Whence this sudden - and misplaced - touchiness on behalf of cathedral singers? For the most part, those who post comments in this forum re CE are prostrate in admiration at the standards achieved day by day: we burst with pride at our wealth of superb liturgical choirs. And those posters will be precisely the ones who care most about the tradition, and therefore will know something about its fragile nature, and the precarious schedules on which it is based; any rare criticism is rueful or marginal. As for the suggestion that we might forget it is a live broadcast -- well, we listen and thrill *because* it is live. The choirs are almost universally wonderful, given their local resources, and a priceless national treasure. Yet on the day when some voice comes crashing in a bar early or a semitone sharp, I bet there will be on this board only diplomatic silence or wry commiseration - of condemnation among regulars there will be none. We do know which side our bread is buttered, and are grateful for so much jam. The fact that 'mistakes' are so rare tells its own story, and we gobble that up too.
But the music and its composers are different - it is not composed live on air. If a composer writes liturgical music, his first duty (even if an atheist) is AMDG, and his second duty is to uplift the congregation. Our best living composers in the field (James Macmillan, Jonathan Dove, Philip Moore, Gabriel Jackson, Bob Chilcott, Grayston Ives, and more ad lib) do not require a "second hearing" to make the required impact. Others (Jonathan Harvey, Francis Grier, etc) may be more challenging, but they engage at once and leave no doubt that a meaningful message has been delivered. But the Jackson Hill sounded dull (despite, as I said originally, the choir's obvious efforts to rescue it). If a discussion board is to have meaning, it must be permissible to say "it sounded dull" if it sounded dull. I shall listen again, as I always do, and maybe a third time, and perhaps I shall come to love it, but the fact remains that that anthem had no instantaneous appeal. I do not understand why it is wrong to declare that, especially as the declaration might reflect as much on me as on the composer.
As for the Three Choirs service over all - well, I thought my original post, while admitting one negative, sought out the many positives for all the parties involved.
But the music and its composers are different - it is not composed live on air. If a composer writes liturgical music, his first duty (even if an atheist) is AMDG, and his second duty is to uplift the congregation. Our best living composers in the field (James Macmillan, Jonathan Dove, Philip Moore, Gabriel Jackson, Bob Chilcott, Grayston Ives, and more ad lib) do not require a "second hearing" to make the required impact. Others (Jonathan Harvey, Francis Grier, etc) may be more challenging, but they engage at once and leave no doubt that a meaningful message has been delivered. But the Jackson Hill sounded dull (despite, as I said originally, the choir's obvious efforts to rescue it). If a discussion board is to have meaning, it must be permissible to say "it sounded dull" if it sounded dull. I shall listen again, as I always do, and maybe a third time, and perhaps I shall come to love it, but the fact remains that that anthem had no instantaneous appeal. I do not understand why it is wrong to declare that, especially as the declaration might reflect as much on me as on the composer.
As for the Three Choirs service over all - well, I thought my original post, while admitting one negative, sought out the many positives for all the parties involved.
Comment