Talent Level Ignored When Forming a Band

[Pitar]

When it comes to the arts I have a threshold. I'm not one who embraces the notion that "It's all good". If everyone were good, no one would be. And, we'd all be in embarrassing straights to explain each of our dislikes if the virtue of honesty was at stake. No fibbing.

In the praise band scene talent is happenstance with a focus on the purpose, and it absolves all ear damage.

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Pitar

When it comes to the arts I have a threshold. I'm not one who embraces the notion that "It's all good". If everyone were good, no one would be. And, we'd all be in embarrassing straights to explain each of our dislikes if the virtue of honesty was at stake. No fibbing.

In the praise band scene talent is happenstance with a focus on the purpose, and it absolves all ear damage.

Completely off topic, but "ear damage" would be a great name for a band.

Tony

[fazool]

Originally Posted by Pitar

When it comes to the arts I have a threshold. I'm not one who embraces the notion that "It's all good". If everyone were good, no one would be. And, we'd all be in embarrassing straights to explain each of our dislikes if the virtue of honesty was at stake. No fibbing.

In the praise band scene talent is happenstance with a focus on the purpose, and it absolves all ear damage.

But then everyone doesn't get a trophy?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by fazool

But then everyone doesn't get a trophy?

True, but seems to me what people are saying (and to stay on the right side of forum policy ) is that perhaps like an "open mic" worship music (depending on the specific group involved) can be or is considered more about the participation than the expertise. And just like some open mic situations because of either a high degree of tolerance or some form of nepotism or very small talent pool, sometimes agonizing performances can be an ongoing occurrence.

And let's face it playing at the open mic or a church is not really getting a trophy, it's getting an opportunity to participate . The trophy would be going on to being hired professionally which would be self filtering in most cases

[tbeltrans]

I played in a church band for a few years. Actually, we went to a couple of different churches over a period of a few years during a time when my wife had the itch to attend some sort of church since she didn't get that as a child. I figured I would play in the band so I had something to do while she was getting her church experience. Overall, it was rather fun, except for the stuff being discussed here.

What I saw was much of what is being described here. I have though a lot about this from a judgmental and also from a non-judgmental (people are just people...) perspectives.

The conclusion I have come to is that people are just people, but also that I would not want to be a band leader in that situation. I personally could not come up with a suitable solution because there are several perspectives, and none more or less wrong or right than another. I guess it would take the "wisdom of Solomon" in situations like this.

What would be good to hear in this thread before it closes, is from somebody who was in this kind of seemingly no-win situation, but that either that person or the band leader did come up with a solution that worked to everybody's benefit.

Tony

[muscmp]

tough choice: stay and take the problem situation or bail.

i was in a similar situation when i was in the office band. the person in charge of the band was our lead attorney. he could play guitar but had not one feeling whatsoever for music. the main singer couldn't sing in key and his bass playing was way in front or behind the tempo. the other guitar player only had one sound-distorted. the drummer was fantastic and was completely reliable. the purpose of the band was to do covers but, change the words to be work-related. it just didn't work. the leader told me that with my playing, i sure made his job easier, but, after a couple of years, i couldn't take it anymore and gave up. it did raise my chops level and, for a long time, my hang chops, but it finally got to me.

play music!

[muscmp]

Originally Posted by tbeltrans

Completely off topic, but "ear damage" would be a great name for a band.

Tony

if they wanted to be ridiculed, yes.

play music!

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by muscmp

if they wanted to be ridiculed, yes.

play music!

Oh well, engineering seem to come natural to me, but marketing does not. Good thing I never had to name a band - I just played in them, yes?

Tony

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by tbeltrans

Oh well, engineering seem to come natural to me, but marketing does not. Good thing I never had to name a band - I just played in them, yes?

Tony

I donno, I think "Ear Damage" would be an outstanding moniker, just on the strength of the suggestion of irony alone. Although being pretty good and tight as well as keeping the db level in check, would probably be requisite

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I donno, I think "Ear Damage" would be an outstanding moniker, just on the strength of the suggestion of irony alone. Although being pretty good and tight as well as keeping the db level in check, would probably be requisite

Yes, I thought the irony was rather catching too, certainly not making fun of folks with hearing damage especially since I have that as a service-connected disability. Thanks for the agreeable support.

Tony

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by tbeltrans

Yes, I thought the irony was rather catching too, certainly not making fun of folks with hearing damage especially since I have that as a service-connected disability. Thanks for the agreeable support.

Tony

I also have have construction noise related hearing loss in the mid range, still think it has a great possibility as a band name. But I guess I have too much experience to waste time being easily offended .

[cotten]

First, some background. (None of this is bragging, just letting you know who I am so you can understand my comments.) I come at the whole music in the church topic as a professional, career minister, one whose primary tool for ministry is music. I have earned university degrees in both a college/university setting and in a professional minister, seminary setting, and I've continued learning in both formal and informal ways. I've led music in large churches where we'd have over 500 people involved in music training and "performance," and I've led in small churches where I was pretty much the whole music "team." I've conducted large choirs and orchestras in oratorios and I've established "contemporary worship services" in two larger churches. I play bass and guitar in large (sometimes over 400 performers) church music groups. I retired from full time musical ministry a couple of years ago, having been a musical minister for some 47 years. Now I'm leading music for a church as a part time job, supposedly just 15-20 hours a week. (Ha!)

Oh, the stories I could tell! Rather than get into all that, perhaps some short observations might be more helpful.

