Some Conservatory training: Capital C for Chorus is for a choral ensemble such as the San Francisco Symphony Chorus, or the Chorus. Lower case c for chorus is for the refrain or the chorus of a hymn or song.
A Chorus based on one’s sexuality?
My friend was watching a video of the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington and he commented on them, “The maturity level is that of about the third grade. It’s embarrassing.” It was indeed embarrassing, but it’s what I’ve come to expect from Gay Men’s Choruses.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with being gay. One’s sexuality is part of one’s DNA and one’s sexuality is not a choice. I had never thought about this until recently but a Chorus based solely on one’s sexual orientation is odd/wierd. A Chorus can be founded to perform a certain genre of music, such as Renaissance or Baroque as two examples. But why is there a Chorus based on the gender of the person one is sexually attracted to and or has sex with? I don’t understand that. Whereas an Orchestra or Symphony Chorus has choristers who are heterosexual, gay, bi, and lesbian. It’s not about sexual orientation or who one has sex with. And one’s sexual orientation is really irrelevant to being in the Chorus. It’s just a matter of fact or that’s the way it should be; not anything to be “proud” of as in “I’m proud to be gay.” To which I’d like to ask the person: Why? Any more so than a straight guy is “proud to be straight” (Again I’d like to ask him: Why?) which I’ve never heard any straight guy say, unless he’s mocking the “I’m proud to be gay” nonsense that many queers have been brainwashed to say. It’s not why one is in any musical ensemble. One is there for the music. But being there for the music is only part of the reason for Gay Men’s Choruses from what I’ve seen. They seem to exist for the most immature amongst us and those who like to act silly and to promote very (outdated) negative gay stereotypes. Such as gay guys trying to act like girls in many cases. My friend said: “But the thing is, I never see any girls acting the way these overly effeminate gay guys do with their extreme affectations, with few exceptions to that. It is an extreme form of, again, promoting negative stereotypes from the early days of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement from — what was known as — the “Gay Camp” days. My friend said: He was looking at some of their websites and noticed that they seem to sell out all of their performances. I said: Well it can’t be because of their music, per se, because there is virtually no interest in choral music these days, at least in the US. (We’re down to The Big Three that the public have any interest in). There’s more interest in symphonic choral music outside the US — such as in the EU — but hardly any interest in non-symphonic choral music. It’s why one former Orchestra Chorus Director in the US said about Choruses these days: “We’re all on the verge of extinction” and he was correct. Yes, that’s been the case for some time. At least in the US, major symphony orchestras are programming fewer and fewer symphonic choral works during the season, with few exceptions to that. The Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Chorus has the best choral season for 2023-24 that I’ve seen. These Gay Men’s Choruses sell out their performances probably because of their immaturity and their choreographed “shows” they put on — have to entertain the sheeple with stupid and with acting stupid — and the sheeple buy tickets because they know they can “get a good laugh.” Just like the immaturity one sees in television programmes that stay on the air with their 13 year old (at best) mentality.
As for feeding the negative stereotypes, these Gay Men’s Choruses seem absolutely clueless that’s what they’re doing in their performances, and they’re cheered on and complimented by equally clueless viewers and people in the audience.
There are many Men’s Choruses in existence, but fortunately, most are not like the Gay Men’s Choruses. Below is an example of one of the finest Men’s Choruses around: the University of Maryland Men’s Chorus. They are trained in choral excellence, and give very professional performances. And because of that they c/would be invited to perform with a major symphony orchestra and serve as the Men’s Chorus for a performance of the Busoni Piano Concerto or the Brahms’s Alto Rhapsody, as two examples.
The University of Maryland’s Men’s Chorus is outstanding, singing with perfect intonation in all vocal sections and with excellent diction. The last piece in this video above features Dan O’Neill, as soloist. I’m not usually hot on vocal soloists but I thoroughly enjoyed him. He didn’t resort to screaming or wobbling or fluttering vibrato as do most vocal soloists. Unlike all the Gay Men’s Choruses I’ve seen, the UMD Men’s Chorus use their scores — looking actively engaged in their music — so they don’t look like a bank of stiff robots standing angled shoulder to shoulder merely regurgitating what’s been mindlessly drilled into them on cue. That’s the way “the memorised Chorus” looks to me. I never sang with a Chorus that sang “from memory,” including at the Conservatory where I trained and later with the Choral Arts Society of Washington or the University of Maryland Chorus or the San Francisco Symphony Chorus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a Chorus using their scores as other musicians do.
