Sumptuous in G from Hereford

[john_york]

Sorry to but in so late, however Sumsion has to be one of my favourite composers. In my days of singing in a choir, I have had the opportunity to sing all 3 versions of Smudgion in G (Boys, SATB and men only) I have also been a recent convert to the SATB Mag and Nunc in A. What a gorgeous little ditty this is. I also like his Te-Deum, the ending is soooooo nice

[David Underdown]

I believe Macmillan, aside from his concert works, and commissions, also regularly turns out rather simpler pieces for liturgical use at his local RC parish church (I'm not quite sure if he actually holds a post there or not).

I think the Sumsion's, Stainer's of this world have a place in the daily round (and I'd also add Stanley Vann), though it is good to have works of "major" composers too. However, the more modern settings have perhaps been commissioned for particular large-scale occasions, and may not lend themselves to use in a regular evensong in ordinary time. Liturgical use requires some considerations outside the "merit" or otherwise of the piece, perhaps?

[mopsus]

Macmillan's 'Strathclyde motets' were written to commission as something which could be performed by a good parish church choir within the Catholic liturgy.

I have to agree with Gabriel (if I understand him aright) that we have to look back to the Tudors to find evening canticle settings by great composers on top form. (I can't even include my beloved Purcell on this one.) Or use the appropriate movements by Rachmaninov.

On more recent music, I sometimes think back to the 'contemporary' (meaning alive at the time) composers whose music I learnt when I was at college in the 80's and how they have fared with the passage of time. Leighton seems to be holding his place in the cathedral repertory quite happily, but Lennox Berkeley's star has faded a bit (perhaps there weren't very many pieces by him anyway), and some of Mathias has disappeared but by no means all of it (I recently sang his Missa Aedis Christi which is a bit of a rarity).

[Simon]

My washing machine serves a useful purpose and gives pleasure (that of clean clothes) but I wouldn't choose to listen to it in preference to Bach, or Debussy, or Stravinsky (or Tallis, Purcell or Howells...).

The pointlessness of this comment has already been demonstrated, but I'd also wish to note how thoughtless it is too. In the post that you so cavalierly dismiss, the point was made that the works by "the Sumsions of this world" have also been well-loved by many. In a previous post, someone mentioned also that they were well-crafted. I don't doubt that they were often submitted in a spirit of humble offering in the days when CDs and youtube weren't around to make create almost instant fame and money. For all these reasons, they are worthy of our respect, even if we don't like them ourselves. Comparing them to a washing machine is verging, in my view, on contemptible.

For you then to compare them with Tippett is odd. Child is largely fine; but have you heard his arrangement of the Spirituals? Talk about ill-crafted and overblown... Herbert Brewer would have made a far better job.

... some decades ago Howells was complaining that not enough of the major composers of the day were writing liturgical music. While things have undoubtedly changed for the better in that respect, it is great shame that we don't have pieces from many of today's best and most interesting composers, either because they are not asked, or they don't want to write for the church.

Which "best and most interesting composers" would these be?

We have works from Jonathan Dove, our best current choral composer; from John Rutter, who despite clearly justifiable criticism of some melodic tweeness in the 90s is still an excellent craftsman - or DW wouldn't have worked so much with him - and may, one hopes, be growing in stature and breadth of output; from MacMillan, with his variable but generally interesting output; and of course from Arvo Part, arguably the finest composer alive today - a true musical genius. Not many, true, and only one of real world stature - but are there ever that many?

If other composers - at least, those who can actually write music - aren't asked, then there's nothing to stop them doing it off their own bat, is there? If they don't actually want to, then that may well be a shame, if they are good, but it's their free choice.

[Gabriel Jackson]

The pointlessness of this comment has already been demonstrated, but I'd also wish to note how thoughtless it is too. In the post that you so cavalierly dismiss, the point was made that the works by "the Sumsions of this world" have also been well-loved by many. In a previous post, someone mentioned also that they were well-crafted. I don't doubt that they were often submitted in a spirit of humble offering in the days when CDs and youtube weren't around to make create almost instant fame and money. For all these reasons, they are worthy of our respect, even if we don't like them ourselves. Comparing them to a washing machine is verging, in my view, on contemptible.

From someone who specialises in thoughtlessness, contemptuousness and cavalier dismissals this is rather amusing.

For you then to compare them with Tippett is odd. Child is largely fine; but have you heard his arrangement of the Spirituals? Talk about ill-crafted and overblown... Herbert Brewer would have made a far better job.

Of course I have, and of course they aren't.

Which "best and most interesting composers" would these be?

Would you like a list, so you can dismiss them as not being able to write music?

