Asking for the Choral Moon

[Chris Newman]

In the aviation world "Drome" has two definitions (1) a field as in "aerodrome (2) a shed or hangar. I suspect that amongst singers with aviation backgrounds No (2) is implied.

[DracoM]

But, Chris, as far as that goes, it seems to be quot homines tot sententiae - everyone I have asked gives either your explanation or literally a dozen others - including the Drome PR office who seem to be as puzzled.

[yorks_bass]

But, Chris, as far as that goes, it seems to be quot homines tot sententiae - everyone I have asked gives either your explanation or literally a dozen others - including the Drome PR office who seem to be as puzzled.

It was explained to me as being short for Westminster Hippodrome - just one of the many venues at which jobbing singers would ply their trade in whichever show was on. So no surprise in that case if other departments there weren't really aware of it. Equally shed or hanger (or barn, etc.) could be close enough. I guess we'll never know.

[muticus]

Originally a hippodrome (ἱππόδρομος) was a Greek stadium for horse racing and chariot racing (the original was at Constantinople I believe) derived from hippos (ἵππος; horse) and dromos (δρόμος; race). That opens up the delightful thought that maybe someone at some point considered that the gentlemen in the back row were either making a noise like a race-track crowd, or better still whinnying like a load of broken-winded old nags..... Surely not?

[decantor]

Originally a hippodrome (ἱππόδρομος) was a Greek stadium for horse racing and chariot racing (the original was at Constantinople I believe) derived from hippos (ἵππος; horse) and dromos (δρόμος; race). That opens up the delightful thought that maybe someone at some point considered that the gentlemen in the back row were either making a noise like a race-track crowd, or better still whinnying like a load of broken-winded old nags..... Surely not?

Unkind thoughts, o mutice! One might add that the eastern Byzantine hippodromos corresponded to the western Roman circus, but it would be too unkind to pursue that line of thought.

(Do you have special software for those Greek characters, complete with breathings and paroxytones? Very neat!)

[muticus]

My dear Decantor - We couldn't even begin to go down that route - ha!
Regarding Greek - I use a nice case put together for me by a friend of mine - for NT material really, but handy for the odd Classical reference - I would be delighted to forward the file to you should you have a use for it.

[decantor]

Regarding Greek - I use a nice case put together for me by a friend of mine - for NT material really, but handy for the odd Classical reference - I would be delighted to forward the file to you should you have a use for it.

A very noble offer! A dozen years ago, I would have killed for such a tool, but now - pheu! pheu! - it would languish neglected in my machine. But my sincere thanks for the thought. (Your friend was not by any chance David Flynn, who did sterling work in that field?)

A word to return to the topic: I had always understood myself that 'Drome' was indeed short for Westminster Hippodrome because the building had the façade of an Edwardian Palais de Danse!

[Chris Watson]

Firstly, having been a Lay Clerk at the Drome for 7 years, nobody there seems to know for sure why the nickname stuck. The Hippodrome suggestion has always seemed to me to be the most likely, although it does look rather like an aerodrome from some angles!
As far as the different groups are concerned, I do sometimes get the feeling (perhaps wrongly) that there are some people who almost resent the fact that there are those of us who make a living purely by singing, and who seem to fail to understand that apart from possibly the Hilliards, the Kings Singers and the Swingles, there are no groups who provide enough work to employ people full time. For me one of the great joys of the music world is that every day there is a different combination of people singing or playing for a different director, each musician bringing their own experience to the performance, and each group being different (subtly or otherwise) from the next, because of the different emphasis favoured by the director, the different number and combination of performers involved, and also with the more famous groups, an awareness of an already established house style. It seems to me to be rather strange to have a go (and again, I may be misinterpreting or being paranoid) at people who have devoted their lives to what is never going to be that rewarding a career (in financial terms), and one that is very disruptive in terms of constant travel, in order to be the best that they can be. No performance or style is going to please everyone, and I can think of very few occasions when a group has been universally pleased with a performance it has just done - there are many occasions when one might have preferred it if a director had done something different with a piece, or programmed a concert better, for instance, but we all strive to perform as well as we can, and to provide constant variety and interest (hopefully!) in the music.
Having said that, please continue with the positive criticism and feedback, but do be aware that a lot of 'us' read these pages and sometimes feel rather let down or even offended by what can seem, on the face of it, to be rather unkind comment.

[Old Grumpy]

It seems entirely reasonable to me that a singer should be a member of several groups. I was interested to read Chris Watson's post (#23) which would seem to neatly sum up the situation from the point of view of an insider. I read these boards as a non-musician and do wonder how many of the contributors are professional musicians of one kind or another.

[DracoM]

Firstly, a warm welcome to Chris Watson. His posting is timely and informative.

Secondly, I hope I speak for many on The Choir threads in saying that it is very, very rare if ever that the singers qua singers in the many choirs known by members here are taken to task. More often than not it is the overall sound of the ensemble, the sum of its parts, and as CW says, that has to be a subtle blend of all the varying skills and qualities of the constituent members, drawn together by conductors.

It is interesting to hear him speak of 'house style' in various groups. This seems to me to go to the crux of the issue. I would very much like to read how HE characterises the 'house styles' of the various groups he sings with, how that style is formed, and how it gets handed on - osmosis, demonstration, attentive ears or a combination of all? How does soprano A get asked to join while soprano B does not? Is it known what the various conductors are looking for, or do they simply go with the best available There must be core singers who 'carry the flame' of the group's sound / identity - is that very obvious when entering an ensemble as an already fully fledged professional for the first time? In a blind tasting, could pros inside the game tell which ensemble is which and how would they do so?

