We Can All Make Music.
What's goin' on?
FAQS (and internal discourse)
We are asked (and ask ourselves) lots of questions about our work - answering these stimulates spirited discussion. Here are nearly 60 of the topics we've been thinking about:
I want to submit material for the next songbook
I just want to sing. How do I find a place to do it?
I've got (or I'm in) a singing circle and it's flagging a bit. Can you help?
I'm in (or lead) a singing circle that I don't think you know about. What should I do?
I'd love to start a singing circle. Any advice?
I don't live in Victoria. Is there anything practical you can do for me?
Is your philosophy written down somewhere? What are your values?
What's so important about making music together?
Is there a tradition to what you do?
Are there people doing similar work elsewhere?
What's the difference between a singing circle and a choir (from a rehearsal perspective)?
Isn't what you're promoting just a tarted-up singalong?
What's your attitude to karaoke?
Why do you emphasise learning by ear and not learning to sight read?
What's so important about face-to-face / hand-to-eye / mouth-to-ear communication?
How can you sing if you haven't learned the song?
What about all those people who just can't sing?
Isn't what you're doing glorifying mediocrity?
Isn't what you’re doing just therapy?
What's so special about original songs? What's wrong singing our favourite songs over and over?
Why are men so rare in singing circles? Is it because the songs all have love, peace and / or tree-hugging themes?
Isn't public performance the ultimate point of music making?
Why concentrate on singing at the expense of instruments?
Are there “Instrumental circles” that are like singing circles?
Why don't you mount concerts for community musicians?
Why don't you run all-comer camps for community music making?
Why don't you get a real training institute to provide the training you currently offer? Why don't you promote the programs of individual trainers offering courses instead of competing with them?
Why don't you mount a huge media campaign promoting singing together?
Are the learnings from the country applicable in the city?
What's your opinion of music education?
Are adults a lost cause? Should the focus be (exclusively) on the young?
What are the relative merits of open and closed singing groups?
What's the big deal about 'community'?
How does your work contribute to community strengthening?
Well, are you an arts organisation or a community development organisation?
Is what you do 'community cultural development'?
Where does your funding come from?
Why are you funded by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation?
In an ideal world, how should what you do be funded?
Do you have an attitude to government funding?
How do you know if what you are doing is working?
What sound are we 'permitted' to make in a public space?
What do singing leaders (in their various forms) have to learn from one another?
Is a professional career as a singing leader possible or available?
Is there a professional career as a trainer of singing leaders?
What's your relationship to “professional music”?
Do singing leaders need their own association? If so, should it be CMV?
Are there useful connections between making one's own music and making one's own food?
Sounds fabulous, how do I become a part of this?
It looks as if you've got it all worked out. How do you stay open to new ideas and people?
If all your dreams come true, how will you avoid empire building and institutionalisation?
These are just some of the issues we deal with. You'll notice that many of our answers are a bit vague, but there’s a reason for that - we decided it would be better to “get the issues out” and work on the the answers together, rather than masticate endlessly, without anything communicated to interested persons or parties, while we attempted to find the perfect answer to these questions.
If you would like to contribute to these discussions and responses, why not contact us with your opinions? Maybe you can help us perfect our understanding of these issues and better communicate this understanding to the rest of our network.
Is your philosophy written-down somewhere? What are your values?
The short answer is yes, our philosophies are written-down. You’ll find them documented in detail right here, on this website.
In summary, our philosophy is:
1. We can all make music.
2. By doing so we are “making a sound world together”.
These slogans are included on most (if not all) of our publications to help us remember and re-inforce our philosophy.
What are your goals?
Briefly:
1. To weave community music making back into the fabric of Victoria's culture
2. To see Victoria become a state of singing.
A more comprehensive description of our plans is documented here.
What's so important about making music together?
Our society won't survive without it. Most of the material on this page addresses this issue, but there's also a short answer.
What do you actually do?
We:
Train, advise and counsel singing leaders
Help groups and individuals to
set up singing
circles
Host networks of leaders and singing groups
Promote the value and joy of community music
making
Gather and distribute information
Help individuals to find groups to sing
with.
A more detailed description of our activities and service-offerings is described here.
What's your history?
In the mid-eighties, the Community Arts Network of Victoria (CANV) established a community music program with a staffed position and government funding. When CANV went byes-byes in 1994, on-going support for the program was ensured via the establishment of Community Music Victoria Inc.
You can read more about our background here.
Is there a tradition to what you do?
Yes, and it's lost in the mists of time (but it’s ok because we think we found it again). We believe that (odds are) humans have been singing together since at least the Stone Age. In today's world, these traditions are still alive and well among congregations which come together to worship their maker with song, among fans celebrating a win by their favourite sporting teams, and among highland villages in Papua New Guinea which mark important occasions with 'sing-sings', to name just a few.
