Choir robes, do they make you sing better? Do they make you feel superior? Are choir robes on the way 'out' ? What role do choir robes play in the 21 st Century choral scene in our churches.
Some clergy are opting out of robes. Should choirs be following their example?
At our church we conducted an experiment and have not wore choir robes since June! Result - there has been no change.
Anyone exploring this hot topic?
----
The only benefit I've seen with robes is uniformity and simplicity. A director does not generally have to set a dress code a pray people understand what he/she means. In a choir a friend of mine directs, they do not have robes, and have a small problem. The dress code requires that everyone dress "modest." However, there is a difference of opinion as to what "modest" actually is. There is one girl in the choir who dresses what she consideres "modest" and it's really not. She has caused more than one distraction for the men of the choir, and the sanctuary, even at Sunday morning worship by what she wears.
Robes can cover a multitude of "sins." Which is why I, as a choral singer, like them.
While it's interesting to observe how the traditional and contemporary churches are moving away from robes, many gospel churches I know are still using them and wouldn't want to change that.
So as with most things in the church I think that they will still play a role. I think that, as with most things traditional, there is a push to change it, sometimes for no other reason than people want to change something.
----
Nate,
My church choir loft is upstairs in the back of the church. We don't wear our robes because it's too hot up there. On holidays when we are in view of the congregation -- processing or down front -- we do wear them.
Personally I think any "uniform" conveys the message that what we are singing is representative of the group -- not individuals. Clothes are an expression of our personality and with a robe, our everyday lives take a back seat to the one message we are delivering: the hymn or the responses to the priest.
If the sound changes, I haven't noticed it. (My day job is in TV and there has been a lot of dialogue about whether Dr. Oz should be wearing the scrubs on his TV show. Do they add to his credibility or not?)
Pauline
----
Nate-
I have a church choir of 20-25 regulars. Our congregation is 200 years old. A liberal-leaning Methodist church with pride in a traditional service format. The choir has robes which are about 30 years old and still in good condition.
Some choir members don't like to wear them- mostly because they're too hot (darn polyester). Others do enjoy wearing them- cohesiveness, uniformity. As the director, I'm more concerned about what they sound like than what they look like.
There is money available to us to update/replace our robe collection if we were to ask for it. We (as a choir) are currently in an ongoing evaluation period of our robe use. In the end, I think we will not replace robes (at least for now- since the impression might leave some wondering- why spend unnecessary dollars during this current economy?). After all, we have robes which could be used... and they're in "okay" condition. And some wonder why we would spend any money on new robes if they're not worn regularly/often/at all. We sometimes go three or four months without wearing robes (especially in the summer due to temperature). But for special services, we generally wear them.
----
My situation was unique. At Eliot Unitarian Chapel choir members wore what they chose and sat with their families during the service. They all walked up to the chancel for the anthem and returned to their seats afterward. The message sent was "we the people" rather than "angelic host." Having said that I will now seek shelter in the nearest safe location.
----
Nate:
You have hit on a very tender subject (and nerve for me in particular). I believe this recent "trend" to get away from robes and vestments in general (for clergy as well as choir) is disasterous and is having a horrible effect on the trend of traditional worship in our churches as a whole. Nationwide, church after church have been abandoning the traditional style of worship for the free and easy style of "contemporary" of worship, which only means that "come dressed as you are" (flip-flops, cut-offs and Tee shirts included). Therefore when a choir shows up wearing full robes, they are viewed as not fitting in. The contemporary pastors don't help the situation when they show up to "preach" with spikey hair, jeans and a plaid shirt.. Whatever happened to the respect for our Lord Jesus Christ, by honoring him with our very best (Excellence in all things and all things for God's Glory!).
To the question, do choirs sing better or feel superior with robes, first they do not make you feel superior, but they do make you sing better. From recent first hand experience, I can tell you that that is true, we recently started a new church from a church that had it all.
We ( a choir of 65 plus) did not have robes, folders, music, etc. Our first Sunday everyone wore street clothes, sang from borrowed music and although we did OK, it was not until we were wearing robes (donated) that we felt as a "choir" Our sound was tighter, brighter and the congregation could tell the difference.
Creator magazine has had at least 3 articles over the years regarding this subject, I would recommend contacting them for reprints
I hope this helps
----
Nate,
I've always believed if you look good, you feel good and you perform great! We had a small choir of around 12 or so with no robes and as mentioned above, some people didn't care what they wore. When we decided to purchase robes for our small choir, you could definately see a huge difference in our performance. Since be began wearing robes about 3 to 4 months ago, our choir grew to over twice the size! A very nice problem to have. We are going to have the biggest Christmas Program our congregation has seen in years.
