Home Who's Who On this site FAQs Victoria Sings Upcoming Services WantToSing Connect Links Newsletter
We are asked (and ask ourselves) lots of questions about our work. Answering them provokes spirited discussion. Here are nearly 60 of the topics we've been thinking about:
Is your philosophy written down somewhere? What are your values?
Wat'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 (rehearsal)?
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?
How can you sing if you haven't learnt the song?
What about all the people who just can't sing?
Isn't what you're doing glorifying mediocrity?
Isn't what you are 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 institution to provide the training you currently offer?
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?
Isn't it all a bit educated Anglo? How's it going with folk who aren't comfortable with English?
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 is it 'permitted' to make in a public space?
What do singing leaders in the various forms have to learn from one another?
Is there a professional career as a singing leader?
Is there a professional career as a trainer of singing leaders?
What's your relationship with professional music?
Do singing leaders need their own association?
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 do you avoid empire building and institutionalisation?
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?
These are just some of the issues we deal with. You'll notice that many of our answers are a bit unformed - we decided that it would be better to get the issues out and about, rather than to hang until we'd developed the perfect answer.
If you feel like contributing why don't you contact us your opinions.
Briefly, they are encapsulated in the two slogans that bracket most of our publications:
We can all make music
Making a sound world together
For a detailed description, GO TO Really Meaning Thing.
Briefly, to weave community music making back into the fabric of Victoria's culture; to see Victoria become a state of singing.
For a more comprehensive description of our plans, GO TO Onward.
Our society won't survive without it. Most of the material on this site tries to address this issue, but there's also a short answer.
We
For a more detailed description of our activities, GO TO Services.
In the mid-eighties, the Community Arts Network of Victoria (CANV) established a community music program with a staff position and government funding. When CANV went byes-byes in 1994, ongoing support was ensured through the establishment of CMV.
For more background, GO TO IntroducingOurselves.
Yes, and it's lost in the mists of time. That is, the odds are that humans have been singing together since at least the Stone Age. In today's world, the traditions are still alive among congregations that come together to worship their Maker with song, among fans that celebrate their sporting teams, among highland villages in PNG that mark important occasions with 'sing-sings'.
The sad thing is that, for many, the tradition has been lost. Our everyday musicality has degenerated. 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. All this appears to have gone the way of many other elements of what were once taken for granted as essential and integral aspects of community life.
We are simply attempting to ensure that this fundamental expression of our humanity is retained.
There is also a tradition of training community-based leaders. It is a tradition that is currently being revived under the banner of 'building community capacity'. This is a bandwagon that we're more than happy to hitch a ride on because it recognises the value of local initiative, and of all of our capacities to be producers as well as consumers.
Yes, but ...
That is, there are probably millions of people world-wide that share our belief in the value of singing together; thousands that lead singing in their communities based on philosophies little different from ours; and hundreds that see it as their vocation to assist communities to develop their own capacities to make beautiful music.
But, as far as we can ascertain, there is nothing like the 'Victoria Sings' program anywhere in the world. There are, however, many programs like ours in other areas of human activity - for example, community food production, housing, health and education.
For a listing of 'making music together' sites, GO TO CM Around The World
It's a singing (and eating) practice developed by Fay White.
For a description of what goes on at a Vocal Nosh or singing circle, GO TO SingingTogetherIsFun.
For an outline of the values behind the method, GO TO VocalNoshPhilosophy .
A cute way of answering this is to say that it's a Vocal Nosh without food, or the singing segment of a Vocal Nosh.
Simply, a singing circle is a group people formed in an inward facing circle, who are singing/listening to/with each other.
We've chosen this phrase to name the singing form we promote because it's descriptively accurate and also because of its use in other, similar contexts - drumming circles are quite well known and it also aligns with the traditional 'sewing circles' of community craft-making.
For more, GO TO SingingTogetherIsFun.
A choir rehearsal, at least nominally*, is a practice session - preparing for a future event that usually involves a public performance.
In contrast, the purpose of a singing circle is manifest in the moment - to sing together, to experience, in the here and now, the joy of making beautiful sounds together.
* 'Nominally' because many participants attend choir rehearsals for the immediate pleasure of singing. And, what's more, many choir leaders feel the same way (though sometimes it may be impolitic to admit it) - the public performance is a buzz, but group interaction away from the stage, is often an even more attractive aspect.
