King's College Cambridge Lessons and Carols (both L and R) 24/25th xii 22 / Rads 3 /4

[DracoM]

Thx.

[Simon Biazeck]

Happy Christmas to all. I thought the SJC Advent service and the Nine Lessons were shining examples of our Anglican choral tradition: both choirs on brilliant form.

As an ex-OS of KCC, the FNLC broadcast always reminds me of how I felt, as a 19-yr old, sitting at the console waiting for the red light knowing that a wrong note will be remembered for a very long time. This year, both organ scholars had a huge number of notes to get through, particularly in the Farrington and Martin (both great pieces), and although I haven't read the threads in detail this fact seems to have been lost or not appreciated by some. If you haven't been involved in one of these services it is difficult to imagine the pressures involved.

Both services have a huge following and both are flying the flag worldwide for our choral tradition under increasingly difficult circumstances. These circumstances are indeed felt up and down the country and web streaming has shown that standards are as high as they have ever been nationwide.

I wish you all a happy new year.

James Vivian.

Hear-hear!

[Guest]

Personally I found SC's descants refreshingly different and very inspiring.

[ardcarp]

The Radio 4 Christmas Day broadcast was back to excellent. Choir back in good hands! No quibbles from me at all. Just a much-loved Christmas tradition done to perfection. One young lady lesson-reader had an intriguing dress. My young grandson inquired what was holding it up and was sure it was going to slide down at some point!


I do agree however about the TV broadcast, in that the VW did over-do the concert element. Much as I love most VW, this particular concoction does ramble on a bit! However, back desks were possibly in even better voice than on the live broadcast? Christmas bugs, perhaps?

[ocarina]

Personally I found SC's descants refreshingly different and very inspiring.

I agree.

I’m ashamed to be a member of this forum on reading some of the arrogant twaddle in this thread.

[Magister Chori]

It sounded like rather more than an arrangement to me!

I would actually call it an arrangement (in the same way that Stephen Jackson's "Noel nouvelet" or Kenneth Leighton "O leave your sheep" - to name but a few - are actually arrangements, even if written with a great and singular harmonic freedom), since the original medioeval Irish melody was fully used during all the piece and by admission of the composer himself it forms the basis of the piece.
It is - however - a fine piece, though I consider quite a strange thing that Mary's words "Quomodo conciperem" are sung by male voices...

Personally I found SC's descants refreshingly different and very inspiring.

I agree: his first setting (published in the 90's by Encore) is fine, while the second one (published by Novello) - except for Once in Royal, whose harmonic variety is very pleasant to me -
tend to be quite taxing for the trebles with a very high general tessitura going much to detriment of the dramatic effect high notes can have when sparingly used.
But I find his choral arrangements to be deeply imaginative.

[Vox Humana]

I... since the original medioeval Irish melody was fully used during all the piece ...

There's no reason that I know of to think it's Irish. There is a fourteenth-century version in the Dublin Troper, but there are earlier sources and at least one from the previous century that has an English text in parallel with the Latin. It has been suggested that the melody is possibly French, perhaps by Philip the Chancellor (c.1160–1236).

[Vox Humana]

Speaking for myself, it's simply because my real name wouldn't mean any more to anyone than my alias. It's not as if I were anyone significant, or my opinions at all important. I'm just your common or garden nobody.

Another thing: even if my name were one to conjure with (which it isn't, except perhaps when sticking pins into a wax doll) I think I would still post anonymously. I have always thought that posts should be judged on their content, not on who posts them. If you want to verify whether a post is accurate or sensible, check it out for yourself (e.g. the post immediately above). Don't assume that, because it's posted by a cathedral DoM, it must be gospel, or, because it's posted by a nonentity who can barely play a hymn tune, it must be rubbish. There are situations when it's useful to post under your real name, especially if you are someone significant, but that's a personal call.

[Sir Velo]

Given how social media is currently plagued with fake accounts, posting under a name with which we are all familiar, is no guarantee of authenticity. Unless the hosts want to go down the route of authenticating accounts then I suggest we all pay little/no attention to user names and concentrate on the content instead.

