Straight Tone vs. Vibrato

[Choraltalk Gateway]

Dear fellow musicians,

The topic of whether choirs should sing with vibrato or straight tone is
a touchy subject, I’ve found. I would like to know how you all feel
about it, one way or another. Please provide the rationale or research
behind your choice, and tell me why you find that particular sound
better.

To give you some background, I’m a classically trained singer, and I’ve
been taught that singing with straight tone is ugly and unhealthy. Of
course, this applies to solo work. In my church jobs, I am required to
sing with no vibrato because directors say that it’s impossible to tune
ensembles that sing with vibrato. I did my undergrad at Oberlin
Conservatory, and I sang in the concert choir which was comprised of
other voice majors, and we tuned just fine while singing with vibrato. I
understand that there is an acceptable range of speed that a correct
vibrato should fall within.

I adore boy choirs and hearing that sound often moves me to tears. I'll
never forget hearing the boy choir at St. Paul's Cathedral doing
Evensong; that was an earth-moving experience for me. But I am a woman,
and feel that I shouldn't be made to make my voice sound like a boy's,
just like I feel that women in China shouldn't be made to bind their feet.

In a friendly argument with my director, I pointed out that orchestras
are able to use vibrato when they play. He said, “Yes, and they’re
usually out of tune when they do”.

I’m not looking for anyone to settle this argument. I’ve already decided
after coming home every Thursday night with a throat full of tension that
I don’t like singing straight tone. (I need the money, and I like the
music, so I keep doing it.) I just want to hear what other choral
conducting professionals/choristers have to say about the issue, and see
if any of you have made singing with vibrato work for you.

Thanks in advance for your time and opinion!



Rebecca Flaherty

rflaherty(at)midsouth.rr.com

[Choraltalk Gateway]

Hi,

Personally I encourage straight tone in my ensembles but don't insist.
Having worked with groups of all ages, and worked with the same people
over long periods of time, I observe that people (well, women) who sing
with plentiful vibrato in middle age tend to develop such a wide vibrato
eventually that one cannot even tell what note they are singing. But
they still are full of satisfaction with their vibrato and put down
"straight tone" singers as not having "legitimate" voices.

I'm worried that singing straight tone gives you a tense throat. That
should not be the case at all, there is no inherent connection. I know
plenty plenty of people who have sung their whole careers (folk, early
music, trad music, chorales) without vibrato and they can sing for hours
without any tension at all.

Jane

[Choraltalk Gateway]

Rebecca (and all),

Depending on the style of music, I tend to like my sopranos to sing without
too much vibrato. I find a vibratoless tone to be too sterile and white,
but anything more than a light vibrato to warm up the sound does tend to
stick out.

I used to sing in a professional choir where the director said NOTHING about
vibrato, and I thought we sounded horrendous, especially the soprano section
(I used to whisper under my breath, "Diva Alert! Diva Alert!).

Just my two cents...

Phil Adams
Columbus, Ohio

[Bill Paisner]

I seem to recall this being hammered out in past ACDA publications. You
might want to check the archives.
--
Bill Paisner
Teacher, Voice and Piano
Director, Temecula Vintage Singers
Director, Southwest Women's Chorus

Post by Choraltalk Gateway
Dear fellow musicians,
The topic of whether choirs should sing with vibrato or straight tone is
a touchy subject, I’ve found. I would like to know how you all feel
about it, one way or another. Please provide the rationale or research
behind your choice, and tell me why you find that particular sound
better.
To give you some background, I’m a classically trained singer, and I’ve
been taught that singing with straight tone is ugly and unhealthy. Of
course, this applies to solo work. In my church jobs, I am required to
sing with no vibrato because directors say that it’s impossible to tune
ensembles that sing with vibrato. I did my undergrad at Oberlin
Conservatory, and I sang in the concert choir which was comprised of
other voice majors, and we tuned just fine while singing with vibrato. I
understand that there is an acceptable range of speed that a correct
vibrato should fall within.
I adore boy choirs and hearing that sound often moves me to tears. I'll
never forget hearing the boy choir at St. Paul's Cathedral doing
Evensong; that was an earth-moving experience for me. But I am a woman,
and feel that I shouldn't be made to make my voice sound like a boy's,
just like I feel that women in China shouldn't be made to bind their feet.
In a friendly argument with my director, I pointed out that orchestras
are able to use vibrato when they play. He said, “Yes, and they’re
usually out of tune when they do”.
I’m not looking for anyone to settle this argument. I’ve already decided
after coming home every Thursday night with a throat full of tension that
I don’t like singing straight tone. (I need the money, and I like the
music, so I keep doing it.) I just want to hear what other choral
conducting professionals/choristers have to say about the issue, and see
if any of you have made singing with vibrato work for you.
Thanks in advance for your time and opinion!
Rebecca Flaherty
rflaherty(at)midsouth.rr.com

