I'm sorry my post has offended people, particularly Decantor, whose posts I have always enjoyed and respected. I wouldn't describe it as a diatribe, and I am sorry if it came across as such. I do regard criticisms over style and "appropriateness" of performance as perfectly legitimate, and I respect them. Indeed, I am a big supporter of free speech. I even understand the criticism that Clare has perhaps had too much airtime of late, although as I said the repeated 2008 broadcast in the CE slot over Christmas would have been a BBC decision only and they knew full well that Clare would be on again in February. And I'm sorry if I incorrectly identified objection to Clare being on too frequently as being something to do with the fact that the top lines are female. I daresay this might have contributed to the disappointment in some people, if not others. If I was inaccurate on this occasion I apologise unreservedly, but the allegations of a hidden agenda to broadcast women instead of "appropriate" boys have been made before by certain contributors when there have been Clare broadcasts, so I was perhaps overly quick to perceive them this time too.
Again, I'm sorry for being defensive and for writing a diatribe. I too am a strong supporter of the men-and-boys tradition as well as the mixed-sex tradition: the two are not mutually exclusive, nor should they be obliged to stick to music expressly written for their own type of outfit. I also accept the idea that some types of performance are more "appropriate" than others, but this does not mean slavishly imitating the sound of a voice-type or instrument which is not your own; rather, being sympathetic to it in your approach (which needs to be flexible).
Here is an anecdote which, I promise, I'm not making it up. At a gathering in Clare MCR about seven years ago a friend saw fit to introduce me to a guest whom he had discovered was a lover of liturgical music. (The friend then walked off.) Having opined, rather contentiously, that liturgical music should be sung entirely without expression (because expression was "inappropriate in an act of worship"), the man asked me whether Clare had a choir. I replied that it did. He asked if we were a concert choir or a liturgical choir. I replied that we were both, outlining some of our recent projects but saying that our principal role was in singing for chapel services. He then said "well why haven't I heard of your choir, then?" I said there was no reason why he should necessarily have heard of us, but that he would always be welcome to come and hear us sing if he wanted. He then said, "obviously, you're a proper choir then, with boys..." I replied that I was sorry to have to disappoint him on that front, but that we didn't consider this to be a problem as lots of people seemed to appreciate what we did anyway. He then opined that "you shouldn't have said this college has a choir when it so obviously doesn't; what you have described can never be called a choir, but must be considered a travesty and an abomination and an insult to the choral tradition which I am proud to serve". He then walked off in a huff before I could invite him to go upstairs to meet Tim Brown, who lived directly above and would have been only too glad to have a chat with the nice man. I never did find out who he was, but the friend who introduced him to me said he had talked about having worked in a choir school somewhere in some capacity or other.
Of course, in my cosseted world I had never encountered anything like this before, and it had never occurred to me that anyone would make the connection, which I am inclined to find rather absurd. But no doubt he was entirely sincere, and I have learned that this position must be respected: we can't just assume it doesn't exist. Furthermore, subsequently I have met a number of people who have come out with some very harsh, snide, barbed or otherwise uncomplimentary things when they have learned that I am from Clare, insinuating that we are a bunch of heretical iconoclasts and brash trendies who like to bulldozer our way through life destroying tradition and offending people, simply because we were one of the first formerly male Oxbridge colleges to accept women, the first to have a DoM-run choir with a female top-line and the first to have a female dean, which in some people's eyes spells "agenda" (although actually we're rather nice down-to-earth people and we're not out to make a point). Someone once even cited Archbishop Hugh Latimer in evidence, as if he is someone to be ashamed of! (The last person, however, did claim that Cambridge as a whole was "culturally anathema" and "a propagandist for folly and heresy at every level throughout history", so I take what he says with a bucket-load of salt and, incidentally, by no means representative of Oxonian opinion as a whole...) But the worst reaction is when people say they're "surprised" (by which they mean "disappointed"). So yes, I'm oversensitive and can be inappropriately defensive, but there's a reason for it. I spent a few very enjoyable and very fulfilling years in that choir; I didn't spend those years as an enemy of the choral tradition, and although very few people want to suggest that it's a charge that, once made, sticks around to haunt you. The choral tradition in all its forms is something very close to my heart. I'd have hoped that that would go without saying.