We have works from Jonathan Dove, our best current choral composer; from John Rutter, who despite clearly justifiable criticism of some melodic tweeness in the 90s is still an excellent craftsman - or DW wouldn't have worked so much with him - and may, one hopes, be growing in stature and breadth of output; from MacMillan, with his variable but generally interesting output; and of course from Arvo Part, arguably the finest composer alive today - a true musical genius. Not many, true, and only one of real world stature - but are there ever that many?

If other composers - at least, those who can actually write music - aren't asked, then there's nothing to stop them doing it off their own bat, is there? If they don't actually want to, then that may well be a shame, if they are good, but it's their free choice.

Of course there isn't, but would they get performed? Quite possibly not. And professional composers, who's jobs it is to write music, may not be in a position to write pieces without payment.

[heliocentric]

Would you like a list, so you can dismiss them as not being able to write music?

I wouldn't waste your time on that if I were you.

But surely the reason so few composers write for the church these days is that hardly any feel any connection with it (just like people in general), besides which many composers would feel the exigencies of setting texts that have been set a thousand times before for amateur choirs too restricting. It would never enter the heads of most composers of my acquaintance (present company excluded ) to think about writing church music, whether "off their own bat" or otherwise. Even Messiaen wrote hardly anything for the liturgy.

[Simon]

From someone who specialises in thoughtlessness, contemptuousness and cavalier dismissals this is rather amusing.

I do dismiss irrelevance and fraud in quite a cavalier fashion, I admit. Little time to waste on such things.

So by all means be amused, but answer the point as well, eh?

Would you like a list, so you can dismiss them as not being able to write music?

I shan't do that unless I know enough of their output to make a judgement, which I probably won't, as I don't know many composers alive now. Nor would I be able to assess them as being "best and most interesting", again because I don't know enough of them to rank.

Given that for all our disagreements about other things on here, I consider, for what it's worth, that you can and do write well-crafted, accessible and interesting choral music, then your opinion of those composers who are also good at this would be of value, and no doubt not only to me, if you feel you can offer a few suggestions.

We'll have to agree to differ about Tippet.

[Gabriel Jackson]

I do dismiss irrelevance and fraud in quite a cavalier fashion, I admit. Little time to waste on such things.

Irrelevent to whom? How fraudulent? Not so long ago you posted something so vicious about my working relationship with Stephen Cleobury that is was promptly deleted (by you or the moderators?) probably because it was close to being/was libellous. So please don't get all outraged on behalf of offended admirers of Herbert Sumsion. The music you so happily rubbish is also enjoyed by other people, you know.

So by all means be amused, but answer the point as well, eh?

There is no point to answer.

Given that for all our disagreements about other things on here, I consider, for what it's worth, that you can and do write well-crafted, accessible and interesting choral music, then your opinion of those composers who are also good at this would be of value, and no doubt not only to me, if you feel you can offer a few suggestions.

Thank you.

To bring the subject to Evening Canticles, here are some recent settings that I wish were more widely sung (though I understand why some are not, as they are very hard): Jonathan Harvey, Diana Burrell (2 settings, one for trebles and one for 5-part a cappella choir), Michael Finnissy (St Pancras Service), Howard Skempton ("Edinbrgh Service" and "Wells Service")...

As to good and interesting composers who have barely, or never, written any liturgical music, here are some names that immediately come to mind: Gerald Barry, Ross Edwards, Anders Hillborg, Graham Fitkin, Peteris Plakidis, Laurence Crane, Galina Grigorjeva, Martin Butler, Toivo Tulev, Gavin Bryars, Harrison Birtwistle, Louis Andrissen, Tonu Korvits, Timo Steiner...

[DracoM]

But, GJ, I'm not quite sure I follow the logic in some composers' minds: why write music - presumably to commission - that is by and large too hard and / or takes too long to rehearse given cathedral / even professional choirs rehearsal time / available skills needed? On the face of it, that would seem a pretty arid and unsatisfying task if DoMs/ conductors look at it and just say 'erm......sorry, mate.....I don't thinks so!'

......presumably composers know the skills etc of the choirs / liturgical etc parameters when they settle to compose?

[Gabriel Jackson]

But, GJ, I'm not quite sure I follow the logic in some composers' minds: why write music - presumably to commission - that is by and large too hard and / or takes too long to rehearse given cathedral / even professional choirs rehearsal time / available skills needed? On the face of it, that would seem a pretty arid and unsatisfying task if DoMs/ conductors look at it and just say 'erm......sorry, mate.....I don't thinks so!'

......presumably composers know the skills etc of the choirs / liturgical etc parameters when they settle to compose?

