Originally posted by Gabriel Jackson
View Post
King's Choir on BBC2/BBC HD on Holy Saturday, 17.05
Collapse
X
-
< I don't know if any of these critics of Stephen Cleobury's conducting style have actually worked with him, but I have, several times, and in my experience he is perfectly capable of geting exactly what he wants from musicians. What's more, he is one of the most conscientious musicians I know, in terms of respect for and fidelity to the score. >
And conducts the BBC Singers too, I believe?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by DracoM View Post< I don't know if any of these critics of Stephen Cleobury's conducting style have actually worked with him, but I have, several times, and in my experience he is perfectly capable of geting exactly what he wants from musicians. What's more, he is one of the most conscientious musicians I know, in terms of respect for and fidelity to the score. >
And conducts the BBC Singers too, I believe?
Comment
-
-
Hmmm. I think this thread is moving towards a diversion.
Any more comments about the 'pre-Easter' television programme from KCC? I think all views are allowable on that, though sometimes I wonder whether there should be dedicated threads for repetitive subjects which constantly crop up off-topic. Then people who wanted to repeat them could repair to those threads to post and indicate a link on the original thread for those who want to follow them and renew the discussion?
Originally posted by Caliban View PostCall me a heathen. [You're a heathen - ff]
Mea maxima culpa
If Frenchie should happen by, perhaps she could correct my solecism...It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Cantor
I quite agree with the point that if a conductor gets the desired result, then, to a point, how he gets it is immaterial. However...
Originally posted by ardcarp View PostOne asks (a) is it strictly necessary given such an expert bunch of singers, and (b) would a much better and more magical performance emerge from the choir if someone with natural charisma and elegance (maybe someone like Harry Christophers?) were put in fronnt of them. KCC is obviously competent in the extreme, but could it be more than that.......?
In response to Gabriel, I have worked with Stephen a few times. However, I have also worked with (and been directly taught by) several other leading choral conductors, who all advocate a generally restrained approach, with the need for utmost clarity in movement.
This does link back to the broadcast. Stephen Cleobury made many gestures, which were often large, which the choir did not seem to react to. I also will reiterate that I thought the choir seemed to be on autopilot, and thus there were areas, such as occasional tuning, and deportment, which were not of a standard one would expect of KCC (or, indeed, even your 'average' parish church choir).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cantor View PostI quite agree with the point that if a conductor gets the desired result, then, to a point, how he gets it is immaterial. However...
He (Cleobury) seems to make many gestures that the choir does not react to.
In response to Gabriel, I have worked with Stephen a few times. However, I have also worked with (and been directly taught by) several other leading choral conductors, who all advocate a generally restrained approach, with the need for utmost clarity in movement.
This does link back to the broadcast. Stephen Cleobury made many gestures, which were often large, which the choir did not seem to react to. I also will reiterate that I thought the choir seemed to be on autopilot, and thus there were areas, such as occasional tuning, and deportment, which were not of a standard one would expect of KCC (or, indeed, even your 'average' parish church choir).
Comment
-
-
orbis factor
Originally posted by Gabriel Jackson View PostI didn't see this programme, so have no opinion on the singing. But to judge a performance (from the conductor) on what it looks like, rather than what it sounds like, seems odd to me. There are plenty of conductors whose gestures may look overly big, but get good results. Who's to say he choir didn't respond to Stephen Cleobury exactly as they were supposed to?
Comment
-
Magnificat
Originally posted by Cantor View PostPersonally, I thought the Easter TV broadcast was pretty poor. The basics of tuning, blend, intonation, and even such things as deportment (standing and sitting together) were lacking. Considering KCC is meant to be of the highest standard, they did not reflect this, and have not done so for some time.
Stephen Cleobury has been there for a long time, and perhaps has simply run out of ideas, or true passion for the job. I feel many aspects of his work are uninspired (such as his descants, and his somewhat odd conducting style), and simply do not reach the level of some of his predecessors.
I have watched this programme a couple of times now and I just don't see it the same way as you at all. Apart from one awful descant I thought the singing exemplary. The choice of music you could argue about but no doubt it was designed to appeal to a TV audience of non- afficionados as much as any cognoscenti watching and it was none the worse for that in my opinion. It wasn't supposed to be a concert after all. Many church choral services can be too indulgent of the musicians, frankly, with the congregation's needs seemingly totally ignored.
