Lincoln makes the Daily Mail

[Gabriel Jackson]

The idea that it makes no difference to the sound is simply wrong.

The "more flexibility" argument is flannel and irrelevant: no really good male choir needs "more flexibility" to do what it does. I've recently heard three, and they managed quite well, thank you, without female altos.

I agree, it is a ridiculous argument.

The idea that for the past 500 odd years, composers have been writing English church music for mixed choirs is plain silly

That is indeed a silly idea, but (as some seem to think) if mixed choirs shouldn't sing music written for all-male choirs, presumably all-male choirs shouldn't sing music written for mixed choirs. And the only thing we know about English cathedral choirs over the last 500 years is that all their members were male; though we know the number of boys and the number of men in some 16th century choirs, we don't know who sang what - whether the boys sang the top part only or the top two parts (it probably varied from establishment to establishment), whether the alto parts were sung by falsettists or not etc. And above all, we have no idea what they sounded like, so the idea that all-male choirs of today produce a sound that in any way corresponds to the sound the composer would have expected is dubious indeed. As someone who has written a number of pieces for all-male choirs I am more than happy when those pieces are sung by differently-constituted groups.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The idea that it makes no difference to the sound is simply wrong.

Simon is quite right: all-male choirs have a distinct sound subtly different from (but not neccessarily "better" or "worse" than) mixed choirs.

I understood (perhaps mistakenly) the phrase "more flexibilty" to refer to the problems that all choirs have in getting an adequate number of good singers. For many, the options are either to settle for smaller choirs, or to maintain larger (all male) forces but to accommodate weaker singers, or to open membership to females.

For me, the real crux of the argument is that this sublime Music should be performed and performed well: "betrayal" of the composers arises only when the repertoire is neglected or poorly done. If female voices are the only means by which a choir can achieve this, then the somewhat intemperate hostility with which some have "greeted" this news seems completely misplaced.

Having said that, maybe best not to dwell too much on Lincoln: they've had enough problems.

Well, quite!

Best Wishes.

[DracoM]

<< so the idea that all-male choirs of today produce a sound that in any way corresponds to the sound the composer would have expected is dubious indeed >>


Possibly true, GJ, but one would hazard that today's all-male ensembles might sound a tad closer to what these composers heard / therefore intended than mixed gender choirs, I am sure you will agree. Whether that makes the sound 'better' or 'worse' is hardly worth debating.

[Gabriel Jackson]

<< so the idea that all-male choirs of today produce a sound that in any way corresponds to the sound the composer would have expected is dubious indeed >>


Possibly true, GJ, but one would hazard that today's all-male ensembles might sound a tad closer to what these composers heard / therefore intended than mixed gender choirs, I am sure you will agree. Whether that makes the sound 'better' or 'worse' is hardly worth debating.

I don't think it's possibly true, I think it's almost certainly true. Think about this scenario: a modern choir of 16 boys and 12 men sings a 5-part piece by, say, Taverner that's in TrMATB scoring. 16 boys sing the treble part, 4 falsettists sing the mean part, 4 tenors the alto part, 2 baritones the tenor part and 2 basses the bass part (this happens). Their similarly-constitued 16th century forbears perform the piece with 8 boys on the treble part, 8 boys on the mean part, the other three parts 4-men-to-a-part (and no falsettists). This is a very likely scenario. The piece will already sound very different. Then factor in the fact that, over the last 100 years, singing style/choral sonority has changed massively, so in all likelihood changed just as drastically over the preceding 400 years, and it is clear that what Taverner would have heard from his choir is radically different in all parameters from what a modern listener in Christ Church Cathedral will hear listening to Taverner.

Composers' intentions are complex, btw!

[ardcarp]

The recorded concert by The Sixteen from Worcester (and flagged up by Draco) included some 'all-male' repertory. It was very interesting that HC elicited two different types of soprano sounds for different pieces. (I guess some sops of each type are on the payroll, but each is capable of fitting in with the other.) There were some full and womanly sounds at times and some very pure head-voices at others. They are a fantastic group. My only slight reservation is that some of the big Russian Orthodox style pieces are best done by a huge choir...with a battery contra-basses!

[ardcarp]

of

[David Underdown]

Iestyn Davies's take on the appointment http://t.co/81HwCM15

[DracoM]

Absorbing response.

I can understand fully that a composer TODAY will write for all manner of ensembles, have all manner of parameters in his / her mind's ear.

The point I was obviously failing to make it that an all-male ensemble whatever the balance of numbers is going to make a different sound to a mixed gender ensemble, and that by and large, for a number of centuries, in terms of liturgical music, most composers would consciously or unconsciously have in their mind's ear an all-male ensemble and thus consciously or unconsciously written for such.

[ardcarp]

Iestyn is a bit hard on himself and male altos in general. A male alto and a female alto singing the same note (say E on the bottom of the treble stave) will sound different...the female will 'sound' lower and the male higher. For this reason in some repertory male altos just sound 'right', and This is the record of John (not Joan) is a good example. Conversely, I personally dislike male altos singing (for instance) Dichterliebe, which Paul Esswood did in pioneering (but IMO misguided) fashion many years ago. Horses for courses.

But underlying many of the posts is a fear that the all-male choir with its rather special chemistry might become a thing of the past. Who can say whether this fear is founded or not?

[Gabriel Jackson]

Absorbing response.

I can understand fully that a composer TODAY will write for all manner of ensembles, have all manner of parameters in his / her mind's ear.

Of course! My observation about composers' intentions was more general - in my experience people often speak rather dogmatically about "the composer's intentions" while not really understanding the complexity of what those intentions may be/are.

The point I was obviously failing to make it that an all-male ensemble whatever the balance of numbers is going to make a different sound to a mixed gender ensemble, and that by and large, for a number of centuries, in terms of liturgical music, most composers would consciously or unconsciously have in their mind's ear an all-male ensemble and thus consciously or unconsciously written for such.

An all-male ensemble produces a different sound from a mixed-gender one of course, but today's all-male choirs may well be no closer to what, say, 16th-century composers expected to hear than today's mixed-voice groups. While there are, in my view, many very good reasons for wanting to preserve the unique and special all-male tradition in this country, the idea that the sounds such choirs may produce today are the sounds English church music composers of the past would have expected to hear is not one of them.

[DracoM]

Agreed.

[Jamiewhall]

Whether or not you agree with female altos being allowed to join cathedral choirs is beside the point on this one. Lincoln Cathedral appointed without advertising the position and against the wishes of the rest of the back row, who have been told to keep quiet! And who is this marvellous new contralto? The girlfriend of a current Lincoln choral scholar and, apparently, a soprano!
So everything that the Lincoln spokesman (or woman!) said about her being the best for the job and how they're simply trying to produce the best possible music "to the glory of God" is a load of bull to cover up the fact that presumably somebody couldn't be arsed to go through the appointment process.

[DracoM]

Crikey.

Is there any way we can verify this rather 'different' slant on the story?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Yes, Jamiewhall's post does offer a new and distinctly unsavoury aspect of this individual case. It needs further comment: anyone?

[bull-scheidt]

Yes, she is indeed a soprano and is going out with a current choral scholar. However, I think it's less that they didn't advertise (in fact, I did see an advert for the position at some point last year) and more that they were unable to fill it with a man.