Q: Why do we not have Miltons and Shakespeares?
A: Because the ward choir is so bad.
I had occasion recently to attend a very, very, very high church Anglican service. I’m a smells and bells gal–love a good mass or Evensong service–but even for me, the aesthetic of this liturgical event was seriously over-the-top. It occurred to me as I thought about the dozens–maybe even hundreds–of hours that must have gone into rehearsals for this service that it would be very different to be an artist in a church culture that regards the pursuit of beauty as holy, and the sharing of that beauty as an important communal act, than it is to be a Mormon artist.
Usually the only art in a Mormon service is music, and its inclusion has always been somewhat anxiety-provoking. Long before Dallin H. Oaks articulated the “principle of non-distraction,” the Church Handbook of Instructions allowed music with careful constraints, rather than positively advocating an aesthetic of worship. In reading the Church Handbook guidelines, it’s impossible not to conclude that “worship” is some nebulous good thing, constantly imperiled by the potential encroachment of music that is “designed to draw attention to the performance” (rather, than, I suppose, providing sonic cover for the exodus of a third part of the host of heaven third of the congregation to go out to the water fountain or the restroom) or performed on an instrument with a “prominent or less worshipful sound,” like, say, the trumpets and timbrels mentioned in the psalms. Visual art would seem to be similarly dangerous–the Spirit of the Lord can, apparently, be frightened away by the sight of a piece of art that is not in the catalog of approved works by inspired Seventh-Day Adventists.
I can’t think of much great music or art that is motivated primarily by a desire NOT to distract or offend. Of course there’s art that is so experimental or so heretical or frankly obscene that its presence would be incompatible with worship. I’m afraid, though, that in our concern to avoid such things, we’ve made everything that is not mediocre taboo. We certainly don’t affirm the potential holiness of beauty and excellence. Theologically, we have much more warrant for such affirmation than many Christians who believe in human beings’ essentially corrupt nature and emphasize the yawning gulf between humanity and deity. We believe that our creative capacities are potentially not just mirrors of divine power, but actually the embryonic beginnings of human capacity for divinity.
So what the #$#!! are we doing with best-selling books designed to let the ward choir get up to torture the congregation after only 10 minutes of rehearsal??
Subscribe to RSS
June 15th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
.
When it was first suggested to me I rejected the concept of a Mormon Culture of Mediocrity, but as time goes on, I think we may in fact have a fear of excellence. Or perhaps it’s more a need for predictability? I don’t know. But whatever it is, it’s not doctrinal.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Actually, I think the need for predictability works nicely as an explanation–witness our fondness for minute taxonomies and hierarchies of the afterlife…
June 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I don’t know…in the Church, we often get talks without a pleasing rhetorical style, music sung by amateurs, and some dreadfully ineffective programs and inefficient organization. And yet somehow souls are still saved. Don’t get me wrong–I’m pretty invested in the Mormon arts community, and I’m not a huge fan of correlated art, but I actually think there’s something really beautiful in the mediocrity that comes from having a lay ministry.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
It is still possible for a Mormon to display their craft outside of a sacrament meeting, no?
June 15th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Note: I’m not saying that all art should be part of worship, or that good art is essential to salvific worship. I am asserting that an aesthetic of worship in which carefully-made art is valued as an element of the holiness of the experience is bound to convey different messages over a lifetime of worship services than a church culture where attention to art is actively discouraged as either a waste of time (that should be spent hometeaching or whatever) or an outright threat to the more important thing (whatever it is) that is supposed to be happening in church. If you grow up in a church that spends 10% of its building budget on the organ and then pays professional organists to play great preludes every week, you’re going to believe something very different about the value of practicing than you will if the organist runs in and plays simplified hymns with no pedal on the crappy electronic thing that cost less than 1% of the building budget.
Katherine–lots of the time I’m with you. See here: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/10/my-big-fat-mormon-aesthetics-post/
June 15th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Also, to be clear, I can only play simplified hymns with no pedal.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Now that we can all watch American Idol, will my children refuse to be in a talent show because their talent won’t ever be in the top 10 in the country? We go to church and we sing hymns and someone plays the piano or organ and we listen to amateur talks. Often the talks are good and occasionally someone gives an excellent talk, but it is never “I Have a Dream.”
