Eton Choirbook with the BBC Singers

[Gabriel Jackson]

Well, there's not a great deal which could really be described as 'ascetic' or 'less-is-more' about Browne's O Maria salvatoris mater, for example, one of the most sumptuous pieces of polyphony ever written for the English Church.

Indeed! The Cornysh and Wylkinson Salve Reginas too, arguably...

[Miles Coverdale]

Indeed! The Cornysh and Wylkinson Salve Reginas too, arguably...

Yes. Wylkynson may well have been trying to out-do Browne's eight-part O Maria salvatoris mater, which opens the Eton Choirbook, with his nine-part Salve.

Many pieces have unfortunately been lost from Eton, but one I should particularly like to have heard is Browne's seven-part Magnificat.

[doversoul1]

Any more thoughts on last night’s performance?

I rather wished I hadn’t started this thread on the EMS board, as my expectation would have been different.

[Gabriel Jackson]

I am sure Draco was referring to the style of performance.

How, exactly?!

Whilst Andrew Carwood, an acknowledged expert in this area of choral music, did his best to elicit a decent 'treble discant' sound from the BBCS sopranos, I wish to be quite forthright that my preference lies elsewhere, and if anyone needs a reason it's to do with clarity of texture and style of voice-production.

As we are ceaselessly reminded!
What is quite bizarre is when "acknowledged experts" like Andrew Carwood or Peter Philips conduct the BBC Singers they apparently "did their best", as if the resulting performances must have, ultimately, been unsatisfactory to them. Yet why would they continue to work with the group if that were the case (and, no, it isn't about money!)?

[Miles Coverdale]

What is quite bizarre is when "acknowledged experts" like Andrew Carwood or Peter Philips conduct the BBC Singers they apparently "did their best", as if the resulting performances must have, ultimately, been unsatisfactory to them. Yet why would they continue to work with the group if that were the case (and, no, it isn't about money!)?

I don't know if Andrew Carwood et al. enjoy working with the BBC Singers or not – or, indeed, if the group enjoys working with those conductors or not. Whatever the case may be, it does tick a certain box on the conductor's CV, and, from the group's point of view, it demonstrates their versatility by being conducted by people from different walks of musical life. Whether one likes the results or not, it does, I think, serve a purpose for both conductor and group.

[Vox Humana]

the ascetic, less-is-more Eton Choirbook

I don't understand this either. "Less is more" is hardly the expression that comes to mind when considering the Eton Choirbook! I remember one reviewer (it might have been Professor Fallows and it might have been in The Gramophone) once referring to the "almost Straussian wastage of notes", which is nearer the mark. As for ascetic, well that's down to the performance. It can be gentle, refined and perhaps a touch remote, as on the recent "Choirs of Angels" CD from Christ Church Oxford that I was given for Christmas, or it can be exuberant and flamboyant as approached by the old pair of LPs by the choristers of All Saints, Margaret Street and the Purcell Consort. The latter perhaps matches more nearly the exuberance and flamboyance of the perpendicular churches, but whether that analogy is relevant is debatable (this sort of music must often have been sung in buildings that were much older). It would be interesting indeed to know how this music really sounded in the early sixteenth century. In this connection one has to assume that the choristers were trained and rehearsed by their instructor, but I have yet to see any reference to clerks rehearsing; the nearest thing I know is a sight-reading competition between Wolsey's choir and Henry VIII's. For all I know that's what did constitute rehearsal then. Either way, there may have been little or no concept of blend or balance. Can anyone (Master Coverdale perhaps?) illuminate?

[ardcarp]

It would be interesting indeed to know how this music really sounded in the early sixteenth century.

If granted three magical wishes, that would be my first...to be a fly on a time-travelling wall.

[DracoM]

<< It can be gentle, refined and perhaps a touch remote, as on the recent "Choirs of Angels" CD from Christ Church Oxford that I was given for Christmas >>

Rather what I had in mind.

[Vox Humana]

I guessed it might be, Draco, but, like I said, that is a product of the interpretation, not of the music itself. Both styles are very effective musically, of course, whichever might be more HIP.

[Gabriel Jackson]

If granted three magical wishes, that would be my first...to be a fly on a time-travelling wall.