The sad thing is that for many, the tradition has been lost and our everyday musicality has de-generated. Anyone over the age of 80 will recall a culture in which community music making was endemic: church choirs, glee clubs, singing around the pub piano, the campfire, the family hearth, community singing in the department store singing hall... It really was “all happening”, but all these activities appear to have died-out in the same way many other elements of our lives have, even-though these occurrences were once taken for granted as being essential and integral aspects of community (and our own) life.
We are simply attempting to ensure this fundamental expression and aspect of our humanity is retained.
There is also a tradition of training community-based leaders. This tradition is currently being revived under the banner 'building community capacity'. It’s a bandwagon we're more than happy to hitch a ride on because it recognises the value of local initiative, and the capacity within each of us to be producers as well as consumers.
Are there people doing similar work elsewhere?
Well… Yes, sort of… But…
Seriously though, there are probably millions of people world wide who share our belief in the value of singing together. There are thousands of people who lead singing in their communities based on philosophies which differ very little from ours; hundreds who see it as their vocation to assist communities to develop their own capacity to make their own beautiful music.
As far as we can ascertain however, there is nothing like the 'Victoria Sings' program anywhere else in the world. There are, however, many programs like ours in other areas of human activity. For example, community food production, housing development, health and educational programs.
For a list of 'making music together' sites, why not check-out this page? (The list is by no means definitive, but it is quite extensive and includes brief, helpful descriptions of the organisations, groups and individuals contained therein.)
These are all great examples of groups and individuals who actively encourage the practise of singing together, or more specifically, of “singing along” with not just each other, but with a focus person or “leader”, and / or an established repertoire which is known to most people. It is this last characteristic that is most distinguishing between what we’re doing and the aims of some of the other groups and individuals in the list. The singing circle we aspire to create makes it easy for people with no prior inter-personal connections to very quickly experience the pleasure of collaborative play with people who were previously considered “strangers”.
When it comes down to it, we're not going to get precious about these differences, just as we're not particularly precious about the differences between our singing activities and those of community choirs, and we're also hoping we can continue to find ways of working with singalong leaders as we already do with choir leaders.
What's your attitude to karaoke?
We think it's a great thing, but we do have thoughts about how we might “communalise” it.
Specifically, we can envisage a situation in which everyone sings along with the words on the screen (with the backing-track blazing in the background)!
Of course, it would be preferable for the instrumental track to be played live as well, but who can afford a band? (Besides, we’re not sure there’d be too many bands around who'd want the gig!)
Why do you emphasise learning by ear and not learning to sight read?
We promote a practice of introducing new songs to singing groups vocally / aurally (un-assisted by using duplicated lyrics and scores). The reasons for this are multiple and entwined, and are explained in detail here.
What's so important about face-to-face / hand-to-eye / mouth-to-ear communication?
In the electronic age, it's important for us to remember not to lose touch. Communications mediated through technologies and complex symbolic systems are important, but they are not the only means of communication available to us, nor are they necessarily the best.
We don't want to get into a huge argument about this particular point because after all, you're probably reading these words on your web browser, and the internet does make it easier for us to disseminate this kind of information, not to mention speed-up message transmission times to such an extent that message delivery is now almost immediate once sent.
Rather, we believe that what we're doing is, in part, maintaining and honouring the human capacities which brought us to this place, and that it would be dangerous to lose.
This is why sensual, real-time exchange is fundamental to both our teaching method and the leadership techniques being taught, as well as the singing circle phenomenon itself. We believe that direct, un-mediated experience is an essential component of the human condition.
How can you sing if you haven't learned the song?
You may not be aware of this, but at a Vocal Nosh there are no song sheets and no “line learning” breaks. Yep - you heard right, and now you're probably wondering how it's possible to sing a song without learning it first, right?
It’s done by learning and singing at the same time which is the reason the learning process is actively and communally engaging from the very start! In the case of Noshes and singing circles, no differentiation is made between “learning”, “practising” and “performing” - participants are actively engaged in the process of making sounds together from the moment the singing begins.
A more detailed description of how this process works is described here.
What about all those people who just can't sing?
Even a mute can sing, and can certainly contribute practically in song-making.
And anyone with a voice can co-operatively make organised sound.
The concept of tone-deafness is silly. All audible languages use tone as part of their communicative mechanics.
To prove how silly the concept of tone-deafness is, here’s a simple test you can take right now.
Can you tell the difference between someone saying “come on” meaning “let's go” and someone saying “come on” meaning “you've got to be kidding”? If you can, it means you’re not tone-deaf. If you can’t, it probably means you’ve been conversing with people who have quickly become frustrated with you, probably because you were frequently late to appointments or meetings, or you were dawdling somehow when they wanted you to hurry-up a bit. A good speech therapist or linguistic coach may be able to help you, but remember, after receiving your therapy sessions, you’ll always be welcomed back to community singing groups here at CMV.
