Musical Director's Role?

[Mahka]

Hey all...I guess this is directed more at the MD's of each group, but I most certainly think everoyne can answer this. What role does your MD play? Does s/he teach individual parts to everyone, or only concentrate on the overall sound of each piece? Vocal coaching, working on the dynamics? I've always been kind of at a loss as to my job...I usually help people out in the learning phase, and then just focus on the overall sound of the piece, telling people to emphasize their lines or to back off accordingly. Thoughts?

[FeistyFowl]

For me, the definition of "musical director" has evolved since I first assumed the position. I was kind of thrown into it -- the pitch my freshman year (who was also a brand-new director) suddenly decided to leave the group two months into the school year. The only one who had any desire to replace her was a wide-eyed little frosh who thought it might be fun...what was I thinking?! ^^*

The rest of freshman year was spent easing into a position of authority because I hadn't really had a chance to see the pitch at work, nor did she train me before she left. That year my job was mostly teaching new music, arranging, leading warm-ups, deciding the agenda for rehearsals -- only the basic basic roles of a pitch. The six seniors in the group took control over everything else.

The next year, the job multiplied a thousandfold. I did basically a little (or sometimes a lot) of everything. In addition to the basic roles, I also played business manager in several instances, did much of the secretary's job in organizational/note-taking work (especially in recording), designed concert fliers, created/maintained the website, among many many other things resulting in much much stress. Had I been paid for the year, my bank account wouldn't look so pathetic right now!

Part of the problem was my own fault of not delegating responsibility very well. That's something I'll work on this year. Another problem was having officers with personal issues or who just decided not to do their job. It just became easier to do everything by myself (BAD decision).

We'll see what the job entails this year, but I've had two years as pitch and I'm still not sure what being "musical director" really truly means. I do think one essential job description is having vision for the group and a lot of desire to make great music. It also helps to really really really love a cappella. ^^

I hope a lot of people respond to this thread, because I'm interested in other people's takes on the subject! Thanks for getting the ball rolling.

[Neil]

NSA is trying to slowly make the Music Director role less important. In the first year of the group, Cara was President/Music Director - basically, she was the leader in all things for the group. I think that's a lot of what Allison's talking about - not necessarily just the MD role, but the President's role, too. As MD, she led practices, made sure we all had our music, led warmups, had figured out what songs we were going to practice beforehand, taught everybody's parts, then focused on polishing the way the group sounded together. This year, things started out the same way, but when we decided to do ICCAs, things changed.

We came up with the idea of 'Song Directors,' which meant that somebody was individually in charge of each song we did. Also, since we started to do our own arrangements, the arranger of the song did a lot of teaching when it came to rhythms and how the parts fit together. Cara (since she knows piano the best) was still teaching the parts, but had less responsibility when it came to polishing the song. It worked well, if inconsistently, and we're slowly trying to make that our standard practice.

If things work out they way they can, the MD's role will be: to know all the parts well, and be able to play them on the piano. She will teach the parts to each section, and then, hopefully, be able to stand back, for the most part. She will always have a large voice in what we ultimately sound like, but hopefully our arranger/song director team will take a lot of the responsibility in making it sound the way it should. Also, the ideas of what songs we're singing at any given rehearsal is becoming more and more democratic. I think ultimately we're just trying to make Cara less overworked. She's got enough to do with juggling the egos and doing presidential stuff. We love you, Cara:)

[tekay]

We came up with the idea of 'Song Directors,' which meant that somebody was individually in charge of each song we did. Also, since we started to do our own arrangements, the arranger of the song did a lot of teaching when it came to rhythms and how the parts fit together. Cara (since she knows piano the best) was still teaching the parts, but had less responsibility when it came to polishing the song. It worked well, if inconsistently, and we're slowly trying to make that our standard practice.

Neil, I would switch those "duties" of the MD and the SDs to make it an even more successful operation. The role of the MD should first and foremost be to ensure that the overall sound/style of the group remains consistent. That you are presenting a total package when you perform (something judges have often commented on in the ICCAs). She would have less involvement in the minutia of learning the music (in case after Cara graduates, the new MD/PRES doesn't have the same piano skills) and more focus on this is what the group is going to sound like when we sing it.

