Response to:

"Interesting comments on this question of whether the singer should also be an actor. But either
way, wouldn't the music be *best* expressed by someone who shares the beliefs of the text?
Professional actors can convince me that their child was kidnapped in a TV movie but their pleas
pale in impact when compared to the parents on the evening news actually asking for help...."

There's truth in this, but how does this relate to our profession? We can't perform only what we
personally believe in. Our responsibility is to perform great art. Taken to a ridiculous
extreme, real murderers, not actors, should play murderers in movies. That's reality TV I'm not
ready for. Casting Sweeney Todd is gonna be difficult. Salome, Scarpia, Orfeo...

I'm not sure what "best" really means in our context of choral performances. I reject the notion
that I can't conduct a Palestrina motet as well as someone who believes every word, and I thought
our last St. Matthew was pretty damned good. We are all always "acting" when we sing if we are any
good. The same is true of any love song we sing; we don't have to be in love at the moment. Heaven
help us if we have to have experienced everything we sing about, let along believe in it.



David Griggs-Janower
228 Placid Drive
Sch NY 12303

Hi Rachel,

Interesting points you bring up!

Here's what I believe:

1) The mind and body function in virtually identical ways when we are connected to truth, and when we use our creative imagination. If I asked you to describe your fantasy vacation, your face, eyes, voice, and body would "light up" in much the same way as if you were describing your FAVORITE vacation. And all this would be happening in conjunction with signals sent from the brain, which is pumping out (REAL) neurochemicals, thoughts, images, and related feelings.

2) A singer's belief in the song's text is never a guarantee that they will be engaged on an authentic and compelling level. Think about it -- how many singers in church choirs believe every word they sing, yet are passively disengaged, only connecting to thoughts about words and notes?

And for that matter, how many Catholic singers in a professional chorus performing the Durufle Requiem are going to be equally inexpressive? Answer from my perspective = Many More than Expected, and Many More than Necessary. Singers are rehearsed to think primarily about technical and/or external elements, and they perform accordingly.

So, from my perspective, it doesn't matter too much if the singer believes the text IF that singer is comfortable committing to creative imagination-based thoughts that connect temporarily to that belief -- or to very similar or related beliefs.

But it sounds like some of your singers are uncomfortable singing about certain things. This WILL guarantee that they won't be authentically expressive. UNLESS they are very comfortable substituting something from their own lives for something in the text -- worshipping their hero father rather than Jesus, for example.

And to your direct point, IF they are making some kind of substitution, I think they CAN be just as compelling as if they really believed the actual text -- but it takes lots of very specific internal work on their part in order for THEM to believe every word and every line, in the moment, with 100% conviction. However, if THEY are believing it and justifying every single melodic and dynamic change, then the audience will tend to believe it as well.

So, it sounds like you are exercising your only option IF you want your singers to engage fully in the text and music, and IF they are uncomfortable using substitution ... or committing to Stanislavski's "Magic If." (How would you act -- and what would you think -- if you were the character, in the character's given circumstances?)

Warm regards,

Tom

Tom Carter
www.choralcharisma.com
tpcarter(a)earthlink.net

Tom Carter
tpcarter(a)earthlink.net

Related both to this thread and to the discussion of the St John
Passion --

Organist Timothy Tikker has a featured review in the current
issue of The American Organist (TAO) exploring similar thoughts provoked by a
recent film and companion book focused on a single work by Messiaen.
Available on DVD, "Apparition of the Eternal Church" by violinist/filmmaker Paul
Festa (2006), and the companion book, "O My God: Messiaen in the Ear of
the Unbeliever" (both available from Bar Nothing Books) have engendered
much discussion in recent months, especially since the 52-minute film
was featured at the 2008 AGO National Convention in Minneapolis.



The film consists of the reactions of 31 individuals to the
experience of hearing this piece of music over headphones -- only
fragments reach the viewer until the entire piece is
revealed at the end of the film. Excerpts from Mr. Tikker's review
follow:



. . . This film raises a series of compelling questions for all in our
profession to consider: How do people perceive music--especially
non-musicians? . . . How do people perceive religous music--especially
unbelievers?



. . . when Messiaen was asked in an interview, "Do you have a feeling
that you communicate a message to your listeners through your music?"
he said, "Perhaps, but not intentionally." Then when asked, "Does one
have to be a Christian in order to understand your music fully? he
responded, "A believer understands the truths of Faith better than an
unbeliever . . . faith, piety is a need, especially, as a matter of
fact, for those who do not believe . . . A music that brings them music
and faith is a comfort for them, after all--perhaps even more so than
for believers."



(end of excerpts from Timothy Tikker's review)



This discussion also touches on the dangers of accepting unfounded or
erroneous allegations about the beliefs of a composer or the motives
behind a composition or choice of text. Messiaen, who composed
"Quartet for the End of Time" while in a concentration camp, is
regarded in some quarters as an anti-Semite.



The review and its carefully footnoted references are worth reading --
if you don't get TAO, borrow it from a local organist. And you might
consider taking a look at the film and its companion book -- both of
which are controversial in themselves.



Charles Q. Sullivan

cqsmusic(a)hotmail.com

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

I think this quote sums it up:

"Acting is all about honesty. If you can fake that, you've got it
made." --George Burns (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/George_Burns/)

Jim Cole
Director of Music
Our Lady of Lourdes Church
Whitehouse Station, NJ
ollmusic(a)embarqmail.com

Fascinating thread, so sorry to have been heavily involved with finally
rehearsals for a Tokyo performance of Richard III.

As I have mentioned in an earlier thread, I was recently involved, in
two concerts, in the singing of a very special arrangement of the
Irish folksong "She moved through the Fair". The final line,
unaccompanied, was, "It will not be long, love, till our wedding day"
-- and I can assure you that I have never been an unaccompanied ghost
informing her still-living fiance that he would shortly be expiring.
Likewise, when singing the great Dolly Parton song "Jolene", I have
never been in the situation of the singer -- but am well able to put
myself in the place of the singer! And currently in my Shakeshepare
role I remain myself but am able, completely, to become the character
of Margaret of Anjou, full of righteous indignation, but only as long
as it concerns her own immediate family. This is called acting. But
when I am singing, for example, the narrator in the Passion, then in a
sense I am again putting on an act -- but in another sense I am putting
in my own perceptions. This is a great journey into our own souls, I
believe.

Forgive me for this late and perhaps rather inept addition.

Doreen perhaps wearing too amy hats

Doreen Simmons
jz8d-smmn(a)asahi-net.or.jp

I think that convincibility or comfort is relative to how ingrained one's belief system is for or against something. I for one would not be comfortable singing a song that is praise to Buddha. Pretending that I am acting doesn't make it spiritually right. Smoking a cigarette while acting in a movie doesn't negate the fact that the cigarette is real and will still affect your health even though you are merely 'acting' while smoking it.

Atheistic or agnostic individuals who have to sing a religous song can do so because they have no moral anchor to measure their belief system to. They can sing all the while knowing they don't believe it and have no higher power of standard to answer to.

A Christian having to sing about praise to another deity would consider this a blasphemous act even though they don't believe in Buddha.

Darrell
d_corbel(a)hotmail.com

Darrell wrote:
> I think that convincibility or comfort is relative to how ingrained one's belief system is for or against something. I for one would not be comfortable singing a song that is praise to Buddha. Pretending that I am acting doesn't make it spiritually right. Smoking a cigarette while acting in a movie doesn't negate the fact that the cigarette is real and will still affect your health even though you are merely 'acting' while smoking it.
>
> Atheistic or agnostic individuals who have to sing a religous song can do so because they have no moral anchor to measure their belief system to. They can sing all the while knowing they don't believe it and have no higher power of standard to answer to.
>
> A Christian having to sing about praise to another deity would consider this a blasphemous act even though they don't believe in Buddha.
>
>
All right then, what about the Baal choruses in Mendelssohn's "Elijah"?
You could argue that their purpose is to show up false prophets, but the
'characters' depicted are very serious about THEIR faith.

Regards,
Jaakko Mäntyjärvi
Helsinki, Finland
jaakko.mantyjarvi(a)welho.com

"Nil significat nisi oscillat. Du vap. Du vap. Du vap."

Whoa, Bessie! To say that atheists and/or agnostics have no moral
anchor or to imply that they have no belief system is, to say the
least, highly offensive, aside from being plain wrong. That comment
is so willfully ignorant of the fundamental concepts of morality that
in itself it deserves no further response beyond, "go and learn."

But I will anyway, because ignorance left uncorrected leads to danger.

Your comment implies that the only basis on which religious people
make moral choices is fear of punishment/hope for reward, without
regard to any intrinsic moral value in the choice to be made. That
may be so for you, but I doubt that it is for the vast majority even
of Christians. It suggests a puerile world view more akin to the
ancient Greek and Roman image of gods as petulant children insisting
on attention than on that of the great legacy of Jewish,Christian and
Islamic theologians -- again, "go and learn."

Though you don't identify yourself, I'll assume that you're writing
from the US (since most participants in this list are
American). Please remember that the founding documents -- the
Declaration of Independence and Constitution -- were written largely
by agnostics who most certainly were answering to a higher power:
truth (not to mention justice and the American way).

And, by the way, Buddha isn't a deity; few if any scholars of
Buddhism considers him one, and those who "worship" him, as opposed
simply to paying homage, do so in error no more or less ignorant than
yours. Scholars question whether Buddhism is, in fact, a religion at
all, since it asserts no cosmology. And, though your statement
appears to indicate otherwise, I doubt that you really believe that
Buddha is the only alternative deity.

Jerome Hoberman, DMA

Music Director/Conductor
The Hong Kong Bach Choir & Orchestra



At 04:57 AM 3/26/2009, [Darrell] wrote:

>Atheistic or agnostic individuals who have to sing a religous song
>can do so because they have no moral anchor to measure their belief
>system to. They can sing all the while knowing they don't believe it
>and have no higher power of standard to answer to.
>
>A Christian having to sing about praise to another deity would
>consider this a blasphemous act even though they don't believe in Buddha.

At 9:04 AM -0700 3/25/09, Doreen Simmons wrote:
>Fascinating thread, so sorry to have been heavily involved with finally
>rehearsals for a Tokyo performance of Richard III.
>
>As I have mentioned in an earlier thread, I was recently involved, in
>two concerts, in the singing of a very special arrangement of the
>Irish folksong "She moved through the Fair". The final line,
>unaccompanied, was, "It will not be long, love, till our wedding day"
>-- and I can assure you that I have never been an unaccompanied ghost
>informing her still-living fiance that he would shortly be expiring.
>Likewise, when singing the great Dolly Parton song "Jolene", I have
>never been in the situation of the singer -- but am well able to put
>myself in the place of the singer! And currently in my Shakeshepare
>role I remain myself but am able, completely, to become the character
>of Margaret of Anjou, full of righteous indignation, but only as long
>as it concerns her own immediate family. This is called acting. But
>when I am singing, for example, the narrator in the Passion, then in a
>sense I am again putting on an act -- but in another sense I am putting
>in my own perceptions. This is a great journey into our own souls, I
>believe.
>
>Forgive me for this late and perhaps rather inept addition.

What you write makes a lot of sense, Doreen, and no forgiveness is necessary!

I also fully respect Darrell's feelings regarding singing something
he dos not personally believe in, and of course if that is his
feeling he should not do so, even though it will deprive him of a
great many interesting and possibly even uplifting musical
experiences. I cannot agree, of course, with his belief that the
only possible moral anchor for anyone is in his own particular
version of faith. Moral and ethical behavior is not dependent on a
particular religion, and religion per se has been amply demonstrated
NOT to guarantee moral or ethical behavior! But that is probably too
close to a discussion of religion as opposed to the original thread
on religion in relation to what one is willing or unwilling to sing.

Apologies if anyone feels offense at my remarks. It is not intended,
and is to me, at least, self-evident.

John


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell(a)vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html

"We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition
of jazz musicians.

Darrell wrote:
"A Christian having to sing about praise to another deity would consider this a blasphemous act even though they don't believe in Buddha."

Broader than that, a considerable segment of the Christian population considers it inappropriate for anyone to sing music praising their chosen deity in services of another Christian denomination, or even alongside singers of another Christian denomination.

This is a distinction that causes some consternation in church/temple choirs that hire singers, and is usually rationalized in favor of providing the highest quality of musical service, regardless of the belief systems of individual singers. There are certainly lots of opinions on both sides of that question.

But the larger distinction between singing in a worship service, where the music is directed toward "God" as defined in that particular situation, is different than singing a major work or a concert of smaller works in which music of various traditions and points of view are presented. Its all about context: the context of the work being performed, and the context of the situation in which it is being performed. That distinction holds for non-religious works as well. It is part of our job to consider and clarify those contexts.

We have lived a long time with revisionist history in our textbooks, and in our religion classes as well. If music and the arts in general have a function beyond entertainment, then presentation of challenging and controversial content has a place in our work. The authentic representation of the good, the bad, and the ugly provides context for our knowledge of the past, and informs our hope for the future.

And besides, as someone who I can't identify at the moment put it:
"There are no atheists . . . everyone thinks they are God."

Charles Q. Sullivan
cqsmusic(a)hotmail.com
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

I'm entering this discussion way into it, I fear. But, for what's it's worth, I'd like to throw in a few thoughts.

I'm retired from a career as minister of music (choral/organ/etc) and, toward the end of my career began to be very sensitive to texts as agents toward worship. This was an evolution within me from having served a variety of church denominations in the course of my career, and from, what I trust to be authentic, matured and maturing personal theological growth.
I sense this discussion has been directed toward concert settings and larger choral works, but I'd like to throw in some thoughts about singing what you do/don't believe as it applies to the local volunteer church choir.

We need to focus intelligent and thoughtful attention to texts when selecting anthems to be sung weekly in our worship settings. Foremost, the texts should reflect the theological understandings embraced by whatever denomination/congregation you are serving. For example, if you are conscious about inclusivity in the application of your theology - then exert extra care in examining the meaning and words used within the anthems you sing. That should be applied to other areas of your church's work as well - outreach, social action, biblical interpretation (literal or non-literal), etc. When we say and act toward one theological interpretation, yet sing texts which are opposite from that interpretation, we are only fools - and doing our listeners and our singers a disservice.

Too often, I fear, choral directors choose music that sounds good, or what they think their singers will like, without paying discerning attention to the texts. That's been my perception countless times - enough to make me think about it.

peace,
Ruth Becker, SP-AGO
Fairfax Station, VA
ruthbecker5706(a)msn.com

Dear Colleagues,

This is a very important topic to me, and one I truly enjoy discussing
when it comes up. I've read many posts (from both this go-around and
several before), and so far, I have always come back to the same
personal conclusion.

Choral music in a non-religious setting is a dramatic art. The chorus
plays a character--if no one else, then they represent the composer or
arranger. Within that role, they may present any religious or
irreligious view, just as an actor presents a role. Singers may
personally endorse or condemn what they are singing, but neither the
audience nor the conductor should presume to know what each chorister
believes.

I draw this from the world of acting (as have many others on this list).
There, one shouldn't assume that Sir Anthony Hopkins is a serial killer
at heart or that Morgan Freeman is God (despite his convincing portrayal
in Bruce Almighty). Similarly, we shouldn't assume that every member in
a choir who sings "Ain't a That Good News" is excited about going home
to see "their Jesus" or that when my choir sang "Gate Gate" last year
(based on a Buddhist chant) that every singer was Buddhist.