But on a slightly more serious note, perhaps the term “tone deaf” may really means a person is “tone mute”. That is, even when we can tell two notes are different, we can't express the difference. Yes, many of us are like this - we can't hold a tune - but don't despair! All it takes is a little practise, and the most effective practise available to us is singing with others.
Everyone can do this, and it sounds great. In our experience, we’ve found it takes a mighty big effort to sing “out of tune” when you're singing along with everyone else, which is why we don’t believe in the concept of a person being tone deaf.
Isn't what you're doing glorifying mediocrity?
No, we are glorifying participation.
The concept of mediocrity is meaningless in relation to this practice.
Fulfilment, authenticity, and vitality are more appropriate 'qualities' that might be worth looking for.
Obsessing on the qualities (aesthetic and technical) identified by experts of outcomes (usually presumed to be performances before a passive audience) misses the point, and the locus of affect, of the practise of group singing. Of course, this also depends on what qualities are being looked for, and the basis upon which they are assessed.
It is what happens within and among the participants of singing circles that is of the most importance to us.
The basis of official attitudes to the arts appears to be that art should be made (only) by those “best” at it, or at least that the government's responsibility is (only) to ensuring the efficient production and distribution of the “best” art. Hence, we believe the “pursuit of excellence” and the constantly perceived (and political) need to justify actions on the basis of “best-ness” has ostracised people from an activity which we believe not only provides an opportunity to create joyful experiences, but which is also a vital and fundamental human requirement for the maintenance of our psychological and physical well-being.
And anyway, what if we were glorifying “mediocrity”? What's so “mediocre” about reminding us all that we can all enjoy the satisfaction attained by making music together?
Isn't what you’re doing just therapy?
Why just therapy?
We all need healing of some kind, or at the very least the reinforcement of our physical and psychological health. Music is also therapeutic by its very nature, which is why we see important parallels between the work of music therapists (many of whom are CMV members) and what we do.
You can read more about this interesting topic and our findings in the article “Well! Well! Well!”, documented here.
What's so special about original songs? What's wrong with singing our favourite songs over and over?
The answer is, absolutely nothing.
Indeed, it is a profoundly important way of finding and expressing our identities. We're not suggesting that every singing circle is a crucible for constantly emerging original songs, and neither are we stating that a singing circle (or its leader) should create its own material (particularly in view of the constantly changing repertoire that's part of the Vocal Nosh practice).
What we are saying is that the ability to create original songs is much more available to us, and the skill to do this more wide-spread (and learned) than is commonly recognised.
We are also stating that individuals and communities can create songs which express their own dreams, memories, fears, and hopes in an extremely intimate and personal way. We promote these perspectives through our training programs, and by encouraging and facilitating the exchange of original material between singing leaders.
However, we also acknowledge the fact that singing songs which are familiar to us (in particular, the songs we grew up with) can also be an uplifting experience.
Why are men so rare in singing circles? Is it because the songs all contain love, peace and tree-hugging themes?
In February 2003, a group of us met to discuss this important issue. Out of this meeting came a comprehensive report which identified a whole bunch of reasons why the singing circle movement has attracted so few men, and went on to suggest some ways that this tendency might be overcome.
But what is also noticeable (and fascinating!) is a tendency among humans to enjoy singing with members of their own sex (and to enjoy listening to single sex groups).
Here are some examples:
The
Temptations
Ladysmith Black
Mambazo
Blind Boys of
Alabama
La Voce della
Luna
Barbershop
Quartets
Acafellas
The
Supremes
The Mahotella
Queens
Sweet Honey and The
Rock
Gorani, Cantorion
Cymrieg
Sweet
Adelines
The Brunswick Women’s
Choir
“Girl
bands”
“Boy
bands”
Surely, the huge number of single-sex ensembles must have some explanation.
Perhaps it’s because:
we “naturally” enjoy (or
feel more comfortable) singing with people of our own
gender?
the sound of single-sex
ensembles is particularly attractive to audiences?
there are culturally
deterministic aesthetics at work?
secretly, we’re all
homosexuals?
That last point was obviously just a joke (and not supposed to offend anyone), but to be honest, we’re not really sure why we tend to gravitate to single-sex ensembles of our own gender, but we're still working on strategies which will convince males of all ages that singing together (with other men and with women) can be an enormously enjoyable experience, and we actively encourage gender diversification in our singing circles.
They're not all about love, peace and tree-hugging! Many songs contain themes of loss, pain, and struggle, but it is true that the bulk of our current repertoire are songs of praise - love songs as it were - of life, of self, of neighbourhood, of friendship, of nature, and even of God.