Some composers know the parameters and understand the level of difficulty that is practical for any such commissioned piece and others, I'm afraid, don't. Jonathan Harvey knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote that Mag & Nunc (his most radical liturgical piece) and Martin Neary knew exactly what he was getting. Michael Nicholas used to do it at Norwich and Andrew Nethsingha recently revived it at St John's. Some conductors think a difficult piece worth the extra effort and time and others don't I guess. It's also fair to say that none of the above-mentioned pieces was too hard for the people they were commissioned for (and Howard's services aren't hard at all, except in terms of musical understanding, perhaps).

I think I have a pretty good grasp of what's easy, what's hard, what's too hard. etc for any given situation but I have a lot of experience working with all sorts of choirs of all sorts of different kinds and different levels of skill. Not all composers have that same amount of experience but that doesn't mean they haven't got something interesting and worthwhile to contribute from a purely musical perspective. I can think straightaway of a piece whose composer didn't understand when he was writing it how incredibly hard it is. Very few choirs can do it, fewer can do it really well. But it is a very good piece...

[heliocentric]

I think I have a pretty good grasp of what's easy, what's hard, what's too hard. etc for any given situation but I have a lot of experience working with all sorts of choirs of all sorts of different kinds and different levels of skill. Not all composers have that same amount of experience

So what was it that attracted you down that particular pathway, given that it's not so common these days?

[secret squirrel]

Ahh.... Norwich under MBN...

Contemporary composers were blessed with the Contemporary Church Music Festival (GJ, was not your Mattins Responsory for Norwich?) as well as a university (UEA) that had a university "top ten" (Guardian poll) music degree course with a very fine contemporary music bent under Dennis Smalley (especially electro-acoustic).

Norwich produced a very large number of performing musicians and what of UEA's school of music today?

Closed (under-grad anyway).

Like Reading and Exeter Unis.

But back to the point in question: surely composers know their performers' [choral] abilities as they would the range of a clarinet if writing for said instrument in a junior wind band ensemble?

I would also expect them to have a reasonable grasp of the "historical context" of their work and likelihood of its continued performance after the commission itself.

I am just mooting out loud as I am wholly ignorant of the composer's craft BUT aware that two of today's favourites (Brewer in D and Elgar's Give unto the Lord for example) were respectively a 3 choirs and Sons of the Clergy commissions...

I would also venture to suggest that the 'in post' composer of yesteryear (Organist or similar be he Bach or Stainer) would have AMDG very much if not solely in mind whereas a professional composer today might not (his mortgage more like!).

I'd take Harvey over Tippet though!

Ss

[Magnificat]

I wonder about the appropriateness of the settings of the Maginificat and Nunc Dimittis, which are essentially gentle texts, whether by cathedral organists or modern composers.

In both cases there are many settings that for me are just too big and fierce. In this respect for example, I prefer Sumsion in G, which as Keraulophone said way back, is a well crafted, tuneful, lilting, pastoral setting of both texts, to Tippet's St John's, Cambridge, which, although I can admire it as a piece of music, just doesn't seem, in the Magnificat, to be an appropriate setting of the gentleness of Mary's Song. The setting of the Nunc Dimittis is better.

The composers from the Golden Age did seem to have this appreciation of the texts amongst all their great gifts.

Also, the settings have to be well sung to really satisfy.

A piece of first rate music badly sung is just as hard on the ear as a piece of second rate music.

Some cathedral DoMs, because of their talents as choir trainers, also have the ability to make some of the Victorian/Edwardian settings that are not so much to Gabriel's taste seem much better musically than they actually are. St Barry was well known in his day for turning base metal into gold making the most ordinary piece sound like the best thing ever written.

VCC.

[secret squirrel]

You're not talking about BMR's Guildford recording of Stainer's Crucifixion, now, surely?



<gets coat (and P45)>

[Gabriel Jackson]

So what was it that attracted you down that particular pathway, given that it's not so common these days?

It attracted me, really. Yes, i lobe the choral medium, what you can do with it, its traditions, its existing repertoire, but at the end of the day, choirs ask me to write pieces for them and pay me for doing so.
It's worth remembering, and this is something that I point out to young composers all the time, that choirs - be they amateur, professional, good or not-so-good - are more new music-oriented than any other performing groups (apart from specialist contemporary music ensembles). Their ideas about what is interesting and good new music may not always be mine (or yours...) but across the board they commission and perform much more new music han do orchestras, string quartets etc. I get loads more performances than many of my peers who basically write instrumental music, not because the music is any better, but because the number of potential performers is so much greater. There are more choirs in the world than any other kind of performing group.