I continually remind my choir of this mindset, and when presenting
controversial material, I do the same with my audiences. As a result,
we are able to perform a wide variety of literature with conviction
(albeit often an actor's conviction) and believability. Occasionally,
we come across a piece that everyone does truly believe in, and those
are a bit easier to sing convincingly, but the dramatic approach is
still important.

On the other hand, if no one sings the Bach passions (or other
controversial works), we lose the opportunity to discuss the presence or
absence of anti-Semitism that may or may not exist in the work and
whether or not similar beliefs toward members of any race, creed, or
gender has any place in a modern society. In other words, if we censor
controversial works merely because they are controversial, we restrict
the important dialogue that we as humans require periodically to ensure
we have learned the lessons of history. In this regard, music provides
an extremely important link to the past.

I should also add that in a religious setting, I can't make any sense of
presenting songs that don't reflect a given church's doctrinal
statement. Why involve a song in worship if you don't believe it? It's
like going to a Christian church and hearing someone preach from the
Koran or hearing an Imam recite the Lord's Prayer. This type of
cross-cultural dialogue is certainly welcome in the public square, but I
don't go to a church or a mosque to hear them talk about "the other
guy's beliefs". I want to hear what they believe, and then I can make
my own mind up about which (if either) are right.

As a side note, one of my favorite quotes came from a student who is a
self-proclaimed atheist: "I just don't understand why all of my favorite
music is religious!"

My two cents...

--Julian Bryson
JBryson(a)randolphschool.net

At 6:25 AM -0700 3/26/09, Ruth Becker wrote:
>I'm entering this discussion way into it, I fear. But, for what's
>it's worth, I'd like to throw in a few thoughts.

Ruth, your thoughts are very valuable and welcome. You are
absolutely correct, of course, in that music for actual worship has a
very different function than music presented in concert, although it
has become clear in this discussion that for some people that
difference does not exist.

Music within worship has a very important function that is described
by Dr. Alan Gowans (in his eye-opening book "The Unchanging Arts") as
"conviction and persuasion." It is part of the entire fabric of the
worship experience and as such needs to reflect, underscore, and
support both the overall message accepted by a particular
denomination and the specific message that they day's service is
designed to focus on. In that function, it is very like the stained
glass windows which, if they are not simply abstract art, have always
had the function of reminding members of the congregation of specific
truths and specific moral teachings, often using Old Testament
stories for their moral values.

Music in concert, on the other hand, fulfills Dr. Gowans' function of
"beautification." As such it is part of our artistic and cultural
heritage, and a rather important part! It has the power, if it is
great and if its performance is well-prepared and convincing, of
taking us away from the cares of the day for at least a short time,
and at best helping us to become better persons.

Don't forget that the word "recreation"--often put down as nothing
but activities that at bottom can be seen as playtime and ego
satisfaction (and no comments from avid golfers, please!!) or as
"entertainment"--is actually "re-creation"--reinventing ourselves,
refreshing ourselves, re-creating ourselves, rebuilding our souls, if
that metaphor makes sense to anyone--and is actually of great
importance in terms of mental health. Children understand that, just
as all children are artists until it gets beaten out of them!

That's why I draw the distinction, in my music history classes,
between two broad functions of music in any culture: Entertainment,
in the broadest sense of the word and including the bringing of
beauty into people's lives, and the Enhancement of Ritual, which
includes everything from worship and weddings and funerals to
patriotic gatherings to (please forgive me!!!) the job of the bands
at football or basketball games!

>the texts should reflect the theological understandings embraced by
>whatever denomination/congregation you are serving.

Case in point. I grew up in a particular protestant denomination, in
which my mother was the organist and my father the choir director.
(He had a deal with one of the sopranos in the front row to give him
a kick if he started snoring while "meditating" during the sermon,
but the sermons were actually quite good, even to a teenager.) And
then one afternoon while I was waiting for him to finish rehearsing
with the soloist for the following Sunday, I found a book in the
pastor's study that laid out what members of that denomination were
expected to believe. None of it had ever been mentioned in sermons,
none of it had been taught in Sunday School, and after as much
introspection as a teenager is capable of I decided that I didn't
believe it either! That discovery has colored my attitude toward
religion--ORGANIZED religion, mind you, not faith or
spirituality--ever since. So yes, the organization of persuasion and
conviction regarding the particular beliefs of a particular
denomination is VERY important, and the music can and should be a big
part of it.

John


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell(a)vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html

"We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition
of jazz musicians.

My! I didn't think I'd get such a heated response. I think further clarification is in order on a few things.

First, I in know way implied that atheists do not have morality or a moral compass. What I was saying is, is that it is not a big deal for the atheist to sing to any deity for they have no belief in a deity and therefore feel no allegiance to what they view as fabrication. They can sing without feeling any spiritual repurcussion. Whereas a Christian might feel very uncomfortable in singing 'Ave Satani' from 'The Omen'. A n atheist can comfortably say, 'So what? Satan doesn'texist! The music is cool!'

Hopefully this clears up that issue.

Second, I am not talking about telling a story, or singing something the way it is for a specific message. If a story is being told the way it is without any personal subjective allegiance to it, then it is just like acting. Singing about the worship and frenzy of the Baal worshippers and singing as if it was from their perspectives is different than singing an ode to Baal himself.

Do you all understand me now?

Julian said "As a side note, one of my favorite quotes came from a student who is a self-proclaimed atheist: "I just don't understand why all of my favorite music is religious!"

I can relate somewhat to this atheist student in another way. Many of my favorite choral songs are theologically questionable from the faith viewpoint I adhere to. 'Totus Tuus' by Gorecki is one example. One of my favorite songs but it is hard for me to imagine performing such an adoration of Mary. Tough for a Protestant to do! :(

Darrell
d_corbel(a)hotmail.com

Hello all,



I find this thread fascinating, as I experience this every week. I am the Choir Director of a Protestant Church, and yet I am Jewish- incidentally, I am also gay.



First, I respect the many different thoughts that have passed on this subject. My own personal opinion is similar to what others have said.



In a concert setting, regardless of the venue, Great works of Art (Music) should be presented- ESPECIALLY when they spark discussion and discourse. We are a free society and the individual can certainly choose not to attend if they do not approve.



For instance, a very moving work for men's chorus exists entitled Naked Man. It is a collection of songs, based on collected stories from members of the San Fransisco Gay Mens Chorus. Some the songs, are heartwarming and uplifting; while other paint a starker picture of some less popular aspects of gay culture and history in our society. I think performing the work in its entirety is brave, as it will definately lead to discussion, regardless of one's personal views on the issues addressed. Now, many people may say that they would never program this piece because of it's intrinsic inflammatory nature.



Yet I would remind you, that the same thing happened when Mozart debuted Le Nozze di Figaro- based on a banned story of class conflict. However, over time, the music was judged on the merits of the music.



Now in Church, I personally prepare my choir, and perform solos involving texts that I personally do not believe. However, I relish in the beauty of the music, and furthermore, I have a deep respect for any person of faith and take it as an honor to try and do the work justice. After all, it is part of my job to enhance the worship service through the use of music- and I love every minute of it.



To paraphrase some unknown individual- "There are many roads that lead to the top of the mountain. Just because you cannot see the road another travels, does not mean the road doesn't get there."



Just as a side note, this Church has embraced me as their resident Jew, respected my beliefs, used me as a resource to better understand their own Old Testament History, and actually made it a part of their mission statement to be inclusive and welcoming to all regardless of sexual orientation. A major step for a congregation primariy consisting of older, asian congregants.



I apologize if this rambled a bit. I just wanted to contribute my own thoughts. If anyone would like to ask me any other questions, feel free to email me directly and I would be happy to discuss this, or anything else in greater detail.



Gary Shin-Leavitt

Choir Director, Iao Congregational Church

Maui, Hawaii

amadeus32(a)hotmail.com

I didn't think I'd continue in this discussion, but you have pulled me in.
For starters, Gary - your Jewish background is not a separate-ness from those of us under the Christian umbrella. You are our kin, as are our Muslim brothers and sisters. Jesus was a catalyst to a new "way", but embodied the best in the tradition of the Jewish religion. And your gay-ness is to be celebrated. You are unique and special in the sight of God (and of Jesus) and bring needed insight, vision, and creativity to any theological and musical dialogue. I rejoice with you in the satisfaction you have living and working with the, obviously, special congregation you serve.

My engagement in the "singing what you do/don't believe" discussion erupts from my perception, as stated in my previous e-mail, to what anthems I see being selected for choirs to sing in their various religious settings. Regrettably, but, I think, truthfully, the vast majority of our churches are served by mediocre musicians at best. They are plucked and prodded from their own settings, or schooled without the urgency or motivation to evaluate and process information - theological, liturgical, cultural, etc.
My latest experience came from a workshop I did with a local Methodist Choir. The music I was asked to use was appalling, in form, texture, text - all of it. It startled me for it's lack of connectedness to anything of substance. At my age, I can teeter on judgmental about this, and I took the opportunity to try to be diplomatic with the choir and director about urging them to discern what they wanted to reflect about the mission of their congregation in the music ministry they provide every week. Good grief, how do we ever "move" from where we are, or have substantive "loving" dialogue, if we don't sing what we believe and tell the listener why we are singing it?

peace,
Ruth Becker
ruthbecker5706(a)msn.com

It would be neat to be having a glass of wine, if you do that, with you all to discuss this. Seems like what you are really touching on, Darrell, is one's cultural link, religiously, to the music we are asked to sing. I can "get into" music of other religious cultures simply because it avails me the opportunity to learn, feel, experience, and grow in the knowledge of what makes others pulse with a cultural life that is different from mine.
And in settings where that can happen with understanding, sensitivity and creativity - I jump for joy.

Take Chautauqua Institute, for example. I spend my summers there - all nine weeks of the season. Our Director of music and worship arts, Jared Jacobsen, is quintessential in gathering music that enhances our, now, traditional Abrahamic celebration (Christian, Jewish, Muslim). Though the framework has been, by tradition (120+ years), Christian, we are able to embrace and celebrate, grow and learn to love and lift up faith expressions that have not been familiar to us.

Cheers,peace
Ruth Becker
ruthbecker5706(a)msn.com

Darrell wrote:
> My! I didn't think I'd get such a heated response. I think further clarification is in order on a few things.
>
> First, I in know way implied that atheists do not have morality or a moral compass. What I was saying is, is that it is not a big deal for the atheist to sing to any deity for they have no belief in a deity and therefore feel no allegiance to what they view as fabrication. They can sing without feeling any spiritual repurcussion.

A optimistic a concept as that may be, Darrell, I can assure you from
personal experience there are plenty of atheists for whom that *is* a
big deal!

I spent many years removing "God" and many other "charged" words from
texts for Unitarian-Universalist use. Not only words like "God," due to
theology, but many other words for "socio-political" intents as well.
Perhaps even more so the latter, as time went on.

The screaming, howling, and near-threatening responses which would come
from the appearance of "God" or other "charged" words in a U-U event
(whether a religious service or something else) were legion in those
years, whether in congregational materials or even choral music.

And if any U-U wants to challenge that this kind of behavior is not
"denomination wide," may I remind them of the incident at a U-U General
Assembly in Rochester, NY, over the phrase "Love is Lord o'er heaven and
earth" in Alive Parker's arrangement of "How Can I Keep from Singing."
It even went before the denominational board of directors with a demand
that the line be changed. In the end, none of the words in that verse
were sung. (That's only one example, but a very representative one.)

In fact, the only instance I've experienced of any my own choral music
being "banned" was with Unitarian-Universalists, and not for theological
reasons, but definitely over text (by Ray Bradbury).


Mark Gresham
mgresham(a)luxnova.com
# # #

My response to Darrell is this: What is wrong with that hypothetical song about buddha? I mean, other than the fact that it's not your chosen deity, is there something about Buddhism that you find offensive as a Christian? Is seeking inner piece in the world and in yourself blasphemous? Is the concept of us all being connected a heretical one? I think IF YOU WERE TO STUDY BUDDHISM you'd find that it has a lot in common with your own faith. That is a beautiful thing to explore, and may actually deepen your own faith.

I was raised catholic, I was taught all the tenets of my Christian religion, but I never really "got it." Then I married a Jewish woman. When I was exposed to Judaism I started to notice that they have many similar rituals to Christians. Understanding this has given me a wonderful perspective and shaped what I believe.

This is why we ask Christians, Jews, Hindi, and people from all walks of life to expose themselves to these other points of view. Even if you are exposed to it, and participate in it, and then feel that you disagree with it, you've just discovered a point of view you never had before.

I feel the problem with most religions is that they exclude all the other religions. And they do it by insisting that they are bad for you, and insist that you never expose yourself to it. This breeds ignorance, not enlightenment, and THAT, if you truly know Jesus, WOULD be in direct conflict with His teachings.

Carl J Ferrara
Rb4uris(a)yahoo.com

Voof! What a great dialogue.

"it is not a big deal for the atheist to sing to any deity for they have no belief in a deity and therefore feel no allegiance to what they view as fabrication. They can sing without feeling any spiritual repurcussion. Whereas a Christian might feel very uncomfortable in singing 'Ave Satani' from 'The Omen'. A n atheist can comfortably say, 'So what? Satan doesn'texist! The music is cool!'"

Wow. It appears you haven't known many atheists. Many atheists have a strong moral compass and strict ethical standards. Some find religious music offensive or just plain boring. Atheists may object on what could also be called *religious* grounds (ironically) to singing religious texts, regardless of the spiritual tradition.

I view the singer's role as a storyteller. Acting background is extremely helpful in telling a story but is not absolutely essential. Especially when singing in another language (like Croatian, Gaelic, etc, which the audience is highly unlikely to know), the singer must still convey the essence of the song.

I also happen to believe that the singer's role is that of entertainer, but only when in secular contexts.

In a worship context, the role of the singer is obviously different; the singer is to open the door to the listener's spiritual experience being deepened and enriched.

Does the singer have to believe 100% in every word to be a convincing storyteller, or even to open the door to someone's religious experience? I don't think so.

In some cases it can help the singer connect to the text more deeply and tell the story more intensely. But one point I haven't seen expressed yet is that if a singer attaches too deeply to the meaning of a piece, they may become so emotional that it actually gets in the way of the delivery. I can't sing "My Funny Valentine" or "Scarlet Ribbons" without tearing up and having my voice get all wobbly. This definitely gets in the way of telling the story! ;-)

On another note, I would caution those whose religious experiences have been confined to Christianity (or any other single faith) to think before making assumptions about other religious traditions. Music does not play the same role in every worship situation. It may be purposely used to induce trance and visions, for instance. Not your typical result of the Hallelujah Chorus! :-)

I do agree that conductors in religious settings have a special obligation to choose music which facilitates the congregation's spiritual experience according to that religion's traditions. And of course, to pick great works that may occasionally challenge that congregation.

If people in a Christian church choir don't believe in Christian music, I'm not sure what they're doing in church. :-)

My two pfennigs,
Cairril
info(a)KaiaSing.com

Cairril Adaire
info(a)Kaiasing.com

I've been intrigued by the range of the discussion about people who do or
don't believe what they're singing and whether they can/should/ought,
etc. sing that material. I'm particularly in synch with the professor of
music from Virginia Tech's viewpoint about the difference between a piece
in performance and a work done as part of a sacred liturgy/ritual, as
well as the gent who's the "resident Jew" in the Protestant church for
which he works as a music director. I think that their comments can
probably be seen as the best approach to differentiating between the two
principal times we sing sacred texts.