----
the latest report - very poetic
Just tonight I had three comments about the fact we needed to wear robes (all three people age 75+). One of these three, talking with a new member who just came out tonight to sing for the first time (around age 30), discoverd a factor in her joining the choir was that there were no robes. I was standing there when she said it.
I'm thinking this says something, at least in my worship community.
----
Interesting discussion.
The same thing has happened in the entertainment business. When I was first getting into the business (late '50s) the rule was that performers should be dressed at least one level better than their audience: for men that meant suite & tie if the audience was casual, tuxes if the audience was in suits, tails if the audience was in tuxes. (Women have always had more flexibility in dress, at least in our present culture.) And my quartet spent a significant amount of energy finding wardrobe that was from the same dye lot (which shows up under stage lighting).
That changed during the 1960s, which started out (for those of you too young to remember) with folk groups who still dressed alike (think Kingston Trio) and ended with rock groups who made a point of always dressing at least one level WORSE than their audience (which has gotten more difficult as time has passed!!). And of course church culture, in some cases, is following popular culture, only with a time lag of about 40 years!
But think about where "
choir robes" actually came from historically. They were monks' robes, plain and simply work clothing for hard working monks who went directly from gardening to prayer services where they chanted. This was picked up in medieval universities, where robes identified both professors and students as being smarter than the average peasant, and also disguised the differences between the rich and the poor (see Harry Potter for examples!). So church choirs and college choirs wore robes because they ALREADY wore robes!
And when school choirs came into being, they imitated the university role models, and wore robes that by this time were ONLY worn during performances. Same with church choirs, wearing robes that ONLY are worn during services.
So I have to agree completely with those who point out that in modern terms, any uniform dress (which is what the word "uniform" means, of course!) is used to set one group apart from another for identification purposes. THAT useage also developed out of the church and out of class culture in general, and also out of the military, where it's awfully handy to be able to tell at a glance who to shoot at and who NOT to shoot at!!! And of course whom to salute and whom not to.
So are there values expressed by uniform dressing? Of course! Esprit de corps, mutual support and collaboration, all of that is supported by using robes. And are there practical reasons? Again, of course! It makes what you wear under the robes irrelevant, and as in the medieval universities removes the clothing distinctions between the rich and the poor. (Although when my wife took over our Youth Choir she did insist on their wearing nice shoes, and got some predictable static from parents because of it.)
In my own case, my university teaching started in the Big Ten in the '70s--the hotbed of hippies and sitins--and I have NEVER considered it necessary to wear coat and tie to identify myself an an authority figure, even after having worn coat and tie as an entertainer through the '60s. I don't own academic regalia and never intend to buy any. Although I have to say that my wife did wear her Masters Hood with her choir robe on occasion (music is pink, in case you wondered), and it looked rather nice!
All the best,
----
Yes! Unity of appearance=team. Teams wear uniforms and unity is an essential quality for a stand-up choir. If you have multiple choirs, each choir could have different identity through the designs of robes.Robes cover a multiple of sins was already mentioned and I must reiterrate.
Nothing is worse (well...) but I always "joked" about not wearing "hooker stockings",nine inch heels, and tight "minus skirts". It had happened more than once.
But. more importantly, every singers was assured of having good clothes. In a very poor district, this can be an issue. In truth. come kids had one pair of jeans, a couple shirts and a pair of sneekers. A robe can honorably cover that handsomely.
What the upcoming Holiday concerts. The robed mass choirs look wonderful. Your choirs can as well.
----
Robes are unnecessary and poor stewardship in this age of fiscal crisis when so many walk hungry can't care for themselves or their family and only find despair in the coming holiday season. They are an outdated luxury that responsible, thinking and justice centered institutions like the modern church should be taking a real careful look at.
----
Nate,
I wonder how a "responsible, thinking and justice centered institutions like the modern church" would respond to someone who had very little not wanting to sing in a choir because their ability to buy "nice" clothes was limited. Especially in some churches where income levels are very diverse.
It is akward for the poorer person in "goodwill" slacks and worn out shoes to be standing next to the guy who just bought all his clothes at Nordstrom's. Robes prevent this from happening. Yes, the poor person may still be standing next to the rich person, but the robes equalize the situation.
Everyone looks the same, no one from the audience can tell who is rich or poor. It may also provide a way for the rich and the poor to come closer together - by removing the external signs that divide.