Back in the day, we had section leaders (which sounds a bit like your SDs) who were responsible for taking the thoughts and concepts of the arranger and director and making them happen in the section. That seemed to work well for a number of years. I can't speak for how the group does it now...but I wanted to give you some food for thought.

[gaurag]

Might as well put in my .02, since this is something I've spent a lot of time thinking about!

Up to this year, Harmonics always had a Director as the sole person in charge of the group, with the usual array of officers (Business Mgr, Financial Mgr, Tour Mgr, etc) to help him/her (interesting fact - till this point, we've had female directors for the last 6 [maybe 7?] years!). However, this year, Ben and I decided to run together as President and Musical Director because we felt like there's just a whole lot that the Director is responsible for and, in our case, it seemed to make more sense for there to be two people "in charge," dividing up the musical and business aspects of running the group.

I don't think this is a system that works in all cases, and there are dozens of groups of each kind (Director or Pres/Musical Director) that are both successful and not-so-successful. However, Ben's a really musically talented guy and I'm a really organized/outgoing guy, so it works (at least it has so far) for us. I don't know if it makes sense for a group to stick with one system since ultimately you need to find a way to exploit the talents of the people in your group, and if that means a different structure each year, then so be it (within reason).

So for us, having a President *and* an MD is a work in progress. Our intention is for the Musical Director to handle all things musical, which means running rehearsals, directing during performances, making decisions about sets and arrangements, and making sure we sound the best we can. There is some overlap between musical and business decisions, of course, but since our purpose is to make good music, in the rare event that we disagree and can't come to a compromise, the musical decision will probably be the deciding factor. It's worked so far, in terms of organizing and planning for the year ahead and handling random things that need doing over the summer, but we haven't actually done anything with the new group yet :) I'm sure we'll both have more to say by next June.

To address the original question, I really think it all comes down to the specific people in your group. I don't even know if next year's group will keep the system we have now - it all depends on who's interested in leading and whether they feel like they can handle doing things in the traditional one-leader way or dividing things up like we've done this year.

Have other groups had similar thoughts about splitting leadership versus having a sole leader?
-Gautam

[joe]

we've definitely found that things work better when the responsibility is spread out. we have a president, musical director, assistant musical director, 2 business managers (1 for on-campus business and one for off), 2 CD managers, and a webmaster. there is occaisional overlap (a CD manager was AMD) but it still works very well-- and we may even add a tour manager this year.

basically we decided to add more positions last year because 1) the MD was freaking out b/c he had so much to do and 2) more people wanted to be involved. so far it's worked really really well, and i would recommend it to everyone. =)

[dancinbear]

Being in two groups gives me the unique oppurtunity to reflect on a couple different ways of doing things, based on the two structures.

1. In Fifth Element, we have a MD, a Business Director, and a Webmaster. This sounds like a common theme in this thread, but our MD ends up doing a lot of work. I think the primary reason why is because he is the perceived Director of the whole group. He manages rehearsals, teaches parts, and deals with all things Musical. Since most of the stuff we do is music, it makes sense that he would seem to be the most in charge. The only problem with that, as far as he is concerned, is that it seems like a lot of work gets dumped onto him, because everyone else doesn't want to get in his way. In this coming year, however, I think he is going to be doing a lot more delegating. We tried some last year, and it seemed to work out pretty well...

2. In Not From Concentrate, we have three unofficial "head-honcho's." MD, Financial Director, and Business Director. The only problem, is that there is a lot of grey area in between the three. For example, the Business director has NOTHING to do with the money, but he does deal with most business (when and where our gigs are, etc.). However, sometimes another member has to step in and help, because the place contacted that person instead. The Financial Director ONLY deals with money. He is also the assistant Webmaster. Arrangements are done by whoever, though usually led up by me (often with collaboration by one of the other members). Then I end up with all the rest of the resposibilities. Web- and Music-related.

I would HIGHLY recommend the first approach. Having dealt with both, I think the first far superior. Having distinct responsibilities is a big help, and the more you can delegate seperate responsibility the better. As long as no one in the groups goes insane from too much work, and the workload for everyone is clear, and usually pretty much the same amount.