I live in a great ward. We are probably on the smaller side. The choir directors are never Mormon Tab worthy. The choir members or choir pianists are never Mormon Tab worthy.
As someone who might be trapped in musical callings forever, I am all for things to help those who aren’t experts participate in musical callings (like the books you linked to).
I am grateful for every poor pianist who filled in while we had no organist for 6 months. As the ward chorister (music director) it wasn’t necessarily my favorite thing to have to lead music with mistakes in timing but I appreciated the service of those ward members.
“Torture the congregation”? I’m going to try to forget that someone said that. I get up in front of the congregation every week and I like to think that they are on my side. I assume that when I manage to arrange a special musical number (even if it is just me playing a primary song on the piano) the congregation appreciates the effort and the change of pace.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
In our previous ward, it was sad to see the stake music library, full of varied and wonderful technically challenging music gathering dust. Mormons performed it 30 to 40 years ago, but it is far beyond the capabilities of my generation. I have never seen a clearer indication of cultural decay among us, or of how beauty and variety are not treasured like they used to be.
Beauty and variety are so alien to our lifestyle that they make us nervous. Our current bishop tries to discourage regular choir practices, since perfectly good time that could be spent on presidency meetings is being wasted by the choir. I do not especially blame him–not everyone cares for music and he is a good man. But seeing this kind of thinking from time to time does seem more or less inevitable, give our overall cultural outlook.
Give the demographics of a world-wide church that treats saints from poor countries and rich ones as equally as possible in terms of facilities, we will not have great organs, or even fully heated chapels in the future. This is something that could be worked around if we as a people treasured the beautiful and good enough to want to be part of it.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
jks–I’ve failed to make my point clear, I think. I’m not just criticizing the ward choir. As you’ll note if you click over to the other post I linked, I *love* a lot of the amateur music-making that goes on in the church. It does all kinds of valuable things for many people, and I don’t necessarily favor professionalization of either our sermonizing or our music or the art hanging in our foyers. I *am* saying that if we really have high-cultural aspirations (as in the famous SWK quotation about Milton and Shakespeare), we need to look seriously at the liturgical culture in which those artists developed. We don’t seem to value artistic production as a part of worship, and that may be part of the reason that that famous prophetic dictum goes apparently unfulfilled.
As I noted above, I am a cheerful and stink-lousy pianist and organist, and I’ve been a ward choir director pretty much my whole life–I’m not sitting back taking potshots, really!!
June 15th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
We have too seemingly unrelated conversations on a regular basis: (1) complaints about how much time is demanded by church service and attendance — let’s cut the block down to two hours, let’s put family time ahead of communal time, let’s not go back to the church for any midweek activities, and let’s not even get started on the annoyance of having to make time for home teachers or to do our own visiting teaching! and (2) complaints about the quality of church service: teachers are boring, lessons are boring, visual images are kitsch, speakers are lousy, music is bland, activities are repetitious and irrelevant.
But aren’t the two closely related? Nobody wants to put any effort into learning to do better or any effort into preparation. We want our service to be as casual as our wardrobes. We want to complain that Sister Beck likes brushed hair and Elder Callister likes classical music, all while we complain that Sacrament meetings are the equivalent of bedhead and kids’ piano recitals. We want to worship on the fly.
Kristine, most of us recognize the occasional artistic production (or skillful rhetoric, or excellent teaching) and claim we want it all the time, but we don’t expect it of others or demand it in ourselves because we’re lazy and nobody holds us accountable for our laziness. If the powers-that-be behind the CHI don’t insist on great art in worship, they’re making do by prohibiting the distraction of what they deem bad art. Maybe.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Ardis, I think you’re mostly right. And there’s a historical twist I’d love to know your thoughts about–it seems to me that pretty much right after the Saints arrived in Utah, there were real, concerted efforts to mimic the high culture and/or make better, Saintly versions of it. There were missions to teach singing, European art missions, students sent back to NEC, etc. Sometime mid-century (?) when we actually had the luxury of enjoying the fruits of assimilation, we quit trying to reinvent the cultural wheel right about the same time as we started to retrench (on the Maussian model) and be suspicious of “worldly” art. Now, it seems to me, we tend to mimic borrowed styles and paste in Mormon content (Mack Wilberg’s often Rutteresque arrangements, popsy folk crap with Mormon lyrics, Liz Lemon Swindle’s post-Soviet realism–just kidding), but we are suspicious of the originals–MoTab never does Mendelssohn or Handel oratorios anymore.
