BBC Choir of the Year

[MrGongGong]

Well, I was appalled to see microphones. .

I didn't watch it, not my thing really
BUT
A good friend of mine is a technician at the ROH, they frequently get outraged complaints when folk see microphones assuming that they are being "cheated" by singers being amplified when the mics are there for the show relay

Without microphones it would be a very quiet broadcast indeed .......

[DracoM]

To be fair, for some kinds of singing a microphone (and microphone technique) are natural and necessary.

As part of a CHOIR? So have we now changed what a choir is? What 'choral' means? I think we have, or rather such TV shows have.

Solos happen in choirs every week in our cathedrals etc etc and they don't use microphones. The DOM, and the other singers adjust the internal balance of the voices to support and enable. The DO use such microphones for a solo singer in a musical theatre piece with loud choruses round them - also or quite often miked- and the real hero is the sound engineer. I'm not giving way on this.

I've just been at a concert in which several ensembles and solos of 17/18 yr old girls particularly were accompanied by a piano, very quietly, and these girls ALL without exception both singly and in groups sang as if into a microphone, they could not get over / through the piano, but assumed that the guy behind the glass would do it for them. All the vocal tricks, the style of delivery and tone were all straight off the X-Factor style shows that these kids see. It was actually quite embarrassing that they could hardly be heard.

Most of the young women / children in that COTY show did not sing like this, I fully accept, but the trend is there. The Gargoyles, Les Sirenes ALL tried to ape or sing like the Swingles. Clever, brilliant group work, but fundamentally just an aggregation of SOLO voices. And for me that is what is incrementally destroying 'choral' sound.

[Gabriel Jackson]

As part of a CHOIR?

This is what you wrote: "A huge number of young singers in this country now sing as if a microphone was natural and de rigeur," hence my response. No mention of choirs in that sentence.

So have we now changed what a choir is? What 'choral' means? I think we have, or rather such TV shows have.

There are plenty of instances where amplification of choral voices is necessary and requested by the composer - the chorus in "Einstein on the beach" comes immediately to mind...

Solos happen in choirs every week in our cathedrals etc etc and they don't use microphones.

Of course they do but cathedral singers aren't the only kinds of singers in the world.

The DOM, and the other singers adjust the internal balance of the voices to support and enable.

Yes, and that is partly enabled by the listener being able to see them, which assists hearing. On recordings there is frequently a degree of spot-miking for soloists, because the visual aspect is absent.

The DO use such microphones for a solo singer in a musical theatre piece with loud choruses round them - also or quite often miked- and the real hero is the sound engineer. I'm not giving way on this.

That isn't why amplification is used in musical theatre! Voices are amplified because the less projected, more conversational kind of singing required (not least to faciltate audibility of every word) doesn't project in the same way, and a relatively noisy pit band doesn't help either.

I've just been at a concert in which several ensembles and solos of 17/18 yr old girls particularly were accompanied by a piano, very quietly, and these girls ALL without exception both singly and in groups sang as if into a microphone, they could not get over / through the piano, but assumed that the guy behind the glass would do it for them. All the vocal tricks, the style of delivery and tone were all straight off the X-Factor style shows that these kids see. It was actually quite embarrassing that they could hardly be heard.

What were they singing? Not being particularly audible without amplification is not necessarily a failing - it depends what one is trying to do. Was Frank Sinatra (someone with a fantastic microphone technique) a bad singer? Of course not! As to the X-Factor, it is essentially a pop music show, and pop music (in all its forms) is partly about sheer volume. I remember hearing jazz/RnB diva Regina Belle at Hammersmith Odeon back in the day (massively amplified, of course, with a massively amplified band) hold a note - the band stopped playing - and gradually take the mic away from her mouth; the audience was so impressed and thrilled that she could still be head right at he back of the auditorium, probably because they had never heard an unamplified voice in an auditorium of that size.

Most of the young women / children in that COTY show did not sing like this, I fully accept, but the trend is there. The Gargoyles, Les Sirenes ALL tried to ape or sing like the Swingles. Clever, brilliant group work, but fundamentally just an aggregation of SOLO voices. And for me that is what is incrementally destroying 'choral' sound.

I didn't see Choir of the Year, but do really believe this?! There are huge numbers of choirs the world over who conform precisely to your prescriptions for good choral singing, and they are flourishing.

[ardcarp]

A good friend of mine is a technician at the ROH, they frequently get outraged complaints when folk see microphones assuming that they are being "cheated" by singers being amplified when the mics are there for the show relay

Er, yes, but in the choir in question a microphone was being held in the hand of a soloist who was singing into it with a 'close-mike' technique. Nothing wrong with that in itself. The Swingles have always done it. But is that choral singing as we know it? May be some of us have got to wean ourselves off a 'Let the People Sing' idea of what a choir is.

In some evangelical chapels there is a whole battery of mikes, mixers, speakers and other technical wizardry. The floor is commonly covered in a spaghetti of cables. It's sort of, "God, can you hear me?" That's fine, but often the result is too flippin' loud for the mortals present.....

[MrGongGong]

Er, yes, but in the choir in question a microphone was being held in the hand of a soloist who was singing into it with a 'close-mike' technique. Nothing wrong with that in itself. The Swingles have always done it. But is that choral singing as we know it?

Probably not

Though I have a soft spot for the Swingles .............Berio and all that
I wonder what would happen if we had an Electric Phoenix type thang

[ardcarp]

Just a rather belated 'take' on the final. We had recorded it on our Humax, and two of our grandchildren (11 and 14) found it and asked to watch it. They sat spellbound throughout. I guess the 'X-factor format' had something to do with it, nevertheless they were genuinely interested in the singing and really liked some of the chosen pieces. I thought their verdict might be of interest. The Methodist College they thought was by far and away the best 'choir'. They were very attracted by the Oxford Gargoyles, and being singers themselves were gobsmacked by the difficulty of what they were doing...especially the girl with the stratospheric notes. But they said, 'They're not really a choir are they, grandad?' In other words, for them, a 'choir' is a large group of people with many singing the same part. and they realised OG were doing OVPP, though they didn't express it like that. They didn't think much of Les Sirenes ...'It's like a lot of people singing solos'...though they did like the second of their 'tunes'. I have to say Mrs Ardcarp and I did nothing to influence their opinions in any way...so there you have the verdict of two youngsters, for what they are worth!

[DracoM]

Discriminating kids, I'd say!!