I might have said, "Well, if you know where you're going, why don't you sing and I will follow your lead and cue the choir in."So...how did you handle it?
I'm so glad what I say at church goes.
I just didnt want to lose my cool.....I try to treat people as I desire to be treated.....I never have been disrespected like that before.....Im just hoping that I can get use of the way they do things....
I would have had an approach similar to Betnich's approach. But if I was getting a ton of attitude I would also STRONGLY consider simply doing a different song. Period. I'm the director, you don't want to do it my way? We'll do something else that doesn't require your lead.Regarding the stuff in RED, I wish I could remember who said this, but I once heard a prominent person say "The problem is, we spend too much time trying to treat people the way WE WANT to be treated instead of treating them the way THEY DESERVE to be treated". That thought came rushing back to my mind when I read your line and thought about how you describe the way this thing went down.
How about that.... Treat them as they deserve to be treated ,,,,,,,That's a thought for sure....See I am starting to feel like if I cant direct in the manner that I want than I cant except nothing else... I dont know if that sounds like I am controlling but I feel if people (choir members) are allowed to talk over me and be objective without being told what I say goes then I dont have time gettiing in arguements with people just because. I know that they are not use of my directing style but still I am fair and I try not to be blunt or over aggressive. I look for them to appreciate the consistency in me but hey I think that this is this way because majority of the people on the choir are 50 and older......So hey .... My church believes in having one choir and all ages singing togather.
Remember your thread asking what "interim director" means? This is your test. For your church to have enough faith in you and your ability to lead them to remove the "interim" tag. Even with strong technical capability to direct, you need to demonstrate the ability to lead people. Getting a bunch of people who are not getting paid to do something the way you want it done when they are not yet of one accord is a leadership test. Taking a "my way or the highway" approach rarely works. Allowing members of the group to assert their personalities over you and the rest of the group is even less likely to work. Especially if the rest of the group sees the "leader" acquiescing to a bully in the group. Your choir could very well be in the process of deciding whether you are a leader worthy of respect or irrelevant based on how you handle this situation. Unfortunately, there is no clear winning recipe. You need to pray on it and be you.
I was always taught that the lead directs the song anyway. The director follows the lead. Only time that doesn't happen (at least in all the NY choirs I know of) is when the lead isn't experienced enough to actually LEAD - instead, he or she just sings. *shrug* But I'll admit, I haven't been a director in years so maybe times have changed.
It depends on the song and the pattern of the solo. If the soloist doesn't sing throughout the whole song then a director is needed to run the song. Some songs, you just have to connect with the lead and go with them. Being a director a long time, you can tell when a soloist wants to move to the next part of the song.
Very good points. I've learned over the course of time that there are some songs that are leader-driven. For me, it makes my job of directing a song easier. The confusion sometimes is when the leader and I (director) are not on point. In my early years of directing I was very hands-on and wanted the song to go exactly where I wanted it to go. In some songs, I still have a hands-on approach but I'm more liberal now.
I'm surprised to see you using the words "solo" and "soloist."