Then there’s the stereotypical Gay Men’s Chorus promoting stereotypes about gay men, but they seem clueless that’s what they’re doing. They are not and would not be invited to perform the Busoni mentioned above, for example, because of the type of repertoire they are known for and the style of performances they give. I’m talking about those performances given by Gay Men’s Choruses. And I’ve never seen a Gay Men’s Chorus using their scores. I don’t know what they’re trying to prove by not doing so. Their sexuality should just be a matter of fact.
My question is: Why can’t gay guys give professional performances of serious music? Rather than making their performance all about their gay sexuality by — in many instances — trying to act like girls and performing silly and tacky repertoire with silly antics, arm/hand gestures, and trying to be a “Show Choir.” (Groan.) What they do is cater to the lowest common denominator. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about:
Well that’s rather embarrassing. As I’ve often said, one’s maturity level does not often match one’s chronological age.
For example: Have you ever heard a broadcast of a performance of a symphonic choral performance where a Men’s Chorus is needed — such as the Brahms’s Alto Rhapsody — and the announcer says: “This is a performance of the [major symphony orchestra’s name] with [celebrity conductor at the podium] and assisting is the Gay Men’s Chorus of [name of major city]? No, you won’t hear that because Gay Men’s Choruses don’t have a reputation to merit them performing serious repertoire with a major symphony orchestra. Instead, the announcer says the name of the Chorus is “the Men of the San Francisco Symphony Chorus.” Or “the Men of the Choral Arts Society of Washington.” Or “the Men of the University of Maryland Concert Choir” or “the University of Maryland Men’s Chorus.” I think most people would think that most Gay Men’s Choruses act too silly and childish to be on the same stage with a major symphony orchestra for a symphonic choral work.
BUT, Gay Men’s Choruses could change this negative reputation, you know? Although it would probably take a long time.
I’ve never heard anyone put the words “professional” and “Gay Men’s Chorus” in the same sentence.
One wonders: Why do Gay Men’s Choruses or their Chorus Directors feel the need to perform such tacky and childish repertoire and act like they do — acting feminine and like girls or “nelly pooh” — in these videos? And they do so consistently. Again, when they’re not doing some of their “Show Choir” antics, they usually look like a stiff bank of robots regurgitating what’s been drilled into them because they never use their scores. Why? Well upon reflection, they couldn’t be a wannabe Broadway “Show Choir” if they used their scores. They need their hands and arms free so they can do all of these “Broadway” arm gestures and choreographed stunts, antics and dances to entertain the lowest common denominator/sheeple who will be “wowed” by such tacky and childish stuff.
A queer friend of mine watched these videos — we’re in agreement on this — with Gay Men’s Choruses he said: “They’re big on twirling like girls and their hands are always in the air. Why do they have to act like a ‘Show Choir’ and act so unprofessional?”
In the video below, some of the choristers walk down off the Chorus risers the way they do at evangelical events to give a testimonial to the audience. (roll eyes)
As for Gay Men’s Choruses, what’s with the routine of gay guys trying to act “nelly” and like girls, trying to be silly and childish? Or as a friend of mine said: “Trying to act like show girls.”
The animosity towards the gay so-called “community.”
After seeing some of the Gay Men’s Choruses from around the US, not to justify it, I think I see why there’s so much animosity towards the gay so-called “community” in Florida and around the US. And that’s because these Choruses feed into the negative stereotype about gay men. Has this never occurred to them and their insipid Chorus Directors that that’s what they’re doing? Feeding stereotypes. Are they that fucking dense? Some of these Choruses are embarrassing to watch as they serve as marketing agents for Disney or do they not realise that’s what they’re also doing? Ever since gay marriage became legal in the US, the gay so-called “community” has fallen for any (corporate) group or organisation that says the word “gay” in what appears to be a positive light. Never mind, what these groups or organisations say behind closed doors, especially in corporate sports team locker rooms known for their “faggot” jokes. One expects that culture to change overnight? Apparently many/most gay guys do. It seems that most gay guys put their bull shit detectors in the closet the night gay marriage became legal because they’ve been acting so gullible ever since over anyone says the word “gay” in what appears to be a positive light.
