Page 26 - CJAug25

The Choir as Garden: A Dynamic, Singer-Centered Approach to Choral Leadership

This article presents a metaphor of the choir as a uncomfortable to assign voice parts. The constrained
garden to help educators align their practices with the soprano 1, soprano 2, alto 1, or alto 2 slots did not nec-
relational, singer-centered values they often hold. The essarily reflect singers’ vocal identity or even their pri-
Garden Model frames teacher-conductors as cultiva- mary vocal range. Rather, the voice part that worked
tors of conditions that allow singers to develop and best for singers often reflected their past or potential
grow. When individuals’ varied growth is fostered, sing- vocal development, their aural or reading skills, or their
ers can be emboldened to function as an interdepen- confidence in having their voice heard. As conductor
dent ecosystem that is more than the sum of its parts. Liz Garnett has articulated, voice classification “is as
The first part of the article situates the model in the much a dialogue between the individual’s experience
context of my own experience as a leader working with and habitus to date and the vocal and emotional be-
a new group. haviors encoded within a particular choral tradition as
it is an act of objective assessment.” Although assign-
4
ment of voice parts is often helpful and necessary for
Uncovering Singers’ Understandings: the ensemble, the process sometimes felt like trying to
The Puzzle Model force puzzle pieces into slightly incompatible spaces.
The Garden Model grew from a realization that Knowing that approaching voice parts as rigid, fixed
singers sometimes experience choir as the model’s op- categories could unnecessarily constrain singers’ iden-
posite: a limiting, fixed environment focused on the tities and vocal growth, I emphasized to singers that
5
conductor’s needs. In a new role with an undergrad- voice parts were flexible.
uate, treble chamber ensemble, I learned that many
singers viewed choir as a static space that forced them Holding Back Voices
to adapt to an established structure. While working to In rehearsals, singers held back their sound, subsum-
uncover singers’ perspectives, I came to understand ing their individual voices to the group. After speaking
their view as the Puzzle Model. In this view, the choir with singers individually, several confirmed that they
was a prefabricated jigsaw puzzle, and each singer was constrained their sound to try to serve the larger en-
a piece required to fit into a fixed space. The Puzzle semble. Some expressed concern that their voice would
Model reflected singers’ experiences in two arenas: stick out due to its size, vibrato, or tone quality. Sing-
voice parts and holding back their voices. ers also expressed hesitance based on fear of making
errors. They articulated insecurities related to singing
Voice Parts accurate pitches and rhythms, reading notation accu-
In discussing their choral voice part, singers some- rately, and handling text (a task sometimes made more
times communicated that their individual vocal identi- challenging by learning differences or singers’ first lan-
ty should be subsumed to the ensemble’s needs. Most guage). Sometimes, they hesitated because of general
singers shared that they had no preference for which anxiety about having their voice heard. Perhaps be-
voice part they sang. In contrast to previous choral cause of past experience, singers seemed to perceive
2
settings and those documented by researchers where the ensemble had fixed expectations that might not ac-
singers felt quite attached to their voice part, these sing- commodate their voice.
ers relinquished control over this element of their cho-
ral experience to fulfill the larger group’s needs. Sing-
ers’ communication aligned with research by scholars A New Model: Choir as Garden
Nana Wolfe-Hill and Patricia O’Toole, who have de- As this ensemble’s leader, I critically examined my
scribed how singers disregard their own experience and own practices. Following scholar John D. Perkins’s que-
acquiesce to the desires of the conductor, whom they ry, “What is written on our choral welcome mats?,” I
6
presume to hold much greater power. 3 reflected on how I might have unintentionally perpet-
Though singers expressed few preferences, it felt uated an idea that our group was a static and limiting

24 CHORAL JOURNAL August 2025 Volume 66 Number 1