[Choraltalk Gateway]

Concentrate on keeping the air flow very steady and your throat very relaxed.

[Diva]

If you try to sing in a full operatic voice using straight tone, you
will overtax your mechanism. Back off, and as the below states, steady
air flow and relaxed throat. Singing straight tone is different than
"open throttle" operatic voice. It's all about BLEND!

June

Post by Choraltalk Gateway
Concentrate on keeping the air flow very steady and your throat very relaxed.

[Choraltalk Gateway]

I agree this is one of the largest debates in choral music...it is so much
fun to hear all sides of this argument.

I would like to think I have been on all sides of this issue - ALL 3 - Choral
singer and student, choral director, and a trained vocal soloist. I received
my degrees (well, will receive!!!) in Music Education, Choral Conducting, and
Vocal Performance. Having studied, what I consider, all sides I feel at least
comfortable commenting. Who knows what I will learn in the coming years.

This discussion has come up before here, there was even a (non-effective)
session on this concept in Chicago (ACDA) in 1999. It floors me to know that a
great deal of directors can make a blanket statement of no vibrato, ever. They
should take voice lessons and learn the instrument they "play" with everyday!!!!

My immediate comment - vibrato is a good thing!!!! Anyone that knows anything
about the voice will never comment that vibrato is bad - singers may be using
it poorly but vibrato (good vibrato mind you), in and of itself, is a NATURAL
result of good/proper vocal technique. Case closed. There is NOTHING in this
world that does not fluctuate in pitch - a handbell, a pitch fork, even those
have a vibration - its natural when sound waves travel. Well, there is one
device that does not fluctuate in pitch - the heart monitor when someone dies!!!
The notion that you cannot tune vibrato is ludicrous. Many of us even realize
when an ensemble is truly and "ensemble" there is a natural spin and warm
vibration that comes from unification of vowels, exact rhythm, and good diction.
Trained singers have spent a great deal of their time, money and energy to
sound the way they do. Why destroy it? Or perhaps worse yet, not use a voice to
its potential? I teach people to sing first, then quickly turn that into using
their voice, correctly, in a choral situation. In my opinion, directors that
never use vibrato are doing a MAJOR disservice to their singers and the vocal
art (yeah, that was big comment!!). They are as useful as a surgeon that doesn't
know how to use a scalpel!!!!

There, of course, are styles and songs that need straight tone to produce a
desired effect - speaking in terms of a composer's intent or time period. I
wouldn't call no vibrato ugly necessarily, however there are inherent things you
MUST do differently to constrict the vocal mechanism to limit the vibration in
pitch (actually, you can also push and use non-effective breath control or
completely not support the sound - that works too!!!). It can be done
healthfully - vibrato is not, in my opinion, often the tell tale sign - it is the amount
of ring that a singer has. Keep some of the vibrato and the relaxation, just
take out the pressure, and most of the ring. Singing straight tone for hours
without tension can be done, it just means learning that new technique, or
"learning" to not use what you know!

Of course vibrato can get too big...no one wants a warble that you can drive
a truck through (many use that comment all the time - I think it's funny).
Just as singers can have a poor rhythm or vowel production, they can have poor
vibrato. Actually, I say to my choir whenever it happens "when I can count the
number of oscillations in that whole note - we know you have a problem!!"

More than likely, in my experience when a director says no vibrato they
simply do not know how to deal with and use it properly so they just say get rid of
it. It is inexperience and/or lack of knowledge. Now, this does not mean they
are not good technical musicians, or wonderful people, or good conductors, or
have great rehearsal technique, it just means they don't know how singers
"use" the voice. Comments of "soloists don't belong in choir" or "Diva's" or
"people just want to hear themselves sing", or "This isn't a Wagner opera Ms.
Valkyrie" just rub me the wrong way! What arrogance to infer someone's voice is
being used for personal gain only and they don't care about the quality of the
group just as much as everyone else!!! I never had vibrato till I was trained,
and yet was always offended when I heard that comment everywhere I went.

