Surely the fact that we didn't specify which choristers it was shows that people can't tell the difference between boys and girls. There is no reason we should have to say whether it is boys or girls, if you look at our music lists, they never say either way, (http://www.yorkminster.org/documents...oads685.pdf)it is all the choir of York Minster, so why specify? Also, if you listen to our recent cd "a year at York", you will see that half of it is boys and men, and half girls and men, and the booklet doesn't list which tracks are which.
-
-
Well, sorry, is there not just a very slight trade descriptions act whiff there, but let that rest.
However, there are matters of simple accuracy and basic common courtesy to the listeners. Congregations know gender because they can see the choristers in front of them. Most choral aficionados actually CAN tell the difference between boys and girls. Mixing them causes off-site listeners problems and, just accept it, some people like to know who / what they are listening to. So tell them. What's the problem?
As said upthread, that in no way detracts from Robert Sharpe's skill and success in making a choir, nor impugns the expertise of those singing in it.Comment
-
Surely it's also a courtesy to the performers to give them an appropriate credit?Comment
-
No, there is not. Whether it is the boys or girls, or a mixture of both, it is still the choir of York Minster. It is not being advertised as being something that it is not.Originally posted by DracoM View Post
Exactly what 'problems' are being caused to off-site listeners?Originally posted by DracoM View Post
The main reason, as far as I can see, for not saying which top line is singing is so that people cannot choose which services to listen or go to on the basis of who is singing, which some very probably would.My boxes are positively disintegrating under the sheer weight of ticks. Ed ReardonComment
-
You're making an issue out of something I tried very hard to word without heavy emphases. I happen to think that some people actually might be irked, and I was merely trying to put the imaginary case of someone who MIGHT have problems / dislikes , but....... really....for goodness' sake, does it matter?Comment
-
?? You brought it up, not me.Originally posted by DracoM View Post
In any case, I imagine it does matter to those places which have two top lines and don't want to give people the opportunity to say 'I'm not going to hear the girls' choir, because only boys should be singing in cathedral choirs' or whatever their particular hobby-horse is. If the listener does have an objection, for whatever reason, to either sort of choir, but they can't tell the difference between boys' and girls' singing, then they're none the wiser. If they can, then they can switch off, can't they.
If someone attends a service in person, wanting only to see/hear one sort of top line, then perhaps they're going for the wrong reason.My boxes are positively disintegrating under the sheer weight of ticks. Ed ReardonComment
-
Hmm.
Some of those cathedrals with excellent boys choirs who sing the majority of the services don't seem to mind stating well in advance when the girls are singing, but perhaps those who can't maintain a decent boy top line, or those who for other reasons want to blur the distinction, wouldn't wish to do this. Understandable.
I'm very happy for girls to take a full part in choral singing, and even to do so at our cathedrals. It's great for all children and nobody would wish to deprive them of the opportunities. And it's true that it's sometimes hard to distinguish very young girls from boys.
But a difference there is, and despite the silliness of that **** in Salisbury, IIRC, who started the "equality" trouble all those years ago, thank heavens that there are still DoMs who don't pander to the modernists and who work so hard to maintain the boys and men tradition.Comment
-
If you are going to give us the benefit of your comments about the posts of other people, Miles, may I suggest that you read them before so doing?
If, in fact, you do read them, but then have problems with comprehension, I'm sure any of us here will be pleased to help.
bws S-S!Comment
-
I must say, Simon, I do so enjoy being patronised by you - it brightens up my day, it really does.My boxes are positively disintegrating under the sheer weight of ticks. Ed ReardonComment
-
Originally posted by Miles Coverdale View Post
Well, I know that you know that I was doing it on purpose with no evil intent!
But you really did deliberately miscontrue my point, didn't you? - so you deserved it.
May I point you towards my recent comments on the Worcester Cathedral thread? They are an elaboration of the point I tried - and clearly failed -
- to make, earlier, on here.
Comment
-
I did not deliberately misconstrue anything, actually. I took your third paragraph to mean that that if only women/girls would stop wanting to be treated as equal to men/boys (and I would here make a distinction between 'same' and 'equal'), then everything would be fine. You seemed to imply that having a girls' choir was merely 'pandering to the modernists', rather than an attempt to offer the same fantastic opportunities to girls that have been available to boys for many, many years.
For what it's worth, I would point out that I have no particular axe to grind for girls' choirs. Where I am fortunate enough to sing, we have no girls' choir, nor are we likely to have one for the foreseeable future, if only because it would place an intolerable burden on the cathedral's finances. I certainly think boys' choirs are worth preserving, but not for any 'traditionalist' reasons. One of the principal reasons for preserving boys' choirs today is that they offer an increasingly rare opportunity for boys with unchanged voices to sing together to a very high standard. It seems to me that girls of that age have more opportunity to sing with their peers than boys do.
You ask elsewhere why, if a cathedral has two top lines, are 'the boys not singing the majority of the services?' as they used to do. Surely the answer is that this is 2011, and if a cathedral does have two top lines, then it must at least try and treat them as equal. The Church has been treating women as second-class citizens for hundreds of years, and can no longer afford to do so, at least not if it wishes to survive in any meaningful form. Your references to 'the silliness of that woman' (at least that's what I took your five asterisks to represent) who started all that 'equality trouble', to enjoying hearing girls' choirs 'from time to time' and various other remarks that sometimes get made on threads of this nature seem to me to smack of barely-concealed misogyny, which I think are quite distasteful, to go no further than that. Please correct me if I'm wrong...My boxes are positively disintegrating under the sheer weight of ticks. Ed ReardonComment
-
Hey you guys. Sorry to but [butt?] in, but this is a bit boring for the rest of us.
Comment
-
Don't read it then?Comment
-
Point taken. BUT the conversation is really a personal spat. Is an old thread about York Minster really the place for it? There is always Private Messaging. And if an informed discussion about boys' v. girls' choirs (I know that's an over-simplification) is needed then why not start a dedicated thread? I agree wholeheartedly with MC's sentiment:
But a series of posts where someone is trying to have the last word over someone else...i.e. a personal spat....then there is more heat than light being generated. Dare I say that this is not in the best tradition of this Forum.I certainly think boys' choirs are worth preserving, but not for any 'traditionalist' reasons. One of the principal reasons for preserving boys' choirs today is that they offer an increasingly rare opportunity for boys with unchanged voices to sing together to a very high standard. It seems to me that girls of that age have more opportunity to sing with their peers than boys do.Comment
Comment