Choral Music: Sale Versus Style

Music Musing #128, "The Death of Choral Style,"led to a good discussion on Methodist Musicians List. My point in that article was that I had noticed a number of style changes (trends?) in newly published choral music from a number of different publishers that showed either a disregard for or lack of knowledge of some of the conventions and practices of sacred composers of the past three centuries. I mentioned changes in harmony, use of dissonance, melodic structure and phrasing, rhythm, range, vocal independence, keyboard accompaniments, as well as a reliance on sentimental texts. I continue to maintain that these (and other) traits are commonly present in choral music intended for church choirs to sing in worship, and I am concerned for the future.

This is not a new phenomenon. We have seen it in the church in the past. In one form or another, we've been through this before:

• In the early Middle Ages with secularizing influences of rhythm, melody, and language.
• Just over a thousand years ago with the development of polyphony.
• With Martin Luther and his innovations in hymnody.
• During the reforms of the Renaissance, Palestrina, and the Council of Trent.
• With Monteverdi and his Prima and Secunda Prattica and the birth of the Baroque Era.
• With the forsaking of late Baroque style and the pipe organ for the newly evolving Classical style and instruments, plus the influence on church music of the Enlightenment.
• With the insipidity of late ninteenth-century church music.
• In much of the twentieth-century music intended for the amateur and modest church musician.

The style changes I identified in current choir music, of course, are not in the same class as these monumental points of historical, cultural, and musical change. Nor do we know if today's changes actually constitute a style change or if they are merely a blip on the style screen.

But there is one factor unique to today's situation that sets it apart from most of those of the past: music publishing and marketing. Commercial and financial interests play a powerful role. Publishers need to make money to remain in business. In fact, The United Methodist Publishing House, unlike other agencies of The United Methodist Church, does not receive money from church offerings ("apportionments"). It must pay its own way completely from the development and sale of its products. Publishers and retailers are eager to provide music in styles that churches will purchase. There is likely more money to be made from sales of a black gospel arrangement of a favorite hymn or a simple, manipulative setting of a sentimental text that won't leave "a dry eye in the house" than there is from a Palestrina motet, a Stravinsky Mass, or an Ives Psalm.

And we church musicians are also part of the mix. We must purchase music for our choirs that will interest and satisfy our singers and keep a smile on our congregations' faces. That's how we keep our jobs, gain our salary increases, and encourage full offering plates. Of course, we must not lose sight of the importance of ministry, training, recruitment, and evangelism through music; but there are other practical concerns we must also consider, such as protecting the church music budget.

So who's to blame for this troubling matter of musical style in today's church choir music — publisher or musician? Twenty-one years ago in 1985, the national convocation of The Fellowship of United Methodists in Music and Worship Arts (FUMMWA) met at Syracuse University. Following a choral rehearsal with the young and then mostly unknown composer John Rutter, we proceeded to a reading session of Hinshaw Music releases led by Don Hinshaw, himself. After we sang through a nice little piece of musical and theological "fluff," one woman stormed down the aisle of Hendricks Chapel, waving the music in her upraised hand, stood at the foot of the chancel directly beneath Mr. Hinshaw, and railed at him for continuing to publish such trite and silly music. Didn't he realize he was killing off church music? When, O when, would he stop publishing such insipid music and "give us something substantial"? With the patience of Job, Hinshaw endured her rant in silence. When she finished, and as the hundreds of us in the chapel pews sat in stunned silence, Hinshaw looked the woman in the eye and quietly and calmly said, "Madam, I will quit publishing it when you quit buying it."

Publishers need to make a profit and can't be faulted for publishing what's popular. Most publishers also have a conscience and a sense of mission and ministry and also publish music that will not make much or any money but is nevertheless important music to have available in the church and in their catalogues. It is not the role of publishers to educate or train church musicians or church members.

Composers need to make a living. They, too, cannot be faulted for writing in styles demanded by the purchases of church musicians. Along with their masterworks, most of the master composers also composed music for the masses — music that would sell and pay their bills.

We church musicians, for all of our high ideals about ministry, excellence, education, and training, are also aware of the power we have to influence attendance, congregational favor, salary increases, position security, choir recruitment and retention, and community outreach through the music we select. We know better than anyone else what our people like, what they expect, and what the consequences are of ignoring these things.

The church musicians are in charge. We are the ones to blame or to receive praise for the kinds of music being offered in our churches, composed by the composers, and sold by the publishers, for we control the dollars. Hinshaw was absolutely right in saying, "I'll quit publishing it when you quit buying it."

Am I still discouraged by some of the current musical styles and trends in church music? Yes! Do I wish they would go away? Yes! Who has the power and responsibility to address those concerns? You and I — the local church musician with a music budget.