Although this is nothing new. Again, ever since gay marriage, the gay so-called “community” have become marketing agents for any corporation and corporate sports team they perceive as having said the word “gay” in a positive light. Realists say: I’d be more interested in what these corporations say behind closed doors, such as “At least we’re getting the money from these faggots whilst our public persona is that of we love them and support them.” Uh huh. Yeah sure you do.
Since gay marriage, most gays/queers have become the opposite of who and what they were which caused a blogger in NYC to ask at the time: “What has happened to my fellow queers?” Answer: They appears that they flipped out.
There seems to be little interest in Gay Men’s Choruses and I think I know why. Is it because of the (mostly) silly and immature, “ditty” repertoire they choose to perform, as opposed to performing adult time-honoured classical choral works?
Although I didn’t think about it at the time, when I was in the San Francisco Symphony Chorus, I never heard any of the other choristers — gay, bi or straight — even mention the Gay Men’s Chorus or have any interest in it. I now see why. Well, the repertoire of the two Choruses is completely different. And the Symphony Chorus doesn’t act like a bunch of childish girls, including the females in the Symphony Chorus.
The DC Gay Men’s Chorus — well, their official name is the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington — is one of the best of these type of Queer choral ensembles.
A brief rant (well, brief for me): Now for one of my pet peeves having lived in the District. Since the official name of the nation’s capital is the District of Columbia (and not Washington DC since there is no Washington in DC), the Chorus should be named the Gay Men’s Chorus of the District of Columbia since again, there is no “Washington” in DC. DC and Washington are synonymous; they mean the same thing for the stupid people who show up here who don’t know any better. The residents of the DMV (District, Maryland and Virginia) call the nation’s capital the District, DC or Washington. It’s the sheeple, tourists and corporate media who call it “Washington DC” in part, because they don’t know any better. I suspect most people don’t know what the DC part means. It’s always good to cater to ignorance, isn’t it? [sarcasm intended] And if the nation’s capital were called by its official name which is District of Columbia, there would be no need for one to say, “Washington state” every time one refers to one of the 50 states located on the West Coast of the United States of North America. End of rant.
So, the main question here is: Are gay men required to sing show tunes, music from Broadway musicals and little tacky ditties and be like a “Show Choir,” rather than perform the more serious and beautiful (symphonic) choral repertoire? Apparently so. I suspect some would say, “It’s part of being gay.” (roll eyes) That’s the impression one is left with. It reminds me of the stereotype that when a Black person dies, it’s required that gospel music be dragged out and played at every Black person’s funeral for some reason. I don’t remember seeing an exception to that.
Reminds me of the stereotype with Black people:
Black People = must sing gospel music and have it played at their funerals.
Gay men = must sing Broadway musicals and other choral ditties.
(roll eyes) Sigh. So tiresome.
I read this online:
“The Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington, DC (GMCW), is one of the oldest LGBT choral organizations in the United States.”
Oh here we go again with that revisionist history LGBT alphabet soup rubbish again. The thing is: There are no lesbians in the Gay Men’s Chorus so why is the Chorus described as one of the oldest “LGBT” (UVWXYZ+++++?) choral organisations, instead of oldest GAY or QUEER choral organisations? Are there any trans choristers in the Gay Men’s Chorus? (Related: Why is trans part of the gay so-called “community?”) Are there any genuine bisexual guys in the Gay Men’s Chorus? Then none of that “LBT” nonsense applies either.
Why is everything today labeled “LGBT?” Because that’s the corporatist Gay Agenda. Using the alphabet/code language to sanitise the word gay, to those people who don’t want to hear the word gay and or who are offended by it — it’s always good to cater to people like that isn’t it? — and it’s one way that the Gay and Lesbian Movement sold out to corporations.
“LGBT” is also like a brand name. It’s also revisionist history since the “L” was never first. It was known as the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement. Gay was first. As I’ve written before, heterosexuals/straights don’t have any long train of silly letters with plus signs at the end. Why do Queers need that? The Chorus is called a Gay Men’s Chorus, so call the Chorus one of the oldest GAY choral organisation in the States. Is that so difficult, stupid people? I have very little no patience for this nonsense. (Related: National Public Radio feeds into, “Don’t Say Gay.”)
My point is why do the Gay Choruses have to continue to promote queeny, nelly and feminine stereotypes about Queers by most of the repertoire they programme? There are many masculine and manly gay men who are offended by these stereotypes because they do not reflect who they are as people.
