>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.
In principle, I see merit in this idea: the house of worship is no
place for showing off one's voice in a vain way. But then again, I
don't see the concert hall that way either! For me singing is best
and most satisfying when it is grounded in communication, which takes
ego (or, let's say, self-knowledge) of a certain kind but not of
another.
I wonder what your attitude is toward hired soloists in a church
setting. Does it ruin it for you if they are not of the same belief
system as the congregation? I imagine we have all sung religious
music in places where we didn't "fit" -- I know I have. In that
sense, singing liturgical music *is* performing, investing it with
fervor and intensity which we may not truly feel. I personally don't
feel that the music I sing needs to espouse my own theology; I'm glad
I have the acting skill to sing committedly even on texts I don't
believe. If I didn't, I would miss out on some glorious music that I
adore, and listeners would miss out on hearing what I have to offer.
Just another perspective.
NGL
--
http://naomigurtlind.net
|