Maybe it is only me - and until about fifteen years ago this was not universally the case - but the top line is so often what helps most clearly to make decisions about whether I am going to be able to live with the sound of an ensemble, depending on the repertoire under discussion. And there's another point CW could help us with: do conductors with the SAME ensemble ask for different kinds of voice production in different repertoire or does 'house style' supervene?

We are hugely blessed that in UK so many highly talented men and women DO live uncomfortable lives with very unsocial hours to being us joy. Goes for the boys and girls in our cathedrals and foundations as well of course. I am sad, however, to think that the sometimes robust exchanges on The Choir are not see for what they are, namely arguments over degrees of excellence and inspiration, rather than the ravening of a philistine horde.

Underpinning all that is said here is, I hope, love for the craft and admiration for the art.

[Chris Watson]

Hi DracoM (and I'm assuming that that is a nickname, and that you're not an evil schoolboy wizard!). Thanks for your reply. One of the issues with a public board like this is that any personal opinions expressed, particularly when one is talking about friends/colleagues, can be easily misconstrued. And, if I may be so bold, I think that opinions that might be better kept inside the pub after Evensong or a concert are more easily (and less advisedly) expressed in public when done so from behind the safety curtain of a pseudonym. I think these boards would be much more healthy if everyone used their own names - and I know I'm not alone in that opinion.
With that in mind, there is a limit to what I feel I can say in response - not because I have negative opinions, but rather because my likes/dislikes necessarily involve friends and colleagues.
In the groups I work with regularly (Tallis Scholars, Tenebrae, Theatre of Voices to name but three) there are indeed a core of voices who know what is expected of them, and each director is very different. And when new singers are needed, more often than not we are asked to suggest people with whom we have already sung and who might fit in well. With the long established groups it is harder to say where the house style came from - except to suggest that when the groups were formed the director chose the voices he liked and then they started to sing together in a particular way that worked, giving everyone who followed a lead - and with the newer ones, Tenebrae for instance, Nigel Short has a very clear idea of how he expects us to sing and listen and blend, and this very quickly lets him discover who can work in his way (and there is obviously not just one way of singing) and who can't. As for different approaches to different repertoire, that is often not an issue as ideally each group tends to stick to what it's good at. Some directors are definitely more hands on when it comes to house style, and some just let you get on with it (and will tell you when you're sticking out like a sore thumb!).
It may well be fair to say that the soprano sound is the most defining character of an ensemble, and that section probably has the greatest variety out there, from groups whose directors refuse to allow the tiniest bit of vibrato (which to my ears sounds dull) to groups where anything seems to go (which to my ears sounds undisciplined). I am not an expert in acoustics or harmonics, but it does seem that tenors and basses can get away with an awful lot more than sopranos. It's not fair, but for some reason it seems to be true. But please contradict me!
And speaking personally, whilst I admit that I am extremely lucky to be able to pay my mortgage by buggering off around the world and singing, there is nothing quite as special as singing music in its original context - be it a whole day of Stanford at Durham Cathedral, or the Victoria Requiem in a Mass in Westminster Cathedral. However, I do think that taking this music out of its context (several performances of the Victoria Requiem in concert halls in Japan, the USA and Europe this year, for instance) can allow one to appreciate the genius and beauty of the music for its own sake and not as just an enhancement to a piece of worship.

[doversoul1]

Chris

Thank you. Very interesting indeed. And welcome. I look forward very much to reading more posts from you.

And thank you for the information on Passions on the death of Prince Henry (Sorry, this is a cross-board posting (re: EMS))

[Old Grumpy]

#27


Seconded.

OG (not a singer or a musician, just an interested listener!)

[Magnificat]

[QUOTE=Chris Watson And, if I may be so bold, I think that opinions that might be better kept inside the pub after Evensong or a concert are more easily (and less advisedly) expressed in public when done so from behind the safety curtain of a pseudonym. I think these boards would be much more healthy if everyone used their own names - and I know I'm not alone in that opinion.

And speaking personally, whilst I admit that I am extremely lucky to be able to pay my mortgage by buggering off around the world and singing, there is nothing quite as special as singing music in its original context - be it a whole day of Stanford at Durham Cathedral, or the Victoria Requiem in a Mass in Westminster Cathedral. However, I do think that taking this music out of its context (several performances of the Victoria Requiem in concert halls in Japan, the USA and Europe this year, for instance) can allow one to appreciate the genius and beauty of the music for its own sake and not as just an enhancement to a piece of worship.[/QUOTE]

CW,

So it is OK to criticise anonymously behind a person's back and not to do so anonymously in the open?

On another thread I suggested that pseudonyms are preferable to splashing your real name all over the internet and, although not ideal, I still think this is well advised.

Although it is perfectly legitimate to perform this music out of context the point to remember is that it was not written for its own sake but to the glory of God by composers using their God given gifts and that its real place is as part of the liturgy of worship of Almighty God not just an enhancement to it.

VCC

[doversoul1]

Originally posted by Magnificat

So it is OK to criticise anonymously behind a person's back and not to do so anonymously in the open?

This thread has been most interesting so far. Let’s not get into discussing the issue that has so many different contexts that the discussion will bound to get irrelevant if not unpleasant. As long as we are talking about music and not personal matters, I don’t think it is an issue.