Me too! Though, as Peter Philips has often pointed out, we might hate the sound those singers made.

[ardcarp]

True!

[DracoM]

My question is if the singers sounded awful, then would the late 15th/early 16th cent jobbing church musicians we hear represented on the CCCOx discs be writing the intricate, soaring stuff they did?

You don't write for a team who simply can't deliver or who mangle what you have written, do you? Well, you might once, but never again. And by and large those composers DID write and quite a lot, as the Eton Choirbook shows, let alone the stuff now lost

Would seem a bit counter -intuitive.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

DracoM, I don't think that that's what GJ or ardie meant - I understood them to be suggesting that the sounds (speeds, tunings, timbre, pronunciation, articulation etc) would be far removed from how we think we expect them to sound today (if that makes sense) "awful" to our sensitivites, that is, not their own - not that they'd "mangle" the textures, intonation or whatever. Imagine if they sang it like the much-parodied 1970s folk singer: nasal pitch, embellishments - that sort of thing!

I have often teased myself with the notion of time-travelling back to hear Bach conducting his Music in a Karajanesque manner

[Vox Humana]

Would seem a bit counter -intuitive.

I don't see why. In my time I have come across many amateur choir members who have never had a singing lesson, but who have yet had a sound grounding in musical theory and been thoroughly reliable sight-readers.

Thomas Morley's A Plaine and Easie Introduction to Practicall Musicke of 1597 leaves little doubt that the main qualities required of a singer or player were a thorough understanding of of musical theory, especially all the different "proportions" (what we would call -tuplets - which, in theory at least, could be remarkably complicated) and the ability to perform them without getting out of sync with the other part(s). For the latter a rock solid sense of rhythm must have been a sine qua non. This much was traditional wisdom. Morley is almost wholly unforthcoming about voice production and quality and one can only conclude that it wasn't on his radar at all. He does, however, complain that most "churchmen" were interested only in their ability to "crie louder in the quier then their fellowes" and cared nothing for the meaning of the words. They "ought to studie howe to vowell and sing cleane, expressing their wordes with deuotion and passion", but most never attempted to sing any better than the day they joined. This last comment is to be understood in the light of Morley's promotion of the Italianate style of composition. Prior to the 1560s, or perhaps a bit earlier, British music did not attempt to express the meaning of the words. Earlier writers don't add anything to the picture Morley paints and don't conflict with it either. The focus was very much on the ability to read and hold a part reliably and securely. Where, if at all, the tone quality of the notes came into the equation is not at all clear.

The 1570 edition of John Foxe's Actes and Monuments relates a tale, thought to be copied verbatim from an account supplied by John Merbecke, of a musical performance at St George's Chapel, Windsor that occurred some time between 1538 and 1542. A gentleman of Henry VIII's chapel called Robert Philips was visiting - on his own, one assumes. Being "a notable singing man (wherein he gloried)", a long setting of the Marian votive antiphon Lauda vivi Alpha et O was "set up at his coming" (implying the placing of a choirbook on a lectern in the chapel). This setting included lots of "counterverses", i.e. reduced-voice sections such as abound in the Eton repertoire. Towards the end of the piece Philips began to sing one that praised Mary with the words O redemptrix & salvatrix. Unfortunately for him the Windsor choir included the staunch protestant Robert Testwood, who answered on another part by singing nec redemptrix, nec salvatrix. Philips being a catholic, a musical duel ensued between "O" and "nec" as Philips and Testwood tried to outdo each other. The tale makes more sense if there was no prior rehearsal, but, sadly, that remains a moot point. Incidentally, Testwood, who had quite a notable career behind him and was something of a wag, ended up getting burnt at the stake for his views.

[Gabriel Jackson]

My question is if the singers sounded awful, then would the late 15th/early 16th cent jobbing church musicians we hear represented on the CCCOx discs be writing the intricate, soaring stuff they did?

You don't write for a team who simply can't deliver or who mangle what you have written, do you? Well, you might once, but never again. And by and large those composers DID write and quite a lot, as the Eton Choirbook shows, let alone the stuff now lost

Would seem a bit counter -intuitive.

I said quite clearly and specifically that that we might hate the sound they made. That is all.