I really came to this site to post a comment as a result of a posting
from either late last night or early this morning, which was a comment
about "Totus Tuus" by Gorecki and how this Protestant was intensely
uncomfortable with the Mariolatric (is this even a word - and I'm the one
coming up with it!) element he finds within the work. When we find
ourselves confronting different traditions (oops! something the late Pope
John Paul II talked a great deal about) we are sometimes very much adrift
on how to address it - and the centrality of the role of Mary in Catholic
worship and practice, and particularly in certain countries (such as
Poland, Portugal, France) is to our heavily Protestant-influenced eyes
and ears, pretty tough to deal with.

First, a disclaimer. I'm a cradle Catholic, and am currently a choir
director for the Catholic community at Fort Belvoir. I've grown up with
the whole "Marian" thing. But I've also spent a considerable amount of
time with and around Protestant worship communities, and I think I have
some idea of the intensity of the distaste and discomfort with what is
seen as Mariolatry - the worship of Mary.

That many Catholics "worship" Mary, whether intentionally or not, is
admitted. It's not what the Church itself proclaims; it's not what the
Church teaches. However, there are many practices which have little to
no bearing whatsoever to the official viewpoint - and this is the big
one. We can have a lively discussion about whether we should be asking
Mary in prayer to intercede for us with Jesus and all that - that's one
of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism as a general
statement - we believe in the value of asking for intercession from those
who we believe are in the constant presence of God - because it's frankly
easier to approach a more human figure (saint) than a divine one. Also,
if you were to look at Catholicism culturally (not theologically) you
would see that there are a whole series of intervening/intercessory
actors throughout. A case in point is Holy Communion - the priest is a
necessary agent, in our belief, to the action of changing wine and wheat
(consecration) to Body and Blood of Christ. Nobody else can do it - not
a deacon, not a nun, not a layperson. In most Protestant denominations,
the minister isn't the necessary agent for Communion, a remembrance or
memorial. The action itself doesn't demand the same type of agent.

So, back to "Totus Tuus." Gorecki, a Pole, is writing a piece of music
inspired in part by Pope John Paul's return to Poland in 1987 and was
sung at a Mass in Victory Square in Warsaw. The translation is as
follows:

Maria! Mary!
Totus tuus sum, Maria, I am completely yours, Mary,
Mater nostri Redemptoris. Mother of our Redeemer.
Virgo Dei, virgo pia Virgin Mother of God, blessed virgin,
Mater mundi Salvatoris Mother of the world's Savior.
Totus tuus sum, Maria I am completely yours, Mary

Is there anything here which is truly objectionable? I don't see it -
BUT - the idea of being totally someone's without it being the Lord can
be disorienting. John Paul was dedicated to her; his coat-of-arms bore
the device "Totus Tuus" as an acknowledgement of the centrality of Mary's
role in Polish (religious) history. We as Catholics (and the Church
teaches) see the Virgin as the highest possible expression of the purely
human race, because of her perfection of acceptance of God's will, her
eternal "yes" to the Father. However, as we are totally hers, who is
totally the Lord's, we aren't wrong - simply frail and needing others
with us.

Do Catholics not grasp that? Absolutely, and as they fail to understand
that in their practice of Catholicism, they "see in a mirror darkly."
But to the extent that Mary is a perfect (and thoroughly approachable)
model for Catholics (and others), maybe a little more, rather than a lot
less, devotion to Mary would be a very good thing.

So, if singing "Totus Tuus" in concert, given the other discussion that's
gone around, there shouldn't be a problem - because belief is not
necessary to singing a beautiful piece of music. UNDERSTANDING the text
and its context ("with the fabric" - con - textus), however, is something
we can ask people to do - even if it flies in the very face of their
tradition. Understanding is not acceptance or belief - but it is a step
toward perhaps a more effective presentation of the work. Singing it in
a Methodist or Evangelical Church at a worship service - well, I could
readily understand a big "whoa!" going up in rehearsal or in the music
committee!

Ron Duquette
ronart.assoc(a)cox.net

Wow. Lots to address.

I suppose that atheists may object to singing anything religious but is it not more the feeling of being expected to confirm to something they don't believe in? My point is that is it not for more philosophical, idealistic or political reaons as opposed to religous reasons that they balk at any effort to be exposed to religous dogma?

Perhaps I'm wrong.

I don't fully understand how one can merely reduce the singing of sacred text or liturgy as a 'story teller' or 'actor', that it doesn't really matter what is being sung about. Is not music the highest form of praise? Do we not sing music that we relate to on a deeper spiritual level; encorporating belief, emotion and heart felt, personal praise when we sing a song like the 'Hallelujah Chorus' or Fettke's 'The Majesty and Glory of Your Name'?

You are not merely an outside third party relating an impersonal message. You are a part of the worship process. How in the world can you sing in that fashion in something that goes against what you truly believe in?

It cannot be just lip service. For true meaning and spirituality, it must be internalized, otherwise we are going through the motions and can the message truly be realized effectively in the hearts and minds of the listener if the singers don't believe it?

To say, 'Well, you can sing it even if you don't believe it...you can learn from it' could apply to someone putting a gun to your head and telling you to recite a poem that blasphemes and denies God. I could say, 'Well, I don't really believe it and it goes against what I hold as dear, but I can just treat it as another cultural learning experience and pretend I'm acting'

Perhaps that may be a bit extreme but that mentality in approaching sacred music just doesn't make any sense to me.

Ron, I understand your reasoning about 'Totus Tuus'. Still one of my favorite choral songs ever. However, it is not just a recognition of Mary as a conduit to Christ. In my belief system, Mary is resting in the grave awaiting the resurrection. To sing about her as alive in heaven, never mind filling in the gap as my intercessor just doesn't swing well with me as a Protestant. Yes, the context would be appropriate in a Catholic Church. Yes, the people can relate to it. But is it right for me to put my beliefs on the side to sing this song knowing that it goes against my very core beliefs simply because I might miss out on the 'experience to learn' differing belief systems?



Darrell
d_corbel(a)hotmail.com

On Mar 27, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Cairril Adaire wrote:
(Big snip)
Well, in my church choir, I've had several people (some, but not
most, atheists) over the years who came only to be a part of singing
the anthem, just because they loved the music making process. In
fact, several would, at a propitious moment, just get up and leave
after the anthem to avoid sitting through an hour and a half of service.

Dean M. Estabrook
d.esta(a)comcast.net

>
> If people in a Christian church choir don't believe in Christian
> music, I'm not sure what they're doing in church. :-)
>
> My two pfennigs,
> Cairril
> info(a)KaiaSing.com
>
> Cairril Adaire
> info(a)Kaiasing.com
>
>
>

Canto ergo sum
And,
I'd rather be composing than decomposing

Dean M. Estabrook
http://deanestabrook.googlepages.com/home

Darrell wrote:
> Wow. Lots to address.
>
> I suppose that atheists may object to singing anything religious but is it not more the feeling of being expected to confirm to something they don't believe in? My point is that is it not for more philosophical, idealistic or political reaons as opposed to religous reasons that they balk at any effort to be exposed to religous dogma?
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong.
>

I think you're wrong, but that it *is* more frequently for more
political reasons in the case of my experience with the
Unitarians--except for the word "God." ("Jesus" being, of course, a
more tazer-like name for them, though the issue obviously was out what
might typically slip in. Less a knee-jerk problem for traditional
Universalists, but the two denominations merged back in 1961,
Universalists getting the shorter end of the stick, and some good number
of small Universalist fellowships refusing to join in the merger. There
are some people who call themselves Unitarian Christians, but not
something recognizable as "Christian" by more conservative protestants
and certainly outcasts in the eyes of "mainline" Unitarians--with teh
caveat that "mainline" can be taken as a contradiction in terms here.)

But I think I should point out that atheism is only one dogma in a
denomination which claims to share an "ethical" common ground rather
than a "dogmatic" one (actually, the U-U commonalities of "dogma" can be
fairly well defined in the negative--the "anti-" criteria).

I will reiterate the the banning of one of my own piece of music was not
theological, but socio-political. (Text was by Ray Bradbury,
ironically, the author of "Fahrenheit 451"--a novel about banning books
by burning them.)

Also the incident about the banning of "Love is Lord" (as in the
Rochester incident) was also *not* theological, but socio-political--it
was challenged as "patriarchal." By contrast "Goddess" would have been
accepted without question, and that's not exactly an "atheist-approved"
word either. (The same General Assembly, a proposal was made to change
the number of members on a committee from 10 to 9 because "10" was
supposedly masculine and patriarchal, while "9" is a feminine, nurturing
and magical number. Needless to say, they had the good sense to vote
that one down quickly.)

> Perhaps that may be a bit extreme but that mentality in approaching sacred music just doesn't make any sense to me.
>

Again, it's not just "sacred" music, not just "theology" that gets music
banned--and I expect we will see *more* banning of texts for
socio-political reasons in the near future versus an increase in banning
for theological reasons (unless one chooses to bind their theology and
socio-political outlooks so tightly together that they are
inseparable--this goes for every bit as much for die-hard liberals as it
does for fundamentalist conservatives.)

--Mark Gresham
mgresham(a)luxnova.com
# # #

Darrell,

I'm pretty sure that your suggestion -- singers should only sing if they really believe what they are singing -- would decimate the world's choirs. Even if you limited your point to religious texts, you would STILL wreak havoc with most non-church choirs. Most choirs are wonderful combinations of people from all sorts of backgrounds, with all sorts of beliefs and philosophies.

One thing I love about most choirs is their accepting nature -- the choir becoming a place of acceptance and love for all, regardless of individual politics, religion, sexual orientation, career, skin color, or any other potentially polarizing issue. And the fact that every singer sings all sorts of texts is a sort of statement to each person's willingness to embrace all elements of humanity itself -- just as each embraces the other singers in the group.

And just one more point that I'd like to revisit based on something else you said: MANY singers who believe particular texts sing with minimal expression or connection to those texts. A singer who is dynamically engaging "as if" they believed (thinking thoughts of a believer in the moment) will connect much more powerfully to the audience members -- whether that audience consists of believers or non.

And speaking of which, my view of the universal appeal of singing in a choir applies to audiences as well -- we humans who attend concerts can relate to a composer/lyricist who sees the world differently than we do. An atheist can ADORE the Durufle Requiem, a Catholic can LOVE John Lennon's "Imagine," and a Muslim can BE DEEPLY TOUCHED by a "Fiddler on the Roof" medley.

We're all members of one human family, and the Song we sing can be understood and connected to by all.

All my best,

Tom

PS: All that said, as an audience member I have no problem with a singer not singing a particular song if it offends them -- but I'm always curious why they don't just join a group which embraces their dogma all the time.

Tom Carter
www.choralcharisma.com
tpcarter(a)earthlink.net





Tom Carter
tpcarter(a)earthlink.net

In a message dated 3/26/09 at 10 p.m.-ish, Darrell (d_corbel(a)hotmail.com)
writes:

Tough for a Protestant to do!>>

Darrell,

*This* Quaker-Buddhist-pagan (the offspring of an Irish-Catholic father and
Irish-Protestant mother) who sings in a Presbyterian church choir, has no
problem singing a devotion to the Mother-Goddess in Russian, Latin, or English.

You need to broaden your outlook on "spiritual" singing!

FYI,
J. R. (Rick) Norton
Baritone, Denver Gay Men's Chorus
Baritone, Westminster Choir
Montview Boulevard Presbyterian Church
JRNelist(a)aol.com

"If the concept of God has any validity or any use, it
can only be to make us larger, freer, and more loving.
If God cannot do this, then it is time we got rid of Him."
-- James Baldwin (1924-1987)

Tom Carter wrote:
> PS: All that said, as an audience member I have no problem with a singer not singing a particular song if it offends them -- but I'm always curious why they don't just join a group which embraces their dogma all the time.
>

Because to do so they would ultimately be obliged to be a choir of one.

--Mark Gresham
mgresham(a)luxnova.com
# # #

At 11:01 AM -0700 3/27/09, Darrell wrote:
>Wow. Lots to address.
>
>I suppose that atheists may object to singing anything religious but
>is it not more the feeling of being expected to confirm to something
>they don't believe in? My point is that is it not for more
>philosophical, idealistic or political reaons as opposed to religous
>reasons that they balk at any effort to be exposed to religous dogma?
>
>Perhaps I'm wrong.

Hi again, Darrell. I want you to know that I hear and understand
what you're saying, even if I do not agree with much of it. I accept
that you sincerely believe what you have shared with us. I hope only
to convince you that others have other beliefs, and that they cannot
be summarily dismissed by using such words as "atheists," "story
teller," or "actor." I may not succeed, and if so then that's all
right, too. But the plain fact is that there are almost as many
varieties of "religious dogma" as there are human beings on this
planet, and the wonderful thing about the religious freedom we enjoy
in this country--which includes freedom OF religion, freedom FOR
religion, and freedom FROM religion--is that each of us is allowed to
make our own decisions about our own belief, and every one of those
decisions is valid and true for that individual!

I do have a personal problem with almost all ORGANIZED religions,
organized by men (OK, with the exception of Christian Science), ruled
over by men (and very seldom by women, who are too smart!), with
lists of rules and acceptable and unacceptable behaviors (including
in many cases the banning of women from positions of authority and in
many other cases the banning of anyone who is "different"). I prefer
making my own decisions on matters this important, and refuse to
accept anyone else's pre-packaged versions of faith, especially when
they are promoted by the hard-sell techniques of the advertising
industry.

That said, please allow me to turn this discussion in a slightly
different direction. On the Orchestralist, a parallel discussion
started with a report that someone who had agreed to sing a
particular concert had missed the rehearsals and at the very last
minute, when phoned, only THEN stated that she felt she could not
perform the text she had agreed to perform. On this List, of course,
it started with David's musings about the interpretation of the texts
used in Bach's St. John Passion.

I'd like to draw a distinction not only between music for worship and
music for concert presentation (which you seem to have somewhat
confused), but also between performances by professionals and
performances by amateurs. I'd like to, but unfortunately I'm not
sure I can. The overwhelming majority of choral performances today,
and for the past 250 years, have been by "amateurs," defined as those
who sing choral music because they love it, love the experience, and
love the art, and it is that love that keeps them actively
participating long after their school days, when their participation
might have been a requirement or at least an expectation.

So let me define "professional" not as someone who necessarily gets
paid for singing (whether on a casual negotiated basis or as a member
of the American Guild of Musical Artists), but as someone who is
willing to make a commitment to a specific choral organization of
some kind or to participate in a specific concert of some kind, a
commitment that other people, from the conductor to the other singers
in the organization, are counting on and, because of that commitment,
have a right to count on.

So, first question: Can a singer who has agreed to sing in a
particular organization, or in a particular concert, then expect to
have the right to censor what he or she is willing to sing with that
organization or in that concert? (Pay or lack of it is specifically
not a factor here.) I certainly HOPE that we would all agree that
such an attitude would be considered negative and would immediately
brand that singer as unreliable and unwanted, regardless of the
amount of talent or the beauty of that voice, both at that time and
in the future. "Once bitten, twice shy" comes to mind.