That is a really dumb shorthand account, but can you see what I’m getting at? And say it better?
June 15th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I think it’s a mistake to make this conclusion from a pile of challenging music collecting dust in the ward library. My mother is capable of such. I’m capable of such.
My mother, who is both skilled and knowledgeable about great music and is also the stake music person, is actively DISCOURAGED from arranging or allowing in her wards anything other than hymns from the hymnbook EVEN other arrangements of hymns.
So to say it’s because we’re not capable isn’t correct.
Ardis. Maybe we’re just tired of being asked to give and give and give and give and give some more when we’re struggling with families and money and work (yeah, unemployment) and trying to get ahead and feel pseudofulfilled in our own lives.
Maybe we’re tired of being scheduled to clean the building without being asked our plans for X Saturday first. (That’s another rant.)
I– We– A good many people I know– We’re at the end of our ropes. Something has to give.
Lazy? That makes me so angry I am speechless and I have no appropriately adequate words to say to you.
June 15th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
.
I’m curious how this recent post from my brother affects thinking on this topic: http://athenaminor.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-lay-ministry-hindering-church.html
June 15th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Hello Moriah,
I did not mean to say that you and your Mom were not capable of better. We actually had a pretty good ward choir, thanks to my wife. And we were glad to have stake and ward leadership that was supportive of what my wife put together. Our Christmas program usually included a Rutter piece or two and was very nice. We performed Bach in that ward, among other challenging things. But to have tackled the music that used to be sung there would have demanded an amount of time from ward members that was not available. My point is that something that is beautiful or that provides variety has a very weak claim on the hearts of Mormons. We have a limited amount of time and we can’t do it all. What we as a people prioritize says what we think is important.
We seem to think that when Lehi had his vision, the singing and dancing of the numberless concourses of angels was only the dinner show full of artists trying to call attention to themselves, having no intrinsic value, with all artists soon to be hustled back to the terrestrial or telestial kingdom, so some serious business meetings could get started. Because Lehi was the sort that was easily distracted, he only reported the dinner show and forgot to report the very long, very important celestial meeting that consisted of powerpoint slides that quote committee-speak materials that quote other materials.
June 15th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
There are still choirs that perform challenging music. Our ward choir made a habit of performing the Peter J. Wilhousky Battle Hymn of the Republic every Fourth of July, and we’ve done Bach, and the Ronald J. Staheli arrangement of How Can I Keep from Singing?
BUT, I will definitely agree that we are the exception, rather than the rule.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:56 am
Hymnplicity? What??? Is this a spoof of those awful Primary materials, or did someone really publish six of these?
June 16th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Kristine, wonderful post. I join you in your lamentations…
Once upon a time, I was visiting some friends in a small SE German town, and went to Wednesday night service with them. Much to my surprise, half way through the service, and band of several trombones entered the (800 year old) chapel and played a rousing set of hymns. It was one of the most amazing services I’ve ever attended.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:00 am
There’s no doubt that some ward choirs do difficult music, and that even those who don’t are doing as much as can be expected given the other demands on peoples’ time and energy.
I still think that the interesting question is not so much the practical one of what we do within the institutional and cultural parameters that exist in Mormonism, but the more theoretical one of how theology and, more precisely, liturgical practice influences artistic production. Episcopalians complain about being ridiculously busy, too, and they are, but the liturgical demand for music is such that choir practice is an institutional necessity in a way that it absolutely cannot be in Mormonism (as currently constituted). It’s impossible to imagine choir practice taking priority over practically any other activity in our church, whereas (for example), I’ve seen all church activities except choir rehearsal suspended in the week before Holy Week in the Episcopal church where I sing. In the Cambridge chapel where I used to direct a Stake Choir, there was an explicit directive stating that firesides ALWAYS took priority over choir rehearsal, regardless of which had been scheduled first–that is a strong statement of institutional values that has nothing to do with the choir director’s skill or members’ devotion or anything else.
