One thing you might do is send out group email notes--everyone is on the list--following the rehearsal, talking about points, about how much fun it was, how it was great to read through this piece or that piece, about the liturgical calendar, reflections on what happened, etc. This build a sense of community and establishes you as the leader. It also makes people feel kind of rotten for not being there. Then we they show up, they will sense something from other choirs members, something of a hint of exclusion of some sort. Then the person will eventually realized that a choice must be made.

Anyway, this is a good thing to do every week following rehearsal. IN time, people will start informing you when they will or will not be there.

The Three Week Rule
Let them know that you will rehearse everything to be sung for three weeks, at least, without exception.

Since so many people are so busy, they need to understand that they are expected to sing every Sunday that is possible, as long as they have attended at least one rehearsal in the last three weeks.

And, welcome everyone when they arrive, especially when they arrive late. Keep a positive attitude, if they are late coming, make a comment that you are glad that they could make it, you know how busy people are/bad the weather is...whatever, but do it in a way that really acknowledges their effort.

You will get some negative thinkers, pessimists, who will complain about this approach. You have only one choice. Make it clear to them that it is your choir, and they will either accept this or absent themselves from the choir. And educate your pastor that you are having a group that is inclusive rather than exclusive so that when these "yippers" (my apology to all little, yapping dogs) start yipping at the pastor about you letting people sing who have missed rehearsals, he knows the full story.

If you can silence the "yippers" and beat them to the Pastor, you will do fine. These glass-is-half-empty people can kill your program.

Do not turn away older singers whose voices are failing. Blend them into the section, and balance the section so that they do not stick out. They are afraid that they are failing and will be excluded. You keep them in.

Look to parents of home-schooled youth, especially those that are "different". There is nothing better for an autistic child/youth who is functionally able to be part of a choir, to be in the choir. There may be moments when they act inappropriately, but just ignore when that happens, and make sure everyone else does. This is a great service to these children/youth, a tremendous help to them, and it also makes your choir a place of love rather than a battleground.

The pessismists will bitch about this, too. Good time to rid yourself of them.

Take time at the end of each rehearsal and Mass to say goodbye and thanks to every choir member.

Do you want to build a good, competent choir or a social group? Competence comes first, then socializing. Those who want to socialize will find another outlet.

Donna

Don't want to drag too far off the topic, but part of the problem is this idea of "Music Ministry" wrongly applied. If the attitude is that the ministry is directed towards those in the choir (The Choir is there to serve those who belong to it)... then the result will be laziness. If it is made clear that the choir SERVES THE LITURGY, then there is a reason to aim for excellence.

I'm astonished at the lack of service ethic in the Catholic Church regarding music. In the Baptist Church of old (I don't know if this is still true), if you could sing, you sang. Period. There was no choice about it. If you were a member with some musical talent, it was a tithe to sing in the choir. Something you did.

In Catholic parishes, people do it 1) if they have some talent and are not embarrassed to sing, 2) if there is nothing else going on on rehearsal night, 3) if they are praised to the skies by the director and the pastor, 4) if they are willing to come to Mass early every week, 5) if they are willing to sit apart from their family, 6) if the music is something they like to sing, 7) if they like the other choir members and have unrelenting fun during every minute of participation, 8) and so on.

It is a disgrace.

I have often wondered if having an explicit minimum standard (weekly Sunday Mass attendance, yearly confession and communion) means that many Catholics tend toward a lowest common denominator approach to their participation rather than toward some sort of 'highest common aspiration'. Certainly the average level of volunteerism and financial generosity is lower among Catholics, even when adjusted for income and family size. And yet we all know parishes where these commitments are expressed at very high levels.

Quality attracts quality.
The mediocre look after their own.
Catholics tend to respond to calls to purposeful sacrifice.
Easy commitment = easy to leave.
Never apologize for what is right.

