Choral music and Radio 3's priorities

[Gabriel Jackson]

There was a big imperative, I believe, to compose pieces which, in the heyday choral societies, they would (a) be able to tackle and (b) get their teeth into. They loved...and still do love...their Handel and Mendelssohn works because they are well within their comfort zone. Maybe the Karl Jenkinses of this world see the gap in the market and fill it. It is unfortunately true that from the early 20th century onwards works just became more difficult. Carmina Burana, love it or hate it, is very approachable, likewise VW's Hodie (much less often done). Walton's Belshazzars Feast is do-able, likewise Britten's War Requiem, but the size of orchestra (and you don't want your hard-rehearsed programme mucked up by a group of naff players) becomes prohibitive. Tippett's A Child of Our Time is basically too difficult (apart from the Five Spirituals) and sadly has less audience appeal. I know I've wandered off the topic of secular music, but I wonder if there are any suggestions for a big choral-society type work, written since, say 1950, that would be do-able, enjoyable, and not too expensive to put on? If not, why cannot composers write something in whatever idiom they like, and without compromising their integrity, but with these parameters in mind?

If the purpose of music is merely to be "do-able" (whatever that means), enjoyable (by whom? Don't different people enjoy different things?) and "not too expensive" (which could mean anything) I find that rather depressing. (Incidentally, "A child of our time" is clearly not too difficult for the people who perform it.) Perhaps the reason why so many choirs in other parts of Europe produce the inspiring performances we all seem to agree that they frequently do is because they regard music as something rather more important than finding a "gap in the market" or staying within their comfort zone.

[Richard Barrett]

If the purpose of music is merely to be "do-able" (whatever that means), enjoyable (by whom? Don't different people enjoy different things?) and "not too expensive" (which could mean anything) I find that rather depressing. (...) Perhaps the reason why so many choirs in other parts of Europe produce the inspiring performances we all seem to agree that they frequently do is because they regard music as something rather more important than finding a "gap in the market" or staying within their comfort zone.

Absolutely. And, as previously noted, these observations aren't limited to choirs, or to nonprofessional performers in general.

In answer to ardcarp's question, there will always be composers who work with those parameters in mind, with or without "compromising their integrity", and there will always be those who don't. There seems to me something very cynical about the way people like Jenkins and Rutter and Whitacre go about their work, no doubt partly because I know that if I were to sit down and try to write something like that, it could only be for cynical reasons. and I certainly regard filling a "gap in the market" as a cynical reason to compose music. If that's all it means to a composer, why bother at all?

[ardcarp]

Personally I love to be challenged musically and am always up for anything new and original. Alas in the world of local music-making in remoter parts of the country, funding is a huge problem, and with no support from the state and diminishing support from other organisations, such things as choral societies and amateur orchestras have to get bums on seats. Even the basic cost of music-hire can be a critical factor in deciding whether a particular work can be done or not. It is depressing.

[Vox Humana]

There seems to me something very cynical about the way people like Jenkins and Rutter and Whitacre go about their work, no doubt partly because I know that if I were to sit down and try to write something like that, it could only be for cynical reasons. and I certainly regard filling a "gap in the market" as a cynical reason to compose music. If that's all it means to a composer, why bother at all?

To earn money? To earn public appreciation? I suspect they do it because they enjoy people enjoying their music - which many unquestionably do. I don't think the reason need be cynical. Haydn did it because he had to; Howells didn't, but had to earn his bread and butter by teaching and adjudicating.

[Richard Barrett]

To earn money? To earn public appreciation? I suspect they do it because they enjoy people enjoying their music - which many unquestionably do.

Please don't lecture me about why composers write music. I "suspect" I know a little more about composers and their motivations than you do.

[Vox Humana]

I wasn't lecturing and there's no call to be rude.

[ardcarp]

To earn money? To earn public appreciation? I suspect they do it because they enjoy people enjoying their music - which many unquestionably do. I don't think the reason need be cynical. Haydn did it because he had to; Howells didn't, but had to earn his bread and butter by teaching and adjudicating.

RB. I wonder if you mis-interpreted Vox's post? After his opening rhetorical questions he went on he went on to discourage cynicism and to give the best of motives for composers' creative activities. Let's keep the discussion civilised (as we always do on The Choir )

[rauschwerk]

Personally I love to be challenged musically and am always up for anything new and original. Alas in the world of local music-making in remoter parts of the country, funding is a huge problem, and with no support from the state and diminishing support from other organisations, such things as choral societies and amateur orchestras have to get bums on seats. Even the basic cost of music-hire can be a critical factor in deciding whether a particular work can be done or not. It is depressing.