It could be that this style of content goes with the territory we’re covering, that step one must always be to “uplift”, but we do recognise that the paths to “uplift” one’s self are diverse, and that we've only discovered some of these.
We think we should start with a single, universal value – that of biophilia (the love of life). This value imbues our practices and the content of our songs. We realise there are ways of expressing this love that we haven't recognised yet, but also that there are some ways we have recognised and have not acted on as yet.
It may be the case that in general, men in modern society don't immediately respond positively to “sweetness and light”.
In response to this observation, one could simply say, “Well, that's their bad luck” and get on with business as usual (which, we must admit, is pretty much what we've done up to this point) or we could look for ways to introduce a bit of testosterone-driven “oomph” into this part of the repertoire.
We can only try.
Isn't public performance the ultimate point of music making?
For some, perhaps, but definitely not for all of us.
This is such an important issue that we've researched the subject extensively and written many articles on the topic. You can read about them here.
What's flash singing?
It's a concept developed by Belinda McArdle and the groups she leads down Geelong way. (For out-of-towners who may be reading this, Geelong is a satellite city in Victoria, Australia, not too far from Melbourne.)
When flash singing, participants decide on a time and location (usually a public place) to meet for a spontaneous sing-in. They meet at the agreed time and place, sing for a while, then quickly disperse.
Singers report that these occasions are very exciting, and most importantly, great fun. Conceptually, one of the most interesting things about these “events” is that while they are conducted in a public place, they are not (strictly speaking) “public performances”. That is, the singing circle configuration is maintained (participants face inwards) and nothing about the activity solicits or acknowledges an audience (although passers-by are welcome to join-in!).
Why concentrate on singing at the expense of instruments?
To be completely honest, it was an accident. We (that is, CMV) were asked by VicHealth (in 2001) to auspice the pilot program (the Vocal Nosh) developed by Fay White and Anne-Marie Holley. We agreed. The rest is history, but one you might like to know about. If you’re interested, you can read about our history here.
As our relationship with the Vocal Nosh practitioners developed (Fay became President of CMV and continues to contribute on the CMV Board), so did our appreciation of the value of this practice as perhaps the most effective way for communities to re-discover their musicality and, as a not insignificant by-product, to tangibly experience the joy of communal activity.
Through the utilisation of just the body and the voice, with no external tools, no difficult-to-learn skills, people can discover, explore and celebrate their creative capacities in ways that no other activity can offer so easily, accessibly, inclusively, and (possibly most importantly), with such immediate gratification.
Experienced facilitators can guide groups through experiences where their abilities to make their own music are made real, quite literally, within minutes. Additionally, groups are not just able to exercise their ability to sing a “given” piece, but to improvise and compose.
This is not mere theory. At CMV we have personally witnessed this apparent miracle so many times that we are beginning to forget that we live in a society in which so many (perhaps most) people have been convinced that they can't sing, that they are “tone deaf”, and that making music is “best left to the experts”.
One of the reasons CMV concentrates on the use of the voice rather than instruments due to encourage and facilitate group singing is funding. We’ve found focusing on vocals is not only easier from a practise point of view, but from just about every perspective.
Another reason we focus on singing is because it fits in perfectly with our philosophy of encouraging group interaction.
The voice comes from our body, using the air of our surroundings - banally interactive.
It is the first expression (before even drumming one's fists on the ground).
It is the starting point.
The downside to using singing to encourage group interaction and music making is that the voice is so personal, it is sometimes challenging to let it out.
Are there “instrumental circles” that are like singing circles?
Yes. The ones that are closest in spirit to singing circles are drumming circles. Musicians of many kinds engage in “sessions” with their peers. In our opinion, a lot of public music (particularly improvised jazz) feels like the musicians on stage are interacting with themselves in front of an audience who does not participate in the experience at all, except as a witness or observer of the phenomenon.
Another thing we’ve noticed is that while many instrumentalist sessions are nominally “open to all comers”, most assume a reasonable competency level will be present among its participants. Irish pub sessions (called seisiun in Gaelic or a ceili, pronounced kay-lee when it includes dancing and storytelling) and garage bands are another example.
While the musos involved often claim their reason for coming together is to rehearse for that elusive “big gig”, we realise it's the joy of simply making music together that keeps them coming back.
That’s why CMV focuses on singing circles and the techniques we have developed and adopted to share new songs, teach group participants, encourage group participation, improve and refine social interactivity among singing group participants – we’re using the joy of both making music and group interaction to access the myriad benefits such activity yields.
Why don't you mount concerts for community musicians?
Good question. There are lots of reasons for this:
1. Our priority is to encourage people to make music together
2. We don't have the skills or resources to mount these events
3. Other individuals and organisations are doing this already.
We believe that if, out of the experience of making music together, a group decides that it wants to perform publicly, then it is likely that their own desire and enthusiasm will be the greatest asset along the road to public presentation.
