Which of these choir descriptions would you rather be a part of?

[justme6272]

Would you rather be in a very good church choir with auditions and/or attendance requirements (Choir A), or a so-so choir where everyone is welcome anytime? (Choir B)

This question is meant to focus just as much on your philosophy of inclusion and the type of environment you most support, as the quality of singing group you’re in.

(Choir A) - Assume you could easily pass any audition if required, but maybe you don't want to attend rehearsals or services every week - maybe not even MOST Sundays, depending on work schedule, the featured song being sung (let's be honest, they're not always good), how hard it is to learn, the weather, or you just don't feel like going, or any other personal reason, even as leadership checks roll or prefers more commitment. An advantage for the more accomplished sight-singer may be that each song doesn't have to be practiced as much, and with less starting and stopping and spoon-feeding people's notes to them. Songs chosen may include lesser known religious works by classical composers, and are often more challenging.

(Choir B) - Or, you may be an excellent singer and fine with being committed, but just prefer a church where music leadership believes all are welcome all the time for the sake of lesser quality singers and/or busy people who want a sense of belonging, fellowship, and ‘plugging-in’ as a volunteer, etc. on their own timetable as THEIR time AND/OR desire permits, for whatever personal reasons, and you don't mind putting up with an environment where rehearsals are more taxing for the accomplished sight-singer, when the director is constantly stopping, correcting, and having the pianist play everyone's part for them, one part at a time, while everyone else waits. Songs may be simpler overall, but well-known to most. (choral arrangements of classic hymns, contemporary praise and worship songs, etc.)

Don't worry about church size, choir size, denomination, doctrine taught, or other church factors like quality of the kid's/youth ministry, Bible study group availability, whether or not you have to wear a choir robe, or how hot the choir loft gets, or anything else one might consider in evaluating a church. This is just about the choir and how it's leadership runs things, so you can assume all other things are equal for the purpose of this question. Elaborate as much as you wish. There are no wrong answers, but I would like to know if your answer is based more on your own commitment and time availability vs. your level of agreement (or not) in the music leadership's philosophy of inclusion.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, both are valuable. If forced to choose -- and life will in fact do that to us some -- I'm strongly going to prefer the 2nd, because of the ultimate purpose of a choir.

The middle way though, is to recognize all people are imperfect, and to forgive, and do "love one another", over and over, all the time.

What is the ultimate purpose of a choir?

Does the Spirit have an effect on that purpose? Well, yes. We know the spirit is not predictable in all ways, as Christ told us --

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

A choir can be polished without spirit, or it could sometimes be spirit filled without being polished, and of these 2, the 2nd is vastly better for the church.

Generally, we don't have to chose, because we are hoping to have spirit filled singing.

For instance, in our church, people come and try to come to practice, and mostly will, unless they can't, but often the choir is inspiring to listen to, and that isn't about having more voices that are more impressive, but about the song itself and the involvement in the song from the heart and spirit. The singing is good enough, not professional even slightly, and sometimes we are really moved.

 

[Dave-W]

Choir A for sure. Having been in both, the non-trained singers in Choir B can be a real drag and hindrance for rest of the choir. They throw everyone off.

It is the same reason you do not want someone who wants to play but does not know a C major chord from a Bb diminished chord playing electric guitar in the worship band.

ETA: depending on the style the congregation uses, I would like to make sure the guitarist knows how to play an E7#9 chord. It is the starting chord of this: (me playing)

 

[Dave-W]

For instance, in our church, people come and try to come to practice, and mostly will, unless they can't, but often the choir is inspiring to listen to, and that isn't about having more voices that are more impressive, but about the song itself and the involvement in the song from the heart and spirit. The singing is good enough, not professional even slightly, and sometimes we are really moved.

For years I was a worship leader - and even led a "B" type choir. But I found I had to be around professional level musicians to keep my own skills up.

 

[Dave-W]

A choir can be polished without spirit, or it could sometimes be spirit filled without being polished, and of these 2, the 2nd is vastly better for the church.

Not the only 2 choices.

 

[grasping the after wind]

B is not a choir at all. It is the entire congregation during worship ie, a bunch of different variously talented people singing praise to God along with the instrumental accompaniment that just happened to show up that Sunday. A choir requires some sort of consistent practice at the very least. Talent and knowledge may vary but to be a choir member I think one must commit to some schedule of practice or there is no cohesion within the group's performance. One that just wants to sing on their own time can do so every week at the regular service in the normal times when the entire congregation does so. .

 

[Halbhh]

B is not a choir at all. It is the entire congregation during worship ie, a bunch of different variously talented people singing praise to God along with the instrumental accompaniment that just happened to show up that Sunday. A choir requires some sort of consistent practice at the very least. Talent and knowledge may vary but to be a choir member I think one must commit to some schedule of practice or there is no cohesion within the group's performance. One that just wants to sing on their own time can do so every week at the regular service in the normal times when the entire congregation does so. .