So when DOES a singer have the moral and ethical right to bug out of
a performance for reasons of personal belief? Well, pretty obviously
that right exists BEFORE agreeing to perform, and pretty obviously
(to me, at least) the agreement to perform abrogates that right.

(This may not apply to worship music, although the wide variety of
situations that have been brought up in this discussion is really
quite fascinating, but once again, agreement to participate means
participating as a full-fledged member of the musical ensemble,
knowing (I certainly hope) what the dogma of that denomination is and
agreeing to sing those texts without complaining.)

Now, does that suggest anything to those of us on the management side
of choral ensembles? I think it does. There should be an
understanding of the kinds of music that a singer can expect to be
confronted with in a given ensemble, and that understanding should be
explained in an appropriate way to new and prospective members. THAT
is when someone can opt out without hurting feelings or letting
anyone else down. But once accepted as a member, as long as there
isn't a drastic and unexplained change in the organization's approach
to repertoire, the Music Director, Conductor, and the other singers
should be able to count on that singer's participation and support.
Micro-censorship has no place in a committed ensemble, although
occasional serious discussion of some of these matters certainly does.

College choirs are a special case, and high school choirs an even
more special one. Any singer who attends a college that is not
founded on and guided by a strict religious philosophy, and who
auditions for one of the available choirs, is making a commitment to
participate in and support the performances of that choir, period.
Objections based on religion have no place in a public college, and
any student who can't deal with that needs to transfer to a
denominational college where his or her personal beliefs are shared.

But if participation in college and community choirs is voluntary,
the same cannot necessarily be said for participation in high school
choirs. There are, in fact, some denominations (which have been
discussed on this forum from time to time) with restrictions on what
KINDS of music can be sung, and if students from those denominations
(and their families) choose public schooling, either they will have
to opt out of choral activities or the choral director will have to
make exceptions or alternatives available. Clearly, the belief
system of a small minority of students cannot be allowed to result in
censorship of what can and cannot be sung.

Not at ALL so clear is what influence the belief system of a LARGE
majority of students should be allowed to have on a choral program,
and that is a difficult question in many places. For 10 years I
produced and directed annual pre-Christmas concerts promoted as "A
Family Christmas with The New Virginians," which no one in this
corner of the Bible Belt raised objections to, but I was asked by one
Jewish student if she could not participate in the more blatantly
Christian repertoire, and I agreed to her request. But again, this
was at a public university and participation in the ensemble was
entirely voluntary--and highly sought-after! At a public high school
I doubt that I could have gotten away with what we did.

>I don't fully understand how one can merely reduce the singing of
>sacred text or liturgy as a 'story teller' or 'actor', that it
>doesn't really matter what is being sung about.

I think you exaggerate. Certainly an actor or story-teller can
"care" about what is being said or sung, without at the same time
making a lifetime commitment to it. It's called acting ability.

>Is not music the highest form of praise?

Higher than a personal relationship and a personal commitment to God?
Hardly! I'm afraid you're just using buzz-words to make your point,
rather like confronting a debater by saying "you've got to be
kidding!" which is not an argument but an attempt to trivialize the
other person.

>Do we not sing music that we relate to on a deeper spiritual level;
>encorporating belief, emotion and heart felt, personal praise when
>we sing a song like the 'Hallelujah Chorus' or Fettke's 'The Majesty
>and Glory of Your Name'?

Ask someone who has sung or played "Halleluia" repeatedly over the
last 50 years or so!! Of course it can be approached without a total
personal commitment, and it shouldn't change the performance a bit!
But it would also probably not be sung as part of a church service,
and Handel certainly never intended it to be!!

>You are not merely an outside third party relating an impersonal
>message. You are a part of the worship process.

In church, yes, of course. Just about everyone has agreed with you
about that. But it isn't what we're discussing.

>How in the world can you sing in that fashion in something that goes
>against what you truly believe in?

Apparently you can't, and I respect that in you. But quite a few
people have reported that they have no problem doing it. And again,
please don't exaggerate. The choice isn't between something you
truly believe in and something you truly do NOT believe in, it's
between something that agrees with your personal beliefs and
something that doesn't but about which you might have no particular
animosity at all.

>It cannot be just lip service. For true meaning and spirituality, it
>must be internalized, otherwise we are going through the motions and
>can the message truly be realized effectively in the hearts and
>minds of the listener if the singers don't believe it?

Well yes, it can, and a number of people have testified to that
effect. I admit that for an amateur with no concept of music as an
art and a technique, it might be more difficult, but for someone who
pays attention not to the surface of the text but to its relationship
to the music it inspired it isn't difficult at all.

>Ron, I understand your reasoning about 'Totus Tuus'. Still one of my
>favorite choral songs ever. However, it is not just a recognition of
>Mary as a conduit to Christ. In my belief system, Mary is resting in
>the grave awaiting the resurrection.

So are you telling us that only your belief system is valid, and not
anyone else's, or are you willing to grant other people with other
belief systems the same courtesy I am granting to you? The problem
with believing that you have the one and only set of answers to
humanity's unanswerable questions is believing that it therefore
gives you the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of trying
to convince everyone else in the world that they are wrong, and I'm
sorry, but it does NOT give you that right. (In my humble opinion,
of course. Many rulers of many countries with many official state
religions have believed otherwise, both through history and still
today.)

Thank you so much for your contributions to this discussion, Darrell.
Whether any one of us agrees with you or not, it's a viewpoint that
needed to be expressed.


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell(a)vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html

"We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition
of jazz musicians.

Okay - I've got to respond to Darrell's comment to my disquisition on
Mary and "Totus Tuus" (not to beat something to death). His comment was:

"Ron, I understand your reasoning about 'Totus Tuus'. Still one of my
favorite choral songs ever. However, it is not just a recognition of Mary
as a conduit to Christ. In my belief system, Mary is resting in the grave
awaiting the resurrection. To sing about her as alive in heaven, never
mind filling in the gap as my intercessor just doesn't swing well with me
as a Protestant. Yes, the context would be appropriate in a Catholic
Church. Yes, the people can relate to it. But is it right for me to put
my beliefs on the side to sing this song knowing that it goes against my
very core beliefs simply because I might miss out on the 'experience to
learn' differing belief systems?"

My view is: it depends where and when you're singing it. The context IS
the issue. If you're singing this in concert (not as a part of a
religious service) then you can approach it as strictly a musical issue.
If you bring in the theology - the issue of violating your core beliefs -
that was admittedly part of Gorecki's intention as a part of HIS belief
system in creating the piece, and do so in the context of a concert in
which the sacred is NOT the point, then there's a confusion in the point
of the whole exercise. I see your problem - but the fact is, it is YOUR
problem in bringing that in, in that context. On the other hand, if
you're singing this in a Catholic church as a "hired hand" and you can't
buy the theology, then mayhaps you need to find another location to be
singing - because this isn't going to be the only problem you're likely
to have. From a Catholic's standpoint, Mary is NOT mouldering in a grave
awaiting the Last Judgment, but rather she's been assumed, body and soul,
into heaven. I'm not asking you to buy this; that's part of MY baggage
as a Catholic - but it's a clearly marked piece of baggage. If as a
Catholic I stand in church and sing about Mary's role in the history of
Salvation and I ain't buying it, I need to ask myself a whole bunch of
real tough other questions - and believe me, there are many times I have
to do this. Not only that, but I have to be aware as a choir director
that the music I choose is not only appropriate to the day and the
message but also consistent with the belief system we profess as
Catholics - otherwise I am utterly dishonest as a professed Catholic AND
someone with a responsibility to the remainder of the community of
believers. Like it or not, and Americans tend very much not to like it
(because we resist and resent all or nothing propositions - we like
to "nibble at the buffet of life - and everything else!"), Catholicism is
an all or nothing proposition - you buy it all, or you have a real
problem claiming to be a Catholic. Doesn't mean you can't question
stuff - but it does mean the issue is pretty clear-cut. I admit: it's
truly not for everybody, but not everybody gives that a thought. By the
same token, someone who does not claim to be Catholic, who comes up to me
and asks, "what is this nonsense you people believe?" but is willing to
at least start off with a mind AND heart open to discussion and
discovery, is someone who I want to be engaged in singing that kind of
music. Life is a risky proposition; if we all avoid risk to our beliefs,
we go nowhere. And, becoming stagnant, we tend to stink.

I guess my biggest concern about the last part of your comment, Darrell,
is something I can only guess at: why are you at all interested in
singing the Gorecki in the first place, if you are so concerned about
violating your core beliefs? If it's simply the musical experience, then
go for it. Don't drag in the theological pieces if that's the real
reason. On the other hand, if the theology is that large an issue, I
come back to the question - why do it? You can't dissociate the words
from the music - it's an integral whole, and to attempt to do so is to
violate Gorecki's intent and effort - and that's not our right. As a
member of an audience listening to the Gorecki, you can love the music
and hate the words; but as a singer, it's all or nothing - humming it to
avoid the words is not doing it justice. And Gorecki is entitled to
justice for his creation.

Ron Duquette
ronart.assoc(a)cox.net

Wow, what a vibrant topic. I like what Tom said about most choirs having an "accepting" nature. So true.

I run a 35 member strong community choir in a very secular country and we sing secular and religious music from all over the world. We probably have among us christians, atheists, buddhists, muslims and agnostics but I haven't asked and it is not relevant. They sing with a passion and love of music no matter what the words are.

Darrell asks "Is not music the highest form of praise? Do we not sing music that we relate to on a deeper spiritual level; encorporating belief, emotion and heart felt, personal praise .."

My answer? Nope. It's the music that counts - the words are just the vehicle.

Jane Becktel
morningsong(a)iinet.net.au

Thank you, Ron, for that very clear example of a text that I would not feel comfortable singing in a worship setting because I am on the Protestant side of the aisle. I agree with you that in a performance setting, I'd personally be fine with it.
 
On the subject of atheists vs people in an organized religion, I have actually had very different interactions. The atheists I know and love are equally adamant (in comparison to me) about the truth (to them) of what they sing (or say or do). The fact that they are not concerned about a higher power doesn't make them less sure of what they believe but more sure.
 
I think the line is across religions. There are lukewarm people of every faith - horrible to generalize but I would say that people who have questioned their faith or dramatically changed it are probably stronger in their beliefs that those raised in the majority religion who have never really fully experienced their own faith.
 
What I mean is that as a Christian I see everything I do as an extension of my faith and I share that approach with many Mormons, devout Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, humanists... I do not share that approach with most of America who may count themselves as one religion or other but see their faith as separate from their lives.
 
Similarly, I don't mind limiting the repertoire of our chorus because I have other ways/places to praise my God and I respect the dedication that my fellow singers have to their own faith/belief system. Since we are not an auditioned group, I just think it simplifies things if we can focus on connecting to a song naturally- and that is easiest with texts that everyone can agree on. It's wonderful if other choirs can add acting in to their music but it is awfully hard to explain to a 6 year old atheist or Jewish child that they should sing "praise Jesus" with passion. :-)
 
I just wanted to share more info on the subject of how atheists and Christians might view texts.
 
Rachael Barlow

Director All Together Now Family Chorus
Littleton, MA USA
rachael_barlow_groton(a)yahoo.com
 

What an interesting discussion, if a bit frustrating as to how divided we are.
John Howell says I "started it," so let me add one quick thought. Tonight I
will conduct Bach's St. John Passion. (For those who have forgotten my
personal history, I am an atheist of Jewish background with 25 years of church
choir experience, or as I like to say, a mutt.)

This will be a concert, not a service. Tonight I will "be" an 18th century
German pietistic Lutheran dealing with the most important moment in my
history, because that's the piece Bach wrote. If I'm NOT that, I should get
off the podium.

Tomorrow I'm rehearsing Marriage of Figaro. I'll "be" someone else.

David




David Griggs-Janower
janower(a)albany.edu
518/356-9155; 518/442-4167 (w)

Albany Pro Musica
PO Box 3850
Albany, NY 12203-0850
Ph: (518) 438-6548
www.albanypromusica.org
http://blogs.timesunion.com/albanypromusica/

Music - PAC
University at Albany
Albany NY 12222

SUNYA Music department fax: 518/442-4182
UAlbany Chamber Singers: www.albany.edu/~singers
UAlbany Chorale: www.albany.edu/music/chorale

"Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life." Berthold
Auerbach

"Although nature has gifted us all with voices, correct singing is the result
of art and study." Aristotle

"Why waste money on psychotherapy when you can just listen to the B Minor
Mass?" Michael Torke

For some reason, I feel that my message isn't getting through as clearly as I'd have liked. Perhaps that is my doing.

I am not advocating strict agreement in both secular and spiritual arrangements in both church and concert settings to ones core belief system. (for example, I don't have an issue with singing 'I'll Fly Away' even though I find a bit of the theology questionable according to my belief system). One can take it too far and be a Puritan or a Pharisee.

But I believe that if we can so easily separate our beliefs from what we are singing, we are not giving the piece written from a certain belief system by a composer who truly believes it, the justice it deserves. From internalization comes meaning, from meaning comes committment to bring that meaning out the best possible way as was intended by the composer.

This is why we don't sing the Hallelujah Chorus as a funeral dirge. This is why we don't sing Mozart's 'Ave Verum' the same way we'd sing Haydn' 'The Heavens are Telling'. The message is different. The words have meaning and the music is written as such. After singing in barbershop choruses for many years where the singing and choreography can run the gamut of many different emotions, you could tell from the perfomers which ones were buying into the message by the way they sang and presented the song.

I will leave it at this and perhaps this will tell me ultimately where you are coming from and where I'm coming from.

Would any of you who are born again Christians feel comfortable singing the choral score to 'The Omen'? It's movie night at the concert and your choir gets to portray the soundtrack from the movie. Not in church, not as a liturgical service. Nonetheless, do you really feel there is no contradiction between your beliefs and committment to the song and it's meaning when you are singing these words? Do you feel that there is no contradiction for you to separate your beliefs from this piece to sing it wholeheartedly as the composer intended when he wrote the lyrics and music the way he did?

Sanguis Bibimus.
Corpus Edimus.
Tolle Corpus Satani!
Ave! Ave Versus Christus!
Ave Satani!

Translation
The blood we drink
The flesh we eat
Raise the body of Satan!
Hail! Hail the Antichrist!
Hail Satan!

Surely you must admit there comes a time when artistry and personal faith can clash.

Darrell
d_corbel(a)hotmail.com

Darrell wrote:
> But I believe that if we can so easily separate our beliefs from what we are singing, we are not giving the piece written from a certain belief system by a composer who truly believes it, the justice it deserves.

There again, it seems you're assuming the composer truly believes it.

Ned Rorem, for one example, makes it very clear he does not believe the
"sacred" texts he sets to music (but also note he has set an enormous
amount of non-sacred poetry to music versus sacred texts).

There are as many occasions when a composer is as fully capable of
setting texts in which he does not believe as there are performers who
are capable of performing songs with texts in which they do not believe,
and the typical observer would not be able to tell the difference in the
belief system of the composer or performer and that supposedly espoused
by the texts.

Perhaps from one idealistic perspective, that it unfortunate.

However, the problem which emerges is not so much who is willing to sing
something they do not believe, as those who don't believe in a or
support a particular text who want to prevent everyone else from singing
it, even if force is necessary to do so.

