Joel, Reg, et al:
Here's some thoughts based on my experience: My husband, until last fall,
was choir director for 13 years at a church affiliated with the Reformed
Church in America (similar to Dutch Reformed & not very different
theologically from Presbyterian) & Latin doesn't go over really well in a
lot of these congregations. Our people automatically associated it with
the Catholic mass & they are uncomfortable with that idea. We find it a
little funny from the historical standpoint because John Calvin, whose
teachings are the basis for what makes our theology different from other
denominations, preached in Latin. There could be similar feelings at the
church you are talking about which are tied into the history of the
church in England.
To singers who find themselves singing in a variety of
churches/denominations, I know this can seem a little crazy. My guess is
that most of us who subscribe to these lists hold to Duke Ellington's
statement that there is only two types of music: "good and bad". When
singing in a foreign language in churches, we always need to provide a
printed translation of the text...sort of the singer's version of St.
Paul's recommendation to the church in Corinth, which basically is if you
are speaking in tongues an interpreter must be present.
Here's another thought: in our area, at least, the Schubert masses are
not well known & can be difficult to sing (which I unfortunately found
out during a concert with the Ab mass after having eaten fast food!). Our
home church doesn't take to Bach to well either. It could just be a
matter of taste & (lack of) familiarity. I really think each of us will
run into situations like this throughout our singing years & will have to
learn to accept it & look for other outlets which will satisfy our own
personal needs.
Pat Smith
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 10:36:56 -0700 Joel Figen <natural@w...>
writes:
> At 02:50 PM 07/23/2000 +1000, Reg Boyle wrote:
> > Now here's a challenge. I understand the desire to
> keep this
> >list as sterile as possible, but I suggest that is a bit too
> idealistic,
> >especially
> >in view of the content of, and history surrounding much of the
> music we
> >know and love. At the moment I'm singing in a Schubert mass in
> Latin in a
> >Presbyterian Church ; a Scottish church, in Australia. Obviously
> some
> >choir members prepared to sing Bach, baulk at Schubert, or is it
> the Latin or
> >possibly something else? <snip>
>
> Well, I've seen all too many lists pass from peace to war over
> issues like religion, politics, and sexuality....
>
> I'd say it's fine to speak of the history of a piece, period, or
> composer, even where religion is involved. That's most
> interesting stuff, and most people can discuss it without making
> it personal.
>
> What I hope not to see here are discussions of religion that get
> personal, with people trying to defend their religions, or their
> understanding of various religions, against perceived attacks,
> which may not even exist, but you know how that can go, and
> worst of all, I'd hate to see any proselytism or religious
> put-downs.
>
> Given the proven history of religious discussions beginning
> harmlessly and quickly escalating into internet warfare, I would
> vote to keep this list squeaky-clean. So, in the case of your
> presbyterian choir, I think it's enough to know that some of them
> don't like Schubert, and we don't have to analyze their reasons.
> From where I stand, it wouldn't really be respectful to analyze
> them anyway. De gustibus, and all that.
>
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive
> chemistry
> experiments.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
|
|  |