Not only do we not mount concerts, but we resist the pressure to become booking agents for our singing groups, and so a conversation beginning with the phrase “Hullo, we're having a party at our community centre, and we're looking for a group to entertain us...” will more than likely be a short one.
The reason for this is that CMV’s objective is to foster and encourage the creation of singing groups for the personal and social benefits such activity provides. While some singing groups may be interested in performing publicly, the decision to perform is their own; we anticipate the group would actively seek their own opportunities to perform publicly.
Why don't you run all-comer camps for community music making?
Because other people are already doing this, but we are beginning to work on “mass sings”, where members of various singing groups will have the opportunity to “sing as one”.
Why don't you just produce heaps of repertoire CDs, or better still, fill up your website with downloadable songs?
Both these ideas are on our wish list of “things to do”.
The creation of repertoire cds and making downloadable songs available via the website are middle order priorities for us because we recognise that repertoire exchange is most authentically achieved through face-to-face encounters, which is why we host regular song swaps.
We have already produced two repertoire double CD / songbooks called Victoria Sings and Short Stuff.
In the not too distant future, we're also planning to make heaps of downloadable mp3s available via this site but in our opinion (as we've stated previously), face-to-face exchange is the best way of sharing music.
Why don't you get a real training institute to provide the training you currently offer?
An obvious alternative to the way we are doing things would be to formalise the training under the auspices of a teaching institution.
This is an idea we don't like because:
-
a life-skill is being enhanced, rather than a vocational training opportunity being offered;
-
the people best at passing on their insights are practitioners firstly and educators secondly;
-
it is an active and experiential educational process, as close to the lives of participants as possible. It would be difficult to deliver this kind of intimacy in an institutionalised environment;
-
a large part of the process involves peer exchange, at odds with a “teacher-student” relationship;
-
the processes we have developed are, in themselves, creative and fun - a condition that could disappear in an educational environment;
-
theory and practice are consciously and carefully integrated in ways unlikely to be possible in a training institution;
-
training is integrated into a wider program, including in situ one-to-one periods;
-
training “events” are scheduled (both in time and place) according to emerging need and interest - this sort of flexibility probably cannot be replicated in a formal training environment;
-
our processes are largely bureaucracy-free;
-
in an informal mode, we can provide training to participants at a much lower unit cost than would be possible in a more formal (institutionalised) structure
-
we’ve found participants have no need for formal certification.
The implication of these points is the training we're offering would best be left within a community singing context, rather than being re-positioned into a formal training or educational environment.
We have been approached a couple of times by training institutions seeking advice on courses, and even went so far as to design a “notional” Graduate Certificate in Community Music Facilitation.
So far (perhaps thankfully) nothing has emerged.
Why don't you promote the programs of individual trainers offering courses instead of competing with them?
We promote training programs offered by people other than ourselves as a matter of course.
We also invite people with skills which would be useful in the community singing context to offer training within our programs.
Why don't you mount a huge media campaign promoting singing together?
We don't have the financial resources to do this.
Even if we did, it's unlikely we would right now because the infrastructure to fruitfully support the response we’d expect isn’t in place at the moment.
Are the learnings from the country applicable in the city?
Many learnings from the country are applicable in the city, but we do experience directions which appear to work well in one region which do not work well in the other.
What's your opinion of music education?
Not fabulous. We're loaded up with an education system that is increasingly focussed on preparing the young to “join the 'work force” rather than to examine and enjoy life.
So by age 13, art (including music) in schools (if it's present at all) is no longer an exploration and celebration of a group of children's creativity. Instead, it's an elective focussed on skill acquisition accompanied by the occasional and terribly serious public performance / exhibition, a semi-academic examination / appreciation of historical technique and / or an extra-curricular activity.
The fun, the joy, the creativity, and the improvisation have all been abandoned in favour of “preparation”.
At the very least, we must ensure the creativity of our children is not enveloped (which is the opposite of developed) the minute they become teenagers. Continuing to perpetuate this crime would be the worst of obscenities. (For more information on the concept of “enveloping vs. developing”, refer this article).
The recommendations of the recent National Review of School Music Education go some way towards combatting “envelopment” in favour of developmnent. If the recommendations are adopted, music would certainly be more highly valued within the system, but whether this will lead to music becoming a regular part of everyone's daily lives is open to question.
Are adults a lost cause? Should the focus be (exclusively) on the young?
Not only do many (probably most) adults inhibit themselves, they also - knowingly or unknowingly - inhibit others.
How can someone who doesn't truly believe they are creative be expected to believe that other people, just like them, are?
It is entirely “normal” for adults who have spent their whole lives having their own creativity trivialised and denied, to do exactly the same thing to the next generation, in many cases their own children.