Again, I’m not asserting that Mormons have made the wrong choice–it seems entirely possible to me that God prefers that we have well-attended Ward Council meetings than well-attended choir practices. I only wanted to draw attention to how liturgical practice shapes institutional priorities, and to think about what message that conveys about the value of artistic production.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Jeans, alas, not a spoof. But also, on the positive side, not a disaster–some of the arrangements are pretty good and worth spending more than 10 minutes on!
June 16th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Not to detract from the worthwhile concerns expressed, but I wouldn’t be too hard on that Hymnplicity. The claim of “a fast and economical way to use your ward choir” stirred memory of a book on the Mormon Tabernacle Choir from about 30 years ago. During one of rehersals chronicled, the choir director spent a few minutes on some standard, familiar, straight-from-the-book hymns that would be used to fill out the next Sunday’s broadcast. If this Hymnplicity were used in such a way, giving the choir something to sing every week or two while more involved preparation continued with music that needed time, then that would be a good thing. Professional orchestras do the same thing with their already-played-it-a-half-dozen-times repetoire.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Well, there it is folks: if John and I agree on anything, you can be confident that it is universally true. (And you should probably also check your food storage
)
June 16th, 2009 at 10:07 am
I’ve luckily been in a lot of wards where the ward choir directors were given a lot of leeway in the kinds of music they performed (I’ve done Bach, Mendelssohn, etc., in different church choirs).
I have had experiences, though, that resemble that of Moriah’s. I am thinking in particular of our ward choir director when I was in high school. He was one of the most gifted musicians I have ever met (he became a professor of music, but could have easily been a professional musician), and he really struggled to use his musical talents in church. We had one of the best ward choirs I’ve been in with a not overly strenuous practice schedule, but the leadership in our stake put so many limits on the types of music that he could and couldn’t do, that he was constantly frustrated. He wasn’t able to use his talents to bless the ward as fully as he could have. It was really hard to see his frustration because all he wanted to do was bring the joy of beautiful, sacred music to the lives of the people in our ward.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:09 am
And Kristine, nice post–I am in complete agreement about the liturgical questions you raise.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Money, money, money. It’s a big part of the problem. The Anglican service Kristine went to had not only a paid professional organist and choir director, but most likely paid section leaders as well. And 2-3 hours per week of rehearsal time. And local input into the church’s construction and interior design, no doubt. And maybe even commissioned compositions.
The Mormon church can’t come close to the aesthetics of other churches with it’s grow-as-fast-as possible ethic. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. BUT, we can certainly do better. In the past, the church had professional music trainers at the stake level, but it stopped that when the church grew significantly outside the intermountain west. The church currently has satellite leadership training, why not satellite master classes on conducting and organ playing? The church has area authorities, why not area music authorities who do training at the local level? The church has a little music training material on their website, but it’s very very rudimentary and it will probably never create a competent ward organist. The church should support people who have some skills and ability by providing the training they need to take things to the next level. Laziness is probably not the issue, Ardis, it’s lack of institutional support and burnout. How about asking someone if they want a long term calling in music and giving them real support (like money for lessons and child care for practicing)? I bet there’d be people who would jump at the chance and work hard at it.
Also, when there are only a handful of full time music jobs in the church (all in SLC), it’s a wonder ANYONE becomes a professional organist in the LDS church. Choir directors are more understandable because there are high school/college jobs in that. But pretty much the only place to work as an organist is for another church, which is a hard lifestyle to maintain as a Mormon. I know, I’m living it.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
My non-M husband toured the new temple this week. When I asked him what he thought he pondered for a moment and then said “it doesn’t feel like a church” – not a house of worship. He then went on to explain that it felt like an empty concert hall or a museum between exhibits or a library without good books and a place to read. Basically utilitarian. And does everything have to come in cream and yellow *yuck*? What ever happened to art missions for the building of Temples?
