Solid Fare that needed no Worcester Sauce
Peter Nardone’s Introit was built on long, flowing lines that were eminently singable. The piece built in a satisfying manner and was a good warm-up for the choir that blended well but displayed some minor pitching issues. However, the music could, maybe should, have been written 80 years ago. I enjoyed the psalms that were sung with conviction, confidence, clear diction and a good forward propulsion.
The exposed and comparatively complex lines of Kenneth Leighton’s Second Service found the choir a little less secure but I admired the accurate and sensitive organ accompaniment. Like arcarp***, I rarely find Brahms choral music satisfying: it has an earnest quality, and textures tend to clot due, I fear, to material that is more workmanlike than memorable. I can see why Geistliches Lied was chosen– the choir’s director seems to love to shape long, sweet choral lines.
This conservative programme was completed by Henry Smart’s cheerful Postlude in D. It seems incredible to think that Smart was born in the same year as Richard Wagner. Within his own cautious sphere, Henry was a great “fixer”, a practical man of no great originality. As a boy, he invented a machine to break open hemp seed for his pet canary and later he brought some of the latest ideas of French organ builders, such as Cavaille-Coll, back to England after a visit to Paris. His Postlude – well played on a sympathetic instrument – depends far more for succour on Mendelssohn than Wagner. I often feel that Smart's four-square music sounds better on a 19th century Town Hall instrument (e.g. Birmingham where I heard George Thalben-Ball play it a couple of times) than in a cathedral environment. Do other boarders agree with me?
*** see correction in later post.ED
Peter Nardone’s Introit was built on long, flowing lines that were eminently singable. The piece built in a satisfying manner and was a good warm-up for the choir that blended well but displayed some minor pitching issues. However, the music could, maybe should, have been written 80 years ago. I enjoyed the psalms that were sung with conviction, confidence, clear diction and a good forward propulsion.
The exposed and comparatively complex lines of Kenneth Leighton’s Second Service found the choir a little less secure but I admired the accurate and sensitive organ accompaniment. Like arcarp***, I rarely find Brahms choral music satisfying: it has an earnest quality, and textures tend to clot due, I fear, to material that is more workmanlike than memorable. I can see why Geistliches Lied was chosen– the choir’s director seems to love to shape long, sweet choral lines.
This conservative programme was completed by Henry Smart’s cheerful Postlude in D. It seems incredible to think that Smart was born in the same year as Richard Wagner. Within his own cautious sphere, Henry was a great “fixer”, a practical man of no great originality. As a boy, he invented a machine to break open hemp seed for his pet canary and later he brought some of the latest ideas of French organ builders, such as Cavaille-Coll, back to England after a visit to Paris. His Postlude – well played on a sympathetic instrument – depends far more for succour on Mendelssohn than Wagner. I often feel that Smart's four-square music sounds better on a 19th century Town Hall instrument (e.g. Birmingham where I heard George Thalben-Ball play it a couple of times) than in a cathedral environment. Do other boarders agree with me?
*** see correction in later post.ED
Comment