I agree with every word of this. I can't track down any hard information, but it is my recollection that choirs and orchestras in this area did more ambitious programmes as recently as 40 years ago, when I moved to this area.

[Richard Barrett]

the best of motives for composers' creative activities

I don't consider "making money" and "earning public appreciation" as the best of motives, on a fundamental level. For a creative musician, music is (or probably ought to be) much more important than that - I think this is another side of exactly what Gabriel was talking about with his comments on finding and exploiting gaps in the market, staying within comfort zones, etc. As for keeping things civilised, I did say "please"! - but since I don't normally comment on choral music perhaps there's some etiquette I'm not aware of...

[jean]

I agree with every word of this. I can't track down any hard information, but it is my recollection that choirs and orchestras in this area did more ambitious programmes as recently as 40 years ago, when I moved to this area.

I think the fall-off in sightreading is significant. Even now there's a higher standard overall than in the other European countries I've sung in, but in some groups it's accepted it's something you don't have to aspire to. I don't know why; as I've said earlier in this thread, most people would be ashamed to admit they couldn't read words.

Cynically or not, Karl Jenkins is on record as saying he puts the more difficult stuff in the orchestral parts and keeps the vocal parts very simple. Singers like his music, some of them anyway. Is that only because it's so easy? Audiences evidently like it too, and ease of performance isn't a factor for them.

[Pulcinella]

I agree too, but am lucky enough to belong to an adventurous society that in the past few years has indeed performed many pieces other than the standard war-horses (though we do a few of those too).
Some of the choir members have not been convinced of the worth of all of the pieces, but many came to like them during the rehearsal period, and the performances in general were well received and rewarding for chorus, orchestra, and audience.
Here are a few that spring to mind.

Tippett A child of our time
Szymanowski Stabat mater (Latin, not Polish!)
Finzi Intimations of immortality
Finzi For St Cecilia
Howells Sir Patrick Spens
Rubbra The morning watch
Jonathan Willcocks A great and glorious victory

[french frank]

Singers like his music, some of them anyway. Is that only because it's so easy? Audiences evidently like it too, and ease of performance isn't a factor for them.

Isn't part of the answer that for a lot of people 'enjoyment' is related to relaxation and taking things easy; not a high level of engagement, commitment, hard work, pushing themselves. Many people enjoy listening to Classic FM rather than Radio 3. Compare the 'popularity' of the two.

[Richard Barrett]

Karl Jenkins is on record as saying he puts the more difficult stuff in the orchestral parts and keeps the vocal parts very simple.

That is a pretty standard starting point when you're writing for nonprofessional choirs isn't it?

[rauschwerk]

There seems to me something very cynical about the way people like Jenkins and Rutter and Whitacre go about their work, no doubt partly because I know that if I were to sit down and try to write something like that, it could only be for cynical reasons. and I certainly regard filling a "gap in the market" as a cynical reason to compose music. If that's all it means to a composer, why bother at all?

I'm as much up for a challenge in listening or performing as the next person. However, I really think it is a mistake to label composers who write well-crafted, eclectic, populist music as 'cynical'. I recently accompanied the rehearsals for Rutter's Magnificat and then sang in the gig. This piece is not pap. There are some excellent tunes, and the octatonic fugue (Fecit potentiam) gives singers something to get their teeth into. The whole thing stays this side of the sugary and sentimental (all right, perhaps I do have a sweet tooth). I would have loved the performance to have been accompanied by orchestra, but the lack of funds meant it had to be piano, which did the music a disservice.

I know there are quite a few Rutter-haters on this board, but then we don't represent the generality of singers and audiences, do we? I don't much care for the Tallis Lamentations, but at the same time I recognise the quality of the music when I sing it. (And before anyone leaps in, I am not saying that Rutter is a latter-day Tallis and I feel sure he would not make any such claim for himself.)

[teamsaint]

Isn't part of the answer that for a lot of people 'enjoyment' is related to relaxation and taking things easy; not a high level of engagement, commitment, hard work, pushing themselves. Many people enjoy listening to Classic FM rather than Radio 3. Compare the 'popularity' of the two.

Rauchwerk's comments in his earlier post are appropriate too.
People might, for example, find more than enough challenge, commitment , hard work in their daily work,or in other kinds of musical activity, ( listening, reading, studying,) and perhaps just enjoy musical performance as a relaxation,/social activity.
In fact I know people who see it that way. Seems fair enough, if looked at in a particular way.