<p>Short story-- I’m in a large chorus, great director who isn’t always able to be at rehearsals. Group knew that upfront before hiring so that is NOT an issue. BUT we don’t always know if the director will be there in advance of any particular rehearsal because the “powers that be (elected )” don’t say upfront because they are afraid members won’t show up for rehearsals in the absence of the director.<br>
I’m frustrated–I think not saying in advance if the director will be there is treating the membership as children. “Powers that be” think saying in advance discourages members from attending an otherwise productive rehearsal and that it shouldn’t matter if director is there or not (we have great depth in asst. directors, etc). I say everyone should know upfront if the director will be there for the rehearsal. If it makes a difference–there are members who drive hours to attend rehearsals–to me, it is just common courtesy to let them know how an evening may go.</p>
<p>If there is a likelihood that people won’t show up, it makes sense not to announce it in advance, especially since the ADs are good and the rehearsals all productive. That might not last long if they changed the procedure. </p>
<p>But I can understand why you are irritated by it. :)</p>
<p>Well, thanks for the understanding why I’m irritated. To drive distances (over an hour) and expect a different experience is disconcerting. We have people coming from 2 hours away. I feel like the membership is being lied to. When the director is not there the rehearsals are usually shortened (which I disagree with). If someone travels a long way then it can truly be a waste of time. I think their time and commitment should be honored enough to tell them how an evening is going to be spent.<br>
And I guess that feeling applies to all those who live close also! What’s the deal? I’m afraid we’re going to lose members because of this. Nobody wants to be treated like children. </p>
<p>I vote a compromise. Tell the powers that be that if they are not going to tell the membership when the director won’t be there as a ploy to bring them in, then they need to insist the assistant directors provide the same experience as the director and have a complete practice. That puts the pressure on them to prepare and provide an rehearsal worthy of a four-hour round-trip.</p>
<p>You are right. That is what should happen. And the music team does it’s best at this point. to make a good rehearsal–but it doesn’t always occur. Do you think the director should just be upfront and say “Can’t be here next week because of “x”?” Make it known and be done with it? Right now it appears almost like the director is afraid to tell us. that’s not necessarily true but that’s the way things come across. It’s causing friction.</p>
<p>If the director said he won’t be there, will a lot of people not come? And if they don’t come, is it enough of a reduction to make it impossible to carry on a rehearsal? IOW, will the ones who do attend get there and find rehearsal canceled altogether due to lack of attendance?</p>
<p>I would rather see the membership be allowed to vote on how to proceed. I get that, without the director, people may not show and that would be disruptive. But maybe if the director knows that he/she won’t be there on certain days, the prior weeks can be an extra 30 minutes? Is there an attendance requirement? Maybe one could be instituted so that people don’t skip too often.</p>
<p>Isn’t there an assistant director, or someone designated to fill in when he’s not there? Or is the group leaderless without him?</p>
<p>I also sing in large chorus. Our Artistic Director is seldom absent but we are told in advance if he will be. However, we have an Assistant Director who is more than capable of subbing and the rehearsals are just as rigourous and necessary as when the Artistic Director is present.</p>
<p>I would have thought that a plan for absences would have been thought out when your group hired an artistic director who was known to be planning numerous absences. </p>