I watched that happen with the phrase "Since love is Lord o'er heaven
and earth," and in many other instances as well. And the broader
problem we will face with it, all too soon in my estimation, is not so
much limited within the walls of any religious denomination of similar
core beliefs, but within civil society a large.


--Mark Gresham
mgresham(a)luxnova.com
# # #

* Just from curiosity, has anyone on this list actually been asked to sing the choral score to "The Omen"? I can't imagine it's a big hit at the local concert hall. :-)

* Perhaps because I left the classical world long ago, I don't think it's necessary to communicate what the *composer* believed. In many cases, I wouldn't presume to know the composer's beliefs. (Paul McCartney wrote a Requiem -- is he even Catholic? not my business.) I think it's more important to communicate what the piece means to the performance group *today.* (I know, I know -- heresy. :-))

* I haven't seen the issue of people's emotional involvement interfering with their technical ability to deliver a piece, but I do think it's an issue.

* For the sake of argument, if an audience member sees a singer deeply connected to the piece and hears a technically flawless performance, does it really *matter* if the singer is actually a "believer" in the piece? A great performer can communicate regardless of their personal belief in every word of the text.

* This conversation has gone in some fascinating directions on theology, but I keep coming back to the point of whether it's any of our business what people's personal beliefs are. I think it's obvious, when introducing music to a group, whether they're passionate, lukewarm, or cranky about performing the piece. They may just say they don't like it. An in-depth discussion of each person's beliefs is inappropriate (I'm not saying anyone's suggesting that), so a director/facilitator just needs to be sensitive to trends to know what the "group mind" is comfortable doing.

* Back to "The Omen" -- it depends. It depends on the context and people's comfort level. It would be highly inappropriate for an Easter service at the local Catholic church. It may be perfectly appropriate for a fun "creepy-scary" Halloween event (music from "The Exorcist" and "Nosferatu" could be thrown in for good measure). In that case, it's just an exploration of pop culture. It's not a statement of personal belief. Whether one's choir is the appropriate conveyor of that pop culture statement is up to the choir. And I really don't think it's that big of a deal. It's a 10-minute conversation at most, then a yes or no answer. Then on we go with the other business of the day.

I appreciate the congenial nature of this discussion. Kudos, everyone!

Cairril Adaire
info(a)KaiaSing.com

Cairril Adaire
info(a)Kaiasing.com

> Darrell asks:
>>
>> Would any of you who are born again Christians feel comfortable
>> singing the choral score to 'The Omen'? It's movie night at the
>> concert and your choir gets to portray the soundtrack from the
>> movie. Not in church, not as a liturgical service. Nonetheless, do
>> you really feel there is no contradiction between your beliefs and
>> committment to the song and it's meaning when you are singing
>> these words? Do you feel that there is no contradiction for you to
>> separate your beliefs from this piece to sing it wholeheartedly as
>> the composer intended when he wrote the lyrics and music the way
>> he did? ... Surely you must admit there comes a time when
>> artistry and personal faith can clash.

FIrst, you'd need to define what YOU mean by "born again Christian."
According to the "flavor" of Christianity I embrace, anyone who is a
Christian is, by definition, "born again." And since I was an atheist
for 25 yrs before returning to the fold, I definitely quality by my
definition, but may or may not qualify according to yours.

That said, if the the director of my chamber choir programmed the
choral score to "The Omen," I would have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER
singing it in a concert. In that concert, I'm NOT "Lana Mountford,
Christian." In that time and place, I'm "Lana Mountford, Alto 2" who
is doing everything she can to scare the bejeezus out of the director
and everyone in the audience by presenting this text as closely as
possible to the the composer's intent. I have the same task --
convincing the director and the audience that I mean what I say --
when I sing Holst's "Rig Veda" songs, or when I sing "Ave Maria." In
fact, I'll be singing the Mendelssohn Ave Maria tonight in our spring
concert, which also includes his 'Heilig, Heilig" and "Verleih uns
Frieden," Albrechtsberger's "Te Deum," and a Haydn Missa Brevis,
along with songs that quote Darwin, Poe, Tennyson, and Lincoln. And
I'm a United Methodist who finds the idea of actually praying to Mary
a little troubling.

In a non-church setting, whether I agree with the lyrics or not is
irrelevant; my JOB as a chorister, the job I signed up for when I
joined and committed to sing for the season, is to present whatever
music the director chooses for us in as convincing a way as I
possibly can.

I view this as no different from acting on stage. Some years ago, I
was cast in a rather controversial play about abortion, "Keely and
Du," as the character whose beliefs were 180-degrees opposite my
own. For months afterward, people who had seen the play were
confused as to what my actual stance was on the subject. That, for
me, was the ultimate compliment, since it indicated that I had
succeeded in convincing the audience members that I held the beliefs
of that character.

When I sing in the chorus for a performance of Holst's "The Cloud
Messenger," my job is to convince all who see/hear it that I am that
lonely yaksha in exile, yearning for his wife, giving instructions to
the cloud to bear his message of longing and love to her. When I
sing the alto solo in Prokofiev's Alexander Nyevsky, my job is to
convince the audience that I'm a 17-yr-old girl searching for her
lover among the dead and dying after the battle. Two minutes
earlier, I was trying to convince them that I was one of the German
warriors intent on massacring the Russian army.

That's my job. That's what I do.

Lana Mountford, alto 2
Assistant Director, Cantaré Vocal Ensemble
Seattle, WA
l.s.mountford(a)att.net


>
> Sanguis Bibimus.
> Corpus Edimus.
> Tolle Corpus Satani!
> Ave! Ave Versus Christus!
> Ave Satani!
>
> Translation
> The blood we drink
> The flesh we eat
> Raise the body of Satan!
> Hail! Hail the Antichrist!
> Hail Satan!
>
>
>

I'd like to contribute a whole essay to this topic (again!) but it's
getting late, and in eight days' time I will have got through three
days of tech/dress and five performances of Richard III and, as
Margaret, the cussin' queen, my main outstanding problem is, shall I
spray my hair with blue glitter to highlight my costume or just rely on
my natural magnetism?

The reason this is such a complex topic is that we have three different
directions; our personal belief in God, (and how we arrived at it); our
current affiliation (and how we arrived at that!); and our perception
of the role that music plays. And I believe that if we are bonded into
one concept our perception is bound to be skewed. I am transported back
in time decades, to the London Fruiting Campaigns. (Can anybody find
the real network of these?) when I found myself singing with deep
passion "Ave Maria" -- although it was repugnant to everything that I
stood for -- simply because it was the 'only religious piece of music'
the teenagers knew?, and therefore the very Protestant group that had
recruited me was forced to accept it's the current way to God. )

More importantly , in the Christmas Eve services at my church, St.
Alban's, Tokyo, we know, as a choir, that it is our privilege to lead
our three congregations once more on the way to the stable in
Bethlehem. Personal beliefs are set aside; it is that magical time that
we are privileged to share. (And in recent years I have ventured to put
in an extempore prayer to the effect that "This may be our third time
to lead the Christmas worship this evening -- but for this midnight
congregation, this is their real Christmas, so let's sing it the very
best we can!"

Doreen Simmons
jz8d-smmn(a)asahi-net.or.jp

At 10:06 PM 3/28/2009, Darrell wrote:
>This is why we don't sing the Hallelujah Chorus as a funeral dirge.
>This is why we don't sing Mozart's 'Ave Verum' the same way we'd
>sing Haydn' 'The Heavens are Telling'. The message is different. The
>words have meaning and the music is written as such.

No! We don't sing the Hallelujah Chorus as a funeral dirge not
because of the words but because, first, it's marked "Allegro," and
second, because it's in D major and has trumpets and drums -- it
needs no understanding of or acquiescence to the words to recognize
those facts. Its musical meaning (that is, the resonance of its
harmonic, melodic and rhythmic functions) would not change if the
choral parts were sung as vocalise. Similarly, we don't sing
Mozart's Ave verum the same way we'd sing The Heavens are telling
because Mozart wrote "Adagio" and "sotto voce," neither of which
would change even if we changed "Ave verum corpus" to "happy birthday
to you" (which would, after all, fit the line). Anyone who responds
to music as music rather than as a vehicle for something else has no
need to understand, let alone accept, the words or their meaning to
respond maximally to these works -- I might argue even more fully
than someone who is primarily a believer does, since the believer's
musical response is limited by her consideration of the words: she
can't really hear because she's in thrall to the idea.

>I am not advocating strict agreement in both secular and spiritual
>arrangements in both church and concert settings to ones core belief
>system. (for example, I don't have an issue with singing 'I'll Fly
>Away' even though I find a bit of the theology questionable
>according to my belief system). One can take it too far and be a
>Puritan or a Pharisee.

By that last bit you indicate that a practicing Jew can't be a
musician, since normative Judaism today is what was taught by the
Pharisees back in the day, the Pharisees being the only
religio/political party to have survived in the Diaspora. So I read
what you write as, "One can take it too far and be a Puritan or a
Jew." Perhaps that's not what you mean, and maybe that is related to
why you think your message is not getting through as clearly as you'd hoped.

>But I believe that if we can so easily separate our beliefs from
>what we are singing, we are not giving the piece written from a
>certain belief system by a composer who truly believes it, the
>justice it deserves. From internalization comes meaning, from
>meaning comes committment to bring that meaning out the best
>possible way as was intended by the composer.

So I presume you would want to hear the Brahms and Verdi Requiems
sung only by agnostics, the Mozart and Haydn masses only by
Catholics, Mendelssohn's Elijah only by Lutherans (and maybe only by
Lutherans who were born into a different faith), Beethoven's Missa
solemnis only by pantheists, and the Berlioz Requiem only by
egotists. And that you could recognize it if they weren't. Let's
take that a bit further: You would have Copland's Lincoln Portrait
only by Communist sympathizers, and Parsifal sung only by anti-Semites.

But wait. Doesn't the Missa solemnis use the same words as the
Harmoniemesse? And yet the composers who set those words came from
different "belief systems." So do you hear hypocrisy in the
Beethoven? In which movement? In which measure?

If a composer can set a text in such a way that generations of
listeners of many faiths (I'd say "all" but I want to be as accurate
as possible) are moved to the deepest part of their being -- their
all (in Hebrew, "me'odam," as in "b'hal l'vav'ha uv'hal nafshe'ha
uv'hal me'ode'ha" [literally, "with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your muchness"]) -- despite the composer's
non-acceptance of the theological underpinnings of that text, why do
you assume that it should be difficult, let alone impossible, for a
performer to convey the music's fullness, including the words? Or is
the performer to be held to a higher standard of belief in the
material than its composer is? Or does that agreement you insist on
only concern a piece written by a composer who believes (Mozart,
Haydn) and not by a non-believer setting a religious text (Beethoven,
Verdi, Brahms)? And how do you tell the difference?

As a conductor, I'm expected, within limits, to provide my audience
with the full gamut of repertory. Inevitably, in building balanced
programs I'll need to include pieces I'm in less sympathy with
together with those in which I believe totally. But it's my job to
sell all of those pieces to the audience (and to the ensembles) with
equal enthusiasm. The ability to do that is part of what is called
"professionalism."

>Surely you must admit there comes a time when artistry and personal
>faith can clash.

If personal faith were that dominant there would be little
artistry. For every Haydn who says, "When I think of God my heart
jumps with joy" [I'm quoting from memory so it may be a bit off, but
that's the gist], there's a Strauss who says, in essence, "Name it
and I can set it to music." Part of art is craft, and part of that,
for a performer, is the creation within one's self of a total belief
in the work to be performed that need last only through the duration
of the performance.

Every time I conduct the B-minor Mass I believe in every bit of
it. What is it that I believe? More than anything else, it's that B
minor and D major are two sides of the same tonality, and that as a
corollary B minor and B major are unrelated. And then when I turn to
the Brahms Requiem I have to change my beliefs -- now it's the
parallel major and minor that are close, and the relative keys are
more distant.

Do you think that's trivial? People devote their lives to it!

All else is commentary.

Best regards,

Jerome Hoberman, DMA

Music Director/Conductor, The Hong Kong Bach Choir & Orchestra
Principal Conductor, Baguio Cathedral International Music Festival, Philippines
Director, Ohel Leah Synagogue Choir, Hong Kong

On Mar 28, 2009, at 7:06 AM, Darrell wrote:
(regarding singing words from music for the Omen)
Hmmm ... that's a compelling question. I think I would have trouble
singing these words in most circumstances. But in opera, for
example, somebody has to play (sing) the bad guy ... I dunno. I have
to ponder this some more.

Dean M. Estabrook
d.esta(a)comcast.net

Darrell,

You wrote, "From internalization comes meaning, from meaning comes committment to bring that meaning out the best possible way as was intended by the composer."

While I think your model of expression sounds like it ought to be true, it simply doesn't happen that way with most singers and choirs. I can fervently believe that Jesus is my personal savior, and still sing a "Gloria" or an "Alleluia" as if I were reading the phone book because I got bored with counting my spare change.

On the flip side, I can be an agnostic but choose to connect to...

1) the incredibly wonderful things that Christianity has brought the world

2) the awe-inspiring mystery that is this planet and universe

3) the incredibly loving people in my life

4) the temporary BELIEF that Jesus will save me, and God has truly made a wonderful world...

And IF I do any of those things (for example), I will be much more physically, facially, vocally, and spiritually aligned with composer, text, and music than if I were reading that proverbial phone book.

I could also try and cheer my friend up (who I'm visualizing in the conductor's position), my friend who had a powerful connection to God ... but who has since lost it due to difficult events in her life. This, too, will result in my closer alignment with text, composer, and music than Mr. Yellow Pages.

But what happens with so many singers, choirs, and directors is that they focus on the technical rather than the meaning. Yes, that "Gloria" has gorgeous phrasing, beautifully matched vowels, powerful dynamics, and a whole choir full of vocally skilled singers -- MANY OF WHOM HAPPEN TO BE CHRISTIAN -- but the meaning is completely obscured by the technical focus. Very few are connected to specific thoughts about anything that would support their singing the phrase, "Glory to God" with anything resembling authenticity.

While they might truly believe the words and agree with the musical expression thereof, too many of them are disconnected from either internalization or meaning, so focused on singing well that THAT becomes what is "brought out" in the performance -- and THAT is what the audience focuses on as well.

But I'm not sure that your point would hold, even if you had two choirs side by side, one fully Christian, and one with many religious viewpoints and philosophies represented. Let's say you did, and both had found a way to connect to specific thoughts and a compelling purpose for them to sing the same song. If all singers were 'joyfully and powerfully connected,' I doubt that you could tell which one was which.

Bottom line: A singer/choir can be authentically connected to text, music, meaning, and expression REGARDLESS of their own particular beliefs about text. Not faking it, and only "acting" in the Method sense such that one's performance is all about "telling the truth" rather than "faking it." From my perspective, it's not about what one "really" believes as a foundation for authentic expression -- rather, it's what the singer is thinking IN THE MOMENT of singing that counts.

The other thing I wanted to address was your point about Christians singing a song praising the devil. I think you're right in that not too many singers (Christian or otherwise) would be terribly excited if their director chose The Omen piece, but I think the extremeness of the example overpowers its efficacy.

From my point of view, there aren't too many reasons that I could embrace that would make me WANT to sing The Omen -- though I could do it, and connect powerfully to it, if I had to. But many of the other pieces you referenced all had more going for them(:-), and I think singers could find the 'positive intent' far more easily.

