I faced this precise situation just last week, with a visiting singer. I became crabby during rehearsal and everyone was feeling bad about the music. It seemed clear that there was no way to permit him to sing, so I just stated the facts as clearly as possible--in private--and that was that. It is not easy to do this of course. But the truth is that one bad voice in an cappella setting can ruin the entire group, which then diminishes the beauty of the Mass, which ultimately comes back to the director, who must be blamed for failing to keep the quality high. So, yes, there must be standards for letting people in and keeping them in.

Two years ago, I told a soprano that she had to find another way to serve the parish other than singing in the schola. She was furious for as long as a year after. Now, she says it was the best thing for here because there is no sense in attempting to do what she cannot do when there is much left undone that she can do quite well.

So I approach this in two stages. In the first stage, there is the pressure. For example, you tell people to go home and test their pitch against a piano. Sing through their part with no aid and then test how their pitch held up. If one cannot do this well, there is a serious problem. Then then next week, zero in on the problem singer and ask if he or she did this, and the answer will most likely be no. Sometimes people will get the hint at this point and go. If not, stage two: following that rehearsal, pull the problem singers aside, one by one, and tell them that they are welcome to sing but first they must develop requisite skills, and when such skills are acquired, it will be time to admit to the choir again. Until, then there are other ways to serve.

Now, all of this raises the general question of whether the schola should be open admission or member based. Most parishes have never faced this issue directly. The only option, truly, is that it is member based. We don't have tryouts. We have trial periods of 1 to 3 weeks. We want to make sure that the possible singer likes us and we like the singer, etc. This way we test issues of blend and personality too.

It is important that you visit with the pastor before you make schola membership closed. It is a simple matter. No pastor would tolerate a reader for the Epistle who could not read well, or had a grating voice or read too quickly or who people could not understand. Nor would you let a person who trips and stumbles bring forward the gifts. People must be competent to perform the tasks they are given. So it is with the choir. This is not a policy unique to the choir; it is the application of a general principle to a specific purpose.

He will understand the point, and be prepared to defend you when someone comes to him complaining that he or she has been tossed out of the choir. And this will happen, so pastoral support is essential.

I don't see how it can be considered "unkind" to tell someone that he is unsuited to the action he is attempting. in all areas of life we recognize degrees of competence. I don't see why music should be any different. Even the Bishops documents emphasize the need for quality.

I can recall being in a choir when the director pointed to me directly and said that I should not sing on a certain passage but that this person and this person should. I was glad to know because, presumably, a singer's first interest should be in the good sound of the whole group, not just in his own right to sing everything.

You know, this is an important point. you have to keep standards high in order to attract good musicians. Otherwise, they get bored and walk away. why should good musicians waste an hour every week as others have notes pounded out for them on a piano? Makes no sense.

Well, with that encouragement, let me also add that there will be no correcting intonation problems so long as the piano is used during rehearsal. Directors think that having notes helps singers. In fact, if used habitually, it creates a crutch, both in terms of notes and rhythm. People become dependent and can't sing without it. This is the number one issue we face when we have a new singer. They have to reconstruct the way they imagine their own vocal contribution: their voice is the music and there is no other. This takes adjustment. Ultimately, the only way to adjust is to do without accompaniment.

Another advantage is that it reveals problems, and, as we know, the main purpose of practice time is to reveal problems so that they can be corrected.

I would hope that everyone who passes through the gates of heaven no longer has the physical limitations of an earthly body. I'm assuming that everyone sings perfectly in heaven. I'm also assuming that the music of heaven is even better than chant and polyphony. We mere mortals can only taste the wonders of heaven with our earthly noises.

moconnor

In the end, the choir and the music will always be judged by how they sound. That's good to remember. No one forgives a bad sound on grounds that the choir is inclusive and democratic and accepting of everyone.

One thing that we've found to be helpful: talk to the pastor about personnel issues, just a point of information, not seeking anything. He will sympathize.

I think there are several dynamics at work here.

