One of the glorious memories I have is of sitting in the audience at a Getaway and hearing voices all around me rise in harmony in the choruses of performers on stage. It filled my pores, saturated my being, like being in an airplane looking down at a dense cloud bank below- firm enough to rest on. To say that I absolutely loved it is a gross understatement.

I like ballads too and other songs that tell a story or develop a theme to an inexorable climax. When a chorus exists in a song like that I think that an audience is absorbed enough to mute the chorus or to rise in triumphant crescendo as indicated, especially if guided by the perormer. When I'm absorbed in the development of story however,I don't require a chorus. A skillfully written song tends to indicate which it should be.

But to object that some audiences seem to think that the sound of a song is more important than the lyrics is missing something important. Of course, the sound is more important - why else sing, instead of recite? I love beautiful opera, especially if I don't know the language. Waves of sound and the harmonies within transport me - and I'm sure that I'm not alone - to a much different place.

On the other hand, there are songs where harmonies are not actually appropriate, imo. A raw tale recounting a human tragedy or other failing shouldn't be adorned, I think.

To me, a great deal of responsibility for the audience's response rests with the performer. If the performer is skilled, he or she will get across to the listener(s) what is appropriate.

Performers who say upfront their preferences are wise. Irish Tommy Sands, for instance, invites the audience to sing along in the chorus - and with harmonies - but to listen to the verses.