[kris]

It's interesting to see how other groups work! :-)

My group's still pretty new, so our structure keeps evolving. In previous years the MD was responsible for a lot of areas, and while we did do some delegation of responsibility (flier designs, finding gigs, etc) it wasn't really all that consistent.

For most of the past year the MDs still had the bulk of the responsibility in structuring rehearsals, teaching songs, etc. They were the ones who arranged most of the songs we learned this year, but one of the other girls in my group also arranged, and we had her teaching her songs to the group, rather than the MDs doing it. We didn't like that so much, unfortunately - getting input from three different people with their own different ideas on how a song should go gets very confusing when there's no hierarchical setup and they're all allowed to just throw out their input. Leads to a bit of a question on who we should listen to.

So we ended up developing a system that got put into place spring quarter: MD has the final say in the aural aspects of a song's performance. Assistant MD does have some say, so does the arranger (if not one of the MDs), but they can be overridden by the MD.

Spring quarter we also further split up group responsibilities. President is one of those, to take some of the administrative responsibilities (structuring of rehearsals - which are usually split between business and singing, leading group discussions on issues, etc) off of the MDs. She's also responsible for delegation of other tasks as needed.

Dealing with the AS Council is a bit of the pain in the neck here, so we've always had the AS delegate position be separate from the others. We're continuing that tradition this year. Same with the performance coordinator, who's responsible for setting up gigs. I guess the two positions combined would be what most groups consider a business manager.

With all the responsibilities held by the MDs last year, and with all the group members having their very different opinions, choreography/aesthetics got lost in the shuffle - too much for the MDs to focus on among everything else, and without someone in charge of this area, the rest of us couldn't really decide on anything. So this year we're also going to try having an Aesthetic Director in charge of that stuff.

We're hoping that by splitting all the responsibilities up we'll a) make the load lighter for all the officers and b) not give too much power to one individual - they all serve to keep each other in check and c) keep things running a lot more efficiently. In the few weeks the new system got put in place, things seemed to be working as planned, but after next year we'll have a better idea of how effective this is.

[Treymix]

The Dicks & Janes (DJs) are a little more structured. Our constitution specifies four distinct positions: President, Musical Director, Business Manager, and Secretary. Each position has grown into its own since the group was founded 5 years ago.

Our Musical Director is responsible mainly for music in concerts and gigs. He/she is the person that makes sure we don't go on stage with a song that isn't ready, who has the final say in the concert order and the songs we sing at each gig, and who organizes all rehearsals and schedules extra rehearsals before concerts. He/she also runs warmups and usually helps people before rehearsal with specific help-needed spots.

He/she is NOT, however, in charge of running rehearsals. The MD sets the rep for each rehearsal, and how much time each song will get, but then the arranger takes over. If the arrangement is done by an alum or by the MD him/herself, then the MD will teach it, but otherwise it is the arranger's responsibility.

This helped us in many ways. First and foremost, it helped each arranger develop more of an ear. It made many people, instead of just one, able to hear what was going wrong at any point in any song, and it made all of us better musicians.

Another great help was taking weight off the MD's shoulders. There just isn't enough time in the day for a person to prepare all the music (especially hard when you didn't write it), go to classes, and teach music. This was a GREAT way of spreading the wealth.


Someday I'll write a short, normal post. I promise. I just always come up with a lot to say. :)

[Mahka]

Wow...it's so great to hear from everyone! ::compares to own group:: Well, I guess we're doing something right. Hehe. I guess I never really described our positions...we have 4 constitutionally mandated positions: Director, Assistant Director, Business Manager, and Webmaster. The first three are voted in, the fourth is volunteer. Our constitution (all 13 pages of it) specifies certain duties, but in the end...(umm, checks file) it all comes down to the Director. The Director is constitutionally in charge of everything, but any duties can be given to other people. So I think the idea is that there will always be someone at the top who can pull rank and make those snap decisions that must be made, say, 20 minutes before a gig. As it stands, the AD's primary responsibility is helping out with all musical aspects, and secondary responsibility is administrative. The Director's (i think we're gonna call it the Big D or something) is equally musical and administrative...we trust him/her with the vision for the group, and so both musically and organizationally the group can get there. The BM does all the financial stuff, but I've dumped a lot of gigs on our BM.