WE MUST BREAK THIS CYCLE!!
But how?
Firstly, by demonstrating long and loudly that this harmful phenomenon exists and showing just how essential and useful it is to nurture and stimulate kids' creativity.
Secondly, through local initiative. Every parent is ultimately responsible for their own child's creativity; every school claims to encourage parent input into its policy, but there’s still a lot of work to do on this subject.
Thirdly, through public action. Every level of government has a finger in the child-rearing pie; we must remind the authorities that we expect our children to emerge from their clutches not just as people able to earn a living, but as people with the capacity to love life, to engage and build relationships with other people, and who enjoyed the experience and had bucket-loads of fun during the process.
Another key factor in all this is the sort of training those responsible for nurturing the creative activities of children receive.
And, even though teaching old dogs new tricks is a difficult task, it wouldn't be fair to the big people if we let them continue to wallow in their self-perceived morass of unmusicality. There are ways to gently jolt the recalcitrant out of their un-belief in their own capacities. We'd be irresponsible not to do so.
Isn't this all a bit of educated Anglo? How's the program going with folks who aren't comfortable with English?
Unfortunately, yes it is a bit of “educated Anglo” at the moment. The development of relationships with non-English speaking communities is still in its very early stages.
What are the relative merits of open and closed singing groups?
Both have their positive and negative sides. It's a topic we've written about (here).
What's the big deal about 'community'?
What we mean by “community”, is “doing it together” in an inclusive, active, engaged, fully participatory, “social' manner”. There is nothing anonymous or tokenistic about this “togetherness”; this is not “mass” singing, there is mutual recognition between participants.
Being such important and powerful phenomena, the relationships between music and community are complex and multiple, for example the relationship between music and:
The keepers of the
culture: archivists and presenters of culturally specific
traditions
The spokespersons of
the community
Innovators in the
community
Locally based and
focussed professional entertainers (soloists and ensembles)
Closed
ensembles
If we were to identify the layers of community associated with the nature of group singing we’re involved with, we would notice community relationships between:
Between singing
circles
Singing
leaders
Regular participants
and newcomers
Regular participants
outside the circle
The circle and its
surroundings
All of these relationships are extremely significant, and important.
How does your work contribute to community strengthening?
Singing together is possibly the most effective starting point for allowing diverse peoples to enjoy each other's company. With song, people can joyfully interact with each other without the need for a pre-arranged plan and without the need for any musical skills (of note).
Indeed, singing even allows people who are widely diverse in their skills, beliefs, cultural backgrounds, socio-economic status, age, gender (etc.), to interact with each other, where typically these differences pose barriers to interaction.
Unless people know that they can enjoy each other's company, at some level, no community development can occur.
(We've written heaps about this! You can read more about it here!)
Well, are you an arts organisation or a community development organisation?
We don't see art and community as being mutually exclusive. Hence, we’re both.
That said, we recognise there are probably as many ideas about what “community arts” is as there are people who've used the term.
We've found it useful to describe what our version is. (You can read about it here.)
Is what you do “community cultural development”?
Yes.
Where does your funding come from?
It changes from year to year, but…
VicHealth has invested more in our
current program than any other agency.
The
Department for Victorian
Communities provided us with huge financial support during the 2007/8
financial periods.
The
Australia Council has previously provided
us with more modest funding levels than the Department for Victorian
Communities. CMV was once a receiver of recurrent funding from this body,
but those days are over now.
Arts Victoria has recently increased
its annual support of our core operations, which we’re extremely grateful
for.
Our current sources of government funding adds up to around 80% of our annual income.
The other 20% comes from CD sales, subscriptions, workshop fees and donations.
Why are you funded by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation?
They see that what we do promotes mental health, particularly as they recognise that social isolation is one of the primary causes of mental illness, but also because they are an exciting, innovative, thoughtful organisation!
In an ideal world, how should what you do be funded?
We perceive that lots of the activities we’re encouraging won't require financial support in future (afterall, the community will be making music together, and will have developed its own networks to do this).
However, active, locally-based, in-kind support, eg. the creation of spaces for singing, public liability insurance cover, photocopying costs, activity promotion (etc.) would be great!
An independent network of singing leaders could become self-supporting, although training for singing leaders could be supported through a local government placement subsidy.
Remaining central (administrative) functions should really be funded by The State Arts Funding Agency, but this is currently unlikely because, despite an arts policy which would appear to support exactly such an activity, it has been difficult to convince the agency of the need.
Do you have an attitude to government funding?
No, we don’t. We’ve found government funding is certainly useful but also somewhat painful to acquire.
How do you know if what you are doing is working?
Partly because the results are so obvious, but that doesn't tell us how we could be even more effective in future.