We're Orthodox. We don't have the resources (people or money) you do. And from parish to parish, there is a great deal of variation in the quality of the music, depending on what resources are available -- and to us, the choir is an integral ministry of the church, since we have a sung liturgy (even at our parish council meetings, the prayers at the beginning and the end are chanted). Having said that, we are in the midst of our own music revolution, against the professional choir polyphonic music that began with Peter the Great and extended into the first half of the 20th Century, to bring back the simpler, modal, chants that do not require professionals to sing. You don't need professionals to have beautiful liturgical music. You only need a mission for the choir, that they are not there to be pretty or as a nice adjunct for special servics, but that they sing the liturgy; you need people who are willing to contribute the time and work; and you need the clergy and choir directors to support the mission. Generally on a Sunday, we have between three or four women and five to eight men by the time the Great Doxlogy begins at the end of Matins and the choir takes over, and usually three chanters (all male) for Matins. We do a fairly good job, I think (there are a number of sound clips posted on my website, all from a cheap recorder).

With God, all things are possible.

People have lives. I occasionally have one myself. The only person who never misses rehearsal is me because I'm the director.

My rule of thumb is if the motet, antiphon, etc. in question is new, you can't have missed more than one rehearsal out of three for the piece and especially not the last one. There will always be another time to sing that work.

And so far, there have been no outbreaks of violence in my women's ensemble.

Yes, tiers are the way to go. We have an satb choir, elementary choir, schola cantorum (and of course we have our... ahem... contemporary music ensembles (english and spanish) :{}) but it gives everyone who wants to participate a place to land.

Absolutely: we all know of choirs whose best singing and greatest diligence are reserved for concerts and events outside the parish, including jaunts to Rome, Ireland, etc. Now goodies like these can be framed in ways that enhance a choir's liturgical singing, however, the balance is not always easy to achieve. Similarly, we also need to make sure that our choirs are not operating under a silent-but-deadly assumption that authentic singing of the liturgy cannot aim for the same level of polish and professionalism as non-church musical ensembles. Many times this is framed in the same 'sing the liturgy, not at the liturgy' statements that are otherwise so appropriate for reminding choirs of their proper disposition. Indeed, there is a bias against artistic excellence almost everywhere one turns in the average parish, many times fed by a faulty implementation of V2 teachings of the dignity of the laity.

From St Tikhon's monastery:

"The Russian style of four part singing was developed in a time when singers were plentiful and often professional. This is no longer the case in some parishes (especially mission parishes.) This does not mean, however that four part singing should be done away with altogether. It obviously still has a place in the hearts of many of the faithful and should not be taken from them by force. However, it is important to look at one's own parish liturgical situation critically. We must ask: Are we forcing people in our choir into molds that are no longer appropriate and practical for our circumstances? In either case, we must proceed with great care and caution. Music in the Church is a delicate pastoral issue. The choir director must always be in dialogue with his or her priest about any changes in the musical repertoire of the parish. Choir directors must be sensitive and yet practical: What is going to work and what is going to produce an atmosphere of prayer and worship for my local worshipping community? The goal is not necessarily great sounding music (it is a great and necessary plus, albiet secondary) but rather prayer and communion with God. God is the end or rather the goal, and music is one of the means to that goal, not the other way around ...

"Oftentimes, the choir director and members are totally focused on making the four parts of the harmony blend and come together. The music in this case sounds nice, but this focus can make the worship feel superfical and too outwardly focused if not even showy. If the heart of a singer can not focus on the text, the text loses its power because it comes from the head and not the heart. Music that is sung from the heart is powerful and transformative. All Orthodox Chant is quintessentially text oriented: the music ideally illumines the text, highlights the text, and communicates the text. If this is not being done, either for the singers or for those who hear, what is the point? We lose our focus and goal if the sacred word does not lead us to REAL contact with the Eternal Word."

I won't be long before the folks at Tihkon monastery are singing "Sons of God" and other "music sung from the heart."

Developing a deep mastery of singing is something accessible to pretty much anyone. With limited exception, I can't think of one person (man, woman or child) who with a bit of dedication to the discipline of learning the art is incapable of developing the mastery of the art without sacrificing their prayer and "REAL contact with the Eternal Word."

Frankly I find the comments posted from Tihkon to be the straw dog of post-modern trash music in the American Catholic parish church experience in sheep's clothing. The arguments are tendentious and disingenuous.

Begin with chant and build from there; then you'll have the right attitude.

rwprof,

Yet it is you, not us, who struggle with inappropriate music, kumbayah, pseudo-folk, and other near blasphemous works. How ironic, given your nasty remarks, Mr Andrew.

