Well, I could just say that it's human nature (and it may well be), but that would be a copout.

 

And I would suggest that the circles in which status/class/rank is considered to be in poor taste are still rather circumscribed.  I mentioned the military.  Membership is important to identify for IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe), but also to instantly identify status (rank) in a very hierarchichal organization.  Graduation caps and gowns (a poor descendent of full-time academic garb, of course) are still a requirment for most high school and a good many college graduations (which is why I do not attend our own graduations).  In church not only the choir (quite often) but the clergy are clearly identified by their vestments.  In front of a class of students, many of my colleagues still consider it necessary to wear coat and tie to identify them as faculty rather than students, although I do not, and I doubt that any school district does not have at least an unwritten dress code for teachers. 

 

And of course we've all seen the required "uniform" for Members of Congress and Senators:  uniformly a black or dark suit, a white shirt, and (usually) a red tie which too often seems to cut off blood circulation to the brain!  There ain't been no hippies elected President quite yet!!  And as a musician, my tux is just as much work clothes as a pig farmer's Oshkosh-b'Gosh bib overalls.  Agreed that the '60s was a wonderful beaking down of the historical weight of dress codes, leaving women free to wear what looks good on them without being subservient to big name fashion dictators, but there are still limits.

 

You might not LIKE dress codes, and that's your privilege.  But that doesn't mean that other people don't take them seriously.  When I first came to this university, there were relatively few women in engineering, and their professional organization organized workshops on how to succeed in business, INCLUDING how to dress for success.  For all I know they're still doing it, 30 years later, although we now have a woman as Associate Dean of Engineering.

 

But your question was about choral uniformity, and the history IS relevant.  There's a feeling in classical music circles that individual anonymity is a Good Thing because it does not distract from the music itself.  Uniformity helps that.  In popular music people realize that individualism is worth money in the bank, so performers work hard to establish an individual style and an individual look.  But those same performers often insist that their bands or backup singers dress uniformly, so as not to "upstage" the headliner.  Not always, of course, but still quite often, and I've played tours like that when after the first concert the women in the orchestra were ordered to wear black so as not to take attention away from the guest artist.  And the visual element is extremely important in show music, even when the performers are not costumed as specific characters.  Skirts must flare similarly.  Dancers are VERY aware of unison movement, and choreographers of unison costuming.  (It was my wife who pointed out to me that when the chorus line in "A Chorus Line" was doing their kicks, the "little girl on the end" had to kick twice as high to match the kicks of the taller dancers, which she did!)

 

All the best,

John

I have seen groups choose 2 colors - for example red and blue, or black and gold.  Any clothes can be worn - any style - as long as they are those  2 colors.  I like the unity-in-diversity message that sends.