Your Omen example did make me think of Carmina Burana, though, which has some mighty decadent texts ... and which people love to sing and listen to!

All my best,

Tom

PS: And Rachel brings up an interesting point when she writes, "It's wonderful if other choirs can add acting in to their music but it is awfully hard to explain to a 6 year old atheist or Jewish child that they should sing 'praise Jesus' with passion." I would like to add that it's awfully hard to expect ANY CHILD to authentically connect to religious texts, regardless of their (PARENTS') faith. It's kind of like throwing a chrysallis up in the air and expecting it to fly.... For me, songs work best when they aren't TOO FAR removed from personal experience -- and when there's some kind of potent connection to be made.

So, sure, six year olds can sing latin chants praising the Almighty -- but the director is going to have to spend a TON of time and effort getting them to both connect to and communicate the meaning in an honest and heartfelt manner.

Tom Carter
www.choralcharisma.com
tpcarter(a)earthlink.net





Tom Carter
tpcarter(a)earthlink.net

In a message dated 3/28/2009 7:15:13 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
janower(a)ALBANY.EDU writes:

Tomorrow I'm rehearsing Marriage of Figaro. I'll "be" someone else.



oooh...sounds like an Aspen summer schedule!

Vern Sanders
Creator Magazine
_www.creatormagazine.com_ (http://www.creatormagazine.com/)
_www.mondaymorningemail.com_ (http://www.mondaymorningemail.com/)
_http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id46237945_
(http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id46237945)
Read my blog (a) _http://dotdotdotblog.com/_ (http://dotdotdotblog.com/)


**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)

>I spent many years removing "God" and many other "charged"
>words from texts for Unitarian-Universalist use... And
>if any U-U wants to challenge that this kind of behavior
>is not "denomination wide,"...

Well, my preference is to "clarify" rather than "challenge"...

Nota Bene: The UUA (the Unitarian Universalist Association) is NOT, repeat, NOT a "denomination." It is an Association of congregations, and each congregation can (and frequently does) differ from the Association's position(s).

So... NO - it is not "denomination wide" - thank God! (as I understand "God") and I will respond to the poster privately as well.

Douglas Frank
The Douglas Frank Chorale
http://www.dougfrank.com
doug(a)dougfrank.com

Douglas Frank wrote:
>> I spent many years removing "God" and many other "charged"
>> words from texts for Unitarian-Universalist use... And
>> if any U-U wants to challenge that this kind of behavior
>> is not "denomination wide,"...
>>
>
> Well, my preference is to "clarify" rather than "challenge"...
>
> Nota Bene: The UUA (the Unitarian Universalist Association) is NOT, repeat, NOT a "denomination." It is an Association of congregations, and each congregation can (and frequently does) differ from the Association's position(s).
>

A reply from me, the original poster, seems absolutely necessary at this
juncture to "clarify" the "clarification":

Sorry Douglas, but the UUA itself frequently uses the word
"denomination" in its own documents, including articles posted online.
In fact, it does so at times in a very nice wordplay, such as the term
"Uncommon Denomination" as a PR slogan for public media! For non-UUs
who want verification, see articles on the UUA website such as :
http://www.uua.org/leaders/leaderslibrary/uncommondenomination/index.shtml
UUA committees have titles like "Denominational Affairs" (see other
documents in "Leaders' Library" materials), "Denomination" is, and has
always been, a common term for talking about the Association at large
and its relationship to individual congregations. So to speak of UUs as
a "denomination" is not at all inaccurate, even by UU terms.

That said: My originally posted statements are based on my knowledge
and past personal experiences of UUism *from the inside.*

I was very active in the UUA and UUMN (UU musicians network) for years,
and was member and music director of what was at the time the largest UU
congregation between Washington DC and Tulsa, OK. Whether you want to
officially call the UUA an "association" or "denomination" (and there
were indeed some angry folk locally who would similarly shout that "it's
not a church, it's a congregation!!!" with great indignation), I still
contend that the foundations of behavior I described was still
"UUA-wide," whether some individual congregations or fellowships choose
to dissent. (For those unfamiliar with the UUA, "fellowships" are
essentially small lay-led "congregation like" entities without an
official minister.)

So, I absolutely, adamantly stand by my statement. I am more than
conscious of UU "congregational polity"--which is no different in
respect to governance at the local level than it is for Baptists and
several other Christian denominations on that end of the spectrum. But
the incident I described was indeed in response to propagated UUA-level
socio-political criteria. And there had always been great pressure from
the UUA for congregations and fellowships to subscribe to
socio-political criteria, even though not to any theological "dogma"
(UUs being supposedly bound by "ethical" rather than "dogmatic"
commonalities, even though the respective historical roots and names of
"Unitarian" and "Universalist" originally came directly from "heretical"
theological concepts within Christianity).

> So... NO - it is not "denomination wide" - thank God! (as I understand "God") and I will respond to the poster privately as well

So.. YES it IS "denomination" wide, regardless of which God, god,
Goddess, "godding," unifying mathematical theorem, or harmonically
converged Cosmic Muffin you happen to thank--other than the "deities of
coffee hour" (fondly known as "The Amenities"). (You have to know UUism
from the inside to understand I'm not being mean to Douglas there.)

My point of the nationwide behavior should not be lost in the parsing of
what word better describes the UUA, just as changing the word "prison"
to "correctional facility" does not disguise why inmates are
incarcerated there, though the latter may make the public feel more
tepid about it.

Important message to other, non-UU, ChoralTalk readers:

I've also replied privately at much greater length to Douglas' private
response--which was itself much longer and involved that what he said
here, as was my response back before reading his public post.

Unfortunately, there is an enormous amount of comment I *could* make
about this which would both enlighten and horrify life-long mainline
Christian friends and even some others of entirely different persuasions
who subscribe to this list, were I to take it into a totally theological
vs. socio-political discussion and the state of American culture today.
But I'm trying to keep this within the "singing what you do/don't
believe" topic, even if I feel these experiences are only symptomatic
of a much lager problem we are facing now here in the USA. (And I also
recognize this is a global list not limited to the US, though the
consequences our current situation greatly affects the rest of the world).

Stay on topic, at least as much as possible.

--mg

Mark Gresham
mgresham(a)luxnova.com
"recovered" UU
# # #

Jerome wrote:
"By that last bit you indicate that a practicing Jew can't be a
musician, since normative Judaism today is what was taught by the
Pharisees back in the day, the Pharisees being the only
religio/political party to have survived in the Diaspora. So I read
what you write as, "One can take it too far and be a Puritan or a
Jew." Perhaps that's not what you mean, and maybe that is related to
why you think your message is not getting through as clearly as you'd hoped."

Um..no. Way off the mark, Jerome. My point was in being legalistic and strict, to the 'letter of the law' about it, just as the Puritans and Pharisees were about their faith. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Okay,maybe I bit off more than I could chew here. I know that there are many exceptions to the rule for 'believing what you are singing'. As a matter of fact, I do agree with many of you here as well. This conversation seems to have opened to a few different avenues of thought that I am not really trying to justify or defend.

My bottom line point is that there are some texts (yes, The Omen may be an extreme example) that might cause one to pause in the singing of them due to personal faith beliefs. My basic question was:

'Is it spiritually acceptable to sing about concepts and beliefs that go against one's views in songs that seem to require a personal belief in them?'

My answer for me is, 'Not really', though this will be different for others.

This kind of went off on another tangent that I wasn't expecting due most likely to my following point: Detaching yourself from the music to be able to sing the words defeats the purpose of why we sing it, and why the composer wrote it. Thus the music can lose its efficacy.

Using my previous example of Gorecki's piece. I may be able to ignore the English translation of 'Totus Tuus' while singing the Latin, and imagine that it is a recipe for vegetable dip so I can partake in the beautiful chords and structure of the song. Somehow in doing this something gets lost from a technical and emotional standpoint and I am basically being a hypocrite at worst and not engaging myself as much as I could if I truly believed the message of Gorecki's homage to Mary.

Simply put, yes I could act and do a good job of it in singing sacred music, but something gets lost in translation when there is no belief.



Darrell
d_corbel(a)hotmail.com

At 12:12 AM +0800 3/29/09, Jerome Hoberman wrote:
>
>Similarly, we don't sing Mozart's Ave verum the same way we'd sing
>The Heavens are telling because Mozart wrote "Adagio" and "sotto
>voce," neither of which would change even if we changed "Ave verum
>corpus" to "happy birthday to you" (which would, after all, fit the
>line).

Watch it there, Jerome. Those words are still under copyright in the
U.S. (although I don't know about Hong Kong or the Philipines!).

John


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell(a)vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html

"We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition
of jazz musicians.

At 12:54 PM -0700 3/28/09, Tom Carter wrote:
>PS: And Rachel brings up an interesting point when she writes, "It's
>wonderful if other choirs can add acting in to their music but it is
>awfully hard to explain to a 6 year old atheist or Jewish child that
>they should sing 'praise Jesus' with passion." I would like to add
>that it's awfully hard to expect ANY CHILD to authentically connect
>to religious texts, regardless of their (PARENTS') faith.

Oh MY but that makes me think of Oscar Hammerstein's lyrics in "South Pacific":

They've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before they are six, or seven or eight,
To hate all the people their relatives hate;
They've got to be carefully taught.

And he was severely criticized for those lyrics--probably by the very
kind of people he was referring to! This was, remember, the late
'40s, when no consciousness raising had yet taken place. None!

John


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell(a)vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html

"We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition
of jazz musicians.

I wonder how many of you have sung (or conducted) the Prokofiev cantata,
"Alexander Nevsky," adapted from the early Russian movie of the same name.
Probably very few.

It's exciting and challenging to perform. However, to get that unique
experience one must be willing to deal with text concerning the condemnation of
Christianity. It could be an unusual feeling for anyone raised in the teachings
of the Bible,

And, we all know "Carmina Burana," which, simply put, is a hoot to perform.
Have any of your civic choristers (or you) refused to participate in a work
which is pretty casual in its attitude toward the church, while being rather
specific about more basic human characteristics?

These conpositions aren't exactly the textual equivalent of the Brahms'
"Requiem," but they are indisputably great. Conductors and singers involved with
non-church music may exist who would, as a matter of principle, pass on such
performance opportunities, but I don't personally know of any.

Fred Wygal
fredw27ataol.com


**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours
in just 2 easy steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220439616x1201372437/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3
D668072%26hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)

What a wonderful discussion on all parts! We have gotten profoundly
technical, profoundly and sincerely spiritual, and delightfully even-
handed approaches - and I get the impression, as did someone else, that
all of this is being done with a certain amount of care, concern, and
grace. Not a very common response about ANY subject, much less faith and
art.

I'm in agreement with those who argue that, context depending, certain
texts which fly in the face of our personal beliefs found in songs should
nonetheless not be a block for someone to sing as a matter
of "professional" action - and by professional, not limited to paid
performers. So, the choral score to "The Omen" in a secular concert NOT
in a sacred space (sacred at least to those who believe - and we have to
be sensitive to that) and NOT for a sacred event might be personally
something that I wouldn't believe in - but in the right place and time,
sure, let's have some fun. If I recall correctly, all the "fa-la-la"-ing
in Renaissance madrigals means some hanky-panky's afoot - while that
might be fun, it's not something that we can endorse on a personal and
spiritual basis. But does anyone NOT sing that as lustily as possible?
I seriously doubt it. Of course, it may NOT be that hanky-panky's afoot,
but with these sorts of things you never know.....

Now, there was a comment made in another posting that a singer having
made a commitment to a choral group, there is a "professional"
expectation to be present and singing at the concerts. If someone has a
real concern about belief systems clashing, it's not unreasonable to ask
about the concert programs BEFORE making the commitment. There is,
sadly, one little wrinkle in this, and that's the year's program that's
still evolving, or that changes in mid-stride. There's where I can see a
real problem arising, and if an individual sincerely finds something so
objectionable that they can't sing it, and one finds out only AFTER the
commitment's made, then one may ask to be excused for that concert in
which the piece is presented. I am, however, in agreement with the Alto
2/Assistant Director who argues that it is our job, our duty, our
professional commitment to the music AND to our fellow musicians AND to
the audience to give it our all in presenting works with which we may not
agree personally but which we have agreed to present as music
professionals - whether qualifying as an "amateur" or "professional" on
some other basis. And finally, thank God (or Allah or Vishnu or
whomever) that we don't have to limit the works that are done for our
audiences only to those performers who "fit the bill," who are from the
same "belief system" as the composer - because, frankly, we'd do a whole
lot less of this glorious music and, while we may not be personally
satisfied by it, and may object to the text's "belief system" - SOMEONE
OUT THERE IN THE AUDIENCE MAY BE MOVED BY IT TO A PROFOUND
SPIRITUAL/PERSONAL MOMENT. To deny them that opportunity by only
satisfying our own beliefs is to vitiate the whole purpose of choral
music - to communicate by word and music. One cannot communicate one
way; one must be open to the possibility of dialogue and, yes,
misunderstanding - but also of understanding.

Obviously, this isn't the same situation in the sacred context. There
the focus is narrower and the purpose clearer and sharper. One who
chooses the music is NOT entitled to indulge some personal beliefs while
violating those of the community he/she serves by that music. Obviously,
the more fluid the beliefs, the easier it is to introduce more personal
approaches to sacred music. Darrell's larger point that "Totus Tuus" in
an Assembly of God church (or somewhere similar) would be violently out
of place, both in terms of the piece of music's creative context AND in
terms of the beliefs of that community. However, one should be open to
the idea of exploring other beliefs as a part of a larger effort to
understand (that pesky word again!) how others see the universe and what
they believe about it - because, by golly, maybe we can learn something
we'd never thought about before. As a Roman Catholic, I do not believe
in "justification by faith alone" (as Luther understood St. Paul), but
rather that such faith can be shown by works (as St. James wrote).
However, when I took the Renaissance and Reformation course at Middlebury
College, did I stalk out during the part about Luther and his beliefs?
No - because to understand where one stands, one must also see and
understand where others stand.

Would I recommend doing "The Omen" in a choral setting at Fort Belvoir?
Not hardly. But I would invite my Protestant and Jewish and Muslim
brothers and sisters to join us at the Tenebrae service I hope to
convince Father we should have Good Friday afternoon next year (God
willing!), as we have had at Greenspring Village in Springfield, VA for
the last eight years when we do The Lenten Service at the Village Church,
led by the good Presbyterian (woman) minister assisted by the good
Episcopalian (man) priest and chorally led by my two groups, most of whom
are Catholic - and there are Jewish members of the community present.
Something within that service speaks to something deep within all the
people who attend - because the numbers keep growing. I'm not arguing
syncretism; I'm arguing respect via understanding - what tolerance is
truly all about. Tolerance is NOT indifference. Tolerance is based on
understanding, and care for each other, and respect. I think we ought to
live with that....and it's one in the morning, and time for me to call it
quits after an incredibly long day! 'Night all!

Ron Duquette
ronart.assoc(a)cox.net

It does seem that this discussion gets more polarized and defensive the
longer it goes on. Most individuals are very invested in their
personal points of view, based on their cultural background, training,
and life experience. Nothing wrong with that. But it is perfectly
reasonable to listen to or read other individuals' points of view and
simply say, "Thank you for sharing your perspective." And it is
perfectly reasonable to explicate on one's own perspective without
expecting or requiring agreement from anyone.



