You might start by talking about how things don't work out so well when you try to put square pegs into round holes. I would certainly also point out how you are trying to involve many people in your program and the kind of music they think they want can only exclude rather than include people. If they're looking for solo stuff, you might look for another gig. I'm sorry you have to go through this.

 

Good luck!

 

Dean

Dear Cathy:

        Composing/arranging/transcribing is always a whole lot easier from the outside looking in... from their seat in the pew, so to speak. Encourage these folks with their thoughtful ideas to try their hand at doing the composing/arranging/transcribing themselves...

        On the one hand it will show them just how hard the task really is, and show them the amount of work you have been putting in. On the other hand, if they succeed in producing soemthing workable, you will have someone with the capability to help you with this portion of your job.

        Good luck!!

You may also let them know how much it will cost to buy the arrangements for the music they want, since none of it will be public domain and therefore you won't have the rights to arrange it.  If they realize they will be spending money to change the choir's style, they may rethink their position.

 

Good luck!

Shannon

Cathy,

 

Advice, yes, but they won't like it and possibly you won't either!

 

I agree with Shannon, but I'd take it a step further.  Point out that the volunteers you have are not professional musicians and lack the skills to produce the slick performances that are created in the recording studio by professionals.  And follow up with a list of PAID instrumentalists and singers, including soloists, that would be needed to produce what they think they want.  Even people who aren't musicians can usually read a balance sheet and understand a cost-benefit analysis!

 

Shannon is absolutely correct that while performance royalties need not be paid for music used in the course of a religious service, all the songs and all the arrangements and all the recordings your folks seem to love are under copyright and would require permission to use, or else your church will be in violation of copyright laws and subject to suit.

 

All the best,

 

John

 

 

Cathy -

 

More significant than the problem of the expense of time and money required to legally make this switch of repertoire is your assessment, as music director, that your current repertoire is well-suited to the abilities of your musicians and to the purpose for which it is intended. Rather than suggesting that your liturgy team be more sensitive to the demands of your position - about which they know little or nothing - you might suggest that they review the responsibilities of THEIR roles. The Catholic liturgy in particular has very specific (though not unreasonably limited) parameters for the musical content (and particularly text content) for each and every part of each liturgy. It is a stretch that I cannot make to imagine how the music of Beyonce would fit into ANY of those parameters -- which says nothing at all negative about the music of Beyonce. Sticking with what expresses the liturgical needs of the moment and doing it well - within the capabilities of your particular situation - will have more lasting effect upon the worship experience for all who participate than will attempting to "attract" a young audience with music that is inappropriate for this purpose. Young people are not stupid -- but they do need direction. Hopefully it is not too late for your liturgy team to seek some direction. It should be available from diocesan resources, church documents, or from National Pastoral Musicians, among other sources.

 

Charles Q. Sullivan

cqsmusic(a)hotmail.com

Exactly...you said it yourself...they are not musicians.  Apparently they don't appreciate the work you've done previously in putting those arrangements together...rhythm parts and all.  Do they realize how fortunate they are to have a music leader (I mean YOU)  capable of doing all that?  Do they  know just what they're asking?  I don't care how hard you try...it will be next to impossible to duplicate the heavily studio-produced sound your non-musician staff is talking about.  And..if you are able to sing that kind of music...chances are the listener will be disappointed that it just doesn't sound like Beyonce.  Your staff just doesn't get it.

I do not think you are being narrow-minded. On the contrary, I think your approach to gospel choir is laudable.  It's worked for you and your numbers seem to be up...your singers love it...yes? 

Believe me, I know what it's like to be a church musician being ill-advised, if not pressured, by non-musicians, in how we do our jobs. 

They need to trust you in your work.  Stick to your guns!

Good luck...

Tom in PA

 I agree with the other comments made; and this is a common issue when a committee convenes to discuss just about anything.

 

 In my many years as a church musician, those years that I was required to work closely with a worship committee were the toughest.  Just when things were going well, members of the committee would request changes, as in "well, now that we've seen you do this well, let's try this..."  Like fresh meat thrown in the circle, talk, ideas, arguments & directions would appear, almost to satisfy the need to create work for and by the committee.

