Recently The Salute published a report about the growing movement to allow woodwind instruments in Salvation Army bands.

Whilst we at The Salute have enjoyed listening to and playing in Army bands for many years, we believe it is time for the Army to relax the rules regarding the permissible instruments. There are several reasons for this position.

First, the rules are quite arbitrary. Whilst the intention was always to keep non-brass instruments out of bands, the current rules also prevent trumpets, French horns and even didgeridoos—all technically brass instruments—from inclusion. On the other hand, the rules allow for ‘percussion instruments as required.’ This means that drum-kits are allowed in, as well as timpani, xylophones and triangles—none of which are brass instruments.

Praise the Lord, ’tis whosoever!

Second, the rules no longer make any sense. When the rules were instituted brass players were plentiful in the Army. We could afford to alienate woodwind players. That is no longer so. In truth, could we ever afford to alienate them?

Third, the old objection that we don’t have music for woodwinds is no longer tenable. Many woodwind instruments already play in the same keys and across similar ranges to brass band instruments. Besides, modern publishing technology makes it easy to publish music in whatever keys and clefs are desired.

Finally, the claim that brass bands are an essential part of the Army’s identity is evidence of a lack of understanding of the Army’s history. In the very early days of the Army it was common to find woodwinds and even stringed instruments  in our bands. The emphasis was on getting the job done and giving converts an opportunity to serve their new-found Lord. The Churches complained about our musical impurity, and we laughed.

Now we are the snobs.

It is disgraceful that we are so determined to exclude some of the most talented musicians in our Corps simply because they play the wrong instruments. How much richer could our worship be if we would only open our ears to the wonderful variety of sound currently relegated to the pews? How much richer would our Corps be because everyone was able to use their God-given gifts and abilities for the sake of the whole congregation?

The Salute therefore wishes to encourage Sherry McCormick in her quest to be allowed to play in her Corps band. We call upon Territorial Headquarters around the world, as well as International Headquarters, to rescind the offending (and offensive) Positional Statement.

The Salute usually encourages Salvationists to toe the Army line. However, this is a matter of justice that can be addressed by Salvationists wherever they are.

So while we eagerly wait for Headquarters to change the rules to something more conscionable, we also call on Corps Officers, Bandmasters and musical Salvationists everywhere to take the lead and do the right thing… and let the music play.

For years it’s been accepted that Salvation Army bands have more or less the same instrumentation as their secular brass band counterparts. Cornets, trombones and euphoniums are in. Flutes, oboes and saxophones are out.

If Sherry McCormick gets her way, that might be about to change. Sherry, a Salvationist of fifty-two years, plays the clarinet, which is not a standard brass band instrument. “I’ve been playing the clarinet for nearly forty years now. I’ve been accepted into all sorts of ensembles in that time. I’ve played in orchestras, concert bands, jazz combos and last month I played in the pit for a production of Annie. Yet when I go to the Army on Sunday my instrument has to stay packed away in its case.”

One of these things is not like the others.

This question hasn’t always been so settled. In the early 1980s there was a move in some corps to allow woodwinds into their bands. Now-retired Bandmaster Ken O’Shea remembers the time well. “There were all sorts of things going on in the Army. It had never really been an issue, but then Joy Webb and the Joystrings inspired a whole generation of Salvationists to start using guitars and drums in worship. We had such a group in our corps. They had saxophones, I think, and a flute. They even had trumpets, played by cornet players from the brass band! It was crazy. But as long as they didn’t try bringing those other instruments over to our band, I didn’t mind.”

Not every Corps had a bandmaster as open-minded as BM O’Shea. Some corps refused to allow the new expressions at all, fearing that their brass bands would be forced to accept foreign instruments. In one case, the brass band members all resigned in protest when the Corps officer made the mistake of inviting an oboe player to band practice. The band never re-formed, and the Corps soon closed.

