Apologies for double posting ( Re; Lunchtime Concert On-stop shop) This is an emergency (it's started!!) 
-
-
...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.Originally posted by ardcarp View Post[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]Comment
-
I agree about the title. I’m not sure if it grabs the attention of the intended/hoped for audience/buyers of the CD
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
Virgin and Child: Music from the Baldwin Partbooks II: Contrapunctus,
Last edited by doversoul1; 27-03-17, 20:10.Comment
-
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'.)Comment
-
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!
As for the title...well, really.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
...one of the hazards of old age.You've said something very like that before
Comment
-
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.Comment
-
...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.Comment
-
I don't think so either!Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View Post
This is the best explanation I can find:
...By understanding early modern beliefs on phantom pregnancy, we can comprehend how Mary [Tudor] could come to perceive herself to be pregnant twice, and on both occasions have the backing of her physicians...
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':
...The episode proved not only useful to contemporary critics. In 1688 another Queen Mary - Mary of Modena, consort to James II – gave birth to a healthy boy. Yet despite experiencing a real and successful pregnancy, rumours quickly spread that the infant was not her child, but had been smuggled into her bedchamber via a ‘warming pan’. Like Mary Tudor, her pregnancy was doubted. Interestingly the example of Mary Tudor’s phantom pregnancy was endorsed by critics to weaken Mary of Modena’s and thus James II’s positions. In the same year a pamphlet emerged in London entitled ‘Idem Iterum: Or The History of Q. Mary’s Big-belly’.
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.Comment
-
Thank you jean, considerably more helpful.Comment
-
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.Originally posted by jean View PostComment
-
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.Originally posted by Vox Humana View Post
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.Comment
Comment