Chapel of King's College, Cambridge [L] R4 3 p.m. 24.xii.2018

[Quilisma]

For the record, in case of doubt, I was simply responding to the indignant clamour from some quarters proclaiming "SC must be given a knighthood immediately, and the fact that he has not yet been given one is because most people are blatantly prejudiced against King's and have a massive chip on their shoulder and are utterly ungracious..." (collated paraphrase). Personally I'm not one for putting a lot of store by the honours system, especially when it becomes a tool of coercion and placating the manifestly dishonourable. But that's another issue.

Don't forget also that in the aforementioned Facebook group, when Dan Hyde's appointment was announced, there were a good few people who were expressing genuine outrage and disgust that SC might even be permitted to retire (!), saying that it was a complete betrayal and the idea that anything about King's should ever be allowed to change in any way at all was just an affront and the wilful destruction of something utterly sacrosanct. They pounced on an interview with Dan Hyde as evidence that he was going to destroy all of SC's work, deliberately, by bringing in all sorts of new-fangled, alien and totally unwelcome ideas and innovations. I thought this just about summed up the mentality of these people. Dan Hyde was, of course, one of SC's most eminent and highly respected organ scholars at King's, and has a very intimate understanding indeed of what works and what does not work there, and subsequently he has had a great deal of success in training the choirs at Jesus Cambridge, Magdalen Oxford and St Thomas Fifth Avenue. But in the eyes of a certain hard core the fact that he is not SC is enough to condemn him. I think that is appalling, not least because SC has had an extremely impressive tenure of 37 years and is now a sick man and needs and deserves to retire and hand over to his excellent successor and be celebrated for what he has done over the decades. King's is a living tradition, and its most die-hard supporters need to let it continue to thrive.

Personally I couldn't care less about whether or not X, Y or Z choir gets a lot of exposure in the media. I'd be loath to see the annual King's broadcasts reduced, because they mean so much to so many people, although the blanket fawning coverage of King's in magazines and newspapers, always accompanied by interminable arguments about choristers between hard-line lobbies who oppose each other on principle, is at least potentially a bit of an irritant for those of us who are actually in the business, as is seems to happen every single year, just at the time when we are most busy and most stressed. None of us are in the business for exposure or accolades. But at the same time it does grate when the general public only ever gets to hear a tiny handful of choirs on anything like a regular basis, and one choir in particular, and then assumes that these choirs, and that one choir in particular, are the only ones which are any good and the only ones which deserve to exist. It doesn't really matter, as those who really care about these things find ways of informing themselves about "other" choirs. (Long live BBC Radio 3 Choral Evensong broadcasts, and this forum!) But the automatic assumption of excellence based on a shared quality (for example, being an Oxbridge college choir) has an opposite, the automatic assumption of mediocrity based on the lack of a shared quality (for example, NOT being an Oxbridge college choir or one of the few cathedral or equivalent choirs which are widely known to be excellent). This is much more of a problem than a lot of people realise. It's only half nice when people hear your choir and say "oh, that was actually decent, I thought you were supposed to be terrible"...

[mopsus]

Don't forget also that in the aforementioned Facebook group, when Dan Hyde's appointment was announced, there were a good few people who were expressing genuine outrage and disgust that SC might even be permitted to retire (!), saying that it was a complete betrayal and the idea that anything about King's should ever be allowed to change in any way at all was just an affront and the wilful destruction of something utterly sacrosanct. They pounced on an interview with Dan Hyde as evidence that he was going to destroy all of SC's work, deliberately, by bringing in all sorts of new-fangled, alien and totally unwelcome ideas and innovations.

They may have said that over on Facebook - I don't recall such views being expressed in those terms on this board. Indeed, some here have said they are looking forward to a change of direction.

But the automatic assumption of excellence based on a shared quality (for example, being an Oxbridge college choir) has an opposite, the automatic assumption of mediocrity based on the lack of a shared quality (for example, NOT being an Oxbridge college choir or one of the few cathedral or equivalent choirs which are widely known to be excellent). This is much more of a problem than a lot of people realise. It's only half nice when people hear your choir and say "oh, that was actually decent, I thought you were supposed to be terrible"...

