Chance to hear a rare piece

[Gabriel Jackson]

GJ Sorry I mis-attributed the conductor.

The group sounds different when conducted by Paul Brough than it does under David Hill, different when conducted by Peter Philips than it does under Simon Joly..etc. etc

ATB wobble and over-sing too. And you are quite wrong...in my case anyway...to hint at a bias against female singers. I come from a family of 'straight' sopranos; wife, daughters and grand-daughters. Wife in forefront of the 'new' and welcome vogue for straight sopranos in the 1960s and daughters choristers and one choral scholar.

My comment about boys wasn't directed at you, specifically, but it is undoubtedly the case that the pejorative term "wobble" is almost exclusively used about women. I do also think that the preference of a lot of listeners (and some conductors) for a very straight, vibratoless sound from sopranos does have to do with some sound ideal that is boys' voices. A soprano I know from one of the leading professional groups in Europe, when repeatedly asked by a conductor for that kind of sound, replied "I'm sorry - I'm not a boy!"

So whilst I certainly treasure the legacy of all-male choirs (as surely you must, having been part of one) I do not belong to the 'boys are best' tendency.

Yes I do treasure it too!

Neither do I discount the value of a little expression and subtle vibrato in choirs. But the BBCS? OTT, with quiet controlled top notes not an option.

That simply isn't true! I was involved in a BBC Singers concert yesterday afternoon, and I asked for a high pianissimo from the sopranos (and altos) and got a beautifully controlled, well-balanced response. I think it's fair to say that I spend more time listening to the BBC Singers than most people here, because of my job with them, and while that doesn't make my opinion any more valid, it does mean my experience is greater. I also know their individual voices well, and of course they are all different, with varying dgrees/widths of vibrato etc. Some see that diversity as a weakness (not "blended" enough) I see that as a strength. (Edward Higginbottom is not interested in that kind of "blend" either, and is lauded for it - but then we're back to boys again!). All the singers are expected to perform as soloists when needed, and do so extremely well. If you are an alto in the group, for example, you mind be called upon to produce an echt-Russion sonority in a Rachamninov solo one minute, and be a consort singer in a Medieval motet the next. That kind of flexibility (and the ability to encompass the huge range of repertoire the group does) means, in my view, that you have to be able to sing properly - and where others hear "wobble", I hear proper singing. Again, in yesterday's concert, one of the more long-standing sopranos in the group brought a wonderful humanity and intensity to a very brief solo in the Standford Stabat Mater (a solo of very few pitches!) which was very moving. That is the kind of artistry I hear from individual singers, and from the group as a whole, all the time. And if you don't sing properly, as I would put it, you cannot deliver the kind of thrilling, effortless fortissimo which is one of their specialities, or a really controlled, well-balanced ultra-pianissimo, both of which happened to be called for by me in yesterday's concert. That kind of etiolated, colourless sound that some listeners (and conductors) like is terribly limited in its expressivity. I recently heard one of the most highly-regarded European groups, in London. The women produced a not-unattractive, rather plangent sound with barely any vibrato while the men sang normally (they always do!). In quiet music this was OK, but anything above mezzo-forte and all you could hear was vibrant, full-throated singing from the men, and a vague suggestion that the sopranos and altos were present above them. It was ridiculous!

So I don't regard the BBC Singers as over-the-top, but as an immensely skilled group of fantastic singers that deliver wondeful results and I'm proud to be associated with them. Sorry...!

I really find them quite uncomfortable to listen to these days. Compare them with other European radio choirs?

Not dissimilar. Swedish Radio Choir? Bavarian Radio Choir? RIAS-Kammerchor? SWR VokalEnsemble Stuttgart...

[DracoM]

< And if you don't sing properly, as I would put it >

And a working definition of 'singing properly' would be....? One man's 'properly' is maybe another's OTT.

A lot of value judgements in GJ's response, of course. No objection to that at all. That's what music does to us all. The use of vibrato has been a vexed subject for decades. The fact that the BBCS seem to enshrine it as house-style sets them against almost all other major ensemble, but there you go - that's their house style so.....

If you write for an ensemble, you have to believe that what they do is justice to your compositions, and indeed gradually you exploit it since you cannot change the way they sing beyond a certain degree [ as GJ points out above], but once you do that you reinforce their house style.

To my ears they sound fantastically old-fashioned, phenomenal musicians indeed, and no doubt good solo singers, BUT as an ensemble they sound more and more like a crack WI group every time I hear them. They are not 'a choir' per se in my understanding of the word, but as their name implies - a bunch of singers. 'Blend' is not in their game. It always sounds like every man and woman for themselves and they have this loud, striving, style led from the front by women who are piercing, and have a 'certain and very distinctive style', an almost hectoring vibrato, and that is branded onto almost anything they sing, and I find that both wearing and plain wrong.

I promise that I am not striking attitudes here, but confessing an instinctive repugnance. Expert singers they no doubt are, but I really do have to turn them off every time I hear them.