[smittims]

I agree wholeheartedly, Sir Velo.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Another thing: even if my name were one to conjure with (which it isn't, except perhaps when sticking pins into a wax doll) I think I would still post anonymously. I have always thought that posts should be judged on their content, not on who posts them. If you want to verify whether a post is accurate or sensible, check it out for yourself (e.g. the post immediately above). Don't assume that, because it's posted by a cathedral DoM, it must be gospel, or, because it's posted by a nonentity who can barely play a hymn tune, it must be rubbish. There are situations when it's useful to post under your real name, especially if you are someone significant, but that's a personal call.

One of the advantages of anonymous posting is stops people using their job (or most often job from which they’ve retired) to lend spurious authority to their assertions. This is the tactic employed time after time by letter writers to the Times and Telegraph and other papers . “As a retired Doctor/General I can say with some authority that the problem with the NHS / Army is etc etc..”
We were taught in the sixth form that using your experience as an intellectual argument was bogus - just as much as ad hominem arguments and begging the question. How times have changed…now these are pretty commonplace.
The other problem is there are no independent critieria by which , for example , descants can be judged. I enjoyed the service immensely and I speak with the authority of some one who has listened for the last 50 years and virtually never misses a Choral Evensong.

[Triforium]

One of the advantages of anonymous posting is stops people using their job (or most often job from which they’ve retired) to lend spurious authority to their assertions. This is the tactic employed time after time by letter writers to the Times and Telegraph and other papers . “As a retired Doctor/General I can say with some authority that the problem with the NHS / Army is etc etc..”
We were taught in the sixth form that using your experience as an intellectual argument was bogus - just as much as ad hominem arguments and begging the question. How times have changed…now these are pretty commonplace.
The other problem is there are no independent critieria by which , for example , descants can be judged. I enjoyed the service immensely and I speak with the authority of some one who has listened for the last 50 years and virtually never misses a Choral Evensong.

Unusual concept to impart to teens. Some of them probably took it to mean experience counts for little, which fits in well with a 'know it all' sixth form weltanschauung. And of course, the alert sixth form heckler will fire back with - Sir, does that mean we shouldn't listen to you?

If both pilots die on a flight, and debate ensues as to the best way to land, I'll go with the passenger who happens to be a licensed pilot.

Descants?, perfunctory tempi in tudor anthems?, yes, subjective, even if many share the view. Discernment is tricky, a process which should continually improve as the years go by. Also,there is listening, and then there is participating in the ensemble, or any ensemble -very different perspectives.

Lovely service!

[ardcarp]

A descant, however un-inspired, at least gives a bit of a thrill to the 'congregation' if they hear a few high and heavenly notes soaring above. And choristers enjoy them too.

IMV the best descants:

1. Avoid note-to-note matching with the basic rhythm of the verse

2. Do a bit of clever canonic or at least imitative stuff

3. Go over the ends of lines

4. Are conceived with a re-harmonised version of the last verse

Using all four above, Andrew Carter's last verse of O Come O Come Emmanuel is a cracker. Leaving Christmas behind, Herbert Howells' own descant to 'Michael.' (All my hope on God is founded) is the most adventurous of all. Probably for that reason it's hardly ever done, but appears in English Praise.
Go on, I dare some place to use it on Choral Evensong!

[Simon Biazeck]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NkF07lBY_I

I love it, but I can think of at least one DoM who doesn't like it for nearly all the reasons listed above. No pack drill.

~SBz.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Unusual concept to impart to teens. Some of them probably took it to mean experience counts for little, which fits in well with a 'know it all' sixth form weltanschauung. And of course, the alert sixth form heckler will fire back with - Sir, does that mean we shouldn't listen to you?

If both pilots die on a flight, and debate ensues as to the best way to land, I'll go with the passenger who happens to be a licensed pilot.

Descants?, perfunctory tempi in tudor anthems?, yes, subjective, even if many share the view. Discernment is tricky, a process which should continually improve as the years go by. Also,there is listening, and then there is participating in the ensemble, or any ensemble -very different perspectives.

Lovely service!

Not at all - it has nothing to do with teaching or flying a plane. Of course people who have been trained and doing that for years will be better at teaching or flying than those who haven’t . It means you don’t win an argument about say education policy by saying I’m a head and know more about it than you do. You win it by producing evidence. It’s a very lazy way of winning an argument and it’s used all the time. Incidentally a really intelligent teacher will constantly be asking themselves whether the students should be listening to them.