I wonder who these people are? Are they local to you? Are they interested enough in Cathedral choirs to buy recordings or listen to broadcasts? My impression is that most people who have any interest in such matters take pride in their local Cathedral choir, whatever its standard. I think there may be an assumption in some quarters that if a Cathedral choir does not appear on the R3 evensong broadcast slot for a while, then it isn't much good. I notice that recently there have been a number of new non-Cathedral choirs appearing in that slot such as the one from Croydon Minster and some from schools, which were impressive and more than merited a broadcast. But as a result some Cathedrals are getting less frequent opportunities to broadcast evensongs, which could make some think that they aren't good enough to do so.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I don't see any one knocking Kings out of their traditional Christmas Eve radio broadcast slot but it would be good if the pre-recorded Carols from King's on TV were from time offered to other choirs ( with a title change ) if only to show how rich our choral tradition is. On that note has any one read this? - a book that seeks to explain King's "pre-eminence"
I'm quoting the amazon blurb below .( I've only seen one review in the Times .) The Times review goes further than the blurb and summarises the author's argument as being that the pure sound of the choir is partly the product of Ord and Willcocks' psychological predispositions :

"The sound of the choir of King's College, Cambridge - its voices perfectly blended, its emotions restrained, its impact sublime - has become famous all over the world, and for many, the distillation of a particular kind of Englishness. This is especially so at Christmas time, with the broadcast of the Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols, whose centenary is celebrated this year. How did this small band of men and boys in a famous fenland town in England come to sing in the extraordinary way they did in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries?

It has been widely assumed that the King's style essentially continues an English choral tradition inherited directly from the Middle Ages. In this original and illuminating book, Timothy Day shows that this could hardly be further from the truth. Until the 1930s, the singing at King's was full of high Victorian emotionalism, like that at many other English choral foundations well into the twentieth century.

The choir's modern sound was brought about by two intertwined revolutions, one social and one musical. From 1928, singing with the trebles in place of the old lay clerks, the choir was fully made up of choral scholars - college men, reading for a degree. Under two exceptional directors of music - Boris Ord from 1929 and David Willcocks from 1958 - the style was transformed and the choir broadcast and recorded until it became the epitome of English choral singing, setting the benchmark for all other choral foundations either to imitate or to react against. Its style has now been taken over and adapted by classical performers who sing both sacred and secular music in secular settings all over the world with a precision inspired by the King's tradition.

'I Saw Eternity the Other Night 'investigates the timbres of voices, the enunciation of words, the use of vibrato. But the singing of all human beings, in whatever style, always reflects in profound and subtle ways their preoccupations and attitudes to life. These are the underlying themes explored by this book."

[Quilisma]

They may have said that over on Facebook - I don't recall such views being expressed in those terms on this board. Indeed, some here have said they are looking forward to a change of direction.

Oh I know, these boards are a lot less insane than they used to be, and the proportion of reasonable people seems far higher. The "Choral Evensong Appreciation Society" group on Facebook does attract some weird and very outspoken types from time to time, and things can get distinctly heated when people get unreasonable. The odd thing is that it's here that we write under pseudonyms whereas over there everything is under one's actual name (or the name of one's profile, at least)… Suffice to say, none of the extreme comments I mentioned have been made by known figures within choral music! This all begs the question of why certain people are drawn to making such statements. It's not big or clever... Maybe it's just a form of trolling?

I wonder who these people are? Are they local to you? Are they interested enough in Cathedral choirs to buy recordings or listen to broadcasts? My impression is that most people who have any interest in such matters take pride in their local Cathedral choir, whatever its standard. I think there may be an assumption in some quarters that if a Cathedral choir does not appear on the R3 evensong broadcast slot for a while, then it isn't much good. I notice that recently there have been a number of new non-Cathedral choirs appearing in that slot such as the one from Croydon Minster and some from schools, which were impressive and more than merited a broadcast. But as a result some Cathedrals are getting less frequent opportunities to broadcast evensongs, which could make some think that they aren't good enough to do so.

Yes, that could be something to do with it. Well, I've been either heavily or peripherally involved in the Cambridge music scene for at least twenty-two years, so I've met a wide cross-section of people over that time. It strikes me that most of those who actually make music themselves at a high level there are MUCH less prone to making judgemental assumptions about things than are some of those who would like to be thought of as well-informed and discerning music-lovers but don't necessarily make music (at least at a high level) themselves. This part of the country is somewhat unusual in that Cambridge is (rightly) considered a centre of music and culture of international, arguably global importance, and therefore acts as an inexorable cultural magnet for the whole local area, but because there is so much going on in Cambridge itself there can be very little awareness that anything of any note at all might possibly be going on elsewhere in the area as well. So yes, I would say that in most parts of the country people who are interested in choirs take an interest in their local cathedral choir, but in this area many of them barely notice that it exists because it happens not to be in Cambridge, where so many of the fantastic choirs are. In any case, when I got my job I remember a couple of people saying they couldn't imagine why I would want to sing there, and it turned out that they had never thought to investigate it. Then there is the old paradox: people will say that it should be easier for the general public to hear samples of Choir X's singing, and then when a lot of it is available they will say "ah, but Choir X should be a lot more selective about what they put out there, because lots of it just gives a bad impression"... You can never please everybody, especially if they are used to the extreme yet somewhat contrived perfection of those select few choirs who have the luxury of being able to rehearse everything to a point where they can perform most things from memory as a matter of principle.