[Gabriel Jackson]

The use of vibrato has been a vexed subject for decades.

Has it?

The fact that the BBCS seem to enshrine it as house-style sets them against almost all other major ensemble, but there you go - that's their house style so.....

What other major ensembles?

If you write for an ensemble, you have to believe that what they do is justice to your compositions, and indeed gradually you exploit it since you cannot change the way they sing beyond a certain degree [ as GJ points out above], but once you do that you reinforce their house style.

If I, or anyone else, asked them to sing without vibrato, they would do it. I don't want them to, so I don't ask them to.

To my ears they sound fantastically old-fashioned, phenomenal musicians indeed, and no doubt good solo singers, BUT as an ensemble they sound more and more like a crack WI group every time I hear them.

I'm sorry, but this just sounds misogynist to me.

They are not 'a choir' per se in my understanding of the word, but as their name implies - a bunch of singers. 'Blend' is not in their game.

What is your understanding of the word "choir"?

It always sounds like every man and woman for themselves

it's not like that at all, of course!

and they have this loud, striving, style led from the front by women who are piercing, and have a 'certain and very distinctive style', an almost hectoring vibrato, and that is branded onto almost anything they sing, and I find that both wearing and plain wrong.

I don't hear that at all! Of course they don't sing loudly all the time! There is a huge dynamic range, which is one of heir great strengths.
And, to come back to my original point, here we are talking about female vibrato agin. What about the guys?
Do you object to vibrato from the boys at New College, by the way?

[Miles Coverdale]

Apropos of nothing at all, I remember hearing of a remark by the director of one of the more well known early music vocal ensembles about one of the women who sang 'treble' in the early days of the group to the effect that she sounded like a boy but had 'big tits' so both camps were pleased. Make of that what you will.

[Jamiewhall]

I wonder how many of those who can't stand to listen to the BBCS on R3 have heard the group live. Having been in the room and then gone home to listen again, I can tell you that the broadcast version is invariably very disappointing in comparison. I too love the sound of a good cathedral choir and I really enjoy the sound produced by Tenebrae, to name but one of the many excellent ensembles out there. The BBCS sound is, without doubt, different, but I'd say it's probably best enjoyed in the flesh. Perhaps the straight voice travels the airwaves better, who knows.
I would challenge the likes of SS to venture out of his Mother's basement for a day to hear a concert live -I see Isreal in Egypt coming up soon- and then perhaps you could write about it here. I can't promise to read it but it'll give you something to do won't it. A little project, there's a good chap.

[doversoul1]

Jamiewhall

I'd say it's probably best enjoyed in the flesh

This sounds rather strange considering that the BBCS is primarily (as I understand it) a radio/ broadcasting chorus.

[mercia]

I've forgotten what this thread is about

[Jamiewhall]

Jamiewhall

This sounds rather strange considering that the BBCS is primarily (as I understand it) a radio/ broadcasting chorus.

You are absolutely correct. I, though, am not one of those who hate the on air sound of the group. I am simply suggesting that those who like to rubbish the BBCS might like to hear the group live, if only to give them a firmer footing for their criticism.

[ardcarp]

The BBCS are all great musicians, great sight-readers and able to tackle most things with limited rehearsal time. Often (in the Proms for instance) they do a great job, sometimes bumping up larger but amateur choirs. I personally do not like their sound. I believe they often make a better impression 'in the flesh' as has been suggested. I wish they would not do the early repertory nor the 'cathedral' repertory (for want of a better word) because other groups do it better. One would have thought Stainer's Crucifixion might have sounded well, but for me it didn't.

There is an interesting perceptual aspect to vibrato. Some people...might I say some musicians....are more sensitive to it than others. For instance leMalu's bass voice is, for me, just so wobbly I can't tell what notes he's singing. Others don't have that problem and just admire his Rolls-Royce voice quality. But Fischer Diskau's baritone vibrato is warm and lovely and I never have a problem with hearing the 'centre' of his notes.

And I'm always fascinated by orchestral musicians with whom I work on a weekly basis. Clarinettists and horn players never use vibrato (well, hardly ever). Flautists and oboists do. This is accepted as normal. String players use it as normal (discounting the early players) but can easily be persuaded to play a passge 'straight' if you ask them. In my last concert we did VW's Serenade to Music, and I got my soloists (we made do with 8 instead of 16 for financial reasons) from the ranks of ex- (recently ex-) choral scholars who sang with little or no vibrato. This was not HIPP, and you'll not find any professional recording done like this, but I have to say the piece came over in a new light. (One of the sops also did Mozart's Exsultate Jubilate in the same concert...but that has been recorded with straight-ish voices...and hearing un-fudged semiquaver runs is a delight).

I've been trying to think of an example for GJ of the sort of vocal vibrato which to me is warm, lovely and apt but not OTT. Well there's F-D as mentionesd above but for a soprano how about Nancy Argenta in Jonathan Miller's St Matthew Passion? Just perfect!