I'm not the one who posted the remarks stating that the high and noble art of choral part singing is more for show and leads people away from a focus on the Eternal Word, or somehow prevents folks from entering into the transcendent mysteries of the Mass, such as is stated plainly in the quote you posted.

I didn't intend to be nasty, I did however intend to address in a very direct manner the assertions made in the quote you posted. As you've chosen to turn it into an issue of the tone of my remark rather than responding in a way that would address why my point of view is incorrect, it would seem to me that it is you who has chosen to be nasty rather than return the directness of the questions, hence my suggestion of disingenuousness.

I do not doubt for one minute that there are those who sign onto this forum for the purposes of being an agent provacateur. I recall a problem shortly after signing onto this forum when Todd Flowerday made an appearance and took advantage of the forum to provoke rancorous debate and send many otherwise legitimate issues and questions down the proverbial rabbit hole. Unfortunately for him, he had been known for this on other boards and was banned by the moderators of this forum, and for good reason.

The original point of the immediate thread was not to debate whether or not part singing or the approach of Eastern Orthodoxy versus Western Latin Rite to the application of certain uses of choral music was right or wrong. It was to determine how to properly, fairly and with pastoral concern develop and build a choral music program in a parish with folks who wanted to control or co-opt the purposes, expectations and disciplines of the choir.

A quick read of rwprof's comments above suggests that he takes issue with the use of well-prepared and well-executed choral music to the liturgy. His comments sent this thread down a deep and unpleasant rabbit hole with his contention that "professional choirs" (a term I never used, nor promoted, nor do I favor) do not somehow belong in the liturgy. His comments, ISTM were not relevant or in keeping with the topic at hand. Within the Latin Rite, the Holy Father, together with many years of writings, documents and instructions from the Holy See has addressed the issue of training and maintaining choirs at all levels of the church. This requires folks who are trained, some professional and some not.

Perhaps my choice of words in rebuttal to the quote he posted from St. Tihkon's monastery were too strong. I am passionate about what I do and what I believe in. I, nor anyone else who regularly participates in discussions here, are interested in rancor or ad hominem attacks, but the passion we have sometimes colors the words we choose. For that I do apologise, but I won't apologize for asking direct questions or challenge those who make wildly generic or tendentious assertions in place of well-thought critical argument and discourse.

David, you have no need to apologize whatsoever. And I firmly believe that as these forums acquire new readership and contributors, the "agent provacateur" factor seems to increase proportionately as well.
To the subject at hand: I have the privilege of having a core schola of about 12-16 voices who were auditioned and have remained under my direction for 17 years counting. We have another 8 or so floaters, plus the students who return during vacations and breaks, some who sang with me in middle and high school. We're kind of the Pointer Sisters of classical church music in our little town of 130K folks (We are Fam-i-lee! Or was that Sister Sledge?) Consequently, we have a great deal of polyphony, chant and later musics encoded in the cells over time. Last week, for example, we chose to use Fr. Lindusky's English translation for Pierluigi's SICUT for Communion, and we only need one rehearsal in reality, English or Latin. But, each time out, I take the opportunity to have the singers notice and observe something new that enhances both their understanding of the WHOLE piece, text and music, in order that by Sunday what was well-worn to us remains fresh and vibrant. And I mean that in both spiritual and aesthetical realms (aren't they fused, anyway?) I think that a DM that is provided an opportunity to form a quality ensemble AND a y'all come sing quire has the benefit of providing both musical and pastoral leadership to a spectrum of interested and invested volunteers.

Given the above two quotes, I thought of the large volume
Thirty-five Years of the BCL Newsletter 1965-2000
and the various items among the 114 pages of newsletters
leading up to the Jan-Feb 1968 Newsletter containing
"The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations".
When you see danger signs, especially through historical hindsight,
it is important to speak and make known those danger signs.

DA, you are in good company ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laocoön_and_His_Sons
although in this Forum you were only chided for sounding the alarm (you are still sane and alive).

Can I say that I am troubled by quotations without clear citations?

Using Google, I was able to determine that the quotes actually come from
http://www.orthodoxtwopartmusic.org

It is a website somehow related to
http://sttikhonsmonastery.org/
based upon context, and that the contact info for both provides the same city and zip code.

