CE St Pancras Church May 15th 2013

[Richard Arundel]

I was part of the choir that sang yesterday - this is my fifth year in a row of singing in the St Pancras choir for the LFCCM - and saw the question as to how performable these works were.

Everything that was in the CE would have been within the capacity of some of the amateur groups that I sang with when I was younger, eg the Exon Singers, and most of it would have been doable by my school choir.

* The Introit was only tricky in that its spare lines gave it a slightly unfamiliar appearance on the page (unless one sings a lot of Schutz, I suppose). Finding the entries wasn't difficult and the vocal lines in themselves caused no problems - some of the shifts in tonality were original but once one was familiarised with them, not hard to negotiate.
* The Preces and Responses were very straightforward to sightread
* The canticles were lovely to sing - the part-writing is immaculate, so there are no hard dots. No reason why they can't become part of the regular repertoire, choirs will enjoy the sweep of the music, and while I haven't seen the exact timings, the lengths seemed modest to me.
* The Diana Burrell anthem, written in 1993, is the kind of piece that is hard to sight-read but then relatively easy to take on board: while the vocal lines are tricky they have an internal logic that made learning them pleasurable, and the tonality is more stable and less complex than first appears. (Hardest thing is that the score is still in manuscript) The piece has a couple of corners which need close attention, but then so do most Poulenc motets.

All the works showed that the composers had a good understanding of
* what voices are comfortable and/or capable of doing (no page-long top A's for the tenors, no molto cresendos on bottom D's for the basses)
* what part-writing looks like
* how to set words naturally.
These three things are crucial in making a piece singable; if they are there, the other challenges a piece presents melt away.

In the festival the St Pancras choir sings the main bulk of the programme: two sunday eucharists, two sunday evensongs, one midweek eucharist, one midweek evensong, a monday evening compline and a friday lunchtime concert. There is as good as no repetition of repertoire. Traditionally the Nunc Dimittis of the of the canticles commissioned for the Radio 3 CE reappears in the following year's compline. I think the only piece to be repeated will be the Diana Burrell, at tomorrow's concert at 1.15pm in St Pancras Parish Church.

[DracoM]

Thank you very much for that 'insider's' breakdown.

[chitreb]

Well I liked it a lot more than I thought I would, particularly the Moore Nunc Dimittis, even though I would have preferred the sound of trebles rather than sopranos on the top line. The Down Ampney (final hymn) sounded quite incongruous after listening to all the contemporary music!

[DracoM]

What was slightly wearying in terms of the postings on the board was as soon as I asked a simple question of the knowledgeable how much of the material would find its way in repertory, it was assumed that any posting of that kind was to be taken as hostile, dismissive, and the tone of the replies was thus somewhat more defensive than I thought the question demanded. It was a simple request for clarification.

Both introit and canticles seemed to me eminently doable - partic the Moore. The Burrell I thought confrontational to the untrained ear, and indeed even on the evidence of a few who must know, the hint seemed to be that it was pretty appallingly difficult even for pros to sing. It was certainly so to listen to!

But as was said upthread, I'd love to hear some of that repertoire in the voices of the standard cathedral ensemble, because IMO the sound of the choir we heard was not helpful to sustained listening at all. In such modern music, surely such striving, almost operatic vibrato actually blurs carefully structured part relationships? This is not about their commitment, musicianship, their professional competence or anything of that nature. I just did not like the sound they made.

[Richard Arundel]

the hint seemed to be that it was pretty appallingly difficult even for pros to sing. It was certainly so to listen to!

Let me reassure you that it wasn't "appallingly difficult". The melodies fitted the voice, the harmonies kept to easily taken on board tonal areas; the rhythms, when outside regular crotchet beats, followed the words, and no silly demands were made of vocal resources. Reading the handwritten score was the greater challenge.

Quality writing in complex music is easier to sing than poor constructed music that is seemingly more straightforward. One could write extremely difficult (and thoroughly disagreeable to perform) music whilst keeping to the white notes of the piano and writing only quavers in a steady 4/4 pulse.

