Wedding music

[Oldcrofter]

Still trundling out the same old easy target Aunt Sallys, I see - Elton John, Classic FM, John Rutter, Russel Watson, the Daily Mail etc. etc. - what miserable old codgers you are. And you blame these for being hackneyed, predictable and bland ?

I'll take one example - Mr Rutter. He writes music that non-expert, non-professional musicians and choristers can enjoy, that local amateur choirs and choral societies can sing effectively and with pleasure. He has contributed enormously to and extended the range of Christmas music and is sung with pleasure by young and old(er) in a host of countries around the globe. His longer works are within the scope of local choral societies and accompanying orchestras.

Yes, it is popular music in both senses - well-liked and of the (ordinary) people. No, of course it's not all equally good. No, we should not suspend critical judgement but why can't the musical establishment extend to him just a little generosity of spirit instead of these perpetual Pavlovian knee-jerk reactions ?

"Oh, it's that awful Rutter again - how simply dreadful ! Must write to the message -board."

[Nick Armstrong]

Still trundling out the same old easy target Aunt Sallys, I see - Elton John, Classic FM, John Rutter, Russel Watson, the Daily Mail etc. etc. - what miserable old codgers you are. And you blame these for being hackneyed, predictable and bland ?

I'll take one example - Mr Rutter. He writes music that non-expert, non-professional musicians and choristers can enjoy, that local amateur choirs and choral societies can sing effectively and with pleasure. He has contributed enormously to and extended the range of Christmas music and is sung with pleasure by young and old(er) in a host of countries around the globe. His longer works are within the scope of local choral societies and accompanying orchestras.

Yes, it is popular music in both senses - well-liked and of the (ordinary) people. No, of course it's not all equally good. No, we should not suspend critical judgement but why can't the musical establishment extend to him just a little generosity of spirit instead of these perpetual Pavlovian knee-jerk reactions ?

"Oh, it's that awful Rutter again - how simply dreadful ! Must write to the message -board."

Hey! Less of the "old" !!!

[MrGongGong]

Shouldn't it be Sallies ?

[Oldcrofter]

Oh, Caliban - calm down, my dear old thing !

[Oldcrofter]

And yes, I'm sure you're right MrGG as in "Frequently, my aunt sallies forth to take issue with Rutterphobes."

[muticus]

Dearest 'Old' crofter it would do well to actually read what is posted, - whilst taking a pop (admittedly) at Elton, I was defending Rutter - without justification as it happened, but I meant well.
Russell takes two l's btw. If you wish to fulminate (and I bless you for it) at least do so with precision.

love and hugs XX

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Shouldn't it be Sallies ?

Not in this instance. The plurals of proper names have unchanged endings, other than the addition of the "s".

[Oldcrofter]

My selection of targets was a generalistaion - no personal criticism intended.

I grovel in abject humility at mis-spelling Russell. I will fulminate no more. Have to be up betimes tomorrow - sing in May Day. See Platform 3

[JimD]

Still trundling out the same old easy target Aunt Sallys, I see...
I'll take one example - Mr Rutter. He writes music that non-expert, non-professional musicians and choristers can enjoy, that local amateur choirs and choral societies can sing effectively and with pleasure.

I am about as far from having professional experience or expertise in music as it is possible to get. Despite this I find the Rutter piece entirely tedious and uninspiring: am I not entitled to say so?

[Nick Armstrong]

I am about as far from having professional experience or expertise in music as it is possible to get. Despite this I find the Rutter piece entirely tedious and uninspiring: am I not entitled to say so?

Apparently not, Jim - or rather, if you do, you instantly turn into a little caricature in Oldcrofter's black and white book of miserable old gits

[muticus]

Actually (and apparently turning myself inside out) I thought it a very poor example of the breed too. Well done the Welshman though!

[Durham]

There is a report in the Daily Mail today which says that all the choristers will be paid £7,500 including the boys. Can this be true? It also says instead of their usual £85 fee which indicates that it is more than likely the men only.

No doubt the same applies to the other musicians involved.

I know they are professional singers and that TV broadcasting and other recording rights are involved but to me this seems obscene considering that this was essentially a religious service and not a commercial concert, although DVDs will be made and sold no doubt. But even then it will be the wedding that is the main reason for it being bought.

I don't know whether the music before the service which we didn't hear on TV will be heard on such a record but even so this is an extraordinarily large figure for what was involved.

I am not having a go at anyone and should like to think that they would have performed solely for the honour of doing so and would hope that perhaps after keeping say £1,000 the rest would be donated to the Royal Wedding Charities.

VCC

If this is indeed an accurate figure then it can hardly be considered even remotely high. The choir of Westminster Abbey is one of the foremost professional ensembles in this country, and indeed the world. The number of foreign dignitaries who could offer a choir of similar calibre in their own country you could count on the fingers of one hand. Further British church musicians are amongst the highest professionally trained and qualified of their colleagues around the world and the royal patronage of both the Royal College of Organists and the Royal School of Church Music, alongside music colleges further attests to this. As such, in an era when readers of the Daily Mail are easily lured into a quick feeding frenzy it is reassuring that the Royal Household acknowledges the professional standing of the nation's (typically woefully paid) musicians and compensates them appropriately with, it might be added, their own private funds.

[Anna]

If this is indeed an accurate figure then it can hardly be considered even remotely high. The choir of Westminster Abbey is one of the foremost professional ensembles in this country, and indeed the world.

Actually, I would say nobody does it better than Westminster Cathedral, they knock the socks off The Abbey (in my opinion plus that thundering organ) but yes, agree, British Church choristers are the best so, if they get a tidy sum for performing, good for them.

[Magnificat]

The figure was in fact quoted in other papers as well.

The point I was really making was that this was a religious service not a concert.

Although the lay clerks are professional musicians and are no doubt entitled to receive royalties calculated under Equity rules I think they should be very uncomfortable about whether this is really appropriate remuneration in the circumstances considering they are evidently normally paid ( according to reports ) £85 per service.

As the Bishop of London said in his excellent sermon this was at heart a wedding service like any other.

Also, does anyone really think that £7,500 each is proportionate reward for singing three hymns, three anthems and an Amen. None of which was very demanding and certainly would not have taken days of rehearsal/ session time as would a commercial recording.

As I said above most of it should be donated to Royal Wedding charities.

I feel very strongly about this

VCC

[Durham]

Could 'Magnificat' also inform us of the members of other professions who are encouraged to contribute their fees to charity. With every respect, this view is demeaning and philistine.