Dear S O,
Unfortunately the "section leader" position is often too political. I'd say if
you can avoid as much of the politics as possible, you'll enjoy this for a long
time!
If the choirmaster, director of music, organist-choir director does their job
your solo will dovetail with the lessons of the day. This is less important in
some denominations but pretty high on the list for Episcopalians, Lutherans,
Moravians and some Catholics.
Ed
s o <diana_92024@y...> wrote:Hi there,
I do appreciate your comments about church singing and
they are definitely well worth the consideration. I
have been hired by a church to be the head soloist. I
am not a member of this church, but I must say during
the process of getting this job it took a great deal
of ego and a great deal of performance to get the job.
By the way, this was my first professional audition
and my first professional hire.
Now that I am the soloist I have found the need to
take my singing to the next level. Which is people
who do come to services look for encouragement within
the music. So, when the soloist is singing the
soloist or choir must feel and understand the words
that they are singing and be encouraged by the
message. All of this involves a certain amount of
ego. I agree this has become less of a performance.
Hopefully I can give the congregation a form of
encouragement that just happens to go with the sermon.
Just my two cents.
--- Clark_Diane <DCLARK@r...> wrote:
> Karen M. wrote:
>
> > 3) We are not performing in church. We are singing
> in church. Church music is not intended to entertain
> or even inspire the "audience". There is no
> "audience" and there is no "performer". Egos need to
> be checked at the sanctuary door - they have
> absolutely no place in church singing.
> >
> +++I am going to disagree with this statement,
> though, of course, much of the problem is
> semantics, as usual. As a veteran (lifelong) church
> musician, I have logged a lot of hours singing in
> church for the glory of the Deity, and I have
> definite opinions about what that involves.
>
> +++First of all, I have spent my life training to be
> an excellent vocal performer. Why should that skill
> not be a worthy offering to present to the Deity? I
> don't know your definition of "performing," but mine
> is creating my art to the best of my ability for the
> purpose appropriate to the occasion. I consider
> that in church I want to give the highest quality
> performance of which I am capable.
>
> +++Second, the audience includes anyone who is
> listening. That includes the Deity and any humans
> who happen to be present. Once again I desire to
> give my audience the best performance of which I am
> capable. If someone listening happens to be
> inspired by my performance/offering, that is all to
> the good. The Deity reaches and touches people in
> many different ways. If someone is entertained by
> my performance, that is also fine. All the gifts of
> the Deity can be honored in church, and
> entertainment is one of them.
>
> +++Third, I believe ego is necessary in order for
> me to be a good performer in the first place. If I
> didn't have ego, I would never have the nerve to get
> up in front of people and sing in the first place!
> A swelled head is not helpful -- that may be left at
> the door. Confidence in one's talent and joy in
> sharing it is necessary and valuable.
>
> **********
>
> > Of course, I don't disagree with any efforts to
> improve the quality of
> > church singing - but only if these efforts are
> motivated by the only
> > reason church singing exists in the first place:
> to better glorify God.
> >
> +++I would venture to say that there may be many
> reasons for church singing to exist, glorification
> of the Deity being one of them. Comforting the
> wounded might be another. Inspiring the faithful
> (or not so faithful) might be another. How can we
> humans have the nerve to say (limit) what higher
> purposes may be served in such a setting? That is
> sometimes the trouble with religious institutions
> and their members, however. They think they have
> all the answers down pat! I say it's a bigger
> picture.
>
> > Attempting to improve a singer's technique just to
> make her more pleasant for her colleagues or even
> the congregation at large to listen to is NOT an
> acceptable motivation in this situation.
> >
> +++Improving the quality of one's offering is always
> a good thing, no matter for what purpose it is done.
>
> > If, BTW, the priest or minister disagrees, I would
> be happy to engage him/ her in a meaningful dialogue
> on the subject.
> >
> +++Well, I'm not a priest, but I am happy to engage
> in meaningful dialogue with you. I doubt either of
> us will change our opinions (since it took me four
> decades to form mine!), but perhaps it is worth
> noting that there ARE differing opinions about this
> topic. It is definitely not cut and dried.
>
> ---
> Dr. Diane M. Clark, Assoc. Prof. of Music
> Dept. of Music, Rhodes College
> > 2000 N. Parkway, Memphis, TN 38112
> > 901-843-3782; fax 843-3789
> > dclark@r... http://www.rhodes.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
---------------------------------
|
