Most music critics don’t know the difference.  They constantly use the wrong word.  The wrong “chorus” word is constantly used in YT comments by the classical music armchair critics and other amateurs, and even by some people who should know better, such as one chorister from Robert Shaw’s Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Chorus.  And a Chorus is NOT “the choir [sic]” as the amateur plebs write.  Yes, with few exceptions, I find most amateurs very annoying, in part, from having taught them.  After they realised there was intense work involved in learning music, they quit because, “I just want to play and have fun.”  Well, one can’t “play” until one learns the basics, which many amateurs had no interest in learning.  I think from seeing television informercials about “learning to play the piano,” (with the index finger of both hands!) they were under illusions that they could “learn piano” after a couple of classes just by having me as their instructor.  Delusional.  Well-trained musicians spend decades learning their art, not a couple of weeks.

Hola a todos.  There is a difference between the two words, although most people don’t seem to know the difference, even other musicians and especially sloppy classical music performance critics who are notorious for using the wrong word, as in “chorus”.

When I was performing in the Kennedy Center Concert Hall with Norman Scribner’s Choral Arts Society of Washington and with Dr Paul Traver’s University of Maryland Chorus — both invited guest Choruses of the Kennedy Center’s National Symphony Orchestra —  we heard backstage before going on stage for our performance over the public address system from the stage manager, “Chorus to the stage, Chorus to the stage.”  We never heard, “Choir to the stage, Choir to the stage.” That’s because our official name did not have the word Choir in it.  We were the Choral Arts Society of Washington Chorus and the University of Maryland Chorus.  The same was true backstage with the San Francisco Symphony Chorus:  “Chorus to the stage, Chorus to the stage.”

the Chorus = a vocal ensemble
the chorus = part of a musical composition, as in “let’s sing the chorus again” or “this oratorio has a chorus after every aria” or “Israel in Egypt:  the oratorio of choruses.”

See the difference?

I read a review of a performance by the Boston Symphony Orchestra and its Chorus, the Tanglewood Festival Chorus.  See that capital C there for Chorus?  That is correct.  But when the idiot music critic in Boston referred to the Tanglewood Festival Chorus later on in the article to critique them, they wrote “chorus.”  Why?  It should be Chorus with a capital C.  Because you’re still referring to the Tanglewood Festival Chorus without using their full name.  Doh.  I realise stupid is in, but really!  You didn’t write earlier in the article “Tanglewood Festival chorus” (lower case c) which would have been incorrect.  So why was Mr/Ms Music Critic using a lower case “c” now?  I can’t stand stupid mindless people who don’t think about what they write.  You’re not writing about a particular chorus (lower case c) in an oratorio, for example — such as the Hallelujah chorus — that the TFC sang in Messiah, if that were the case.

Another example, if you go on the San Francisco Symphony Chorus webpage, they refer to the Symphony Chorus as “the Chorus” (initial cap “C”) when they don’t use the full name:  “SFS Chorus” or San Francisco Symphony Chorus.  The same goes for the BBC Symphony Chorus, which they refer to as “the Chorus” when not using the full name.  They understand this.

Then we have all the stupid people in the world.  Well, you can’t fix stupid, so don’t waste your time trying.

I use “Chorus” (upper case “C”) also as a way of respect for the Chorus in a performance that I’m writing about, since most people mistakenly think of the Chorus as second class musicians, which they’re not, and not even worthy of respect.  They’re the same idiots who refer to “the Choir on stage” even though their official name is Chorus.  Sigh.  I do the same for “Orchestra” (upper case “O”) as a way of respect for the Orchestra I’m writing about in a particular performance.

A chorus (lower case “c”) is part of a hymn, a song, a folk song or other pieces of music, such as the choruses (lower case “c”) in an oratorio, a Bach cantata or other cantatas, or in opera which are sung by the Symphony Chorus (oratorio) or Opera Chorus (opera). In both instances, the ensembles performing the pieces would be referred to as “the Chorus” in short form when not using their full name.   Why is that so difficult to grasp?  Although these days, some Symphony Choruses are performing opera choruses (note lower case c). Also, for example, Händel’s oratorio Israel in Egypt is known as “the oratorio of choruses” (lower case c) because of the abundance of choruses in the work for the Chorus (the vocal ensemble performing the choruses).

Sometimes sloppy classical music reviewers confuse me, and some seem to be getting worse about it. They will write about a “chorus” (lower case “c”) but the vague way they write about it leaves me asking: Are you referring to the Chorus who performed the work or are you referring to a chorus inside the work (such as the choruses as part of an oratorio, for example)? Yes, reviewers are getting pretty sloppy — again, without little respect or regard for the Chorus in a performance, especially when they’re writing from their opera background — where to them it’s all about the vocal soloists screamers. I end up having to read what they write at least a couple of times to figure out WTF they were referring to when they wrote “chorus.”

For search engine purposes, I usually write out the name of the choral ensemble each time or an abbreviated version (such as UMD Chorus for University of Maryland Chorus) since “Chorus” doesn’t tell a search engine anything. It’s too vague. The same for the word “Choir” as in University of Maryland Concert Choir or UMD Concert Choir. The word “Choir” says nothing to a search engine.

What’s the difference between Chorus and Choir? At the Conservatory where I trained, we were taught that Choirs are typically connected with churches or religious organisations.  So when some idiot refers to “the choir” when referring to the BBC Symphony Chorus, I get annoyed, because the BBC Symphony Chorus is a secular ensemble not connected with any religious institution.  The ensemble is also called a Chorus — BBC Symphony Chorus —  not a Choir.  If they wanted to be called a Choir or known as a Choir they would have named themselves BBC Symphony Choir to begin with!   Doh.  Ah, people!

