordings on Hyperion are particularly good. But I suppose there are many other choirs with claims of merit, which is what makes having such lists on main articles such a tricky question...--Robotforaday 19:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here. My own opinion is that whether a choir is good isn't really that important. For the purposes of this list, a choir should only be included if there is more information on Wikipedia about it (whether on its own page or as part of another page). But I can't back that up with any WP policy. Can you add something to those cathedral's pages about their choirs? The Liverpool article mentions the choir, but doesn't give much information. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Choir links again

I have, yet again, pruned the choir links. My procedure, as I believe based on consensus above, is to only link to choir with bluelinks, and no external links, unless the choir is obviously notable (e.g. BBC singers, Tapiola choir). Otherwise it's just a spam magnet with every choir providing a link to its own web page. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see my proposal above regarding changing the whole focus of the list of choir links. If others agree with that, then there's a bunch of current links that need pruning, and I'm getting out my shears... DTinAZ 19:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for including Famous Choirs

We don't have any established criteria for choirs to be listed on this page, but there are thousands of choirs in the world, and no reason to list them all here; with no criteria, every choir will be looking for free advertising. ChoralNet has an excellent choir directory, much better organized than we could ever hope for here.

At the very least I'd like to propose that no choir be listed here merely with an external link; they should have a link to a Wikipedia entry (even if no such entry yet exists).

Accordingly, I've removed the following entries, none of which seems much like a "famous" choir:

Professional

• PAMS (The famous radio jingle service)
• [Vancouver Chamber Choir]

Amateur

• Edinburgh Royal Choral Union
• Riga Youth Choir "Balsis"
• St Lawrence Choir
• The choir of Bilovice - BACHS

For now, I've left external links on the listings which do have Wikipedia links, but I would propose deleting them also, moving them to the corresponding Wikipedia page.

Even if there's no consensus on this, we should have some kind of criterion, such as international touring. But see Wikipedia:Importance.

--Wahoofive 22:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that all choirs shouldn't be listed on the main Choir page; as you say, there would be thousands. A logical possibility is to make a List of choirs (curious to know if that turns blue when I save this) and link that to this page. Also, any sufficiently notable choir can have its own article (a lot of really good ones don't yet). Cheers, Antandrus 00:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - actually there was some attempt to clean up the listing a while back, but it seems to have burgeoned again. The idea of linking to Wikipedia articles seems an excellent one. Wombat 11:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed the following since it isn't a choir at all, but a musical theatre group:

• The Lamplighters (San Francisco)

--Wahoofive 16:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the concept of "Famous" choirs, in that fame can be very regional or localized. There are very few choral ensembles that have truly been famous worldwide. I think that it's fine to have links to choirs that have their own WP articles, or that are mentioned in the context of their host institution's WP article, but I think the section title should be changed from "Famous choirs" to something like "Wikipedia links to choirs." Any agreement with that? DTinAZ 19:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Choral Competitions

Just exactly who decided on these "Top Ten" Choral Competitions? Was there a study done that this section can reference??? Or should this be changed to "Renowned Choral Competitions" or something? Right now, it looks pretty arbitrary. --Crabbyass 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

20th and 21st centuries

This section could do with a bit more focus. I've begun by re-arranging the paragraphs on 'modernism' and more traditional styles. I've also removed the reference to neoclassicism, which in the context of 20th century music has a narrower meaning than that employed here (see Neoclassicism (music)). I removed the reference to Hugo Dressler because it seemed a bit of a random choice alongside the other more widely-performed composers. Countersubject 11:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven's Missa solemnis

I have a slight problem with this statement "sacred works unsuitable for church use, such as Beethoven's Missa solemnis" which implies that it was intended or is only good for concert performance. Beethoven did write this work with liturgical use in mind, specifically the ordination of his friend Archduke Rudolph as Archbishop - ref: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~tan/BeethovenMissaSolemnis/purpose.html Certainly it would be unsuitable for a normal church service, but not presumably some special occasion. Maarvarq 06:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Competitions

I see there has been some effort on this article to avoid creeping lists and OR, which is good, so I am going to delete this little directory. It is no more encyclopedic than a "list of choirs" or "list of major choral pieces." If someone wants to creat a list article about choral competitions, that's fine.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Welsh choirs

This paragraph under "20th and 21st centuries" seems strange:

At around this time, in the tail end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth, male voice choirs attained a particular popularity amongst the coal miners of South Wales, with numerous choirs being established at this time, such as the Treorchy Male Choir. Although the mining communities which birthed these choirs largely died out in the 1970s & 1980s with the decline of the Welsh coal industry, many of these choirs have gone from strength to strength and are seen as a 'traditional' part of Welsh culture.

Is this relevant, or just an excuse to put in a link to somebody's favorite choir? The rest of this section is about choral compositions, not choir organizations in specific countries. —Wahoofive (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Emerson7, who reinstated this section after I deleted it, left a note on my talk page indicating he thinks it's an "interesting bit of history". I still think it's a bit of irrelevant and unsubstantiated trivia, stuck in a section on a different topic. Any other editors care to weigh in? —Wahoofive (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think Treorchy belongs; a separate article on Welsh choirs would of course be great.Sparafucil 10:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

overhaul-split history and repertoire?