All our sessions conclude (immediately prior to the inevitable final song) with participants filling out a questionnaire which tells us how they felt about the experience. This feedback has been enourmously useful.
We are also about to commence a much more comprehensive evaluation process which will provide some clear impressions of the long-term effects of our work.
What sound is it “permitted” to make in a public space?
It's OK to whistle (pretty much) anywhere.
Why? Because it is visually and content anonymous (“invisible”). It's possible that humming and “la-la-ing” are equally condoned (or at least, not frowned-upon).
It's (sort of) ok to play a mandolin on a park bench, in the sand dunes or even on a train. That is, it’s ok to make this kind of sound in these public places if you play quietly, keep your head down, avoid eye contact, and do all you can to make it clear that this is a personal matter which others aren't being expected to acknowledge. If you do all this, everything should be fine.
It's ok to sit in the lotus position on the beach and chant. You could probably even get away with doing this in a park.
It's ok to gather in a park to play drums together, but not in many other places.
It's ok for the Hari Khrishnas to rock-out on a busy city street, or for the Salvo’s to brass-out on Christmas Carols.
It's ok to busk, if you have a license.
Singing and music as entertainment - for money or as a demonstration of religious faith - is allowable. Both of these are performances, which is what makes them ok.
Singing is a no-no because it uses language; language is a means of communication; ipso facto someone singing is trying to tell me something and they have no right interrupting my thoughts in a public place.
It's probably not even ok to sing-along with your ipod in a public place, but this is partly because everyone knows they sound awful when they do this.
Why, oh why, is it ok to talk loudly into your mobile but not sing musically in a circle as a group in a public space?!?
(Maybe it’s because it’s not directed at anyone in the vicinity, even though it might be disturbing them).
Why is this so?
We don’t know, but we believe it’s symptomatic of society’s anal view-point of art, music, group interaction, and most specifically, toward singing which has caused all of us to clam-up in public spaces.
Our mission (which we have accepted) is to change this attitude and give music and singing back to the people!
What do singing leaders (in their various forms) have to learn from one another?
Heaps. In fact, our skills development processes are almost entirely based on exchanges between leaders.
Is a professional career as a singing leader possible or available?
Perhaps not a career, but you can certainly earn a living by leading singing.
In fact, many of our members lead singing groups for their primary source of income! (But it's not easy.)
Imagine being able to pull a lazy $250 per singing session! Admittedly, that's what the going rate should be, but often it's as low as $30 a session. At the upper rate, one would only need to be leading three or four groups per week to make a reasonable living, and there are some singing leaders who do exactly this!
Unfortunately, it's not part of our charter to promote the professionalisation of singing leadership. We offer support and respect to working singing leaders, but our chief goal is to embed leadership capacities into the everyday fabric of the social life of communities and groups in Victoria.
For more of a discussion on singing leaders see below.
Is there a professional career as a trainer of singing leaders?
Perhaps, but what we've found so far is that the best trainers of singing leaders are singing leaders themselves.
That is, the on-going exchange of insight, experience and skills between those who lead group singing is a very productive process.
There is probably no real need for the development of a professional class of specialists, and we suspect that such a development could well have negative effects on people, communities and ultimately society which are contrary to the charter of Community Music Victoria. (You can read more about this here.)
What's your relationship to those already doing similar things to what you'd like to see being done in a particular area (eg, with kids, people in public housing, or with refugees)?
We'd like our relationship to be open, supportive and curious.
We're not arrogant enough to claim that we know about every individual or organisation doing this kind-of work, nor that they all know about us.
As our network develops, we know that we'll come in contact with more and more people who have been making music with and in all sorts of diverse communities for years.
We hope to be able to learn from these individuals and organisations, and to offer them an environment in which they can engage with us toward the productive exchange of experience and ideas.
We would encourage them not to feel alone in their important work.
If this question applies directly to you, please contact us.
What's your relationship to professional music?
Once upon a time (and still in some circles) “community music” was seen as including a process of introducing amateurs (often disadvantaged young people) to the mysteries of “the music industry”, that is, projects and programs which sold themselves as facilitating democratic access to stardom, or at least as an avenue for gaining “entry level” expertise into a vocation. The emergence of the British group, Asian Dub Foundation, is a wonderful example of the very occasional success of this perspective.
We recognise, respect, and often adore, the work of committed musicians, but we don't see it as our role to assist “wannabes” fulfil their performance ambitions. (There are plenty of programs which do this already anyway!)
We are not averse to convincing professional musicians, or those training to become professional musicians, that a valuable string in their bow as working musos could be the teaching or instruction of their skills in a community context.
Ultimately, however, our focus is on non-professional music; amateur in its literal sense - ordinary people making music together for the love of it.
Do singing leaders need their own association? If so, should it be CMV?
Do singing leaders need their own association? Yes and no.