Much of the music that we sing has strong memories and associations
connected to it, even if it is performed without text, or purely
instrumentally. "Hallelujah Chorus" and "Ave Verum" are but two
examples. We also perform a lot of music that has no automatic
associations for us, except for the text, or the context of the piece
or the performance. Music moves us, inspires us, irritates us, relaxes
us -- even if text is not present at all, or if it is incomprehensible.



Being conscious of that guides us in our choices -- for good or for
ill. The points of view and experiences expressed in this thread have
been enlightening, and will undoubtedly inform many of our future
decisions. The debates have been less helpful.




Consider two contrasting examples:

1. A Pastor requests music from "Schindler's List" to be played during
the Adoration of the Cross at an Episcopal Good Friday service.

2. An elderly woman in a wheelchair sings "Hark! The Herald Angels
Sing" to the tune of "Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me" as she is rolled back
to her hospital room following a Christmas singalong.



No response expected or required.



Charles Q. Sullivan

cqsmusic(a)hotmail.com

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Darrell wrote:
'Is it spiritually acceptable to sing about concepts and beliefs that go against one's views in songs that seem to require a personal belief in them?'

Darrell;
 
yes, while I may not agree with exactly how you came to your conclusions, in my 'brand' of spirituality, there are things I cannot sing because they would feel horribly wrong to me. The Omen is one of these but there are others that make me feel wrong too. And there are things that people of other faiths/belief systems cannot sing for the same reason.

Darrell also wrote:
'Detaching yourself from the music to be able to sing the words defeats the purpose of why we sing it, and why the composer wrote it. Thus the music can lose its efficacy.'

While I'm not sure we can suppose what the composer intended, I think there are many levels on which to create and appreciate a musical work. Since I personally believe that music with religious texts *can* be used as worship (even in a concert setting), I agree that without actual belief it will not be fully realized on the spiritual plane.
 
What I mean is that I believe that spiritual/religious songs can be used to join the heavenly beings already/constantly praising God. While that is probably far-out to some, that aspect of the music is missing if people don't actually believe. So in that, I agree with your assertion.
 
Of course, this is not a goal for most people, even most people who share my faith because most people, even "born again" Christians, don't share my intensity or my sense of what worship is. But I'm an oddball and perhaps you are too, Darrell :-)
 
As a choral director, I just focus on the many other aspects of the music where we can connect and completely be present in the music - places where our chorus can all work together.
 
And when I'm on a worship team, there I try to stop worrying about the perfection of the music and instead see myself joining a party already in session. It's Sunday - off to the party... :-)
 
Rachael Barlow
Director All Together Now Family Chorus
Littleton, MA, USA
rachael_barlow_groton(a)yahoo.com


 

Darrell wrote:
> Using my previous example of Gorecki's piece. I may be able to ignore the English translation of 'Totus Tuus' while singing the Latin, and imagine that it is a recipe for vegetable dip so I can partake in the beautiful chords and structure of the song. Somehow in doing this something gets lost from a technical and emotional standpoint and I am basically being a hypocrite at worst and not engaging myself as much as I could if I truly believed the message of Gorecki's homage to Mary.
>
> Simply put, yes I could act and do a good job of it in singing sacred music, but something gets lost in translation when there is no belief.
>

"It's very plain to see / we've no theology; / The choir sings in Latin
if the words aren't gender-free!" ...so goes a particular parody of a
Gilbert-and-Sullivan-style chorus.


--mg
Mark Gresham
mgresham(a)luxnova.com
# # #

Ron Duquette wrote:
> I'm not arguing
> syncretism; I'm arguing respect via understanding - what tolerance is
> truly all about. Tolerance is NOT indifference. Tolerance is based on
> understanding, and care for each other, and respect.
>

One would indeed think so, Ron. To this point, most of the discussion
is "I don't want to sing that because of personal [religious] beliefs,"
But from my experiences, the overall topic begs a couple of important
questions that seem ignored:

1) What happens when those who claim "tolerance" as a founding principle
become the *most intolerant* in actual practice?

2) At what point do we tolerate "YOU cannot sing that, because WE do not
want you to sing it!" (Members of one religious community to other
members of the same religious community.)

3) Now translate those questions into civic society outside of any
church or religious function. At what point is it "tolerance" for
music, or words in music, to become banned for socio-political reasons?
(This is not a random, hypothetical, or rhetorical question.)

Mark Gresham
mgresham(a)luxnova.com
# # #

A few random thoughts on a most compelling topic --

I for one would rather conduct or sing an excellent work whose text I cannot confirm as my personal belief than perform the dreck (often containing banal, simplistic versions of ideas) which weekly crosses my desk.

Some take offense when the Virgin Mary is praised; I take offense when musical mediocrity is celebrated.

I wonder: Does not the pagan celebration in "The Rite of Spring" cause just as much discomfort as the implications of "The Omen?" Do we accept the masterwork on the simple grounds of its greatness? Or that it has no sung text? Or that the story can be ignored?

I stand by my original assertion: music makes words sacred (small "s"). This implies that music with text contains more power than the words alone.

Sacred (capital "S") has many meanings; the one I accept for this issue is "that which exhibits the presence of God." Since Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God lays within each of us (and by extention, all of us), I believe everything we sing can contain both the sacred and the Sacred. But I feel the need to respect the power of music to dominate words, and handle it carefully.

The connection between words and music remains. Thus, a musical expression in honest praise of rape or misogyny contains even more revulsion to me PRECISELY because the idea reveals itself in the form of a song.

Each of us remains free to take whatever meaning the words express to us and do one or more of the following things: 1. reject the whole; 2. embrace the whole; 3. embrace the music and ignore the text; 4. embrace the music and understand the text as important for others but not for oneself; 5. embrace the music and re-imagine the text to conform to one's understandings; or, 6. ignore everything and remain oblivious. -- I personally have done each of these things throughout 35 years of teaching.

Floyd Slotterback
Professor of Music
NMU Music Department
1401 Presque Isle
Marquette MI 49855
fslotter(a)nmu.edu

This business of "belief" in the text brings up so many issues. One year I'd been asked by Jehovah's Witness parents not to do certain kinds of music on a program, and I thought, why not? There's plenty of music out there not about Christmas for our "Winter" concert, so one year I selected all my music (choir, band and strings) around Jehovah's Witness guidelines. I called the parents and ran titles by them asking about the usability of each piece. They were grateful and supportive and pleased I was being so thoughtful and accommodating .

The night of the concert, without telling me ahead of time, not one of my Jehovah's Witness students showed up. If the goal was to be MORE inclusive in my concert, then I failed. I'd gone through all that for nothing. It seems this business of believing in a text, or subject, is pretty much irrelevant when push comes to shove. I'm sure there's much more relevance in a church choir paying attention to the church calendar, but in a public school this is now a well-established disconnect.

I don't tailor music for specific groups any more - it's all grist for the mill now. As a devoted [!] Agnostic, I don't bother about selecting or avoiding music with religious text - I pick the music for the merit of the music. I love doing gospel pieces and I really get down on the piano parts. (Had I been raised in a church that injects that much joy in the music, I probably never would have left). But I don't refuse religious music because I don't have a devout faith.

After a district choral concert recently, a Christian parent said to me he was made uncomfortable by how much religious text music was performed. I guess he was made uncomfortable for other people who are not Christian. I don't think about how much secular or religious music I'm doing any more. I'm just focusing on the overall program and selecting music I think my audiences will enjoy.

When a student asks me why we're doing a religious piece saying they're not Christian, I talk about the element of acting a part and setting ones personal beliefs aside from the character being portrayed. After all many actors portray murderers or insane people on the lyric stage, but the singer/actors are not their characters and we all know it. So how is it we get so preoccupied when the medium is a choir? I tell the kids, if you don't believe the text, then the challenge is to sing is as though you do - "act" the text.

Thanks for your thoughtful discussion about this. I'm grateful for all your input.

Bruce Haines
brucejhaines (a)comcast.net
Oakland CA

Since the "Ave Satani" chorus from the film "The Omen" (hereinafter "the
Omen Chorus" for brevity) has been frequently mentioned as the
touchstone for what a singer with strong religious sensibilities could
not be reasonably expected to perform, let's explore this topic.

The concept of the Antichrist, which is what the film is about, comes
from the Bible. The Antichrist is necessary for the second coming of
Christ, just as Judas Iscariot is necessary for the crucifixion of
Christ and Satan is necessary for the Fall (and eventual Redemption) of
Man. I may be cutting theological corners here, but please bear with me.

The story of "The Omen" ends with the Antichrist being destroyed
(granted, not in the first film, but eventually). The story is about
triumph over evil, not a glorification of evil. In the context of this
story, the Omen Chorus thus serves the same function as the Baal
choruses in Mendelssohn's 'Elijah' which I referred to earlier or, for
that matter, the worship of the Golden Calf in Schönberg's 'Moses and
Aaron' or the chorus "Praise ye the god of gold" in Walton's
'Belshazzar's Feast' -- to simplify, it is a piece of music about evil
but it is in the service of the greater good.

Would any performer in their right mind program the Omen Chorus in a
church service? Of course not. But if the Omen Chorus is included in a
concert program, would the audience suddenly imagine that the choir have
turned into practicing Satanists and that, say, the audience will be
killed and eaten if they do not pledge allegiance to Satan? Of course not.

What it probably would do is make the audience feel uncomfortable. Which
is exactly what it is supposed to do.

One of the functions of art is to provoke and to take the recipient out
of their comfort zone to make a point. The Omen Chorus achieves this by
taking a vehicle with very strong and specific associations in Western
culture (viz. a choir singing in Latin, strongly and specifically
associated with Christian liturgy) and using it to do something
completely different. The point being made might be that much the same
means are used in this world to do evil as to do good. It would in any
case be essential for the audience to know the context of the piece.

And would it make the performers feel uncomfortable? Quite possibly. But
there is an important distinction between spiritual commitment and
performance commitment, and this is something that has been discussed
extensively in this thread already. Sometimes the two coincide, but in a
performance of the Omen Chorus what we would have is the performers
evoking evil for the audience as a contrast to good, NOT the performers
BECOMING evil themselves.

But I wonder -- if a firmly religious performer has no problem with the
Baal choruses from 'Elijah' but baulks at the Omen Chorus, would this
be, paradoxically, precisely because s/he does NOT believe that Baal
exists but DOES believe that Satan exists?

--
Regards,
Jaakko Mäntyjärvi
Helsinki, Finland
jaakko.mantyjarvi(a)welho.com

"Nil significat nisi oscillat. Du vap. Du vap. Du vap."

Jaakko wrote:

"The story of "The Omen" ends with the Antichrist being destroyed
(granted, not in the first film, but eventually). The story is about
triumph over evil, not a glorification of evil. In the context of this story, the Omen Chorus thus serves the same function as the Baal choruses in Mendelssohn's 'Elijah' which I referred to earlier or, for that matter, the worship of the Golden Calf in Schönberg's 'Moses and Aaron' or the chorus "Praise ye the god of gold" in Walton's 'Belshazzar's Feast' -- to simplify, it is a piece of music about evil but it is in the service of the greater good."

I disagree somewhat. I see the Baal choruses not as an homage to Baal in and of themselves but as representing a bit part of the overall story representing characters in that story, just as if we read the narrative from the scriptures.

I suppose we'd need to know more about what the composer of 'Ave Satani' was implying or intending when he wrote the piece. If the piece was fully intended to tell a story and used to represent a specific part of the movie in telling that story, then we could say the piece was used as a proper representation of Damien in the story (for example, suppose that in the movie, Damien was making a sacrifice to Satan and this music was the primary theme during this scene). However, it seems to me that this piece is more of an ambiance piece for glorification of the movie's subject matter and a general representation of the mood and tone of the movie.

Nonetheless, I would be uncomfortable even in a secular concert setting to be singing words like 'Hail Satan, Hail the anti-Christ'. I think there is a moral responsibility of Christian loyalty that should be followed. If I can fully recite and sing such words and not feel accountable for my allegiance to God, if I can treat the music simply as a 'story' and playing a part, not really believing it, then I suppose that that could apply to this scenario:

Suppose I am in a communist country and a gun was put to my head and I was told to 'Renounce Christ by reading this anti-God manifesto out loud', I could just think 'Well, I really don't mean it. I'll just act it out.' One could even say that the martyrs of the Christian faith like Hus and Jerome could have merely put on a show (like Galileo) of renouncing their faith and gone on with their merry lives. If they didn't believe in it, they could have chosen to remove themselves from the belief of it and played the part to appease others.

I don't know. Perhaps I'm rambling! :-)

Darrell Corbel
Choral Director
Okanagan Adventist Academy

Darrell Corbel
d_corbel(a)hotmail.com

Alas ... sounds as if the only milieu in which a choral director is
relatively sheltered from complaints and boycotts regarding
selection of literature, is that of a community chorus or a
professional chorale. That sad fact leaves a huge percentage of our
membership living a very frustrating existence. Dies lacrymosa ..

Dean M. Estabrook
d.esta(a)comcast.net

> ...so one year I selected all my music (choir, band and strings) around
> Jehovah's Witness guidelines. ...>
> The night of the concert, without telling me ahead of time, not one of my
> Jehovah's Witness students showed up. ...>

> Bruce Haines
> brucejhaines (a)comcast.net
> Oakland CA

Bruce,

Why didn't they show up?

Jim Cole
Our Lady of Lourdes Church
Whitehouse Station, NJ
ollmusic(a)embarqmail.com

At 11:07 PM -0700 3/29/09, Dean M.Estabrook wrote:
>Alas ... sounds as if the only milieu in which a choral director is
>relatively sheltered from complaints and boycotts regarding
>selection of literature, is that of a community chorus or a
>professional chorale. That sad fact leaves a huge percentage of our
>membership living a very frustrating existence. Dies lacrymosa ..
>
>Dean M. Estabrook
>d.esta(a)comcast.net

Hi, Dean. I would read it a little more optimistically. Those whose
personal beliefs are more important to them than their music will
select themselves out, as they should, or devote themselves to the
more narrowly-defined areas that they can accept, and those that are
left will be both more open minded and more willing to "try anything
once"! That, after all, is why there are religious elementary and
secondary schools and religious colleges for those who can only
function within a community of like believers. It takes all kinds,
after all.

John


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell(a)vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html

"We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition
of jazz musicians.

Observations:

Jaakko Mäntyjärvi writes:
"What it (singing the "Ave Satani" chorus from "The Omen) probably would
do is make the audience feel uncomfortable. Which is exactly what it is
supposed to do.

One of the functions of art is to provoke and to take the recipient out
of their comfort zone to make a point. The Omen Chorus achieves this by
taking a vehicle with very strong and specific associations in Western
culture (viz. a choir singing in Latin, strongly and specifically
associated with Christian liturgy) and using it to do something
completely different. The point being made might be that much the same
means are used in this world to do evil as to do good. It would in any
case be essential for the audience to know the context of the piece.

And would it make the performers feel uncomfortable? Quite possibly. But
there is an important distinction between spiritual commitment and
performance commitment, and this is something that has been discussed
extensively in this thread already. Sometimes the two coincide, but in a
performance of the Omen Chorus what we would have is the performers
evoking evil for the audience as a contrast to good, NOT the performers
BECOMING evil themselves."

Precisely - and we (meaning audiences AND performers) are uncomfortable
being uncomfortable - and there are very clear instances of when we
should be. We need to think about what we're doing - and when.

