As you’re programming your music this year, reject the programming/meal metaphor.
You know the one: we should spend the bulk of our choral year on nourishing, nutrient-rich music that enhances the education of our students – so that they can have dessert (aka “fun” music, which by definition is not educational or musically nourishing) at the end of the year in a “pops” concert.
Ask proponents of the programming meal, and you’re likely to get a fairly consistent definition: choral music from Renaissance through the early-20th century should form the bulk, with some exceptions made for contemporary composers who write traditionally pleasing choral music, like Eric Whitacre and Morten Lauridsen.
I think it’s important to state that there is much music from the popular/jazz world that is just as nutrient-rich as classical music. Steve Zegree’s “Love Walked In” is just as musically satisfying and educational as Palestrina’s “Sicut Cervus,” in my opinion. If you’re programming Whitacre’s “Lux Aurumque,” why not program Puerling’s “London By Night?” Even lighter pop music, when treated with the respect and care that we give to heavier choral music, can be engaging, educational, and musically satisfying.
The end result of the programming meal is that we don’t give proper care to pop music styles, and our students end up singing this repertoire poorly, or with inaccurate performance practice. (Ever heard a Beatles song sung like a Tallis motet? I have, and it’s not only unpleasing – it’s disrespectful.
All music, all year. Program a Michael Bublé song right next to a Brahms piece. Hard to imagine? Perhaps. Possible? Definitely.
It’s all music, and that in itself is an important lesson for our students. I think with that attitude, they will actually bring more respect and engagement, and get more enjoyment, out of the repertoire we call “Eat your vegetables” music and fight to get them to commit to.