1. Every church has its own "personality," both musically and in other ways. They are NOT the same, nor should they be expected to be. Like individual people, each church is different.
2. The "Why" of music in a church is likely to be far more important than in a secular setting. Hard to explain that without violating forum rules, so I'll leave that to your imagination.
3. Some churches prefer that their musicians be professional-quality, and are willing to support that in every way. Other churches prefer that their music be of their people, by their people, and for their people, regardless of the musical talent pool available. Both approaches are valid, but a very different.
4. The very nature of church life is to take people where they are and develop them... This mindset can affect the music ministry as well, especially when people remember what happened to that little boy's happy meal of fish and loaves of bread.
5. Personally, because of the "why" of church music, I always want to give my very best, and I work hard to equip, engage, encourage, and inspire others to do the same. It's not an ego thing or so that we'd be better entertainers than the other churches in our area.
6. There is more training and resources available for church musicians than ever before in history. Next week, we don't have to give only the skills we had last week. The parable of the "talents" is aptly named!
7. That said, a church is not in the music business as much as the people business. It makes no sense to me for a church to be unkind or unloving if a willing "musician" is not yet skilled enough to help. It also makes no sense for me to think that just because someone wants to be an organist or lead guitarist that this means they already have the skills necessary.
8. As in most endeavors, leadership is key. Leadership skills can be learned, but are not automatic.
9. Yes, there may be times when it might be wisest for well trained musicians to simply walk away rather than to stay and try to make things better, but to me this is the last option, not the first or twentieth.
10. You might think that in a church, people would always say what they mean and mean what they say, that communication would be consistently clear, loving, and respectful. That people would always be humble, loving, tolerant, giving, and forgiving. While this is sometimes true in a church, people are people, and a church has more in common with a hospital than a fine art museum.

[Rudals]

As I read your responses, and many thanks to all, I am reminded of the old cliché that everybody uses: “Life is too short.” While I was quite frustrated at the lack of talent, I asked myself why I should care? I am not in charge anymore nor have I been asked to help them improve. I have one job and that is to just to play the guitar and sing. My original post may be as result of the fact that I have an EGO problem and frustration at the fact that I am not in control anymore. I played yesterday just focused on me and not others. Things around here are continuing to change as they are trying to improve the music. We shall see where we end up.

[tbeltrans]

In one of the churches my wife and I attended, there was a very interesting contrast in church band leadership that probably would have benefited most anybody wanting to be in such a position as to "do's" and "dont's".

The first band leader was a very kind, young, woman who played piano very well. She had tryouts for the band members. We had to be able to play to a certain level and have the typical abilities that players of most instruments (other than guitar for some reason) typically have, such as the ability to read standard notation and be able to communicate in musical terms with the other band members and leader. She did all this in such a way that nobody felt put upon if they did not have the requisite skills. There was absolutely nothing negative as perceived by anybody about this because of the way she handled and explained it.

In addition to that, she would hand out a sheet with "rules" for how band members should conduct themselves. A band member should never display ego, and should always be the first to volunteer to set up tables, clean up after events, etc., serving as examples to the rest of the congregation rather than being treated as "special" because we were musicians.

The music she had us play was uplifting, kind, respectful, typically it could be called MOR (middle of the road). She always got information about what the service focus would be, ahead of time so she could pick appropriate music. The band flourished and had a good relationship with the minister and the congregation.

Then, for reasons I can't fathom, the minister decided this woman's music choices were too soft and he wanted to rock, hard. The band leader felt that this was not appropriate in a service, so she stepped down. The minister replaced her with another woman who was willing to rock. Unfortunately, she had some sort of deep-seated anger toward men, and displayed it at every opportunity. She would pick fights and there was always trouble within the band. The minister got his rock music, but in the process most of the band members ended up leaving the church and taking quite a portion of the congregation with them.

To me, the contrast between these two leaders was really striking. I have never seen anything quite like it before or since in any situation. After that, we stopped going to church altogether. My wife, who was the one who wanted to go to church in the first place, was stunned that church folks could act like this and get away with it. I was never much of a church goer in the first place, so I was fine with how it all worked out. But the whole thing was sure needlessly destructive to that church.

Regardless of the kind of music a church wants to hear, I really think that picking the right people to be in leadership positions is incredibly important. These decisions impact the entire health of the church. From what I have seen in the various churches we had attended, situations such as being described in this overall thread are really rather common, and it really takes a good, solid leader to pull through and resolve such issues. There is nothing wrong with a bit of fallout (i.e. some folks not wanting to be in the band because the leader's decision didn't go their way) because you can't please everybody, but the leader MUST be kind and intuitive as to the needs of the church, and make appropriate decisions with kindness and sensitivity to the people affected by the decisions. when handled in this manner, even those that decide not to be in the band, will most likely leave with little or no animosity.

I really like what Cotten said at the end of his post:

You might think that in a church, people would always say what they mean and mean what they say, that communication but be consistently clear, loving, and respectful. That people would always be humble, loving, tolerant, giving, and forgiving. While this is sometimes true in a church, people are people, and a church has more in common with a hospital than a fine art museum.

This is something I had never heard before, and really puts the experiences I had in the churches we went to, both good and bad experiences, in an entirely different perspective from how I perceived them otherwise.

Tony

[cotten]

Thanks, Tony. I was afraid that post would be doomed by its sheer length, yet you read to the very end. Some people rarely read anything that is more than three sentences, especially in a setting such as the AGF.

Succinctness is good, but limited.

cotten