[decantor]

But as was said upthread, I'd love to hear some of that repertoire in the voices of the standard cathedral ensemble, because IMO the sound of the choir we heard was not helpful to sustained listening at all. In such modern music, surely such striving, almost operatic vibrato actually blurs carefully structured part relationships? This is not about their commitment, musicianship, their professional competence or anything of that nature. I just did not like the sound they made.

Bravely spoken, Draco, and my thoughts entirely - the soprano sound in the Introit almost induced me to switch off (though I'm glad I didn't). To my ears, it just appears so wrong in the liturgy and in liturgical music. Concert choirs (Polyphony, Voices8, Sixteen, Tenebrae, almost all) who perform sacred music hardly ever indulge in such warbling.

It's a Festival of Contemporary Church Music: I want to hear cutting-edge compositions, without regard to their repeatability by other choral units. If I judge a piece to be a turkey, it matters not - St Pancras exists as a test-bed and show-case, and should be welcomed as such. I'll listen to whatever a composer has to offer to enliven the tradition. But the style of performance does matter - to me, anyway.

Philip Moore's new canticles were the gems in this service. Their gentle, meditative nature, mostly around mp, inhibited the soprano wobble, providing some gorgeous, fine-textured, deeply spiritual sounds. Perhaps Moore responded very precisely to the circumstances of his commission.

[ardcarp]

I haven't heard the broadcast yet...very busy week....but I'd like to say how great it is to have some posts from Richard Arundel who was in the thick of it. My fancy has been tickled, so it's cans on tonight.

[ToneLower]

The wonderful feature of this sort of service is that it makes one appreciate real music even more.

[ardcarp]

My irony detection apparatus doesn't function too well at this early hour, tonelower, so is this a or a ?

[Simon]

I finally got around to hearing this on LA last night.

With the exception of the anthem, which for me was an ugly nightmare - and, frankly, I didn't expect anything else from that source - I quite enjoyed it all. The introit was pleasant enough, the responses well-crafted and easy on the ear and the psalms very well sung indeed, I thought, though I felt that the last chant didn't come up to the standard of what had gone before. I would have liked to hear more of the verses unaccompanied, as I felt that that was where this choir really shone.

I liked the Moore Mag more than the Nunc, which for me didn't hang together very well somehow. I didn't catch the end of the voluntary, but I enjoyed what I did hear. I wouldn't mind a look at the score.

As to the sound - well, it's a mixed choir and there are wobbly-voiced sopranos in it. Nobody's fault. Of course, I would have preferred the sound of a boys and men outfit, but it's surely only fair that others, from time to time, have the opportunity to show what they can do, and the new music festival is an ideal opportunity for this. They had certainly worked hard to give a good performance and everyone involved deserves (in my opinion) our sincere thanks.

As Chris has stated, it would be a shame not to have these new pieces written, as every so often something comes along that will stay. (And when you hear a bad one, it makes you even more thankful for all the thousands of good ones!) Nor is the difficulty or otherwise an issue IMO - most things that are worth doing are worth working at, and most really good choral music, in my experience, is not so difficult as to be out of the range of an average choir to perform at least acceptably, if not to cathedral standard

Long may this festival survive to intrigue us annually!

[Finzi4ever]

I've only heard the service once and that was while driving, on a less than fabulous car system, but can anyone explain how the organ sounded as if it had a 32' reed when it doesn't? Has an electronic con-one been added recently?

[ardcarp]

Finally got round to hearing it, wobbly sopranos, ersatz 32' reeds and all. Good to know that Gordon Crosse is still putting pen to paper and has not been encompassed by so great a cloud of minimalists.

[Richard Arundel]

I've only heard the service once and that was while driving, on a less than fabulous car system, but can anyone explain how the organ sounded as if it had a 32' reed when it doesn't? Has an electronic con-one been added recently?

The downstairs organ at St Pancras is electronic.

[ardcarp]

Ah ha ha ha! We've all been duped. Must say, on reflection, it didn't sound much like a historic Gray and Davidson.

[ardcarp]

...and how ridiculous is this for a co-incidence? Just played for a funeral today in a country church. Expected to find usual limited but charming kist of whistles, but no. Allen, with stupid stop list including 32', reverberation which couldn't be turned off and a 'swell' pedal that also operated on the great. It is just out of place to play a chord in a village church (albeit a fine one) and hear a bad imitation of Westminster Cathedral.