CE: Guildford Cathedral Choir Wed, 22nd June 2016

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • light_calibre_baritone

    #16
    Originally posted by ardcarp View Post
    (See #9 !)
    Yep. I still think it's a naff piece of music...

    Comment

    • edashtav
      Full Member
      • Jul 2012
      • 3670

      #17
      Originally posted by light_calibre_baritone View Post
      Yep. I still think it's a naff piece of music...
      Surely "naff" implies incompetent and whilst Naylor's music may not break fresh ground, it's a thoroughly professional piece of work and most enjoyable to sing. Worth an occasional outing, IMHO.

      Comment

      • Miles Coverdale
        Late Member
        • Dec 2010
        • 639

        #18
        I think of naff as meaning unsophisticated, unfashionable, vulgar etc.
        My boxes are positively disintegrating under the sheer weight of ticks. Ed Reardon

        Comment

        • ardcarp
          Late member
          • Nov 2010
          • 11102

          #19
          There are plenty of unsophisticated, unfashionable and yes, even vulgar pieces lurking still in the Anglican church music canon. Some of them we love because of familiarity. The Naylor is actually quite an unusual piece for its time, and trying to look at it dispassionately, quite well-wrought. So I'm not sure it passes the naff test.

          Comment

          • Vox Humana
            Full Member
            • Dec 2012
            • 1250

            #20
            I'm with Ardcarp. I don't regard taste as a good or reliable yardstick. IMO, technical or structural deficiencies that can be identified as the cause of perceived weaknesses in the music are more valid, objective criteria. The Naylor is not my favourite anthem by any means, but I wouldn't call it naff.

            Comment

            Working...
            X