 

I, too, spend a lot of time and resources on music that our choir sings as well as a lot of energy convincing the singers that they are not performers but worship leaders.  They are helping to provide the sacred ambience for worship services, along with pastors, priests, readers, acolytes and ushers.  If you are able to convince your worship/liturgical committee that the music ministry works best with the resources available, i.e. you as director, arranger, teacher, and themselves as singers and trained worship leaders - they may see the light.  Providing them with financial figures to shock them in the direction of common sense, however, cannot hurt.  You may also want to gently remind them that they hired you as a professional - not just to 'wave a stick around in front of the singers' or to be a music librarian, but to provide musical direction, experience, educated opinions, and positive musical energy.

Cathy:

 

I've worked in liturgy and music for 30 years, and I applaud the good work you are doing.  I would suggest you look for ways to compromise.  Continue to work with your choir in the way you as music director think best.  However, within your choir there are probably musicians who could, on occasion, work up a piece to the liking of the liturgy committee.  Perhaps if you start there, the committee will feel that they are being listened to, and you may find some hidden talent in your group.  It may be something that you can hand over to a group and not worry about until they are ready to sing for you (audition) prior to the liturgy.

 

Cost wise, it probably wouldn't take more than purchasing a few copies of the sheet music to pull this off.  With the right song (a ballad), you could easily have your choir come in on some background "oo" parts to fill things out in a couple of short rehearsals.  Make it fun for them and they will appreciate the opportunity to succeed.  It will be a win-win situation.

 

Avoid the judgement "they are not musicians."  The liturgy committee has responsibility within the structure of the church, as do you.  I don't think we as musicians can claim that we know all of the answers regarding music in worship just because of our training.  Music is more than that, and we need to be open to the suggestions of people who are touched by what we do.  I don't think the point is that they don't understand (explaining in terms a non-musician can relate to), I think the point is they don't feel you are listening and responding to their concerns about using music as a tool to reach a part of the assembly.  I believe if you do "adapt a little more and give it a chance" you will be delighted with the results. The other possibility is (if it doesn't achieve the expectations), that you will be able to meet with the committee and together assess why it is not effective. 

 

Good luck

 

Tom Porter

Cathy I think your pastor has to be involved in fostering more open and honest communication among you members of the committee: I cannot see how the whole group could focus on one narrow type of music - there must be something else that's making them want to drive you into a corner.  Perhaps they're after the whole amazing performance experience of the musician and her entourage rather than just the sound, (and if performance rather than ministry is preferred, again your pastor has to speak up) and all that visual extravaganza is THEIR responsibility more than yours.  But be careful - my colleague in the next parish was let go in September precisely (she says) because she wouldn't acquiesce to the demands of their LitComm to mimic the music of the newly established Mega Church next door whose Rock Band Sirens were perceived to be tempting away their precious youth towards the treacherous currents of evangelical fundamentalism.  I was looking for good R&B choral arrangements and http://www.brentwood-benson.com/categories.aspx?CategoryID=38 was recommended by a choralnet member and my choirs rock to the Anton Armstrong Choral Series, with little or no extra arranging needed. Peace to you

 

Brendan

Dear Cathy,

I think what the liturgy team is trying to do, is in order to hide their incompetence in solving this dilemma they shove it into your shoulders. As the previous comments have pointed out, all these kinds of efforts take a lot of time if you really want to do it well. Is the liturgy team willing to increase your budget to get what they want? Also attracting young people with this kind of "bling bling" probably will end up in a situation where the whole parish is drowning in quicksand sooner than they ever think.

So what you can do is to present a budget where you point out how much these changes really cost (of course since it takes more of your time they must be willing to triple your salary). That usually scares them off. Or they can always replace you and your choir with a  jukebox.

Best wishes,

Pertti

Cathy -

 

I'm probably beating a dead horse, but I am going to once again try to make the point that this is not essentially a musical problem. It is a liturgical problem being avoided by making it a musical problem.

 

I doubt that your liturgy team is incompetent -- my guess is that they have allowed themselves to be distracted by the issue of "putting butts in the seats, preferably young butts" instead of putting a true faith experience in the minds and hearts of the congregation by learning about, educating themselves and the congregation (and sometimes the clergy), and insisting on following the basic liturgical parameters set up by the documents and rituals of the particular Church that they have chosen to be a part of (or which they were born into, or both). The LITURGICAL parameters are not limiting, but they are revelatory as to how to fulfill the 'plan" that is already there. It is a mistake to insist on "planning" liturgies as if they are a blank slate that has to be marketed in order to attract a client base. The continuity of the liturgical year is not based on creating a series of block-buster events, each one requiring more amazing and exciting content and "performance." This is a significant distinction. The liturgical sequence has within it its own structure of "progressive solemnity" and excitement that only works if it is respected as fully as possible in a given situation.

