The Choir - Sunday 9th at 4pm

[ardcarp]

Choral Classic: Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli

Live in the studio, Sara Mohr-Pietsch chats with Mark Lee and Eric Cross about the choral music of Mozart. We hear from another of the UK's amateur singing groups, Vocal Chords, in "Meet My Choir", plus Sara explores another great Choral Classic, Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli.


Sigh.

[DracoM]

Now I've heard everything! And it is so briefcasing typical of the dross that this programme has become.

Missa Papae Marcelli / Palestrina: OK? Sublime piece, we hear the Kyrie and THEN, the egregious SM-P says:
There's an interesting story, which is probably untrue, but here it is...'

So a probably UNtrue and thus misleading bit of background context to intro a central part of the repertoire, but hang on - NOT before it starts, but AFTER INTERRUPTING the mass after the Kyrie, because, of course, the poor darlings can't be made to listen to a WHOLE Renaissance mass without chat in between the sections, so that it becomes like Radio 2 'tracks'.

AND THEN, they don't play more than a smidge of the rest of the Mass!! BUT no more than EIGHT minutes allocated to the entire Mass inclduing crap and chat in between. They had the time to play the whole mass.


Give me strength.

I was speechless. And they wonder why a number of us despise what they have done witH the programme.

LET THE MUSIC TELL THE STORY, FGS!

[Gabriel Jackson]

[QUOTE=DracoM;383854 because, of course, the poor darlings can't be made to listen to a WHOLE Renaissance mass without chat in between the sections, so that it becomes like Radio 2 'tracks'.

[/QUOTE]

Nothing was heard between movements of a Renaissance mass in the Renaissance, was it?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Nothing was heard between movements of a Renaissance mass in the Renaissance, was it?

That's hardly the point. Radio 3 listeners are subjected to mountains of utter drivel, not a service.

[Gabriel Jackson]

That's hardly the point. Radio 3 listeners are subjected to mountains of utter drivel, not a service.

Whether or not that's true is neither here nor there. I can't see what possible offence is done to a Renaissance mass by something happening (in this case, talking) between its movements.

[french frank]

I can't see what possible offence is done to a Renaissance mass by something happening (in this case, talking) between its movements.

That does appear to be an indisputable assertion.

I shall have to listen...

[Honoured Guest]

BUT no more than EIGHT minutes allocated to the entire Mass inclduing crap and chat in between.

I hope that gave you sufficient time to wash your hands thoroughly afterwards.

[Vox Humana]

Whether or not that's true is neither here nor there. I can't see what possible offence is done to a Renaissance mass by something happening (in this case, talking) between its movements.

Nevertheless, in the same way that we today may appreciate, say, the whole of a Mozart symphony or piano concerto as an entity in a way not expected of the original audiences, so we may wish to appreciate a Renaissance mass as an entity through uninterrupted listening.

Slightly OT, I have a few CDs where the movements of sixteenth-century masses are set in the context of the plainsong chants for a particular feast day. For me this format doesn't work. A renaissance mass was a complete audio-visual-olfactory experience consisting of music, speech, liturgy, ceremonial and, above all, other people. Once you plonk a performance of a mass on CD you are losing that context and simply surrounding it with plainsong isn't going to restore it. I skip the plainsong tracks on these CDs. Quot homines...

[ardcarp]

Going even more OT, lapsing into personal reminiscence and leaving the Renaissance behind, maybe I could mention a performance of Haydn's Harmoniemesse? The outfit takes 'classical' music of all sorts to rural locations, usually performing in churches. The committee has a policy of not making programmes too 'heavy', and as Harmoniemesse is a very substantial work (without, perhaps, the immediate appeal of The Nelson) it was decided to have readings from Hardy's Under the Greenwood Tree at three points during the piece (after the Gloria, the Credo and the Benedictus). As these readings involved the humorous aspects of playing instruments in church, and as they were delivered by a consummate pro, they went down very well with most people....though not all, it has to be said.

Although my job is waving the stick and not making decisions, I must say I was less than keen on a recent proposal to interrupt the movements of Beethoven's Eroica. We didn't, and one could tell the audience (including some youngsters) was completely hooked in for the full 50 minutes. (We chopped the exposition repeat...gasp.)

My point is, I think, that we should not underestimate the capacity of any audience to appreciate good music, and maybe shouldn't worry about their attention span. I don't want to be categorical about performing Renaissance masses in their entirety, and I like the occasional CD that tries to put them in their liturgical setting. This is miles away from inane tropes of The Choir though.

[Despina dello Stagno]

Nothing was heard between movements of a Renaissance mass in the Renaissance, was it?

Yes. It was a utilitarian part of the liturgy. But how much other business went on is unquantifiable. There are however hints from various sources that a fair amount of hubbub existed. Burney's account of Allegri's "Miserere" (can't quote verbatim from memory) implies that the atmosphere was tourist-like: Mediterranean countries had several papal bulls banning smoking and snuff-taking during the liturgy, England had animals taken to church to be blessed during the service (and Georgian churchwardens were issued with special sticks to break up dog-fights). Naves were chairless )promoting free movement and social intercourse or box-pewed (with high sides, screening activity and promoting social intercourse). Catholic side chapels were used at any time during a mass after the gospel. All of this hints that the situation during a mass was rather like that that obtains today in a popular tourist destination where the liturgy co-exists with a none too reverent transitory audience. Or that pertaining at a contemporary playhouse: The works of e,g, Shakespeare would not have been received in reverent silence.

It is ironic that Palestrina (or Praenestini as his contemporaries usually referred to him) was that man to provoke a demand to be heard more respectfully. Some claim that diktats from the Council of Trent were directed specifically at him: he certainly built his career on writing deliberately smooth and even, easy stepise (one can't quite say bland) music which would not detract from the language of the liturgy. He was attempting to provide utilitarian Muzak (the praying man's James Last).

[jean]

I haven't heard the programme (yet) but I think I'd object not so much to what was between the movements as to the fact that so few of those movements were heard.

(I used to love those reconstructed masses for particular liturgical occasions that Radio 3 did so many years ago.)