----
I would say that the choir robes has its benefits and proper usages. For a church's traditional worship service, these choir robes (its commonly called
choir gowns in our part of this world), causes the congregation to focus on the music and its message since the robes are commonly designed simple unlike when you have a choir to "come as you are" clothing, the people may tend to sort their focus on the various dress styles and even be judgemental in treating others if is is appropriate or not. Other choir members level of appropriateness varies inspite of the agreed parameters...mini-skirts, denim pants, low bust-line, formal, informal, rugged, eye catching colors, body forms, etc, maybe the distractions since all of us has our own rules in clothing whenever you face the congregation to sing praises to God.
I don't think it shows superiority but on the other hand it really shows simplicity and humility. No choir member looks better or worse than the other since they are wearing the same thing. Of course, more of the congregation are better dressed during the worship service. Wearing the robes however makes the choir member proud to be part of the choir in being in the part of the ministry of servicng and praising God. It is very important that all the choir members realize this to have one common goal and that is to praise our God through the singing ministry. it helps in the boosting of confidence due to various reasons....no need to be conscious on how they look, no need to be distracted on how others look, physical tool that they are members of this prestigious choir, the faith to service the Lord in a very simplistic way, and for others to be inspired and encourage to serve the Lord through this ministry or any other.
However, there are occassions that we sing on certain locations or situations where we need to either even simplify our attires or have it more appropriated depending on the need. When we sing outside for an evangelistic rally or in our church member homes, we may either wear uniformed printed shirts or a color coded upper dress attire. During formal gatherings or special occassions, we may wear more formal attires ( in our case we wear our national costumes-barong tagalog or long sleeves and tie or with suit and "saya" or "kimona" for ladies or long gowns). Other choirs may not be so fortunate to wear different uniforms ot robes but there are other alternatives to pursue simplicity and uniiformity. Maybe this is the time to appeal to other churches which are replacing their old robes with new ones, maybe you can donate it to the needy choirs. Not wearing the choir robes on hot temperature climate is always a usual reason. There are many way to combat the heat...you can wear lighter dress materials, bring a hand towel to wipe out perspiration, improve the ventilation or coolness inside the church, or maybe, remove the robes after singing the anthem or choir song. I believe that each choir member knows what to expect when they joined the choir... they have to come earlier to church services (to practice prior or assemble early), come for practice (either in the same day or other days), sit-in the whole duration of the worship service and wear choir robes even though how hot it becomes.
...just a long thought
----
Our church purchases
choir robes using money donated specifically for this purpose. They aren't cheap, but we use them for many years and the per-use cost is very low. A decent choir robe can be purchased for $30 to $90. For the purpose of arguement, consider a choir robe that costs $104. Used over a year with 52 Sundays this robe would cost $2 per Sunday. Used for ten years, which is not unreasonable, the same robe would cost twenty cents per Sunday. And most choir robes do not cost this much. Some less than hall. Ten to twenty cents per Sunday for a robe is hardly a luxury. I have never worn a choir robe made of anything except cotton or polyester. These are not luxurious materials.
And, indeed, choir robes allow any person to sing in front of the congregation without worrying about whether they are wearing fashionable, or even new, clothing. The choir robe takes the empasis off the singer and places it on to the music and the message. I can assure you that our church is responsible, thinking, ans justice centered.
I take personal offence at your statement that a church, such as ours, is irresponsible, unthinking, and unjust because we robe our choirs. Oh my! And I further think that any church that chooses not to use choir robes could also be responsible, thinking, and justice centered. Perhaps Nate Logan Pike did not intend to insult anyone, but this seems to be a frequent rhetorical discourse in the USA these days.
-----
I can _so_ relate to this! In my native Nottngham, England (yes, that's where the Robin Hood story is located, at least in American TV) school uniforms were our passport to respectability. In our high-aiming local school we didn't know among our fellow students, who were from the top classes of society (and also included the teachers' kids too ) or who were the poorest of the poorest but who had also passed the entrance exams that sorted out abut the top thirty percent.. When I originally made it to the 6th form, and eventually Head Girl, I finally found out the poor kids who had been receiving help with uniforms and even food. I also found out that for three or four years one specially selected kid had been getting private cello lessons. I stepped into the few months after his move and have never looked back.... (though my own private whine is the recollection of the very high-class cello teacher, "Why didn't I get you when you were twelve?"The musical talent may be greatlly undervalued accordingy to the age we live in; people, we do what we can.
It wasn't till Emma Kirkby made straight soprano singing respectable that I had any chance (except as a folk singer, which I can also do) and I will never forget an evening at the British Council Tokyo, many years ago, when Emma and her husband, Anthony Rowly, gave us a whole evening of Dowland, simply leafing through a large book in front of them and spontaneously deciding on the next song. Lookng back, that was one of the most istructive and sheerly enjoyable evenings of my whole lifel
----
Oh! My!! GOODNESS!!!
