How choral stereotypes can turn nasty


Dedicated to my dearest Robyn, who is teaching me how to be tolerant
of soprani and cats.


I'm sure that choristers around the world are familiar with the
segregation that arises from singing pieces written for SATB. This is
not only a division of voices, but a division of personalities.
Indeed, it could be argued that membership of a voice part entails a
certain amount of brain-washing, although there is always the
contention that some voice parts inherently have no brain to wash. 

One of the things that has formed an integral part in the initiation
of freshers is the propagation of voice part stereotypes. While this
is not necessarily a conscious act, there is little doubt that the
formation of such prejudices is less than healthy for good relations
between sections, though they may aid unity within a section.
Increased harmony between sections may reduce the fun that some get from
sniping at another voice part, but there are many ways in which the
choir as a whole may benefit. Friendly ribbing, instead of malicious
heckling, helps to keep the atmosphere productive, while one part is
more likely to appreciate the effort put in by another.

At present, I see much energy wasted in needless derision, in which I
also take part occasionally, much to my shame. Much of it concerns
either an entire section or the conductor. It truly makes no sense to
have generalities which sweep across a whole range of people,
especially when they have been allocated to a section solely on the
basis of vocal prowess. However, the conductor is most definitely fair
game, if only because he or she is human.

The stereotypes related with voice parts don't just stop within the
sections. The standard matches of soprano with tenor and alto with
bass (as well as alto with alto) may just have been a MUCS thing, but
it was very firmly entrenched in the choral consciousness that nothing
else was much approved of. A second soprano with a first bass
... well, that was just on the fringe. I guess that my relationship
with Robyn, she as a first soprano, and me as a second bass ... well,
I guess it would be surprising, if nothing else. While I've passed the
stage of denial where I was asserting that Robyn was an alto,
unwittingly, PUCS is making me, albeit slowly, into a tenor, via the
first bass section. Coincidence? Maybe ...

When the choir becomes more divided, like in SSAATTBB, it is not
uncommon to find that rivalry between previously united groups is
fierce. From experience, it is all too easy to bag the second basses,
now that I've been `promoted' to the first bass section. The fact that
they give me lots of ammunition is another matter ...  However, this
sort of rivalry is certainly not isolated to the basses ... a certain
first alto in PUCS, who shall remain unnamed, is well known to take
pride in not being a second alto. Second soprani also have the
stereotype of being less air-headed, since they seem to be able to
cope with harmony, at least some of the time, which makes them
automatic rivals of the high flying first soprani.

What I propose is a more openly mobile system, so that people tend not
to get fixed to a certain part. To enable this, there should be more
divided music written for mezzosoprani and baritones. This not only
leaves the age old distinction of male and female (more or less)
intact -- it also lets people learn more than one part, if they are
fast learners and bore easily. While this might seem like a radical
change of writing style, imposing many more restrictions on the
composer, think of the beauty possible with such close intermingling
of voices, instead of voices three octaves apart. Consider also the
success of all-male and all-female a capella groups, who do almost
the same, but with a lot fewer people.

Another system, which I have experienced, requires roughly equal
numbers of each part. The choir splits into groups, where each group
has one person on each part. Thus the choir becomes a collection of
a capella groups, where each part has an intimate knowledge of its
place in the tapestry it weaves with the other parts. This works
especially well if people rotate through various groups, so that no
group is the same from week to week. This promotes not only a respect
and equality between parts -- it helps people to meet other people in
the choir. However, it requires a group of choristers who are
confident enough with their parts that they could perform on their
own, if necessary.

To get a good choral result, we are actively trying to make sections
bind together, and probably being too successful -- not only do we get
a good unified sound, we get a mob mentality too. The weak can hide
behind the strong, while abusing the victim just as viciously as
everyone else.


Of course, you shouldn't believe anything I say -- after all, I'm just
a bass.


Last edited: 1 September 1999