[mopsus]

in this area many of them barely notice that it exists because it happens not to be in Cambridge

Something rather similar applies here in Bath with regard to Wells Cathedral and Bath Abbey (unless the Tallis Scholars or the Sixteen are performing in Wells and not in Bath on the same tour). Admittedly, Wells is awkward to get to from Bath too, despite its nearness. Bathonians who go to choral performances often have one choir they support; it's very hard to persuade them to go and hear another, and almost impossible to get them to go to a concert in, say, Bristol. In that kind of scenario a choir's reputation relative to others will rely largely on word of mouth, because not that many people will be able to make a direct comparison!

Cambridge is in addition very isolated in its immediate area - you have to go a long way to find anywhere as large and the areas north and east at least are thinly populated. The University also dominates more than in Oxford. Ely used to be tiny in comparison and while it has expanded a lot since the 1980s, Cambridge people still, as you say, find it easy to overlook.

[Nevilevelis]

It's only half nice when people hear your choir and say "oh, that was actually decent, I thought you were supposed to be terrible"...

Has someone actually said that?!

[ardcarp]

I don't see any one knocking Kings out of their traditional Christmas Eve radio broadcast slot but it would be good if the pre-recorded Carols from King's on TV were from time offered to other choirs ( with a title change ) if only to show how rich our choral tradition is. On that note has any one read this? - a book that seeks to explain King's "pre-eminence"
I'm quoting the amazon blurb below .( I've only seen one review in the Times .) The Times review goes further than the blurb and summarises the author's argument as being that the pure sound of the choir is partly the product of Ord and Willcocks' psychological predispositions :

"The sound of the choir of King's College, Cambridge - its voices perfectly blended, its emotions restrained, its impact sublime - has become famous all over the world, and for many, the distillation of a particular kind of Englishness. This is especially so at Christmas time, with the broadcast of the Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols, whose centenary is celebrated this year. How did this small band of men and boys in a famous fenland town in England come to sing in the extraordinary way they did in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries?

It has been widely assumed that the King's style essentially continues an English choral tradition inherited directly from the Middle Ages. In this original and illuminating book, Timothy Day shows that this could hardly be further from the truth. Until the 1930s, the singing at King's was full of high Victorian emotionalism, like that at many other English choral foundations well into the twentieth century.

The choir's modern sound was brought about by two intertwined revolutions, one social and one musical. From 1928, singing with the trebles in place of the old lay clerks, the choir was fully made up of choral scholars - college men, reading for a degree. Under two exceptional directors of music - Boris Ord from 1929 and David Willcocks from 1958 - the style was transformed and the choir broadcast and recorded until it became the epitome of English choral singing, setting the benchmark for all other choral foundations either to imitate or to react against. Its style has now been taken over and adapted by classical performers who sing both sacred and secular music in secular settings all over the world with a precision inspired by the King's tradition.

'I Saw Eternity the Other Night 'investigates the timbres of voices, the enunciation of words, the use of vibrato. But the singing of all human beings, in whatever style, always reflects in profound and subtle ways their preoccupations and attitudes to life. These are the underlying themes explored by this book."

The subject matter of two threads has become a bit intertwined. If you refer back to this:

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?19691-Music-Matters-Christmas-in-the-Fens-22-xii-2018

You'll see that Quilisma (post #1), I (post #7) and others have touched on similar issues.

[Nevilevelis]

But as a result some Cathedrals are getting less frequent opportunities to broadcast evensongs, which could make some think that they aren't good enough to do so.

Diverging momentarily - when did Rochester last have a broadcast? I was there recently that they had one on local radio.

[Vox Humana]

when did Rochester last have a broadcast?

2009, I think.

[Nevilevelis]

2009, I think.

Thanks.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Thanks for the steer on the Eternal light book . I had searched thinking would it have come up somewhere but clearly I was not specific enough. There was an R3 CE from Rochester in early 2017 . If memory serves several in the forum commented on how it good it was ..,

[mopsus]

22 February 2017: http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...-22nd-Feb-2017

and before that 21 October 2015: http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...-21st-Oct-2015

[Nevilevelis]

There was an R3 CE from Rochester in early 2017 . If memory serves several in the forum commented on how it good it was ..,

[Vox Humana]

February 2017 was their last broadcast CE.

OK, thanks. I have obviously missed the more recent ones.

[jonfan]

Rejoice! We are blessed with cathedral, school and collegiate choirs that have never been better as witnessed weekly on these boards. Standards are rising all the time with dedicated DOMs who are skilful in getting the best from their choirs.
Chris Evans said “As Sir Terry said before me, there’s never a right time to leave something you love but there might be a wrong time if you hang on too long." Hard one for Stephen Cleobury perhaps? Willcocks, Ledger and Rattle all got it right.