Here is my real take on it...it does not necessarily depend on the
literature, it depends on the group of singers doing the literature. If you are part of
a small group, or a choir full of untrained voices - you don't have a fighting
chance! Your ring, and focus, and spin, and color will stick out like a sore
thumb, and you will be treated as one too - they will want to bandage you up
to make you look (sound) like everyone else. However, if you are in a small
choir with trained voices, or a large ensemble with a few you can "get away" with
good technique. Your voice will be allowed to color the choir while not
sticking out since you are surrounded with voices that are being used to their
potential.

That gets me to my next (and don't worry, my last) point. Not only do
directors need to know how to use and work with vibrato, they also need to learn how
to place a singer with a trained sound. There have been many discussions on
placement and I feel vibrato, and the color that that brings, should be a
consideration. If you place people correctly, even singers of varying quality can be
used effectively. It kills me when directors want, and even ask, everyone to
sound alike. Making women sound like boys is an insult and damaging - get a
boychoir!!! For my only cuddly comment of this dissertation: We are all
beautiful, different people with our own wonderful gifts and voices to bring to the
group - use that individuality correctly, or get a robot choir!!!

There is no simple answer for this, and thank goodness there never will be,
there are too many factors that dictate what a piece needs. And after all has
been taken in, then there are tastes and preferences of each person - things
that make this art so beautiful.

Now, in conclusion - if you are hired (and I don't mean this to just Rebecca)
- then this is what you are hired to do - what the director wants. They are
in the best position (literally) to tell whether your vibrato is too large,
sticking out, or simply not appropriate. A certain amount of trust needs to be
had. They are (hopefully) a professional and are doing their job - do yours. If
your vocal health means more to you than anything else find either a group
that wants to use your voice (there are a few out there!) or, yeah, join an opera
chorus!!! :)

Good luck and I look forward to the backlash!!

-Brian Dehn
Orange, CA
bcedehn(at)aol.com

Music Teacher, Cornelia Connelly High School
Founder/Conductor, Meistersingers
www.meistersingers.org

[Choraltalk Gateway]

I have to admit that as a conductor and (especially) a composer I am
unapologetically a straight-tone fascist when it comes to choral singing.
Depending on the repertoire, there are times when vibrato is appropriate and
welcome (much of the Verdi Requiem, for example), but for the most part I
find it ugly no matter how in tune it may be. I can't tell you how many
recordings I've heard of 20th-century works, in particular, that have been
ruined (in my opinion) by supposedly "professional" singers who had no
concept of blend and who treated the vocal ensemble as a group of soloists
rather than as a contiguous unit.

That little rant aside, I do think it's possible for a large choir in
particular to have a few voices in each section that do sing with a natural
vibrato. I've known a few sopranos who always sing with vibrato yet sound
great in choirs. I think it takes a certain kind of voice quality though
(light and airy).

Anyway, these are just my biases, but to me great choral singing is about
blend and presenting a unified sound, and there's no surer way to upset that
delicate balance than to have voices oscillating unpredictably all over the
place, at different rates and amplitudes, never mind the tuning issues that
you raised in your original question.

my two cents,

Ian

[Choraltalk Gateway]

Another comment related to this issue:

Wise directors will minimize blend problems (often due to out-of sync
vibrati) with attention to the seating/standing arrangement in the ensemble.
It really does make a difference who you're next to!

Phil Adams

[Choraltalk Gateway]

As far as I am concerned, choirs that sing with vibrato are a turn off -
altogether an unpleasant sound that destroys any sensitivity in the music.
Then there's the repertoire issue - vibrato simply doesn't work with Early ,
Renaissance and Baroque music. I won't let any of the singers use vibrato
which is not to say they don't sing without tone - the term "white" to me
implies a sort of characterless sound - the choir (and audience) must feel
plenty of emotion in the singing to capture the spirit of the music. Like
one of the other contributors, I have never felt a tight, tired throat
having sung for a couple of hours without vibrato.

On another issue, Emma Kirkby for me is an excellent example of a successful
soloist who's voice has minimal vibrato.

Brendan O'Connor
www.coiscladaigh.org

[Choraltalk Gateway]

Post by Choraltalk Gateway
The topic of whether choirs should sing with vibrato or straight
tone is a touchy subject, I’ve found. I would like to know how
you all feel about it, one way or another. Please provide the
rationale or research behind your choice, and tell me why you
find that particular sound better.

That's easy: the less vibrato the better, preferably little or none,
and used sparingly as an ornament. Speaking only for myself, it has
little to do with research, and much to do with personal taste: I
can't stand heavy vibrato, nor the operatic style of singing of which
it is an integral part. I much prefer Baroque and earlier music, and
contemporary American and British folk music.

Post by Choraltalk Gateway
To give you some background, I’m a classically trained singer,
and I’ve been taught that singing with straight tone is ugly
and unhealthy. Of course, this applies to solo work.

Then I urge you to drop your voice teacher like a hot potato and find
one who isn't so narrow-minded. (Unless, of course, you're only
interested in one style of singing.) There are many different ways
to sing. The proper use of vibrato depends on the style/period of
music. Do Emma Kirkby, Kiri te Kanawa, Joni Mitchell, Carol
Channing, and the Bulgarian Women's Chorus all sing in the same way?
Of course not. Certainly, there are techniques common to all, but
there are also key differences.

Would that I could enumerate those differences! The only time I've
ever taken voice lessons, it was from a teacher who thought there was
only one way to sing. I no longer have the luxury of time or money
to take voice lessons again, but I surely would love to learn more
about this. Perhaps someday...

Post by Choraltalk Gateway
I am a woman, and feel that I shouldn't be made to make my voice
sound like a boy's,

I can understand being offended if a director explicitly asks you to
"sound like a boy", but I wouldn't be concerned if he/she asks you to
produce a tone which happens to sound like a boy's. Of course, if
you just don't like singing that way, then don't.

Post by Choraltalk Gateway
I’m not looking for anyone to settle this argument.

That's good! I daresay you've rekindled one, and I expect I just
tossed fuel on the fire. :-)

Post by Choraltalk Gateway
I’ve already decided after coming home every Thursday night with
a throat full of tension that I don’t like singing straight tone.

Danger, danger, Will Robinson! Tension bad! My wife (a professional
singer) got vocal nodes a year or two ago as a direct result of too
much tension in her life.

Post by Choraltalk Gateway
(I need the money, and I like the music, so I keep doing it.)

Here are some more questions and suggestions:

How many similar opportunities are there in your area? Is it
possible to find a director & choir that you feel more comfortable
with?

How badly do you need the money, really? Is it worth the hassle? If
so, then you need to find a way to come to terms with the stuff you
don't like. It's part of being a professional musician.

Do you really dislike the style of singing you're being asked to do,
or is it more a case of not knowing how to do it without straining
your voice? Perhaps it's time to find a more flexible voice teacher
(or one who specializes in a more appropriate style).

I hope some of this was helpful!

Ed

++
| Edward L. Stauff; Minister of Music, St. Stephen's Episcopal |
| Church, Middlebury, Vermont, USA; president, Institute for |
| Pipe Organ Research & Education (www.ipore.org); author, |
| Encyclopedia of Organ Stops (www.organstops.org). |
++

[Choraltalk Gateway]

Hi Rebecca,

I notice a big difference between singing non-vibrato choral music with trained vs. untrained singers. If you were singing with other professionally trained singers or sitting in quartets rather than in sections, it might be easier for you. The conductor hired you because you are a trained singer; obviously your voice going to be bigger than the rest of the untrained singers. Maybe you can experiment with your seating and find someone whose voice blends with yours better.
I do agree that there is a school of thought out there that idealizes an immature "little girl" sound in women (some might call the sound "pure"). The history and implications of this ideal need to be examined. The world of pop music, which influences many amateur church choir singers, also promotes a thin, unsupported, "girly" sound. On the other hand, I have heard very good eastern European choirs where the women sing non-vibrato and still do not sound like girls; they sound like women. However, I doubt that those same choral singers perform as soloists.
A few years ago, I worked with Edith Wiens, a Canadian soprano who teaches at the Hochschule fuer Musik in Nueremburg and at the Bach festival in Stuttgart. Ms. Wiens suggested imagining that the vibrato only go above, rather than above and below, the base line of the tone. This was not a 'restrictive' way of singing at all, in fact, her students sounded much more free and expressive after applying her ideas, and this image of vibrato helps me in both choral singing. You just have to keep experimenting and find a way to blend that feels comfortable for you. It sometimes takes a while to find that balance.
Good luck!

Dawn Sonntag
sonntag.4(at)osu.edu







-
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

[Choraltalk Gateway]

- Original Message -
From: "Brendan O'Connor" <boc(at)AQUAFACT.IE>

Post by Choraltalk Gateway
As far as I am concerned, choirs that sing with vibrato are a turn off -
altogether an unpleasant sound that destroys any sensitivity in the music.

Brendan's is one of many comments to this effect that I have read. I have to
chime in here and make a few comments.

First of all, I agree that excessive vibrato in a choir can be a problem,
particularly if that vibrato is unmatched and everyone is simply wobbling
around with no control. However, I have to ask, has anyone ever really heard
a choir sing purely straight? I am guessing not. Really now, vibrato is a
natural occurrence, and I think if you heard a completely vibratoless choir,
you'd be appalled at just how ugly the tone is.

Furthermore, I have a couple of professional colleagues who have acquiesced
to a conductor's demands for straight tone singing for so long that they
have trashed their voices. They simply can't sing any other way, and their
sound is shrill, out of tune and unpleasant for it.

Of course there is music that requires great control over vibrato to keep it
in tune, and there are certainly certain passages, cadential points etc that
need to be completely straight. But to say: "I hate to hear any vibrato in a
choir!" or "In my opinion, singing with vibrato is just ugly and choirs
should never do it." is pretty mightily uninformed.

I have been singing in and conducting fine choirs for years, and never have
I sung straight tone in any of them, except for specific effect. The voice
teachers, who can of course be Nazis about the issue, are in fact correct
that extended unsupported, restrictive straight-tone singing is indeed
harmful to the voice.

I think that it really comes down to common sense. And the comments that
other colleagues have made about seating and matching voices are dead on.
You can get the blend you want, and the sound you want without doing damage
to voices by using all the good ideas taught in methods classes about how
you rehearse and what you ask of your singers.

Good discussion!

Kevin Sutton
maestro2(at)sbcglobal.net

[Choraltalk Gateway]

RE: "Another thought: vibrato is a technique for using
breath more effectively. When you are singing
straight-tone, use more air. Perhaps the reason
for the tension is you're trying to conserve your
air by constricting your vocal passage. Just
expect to run out of breath sooner and maybe that
will help."

Sundberg's "The Science of Singing" disputes this common notion. It also
draws major distinctions between trained singers and amateurs, and their
efficiency in vocal production as related to vibrato. The science he cites
demonstrates that trained vocalists are as efficient with vibrato, which
surprised me. (The sample was very small, the science is a little old)

I don't have a problem with choral vibrato, especially in romantic music. In
other works both modern and ancient, the laser-like straight tone is
absolutely best.

Last year I heard Montiverdi vespers sung by a first rate ensemble, where
some of the choir (Especially S & A women) sang straight tone and some with
vibrato. I found it disconcerting, but would withhold judgment until I hear
the technique some more.

Excessive, unmatched, very slow, and very wide vibrato are hard to work
around in ensemble. The smaller the ensemble, the tighter control I want on
vibrato (magnitude and frequency)

All above is my humble opinion
Good thread!

Yours
Ray Klemchuk

[Choraltalk Gateway]

Rebecca:

As a music teacher, here are my two cents on the matter:

I have found that when people are singing with good technique (engaged
diaphragm, relaxed throat, good embouchure), that vibrato is a natural
result. I think some (and I too am a victim of this), sing with a vibrato
that is "artificially" created; by that I mean that it is a conscious
decision to make the vibrato.

I do not believe that a choir without vibrato is a beatiful choir. Neither
do I believe that a choir with a large amount of vibrato is a beautiful
choir. As you said, boy choirs have beautiful sounds, as do opeartic choirs.
I find that a choir that can sing both with and without vibrato to be the
superior. When I was teaching high school choir, I found that using good
technique produced a natural vibrato in the students. That small amount of
vibrato made their sound much more warm, created better blend and improved
their intonation.

I believe that a healthy amount of vibrato is a good thing. Yes, avoid
"Diva-esque" vibrato, but if all singers are producing the same kind of
energetic singing, then vibrato can only help improve the choir's sound.