Unfortunately, the quotes provided above are out of context and therefore misleading.

The two quotes are excerpts from a long explanation of why the website is promoting music in two parts.
http://www.orthodoxtwopartmusic.org/otpl6.html

Why only two parts?

The answer to the question, "Why only two parts to this music?" has, ironically, a three part answer:

1) Practical: This music is ideal for mission parishes, older parishes with just one dedicated choir director (and a few singers) as well as for daily services. However, it is also apparent that many choirs no longer have trained singers. It is realistic to say that for male voices, very few men are real tenors and very few are real basses. Most male voices are baritone. Hence, it is actually rather unethical to force untrained singers to sing out of their tessitura (outside their given vocal range.) When basses do this, it will just sound silly. However, men who sing tenor without using proper techinque can permanently damage their voices.

Now you can start reading the earlier "cherry-picked" quotes.

For the record:

The quality of music (it's composition and performance) have everthing to do with the disposition of the musicians and nothing to do with the level of difficulty or style of music. The disposition of mind and heart toward an attitude of prayer can be had by those singing a Bach Cantata and totally evacuated singing "Sons of God." Content has nothing to do with the proper disposition of prayer and authenticity in spirit.

Provocation is not the intent of most comments, including strong and prodding assertions, in the sense of seeking to purposely ruffle feathers. On the other hand, strongly stated "pronouncements," with sometimes agendas attached, may need to be addressed in straight matter of fact terms, vetted, principally because to not do so runs the risk of having questionable assumptions gain validity on such rarified and erudite forum. If one feels confident enough to make (and one should know when one deals in controversy) broad and sometimes brazen assertions, then one should know that those may be met with something just as strong. Again, in neither case should one be assumed to be demanding one's pound of flesh, no not at all. Vigorous discussion is, or should be, fine. In fact, given the stakes involved, without at least some mild controversy we might as well be discussing crochet or baking.

Of course, one should take the extra step sometimes to make sure counters to such assertions are not taken as ad hominem. And those who offer such loaded statements in the first place should not presume that others are just lurking in the shadows ready to pounce on any statement they disagree with with some sort of vitrol to boot. I just don't see that.

I have been visiting here a year. The very name Catholic Music Association of American has the "ring" of a professional association, and though that is not specifically asserted in the self description, we can, by a quick glance over the names of the BOD, understand that it is indeed "professional" in focus, without necessarily marginalizing the committed amateurs. But music is too difficult an art for the dilettante to be very accomplished in the highly nuanced, multi-disciplined and demanding field as is the realm of "high" church music, and this is what Gregorian and polyphony is. For your consideration:

* Officers and Board of Directors
* President: William Mahrt
* Vice-President: Horst Buchholz
* General Secretary: Janet Gorbitz
* Treasurer: William Stoops
* Chaplain: Rev. Father Robert Pasley
* Directors: Susan Treacy, David Hughes, Scott Turkington
* Program Director: Arlene Oost-Zinner
* Publications Director: Jeffrey Tucker
* Directors Emeriti: Rev. Father Ralph S. March, S.O.Cist; Kurt Poterack; Rev. Father Robet Pasley; Paul F. Salamunovich; Very Rev. Monsignor Richard J. Schuler

Lots of professionals here? You betcha.

I have felt the need to challenge higher ups exactly here on ideas proposed that, to my best understanding, risk undermining the "professionalism" within the ranks of composers by an undue emphasis on dismantling of copyright theory seemingly as a reaction to the sometimes poor judgment and stewardship of some of our Catholic publishers. Good topic for frank debate, and the principals involved seemed not to be in any way personally offended, but just the idea that the stakes would be understood for what they truly were and discussed as if the outcome in either direction posed serious ramifications, well others seemed to judge that the site was now doomed and no longer a place of respit. Respectfully I disagree. Others did as well. Again, certain topics call for proper vetting of premises and assumptions, and, as well, the realm of "unintended consequences" must be considered. Perhaps these kinds of topics need to be avoided by the same set that should not watch the manufacture of sausages or the law.

