CE The Temple Church 16.ii.Xl

[DracoM]

Incidentally, on the New College Oxford website you can hear Dyson in D on one of their most recent webcasts.

[bass2]

Thank you, DracoM, for finding this. I enjoyed hearing this service from New COllege, although I must admit that I was not blown away by the Dyson in D (I also found out an old DVD of KCC doing Dyson in D from quite a long time ago; interestingly with James Vivian on the organ). Apart from the fact that it was engineered in a far more pleasing way (yes, I actually felt as though I was somewhere near New College Chapel unlike yesterday) I thought that it was far from blip free and at times the ensemble and tuning were not great. The other thing too - and call me old fashioned - I prefer a 1920's Harrison organ in the background but that is a small point: they have what they have... Anyway, I have harped on enough and will now slip away. Perhpas LC2 could listen to it and let us know what he thought.

[yorks_bass]

I do think that the reaction on these, and the previous R3 boards, to men's voices is interesting. If the top line was sung with as much vibrato and lack of subtlety as the tenors and basses gave on this broadcast then we would be innundated with disparaging comments about warbly women. Why does the same not apply to the gents?

I disagree. Those who, like listen2counterpoint, appreciate one or two of the finer technical points of singing, the natural formation of vibrato (not its 'use') as opposed to wobble, etc. will not be shocked by or disapprove of women singing in exactly the same way. And one only has to hear the voices of such boys as Ernest Lough and Denis Barthel, both formerly of the Temple, to realise that it was once thought appropriate for boys to sing in just the same manner. Those who would disparage are generally the same who would prefer the 'blending' non-voice to anything that can be heard. Then there are those who can't abide such a thing, heard from Canterbury to Carlisle via Southwell. I'm with l2c on this one. Suum cuique, as a chap called Cicero once said.

[bass2]

L2C points out If you analyse George Dyson's Magnificat, you'll find a lot of harmonic colour and texture which seems quite Elgarian. If you then extend that idea, Elgar was himself heavily influenced by the German late Romantic repertoire including Wagner at the time. Wagner is most famous for his operas. Therefore, isn't it logical to approach singing Dyson in D with a certain romanticism and operaticism?

The resemblance of the opening motif from Dyson in D (although the last note is altered) to Strauss's dance of the 7 veils in Salome is well-known. It is also worth mentioning that here was a composer who had widely travelled to study composition; if memory serves me correclty on a Mendelssohn scholarship to Italy and Germany. So, he wasnt composing from the organ loft! Also worth looking at the dates of composition: Salome's 1st performance was 1905; Dyson in D was written whilst the composer was in Germany in 1907! I think LC2 is correct: those who have sung Dyson in D (morning service too) will know of the very long and demanding lines which are more suited to the opera house than the cathedral. It is an incredibly macho magnificat that needs the explosive nature that I am sure Dyson could have written about in his handbook on hand grenades... ;-) Very different to Dyson in F...

[Simon]

"You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment." seems relevant here?

You've lost me, Draco. Where does it seem relevant?

[Triforium]

Like many who have posted, the Introit and the Nunc were the most enjoyable for me. The Mag was clearly too slow. I agree with the comments on engineering - the treble and alto department came through well, but the tenor and bass lines sounded muddier than they probably were in the room. Others have commented on the engineering interfering with the blend of the top line, and yes, occasionally it sounded via the iPlayer as though one or two trebles were attempting to overcompensate. Enjoyed the Parry, well done to the bass and treble soloists. It's also a handful to play, and - do we hear an added chord around about 43:57? I didn't find the lower parts overly raucous, in fact, I have heard much hardier and rougher singing a bit further east down the road, albeit a slightly larger building.

Many thanks to all involved for a very enjoyable evensong.

Oh, and Simon, to answer your question in #36, it might be a reference to Urquhart in House of Cards.

[Simon]

Thank you triforium: I'm aware of the source of the reference and the underlying sense of its usage. I wanted to know how Draco thought it relevant here, that's all. I'm awaiting his reply before posting further.

[DracoM]

It was a reply to Mg 24.

[Frobenius]

At last some sense prevails. Listen Live in HD gives what is probably as near to the sound created by the location engineers. The knobs do not sound as if they are part of the suggested fruit machine and filtering is non existent. Perspective is maintained . (It is ridiculous to suggest that filters would have been switched in and out during the music.) Listen Live also reflects the full range of volume and at the loud parts do not sound as if the knobs are being turned down. I first discovered the feed as an alternative to the Freeview feed for the Christmas Eve broadcast from Kings. Both were far superior to DAB which I agree is not auto compressed as the volume changes but does sounds compressed overall. Wednesday's Evensong was a good example of this.

It has been great sport it seems to have a pop at the engineers who are responding to the BBC Music Directors but to compare what is heard live in any venue and then to go home and listen again on iplayer is like comparing chalk and dairy products. And if you are recording the FM there is degradation .

In future it would be useful if all posting on this tired thread indicated which device was used to listen and then a reasonable debate can begin.

[Magnificat]

I always listen to CE live using headphones on a very powerful, if ancient, JVC tuner with an outside FM aerial.

I am not a technical expert in these matters but what I can say is that whenever I listen to broadcasts from St Albans which is a place whose acoustic I know very well, as I do the individual voices of choir members both boys and men, the sound is pretty much as it is live in the Abbey itself , although sometimes it has seemed to me that the choir is more distant or much closer than it would sound from a seat at the front of the Nave where I usually sit and in which these broadcasts take place.

