CE St John’s College, Cambridge 30th April 2014

[mopsus]

I put a link to this in the discussion of last year's Last Night of the Proms, but it's apt to post it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqUpMvMEBRw

Don't think much else in the Anglican repertoire would benefit from this sort of treatment!

[Gabriel Jackson]

I'll try, Gabriel, but I may need to break off & return later as I'm still checking my facts for a lecture that I'm delivering this afternoon.

The critical issue for me is lack of knowledge of English Cathedral acoustics by Bernstein. He was more accustomed to Concert Halls and Theatres with their shorter reverberation periods and their relative "immediacy" of sound. Large church soundscapes and cathedral acoustics are very different: prone to their own idiosyncratic personalities that can muddy and confuse the musical threads. Refracted and reflected corruptions of percussion sounds can reduce their contributions to the level of "and the rest is noise"; the tinkling textures of a harp may be magnified in certain registers into mighty pings, and in others miniaturised to the point of annihilation. Both these effects marred this broadcast of Chichester Psalms for me: I felt that the men of the choir sang too forcefully in reaction to being savaged by splintered percussion and the harp acompaniment to the alto solo occluded the voice, at times but at other moments it virtually disappeared. The chamber version that reduces the instrumental resources to percussion, harp and organ fails to provide a consistently happy and balanced foil for a "small" college or cathedral choir. I wonder whether LB ever heard it in situ and that, if he did so, did he then send a list of revisions to his publisher? I fear not!

There is another dimension - more personal, perhaps to me, one of "taste". DracoM, I think, referred to the "schmaltzy" aspects of some of Bernstein's lyrical moments. The sentimental was part and parcel of Bernstein's musical being - coming through often in his interpretations of Mahler, or , in one of my most queasy musical experiences, in his saccharine and treacle interpretation of Elgar's "Nimrod" in a BBC TV performance. Such music-making sounds, to me, irreverent in a church.
addtition:
I see that ralph iii wrote earlier: I think percussion/harp/organ reduction is a bit naff. Would rather do it with massive choir and orchestra in concert hall or not at all.

Succinct, to the point and, I fear, correct!

Dear oh dear! I'd hate to sit through one of your lectures if they are anything like this. What a load of rubbish! So what was originally decried as a lack of knowledge of "Christian church music" has mutated into a "lack of knowlege of English cathedral acoustics". Two rather different things. And what actual evidence is there for either assertion?To suggest Bernstein didn't know what a harp can sound like in a resonant acoustic is preposterous. Your distaste for Bernstein's interpretive stance in Mahler and Elgar is hardly grounds for accusing him of incompetence in the composition of sacred music.

Succint, to the point, and correct? More like ill-thought out, patronising, and wrong.

[edashtav]

Have you been to Chichester Cathedral?!?!

Only once as a choirboy, and I was left with the impression that it wasn't a "proper" cathedral . My experience until that moment had been filled only with Winchester, Salisbury, St Paul's and that pseudo -cathedral Westminster Abbey.

What are you telling my l_c_b?

[Vox Humana]

Large church soundscapes and cathedral acoustics are very different: prone to their own idiosyncratic personalities that can muddy and confuse the musical threads. Refracted and reflected corruptions of percussion sounds can reduce their contributions to the level of "and the rest is noise"; the tinkling textures of a harp may be magnified in certain registers into mighty pings, and in others miniaturised to the point of annihilation.

Oh dear, clearly I was mistaken in imagining that the performance I heard at Gloucester was magnificent. Mea culpa.

[edashtav]

I put a link to this in the discussion of last year's Last Night of the Proms, but it's apt to post it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqUpMvMEBRw

Don't think much else in the Anglican repertoire would benefit from this sort of treatment!

OMG! Well, the voluntary was in need of "treatment"!