The thinking seems to be: “If you’re gay, you must be into Broadway musicals?” I never was. The gay guys I knew in the San Francisco Symphony Chorus were into the same symphonic choral repertoire that I was/am into. I don’t remember them ever talking about show tunes or Broadway musicals or the like.
Awhile back, when I was telling mi amigo/my friend about my experience with the San Francisco Symphony Chorus, he asked me if I ever had any interest in being in the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus. I stalled and slowly said, “No.” He asked: Well you were in the best Orchestra Chorus weren’t you? Just like when you lived in the District with the Choral Arts Society of Washington and the University of Maryland Chorus? Yes, they were the best performing regularly in the Kennedy Center Concert Hall with the National Symphony Orchestra and touring international orchestras. He continued: Isn’t the San Francisco Symphony Chorus supposed to be the best Chorus in the Bay Area? I said: Yes, it’s equal in excellence to that of the San Francisco Symphony. That’s why we/they are the Orchestra’s own Symphony Chorus.
The fact is: Not all choral music or choral music arrangements are good music and some of the stuff that these choral directors select is, well, rather tacky. I know from experience that there’s a lot of tacky music out there but it “swoons the hearts” of the sheeple audience. The sheeple don’t know good music from bad music when they hear it, and that can also be said about some choral directors. Some choral directors don’t believe in the concept of perfect intonation — one of the foundations of choral excellence — so they let their choristers sing any old way they want to, in part, because it’s easier that way. It’s far less work for the lazy and possibly inept and incompetent Chorus Director who doesn’t know how to achieve choral excellence with his or her Chorus because they don’t have the training. Even with the training, some Chorus Directors allow their Chorus to sing however they want. Take the late John Oliver, for example, and his Tanglewood Festival Chorus. He had the training. Presumably that’s why Seiji Ozawa named John Oliver the Director of Vocal and Choral Activities at Tanglewood and asked him to start (what became) the Tanglewood Festival Chorus (TFC), the Official Chorus of the BSO and Boston Pops Orchestra. The TFC was one of my favourite Orchestra Choruses in their early days. But after awhile, the TFC became to receive criticism. I remember hearing a reduced (Chamber Chorus size) Tanglewood Festival Chorus sing in Washington National Cathedral for Senator Kennedy’s funeral. I hadn’t heard them in years and I said to myself, “Well good lord, what’s happened to them?! That’s Tanglewood?” They sounded awful with wobbling and fluttering soprano voices, quivering altos. They did not sound like what one expects from the Official Chorus of the Boston Symphony Orchestra and Boston Pops. Not at all. For example, under Oliver the soprano and alto sections in particular did not sing with perfect intonation and the Chorus started getting criticism from the BSO’s orchestral conductor and members of the BSO. My guess is that John had apparently gotten too chummy and friends with some of the choristers who should have been asked to leave and they were dragging the quality level of the Chorus down. That, too, is a problem.
Question: Why can’t a Gay Men’s Chorus perform symphonic choral works for Men’s voices like the Men’s Chorus of any Symphony Chorus performs on occasion?
Another example: There are many Anglican canticle settings for men’s voices that can be performed in a Concert Hall setting, meaning a secular setting having nothing to do with organised religion despite the text of the works. They are performed often by the Men of the Cathedral Choir of various Cathedrals and a few parishes who had the caliber of choristers required to perform the pieces when the trebles/boys were away or on Summer holiday. On occasion, a Gay Men’s Chorus will rent a church to perform in. Well, using the church’s pipe organ, why not programme some of the Anglican repertoire — such as the canticle settings for men’s voices by Herbert Howells — and other Anglican composers exclusively for men’s voices? That’s not done to my knowledge. Why not? [Answer: Oh we prefer to do silly, trite and stupid stuff where act like girls as if we’re on Broadway doing a musical.]
Or consider this: Have you ever heard an announcer at a microphone say, “this is a performance of the Busoni Piano Concerto in C, Op. 39 with pianist [name of pianist] and [name of the orchestra]. Also assisting is the Gay Men’s Chorus of [name of city]?” That’s because there’s a choral section in the Busoni for a Men’s Chorus and often the performance involves the Men’s Chorus of a renowned Symphony Chorus. Why not invite a Gay Men’s Chorus to perform that? Perhaps because most or all Gay Men’s Choruses don’t have the reputation for being a symphonic Chorus? Well why not? In part, it has to do with the Chorus Directors they hire. But rather a Chorus that performs show tunes, Broadway musicals, spirituals, gospel pieces, “contemporary” syrupy, (what sounds like) “womanised” choral drivel and the like? Some of these Gay Men’s Choruses take on a “Show Choir” reputation. It’s quite a stereotype.