Bruce Haines wrote:
"After a district choral concert recently, a Christian parent said to me
he was made uncomfortable by how much religious text music was performed.
I guess he was made uncomfortable for other people who are not Christian.
I don't think about how much secular or religious music I'm doing any
more. I'm just focusing on the overall program and selecting music I
think my audiences will enjoy."

The Christian uncomfortable with how much "religious text" music that was
being performed on behalf of those who are not Christian, might also be
the person who would want crosses taken off churches, etc. Here's my
take: if the program isn't a sacred one in a sacred space (and having
been heavily involved in various school choral concerts, I can say this),
then it's a part of the cultural landscape - no more; no less. To the
Christian who argues such discomfort, I'd say: "My friend, you're as
entitled to have your culture heard and seen as anyone else - that's the
great thing about truly tolerant behavior. It's not merely defending the
right of the other fellow - but also defending your own right to your
point of view, so long as you offer it with care. Your sensitivity on
behalf of people who MAY not buy this is splendid, but misplaced. If
they're uncomfortable, perhaps a discussion is needed on what makes them
uncomfortable about it, given the circumstances - but self-censorship in
this time and place is inappropriate."

If nothing else comes out of this discussion, then perhaps the
realization of the degree of care we should take about text and music in
time and place may be the best part of it all - and that this discussion
has taken place at all is a point of encouragement for all of us, no
matter how much we may disagree on specifics. I've written to this
before, but I'll do it yet again: I am deeply impressed by the courtesy
and care and kindness and, yes, dare I say it, the tolerance of differing
opinions that has occurred here. I am really glad to have found this
site. Thanks all!

Ron Duquette
ronart.assoc(a)cox.net

Some funny stories...

My Middle School group performed "Battle Hymn of the Republic" and before I even presented it to the singers, a flag went up an it was recommended that I get pre-opproval from Central Administration. So I did.

The Superintendent's response was, "Of course, it's fine, it's a patriotic song. Sure it has religious lyrics, but that's clearly not why you're performing it. It's OK!"

So I presented it to the choir, and a few Jehovah's Witnesses approached me. JWs take issue with singing patriotic music. So I said to them, "Take the music home, and read the lyrics with your parents, then come back and talk to me." They did, and when they read the text, they came back saying that it was OK.

Carl J Ferrara
Rb4uris(a)yahoo.com

Mr. Cole,

I'm not entirely sure why the Jehovah's Witness kids didn't show up. When I asked them I got evasive answers. I called one of the parents who had been involved in selecting the rep for the concert, and I got a long explanation that I can only summarize as - "We don't participate in public concerts and activities that are not sponsored by the Jehovah's Witness Church itself." I've never been clear about why they won't come to a concert, and for the life of me I can't see why, according to their perspective, their participation would lead to any questionable or "corrupting" influences. I can only conclude that they choose to live a secluded life cut off from the world in general and subject themselves solely to the the direction of their church elders. The upshot for me as a public school music teacher is, don't expect these kids to attend concerts, and don't tailor concert repertory to their taste or approval.

I think, in retrospect, I was trying to "buy" their participation by tailoring the rep to their guidelines, but if the kids won't come to the concert, then why bother? I also had been led to believe during my discussions with the parents that, were I to be so accommodating, their kids would attend. Since no one at any point explained why they would not be participating, regardless of the rep, I feel as though I had been deceived.

The bottom line for me is, these people can live their lives as they choose, and the lesson for the rest of us very well may be not to expect them to be involved in the performing arts outside their own church venues.

Best wishes,

Bruce Haines
brucejhaines(a)comcast.net
Oakland CA

I'm finding this entire discussion unexpectedly fascinating, and
participating in it far more than usual. I apologize if my
contributions are offensive, boring or too personal.

It occurs to me that those who seem most disturbed by the question of
participating in a performance by singing and/or playing music from
"The Omen" seem to be those who know that music best. That would
suggest that they've attended performances, have listened carefully
to it and/or have studied the score.

Now, one participates in a performance not only by singing, playing
or conducting but by listening as a member of an
audience. Performers may often find themselves in situations in
which they're expected to participate in performances of works with
which they are not in sympathy for any number of reasons -- musical
as well as those relating to verbal contents. (Musical opinions can
have as much moral value as religious ones do.) However, performers
have obligations to involve themselves: as programmers they must
present a wide range of repertory to appeal to every element of their
audiences, to educate, to represent the entire history of
composition. And to make informed programming decisions they must be
familiar with the repertory. As performers they are members of
ensembles that depend on them and that couldn't exist in a viable
manner in an environment in which individual members decided on an ad
hoc basis whether to contribute or not.

The audience, however, always has a choice. It can come or it can
stay home, or go to the movies.

Therefore, it seems to me that one can be seen (by whomever is doing
the "seeing") to express solidarity with the contents of a
performance far more by sitting quietly in the audience than by
sitting or standing on stage and producing sounds.

If so, why do these individuals know "The Omen" so well? Is it some
sort of illicit pleasure taken in what is forbidden?

Best regards,
Jerome Hoberman

Music Director/Conductor, The Hong Kong Bach Choir & Orchestra
Principal Conductor, Baguio Cathedral International Music Festival, Philippines
Director, Ohel Leah Synagogue Choir, Hong Kong

Jerome said:
"Performers may often find themselves in situations in
which they're expected to participate in performances of works with
which they are not in sympathy for any number of reasons -- musical
as well as those relating to verbal contents... However, performers
have obligations to involve themselves: as programmers they must
present a wide range of repertory to appeal to every element of their audiences, to educate, to represent the entire history of
composition."

And I think that at some point in time, the performer does need to determine if singin those songs does violate a personal belief system that he or she may hold dear. Should we sacrifice belief for art? Yes, I think we must be open minded. Singing about Fa la la-ing in the month of Maying which does have sexual connotation is alot different than singing a song in homage to Satan. At least there is some cultural aspect to the Maying song and the words are culturally relevant (and frankly, aren't taken that way any more to a modern audience).

Jerome said:
"If so, why do these individuals know "The Omen" so well? Is it some
sort of illicit pleasure taken in what is forbidden?"

Actually, I don't really know much about the score of 'The Omen'. But if I am really honest with myself, I would probably say that the music of 'The Omen', grabbed me with an intense stranglehold as a kid. Alot of the reason why the movie was as scary to me as it was was due to the music. I do love gothic type choral music and might even have been subconsciously inspired into choral music by The Omen, as this was probably my real first introduction to choral music. I suppose that some would consider this an argument in favor of doing it, that it might inspire others. However, I can assure you that until a few years ago, I wasn't aware of the lyrics of the songs!! I don't think that using music to praise the devil is a wise introduction to the glorious, praiseful world of God centred choral music.

Darrell Corbel
d_corbel(a)hotmail.com

Bruce, I can tell you with certainty, that their choice to not show up was a personal choice. JWs have nothing in their belief system itself that would forbid them from attending and/or participating in public concerts.

In fact, my sense is that they all make personal choices based on the tenets of their belief. On the one hand, they do not believe in performing patriotic music (It is seen as worshipping a country rather than God) or any holiday music (it is seen as placing importance on a day other than the Sabbath.)

On the other hand, they strongly feel that elders and people in authority should be respected and that rules and regulations of a society should be complied with. I've actually had students whose families told me that although this goes against their beliefs, their child will sing the song in class and participate, because it is required of them for the class, and a responsibility that they took on.

Most JW families weigh the many sides of the issue, and chose the course of action they feel is most compliant with their values. We are called upon to be sensitive to this, and understanding, but make no mistake, this is a personal choice, not a "directive."

Carl J Ferrara
Rb4uris(a)yahoo.com

Carl,

Personal choice or not, I've learned not to count on JW kids participation in school concerts. Helps me to keep realistic expectations. I want to support whatever decision my JW families make, but I don't want to be caught up short again by relying on participation when my experience tells me that's a fool's folly. Forewarned is forearmed.

Bruce

brucejhaines(a)comcast.net
Oakland CA

I understand your frustration - the only times I've had JW students with musical concerns, I've made concessions in literature, only for them to either drop the class, or not show up for the concert. It's very disconcerting. (no pun intended)

It's an area in which, I believe, there will be more and more contention over the years - and I'm afraid the great choral music will suffer due to its religious nature. I hope I'm wrong.

W. Thomas Rickman
Choral Director
Greenbrier High School
rickmant(a)brier.k12.ar.us

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - Barack Obama

Well, it ain't PC, for sure ... but I for one am not willing to make
those concessions in the Literature I would choose. If any student
doesn't care for what ever reason, to learn and perform the Lit. I
select, he/she may find another sandbox in which to play. I know it's
a complex issue, but I for one, am sick and tired of seeing my art
pushed around in that manner.

Dean M. Estabrook
d.esta(a)comcast.net

On Mar 31, 2009, at 10:24 PM, Thomas Rickman wrote:

> I understand your frustration - the only times I've had JW students
> with musical concerns, I've made concessions in literature, only
> for them to either drop the class, or not show up for the concert.

Mr. Rickman,

To be honest, I don't think we're talking about very many kids here. I don't have these kids very often as they tend not to be involved in music at all - their loss, I suppose. But my lesson was not to tailor my rep to any single group's preferences.

Best of luck with your work.

Bruce Haines
brucejhaines(a)comcast.net
Oakland CA

> That, after all, is why there are religious elementary and
> secondary schools and religious colleges for those who can only function
> within a community of like believers.
John,

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you don't mean to imply that those who
attend religious schools do so (primarily) because they and/or their parents
believe they cannot function outside a community of like believers, or that
that is why those institutions exist, do you?

Jim Cole
Director of Music
Our Lady of Lourdes Church
Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889
ollumusic(a)embarqmail.com

At 8:55 AM -0700 4/1/09, Jim Cole wrote:
> > That, after all, is why there are religious elementary and
>> secondary schools and religious colleges for those who can only function
>> within a community of like believers.
>John,
>
>Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you don't mean to imply that those who
>attend religious schools do so (primarily) because they and/or their parents
>believe they cannot function outside a community of like believers, or that
>that is why those institutions exist, do you?

I do believe that in some cases, for some people (or some families),
that is the primary reason they choose denominational schools at the
elementary, secondary, or college level, yes. We have entirely too
many family friends who have done exactly that for me to doubt it.
And I was not implying that this is a bad thing, or that there are
not other reasons which may be of either primary or secondary
importance.

One of those reasons, of course, can be the perceived rigor or high
standards of education, especially when the public schools may be
perceived as having lower standards. But it is understood that at
least SOME degree of religious indoctrination will be included at
such schools. My undergrad school was nominally supported (but not
very much) by the Methodist church, and we were require to take one
course in religion. And I took some courses at a Catholic
university, where the teachers in the science classes had to walk a
very precarious line between science and church doctrine. And I've
heard the frustration of colleagues in the Religion Department who
teach Bible courses, with students who have "studied Bible" for
years, but don't have a single clue what is actually in the book
except for the hand-picked verses they have been required to memorize!

Since I teach college students, I'm more aware of them than of any
other age group, and I would say, based only on personal observation,
that here, in a non-sectarian public university, there are probably
as many students who retain and become stronger in their religious
beliefs as there are those who fall away from the denomination and
belief system they were raised in. We have them both. And it would
be a difficult subject to run a valid survey on, because it's a
subject that many students would hesitate to give truthful answers on.

Sorry if I implied a broader generalization than is warranted, but
those factors exist and they won't go away. Nor should they.

John



>
>Jim Cole
>Director of Music
>Our Lady of Lourdes Church
>Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889
>ollumusic(a)embarqmail.com
>
>
>


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell(a)vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html

"We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition
of jazz musicians.

"but I for one am not willing to make those concessions in the
Literature I would choose."

I have a quick story about this type of situation (hopefully it will
cheer and inspire you at the end of a long day). BTW, quotes are based
on my feeble memory and therefore paraphrased.

A dear friend of mine also happens to be rather unafraid to share his
opinions. During his first year of teaching (taking over for a
well-respected and widely-known "legend" who had retired), he held a
choir booster meeting. One of the parents said, "I think that we as
parents should have more input into the literature that you choose for
our students to sing."

In his words, "I heard the words before I had a chance to stop them."
And those words were, "Would everyone in this room who has earned two
degrees in music please raise their
hand?"...Silence...Stillness...Crickets chirping..."That's what I
thought. When you've completed your degrees, come back, and we'll talk
about repertoire."

When he told me the story, I wanted to stand up and cheer. All I could
say was, "Why can't I conjure up words like that when I most need to say
them?"

I should add that when he left after three years to pursue further
studies, he had earned tremendous respect from his colleagues,
administration, students, and even the parents. It's hard to replace a
legend, but I've seen very few do it as well or as quickly as he did.

--Julian Bryson
JBryson(a)randolphschool.net

> That, after all, is why there are religious elementary and secondary
> schools and religious colleges for those who can only function within
> a community of like believers.
John,

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you don't mean to imply that those
who attend religious schools do so (primarily) because they and/or their
parents believe they cannot function outside a community of like
believers, or that that is why those institutions exist, do you?

Jim Cole


Oooo, ouch, ouch!!! Jim, in a very odd way, I have to agree with John.
The simple truth is that the primary reason Catholic schools were created
in the late nineteenth century in this country was because 1) there was
rampant anti-Catholicism in the public schools; and 2) the feeling among
Catholics was that moral and ethical values needed for a properly
Catholic lifestyle were not addressed in these schools. So, in a very
particular way, the Catholic schools (and I'm the product of one in the
mid-50s to the mid-60s for elementary, and late 60s for high school) were
created with the intention of allowing the particular community of
Catholic believers to function morally and ethically in a "safe"
educational atmosphere. I may be putting a positive spin on it as
opposed to the way John phrased it, but I think in the end the intention
and the result of our arguments may very well be the same - but he and I
are looking at it from opposite sides of the same coin. And I would
suggest that other religious groups who have their own educational
opportunities have them precisely because they feel, if not threatened,
then at least at a disadvantage in the public school arena because of the
perceived/actual lack of moral and ethical underpinning consistent with
their own beliefs. And that is the basis, at least among very
conservative Catholic educators (Seton School in Manassas, VA and
Christendom College in the Shenandoah as examples), for a claim to be
returning to "authentic" Catholic teaching. It is also, to be quite
honest, why the late Pope John Paul II tightened the screws on
the "Catholic" universities and colleges in this country, who, in his
view, had strayed dangerously far afield from teaching what they were
originally designed and meant to teach - i.e., not to accommodate the
civil society, but rather stand as a beacon to it about right living and
faith. I'm not arguing for one or the other position; I AM arguing that
we need to see what we Catholics did quite clearly when it came to the
educational issues in the past and which still should engage us today.

Ron Duquette
ronart.assoc(a)cox.net

ChoralTalk readers,
I think this topic has strayed a bit far from anything particularly choral, so as the
list moderator, I'm going to stop approving further messages for distribution. We
have some other active topics at hand, and I know that many of you are involved
in church music and Easter is very near, so I rather doubt you'll mind this action.

Peace,
David Topping
ChoralNet moderator
(running off to church myself...right now)

Update:

If any further posts are submitted that contain sufficient "choral content" (are
"on topic"), then I'll approve them for posting directly to this website archive,
rather than for email distribution (several people have thanked me profusely for
cutting off the thread).

Peace,
David Topping
ChoralTalk moderator