Doreen, thanks so much for a first-hand description of a system that points out, in a number of ways, that the U.S. and the U.K. are two nations not only divided by a common language, but by very different educational systems as well! It is most illuminating.
First, in regard to the present discussion about choir robes, the statement that "school uniforms were our passport to respectablilty," should be taken to heart. I'm quite honestly surprised that the students did not know the socio-economic status of each other, but I guess that's just my U.S. background speaking. By demanding uniformity and thereby removing the most obvious indications of status all students really were re-created equal. The lessons for choir robes should not be missed, and enough folks have weighted in on that side of the discussion to make it clear that they serve an important purpose in any church where all congregants are assumed to be equal before God.
But second, the straightforward description of an educational system in which "the entrance exams that sorted out about the top thirty percent" describes a system that is absolutely antithetical to the U.S. educational system, in which we do our very best not to deny access to lower-performing students but encourage them to stay in school, to shape up and learn to value their education, and to take it as far as they are capable of taking it. I assume that Doreen is describing the "public schools," which are not "public" at all in terms of being taxpayer-supported and free of tuition charges, and which in the U.S. would be clearly recognized as "private schools." And don't forget the origins of the term "scholarship," which was a grant or tuition reduction in such schools or universities to make it possible for those students who passed the entrance exams but whose families could not afford the tuition to be "scholars." That's clearly the GOOD part of the system.
And equally strange to someone involved in education in the U.S. is the implication (which I believe is quite correct) that music is not taught in the U.K. schools as an academic course at all, at least instrumental music, and that ancient paradigm has also ruled at U.K. universities until rather recently, and still does to a large extent.
I'm not blaming the difference in approach on anything except history and tradition. The U.K., like every European society, was one of ridgid social and economic stratification as well as one of an imposed state religion and the inevitable mixing of matters of church and state, of which education was only one. The only reason the Founders of the U.S. separated matters of church and state was that each of the original 13 colonies already had its own established state religion (Church of England here in Virginia, Roman Catholicism across the Bay in Maryland, for example), and the delegates to the Constitutional Congress saw quite clearly that no single state religion would be acceptable to everyone. And there are unfortunately people today who resent that separation, and want to see a required state religion, as long as it happens to be THEIR religion.
And to those who have said that not only their choirs but their clergy have abandoned the use of robes of various kinds, one question: Have they just traded one kind of uniform for another--a business suit in the case of men--or have they abandoned the respect for worship that has always motivated people to dress up in their "church clothes" or their "Sunday best," and started wearing dirty T-shirts and cutl-off jeans? Which of course is yet another "uniform," that of the professional rebel.
All the best, and thank you so much, Doreen, for your post,
----
No,oh MY goodness! BACK to uniforms for church choirs.
- -
Benjie: I related most to your post and THANKS for sticking to the topic. One point - in over twenty years of working with choirs I have never had anyone show up in attire that was inappropriate. It may be a factor of where I live and work.
Since a lot of folks are concerned with others judging what a choir member is wearing - isn't the more important issue the fact a brother or sister IS judging someone. Should we not fix that issue rather than throwing a drape over the choir member so no one can see what they have on? Hello, elephant in the room.
Yes, 'no need to be conscious about how they look' - I really resonated with that statement when I consider a few souls I had standing in front of me last night at rehearsal. This got me to thinking - it might just be the 'gown' thing that is my issue. Those yards of cloth that are so anachronistic outside the church, court room or TV commercials with angels in them.
- -
Josh: you said "…Everyone looks the same, no one from the audience can tell who is rich or poor. It may also provide a way for the rich and the poor to come closer together - by removing the external signs that divide..." Similar to my above comments, if members of a church are seeing the external clothes of a person and distancing themselves because of what that person has on, we have problems.
- -
Robert: "Perhaps Nate Logan Pike did not intend to insult anyone, but this seems to be a frequent rhetorical discourse in the USA these days."
I'm not from the USA. My words are my own personal feelings and my own thoughts. I'm sorry that that you interpreted them as an insult.
- -
At my last concert - our choir all dressed in black (it was appropriate to the memorial nature of the concert) and they, I have to admit, looked like a million bucks. Now I knew that J. had got her black turtle neck at the discount store and M. had got her sweater at a boutique but unless you were really close you cold not tell the difference. I just saw the press photos yesterday and I thought back to my post here at Choralnet. The uniform look did pull us together and I do recall the feeling was one of 'team' when we were gathering right before the concert.
So, I think I just now solved the riddle for myself. I'm moving over to the uniform side -the commonly held opinion -the status quo. You will still not catch me or my choir in robes/gowns but I will be exploring the issue of dressing in a similar manner with them.
Now, what to wear is another post.