For a Gay Men’s Chorus, it seems that it’s required that the repertoire be immature. Is that the word I’m looking for? Silly, sentimental, overly emotional (like most females)? So there’s Broadway shows — you gotta have that as if all gay men are into Broadway musicals (I’m not at all)! — it has to be syrupy, childish, and “womanised” (I’m not talking about feminist) music. And what happened to choral excellence with some of these ensembles and the concept of perfect intonation (one of the foundations of choral excellence)? Some of these Choruses sound like they’re not too far from being out of nursery school with their low maturity level including the repertoire they perform.
Gay Men can sound like men. They don’t have to sound childish, immature and “womanised” — as if they’re trying to emulate some well-known female vocalist — or like “drippy pussies” like we’ve heard from some of these Choruses. What’s the point of that? There are many gay men in the world’s major Orchestra Choruses — there were many gay guys in the San Francisco Symphony Chorus when I was a chorister with them — and we/they sounded like men. They don’t sing like a guy trying to sound and look like Barbara Streisand. All that does is to promote an outdated stereotype about gay men and that’s what these Gay Men’s Choruses do, from the ones I’ve seen.
So again, why can’t a Gay Men’s Chorus perform high-quality symphonic choral works instead of repertoire one expects to hear from a High School Chorus or a “Glee Club?” (cringe, I never have liked the name Glee Club).
When I was in the San Francisco Symphony Chorus we wore our SF Symphony Chorus t-shirts around The Castro. I haven’t seen a shirt like that in years. The only t-shirts I see gay guys wear these days are that of US-flag waving and or of the US Military Industrial Complex — when did Queers get all hot for military and for war? — with the words “Army” or “Navy” on them, something connected with the conservative Military Industrial Complex Killing Machine. And when a gay guy joins the military and kills another guy, do they consider that the guy they killed could have been gay. So queers don’t care if they kill another queer? That, too, is a result of “assimilation.” Trying to be like and emulate the heterosexuals.
Then there are those Choruses that have to stand up there and sway as if they’re in a Gospel Chorus. (roll eyes) Sigh. And why is the accompaniment for these Choruses piano? Piano is used to accompany because that’s the easiest and cheapest. Can’t they find some small chamber orchestra who would gladly work with them, or can’t they form their own orchestral ensemble? Can’t they market themselves as more of a symphonic Chorus, so they would be invited to perform with or augment the city’s Orchestra Choruses?
I remember when the conservatives — mostly elitist homeowners and busy-body merchants — in San Francisco’s Castro ordered the so-called “gay community” to mature [translation: become conservatives, which they did by the way] around the same time that gay marriage became legal and we got a city-wide nudity ban and San Francisco began its shift to the right. To me, maturing does not mean to be conservative. If these Choruses would change their repertoire to symphonic choral literature — rather than being an ensemble of show tunes and the syrupy little ditties they sing — that would help to erode the unfortunate stereotype that Gay Men’s Choruses have attached to them. Some of the stuff they sing sounds like it’s right out of some right-wing evangelical church minus the Praise Band. Mi amigo/My friend asked: Why don’t they try to sound more like George Michael, or Elton John and other Queers who sounded good?
Imagine a performance of Händel’s Israel in Egypt with the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus, the San Francisco Lesbian Chorus (don’t we have one?; I don’t know since I don’t pay attention to these sexuality-based “pop” Choruses), with a pick-up orchestra accompanying?
Or imagine a programme featuring the combined Gay Men’s Chorus and a Lesbian Chorus immaculately trained in choral excellence and performing the Brahms’s EDR (Ein Deutches Requiem) with the Queer Orchestra, using soloists from the Chorus? Or a performance of Queer-boy Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis or Ninth Symphony (with the quartet using non-operatic soloists from the Chorus singing with their “choral voice”)? Any of that would be historic when performed by an all-Queer Chorus and Orchestra. Of course all of that is dreaming. It’s not likely to ever happen. The status quo will continue.
Related: