If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Queen Mary's Big Belly: Gallicantus; Lunchtime Concert 27 March
...and it's just finished. (Alas heard mainly on car radio while driving.) Some of the repertoire not quite at home in the Wigmore, perhaps, e.g. the treble discant not always floating. But maybe 'QM's Big Belly' not a suitable title for an ecclesiastical setting. An interesting programme though.
...and it's just finished. (Alas heard mainly on car radio while driving.) Some of the repertoire not quite at home in the Wigmore, perhaps, e.g. the treble discant not always floating. But maybe 'QM's Big Belly' not a suitable title for an ecclesiastical setting. An interesting programme though.
Yes, even allowing for the historical origins of the title (excellently covered in the recently repeated Helen Castor series on BBC4), it seemed a bit attention-grabbing here. But a very good programme of works, well-performed.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
That besides, I very much enjoyed the programme but it reminded me of how I had become used to the sound of Italianate countertenors. I had to readjust to the countertenor voice of English choral tradition (I guess that was what it was).
(incidentally) a couple of interesting new CDs of English Early music
Music for the 100 Years' War: The Binchois Consort
I'm probably about to say something very silly...certainly un-learned and unsupported by evidence. But it struck me during this recital that secular music of the period sounds more forward-looking than liturgical music...which seems somehow bound to its Medieval roots. I also think of Ah Robin and Woefully Arrayed by Cornysh. Both seem advanced for their time. (I should perhaps define the word 'secular' in this context as meaning 'non-liturgical'.)
You've said something very like that before, and I've challenged you on what seems to me a view of linear progress in music that seems to me both unwarranted and unhelpful!
I've heard Gallicantus live a few times, and was always very impressed. I didn't care for the solo countertenor in the Ballad of the Marigold here though, and I didn't think he sounded particularly English!
There's another chance to hear this concert on Sunday at 13:00 - and of course it's already on iPlayer.
The title (which is historical, if anachronistic), is nothing if not memorable. It was discussed briefly on last Friday's "In Tune" near the beginning of the programme in what I thought was a very interesting preview. I think it would be a shame if the title discourages people from buying the CD, since, as pointed out during the concert, most of the pieces have not previously been recorded much, or even at all.
I didn't follow his explanation of the title - if it did refer to Mary of Modena, then why...? I don't think he explained the history at all well. I think his wife was right, it's a terrible title. The album cover is unexceptional, apart from that, just a nice Tudor costume.
But really, Mary is hard to feel sorry for - as Sellars and Yeatman explain, under Edward Vl everyone was forced to become Protestant, so that Broody Mary would be able to put them to death afterwards for not being Roman Catholics. Quite a few people decanted....Broody Mary's reign was a Bad Thing, since England is bound to be C of E, so all the executions were wasted. And the post-mortem revealed "CALLOUS" engraved on her heart.
...off piste, but did anyone read Sellar and Yeatman's Garden Rubbish? Our household still refers to the untidy/bonfire/old-flower-pot end of our garden as The Unplaisance.
The phrase was first used later of Mary of Modena, who was suspected by some of not having borne a child herself (though this time there actually was a child). Just like Mary Tudor, her enemies said - idem iterum , 'Same old same old':
Not only was the phrase never used of Mary Tudor in her own time, but none of the pieces in the programme - except possibly Videte Miraculum - had anything to do with any birth.
This contrasts with the programme Gallicantus put together of the music written during the outpouring of grief at the death of Prince Henry, son of James I, which they called Dialogues of Sorrow.
Not only was the phrase never used of Mary Tudor in her own time, but none of the pieces in the programme - except possibly Videte Miraculum - had anything to do with any birth.
That's hardly surprising since for Mary Tudor there was no birth. However, the polyphonic Sarum litany certainly was sung during the phantom pregnancy, as explained by Magnus Williamson in last May's "Early Music" (the online abstract gives the gist): https://academic.oup.com/em/issue/44/2. Also, since in one of the processionals the litany is copied together with Tallis's O sacrum convivium, it's highly likely that the motet was linked in some way to the same procession(s). A processional is not an obvious place to find a motet. Unless I missed them the concert didn't feature any of the relevant petitions, which is a bit strange in the circumstances.
That's hardly surprising since for Mary Tudor there was no birth.
On the contrary - I'd expect celebration of a pregnancy to make some reference to an anticipated birth - at the time, no-one (except possibly Mary herself) knew it wasn't going to happen.
But the point of the article seems to be to date the Litany and Tallis's O Sacrum Convivium on the basis that they're known to have been sung during the pregnancy, that's all.
no-one (except possibly Mary herself) knew it wasn't going to happen.
I see from Wiki that Philip was doubtful (in a letter to his brother-in-law) that she was pregnant (scroll down to "False Pregnancy"), and that the Venetian ambassador rudely thought it was more likely to "end in wind rather than anything else".
Comment