There was a fine and holy priest assigned to our parish as an associate. He did not sing or chant well. He told me that the nun who directed his elementary school's choir told him he could not sing and had to leave the choir. What a shame. I wonder, if she knew he was going to be a priest, if she would have tried harder to teach him. If I ever have the chance to teach younger children again, I will keep him in mind.

Once upon a time, an Anglican vicar and a Catholic priest had a contest, to see which congregation sang better. The good padre ordered mint condition editions of Glory and Praise. The vicar ordered copies of the telephone directory of Liverpool.

After months of practice, the Catholic congregation squawked its way through a few of the best offerings of Glory and Praise, but only when there was a cantrix standing at the front, waving her arms. On 5 minutes notice, the Anglican vicar assembled his congregation, instructing them to turn to page 378, and begin singing at the top of the page, after an organ playover. The Anglicans sang in perfect four part harmony, though there was no score before them.

IF taught and encouraged from a young age everyone can sing (not all sing well, but they can all sing). The trouble in our times has been a lack of music education, and the phenomena of talent shows such as American Idol. They create this popular idea that an ability to sing has to fit the model of a solo pop-star and because most people cannot sing just like that, they assume that they have no singing ability let alone talent.

If you start in primary school with teaching them to sing a few basic hymns and common chants such as the Pater Noster, the missal-tone chant mass ordinary, some Marian antiphons and common communion hymns then they'll have some background for the rest of their life. It would especially help if they learned to sing all sorts of other songs rather than passively listen to their ipods.

Perhaps the biggest problem in our modern times is that people are increasingly passive spectators and not active participants in anything let alone liturgy.

As for me, I subscribe to the notion, as formulated by a good friend and colleague of mine with many years of experience as a choir trainer, that with limited exception, ANYONE, at any age, can develop a deep mastery of the art of choral singing. Note that I am saying "choral", NOT grand opera or solo singing.

Barry Rose, the British organist/choirmaster (who is probably most known for his work at St. Paul's Cathedral, London as providing the music for the royal wedding of Charles and Diana), built a truly amazing men and boy's choir program from nothing at Guilford Cathedral, which is in a blue-collar industrial area about 27 miles southwest of London. If he believed half of the nonsense being talked on this thread, he wouldn't have even bothered.

His philosophy, and the philosophy of many like him, is that the development of this mastery requires two things: 1) a willingness to pursue the craft and its various disciplines and techniques, and 2) time commitment. This is especially true with young children. When he "auditions" (or screens) potential choristers, he told me that he looks for three things: 1) the ability to match pitch (which may be rudimentary, but present nevertheless), 2) the ability to respond quickly to instructions and corrective exercises, and 3) a "twinkle in the eye" that tells him that the potential chorister has that desire to learn, together with a quick mind and a quick wit. These were his words to me when I met him several years ago while working with my boys' and girls' choir that was in its "infancy" (if you'll pardon the pun).

Singing is a unique endeavor among the arts. It requires no special equipment. Everyone is born with vocal folds, breathing apparatus, a pair of ears and a brain. Choral singing is a group effort. Not everyone in a choir is required to have, nor is it desirable for them to have, a large, full-throated soloist's voice. One voice may sound rotten, but when blended with other voices, the sound can be quite magical. Under the leadership of a proper trainer, a group of amateurs CAN be trained to sing quite well. I know, I've both done it and seen it done.

It saddens me to notice that more and more among my colleagues there is a thread of elitism running through their discussions and their philosophies. If we cannot come to understand the wonders of what "real people" are truly capable of accomplishing through time and dedication, then the culture war is lost along with true art, and the corrosive effects of the "American Idol" mentality has prevailed.

If they cannot match pitch, and clearly demonstrate that they have no desire to engage in the time to learn the discipline, then of course politely and privately explain that their gift lies elsewhere.

I am not saying that all comers must be given a place. I am saying that all comers should be afforded the opportunity.

Part of the elitism I see is what could be called a "Wizard of Oz" complex. Rather than engaging Dorothy et al, he put on a big show, surrounding himself and his abilities in smoke and mirrors. I sometimes think that certain music directors either don't want to take the time, be bothered with, or even understand the basics of training a choir. They would rather spend their time planning and executing grand pieces of music with people who can make a big noise. I see my work as a choir trainer and commited sacred musician as an "evangelical" one, if you will.

My approach is to state to current and potential choir members quite clearly those requirements I stated above (commitment of time and willingness to learn). Beyond that, I tell people that learning to sing, and indeed learning the basics of reading music is no great mystery. My task is to demystify the art and pull down the curtain surrounding the Wizard.

Yes, thank you it is helpful. There is, in fact, a young woman in the choir who teaches lessons, so that was offered. But so far, there haven't been any "takers". I rarely turn people away, only when it is obvious that someone in the choir will throw them over the loft if they sing off-pitch in their ear for the year! I don't want to frustrate the good people I have so they quit! This kind of circumstance presented itself to me one year and I knew that as the director I had to do something about it.

What are sirens?

Ascending and descending glissando vocalizing (usually on "ah") from the extreme points of one's voice, ie. highest falsetto down thru mixed/head voice to "chest" voice and back up, repeatedly.

I often ask them to sing "Hooty-hoo," as in Ernest T. Bass from the old Andy Griffith show. Good for head voice.

I usually use "o" as my vowel for sirens.

@canadash: some people are just as guilty of elitism as they think the directors are. For example some of the people who came to your choir but would not take up the challenge clearly do not want to work for the joy of singing, which tells me one of two things: either they are just looking for something quick that they can say they are good at (boasting, hence elitism), or they thought singing would be easy, despite your disclosures up front about it (more likely given the cultural attitudes regarding music in general).