French Frank can rest assured: I'm not staying away on principle as such, but I'm wary of becoming a regular correspondent again because I seem unable to do things by halves! I ought to stick my oar in when there is a thread about language, though, you're right. So perhaps I shall, once in a while.
Again, I'm sorry for having offended people. Entirely counterproductive.
About the broadcast, though: I agree that the Poulenc was a highlight.
Again, I'm sorry for being defensive and for writing a diatribe. I too am a strong supporter of the men-and-boys tradition as well as the mixed-sex tradition: the two are not mutually exclusive, nor should they be obliged to stick to music expressly written for their own type of outfit. I also accept the idea that some types of performance are more "appropriate" than others, but this does not mean slavishly imitating the sound of a voice-type or instrument which is not your own; rather, being sympathetic to it in your approach (which needs to be flexible).
Here is an anecdote which, I promise, I'm not making it up. At a gathering in Clare MCR about seven years ago a friend saw fit to introduce me to a guest whom he had discovered was a lover of liturgical music. (The friend then walked off.) Having opined, rather contentiously, that liturgical music should be sung entirely without expression (because expression was "inappropriate in an act of worship"), the man asked me whether Clare had a choir. I replied that it did. He asked if we were a concert choir or a liturgical choir. I replied that we were both, outlining some of our recent projects but saying that our principal role was in singing for chapel services. He then said "well why haven't I heard of your choir, then?" I said there was no reason why he should necessarily have heard of us, but that he would always be welcome to come and hear us sing if he wanted. He then said, "obviously, you're a proper choir then, with boys..." I replied that I was sorry to have to disappoint him on that front, but that we didn't consider this to be a problem as lots of people seemed to appreciate what we did anyway. He then opined that "you shouldn't have said this college has a choir when it so obviously doesn't; what you have described can never be called a choir, but must be considered a travesty and an abomination and an insult to the choral tradition which I am proud to serve". He then walked off in a huff before I could invite him to go upstairs to meet Tim Brown, who lived directly above and would have been only too glad to have a chat with the nice man. I never did find out who he was, but the friend who introduced him to me said he had talked about having worked in a choir school somewhere in some capacity or other.
Of course, in my cosseted world I had never encountered anything like this before, and it had never occurred to me that anyone would make the connection, which I am inclined to find rather absurd. But no doubt he was entirely sincere, and I have learned that this position must be respected: we can't just assume it doesn't exist. Furthermore, subsequently I have met a number of people who have come out with some very harsh, snide, barbed or otherwise uncomplimentary things when they have learned that I am from Clare, insinuating that we are a bunch of heretical iconoclasts and brash trendies who like to bulldozer our way through life destroying tradition and offending people, simply because we were one of the first formerly male Oxbridge colleges to accept women, the first to have a DoM-run choir with a female top-line and the first to have a female dean, which in some people's eyes spells "agenda" (although actually we're rather nice down-to-earth people and we're not out to make a point). Someone once even cited Archbishop Hugh Latimer in evidence, as if he is someone to be ashamed of! (The last person, however, did claim that Cambridge as a whole was "culturally anathema" and "a propagandist for folly and heresy at every level throughout history", so I take what he says with a bucket-load of salt and, incidentally, by no means representative of Oxonian opinion as a whole...) But the worst reaction is when people say they're "surprised" (by which they mean "disappointed"). So yes, I'm oversensitive and can be inappropriately defensive, but there's a reason for it. I spent a few very enjoyable and very fulfilling years in that choir; I didn't spend those years as an enemy of the choral tradition, and although very few people want to suggest that it's a charge that, once made, sticks around to haunt you. The choral tradition in all its forms is something very close to my heart. I'd have hoped that that would go without saying.
French Frank can rest assured: I'm not staying away on principle as such, but I'm wary of becoming a regular correspondent again because I seem unable to do things by halves! I ought to stick my oar in when there is a thread about language, though, you're right. So perhaps I shall, once in a while.
Again, I'm sorry for having offended people. Entirely counterproductive.
About the broadcast, though: I agree that the Poulenc was a highlight.
Comment