We don’t and never will have a Milton or a Shakespeare or Dante let alone a Handle or a Mozart or a Copeland. We are the purest of puritanical and conformist. We are Borg. The chapels are sterile and empty, and since BKP got his hands on the music of the church that’s been stripped too. I remember having full brass with Handle’s Messiah growing up, but not anymore that’s “off the Plan” Conform! conform! Resistance is futile you will be assimilated.
When all we are fed is the manual and Church approved sterility all you get is uninspiring mediocrity. Drones. And mediocracy IS NOT good it’s soulless it’s Stepford Mormonism at it’s best.
I also think the rampant theft and disregard for property rights has sent many good artistic member in direction of non-religious themes to make a living. (I can give examples if you want them). What ever the reason it’s sad.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
It may be the Danish blood in me talking, but I kind of like the blandness and austerity and even the mediocrity. There’s something so incredibly subversive and democratic in us very “bland” folk walking around helping each other out and trying to a) build the kingdom of God and b) believing that we are gods in embryo and c) forming relationships with the understanding that they are to be eternal. And Is there anything more subversive and beautiful then a former stake president in a slightly-worn suit down on his hands and knees serving nursery children? And really, uniqueness and variety brings its own post-Romantic, consumerist pitfalls.
The conformity really drops away once you get to really know people. Society may warp us in some ways, but we’re all pretty damn interesting when it comes right down to it.
That said, I’m not ready to give up aesthetics or shots at greatness.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I agree with Robin. The problem with art and music in the church is the same as the problem with curriculum correlation (which has many great benefits, but some drawbacks, too) – that the people in charge of selection are not chosen for any actual expertise in the field. Mediocrity breeds mediocrity. Average people are average. The blind leading the blind is one thing, but when they lead people who can see, that’s where the trouble begins.
I would bet 90% of church members don’t know/care that there is no beauty or variety at church. It is all about being functional, and wards and temples are now franchises of utilitarianism. It hardly feels like worship when there is orange carpet or a basketball hoop over your head. However, I suppose it could be said that Kirtland was built with funcionality in mind (the curtained off little pew rooms.
On the flip side, choirs at more liturgical services are full of beautiful trained voices, but musically, the singing a “scripture” thing doesn’t work for me (you know, when they sound like they are making it up as they go along just to fit the tune). But I suppose I would take it over ward choir. And I would LOVE to hear a ward do “How Can I Keep From Singing?” unless they found a way to turn it into a soulless corporate-style dirge. The other issue I have with choral music in the church is the predictability of how the songs are done. There just aren’t that many varieties: one verse with men only, one with women only, sing this verse triumphantly to match the words, sing this one sadly to match the words, do this one a capella, have the congregation join the last verse. It’s just so rote.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:14 am
I’ve long lamented another facet of music performance in the church – the advent of the “Mormon Top 40″ in our meetings. This was, in most recent memory, most commonly displayed when the blubbering soon-to-leave missionary’s fan club of 16-year-old young women would get up sing a Mormon song so sappy and dripping with syrupy nonsense it made my skin crawl and left me longing for relief from the pain of hearing even one more bar. The fact the performances usually butchered the artists’ best-laid attempts at music is scarce to the point. That so many leaders in wards have allowed this practice to take root is astonishing.
Quality music can take root and flourish in our church but only if the upper ranks of church heirarchy are willing to change some pretty fundamental mantras. Sadly, I don’t see much chance of that in a group that was OK with changing “Ave Maria” to “Heavenly Father” so they could allow a Mormon performance of the beautiful song, and still wrap thier heads around such a crass attempt to Mormonize the wording.
During a stint as primary music leader, I tried to further the young minds’ development of music diversity through devoting some of my alloted music time to introduction of classical music. I was astonished at how few of them had actually had had any exposure to anything other than the songs they sang in primary or the music they had heard their families play at home. There was something disquieting they they were cluless about classical, jazz, blues, etc. but responded with almost hysterical vigor if I relented and allowed them to sing “Scripture Power”.
-dex