The Choir 26.01.14

[MrGongGong]

I'd better PM you, ferney. I wouldn't want Gongers wading in with a few of his mates . Also not to disrupt the thread ...

[Old Grumpy]

............and those who loathe 'Breakfast', or the jazz fans lamenting virtual banishment / marginalisation, or those who writhe at Sean Rafferty.........it'd be a pretty large queue at RW's door, I'd say, and NOT just those moved by The Choir at all.

But I like Breakfast (on the whole), I lament the virtual banishment/marginalisation of Jazz, I like Sean Rafferty - but I do see why some are upset by the way The Choir has gone. It may of, of course bring in new listeners!. Membership of a choir (as demonstrated on the programme) is not solely restricted to those from the choral tradition.

OG

[DracoM]

I'm not for a moment suggesting that everyone dislikes 'Breakfast' or Mr Rafferty etc. The Choir replaced Choirworks, and frankly hasn't worked for years, the years I call the dark, The Aled Jones Years - but NOW R3 has taken The Choir even further down the sloppy, bitty, fragmentation, tweets, gush and emails route which fragments it even more and there is no core to cling to.

Mary King got it more nearly right than most in that she concentrated each programme more or less round one major feature and most other things were sort of related. The SM-P version is all over the place, poorly linked, tiny snippets here and there like a collection of aural youtube moments interspersed by tweets and tracks with no or very little sense of context. Like magazine programmes such as Woman's Hour, and basically that is not a model that works well enough with choral music. If you then add in SM-P's urgent, breathy, gushing style, you compound the sense that pace and presenter have been substituted for content and insight.

I fear that R3 has made The Choir for me virtually unlistenable to in much the same way as the 'Breakfast' style means I never listen to it by choice for days or even weeks on end, and turn increasingly to European internet classical stations.

[James Wonnacott]

I was unfortunate enough to catch yesterday's offering- very bitty. And this "tell us about your choir" nonsense:- the poor soul seemed to think that the best thing about "her choir" was that you didn't have to be able to sing to join!
I despair.

[jean]

Membership of a choir (as demonstrated on the programme) is not solely restricted to those from the choral tradition.

Make that a different choral tradition, and it's the point I was trying to make above.

And this "tell us about your choir" nonsense:- the poor soul seemed to think that the best thing about "her choir" was that you didn't have to be able to sing to join!
I despair.

A great many people sing in 'community choirs' - probably more than have had to pass an audition for something more elevated - and they get a great deal out of it. Patronising them as poor souls seems misplaced (and didn't you notice that after they've been singing for a while, they've even learned to sight-read?)

I'm not remotely interested myself, but I can't quite find the definitive argument that they should not be on a programme about choirs.

[James Wonnacott]

A great many people sing in 'community choirs' - probably more than have had to pass an audition for something more elevated - and they get a great deal out of it.

I don't doubt that but I really think that the programme should be giving us the best of choral music.
I'm afraid it's all part of the dumbing down of R3.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I was unfortunate enough to catch yesterday's offering- very bitty. And this "tell us about your choir" nonsense:- the poor soul seemed to think that the best thing about "her choir" was that you didn't have to be able to sing to join!
I despair.

It's a bit like saying you can join a ballet company but you can't dance, or a cricket team, but you can't hold a bat.

However, in the case of singing, i can see where they are coming from - just about everyone can sing with a little help.

Having their predicament foisted upon us by the current Radio 3 administration is another issue.

[jean]

However, in the case of singing, i can see where they are coming from - just about everyone can sing with a little help.

Yes, exactly. And that being so,

Having their predicament foisted upon us by the current Radio 3 administration is another issue.

they haven't got a predicament, have they?

Even though (to paraphrase) I would not be interested in joining a choir that would have me as a member without auditioning me first, I am a bit taken aback by the...er... élitism of some of the comments here about the Poulton People's Choir.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

they haven't got a predicament, have they?

I think they do: a lack of confidence that a community choir can help to overcome.

[jean]

But they have that confidence already, so there is no sense in which any predicament of theirs is being foisted upon us by the current Radio 3 administration.

[Vox Humana]

However, in the case of singing, i can see where they are coming from - just about everyone can sing with a little help.

I am all for community choirs. In my view there can never be enough singing and I actually welcome the fact that there are amateur choirs that welcome all comers whether they can read music or not. I regularly get asked to accompany several such choirs in my county so I get to see at first hand the enjoyment these people derive from singing. The question is whether, or how far, such amateurs should feature on Radio 3. Do we want to see programmes showcasing amateur pianists, string players or (heaven forfend) "reluctant" organists? Why should singers be different? Perhaps there is a case to be made for a magazine programme specifically for such musicians. I would see no harm in that if it were scheduled regularly so that one could easily plan whether to listen or not. Personally, however, if I want that type of entertainment I would look for it on Radio 4. What I want from Radio 3 is a variety of good music from all periods to listen to without constant distraction. I am old enough to remember a far distant time when it did give us that, more or less.

[jean]

The question is whether, or how far, such amateurs should feature on Radio 3. Do we want to see programmes showcasing amateur pianists, string players or (heaven forfend) "reluctant" organists? Why should singers be different?

Probably because it's easier to be a good amateur singer than a good amateur instrumentalist.

Most large choirs (and many smaller ones) are amateurs - think RLPO, CBSO, Philharmonia, all amateur choirs attached to professional orchestras.

So once you've decided that the main focus of the programme is going to be the performers rather than the works they perform, it's harder to see where the line determining appropriateness for R3 should be drawn.

[Historian]

Most large choirs (and many smaller ones) are amateurs - think RLPO, CBSO, Philharmonia, all amateur choirs attached to professional orchestras.

As a point of information, the Philharmonia Chorus have somewhat branched out from this model. This doesn't affect the point you were making, of course. Just thought it might be of interest.

[jean]

It's a while since I've lived in London and it did just occur to me to google the Philharmonia myself, and I discovered what you've just posted.

Creeping professionalisation of an area we used to have all to ourselves, I call it!

[W.Kearns]

I'm glad people enjoy belonging to community choirs , but I'm not sure that the community choir buzz really translates to radio. The broadcast of a top-flight Choral Evensong can be as hard-hitting in the thick of a traffic-jam as it would be from the nave. If this view is elitist, so be it.