Positional Statements

Faced with growing dissatisfaction amongst the banding community within the Salvation Army, various Headquarters around the world issued Positional Statements to settle the issue. Positional Statements set out the official view of the Salvation Army on a particular matter. Individual soldiers are not required to agree with them, but officers are expected to adhere to them in public. Whilst Positional Statements are normally issued at the territorial level and might address specific, local concerns, statements on specific issues are generally very similar and are ratified by International Headquarters before publication.

In short: several territories around the world issued instructions as to what is and isn’t acceptable in a Salvation Army band.

This particular statement set out the instrumentation that could be used, following the British terminology: Cornets (Soprano and Bb), Tenor Horns, Baritones, Euphoniums, Trombones (Tenor and Bass), Basses (Eb and BBb) and ‘percussion instruments as required.’ Other instruments might be allowed as solo instruments on special occasions, but approval to invite such a soloist needed the express permission of the Divisional Commander (Corps/Divisional Bands) or Territorial Music Secretary (Staff or Headquarters Bands).

This is the ruling that Sherry McCormick finds so objectionable. “Why shouldn’t I be able to play in my Corps band? It’s not like they haven’t got room for me—last Sunday they only had half-a-dozen players. A clarinet on the cornet bench would have filled a pretty big gap.”

Ret-Bandmaster O’Shea sees things a little differently. “Brass bands are part of the Army’s history. Small bands are a very important part of that tradition. We could invite a clarinet in. But then we’d have to invite bassoonists in. Then harmonica players. And then what? Accordions? Bagpipes? Sure, it might be big and all the parts would be covered. But it wouldn’t be a band any more. These boundaries might seem restrictive, but they’re an important part of who we are.”

Growing Dissent

Whilst the Positional Statements regarding this issue might seem to have the final word, Ms McCormick is just one of a small but growing number of Salvationists who are openly questioning the official stance. Ms McCormick operates a Facebook page known as ‘Salvationists for more inclusive bands’ which has over 700 members and growing daily. A large number of the members of her group are woodwind players, but many are traditional brass players who do not agree with the Army’s position. Some aren’t so sure, or don’t even play an instrument, but have joined the group simply in order to learn more about woodwind players in general.

One thing is clear: as more and more Salvationists learn to play woodwind instruments, and as traditional brass bands diminish in the Army world, there is going to be greater pressure for the Army to relax the rules. The Salute will be following this story with interest.

As a young corps officer, Athol Hendrickson hated writing reports for DHQ. He always said that if he was ever in a position to do anything about the amount of paperwork officers were required to do, he would.

Now, as the newly-installed Secretary for Business, Lieut-Colonel Hendrickson has a goal to reduce the number of reports required of COs by twenty percent in the next three years.

“We’re going to be conducting a fairly comprehensive review into the desk work our officers are doing. It was ridiculous thirty years ago, and it’s only gotten worse.”

When asked what sorts of things might be included in the review, Lieut-Colonel Hendrickson pointed us to Phase One of the plan. “We’ve got to find out exactly what officers are doing on the ground. No one person in any Headquarters actually knows the full range of paperwork required of COs. So we’re going to do some research to see what’s actually going on. We’re going to find out who’s asking for paperwork, the number of reports required per month, the amount of time officers take to complete their reports, and the amount of paper used. Phase Two will look at what the various Headquarters do with the reports once received and how much useful information is gleaned from them.”

The Salute was interested to know how this research would be conducted.

“Phase One will take a year. Officers will submit a questionnaire every two weeks about the forms they’ve had to fill out. It’ll cover all the aspects we’ve identified to ask, as well as give officers space to tell us how the report-writing process affects their work. Do they enjoy it? Does it help them in their work? What would they do with their time if they weren’t writing reports? It’s their chance to tell us what they think.”

The first questionnaires will be posted to COs at the beginning of April. The Salute will be sure to report on the findings as they come to light.

Do you have any thoughts on this process? Do you think the amount of paperwork D/THQ require is too much? Is Lieut-Colonel Hendrickson’s plan going to help? Let us know what you think in the comments. Anonymous commenting is welcome!