[chitreb]

Only once as a choirboy, and I was left with the impression that it wasn't a "proper" cathedral . My experience until that moment had been filled only with Winchester, Salisbury, St Paul's and that pseudo -cathedral Westminster Abbey.

What are you telling my l_c_b?

Not proper? Some of us would beg to differ!

[french frank]

Succint, to the point, and correct? More like ill-thought out, patronising, and wrong.

Was that also referring to ralph iii's comment? It was rather short comment to be 'ill-thought-out' and was clearly an expression of opinion, so could hardly be 'wrong' (or indeed 'patronising').

Well, two different opinions on the main points, then.

[light_calibre_baritone]

Not proper? Some of us would beg to differ!

Yeah, that's a bit offensive edashtav. It's not the size that matters.......

And I asked you if you'd been there because Chichester has a small but warm acoustic with some bloom; a little closer to a concert hall maybe... and it was written for the building!

Though the first performance didn't actually take place in the cathedral; but I'm sure you know that.

[Gabriel Jackson]

Was that also referring to ralph iii's comment? It was rather short comment to be 'ill-thought-out' and was clearly an expression of opinion, so could hardly be 'wrong' (or indeed 'patronising').

Well, two different opinions on the main points, then.

No it wasn't

[Gabriel Jackson]

Very much depends on whether by the time they are 18 or whatever, those lasses are required to retain or affect a timbre and voice production that is usually associated with boys singing i.e. minimal vibrato, pace EH at NCO.

Right, so a treble is a) a boy or b) a girl that aspires to sound like a boy (but not if the boy she aspires to sound like is at New College)? Thanks for clearing that up.

[DracoM]

I think you will find the words 'required' and 'affect' in my posting, not 'aspire'. Significant difference. I think.

[jean]

What you actually wrote is even more presumptuous and patronising than Gabriel's version of it, implying as it does that no girl would sing without vibrato of her own volition - that it is not something that could come naturally to her.

As you are not a girl, and as far as I know never have been, you cannot possibly know this.


.

[DracoM]

NO, it doesn't say or imply that AT ALL. That is your take on it for whatever reason.

It would seem pretty obvious to anyone that some DoMs like their boy/girl choristers to sing in that vibrato-less way for all manner of reasons. Some don't. Quot homines?

BUT, jean, you only have to hear almost any boy/ girl, eg the same girls / boys in that Worcester clip, and no matter whatever other training or lack of it they have, singing in 'pop' / 'rock' style to know that they can and do summon and erase vibrato at will, depending on whom they are imitating. My posting simply means that some DoMs require / train singers in one style and some require / train in another.

Almost every major choir of young people we ever hear has a particular sound and an identity that the DOM / choir actively work at. This isn't rocket science. The participants are either required to or find themselves slipping into singing with the prevailing timbre of that choir. And voice training of both boys and girls has been going on for however long boys and girls have been singing together. BUT once away from their 'trained' environment, both boys and girls often sing in very different ways.

Generally speaking, it seems to me that in UK most cathedral choirs that I have heard seem to favour vibrato-less or nearly top lines, whether that top line is made up of boys or girls or both. When 'off-duty' those very same boys and girls can summon all manner of other timbres and styles, but which do not feed back into their cathedral singing because they are not required or trained so to do. I've heard them doing so DAILY.

[Gabriel Jackson]

Was that also referring to ralph iii's comment? It was rather short comment to be 'ill-thought-out' and was clearly an expression of opinion, so could hardly be 'wrong' (or indeed 'patronising').

Well, two different opinions on the main points, then.

"Ill-thought, patronising, and wrong" referred to the absurd, condescending explanation of Bernstein's presumed incompetence.

[french frank]

"Ill-thought, patronising, and wrong" referred to the absurd, condescending explanation of Bernstein's presumed incompetence.

I see, but you quoted the same words which I understood edashtav used to refer to ralph iii's comment. If instead you'd quoted the words which you thought merited your disapproval, you would have made it clearer whom you were putting down.