Good point. The choir could potentially be thought of as...somewhat like a bell ringing group, where one hopes they play accurately. That is, a....means for people listening to possibly be moved by the music (not the words). The choir could even just sing "aaahhhh" notes (whatever the word is for notes sung without being a word), and if the service already is moving people, we can just listen while meditating on other parts of the service.

I hope this doesn't sound any bit insincere. I mean that even the very elaborate melodies some classical composers created for masses I value just for their melodies, and this isn't a bad thing, but can be a complementary thing, to the service. Mozart's composition for the mass did not have "too many notes" to me. While I recognize that legitimately, it could indeed be too many notes for some people, for me it is good. I suppose one can have different services for differing tastes, just as we in fact do.

I'm not saying the words don't matter. To me personally, the words are 80-95% of the value usually, and the melody and accuracy a mere 5% or 10% often, personally. Now, when the words seem uninspired to me (some few lyrics being that way), then only the melody is left of value at that moment, for me, subjectively. But that's just me. Altogether, I want to recognize that a beautiful melody does have value in a service.

 

[Halbhh]

For years I was a worship leader - and even led a "B" type choir. But I found I had to be around professional level musicians to keep my own skills up.

While I found myself able to appreciate other things you said, this reasonable desire to keep up your musical ability I think you should carefully keep an eye on -- keep it separate, for other times -- to keep it out of your heart during the service, of course, because I feel you should be able to be moved by the spirit during the service, and not be worried about mere performance.

 

[Dave-W]

While I found myself able to appreciate other things you said, this reasonable desire to keep up your musical ability I think you should carefully keep an eye on -- keep it separate, for other times -- to keep it out of your heart during the service, of course, because I feel you should be able to be moved by the spirit during the service, and not be worried about mere performance.

Sorry - but I think you are making a false dichotomy here. You do not have to throw technical skill out the window to be led by the Spirit. Indeed, the Spirit can USE all of that technical skill to HIS glory. How can that be if you do NOT have the skills?

Psalm 47:7
For God is the King of all the earth; Sing praises with a skillful psalm.
​

The only time it becomes a problem is when the skill draws attention to itself. If properly done, it will not. But a person who keeps singing the wrong words (on mic) or off tune WILL draw attention, especially of other musicians.

 

[Halbhh]

To correct somewhat the emphasis I made in my other comments, it can occasionally matter some when a melody is sung very noticeably out of key. That's uncommon in the traditional services, but can happen at times in the contemporary services (I've been to both plenty, as my wife sings in both).

It matters being off key the most when the words of the song aren't our own favorites, which of course many songs will be, and it seems like it matters less when I enjoy the words more, and I hardly even notice it, perhaps wouldn't, for those songs, if not being a piano player, musical myself. I mean it's all about where your focus is, and it's legitimate for some people to naturally focus a lot on melody.

 

[Halbhh]

Sorry - but I think you are making a false dichotomy here. You do not have to throw technical skill out the window to be led by the Spirit. Indeed, the Spirit can USE all of that technical skill to HIS glory. How can that be if you do NOT have the skills?

Psalm 47:7
For God is the King of all the earth; Sing praises with a skillful psalm.
​

The only time it becomes a problem is when the skill draws attention to itself. If properly done, it will not. But a person who keeps singing the wrong words (on mic) or off tune WILL draw attention, especially of other musicians.

ah, I was just writing on that also, post #10. You are right. Still, what I said is very true also, and you'll want to have both, I'm sure. It would be a false dichotomy to feel we have to choose, just as you say also.

Going back to the OP, it's....probably not possible on Earth to make other people do just what we want them to do, but instead we have to use this principle, as we strive to improve our singing --

"Love one another".

 

[Dave-W]

I mean it's all about where your focus is, and it's legitimate for some people to naturally focus a lot on melody.

Musically, that is precisely where the congregation should have musical focus. And (especially for new songs) we as musicians should keep that the focus as well.

Yes, there are some of us still around that remember 4 part scored out harmony in hymnals; and can even wing a good tenor, alto or bass line without that. Most congregants cannot; so they need all the help from us with the melody they can get.

True worship is not just being lost in the ozone. It is keeping your eye to the Lord and your hand on the plow. That is especially true for us musicians. We are to provide a smooth path for the congregation to enter HIS presence.

 

[Halbhh]

Would you rather be in a very good church choir with auditions and/or attendance requirements (Choir A), or a so-so choir where everyone is welcome anytime? (Choir B)

This question is meant to focus just as much on your philosophy of inclusion and the type of environment you most support, as the quality of singing group you’re in.