First of all, if you are blessed with enough interested musicians of various skill levels in your parish, then you can "afford" to create several ensembles, each tailored to the unique abilities of the members, some being "open" and others being "select". This assumes that the CD has the skills and training necessary to direct a more advanced ensemble that would explore more complex music.

If you are in a parish where any one or all of the following are true, you may be faced with several years or more of careful program-building and cultivation:

1) your predicessor had no choral training skills or experience,
2) the musical culture of your parish is weak; music was treated as another "fellowship opportunity" with little or no stress on learning and perfecting an important craft,
3) the "old guard" members of the choir tend to make new members feel unwelcomed or inadequate,
4) the previous leadership did not stress the need for a desire to be trained (as opposed to the "no musical talent or experience needed" approach),
5) the overall history of the music in the parish, particularly the choir music, has been uneven or inconsistent, and there's been too much "hurt feelings".

I have found in my short tenure at my current parish that some of these problems tend to be self-correcting. I had a situation where an older couple had left the choir due to health issues, and returned after I had been the DM for a year. They were excited to come back, but found that the choir had advanced beyond their ability to keep up. To their credit, they kept to their commitment through All Saints, then quietly left the choir and did not return for Advent/Christmas. The gentleman of the couple was a bass who was unable to match or sustain pitch, much to the frustration of the other men. I struggled with how to handle it, but it corrected itself because the man realized he wasn't making a positive contribution to the group.

The bottom line is, develop and publish a training plan and philosophy regarding your expectations for the music, stress your commitment to competently train those who are willing to be trained. As the quality of the music improves, those who understand and appreciate your philosophy and the work you are doing will slowly come forward, and the program will go from strength to strength.

Well, here’s hoping that my “problem singers” manage to wiggle themselves out voluntarily.

I honestly don’t know how much support I would have from the pastor to make the choir a selective ensemble. My recruiting drive at the beginning of the year did (I know, mea culpa) emphasize that no musical experience or knowledge was needed - but, in defense of that, I do have one singer who professes not to read music but learns very well and has a nice, strong tone.

Cantor,

I completely understand the problem of provinciality, which has nothing to do with parish size, or even proximity to an urban area. Many suburban churches are peopled with highly-educated, white collar types whose tastes are in their mouths. It's a problem of "catechesis"; be charitably consistent in imparting your knowledge and understanding of sound principles of liturgical music and eventually the information will sink in.

I suffer with a 3-manual Rodgers 960D, which I have tweaked to sound as tollerable as may be. My predicessor wasn't an organist, although his assistant who is now my associate is a perfectly capable organist. I just keep exposing the congregation to a nonstop parade of English cathedral music (Howells psalm-preludes, Alec Rowley improvisations, etc.) and scary French music (Langlais, Messiaien, Durufle), and hope that the repetition will help. I also work very hard to make the contrast between singing with the organ and singing with the piano as sharp as possible. People really respond to solid hymn-playing technique, and they enjoy singing traditional hymnody accompanied on the organ when it's done well.

As for making the choir selective, do what you can to gain the confidence of the pastor. In time he will realize that you know what you're doing and should be permitted to do your job as you see fit.

By the way, recruiting really ought to be the job of the other members of the choir, leaving you free to develop and promote a solid, consistent philosophy and approach to training the choir. I have found that people become progressively more attracted to success and those who will be your strongest members are the ones who recognize that you respect their efforts and desire to be properly trained and produce quality work, even if it's only 4 or 5 voices singing unison anthems.

It can be exhausting work, but when the music is well-done and people begin to recognize the improvement, success will build upon success.

I inherited a choir that has some decent voices (nobody outstanding), several mediocre ones and one horrendous one. This gentleman is in almost every ministry in the parish and I finally sat him down and asked him why he felt music ministry was so important to him. He said it's the only ministry where he can be involved for every mass (as opposed to being a lector that's on a schedule). He's a founding father of the parish and I really don't have a choice in whether or not he remains. However, I did have a long heart to heart with him about his limitations and he's agreed to bow out of whatever music I advise him to. So far, so good.

You've got a point. I think so many people want to be "active" and have taken it to mean "being a Jack of all trades, but a master of none".