For more, GO TO SingingTogetherIsFun.
What's your problem with singalongs? They're an authentic expression of collective creativity. And yes there are significant similarities between singing circles and singalongs. In fact, in many ways, they're indistinguishable - or at least, they're both parts of the family of ways that people sing together.
There are some differences between singing circles and the form that both influenced and flowed on from community singing on radio from the 30s to the 50s, GO TO Singalongs for an outline.
The form we know from this tradition is one kind with which we share some characteristics and outcomes. But singalonging comes in many shapes. Here are some others:
The sporting club song: the most prevalent form of community singing visible on television is the victors in the locker room. While this might not be the greatest advertisement in the world, it does remind us that social bonding is a fundamental function of group singing. And isn't it interesting to imagine what a music leader might be able to facilitate among players and fans. And one musn't leave out the haka.
Singing in church: congregational singing embodies many of the same emotions and energies that can be experienced in a singing circle, particularly when it comes to celebration.
The constantly renewing folk tradition: there's not a folk club that doesn't incude periods, even whole events, where everyone is joining in.
Many live concerts presented by popular musicians: The audience often know the songs of the artists and lustily sing along with each piece. It may be that audiences enjoy doing this in situations where the amplification is so loud that their efforts are unable to be overheard by others (and certainly electronic media rarely records the contribuion of the audience, focusing almost exclusively on the performers). Even so, there are moments when audience participation is not only acknowledged but becomes an integral part of the experience. A nice example is YouTube - Bryan Adams Summer Of 69 live.
These are all great examples of singing together, or more specifically, of 'singing along (with, not just each other, but with a high focus 'leader' and/or an established repertoire known to most). It is this last characteristic that is most distinguishing. The singing circle we aspire to makes it easy for people with no prior connections to very quickly experience the pleasure of collaborative play.
But when it comes down to it, we're not going to get precious about the differences, just as we're not particularly precious about the differences we have with community choirs, and we're hoping to find ways of working with singalong leaders (as we already do with choir leaders).
It's a great thing. We have thoughts about how one might 'communalise' it. That is, we can imagine a situation in which everyone sings along with the words with the soundtrack blazing in the background. It would of course be preferable for the instrumental to be live as well but who can afford a band (and there aren't too many who'd want the gig).
We promote a practice of introducing new songs to singing groups vocally/aurally, unassisted by using duplicated lyrics and scores. The reasons for this are multiple and entwined.
For a full description, GO TO Ear, Ear.
In the electronic age, it's important not to lose touch. Communications mediated through technologies and complex symbolic systems are important but they are not all there is. Nor are they necessarily the best. We don't want to get into a huge argument about this (after all, you're probably reading these words on your web browser) - rather, we believe that what we're doing is, in part, maintaining and honouring human capacities that got us to this place and that it would be dangerous to lose.
So, sensual real-time exchange is fundamental to both our teaching method and to the leadership techniques being taught and to the singing circle phenomenon itself. Direct, unmediated, experience is an essential aspect of the human condition.
You must have heard our line about how, at a Vocal Nosh, there are no song sheets and no 'line learning' breaks. You heard right, and you're wondering how it's possible to sing a song without learning it first.
It is done by learning and singing at the same time, so the learning process is actively and communally engaging from the very start. In Noshes and singing circles, no differentiation is made between 'learning', 'practicing' and 'performing'. Participants are actively engaged in the process of making sounds together from the outset.
For a description of how it works, GO TO Singing together is fun.
Even the mute can sing. And certainly can practically contribute to song-making.
Anyone with a voice can co-operatively make organised sound.
The concept of tone-deafness is silly. All audible languages utilise tone to communicate. 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'? There, you're not tone deaf.
OK, perhaps 'tone deaf' actually means '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 practice. And the most effective practice is to sing with others - it takes a lot of doing to sing 'out of tune' when you're singing along with others.
No, we are glorifying participation.
The concept of mediocrity is meaningless in relation to this practice.
Fulfilment, authenticity, 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 practice.
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 that is of the most importance.
The basis of official attitudes to the arts is 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 the 'pursuit of excellence' and the constant perceived (and political) need to justify actions on the basis of 'best-ness'.
And anyway, what if we were glorifying 'mediocrity'? What's so bad about reminding us all that we all can derive satisfaction from making music together?