SDG,

Nicholas Petersen
Vocal/General Music Teacher
Robert Goddard Montessori School
Prince George's County Public Schools
petersennj1(at)hotmail.com

[Choraltalk Gateway]

Post by Choraltalk Gateway
Of course there is music that requires great control over vibrato to keep
it
in tune, and there are certainly certain passages, cadential points etc that
need to be completely straight. But to say: "I hate to hear any vibrato in a
choir!" or "In my opinion, singing with vibrato is just ugly and choirs
should never do it."  is pretty mightily uninformed

I agree, Kevin. A few years back, standing in the study of a world-renowned
choral conductor, and listening to a recording of one of his professional
choirs, I overheard a colleague remark: "Listen to that! It is absolutely senza
vibrato!". It simply wasn't true. This colleague, while a genius and an
exceptional musician, had the PERCEPTION of a vibrato-less tone. I was
singing in the group whose recording was being played, and I know that I used a
proportionate vibrato in that passage, as did others in the section
proportionate to the dynamics and style, and appropriate with the number of singers in
the section.

It seems there are two issues here: the singer who is frustrated because
he/she cannot make an acceptable sound for his/her conductor without tension,
and the conductor who asks for a straight tone when perhaps that is not what is
necessary for tuning. Inappropriate vibrato is what most people cannot
abide. It may be wobble vibrato which is too slow and/or too wide a pitch
variation, or tremolo vibrato which is too fast. Healthy vibrato is a more
appropriate speed and amplitude.

As a singer, I have found what works for me, and when/if a conductor asks for
'straight tone' from my section, I modulate the vibrato, if necessary, to a
spin which might be misconstrued as straight, but which isn't, in fact. Once,
at an audition, before I had sung at all, the conductor asked me if I could
sing straight tone. I told him I would demonstrate what I could do, and he
could judge whether it was straight or not. I knew there was vibrato; he did
not recognize it as such. Therefore, he was happy and I was happy.

This will never be decided as a black/white issue. My hope is that all of
us, singers and conductors (I am both) will try to remain open-minded about
vibrato, and will continue to listen and learn.

Sincerely,
Lynda Boltz
Raleigh NC

"Allow your voice to serve the music not the other way around." - B. R.
Henson

[Choraltalk Gateway]

Brendan,

Post by Choraltalk Gateway
As far as I am concerned, choirs that sing with vibrato are a turn off -

altogether an unpleasant sound that destroys any sensitivity in the music.<<

Do you mean excessive vibrato, or uneven vibratos that stick out, or any
vibrato period?

Post by Choraltalk Gateway
Then there's the repertoire issue - vibrato simply doesn't work with Early

,
Renaissance and Baroque music.<<

Let's forget that this is a debatable point, depending upon what you mean by
"vibrato," but Classic, Romantic, much 20th Century and even later Baroque
music doesn't work without vibrato. Are you advocating that only medieval,
Renaissance and early Baroque music should be performed? If not, are you
advocating that those forms should be done in a stylistically correct
fashion and the others not?

Craig D. Collins
Director of Music Ministries
Mt. Zion United Methodist Church
19600 Zion Street
Cornelius, NC 28031
[phone]
[phone] FAX
ccollins(at)mtzionumc.net

[Choraltalk Gateway]

Charles,

Excellent, thoughtful post.

As for helping a singer to FIND their vibrato, once again I have found it

to be much more a matter of learning to release the sound, than to
attempting to create a vibrato. Sound IS vibration, but for singers, it
need not become ViBrAtIoN! So as important as having the desired sound in
the mind of the teacher/director is developing that concept in the MIND of
the singer.<<

Exactly! That's what makes learning to sing/teaching such an intriguing
challenge. Many, if not most people carry around a lot of tenseness in
their necks, throats, jaws, tongues, shoulders and may not even realize it,
or even if they do, have a hard time learning to let go of it. One has to
get them to get an idea of the sound that one wants them to make, their own
unique "released" tones, without their trying to imitate someone else's
sound.

Thanks for your contribution.

Regards,

Craig D. Collins
Director of Music Ministries
Mt. Zion United Methodist Church
19600 Zion Street
Cornelius, NC 28031
[phone]
[phone] FAX
ccollins(at)mtzionumc.net