Elgar: The Dream of Gerontius from King's College Cambridge 30.03.18 - 7.30 p.m.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Could a genuine atheist have written either of these life (and death!) affirming works - and others like them. Discuss.

Why would such a composer wish to?

[oddoneout]

Now was it me? Is my 70-year-old hearing letting me down? Is my radio duff? Or was there a very strange balance to the sound? The great climactic choruses were, well, not climactic; indeed the supposedly hushed opening had far more impact than Praise to the Holiest.Nothing scary about the demons. Or am I just too used to be in the middle of this wonderful work having played it many times..

My thoughts exactly re opening, and the demons. I found the balance throughout to be rather unsatisfactory, not impressed with the chorus sops, and it wasn't a performance to hear again as far as I'm concerned. However not bad enough to necessitate switching off by any means, just left me somewhat unmoved.

[MrGongGong]

This morning I played second horn in sections of the Mozart Coronation Mass as part of an Easter Day service. Could a genuine atheist have written either of these life (and death!) affirming works - and others like them. Discuss.

Yes, of course they could.
It's fairly simple to seperate belief from culture IMV

[Historian]

Well I was there and the choral climaxes certainly seemed pretty impressive in the chapel. I have not heard the radio broadcast yet and will be very interested to see how it compares to the live experience. The Philharmonia Chorus are not noted for a lack of power, whatever one might think of the sound they produce.

[french frank]

Why would such a composer wish to?

Money?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Money?

Wouldn't in such an instance the "wish" be for the money, rather than for the writing of the composition?

[DracoM]

[a] KCC is a notoriously difficult place to broadcast from
[b] live and
[c] balance with the chapel empty is one thing but with an audience in...........
[d] with a professional orchestra and big choral forces.
Even if you are a total pro and have done it X times before....
and
[e] D of Geront is a sonically / acoustically very big call + soloists.

[Historian]

That all sounds very true DracoM.

My feeling is that BBC sound in choral works tends to lead to the chorus sounding somewhat recessed (if that is the word). Will try to listen tomorrow and then grace this thread with my massively important opinion!

[oddoneout]

[a] KCC is a notoriously difficult place to broadcast from
[b] live and
[c] balance with the chapel empty is one thing but with an audience in...........
[d] with a professional orchestra and big choral forces.
Even if you are a total pro and have done it X times before. And D of Geront is a sonically / acojustically very big call + soloists.

I understand that but.....I am presumably being naive to think that decades of experience of broadcasting from this and other similar challenging venues coupled with advances in recording technology should be resulting in better results for those listening 'at home'?

I do sometimes wonder if 'they' ever take a few minutes out of prep time to listen to what the domestic audience will hear from the airwaves on largely non-professional kit, as opposed to what is heard through their headphones from the recording deck - or is there no difference? I ask because a few years ago during one of the periodic exchanges in RT about unacceptable balance between 'background music' and commentary on TV documentaries(sound engineers 'we are doing it right it's not our fault vs audience 'we can't hear what they're saying') a techie put forward a suggestion(with reasons) about the difference between what those making the soundtrack would hear when they listen back compared with what the domestic end-users would hear on their TVs during broadcast. Interestingly there was no response; the lack of the usual arrogantly toned rebuttal of criticism led me to think that the explanation was probably correct.

[MrGongGong]

I do sometimes wonder if 'they' ever take a few minutes out of prep time to listen to what the domestic audience will hear from the airwaves on largely non-professional kit, as opposed to what is heard through their headphones from the recording deck - or is there no difference?

Standard practice is to use a pair of these

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/auratone-5c-super-sound-cube

or a "Ghetto blaster" for cross referencing

Very few folks use headphones as primary monitoring

[Nick Armstrong]

My feeling is that BBC sound in choral works tends to lead to the chorus sounding somewhat recessed (if that is the word).

Although with the choir on its own, my feeling in recent years has been that the microphones have been placed mercilessly close, resulting in an unpleasantly raw sound completely different from that experienced in the place itself, even when sitting right next to the choir (until last Christmas Eve when iirc they managed to frame the sound picture much better for the radio broadcast).

Will be interested in your view of the Elgar broadcast vs. your live experience. I attended a Verdi Requiem there recently, sitting well back in the nave, and there was no lack of choral power (but sadly no broadcast to compare).

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Choral works are very difficult to balance for live broadcasts. Ideally, there should be a level set to accommodate the loudest point of the work, and leave the rest to the performers. Unfortunately, radio listeners have become accustomed to artificial balance, with microphones rammed down the throats of soloists and choirs are at the mercy of balance engineers with itchy fingers.

No-one can agree on the ideal level of intervention.