It seems we might usefully discuss the history of choirs as such (early one-per-part polyphony, more-per-part, instrumentaly doubled 'a cappella' Renaisance choirs, Bach's choir and the Rifkin hypothesis, through 19c choral societies etc...) separatly from repertoire, yes? I've fiddled a bit with medieval & ren. sections and cut the following paragraph altogether after first making it vanishingly concise:

1. A great number of composers have written choral works. However, composing vocal music is in many ways different from composing instrumental music. The requirements of including text, making it intelligible, and catering to the special capabilities and limitations of the human voice makes composing vocal music in some ways more demanding than composing instrumental music. Due to this difficulty, many of the greatest composers have never composed choral music. Naturally, many composers have their favourite instruments and rarely compose for other types instruments or ensembles, and choral music is in this sense not a special case. On the other hand, many composers of all eras have specialized in choral music, and for the first thousand years of western music history choral music was one of the few types of music to have survived intact.Sparafucil 10:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

On further thought, there's a more serious problem: a paucity of references. In their absence, sections of the article come across as personal opinion, or original research. That's why there has been such scope for debate on this page - without the bedrock of verifiable sources, one contributor's opinion is as good as the next. Skills involved in choral singing is a good example. There isn't a single reference to be seen. There aren't even any links to appropriate Wikipedia articles, such as Sight reading.

The problem is most marked when the article touches on current practice and repertoire. I suspect this is partly an issue of education, and partly one of the availability of material. Formal music education in the European tradition usually includes the history of western art music. In consequence, there is a wealth of general music-historical reference works, covering amongst other things choral repertoire and performance. This enables anyone with a reasonable level of music education to make verifiable contributions to the article. They're less likely to be familiar with research in areas, such as current practice and repertoire, that are taught as specialisms, and written about in specialist publications. When such areas are of interest to article contributors, we tend to write about them from our own experience, not on the basis of verifiable sources.

In addition, when things don't come within the scope of our experience, they don't get written about. This unnecessarily narrows the article's scope. I for one would love to see sections on choral education; choral conducting; the social and economic history of choral singing; and non-western choral traditions.

At this point, I think I'll pause for feedback :-) Countersubject 15:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are on the whole excellent. I only have one nitpick: "non-western choral traditions." This would be a very small, perhaps nonexistent topic. Much as we'd like to include non-western info in Wikipedia, there are some topics that just don't have worldwide scope, and this is one of them. There is music in every culture, but the choir, a group of singers singing in harmony for an audience (or at least in the presence of non-participants), is exclusively a western phenomenon. In other cultures, groups of people sing in unison or heterophony, usually for their own pleasure or as a religious ceremony, but this doesn't fit the definition of choir as most people understand it. To be sure, there are now choirs (and choral compositions) in places such as Japan, China, Korea and South Africa, but those are western imports adapted to their cultures, not indigenous choral traditions. (which doesn't mean they shouldn't be included, btw; I'm just criticizing your use of the word "tradition") —Wahoofive (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wahoo5! I dont see a justification for these definitions of choir. A glaring omision in the history section, for example, is the Rifkin One voice per part hypothesis for Bach's choro, and I dont see why a choir should have to sing harmony: surely a group of singers standing in a quire and singing gregorian chant in unison is still a choir! If it's not, there are still many non-western traditions that would fall under the article's scope; check out [2]. Sparafucil 10:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Children's Choir

I would like to write something more about children’s choirs ether as a separate article or as a part of this article. I have a fair amount of material (historic uses, major works, ect.) Does anyone have any suggestions as to whether I should merge this? S.dedalus 04:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The typical way would be to add it to this article first, then break it off when everyone agrees it's too long. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it would be better as part of this article since historically there's a lot of overlap. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you should start a separate article for children's choirs. 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Choir vs. Chorus

Would this entry not be more NPOV if entitled either Chorus or Choral music (currently redirected here) as Choir has a definite religious connotation to it? Dictionary.com affirms that with its three definitions.[3] There are secular choruses of all the types mentioned. Autiger 04:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't really agree. For me, 'choir' has no religious connotations - there are hundreds of secular groups in the UK which call themselves choirs. On the other hand, for me, 'chorus' suggests to me the chorus for an opera or show. Toby W 19:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At least it would seem that since there is a "chorus" page, which links back to here, that this page should link to it. Someday it may be possible for all to agree to merge the two. (added 09:53 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) )

Agree with the link to chorus. Properly speaking, choral music should be a separate page describing choral repertoire. I'll put it on my to-do list. —Wahoofive | Talk 18:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also think that choral music should be a separate page (as has been done in the Portuguese WP), because it's conceptually different from a "choir (group)". I intend to move all section starting in "Historical overview of choral music" to choral music, if no one disagrees. Carlos (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose This article is not that long – only 30kb – to necessitate a spinoff to a separate article. In general, it is not a good idea to require the reader to go to two separate articles to get information about two closely related (and in the minds of the general public, the same) aspects of a topic unless required due to article length. The Lead of this article does an adequate job of explaining the terminology, as is.  JGHowes  ^talk 15:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Probationer?

If you go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probationer, it redirects to "Choir" - yet "Choir" does not contain the word "probationer", or even "probation", and gives no clue as to what "probationer" means. (I initially went to "Probationer" because of a particular meaning for it which I knew, which is completely unrelated to choirs.)

Does "probationer" mean something in connection with choirs? If so, perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere, seeing that the "Probationer" article redirects to the "Choir" article. Or if it doesn't (or it is too unimportant to merit mentioning), maybe the redirect should be removed or the article "Probationer" removed - or, if that word does have other established meanings, someone who knows those could create the article. (No, I can't do it myself, not knowing enough about the specific meaning I was looking for.) M.J.E. (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In English Cathedral Choirs it means a boy who hasn't yet become a full chorister, which I see also redirects here, which in those choirs has a specific meaning. I suspect that probationer redirected to chorister, which then got merged into this article (as it's often used as a general term for some who sings in a choir), or was itself redirected here, adn so probationer was fixed to avoid a so-called double-redirect. David Underdown (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

External link

Would it be ok to add a link to http://www.classicalmusichomepage.com/directory/categories/Ensemble%20-%20Choirs%20and%20Choruses in the external links section. This page lists UK choirs with links to their websites. Thanks Ndifrancesco (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)