Why 'just' therapy? We all need healing of some kind, or at the very least, the reinforcement of our health. We see important parallels between the work of music therapists (many of whom are our members) and what we do.
For more on this subject, GO TO Well, well, well.
Absolutely nothing (indeed, it is a profoundly important way of expressing our identities). And we're not suggesting that every singing circle is a crucible for constantly emerging original songs. Nor are we saying that a single 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 make original songs is much more widely spread (and learnt) than is commonly recognised.
We are also saying that individuals and communities can make songs that express their own dreams, memories, fears, and hopes in their own way. Singing the songs that have directly emerged from one's own culture can be an uplifting experience.
We promote these perspectives through our training and by encouraging and facilitating the exchange of original material between singing leaders.
We acknowledge that singing songs that are familiar (in particular, the songs we grew up with) can also be uplifting.
In February 2003, a group of us met to discuss this important issue. Out of this meeting came a comprehensive report that 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:
| Temptations | Supremes |
| Ladysmith Black Mambazo | The Mahotella Queens |
| Blind Boys of Alabama | Sweet Honey and the Rock |
| La Voce della Luna | Gorani, Cantorion Cymrieg |
| Barbershop Quartets | Sweet Adelines |
| Acafellas | Brunswick Women's Choir |
| 'girl bands' | 'boy bands' |
Certainly, the huge number of single sex ensembles must have some explanation. Perhaps we 'naturally' enjoy (or feel more comfortable) singing with people of the same gender. Perhaps the sound of single sex ensembles is particularly attractive to audiences.
Perhaps there are (admittedly, culturally determined) aesthetics that explain single sex song.
In the meantime, we're still working on strategies to convince males of all ages that singing together (with other men, and with women) can be enormously enjoyable.
They're not ALL - many are of loss, pain, struggle. But it is true that the bulk of the current repertoire is praise songs - love songs - of life, of self, of neighbourhood, of friendship, of nature, even of god.
It could be that this content goes with the territory - that step one may always be 'uplift'. But we do recognise that the paths to 'uplift' are diverse. And that we've only discovered some of these.
I think that we start with a single (universal) value - biophilia (love of life) - this value imbues our practices and it also imbues the content of the songs. There are ways of expressing this love that we haven't recognised yet. There are some that we have recognised but haven't acted on yet.
It may be that (in general, today's) men don't immediately respond positively to sweetness and light. One could simply say, 'well, that's their bad luck' and get on with business (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 testosteroney oomph into part of the repertoire.
And this we promise to try.
For some perhaps, but definitely not for us. It's such a big issue that we've written on the topic.
It's a concept developed by Belinda McArdle and the groups she leads down Geelong way. Participants decide on a time and location (usually a public place) to meet for a spontaneous sing-in. They meet, sing for a while, then disperse. Singers report that these occasions are very exciting and great fun. Conceptually, one of the interesting things about these 'events' is that, while they take place in public, they are not, strictly speaking, 'performances'. That is, the singing circle configuration is maintained (looking inwards) and nothing about the activity solicits or acknowledges an audience (passers by are welcome to join in however).
To be completely honest, it was an accident. We (that is, CMV) were asked by VicHealth (in 2001) to auspice the pilot program developed by Fay White and Anne-Marie Holley. We agreed. The rest is history, but one you might like to know about (see elsewhere).
As our relationship with the Vocal Nosh practitioners developed (Fay became President of CMV and continues on the Board), so did our appreciation of the value of this practice as perhaps the most effective way for communities to rediscover 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 important, so immediately gratifyingly.
Experienced facilitators can guide groups through experiences where their abilities to make their own music are made real, quite literally, within minutes. And this is not just their capacity to sing a 'given' piece, but to improvise and to 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', that making music is best left to the experts.
Funding is one reason; that's what emerged out of practice; because it's easier from almost all perspectives.
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.
DOWNSIDE: because the voice is so personal, it is sometimes challenging to let it out.
Yes. The ones that are closest in spirit are drumming circles. Musicians of many kinds engage in 'sessions' with their peers. Indeed a lot of public music (particularly improvised jazz) often feels as if the musicians are interacting between themselves in front of irrelevant witnesses.
There are many sessions that are nominally open to all comers, but most assume a reasonable competency among participants.
Irish pub sessions - seisiun in Gaelic or a ceili (pronounced kay-lee) when it includes dancing and storytelling).