I don't think King's sound travels very well but in the Chapel they sing how the acoustic demands.
Ardcarp
Harry Christophers is a fine conductor of adult professionals whether he would be as successful with a choir of boys and inexperienced young men is by no means certain, in fact, it would more likely be a disaster.
VCC
Comment
-
VCC I was aware of the boys' training thing when I wrote that. Harry Christophers was just an example that sprang to mind...he may or may not be good with kids.
How about this for a laugh...a bit tongue-in-cheek from a certain person?
From 1987. The incredibly modest Dr Barry Rose OBE, ex Guildford, St Paul's, Canterbury and St Albans Cathedrals interviews Stephen Cleobury of Kings College...
Compare with:
What fun.
Comment
-
-
Cantor
Originally posted by Magnificat View PostCantor
I have watched this programme a couple of times now and I just don't see it the same way as you at all. Apart from one awful descant I thought the singing exemplary. The choice of music you could argue about but no doubt it was designed to appeal to a TV audience of non- afficionados as much as any cognoscenti watching and it was none the worse for that in my opinion. It wasn't supposed to be a concert after all. Many church choral services can be too indulgent of the musicians, frankly, with the congregation's needs seemingly totally ignored.
I don't think King's sound travels very well but in the Chapel they sing how the acoustic demands.
Perhaps I am being too picky, but it was not what I would expect of a choir of that reputation. Plenty of conductors do have large gestures, and their ensembles react accordingly. However, on this, and other, occasions, I felt that the choir almost carried on regardless of what arm/body actions SC was doing.
Comment
-
Magnificat
Originally posted by ardcarp View PostVCC I was aware of the boys' training thing when I wrote that. Harry Christophers was just an example that sprang to mind...he may or may not be good with kids.
How about this for a laugh...a bit tongue-in-cheek from a certain person?
From 1987. The incredibly modest Dr Barry Rose OBE, ex Guildford, St Paul's, Canterbury and St Albans Cathedrals interviews Stephen Cleobury of Kings College...
Compare with:
What fun.
The contrast in the styles of choir training is just as stark as the backgrounds of the two individuals:
Stephen Cleobury completely orthodox: cathedral chorister, Oxbridge organ scholar, assistant organist Westmimster Abbey, organist and choirmaster Westminster Cathedral and King's.
BR: Church choir, parish church organist and choir trainer, insurance clerk, organist and choirmaster at a new cathedral with no choir to start with but which came to equal any of the top cathedral/college choirs of the day, sub - organist at St Paul's only but then given the choir because he was obviously so naturally talented.
I saw both these documentaries when they first came out but it's all a long time ago now and, as with most good looking young men, time hasn't been kind to either!!
There is another contrast too that I am aware of. It was reported in the Church Times some years ago that SC had 21 applicants at voice trial for 6 places in King's choir but had turned them all down. Barry on the other hand, who was at St Albans at that time, would take any boy who wanted to join the choir as long as they and their parents were committed to it and teach him to sing. I doubt whether SC has the same luxury these days as he did then!
Barry was/is a genius but as with all geniuses could be quite difficult and not everyone's cup of tea. I have only met Stephen Cleobury once but along with others I know who have I thought him a very nice man and I would imagine that the King's boys respect him as much as Barry's boys did in their turn. As I have said before the weight of renown that he has to carry as Director of Music at King's must be a hell of a burden and he bears it as well as anyone could in my opinion.
VCC.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Magnificat View PostThe contrast in the styles of choir training is just as stark as the backgrounds of the two individuals:
Stephen Cleobury completely orthodox: cathedral chorister, Oxbridge organ scholar, assistant organist Westmimster Abbey, organist and choirmaster Westminster Cathedral and King's.
BR: Church choir, parish church organist and choir trainer, insurance clerk, organist and choirmaster at a new cathedral with no choir to start with but which came to equal any of the top cathedral/college choirs of the day, sub - organist at St Paul's only but then given the choir because he was obviously so naturally talented.
Comment
-
Comment