What I can say with absolute certainty, however, is that if the boys sing shrillly, sharp or flat it has always been clearly picked up by the mics and I can't imagine that the shrill and rather unpleasant tone of the boys in the TC broadcast on Wednesday would sound any different on whatever other medium is used to listen to it even if the acoustic is better captured.

VCC

[yorks_bass]

Yeeeees... Well the 'HD' referred to is still only at reasonable mp3 quality (320kbs - less than half that of cd). I don't believe all complaints are being directed at those people employed by Auntie to compress the broadcasts, but at the engineers who manage to set up microphones so badly. I also listen to R3 'HD' via a squeezebox and decent amplification/speakers. It still sounded badly engineered.

[Frobenius]

Interesting. Could you explain your area of engineering expertise so that we can share the relevance of that comment? As a retired member of the music industry ( not BBC )it always intrigues me when people are quick to rubbish others and wonder if under scrutiny they have any idea what they are talking about. As there are so many negative comments from different broadcasts all over the country can it be that most BBC engineers turning up on the day of the broadcast do not think about the sound? That is not likely. I was fortunate to witness one of these broadcasts from the morning when they turned up. 2 of them set up in just a couple of hours, heard each item once and then dealt with the business of broadcast. Those in the business of making CDs would require much longer and in Television we always had so much more time and staffing than those chaps in Radio have. Perhaps you should write to the BBC as I did and ask if you can watch how the day works. You might be surprised.

Rather than continually undermine them ,a little appreciation of their hard work in an organisation which continually tries to shrink it's craft base would not go amiss. You do not know what you've got 'til it's gone. Unless of course you have another reason for criticising what many think is superb.

[Contre Bombarde]

I very much enjoyed the Bednall too - but then I still get grumpy old men complaining about 'all this modern music' when I've just played a bit of Langlais older than they are.
'A Temple of delight' as Keats would say.

I very rarely hear CE (or indeed get to read these pages) because of my own commitments but this was an exception through having just returned from two weeks in Paris to join in events celebrating the 200th anniversary of Arisitide Cavaillé-Coll's birth.

I too enjoyed the David Bednall voluntary and must put it on my "to learn" list. Bach 736's comments about Langlais reminded me of the time I played the 2nd movement of Naji Hakim's "The Embrace of Fire" as a closing voluntary (yes, I know he intended it purely as a concert piece but I had my reasons). Those remaining at the end apparently had slightly glazed eyes and were visibly shaking, and the mitred one was heard in the vestry to utter a quiet prayer for the continued existence of the building.

[yorks_bass]

Interesting. Could you explain your area of engineering expertise so that we can share the relevance of that comment? As a retired member of the music industry ( not BBC )it always intrigues me when people are quick to rubbish others and wonder if under scrutiny they have any idea what they are talking about.

Rather than continually undermine them ,a little appreciation of their hard work in an organisation which continually tries to shrink it's craft base would not go amiss. You do not know what you've got 'til it's gone. Unless of course you have another reason for criticising what many think is superb.

Gladly. My statement is based on extensive experience on both sides of microphones in the commercial recording industry, and simply on my ears (surely the best way to judge in any case), as well as detailed conversations with many expert engineers and producers in that field who usually aren't as complimentary about BBC colleagues (scathing might sadly be a better word in some cases). I'm not blaming individuals. I have also worked at the BBC (although not in that kind of role) and am very well aware of the self-destruct mechanisms in place in the upper echelons of the organisation. I have also observed many set-up days, and haven't always witnessed particularly good work as regards balance, etc. Perhaps it's because there are too few people doing too many jobs. But then we get back to ears as the best judge. If the set-up doesn't reflect the sound of a choir in a building then has it done its job? I suppose it all comes down to funding in the end...

[Lizzie]

One wonders if Mr Byrd above was pulling our legs - and one further wonders why a London church was chosen for today instead of one of the numerous cathedrals that are dotted about Britain and who could do with the money and perhaps also the exposure that a CE broadcast brings.

We had Dyson in D, mixed with Dyson in D# and occasionally Dyson in Db. Not to mention Dyson in ff most of the time. We heard about lighs, which apparently lighened the gentiles. We certainly heard the back row: I think that I might have managed that without the radio, had I put my head out of the door. We didn't hear much sweet, measured or sensitive singing, though admittedly I missed the introit, which could have been sublime.

The adjective that most easily comes to mind is raucous - a word which could also come in handy, amongst others, if one were asked to describe the particularly discordant voluntary, too.

Overall, not a pleasant listening experience for me, this week, I'm afraid, but nonetheless I'm looking forward to catching up with the ones I've recently missed.

S-S!

Sadly, I must agree with Simon's use of the word 'raucous'. The Introit seemed to promise much, but the Canticles rather started a downhill slide for me. The front row seemed to be constantly straining and sounded more like I do, than they should, with the trained voices they have! I expect me to sound 'rough as old boots'! The real highlight for me was that magnificent Bednall Voluntary, which was completely new to me. Now that's what 'energetic' is meant to sound like.
So sorry folks and I'm sure as we often recognise, the true sound in situ, was probably far better than that concocted in the van outside!
Bws all. Liz