Garage bands are another example. While the musos involved often claim that their reason for coming together is to rehearse for the possible big gig in the future, it's the joy of simply making music together that keeps them coming back.
Lots of reasons:
Our priority is to encourage people to make music together
We don't have the skills or resources to mount these events
There are others doing it 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, we resist the pressure to be booking agents ('Hullo, we're having a party at our community centre, and we're looking for a group to entertain us' ...
Because others are doing it.
We are beginning to do mass sings
Both these ideas are on our wish list. They are middle order priorities 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, Victoria Sings and Short Stuff. And, in the not too distant future, we're planning to have this site contain heaps of downloadable mp3s. But, as we've said, face-to-face exchange is the best.
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:
The implication of these points is that the training we're offering would best be left within a community singing context, rather than being repositioned into a training/education environment.
We have been approached a couple of times by training institutions for 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.
We promote training programs offered by people other than ourselves as a matter of course.
We also invite people with skills that would be useful in the community singing context to offer training within our programs.
We don't have the resources, but even if we did, it's unlikely we would now because the infrastructure that could fruitfully support the response isn't in place.
Many are, but we do experience directions that appear to work well in one but not in the other.
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 there 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, the improvisation have been abandoned in favour of 'preparation'.
At the very least, we must ensure that the creativity of our children is not enveloped (the opposite of developed) the minute they become teenagers. Continuing to perpetuate this crime would be the worst of obscenities.
The recommendations of the recent National Review of School Music Education go some way towards this. If adopted, music would certainly be more highly valued within the system, but whether they would lead to music becoming a regular part of everyone's daily lives is open to question.
Not only do many (probably most) adults inhibit themselves, they also - knowingly or unknowingly - inhibit others.
How can someone who doesn't truly believe that they are creative be expected to believe that other people, just like them, are?
It is entirely 'normal' that adults who have spent their whole lives having their own creativity trivialised and denied, will then do exactly the same thing to the next generation.
WE HAVE TO BREAK THIS CYCLE!!
But how?
First, by demonstrating long and loudly that it exists and that is doing harm AND to show just how essential and useful it is to nurture and stimulate kids' creativity.
Second, through local initiative: every parent is ultimately responsible for their own children's creativity; every school claims to encourage parent input into school policy - there's work to do.
Third, 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, to build relationships and who had a lot of fun while learning all this.
Perhaps the key to this is the sort of TRAINING that 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 to let them continue to wallow in their self-perceived morass of unmusicality. There are ways to gently jolt the recalcitrant out of their unbelief in their own capacities. We'd be irresponsible not to do so.
Yes it is. Developing relationships with non-English speaking communities is still in the very early stages.
Both have their positive and negative sides. It's a topic we've written about.
We mean by 'community', 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.
Both music and community being such important and powerful phenomena, relationships between the two are complex and multiple. All of these relationships are significant.
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
Then, there are a whole bunch of layers of communities involved:
Between singing circles
Singing together is possibly the most effective starting point for allowing diverse peoples to enjoy each other's company. With song, people can interact joyfully without the need for a prearranged plan, without the need for skills, indeed with a wide diversity of skills (and beliefs, cultural backgrounds, economic circumstances, ages ....).
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.
We don't see art and community as mutually exclusive. We are both. That said, we recognise that 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.
Yes
It changes from year to year. VicHealth has invested more in our current program than any other agency; the Department for Victorian Communities has given us a big lump for 2007/8; the Australia Council has given us a smaller lump (CMV once was a receiver of recurrent funding this body but those days are gone); Arts Victoria has recently increased its annual support of our core operations. All of this usually adds up to around 80% of our annual income.
The other 20% comes from CD sales, subscriptions, workshop fees, donations and so on.
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.
And because they are an exciting, innovative, thoughtful organisation.
Lots of the activities (as now) won't need financial support - though active locally-based in-kind support would be great (spaces for singing, public liability insurance cover, photocopying costs, promotion, etc).
An independent network of singing leaders might be able to be self-supporting.
Training could be supported through local government placement subsidy.
Remaining central functions should really be funded by the State arts funding agency.
This is currently unlikely because, despite an arts policy that would appear to support exactly such an activity, it has been difficult to convince the agency of the need.
It's certainly useful and usually painful.
Partly because the results are so obvious, but that doesn't tell us how we could be even more effective.