I don't think it can be stated strongly enough that the undermining of professionalism has had disastrous, hideous results in the Latin Rite Catholic Church liturgy. Why wouldn't those attached to Orthodoxy, or the Byzantine Rite, scream at the top of their lungs if necessary at the specter of anything getting even close to the liturgical undermining of the Divine Liturgy. Latin Rite Catholics have been screaming for years, as they should; sadly there are far too few decision makers willing to even hear those screams. Thankfully, we have as of yet not heard anything approaching a scream here, but the eyebrows do go up and I would say that seemingly "up for grabs" sentimentality being waved is a huge red flag, and justifiably so. I don't think the tenor of these types of discussions necessarily indicate an abandonment of civility, and if one is chaffed just because someone strongly disagrees, and again, with good reason, IMHO, then who is at fault?

Now, good people, thinking people, can differ on certain subjects and remain true to the ideals of the faith, as those here on this board will undoubtedly concur. But roads previously traveled and proven dangerous need warning signs, and sometimes more than a few, and come to think of it, warning signs are not usually nicely worded, and cannot be most times and still be properly understood.

as usual jeffry you hit the nail on the head (but then again, whenever do you not?)

"A quick read of rwprof's comments above suggests that he takes issue with the use of well-prepared and well-executed choral music to the liturgy."

Completely wrong. I object to the professionalization of the liturgy. The liturgy is not a performance. It is worship. Nor were those quotations taken "out of context." The monks at St Tikhon's chant two-part liturgical music because the text is the point, and because the liturgy is not a performance. It makes no difference whether one is Orthodox or Catholic. The liturgy is worship.

There is nothing "kumbayah" about my point. We sing a variety of chant schools (Kievan, Prostopinije, Byzantine, Znamenny, Moscow, etc.) and while we have no professionals, we take our ministry seriously and do a good job. However, we have a great deal of congregational participation. Nobody could ever get the impression that they were there to listen to us.

It isn't professional v. Woody Guthrie. That's a false dichotomy. If you sing chant, then chant is, by definition, simple. Now, if I had my druthers (which I don't), I would draw the line in the sand at tonality and we would sing only modal music. But that would mean no Slavic music other than traditional Znamenny, and we have lots of Slavs. It would be unproductive, and probably uncharitable.

St Tikhon's is, by the way, the oldest Orthodox monastery in the United States. Other than New Skete (yes, the monks that publish the dog books), and they converted as monastics so their modernism comes from elsewhere, we have no modernist monastics. As far as liturgical music goes, their position is about as conservative and traditional as it gets.

"and the principals involved seemed not to be in any way personally offended, but just the idea that the stakes would be understood for what they truly were and discussed as if the outcome in either direction posed serious ramifications, well (sic) others seemed to judge that the site was now doomed and no longer a place of respit.(sic)"

Mr. Z, I cannot help but conclude your last phrase meant to address the concerns of my first post in this thread. I believe, if that is the case, that you've mischaracterized my concerns significantly. I did not judge that this forum was now doomed at all, or have I ever said or regarded this forum as a respite from conflict and hostility elsewhere in such forums. Like Jeffrey stated, the focus on excellence is accompanied by a distinct lack of professional snobbery as well as the expressive freedom of our individual spirits. I regard your contributions as extremely valuable. I make every effort to understand the nuances as well as the obvious thrusts of arguments deliberated here. I often fail in those efforts, but not for lack of trying.
Maybe I and others can and should be regarded as amateurs, dilletantes or a "set that should not watch the manufacture of sausages or the law...," but I assure you, I am not chaffed by these processes, I just wonder at what point does all of the nit-picking become mere sophistry?
Mr. Andrew's topic seems quite forthright, practical and professional.
I have had the privilege of seeing great numbers of young adolescents present at two colloquiums and a chant intensive. What could they "make" or "take" from the occasionally pedantic banter of this and other threads that go down the rabbit holes? Or should that not even be of concern because we are "professionals?"

And per usual, what MJB said.

Does anyone else have anything helpful or constructive to add with respect to my original post question?

If not, would a forum administrator, in the interest of maintaining some decorum of the forum (pardon the rhyme), kindly close and sink this thread?

If I understand right, *anybody* can sink a thread, even a thread they didn't start. The "Sink this discussion" link in the left column does the trick.