(Choir A) - Assume you could easily pass any audition if required, but maybe you don't want to attend rehearsals or services every week - maybe not even MOST Sundays, depending on work schedule, the featured song being sung (let's be honest, they're not always good), how hard it is to learn, the weather, or you just don't feel like going, or any other personal reason, even as leadership checks roll or prefers more commitment. An advantage for the more accomplished sight-singer may be that each song doesn't have to be practiced as much, and with less starting and stopping and spoon-feeding people's notes to them. Songs chosen may include lesser known religious works by classical composers, and are often more challenging.

(Choir B) - Or, you may be an excellent singer and fine with being committed, but just prefer a church where music leadership believes all are welcome all the time for the sake of lesser quality singers and/or busy people who want a sense of belonging, fellowship, and ‘plugging-in’ as a volunteer, etc. on their own timetable as THEIR time AND/OR desire permits, for whatever personal reasons, and you don't mind putting up with an environment where rehearsals are more taxing for the accomplished sight-singer, when the director is constantly stopping, correcting, and having the pianist play everyone's part for them, one part at a time, while everyone else waits. Songs may be simpler overall, but well-known to most. (choral arrangements of classic hymns, contemporary praise and worship songs, etc.)

Don't worry about church size, choir size, denomination, doctrine taught, or other church factors like quality of the kid's/youth ministry, Bible study group availability, whether or not you have to wear a choir robe, or how hot the choir loft gets, or anything else one might consider in evaluating a church. This is just about the choir and how it's leadership runs things, so you can assume all other things are equal for the purpose of this question. Elaborate as much as you wish. There are no wrong answers, but I would like to know if your answer is based more on your own commitment and time availability vs. your level of agreement (or not) in the music leadership's philosophy of inclusion.

The middle way -- realizing how imperfect all of us humans are, me and you too! ;-)

If your heart is in the right place, you can even suggest with a real smile that --

"Let's try to all get here at 7, next week, people."

But if you aren't in a truly happy place of real love, then don't say it (not yet). Be quiet about it, if you are irritated.

You encourage them to be on time, but you truly forgive entirely (100%, not 90%) from your heart (no less), those who are not on time, and you are not focused on being irritated about that, etc.

Instead, your focus on that level is: "Love one another".

You live with it, in my best understanding, if you need more voices, but some of them are very stretched for time, and choir is less important to them than their children, etc.

 

[Halbhh]

Musically, that is precisely where the congregation should have musical focus. And (especially for new songs) we as musicians should keep that the focus as well.

Yes, there are some of us still around that remember 4 part scored out harmony in hymnals; and can even wing a good tenor, alto or bass line without that. Most congregants cannot; so they need all the help from us with the melody they can get.

True worship is not just being lost in the ozone. It is keeping your eye to the Lord and your hand on the plow. That is especially true for us musicians. We are to provide a smooth path for the congregation to enter HIS presence.

I believe you that you are talking about a real thing. It's not....something I rely on much, if there are 2 or 3 or 4 parts, and I have a musical background. I mean that I enjoy those beautiful and complex harmonies, but I don't notice them if the words are inspired enough. Instead that musical side disappears, for me, and the words take precedence. I point this out only because it helps illustrate how various everyone is, so that only a small portion of a congregation is just like me, or just like you, or just like the choir director. I think a lot of people will enjoy a beautiful melody, just like many will enjoy a good sermon.

 

[Dave-W]

It's not....something I rely on much, if there are 2 or 3 or 4 parts, and I have a musical background.

LOL!!!

I was trained vocally by Southern Gospel quartets. (Stamps, Blackwoods, etc) I had Ken Turner (bass for the Blackwood Bros at the time) as my vocal coach. So I can do a bass line very well; and am adaptable enough to find a good fitting bass that does not detract from the melody in almost any genre.

 

[justme6272]

The middle way -- realizing how imperfect all of us humans are, me and you too! ;-)

I have no idea what you mean by 'the middle way.' There were two choices given, Choir A and Choir B.

If your heart is in the right place, you can even suggest with a real smile that --
"Let's try to all get here at 7, next week, people."

You encourage them to be on time from your heart (no less), those who are not on time, and you are not focused on being irritated about that, etc.

I have no idea why you are talking about being on time. Perhaps you clicked on the wrong post to respond from the one you were reading.

 

[Halbhh]

I have no idea what you mean by 'the middle way.' There were two choices given, Choir A and Choir B.

I have no idea why you are talking about being on time. Perhaps you clicked on the wrong post to respond from the one you were reading.

Please see the OP, the wording about "Choir B" there. See -- "... on their own timetableas THEIR time AND/OR desire permits," etc. That's the question this post (#13) was meant to address. See? You can ask me more, like in a PM, if you like.

Sorry for not being more clear!!

 

[Sierra Franklin]

In every decision put Jesus first and everything else goes awesome!