All our sessions conclude (immediately prior to the inevitable final song) with participants filling out a questionnaire that lets us know how they felt about the experience. This feedback has been enourmously useful. We are about to start a much more comprehensive evaluation process that will provide some clear impressions of the long-term effects of our work.
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 leas, 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, if you play quietly, keep your head down (avoiding 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.
It's OK to sit in the lotus position on the beach and chant (and you could probably get away with it 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 down the street (or the Salvos to brass out carols).
It's OK to busk.
WHY: singing/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; they have no right to interrupt my thoughts in a public place.
It's probably not even OK to singalong with your ipod (partly because everyone knows they sound awful).
Why oh why is it OK to talk loudly into your mobile??? (because its not directed at anyone in the vicinity, even though it might be disturbing them).
Heaps. In fact, our skills development processes are almost entirely based on exchanges between leaders.
Perhaps not a career, but certainly a living. Many of our members lead singing groups as their primary income source. But it's not easy. Imagine being able to pull $250 per singing session (that's what the going rate should be, but often it's as low as $30 a session). At the upper rate, one would need to be leading three or four groups a week to make a reasonable living, and there are some who do.
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 social life.
For more discussion on leaders see below
Perhaps, but what we've found so far is that the best trainers of singing leaders are singing leaders. That is, that the ongoing 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.
We'd like it to be open, supportive and curious. We're not arrogant enough to claim that we know about every individual doing this 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 that have been making music with and in all sorts of diverse communities for years. We hope to be able to learn from them, and to offer them an environment in which they can engage with their peers, not be alone and ...
If this question applies directly to you, please contact us.
Once upon a time (and still in some circles) 'community music' was seen as including a processes of introducing amateurs (often disadvantaged young people) to the mysteries of 'the music industry'. That is, projects/programs that 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 be assisting wannabes to fulfil their performance ambitions (anyway, there are plenty of programs that do this already).
We are not averse to trying to convince professional musicians (and those training to become such) that one of the strings in their bow as working musos could be to pass on their skills in a community context.
But ultimately our focus is on non-professional (amateur, in its literal sense) music. Ordinary people making music together for the love of it.
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:
Yes. It's the 'making one's own' that is 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 from 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 the time trying to convince their audiences that they can do it 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 schoolchildren has been so significant that it offers a model for how celebrities can apply their talents. As interesting has been the growing awareness of the importance of 'social eating' and how we are doing it less and less. In other words, the context is as important as the content - which is exactly the point we're making with music-making.
But that aside, we've come to realise that the pleasures and social possibilities in eating together go well with singing together (but not simultaneously!).
Helena Norberg-Hodge, founder of the International Society for Ecology and Culture (ISEC), talks about the value of local production in exactly the same way that we talk about music. Another recent example is Barbara Kingsolver's 'Animal, Vegetable, Miracle', a book that describes a family's year of eating localy grown food.
You may well be part of the singing movement without realising it (after all, you are looking at our website - what got you here in the first place?). We don't claim (but we'd like to be able to) to know about every group singing activity in Victoria, but we're gradually getting there.
So, you may already be a part of the movement that we don't know about (in which case, let us know) or you may want to get singing and/or you may want to take advantage of our services by subscribing.
By doing things like this - being upfront about the issues we're grappling with and encouraging 'external' contributions to our debates.
And we certainly don't think of ourselves as know-alls. There will always be learning to do. and new people to meet.. If you feel like starting a conversation, just email us.
But there's more: you can subscribe (which involves giving us money-which we really need), and you can get engaged with music making in your community.
By always keeping the empowerment of the participants as a top priority.
By always encouraging the development of local independent groupings.
There are things that will probably always be most effectively co-ordinated by a centrally co-ordinated group (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.
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.
Probably. It's a not uncommon situation that we've had quite a bit of experience with. Contact us and we should be able to make some useful suggestions.
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).
Contact us and a helpful team member will answer your questions, offer suggestions, outline our services, and take you through the possibilities.
Beyond encouraging you to visit the State of singing, 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. (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 music on their turf, and we'd be willing to offer (some) advice if asked.
Meanwhile, you may find the materials we have loaded on to this website of some use.
For a selection of our short pieces on collaborative music-making, GO TO On This Site
Home Who's Who On this site FAQs Victoria Sings Upcoming Services WantToSing Connect Links Newsletter
Page © Community Music Victoria