That is, we think that a singing leaders association could be of great benefit to its members, but that it would not be sensible for CMV to either initiate or become this association. Currently we facilitate an informal network of singing leaders by distributing an email bulletin to leaders and hosting regular gatherings of leaders.
There are lot of reasons for this. Here are a few:
for a formal
association to develop healthily, it needs to be initiated and owned from the
outset by its members, not invented and imposed by a separate
organisation.
the needs and
desires of an association of leaders may well be different from, and even
conflict with, the aims and objectives of CMV.
the membership of
CMV includes many singing leaders, as well as individuals and groups with other
interests and agendas (including entities which employ freelance leaders) but
who also come together for the purposes of community group
singing.
CMV's primary
commitment to embedding musical skills within communities could well place it in
conflict with a group that may, quite reasonably, be more interested in
enhancing working conditions and job opportunities for freelance
leaders.
Are there useful connections between making one's own music and making one's own food?
Yes. It's the “making one's own” part that’s the key.
Food production has become as specialised a function as music production, and the ordinary person has become as separated from the sources of the food they eat as they are to the music they listen to.
Interestingly, the rise of the celebrity chef has not been paralleled in the world of music. Celebrity chefs spend most of their time trying to convince their audiences that they can cook too. Wouldn't it be interesting if musicians shared their passion for making music in a similar way?
Indeed Jamie Oliver's contribution to improving the diets of British school-children has been so significant that it offers a model for how other celebrities can apply their talents. Equally as interesting has been the growing awareness of the importance of “social eating” and how we are sharing a meal together less and less over time. In other words, the context is as important as the content, which is exactly the point we're asserting with music-making.
That point aside, we've come to realise that the pleasures and social possibilities associated with eating together parallel singing together, but the two activities should not be enjoyed simultaneously.
Helena Norberg-Hodge, founder of the International Society for Ecology and Culture (ISEC), refers to the value of local food production in exactly the same way we talk about music. Another recent example is Barbara Kingsolver's 'Animal, Vegetable, Miracle', a book which describes a family's year of eating locally grown food.
Sounds fabulous, how do I become a part of this?
You may well be part of the singing movement already without realising it.
After all, you are looking at our website, so what got you here in the first place? (Obviously it’s your interest in singing and / or community building and strengthening programs which brought you here!)
While we don't claim to know about every group singing activity in Victoria, we'd like to be able to, and we're gradually getting there.
But back to you… You may already be a part of the movement but we just don’t know about you, in which case let us know! Or, you may want to get singing and / or take advantage of our services, in which case you could subscribe.
Either way, why not contact us? (We’d love to hear from you!)
It looks as if you've got it all worked out. How do you stay open to new ideas and people?
By doing things like this:
1. being upfront about the issues we're grappling with and
2. encouraging “external” contributions to our debates.
We certainly don't think of ourselves as know-it-alls - there will always be learning to do, and new people to meet…
If you feel like starting a conversation with us, just email!
You can also subscribe, which involves giving us money (which we really need), but which will also help you get engaged with music making in your community!
If all your dreams come true, how will you avoid empire building and institutionalisation?
1. By always keeping the empowerment of the participants as our top priority
and
2. by always encouraging the development of local independent groupings.
There are things which will probably always be most effectively co-ordinated by a centrally administrated group (eg. training, advice, advocacy, etc) but we certainly don't want to become a huge institution, and our philosophy is all about local initiative and ownership.
I just want to sing. How do I find a place to do it?
By contacting us. We have listings of singing circles all over Victoria. Let us know where you live and we'll send you a list of nearby circles.
I've got (or I'm in) a singing circle and it's flagging a bit. Can you help?
Probably. It's a not an un-common situation, and one that we've had quite a bit of experience with. Contact us and we should be able to make some useful suggestions to keep your singing circle in-tact.
I'm in (or lead) a singing circle that I don't think you know about. What should I do?
If you think us knowing about you would benefit you (it would certainly benefit us!), contact us and we'll put you on our register.
Then you'll be kept in touch with all the singing stuff that's going on (that we know about) and it’ll make it easier for you to tell us about your group singing activities as well!
I'd love to start a singing circle. Any advice?
Contact us and a helpful team member will answer your questions, offer suggestions, outline our services, and guide you through your possibilities.
I don't live in Victoria. Is there anything practical you can do for me?
Beyond encouraging you to visit the state of singing, unfortunately no - not all that much.
Victoria is a big place, and we have so much to do here that acting beyond our borders is practically impossible, although we do try to think globally.
We fondly imagine that what we do can be held up as an example of how others might approach the development of community musicking on their own turf, and we'd be willing to offer some advice if asked.
Meanwhile, you may find the materials we have loaded on this website of some use.
For a selection of our short pieces on collaborative music-making, try this page.