We learn music in sections, without any particular section leaders since our "sections" keep changing. Usually the arranger has some say, but we've usually left it up to the Director or AD to make all those aural decisions...tempo, how syllables should be pronounced, etc. I usually leave the nitpicky stuff to the arranger or AD and focus on the overall sound...what tekay said. Seems to work...but I DO spend a LOT of time at night looking over arrangements and reading them with the original song playing trying to figure out what's what, and it's a lot of time and work.

Definitely the whole delegation thing seems key, but so far it's worked where the Director has final say...what's that saying, too many cooks spoil the stew or something? But yeah...at the start of last year, I did a lot by myself, which was hell and a half...and then I started delgating stuff out. Contacting other people, fund raising, tech stuff, flyer design...we even created a costume committee to handle those instances of "what do we wear?" Anyway, that's my little contribution (other than the original topic). I love hearing more about what works and what doesn't!!! Keep it coming guys. :-)

[Neil]

I think we have... *thinking*

1) Fearless Leader. I like that better than Prez/MD/Big D... it just fits. The first three years of NSA are going to be Cara as Fearless Leader. The future? Well, that's not up to me:)

2) Treasurer. Handle the Benjamins, yo.

3) Business Manager. Somebody's gotta hook us up.

4) Secretary. Keeps us in line - documents who's there, who's not, what's going on.

5) Assorted other positions. None of them have actually worked to this point, but hopefully we'll have fully functional Travel Coordinators, Social Directors, Advertising Committees, and Fundraising Specialists. We'll see.

6) The Neil. I've knighted myself as Webgeek, but in the past, I've fulfilled such roles as Travel Coordinator, Asst. Business Manager, Corresponder With All Whom Email The Group, Ye Olde Man Who Buyeth The Libations, and General And Assorted Acanerd.

[FeistyFowl]

Wasn't sure whether to start a new post with this, but since it's along the thread of an MD's role, here goes. How does your group learn new songs? Do you have set sections (I know some people have already said that they don't)? Do you use music?

The Night Owls used to use music, but for the sake of saving paper and saving those who do not read music, we started learning everything by ear. It's helped me as a director in that I get to know everyone's part very well by singing it through with them multiple times. Thankfully, the girls in my group all have amazing ears and pick up music incredibly fast.

Also, instead of working off a piano, we use the nifty playback feature on our arranging program (MusicTime Deluxe). It's just so much easier to hit "play" and have the computer knock off notes for you. You can have just one part play at a time, a few parts playing at a time, or all parts playing together. That way the singers get used to all combinations of harmony. We also make sure that all members are equipped with the same program so I can send them the file and they can study the arrangement in the comfort of their dorm room.

This has been such a helpful topic! Keep it comin'. ^^

[rowlf]

I think another thing which influences the role of your MD is the size of your group. By the long lists of executive positions I see listed I think I can assume saftely that most of you are in groups of 10 or more people. My own group is only 6 or 7 guys. We have a business manager: organizes gigs, handles the bank account, does most of the publicity. Then we have me as "music director." Although I arrange all of our tunes, teach everyone their part aurally, and get everyone on the same page with each song, I never call myself MD and I refused to let anyone else call me that. My goal is to get the other guys to take on a lot of my responisiblity musically, so when I teach them a song, they already know how it has to sound in the end. Do you know what I mean? I don't feel like trying to explain it. We'll chat more if you're really curious. No conducting here either. Any MDs out there conduct a lot or give big cut-offs? I've seen a lot more of that than I'd like to see (personally, I find it very distracting). What is your MD's role during performance?

[Neil]

Oooh, interesting follow-up question - how many groups actually use a conductor of some sort? Now, of course, somebody's got to blow the key and count or bounce you in, but any actual conductors?

We've got somebody to do the key, and the same person usually sets the beat (unless it starts with a vp intro), and then the group's on autopilot. I've always loved how acagroups rely solely on internal rhythm and chemistry within the group to keep them together.

[dancinbear]

Yeah, I'm with you, Neil. I do think it's really cool how seemingly every acagroup doesn't need a conductor because they somehow connect with each other.

Neither of my groups use conductors. The respective Music Directors blow the pitch, and usually do the count-off too.