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 > > > > > > >
|