 

Respecting the liturgical structure is the only way in which liturgical churches can truly engage their congregations in their real mission, which is not "can you top this." It's not for everyone, that's why not everyone chooses to participate in these churches. These days the proportion of members of any given congregation who attend on close to a weekly basis is perhaps less than in past decades, but it is still significant. Allowing those who are occasional drop-ins -- for whatever reasons -- to unduly influence the ongoing flow of the liturgical year is ultimately counterproductive. This leads to less and less of continuing substance to keep the "regulars" on track with their faith growth, and is dishonest in its approach to attracting new participants -- especially young adults.

 

The liturgical church CANNOT, and in my strong opinion, SHOULD NOT attempt to compete with the commercial world. It is not necessary, and it is counter-productive. Building traditions of selfless non-egocentric or celebrity-centric communal worship is a tough job. But like all disciplines (anyone familiar with that word anymore?) it requires adherence to basic principles and Mission -- whereever your church falls on that continuum.

 

The "problem" of determining the appropriateness of musical genres and styles in liturgical worship is made much easier by first studying the form and intent of the liturgy itself. You will find that this study will NOT direct you toward satisfying the ephemeral tastes of your congregation, but toward providing inspiration and even provocation to the tenets of the faith. In the course of a season or year or liturgical cycle there may be opportunities to satisfy the individual tastes of all but the most contentious members of your team and congregation -- but probably not within each individual service. There is much of quality and substance in a variety of styles and dificulties to provide stimulation to both the musical forces and the congregation over the course of the year.

 

It is fruitless and never-ending to argue these matters in terms of musical taste or finances, without first working through the deeper issues. Discussing the deeper issues does not always lead to agreement or consensus, but it might lead to honesty, and possibly re-evaluation of personal involvement. It fights against the way things "work" this days because everything seems to be weighted in favor of the primacy of individual opinion and expertise, and on numbers.

 

In those rare instances where honesty and institutional integrity to MISSION are addressed, it becomes possible to examine musical choices and financial considerations with the appropriate perspective, based on the capabilities and particular cultural needs of the specific situation. But within liturgical churches, the arguments will never end without some degree of submission to tradition and liturgical principles.

 

I am quite sure that this diatribe reflects the views of an infinitesimal segment of readers, but I post it in hopes of identifying at least a couple of kindred spirits.

 

Charles Q. Sullivan

cqsmusic(a)hotmail.com

 

There are two rules of resolution of conflicts between clergy and musical directors:

 

Rule No. 1 - clergy always wins.

 

Rule No. 2 - see rule No. 1.

Cathy -

 

You are absolutely correct that your strongest voice in your discussion with your liturgy team is that of the musician, but as a musician in a liturgical church, you cannot shrug off your own responsibility to participate in the discussion from a liturgical standpoint as well. In most cases the liturgy team INCLUDES the parish musician, and in most cases there is rarely a real liturgical expert on the team. That is why continuing exploration and education of the team itself is crucial. One place to start is a document created by the U.S. Bishop's Committee on the Liturgy, entitled Music in Catholic Worship. Directly pertinent to your situation and that of your liturgy team is a discussion of three judgments to be made in the selection of music: musical, liturgical, and pastoral. You already have a strong sense of and position on the musical and pastoral dynamics of your situation -- taking a more assertive role in the liturgical part of the discussion would be entirely appropriate, and might help lead the rest of your team to a deeper understanding of the role of the the team as a whole.

 

All the best to you.

 

Charles Q. Sullivan

cqsmusic(a)hotmail.com

Thanks everyone for the replies, good advice from choralnet as always. I still struggle with the notion that chart music has any real place in the liturgy and I thank you for your thoughtful reply Charles - however I'm no liturgical expert, I have to bow to my liturgy team on that one and if they feel certain things are appropriate then I don't believe it's my place to argue with them from a liturgical point of view. From a musical point of view, however, I know what I'm talking about, so I think it's more appropriate to base my arguments on that - I'm employed as a musician after all. Whatever about its questionable liturgical merits, the type of music suggested is simply MUSICALLY inappropriate - not just demanding, or labour intensive for me - but inappropriate in the sense that it will not sound well when performed by this particular group, whose musical strengths & weaknesses I feel I know very well.