A Chorus is usually secular as in Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Chorus or Chicago Symphony Chorus or the San Francisco Symphony Chorus, although in these sloppy language days I don’t think that definition is much held to as it once was since some Conservatories have a Concert Choir, not connected with any religious organisation.  I was piano accompanist for the Conservatory Concert Choir, an example of the use of the word “Choir” for a secular choral ensemble.

I prefer the word “Chorus” over “Choir” because of the secular meaning of the word Chorus, and to me it also sounds better.

When I was listening to BBC Radio 3 — before they dumbed-down to compete with Classic FM — their presenters were using the words Chorus and Choir interchangeably. If the BBC Symphony Orchestra and Chorus had just performed at the Proms, I’d hear the presenter say, “the Choir is now standing to take their bows.” The Choir? It’s not called the BBC Symphony Choir, Mr/Ms presenter. Sloppy. They’re called the BBC Symphony Chorus. Call them what they are;  address them by their correct name, damn it. No attention to detail in your world? That’s as bad as a review I read recently of the Chicago Symphony Chorus. The idiot that wrote that review referred to them as the Chicago Symphony Choir. (Sigh.) I told mi amigo/my friend about that and he said: That doesn’t even sound right. No, it doesn’t. The Chicago Symphony Chorus has been in existence since 1957 when founded by Chorus Director Margaret Hillis, and that reviewer still doesn’t know their correct name.  Where do they get these insipid so-called “music reviewers” or “music critics” who live under illusions that they are such authorities?  Are they rejects from Conservatories and Schools of Music because they didn’t possess the talent, intelligence or attention to detail (which is heavily required in music) to get through the curriculum?

It reminds me of some things that are changing (for the worst). It’s similar to the concept of perfect intonation — one of the rudimentary foundations of choral excellence, or used to be at least — which now seems to be on the decline especially in the US¹ and changing in favour of a cheap and ugly Vibrato Fad(TM), where if you can’t sing spot-on pitch or possibly have vocal technical problems, just use vibrato: Wobble, flutter and quiver your voice so that you don’t blend with anyone else. The thinking seems to be: Nobody will know the difference! They’ll just say, “Oh, they’re classically trained.”  So for henceforth and forever more, I’m sure that everyone who has read this article will use Chorus and chorus correctly.  Correct?  Yeah right.  I live under no illusions that will be the case.

There are those who will want to tell me:  You’re just splitting hairs and being nit-picky.  It doesn’t matter what you call things.  Ha!  Well obviously that person has never studied music and with that thinking would make a terrible musician.  Just like the medical and legal professions — as two examples — music has its own language.  And well-trained musicians — unlike the amateurs — know that language.  The finest performances in the world are because of the musicians being nit-picky.  Nit-picky is what creates stellar performances.  Nit-picky is a good thing even though it’s usually used as a pejorative.

A more mature response to this article would be — rather than dismissing me as “splitting-hairs” and “nit-picky” would be:  Well thank you very much for the informative and detailed article.  I’ve learned the difference between Chorus and chorus and will pass it on.  I never knew there was a difference and am guilty of making that mistake too.  So thank you very much for the “Conservatory education” you’ve provided with this article.  That would be a mature response.  But I suspect most will not respond that way but instead will rush to defend their misuse of both words because most people are very slow to change their behaviour, even when they know they’re wrong.

__________________

¹ I’ve previously written about this (the decline of choral excellence especially in the US), but if you didn’t read those articles, I wrote about that in this article, specifically the New England Conservatory Concert Choir in their Brahms’s Ein deutsches Requiem, Op 45 performance, and the Boston University Symphony Chorus in their Mendelssohn’s Elias/Elijah performance (Dra Ann Howard Jones prepared the Chorus) and their Fauré Requiem performance. But in their performance of Rachmaninov’s The Bells, they sang with mostly a straight-tone. I wonder how that happened? Another example is the combined choral ensembles at Shenandoah Conservatory and their annoying heavy-vibrato which they were using in the folk song, “Shenandoah.” It sounded awful. Heavy-vibrato in a folk song? That’s as bad as heavy-vibrato in Renaissance music which I heard from the adult choristers at La Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris. When it was pointed out to them that noticeable or heavy vibrato is most inappropriate in Renaissance music, they agreed. Then what did we hear the next Dimanche/Sunday? Vibrato in Renaissance music! Loco./Crazy. With the Shenandoah Conservatory performance, one commenter wrote, “Vibrato much?” Glad someone else noticed it. The interesting thing about that is that the Shenandoah Conservatory choral ensembles were conducted by one of the founders of Chanticleer. When I’ve heard Chanticleer they’ve sung without any noticeable vibrato. Fortunately, from what I’ve observed, the choral ensembles in Europe and the EU are mostly still adhering to the concept of perfect intonation. Then you come over here to the US, and the rudimentary concept of the perfect blending of voices seems to be fading away. Depending upon the Chorus one hears, choristers are being allowed to sing any way they want. What happened to standards of choral excellence, highly trained and degreed Chorus Directors? What is wrong with you? Most of you come with very esteemed credentials and advanced degrees, yet this is the way you’re training choral ensembles now? Have you gone insane or lost your hearing for choral excellence? It’s embarrassing. Incredible.